Leading for Resilience | Episode 7: Seth Schultz on Engineers Learning, Unlearning and Relearning

[Music] Hello, welcome to the Leading for Resilience Podcast, where we are senior decision-makers to share their thinking on what kind of leadership builds resilience in this time of permacrisis. I'm Shazre Kemberhill, Director for Stratchin Impact at Resilience First. I'm Peter Willis, based in Cape Town, a senior associate of resilience first and the founder of Conversations that Count. Today we're joined by Seth Schultz, founder and CEO of Resilience Rising, which is a global platform for collective impact working across a broad constellation of partners to achieve systemic resilience. Prior to this, Seth was the CEO of Resilience Shift, another non-profit pioneering taught leadership on resilience, and for about 15 years before that, he had a host of roles helping cities become better prepared for climate change. Seth, welcome. Thanks Shazre. Hi, Seth. We've invited you in as our seventh and final guest in this series, because you are in a way the godfather of this old series, having commissioned it as part of Resilience First and Resilience Rising's ongoing exploration of leadership for resilience. So what we'd like to do is we're going to share with you some of the fascinating insights that our previous guests have shared with us and ask you to respond to them in whatever way you'd like and no doubt a conversation would arise from that. So are you up for this? Absolutely, Peter. It's great to be back with both of you. Good. So the first thing we want to open up with you is the challenge that leaders now face, because of climate, the climate crisis, but also much more widely, the crisis in many other institutions and systems around the world, the problem of decision making when there is so much uncertainty around. And we had the privilege of interviewing two very senior women engineers, Dame Jo De Silva, director of international development at Arab and Rachel Skinner from WSP. She's the head of responsible business and government relations in London. And both of them being top flight engineers have grown up in a profession that loves to know stuff, to be precise about it, and to be able, if you're going to build something that's got a last for 40, 50, 60 years in the infrastructure space, you've got to have some sense of what you're building it for and therefore an idea of what future conditions are going to be. And of course, that is all starting to fall apart in the the world we now live in and with the data we're getting in around climate change. So we wanted to hear your thoughts on how leaders are going to have to deal with the accelerating degree of uncertainty and complexity in particularly the engineering space. And I'm aware we know that you have surrounded yourself with engineers for much of your professional career, not sort of perhaps deliberately, but you ended up doing a lot of work with engineers and city infrastructure and stuff like that. But we also happen to know that you personally grew up in a very unconventional, very unengineery, I would say, way. And we wonder whether you have a, what do you bring to this incredible dilemma that leaders face now around simply not being able to know for sure when they have to make critical decisions? Yeah, and what a fun conversation and some amazing people you've been talking to, both Rachel and Joe have done some pretty phenomenal things continued to do. So really breaking down the barriers of the traditional approaches to things, thinking very expansively, you know, inspiring a lot of people, tough act to follow. So, you know, with some great trepidation and caution, do I, do I enter into the fray of trying to add to probably the conversations that you've already had with them? But it is a really fascinating question that you pose and one that I think couldn't be more topical. A lot of the advances that we've made as humanity and as a society have been built off of the ability and the capacity for incredible engineering feats. And this cuts across not just what you might think about bridges and tunnels, but agriculture specifically, the ability to generate and harness energy, the various types, the ability to build buildings that can hold a greater level of density. The ability to just produce more to protect more and to provide more education is what has really thrust us forward as a civilization over the last couple of thousands of years. And that's been on the back of engineering. But what's fascinating is up. I don't think a lot of people realize that the engineering profession globally didn't really even codify or solidify as a professional practice until about 200 years ago. So even though we've been relying on doing this stuff, the point or the practice of trying to create some rules, procedures, standards around this is actually very, very new. And I think what's such a fascinating dilemma around a question that you posed is we're at this point kind of reaching the peak of quality and consistency in engineering around the world. Now this isn't to say that some many many places in the world do not have like proper construction codes or standards around buildings, energy. I mean, many of the informal the world's populations right now are currently living in informal settlements where there are no codes standards of any kind. And then the people are making dwellings and habitats out of whatever resources and materials that can get their hands on in any fashion that they can. But this is my point, right? At a point where we've got it, you know, in the built environment, this kind of I would almost call it calcification of codes and standards. We're also reaching a point where all of the kind of earth systems that have been so stable over the last several thousand years that have allowed us this kind of prosperous period of civilization are now rapidly changing. And then particularly largely because of what's going on with climate change and global warming. So this is disrupting significantly the more traditional patterns of weather that we're accustomed to. And as a result, both of the same time we this is the greatest level of kind of codification in of the built environment of engineering, it's also the period of the greatest change. But all those standards are built on the last couple hundred years, not on the next couple hundred years. So the mentality around engineering is really challenging right now because they're some of the best in the world at understanding what it takes to design, build and maintain civilization. Literally full stop whether it's an aqueduct, engineering, equipment, computers, AI, rockets, energy, but at the same time, the practices with which they have done this over the last 50, 60 years. So any engineer, you know, currently in practice right now has been built off of this very codified, very structured, very formulaic, is driven by insurance, it's driven by finance, it's driven by safety standards. All of this is going out the window. And we need to go back to an era of engineering that was very inventive, very creative. And you don't find a lot of this. So we're at this point of inflection where we need to think about how to bring back the innovative, the risk-taking nature of this community of practice that is we are absolutely so reliant on right now for every single aspect that we need in terms of again food, water, medicine, transportation. So we've got to harness them and unleash them at the same time that we don't want to walk away from all of the benefits that we have in terms of the security, the certainty of the infrastructure that we've built. So this is this really fascinating duality peter and the question and the conversations that you've been having with people like Rachel and Joe are right at the heart of this. How do you incentivize engineers? But engineers do things for in the public good and the public service. So engineers need to respond, but they need to respond to request for proposals. They need to respond from policy makers at the national government, at the local government. But those organizations and bodies need to be aware of what they need to be asking for and set the parameters and the guidelines that allow engineers, the freedom and the innovation to come back into it while still also maintaining the standards, the professions, the certifications that all the engineers have and that they need to in order to secure the financing and the insurance. So if you get my point where I'm going with this, it's a rather complex ecosystem and one of these things cannot change on their own. Right? So if the engineering practice wants to move forward, they have to do it in lockstep with the standards bodies, with policy makers, with the insurance and with the finance communities. Otherwise, it won't work. And this complexity creates great uncertainty. And I think kind of the root of your question, which is how are leaders being equipped with and handling decisions with the level of uncertainty moving forward. And the simple answer is it's not a simple answer. It's fraught with difficulties and challenges. And it really requires individuals and organizations to be very thoughtful and clear-eyed about the direction of travel of what we need to do and how we need to do it. And they need to work in a greater level of collaboration and understanding with the other parts of that system in order to move it forward in the time frame that's required. Fascinating. And I think the way you ended there with collaboration was where my mind was going as I listened to you because I think you make a really telling point about that the whole system demands that the way we've learned to build infrastructure is the way we still want to finance it, ensure it. plan for it and so on, and that to change that whole system to become much more responsive to fast changing context through climate and civil collapse and so on, you have to have the whole system and the system has to listen to itself. And the system isn't useless. The system will take contracts from itself. It'll take the transactional relationship between those different parts. But that's different from the parts getting together to say, "Okay, the game has changed, is changing. We don't know how it's going to end. How do we best manage ourselves as a system? Are those conversations happening in your knowledge?" I mean, they're happening. But they're happening in pockets. They're happening behind closed doors as various leaders are grappling with us and trying to figure out what their role is in creating this change, but also how to do it in a way that doesn't alienate their clients, that doesn't alienate their shareholders, that doesn't alienate their employees. So how do we bring everybody along in this kind of radical change? Because again, we're talking about engineers, right? This is everything about this is almost antithetical to how they were, what they learned in college, what they learned in their professional development, what they learned on the job. There's these elements that exist within it, but not how they've been incentivized or what they've been judged on or what they get rewarded for. So that's a tricky bit. But there are also unusual places where this is beginning to pop up. And I think part of what we need to do is do a better job at keeping in our eye open for this type of innovation and leadership is coming from examine it and figure out how to extract the learnings and not be judgmental about where they're coming from. One particular example, I mentioned informal settlements already, kind of juxtaposition to the traditional engineering processes and approaches. If you actually were to step back and look at what people have done in informal settlements with access to practically zero resources, no money and very little materials. And if you look at the density of what informal settlements are doing in terms of the number of people that they're housing, and you compare that to traditional global north cities, the density in informal settlements in in slums is hot far greater. And they've done that with practically zero resources. The innovation is staggering in what they've done with the materials, how they've used materials, recycled them, reclaimed them, how they bind it together as a community. Now, the problem, those that informal settlements because they don't have some of the backbone infrastructure, their ability to withstand shocks and stresses is very, very small. So in something does happen at a clad catastrophic level. There are a lot of pain and a lot of pressure immediately. That's the big difference. But it's not just this finish the inventiveness, the creativeness about how they're co-creating living spaces. And if you look at the innovation associated with that and how we should be thinking about that and the parallel now in terms of more traditional processes, nature-based solutions, we're talking about green infrastructure instead of gray infrastructure. We're trying to embed these practices and these policies now in more of the traditional engineering practices, but they're already happening in many places all over the world. So how do we find those? How do we extract them? And how do we not be dismissive of where actually innovation is coming from and build off of that? It's a really fascinating point, Peter, because where those conversations happen who has access to those conversations and who listens to those conversations are a huge deal. It's not that they're not happening, they're not occurring. It's whether they've been validated and/or whether they've been acknowledged. Solving problems requires a lot of creativity, doesn't it? But it's a fine line then that engineers have to balance between being creative in solving some of these challenges, but also keeping people safe. And I think you made that point said that there's a lot of innovation, creativity and informal settlements. But the reason they're so vulnerable is often because they're not taking into account all of those codes and standards that engineers do have to keep people safe. So it's a challenge. And I really like how we are now more and more turning back to looking at nature and using nature as inspiration for solving some of these challenges. So it's just interesting to me that success is nature is our challenge. Changing climate is our challenge and then it's also providing us the solution. So I just thought that was an interesting point. And when it comes to decision making and how we influence other decisions, a recurring theme that we heard in many of our conversations, this was a recurring theme in many of our conversations, but I was particularly struck by two of our guests' perspective on this. So first, General Newjie, who spoke about his own experience of being in the military boat in the battlefield, as well as a senior officer kind of guiding policy and guiding the military institution. And he talked about core elements of British and really any military training, which is to equip people both with the rules that you absolutely must not break to keep yourself and your team member safe, but also the skills that are needed to make quick, effective decisions in very stress, often life or death situations. And then also back when we first started having these conversations with the podcast, Martin Link talked to us about how important it is to center the human being in decision making and to really come to decisions from face of humanity and compassion and make space for emotion in that process. So I'd really love to, for you to reflect on some of your own experience of making decisions of influencing decisions and how you approach decision making within the teams that you lead. You guys are coming loaded today with good, good meaty questions. Before I get into kind of my personal take on that and experience Chasra, just building on the, what you mentioned around the conversation with, with General Newjie and some others and kind of this kind of picking up on these elements of what we're talking about from the engineering space as well. You teach the bare minimum requirements, you know, you teach the things you must be able to do and the things you must not do, both in terms of engineering and in terms of war. You can't fault the logic with that, right? So that has been born and tested, battle tested literally over and over about the, what you need to do to provide the base level of effectiveness and safety. What's really fascinating, one of my favorite quotes is from the late kind of great American futurist, Alvin Toffler. And he said the illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn and relearn. And to me, again, this really captures that economy of what we've done in the past, what we continue to do, but this really kind of insightful comment that the level of information is coming to us. It's such a level of rapidity with so many different changing parameters around biodiversity loss, the fourth industrial revolution, urbanization, climate change. We've got to be able to let go of what we've learned in the past and what we've based our decisions in both our history, our experience and kind of with with an open arms and an open mind, meet the future as it's happening to us and change our decision making process. Now this is not easy, but this also then leads into personal experiences that I've had both in terms of crisis and in terms of, you know, how I was brought up, how I was raised outside of traditional processes, I was homeschooled, I lived in a kind of off grid as one might might say in a cabin with no electricity and running water. So my point is I was very fortunate, I think, and then I grew up without a lot of boundaries with kind of problem solving at its purest, kind of very practical decision making, what's in front of you, what do you need to do, how do you need to do it? So on hindsight now, it's very easy for me to see how I apply what I do to my teams and the organizations and the people that I engage with, but it's very much, I think, as a result of the non-traditional environment that I grew up in and the non-traditional education that I had. It's been easier for me to unlearn and relearn based on how I learned the very first time around, but that's not the way most people go about it. But to build off of that and then accept the uncertainty moving forward and they accept that use an individual can't possibly have all the answers and can't rely purely on your own previous existence on this planet and what you've done to move you forward. If you can get through that mental bit of gymnastics and get out to the other side and realize that no one is smarter than everyone, that you can be open-minded and collaborative, that you can also hold, you don't have to completely disregard and dismiss your previous learnings, but you can build on those in the way that takes the best of them and the best pieces of what you've experienced for the right time at the right moment for what you're dealing with moving forward. And for my experience, people who are able to do that, particularly leaders, have better teams around them, have more inclusive teams around them, are more adaptable, are more flexible, are more innovative, and are more successful. But those are not simple things. And I think part of what we do in the various organizations that we work with and what we do is trying to embed and crystallize that approach, that strength, that humility, and that vision. I'd really love to hear your perspective on the emotional, the point around emotion in decision-making. How do you balance your relationship? the need for being objective, looking at the facts versus just letting creating space for emotion to graduate. It's another really, really tricky question and very different depending on the kind of business that you're in or what your job is. Let's just take airline pilots as an example. Airline pilots need to be very unemotional. They need to control their emotions. They need to go through their checklists. You look at the miracle on the Hudson, when they had to land the plane in the Hudson River after that bird strike. I was in New York when that happened. I literally saw the plane going over the river when I was in the city. It's fascinating to see all the learnings and how did this happen? What's at the right set of circumstances? There's movies, there's books about it, etc. One of the main things he did is he remained calm. He remained focused and he relied on his training. It was the training that allowed him to overcome the emotions in that situation. On the flip side, you have similar situations, firemen. I have several friends who are firemen and they have the same unbelievably rigorous training, but they also have this innate ability to rely on their emotions to drive them through what any other rational human being would not do, which is to run into a collapsing burning building. They do that over and over again to save people. It's a different kind of how you handle your emotions and you're driven by your emotions in order to overcome your other emotions, which is self-preservation and rampant fear to go into that situation. It's a very dynamic question as to, "Do you lead by emotions?" Here on Wall Street in finance, it's gut and I felt it and I'm going for it and forget about the risk. This is what we're doing. It's a really complicated question, but my broader point is that I think companies deeply understand now more than ever where they belong and the social fabric of what's happening and what they need to do and leading into this kind of profit for purpose. How does a company still take care of being profitable? It's not profitable. It can't be an existence. How does it maintain that but do it in a way that has less of an impact on the world? In many cases, there's companies looking at how they can have a more of a regenerative impact. How can they generate more than they use, at least in concept? Why I mentioned this coming back to the emotional status is that particularly coming out of COVID, some of the companies that responded and did the best were CEOs that weren't these like ice and the veins, an emotional very strict formulaic approach, which is what we've seen happen through the 80s and the 90s. But rather, the humanity associated leadership, I'm worried, I'm unsure how this is going to happen. I want to be open minded and careful and considerate of my employees and what's happening. I don't know how we're going to do this. This is the admittance again of uncertainty and I don't have all the right answers. Leaders that do that have been shown now to perform better, to have a greater retention of staff and to produce better profits. The ability to actually be more self-reflective and emotive with your emotions and that you don't have all the right answers and that you need those around you to help and to set a clear goal of where you want to go even though you may not know every step of how you're going to take it. That's far more important than being cold, clinical, and emotional and not projecting the goal with which your team, your organization, your company needs to go and then inviting everybody along that journey to help you collectively figure out how you're going to get there. I think that's such an interesting point you making there, Seth around the humility of the leader that is a really good response to this massive uncertainty and expanding risk that you can't know and therefore hiding behind data and so on for a leader isn't empowering to their people. Actually acknowledging that we don't know how this has got to pan out exactly but let's get ready for some obvious scenarios and let's communicate with each other in ways that we might not have before and so on. Those kinds of things are definitely what build resilience within organizations I think. I want to bring in the two other leaders that we talk to because it speaks to this point around what we're heading into. One of them, Verena Radilovic in Washington DC who's with the Centre for Climate and Energy Solutions, she said a very interesting thing about COVID-19 being addressed to her soul and climate change is the real performance in that with COVID we discovered that a thing can be hovering there as a possibility for a long while and you get dulled by conversation about we're going to have another pandemic and so when it comes, when you are suddenly in a very fast moving circumstance that you can't predict what's going to happen next and so on and she likened that to how climate change when an extreme climate event hits which is always locally all the sort of generalized information you might have about climate change becomes second secondary what really matters is that you're now in an emergency where you have to respond to an emergency and alongside that we had Dr. Deborah Roberts who I know you know in Durban in South Africa where she's the head of resilience for the whole city but she's also been with the IPCC into governmental panel on climate change the chair co-chair of working group two looking at the impacts of climate change and so on and she had some very kind of sobering things to say coming from particularly from a city that that has been devastated by first of all riots two years ago and secondly massive flooding earlier this year which has left a lot of the infrastructure very very shaky and she made this interesting point that we are we're reaching social tipping points where a lot of people in particularly developing world countries where climate is already starting to batter them are getting to the point where they have very little left to lose and that changes the political and business calculus around risk and I don't know it's a big question to get into but I wonder whether you've got any thoughts on that dynamic which is something that I know I know doesn't come front of mind in the developed world this sort of social instability as a mounting risk factor but I wonder whether you've got some thoughts on that I certainly do I mean it's it's a big thing that certain professions look into constantly but for most people and most professions it's not something that they look into so a lot a lot of national government security councils all look into this these the particularly you know destabilizing events and that could range from a kind of a down grid power generation it could you could go to something that might result in a massive cyber attack terrorist attack end or civil unrest so in these kind of scenarios and processes that every most countries in the world carry out every year this is a very common exercise but I think what's happening is that that is beginning to not just be commonplace to those in military or security roles but we're also seeing this bear out more in science more in civil society and it's again because of a few of these issues that we've mentioned before biodiversity the collapse of biodiversity why I mentioned that is huge swaths of the population are still subsistence farmers live off the the ocean are rural but we've been seeing this massive massive move of people from rural to urban areas and one of the reasons that's happening because of the collapse of biodiversity so the land is changing it's desert vacation so you can't live off the land and or the weather patterns you know are too inconsistent now for small crops and again you don't have the margins of an error to if you have a bad growth crop season you don't really have a lot of other options and you don't have any kind of backup or savings so again people are moving into cities climate change is also driving that but we've been seeing like we've been talking about this from the science perspective from a number of different kind of viewpoints for the last 50 years pretty intensely the last 20 years both in terms of climate migration but now we've been seeing this bear out particularly around Europe as as different Middle East and African continents are having migrants come up into Europe and all the destabilizing issues that it's resulting in we've been seeing the same thing more driven from narcotics and drug traffickers and cartels from and from destabilized governments in South America up to North America driving political decisions processes funding so one I guess I'm making the point that this is moved pretty rapidly from some some very specific type of groups and people and concerns to a broader group to the scientific space to actually now coming home to roost in every day I mean you'll find issues around this in most newspapers in any given week of the year so the the time frame in which it's changed from like conceptual issue to a security issue to an academic issue to now happening has been 15 20 years This is something that everybody has to get used to and has to start dealing with really, really rapidly. And besides from what you just mentioned, that one of the people you talk to Deborah, what they've experienced in South Africa, which has had a history of civil unrest for lots of different reasons, we also just had some pretty massive civil disruption in the US during COVID with Black Lives Matter. It's happening more and more places as the exacerbation of the haves and the have-nots get greater. And then the Deborah's point, as you mentioned, people are just going to rise up. Their ability and bandwidth to deal with things is so small that when it does, it's what are your choices. This is how the revolutions have started throughout history. So we have to be very, very thoughtful about one, who's moving, why they're moving, where are they moving to? What's the motivation? And then also, what are we going to do about it and how it's impacting the places that those people, because they have no other choice, are going? And I have to say, we're not doing a very good job of it right now. I thought it was pretty stark comparisons in reading a few weeks ago that the world's global media was kind of absolutely glued to the screens when this submersible vehicle taking tourists down to the Titanic, went missing. And in multiple countries, multi-million dollar search and rescue was being performed. While at the same time, we had migrants coming on a boat from the Middle East in the Mediterranean. Nobody would provide support for them. And I don't know the exact numbers. It was in a range of like two to 300 people, I believe, or even greater died. When we were looking for four or five people for multiple days, who with their own volition had gone on that, not because they had to as a matter of life and death. So if you look at that in pretty stark terms, I don't disagree with Deborah. And this is going to happen more and more frequently. In fact, there's some projections by the UN that there's going to be 350 million climate migrants by 2050. I mean, 350 million people. That is shocking. And I don't think anybody is really paying attention or understanding what happens when that amount of people suddenly move from one place to another place in terms of the infrastructure in terms of the capacity, the school, the hospitals, the social and emotional issues and conflicts that will come up. I mean, right now we're having a problem when we're countries in the EU are admitting 15,000 migrants. What happens when that's 15 million? You want to talk about some tough decision making. This is what is in our near future, not even far away future, but near future. And when faced with those types of decisions, I would argue the decision making and the processes are going to be radically different. And what we need to do, start doing is understanding the pros and cons of tough decisions now on infrastructure, spending, support, bilateralism that's required now versus we don't do those things now. And we're going to have to suddenly change and morph our infrastructure in our societies to rapidly, rapidly, except and handle more people than those current places have been designed to accommodate. And this is a serious problem. It's interesting you mentioned that incident and I'm not going to get into the more rather to you if you know, so I put it quite a lot of resource and power to look for five people versus the, I think it was nearly 500 who were on that boat. Much of whom were from Pakistan, which is where I'm from as well, incidentally. And if you'll remember last year Pakistan suffered the horrific floods that displaced millions across the country. Now nobody has done enough research. I'm not putting any kind of scientific credibility to this, but it is a significant correlation there that a country that has gone through that kind of climate disaster is now seeing increasing number of people, putting themselves at significant risk, likely death for a chance, a chance at a better life. And I think what this is drives home coming to a conversation is that climate impacts are more than just climate impacts, right? And that's the point you were making said. I think businesses are starting to recognize this, but what role do you see for leaders in helping particularly business leaders in helping us to prepare for some of these challenges that we're going to be facing? Is there a role? Yeah, I mean, I listen, I absolutely think there is. And I'm heartened that at least in the conversations that I have with business leaders all over the world, they understand this. And in a way, I don't believe that it's just lip service. I believe they fundamentally deeply understand as a very fortunate individual that he or she has a very big viewpoint of all the operations, the impacts, the lives associated with these companies. I think in large part, I do attribute a lot of that to COVID. I think it's snapped some of these companies and leaders into it just fast forwarded them, whether they wanted to or not into the front line of the uncertainty coming forward and end the role that companies have not just in protecting their own individual kind of performance, profit and staff, but also more importantly, the impacts of those companies couldn't deliver their goods and services in particular places. What happened brought more broadly to the society. And I think it just really rapidly opened up their minds. So I think there's a huge role. And in particular, what I think it is is that is that bringing their employees, their shareholders and their boards also up to speed for being in that hot seat that there is a different way to think and that if you can't as an organization as a company balance kind of a profit for purpose and try to get more in harmony with the resources that you're using the communities that you're living and working in, that you're not actually going to be in business very long. So now if you're a company that is just looking for a short term gain and trying to maximize your profit to then sell or merge, maybe that's not a good fit. But for some of these bigger, larger multinational corporations who have been around for decades and are some of the big blue chip Fortune 500 companies, they're not looking to go anywhere. They're looking to maintain business and continue what they've been doing and how they've been doing it. And we don't need to name names, but there's Fortune 500 companies that provide a tremendous amount of the employment goods and services and productivity economically around the world. They have no intention of going anywhere. So it is in their best interest to figure out how to do it in a way that still provides the services and takes less from the planet and doing so. And as a result, I think there's a massive mind shift coming in terms of how they're trying to lead from front, how they're trying to bring their organization's ecosystem supply chains along that path and that journey. So for me, it's been very exciting, I think, particularly from COVID moving forward in the last three, four years of seeing this really hard pivot from the leadership, the very senior leadership of these companies. And then it's been kind of horizontally spreading out. And I don't even want to say trickling down because what I find fascinating is a lot of the employees of these companies totally get this. And again, because of COVID, people are voting with their feet. People are moving to companies that have a clearer purpose, that have clear stronger environmental goals, that have more humanity and civility with their staff. Those are the companies that have the highest retainment of employees. And so I think there's more of that to come, Shazray. It's not easy. And in some cases, there's great examples where people like Paul Pullman have put kind of put themselves so far out there that they took their company to the edge and the brink of what they needed to do. But that it's still bearing out. It's not like Unilever has walked away from those things. They've committed even more of them. But at what point, how far can you take your company? How far can you push it as a visionary, as a leader versus kind of playing it safe and playing in the margins is being tested in boardrooms all over the world right now? At the end of our time, Seth, it has been as always fascinating to be in conversation with you. So I'm going to say thank you very much and hand over to Shazray to walk us out of this conversation with you. Fantastic. Thanks again for having me. You guys, really exciting work that you're doing and fascinating conversations. I've been delighted to hear a little bit about it and to share some reflections. Thanks, Seth. And a big thanks to all our wonderful guests from the previous episodes who have taken time to share their experience and wisdom with us over these last few weeks. It's been such a privilege to speak to our guests and to be able to share those conversations with you, our audience as well. This is our final episode of the series. So if you're only just joining us, you can find all our previous episodes on the resilience first website or wherever you like to get your podcasts. And if you've been following along the last few weeks, thank you. We hope you've enjoyed the conversations as much as we have and we look forward to returning with a second series in the not-to-distant future. Till then, take care and see you soon.