A Radical Fireside Chat With...

Matt Perez (00:08):

Well, hi I'm here in the Radical World, world Podcast and we have Jurriaan Kamer as a, as a participant, not a guest, we're just going to have a conversation free phone conversation, and he's with Unblock, but I'll let him introduce himself and talk a little bit about the, what he does and, and things like that. Okay. Yeah. So with,

Jurriaan Kamer (00:36):

Well, thank you, Matt, for, for having me. So I'm, I'm here in the Netherlands at my house in <inaudible>. And the mission of Unblock and my work is to, to unblock organizations to make them better and to use radical principles to to create flow and human, human capital in organizations. So I'm an, you know, I'm a speaker, author, and organization designer by trade.

Matt Perez (01:00):

Okay. We don't, we don't like the terms human capital because it reduces people to money.

Jurriaan Kamer (01:08):

Oh yeah, for sure.

Matt Perez (01:09):

But, and, and so I.

Jurriaan Kamer (01:11):

Think human, human potential is what I meant. Like, that's, that's like, it's the potential, the human, human-centric way of organizing is what attracts me.

Matt Perez (01:18):

Yeah. Okay. So, so tell us about the, the, the work you do in, in unblocking, and, and things like that.

Jurriaan Kamer (01:27):

Yeah. Yeah. I mean I've been in so many different organizations, all sorts of sizes, industries countries. And the, the problems are, are similar across the world, right? It's it's, it's organizations that are slow, hierarchical bureaucratic and have problems responding to, to change and to what the market and the world needs from it. And it's, it's both the, the, the way of organizing that we see, we see is both not helping and not effective. And at the same time, it's destroying or, you know, it's, it's destroying people's lives. And I'm, it's a bit, it's a bit, it's a bit dark what I'm saying now, but like in general as you know, a lot of people are not engaged at work. A lot of organizations are, are, are, are, are, you know, crippling away. And you know, it seems still that the, the, a lot of the, the modern thinking and the, and the best practices that have been out there for, for decades now and we're trying to bring those new ideas to organizations to make them flourish and the people in it as well.

Matt Perez (02:37):

Have you, have you got, have you had good response from people or they go Nah.

Jurriaan Kamer (02:42):

Oh yeah. No, no, for sure. No. Like the, the, the, the people that we work with, they they, they show up with a, with a challenge with, with a tension, with a problem. They would like us to, to crack with them. And that can range from, you know, our, our leadership team is not working effectively. Or it could be like we want to change our culture because we're, we're, you know, we're, we're just stuck in meetings or our decision making is slow or all of the above. And so yeah, that's why we respond to, we respond to the, the, the, the challenge that the client has. And we we're trying to do our best to to improve the situation for them.

Matt Perez (03:20):

Okay. yeah. With, with Radical we can, there, there are two steps to it. One is co management, which is what normally goes to self management. But we figured that there's no self, there's no company except by the people who inhabit it. And so management and co-ownership. And imperious companies. I've always said, heard this thing about we need to have people feel like owners, right? And how do you feel like an owner not being an owner? Yeah. So, so that's the problem. And hierarchies is a very thing to, to break down. So, so tell me how you go about, so we had a company 800 people. Unfortunately was, it was self-managed. For a long time from the very start. But if we had not been, and the decisions were slow, we had to go up and down, up and down, up and down what would you do different? What would you recommend?

Jurriaan Kamer (04:42):

So you, you had a self-manage, you're talking about a self-managing company where decision making was, was slow and ineffective. Is that, is that what you're saying?

Matt Perez (04:49):

It is before, I'm assuming that it wasn't self-managed.

Jurriaan Kamer (04:53):

Oh, okay. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean there, there's a lot of different anti-patterns in decision making. One of them is assuming that it's the leader that needs to make all the decisions, right? It's a's a common, common default way of thinking. Like, I am, I'm a boss, I'm a manager, I'm a leader, whatever you want to call it, which means I, I get to take all the decisions, right? And people that, that do that, they're really missing out. The know the, if you are able to leverage the, the wisdom of the group, the wisdom of the crowd, I sometimes call it then you get better decisions because you're integrating multiple perspectives. You get multiple brains working on a problem, right? And also you, you get you get better buy-in, right? So the chance is that when a decision is taken, the actions that flow from that, and when they, you know, when the actions come, you know, when the action are put in place and we, we had the rubber hits the throat, then the chances are much bigger that it's actually implementable or doable. So, so a lot of, lot of the work that we would do at that moment is to clarify decision rights. So what are the, so for example, if you have a leader and there's a team and what, what types of decisions can this team autonomously make without needing to involve the leader? For what decisions does this team need to ask for advice first, and what are the, what are the threshold until for, for which types of decisions we really need to get consent from the leader first before we can take action? So it's all about clarifying things that are usually unclear, and when decisions are, when decision rights are unclear, we either default to asking for permission for everything, or we default to you know, scheduling lots of meetings to, to, to make sure that we all agree and we, we get buy-in. Right? Right. And there's a way to break out of that. There, there's lots of ways to break out of that, so that, I'm pretty passionate about that topic. Yeah.

Matt Perez (06:56):

I got, I got trouble with some device here. Can you hear me?

Jurriaan Kamer (07:00):

Yeah, I can hear you. I'm hearing something else as well. Interesting. Oh, now I don't hear you. I do not hear you, Matt. Oh, that's breaking up, you

Matt Perez (07:18):

Know, come, coming to you with a problem and then saying, no, we're not going to do that. You, you made reference to leaders and yeah. In my opinion, they're leaders a more fluid thing, so I can be, I I'm not the leading voice in this, in this thing. Oh, you were talking. I was, I was quiet and, and listened. So yeah, it's a very fluid thing. So lip sync is off.

Jurriaan Kamer (07:48):

Well, it's good, it's good. Now, like, Matt, I don’t' know what others were experiencing with. I saw you talk and then hear your voice differently, but it looks like you're synchronized again. Okay. So it would be helpful for me to, if you can repeat the question or the topic, leadership is fluid. I think you were saying

Matt Perez (08:04):

If you, you mentioned leaders in leaders. To, to the radical view is a, is more like it's a comanage place where in certain areas I'm the leader in certain areas, I'm you're the leader. Yeah. And there's no imposed leader, which is what you're talking about, a boss. Yeah. Call 'em the boss. And every, everybody underneath them are bosses as well. So are, you're talking about bosses, right?

Jurriaan Kamer (08:41):

In that sense, I'm talking about bosses or the people that call themselves leaders in more traditional organizations. Yeah. Yeah. I've been, I've been inside a lot of self-managing organizations and, and I've, and I've built one over the last seven years as well. The, the, the, the type of leadership that I'm talking about is not the same as, as, as what I mentioned before. Okay. the type, the typical clients are the ones that have that, that have more hierarchical system and, and they want to find ways to make them more healthy. Ideally, and, and I, I'd love to try that once in a, in a, in a, you know, in a traditional organization, leadership is something, or leadership roles are elected. Like, like we had you know, like we have in our self managing organizations where it's like, you know what? We need someone, we need to distribute some authority to a role that has some decision rights. So, and we believe that's a good idea. And so it's helpful to have someone in a role that maybe we call it the circle leader or whatever it is, let's hold an election. Who, who do we think here is best suited to, to take on this role? But, you know, also that role will not be forever. It's a role that needs to be that, that will expire every three to six months. And then we, you know, we hold another election and see, and see who's, who's best done. And that, that creates like a hygienic system where, like a self-correcting system, right? Yeah. If the, if the elected leader does not do their job properly, they'll, they'll be out of that position soon. So we don't have those kinds of mechanisms in more traditional organizations, unfortunately.

Matt Perez (10:11):

No, we don't. We have a hierarchy.

Jurriaan Kamer (10:16):

I mean, Matt, I think you're saying hierarchy. It's interesting because hierarchy in itself is not necessarily bad.

Matt Perez (10:24):

No, it's not, it's not.

Jurriaan Kamer (10:25):

It has pros and cons. But there's a but there's a, the problem, because hierarchy only is literally, it comes from Greek, right? Or from Latin, I don't know, precisely. But it means order of things, right? It's, it's like there's an order and every, you know, even in nature, we have hierarchy, right? There's, there's, there's some, there's like a root of a tree, and there, there's a, then, then you have leaves. Like, there's, there's a order of things that, that, that, that is there. The problem obviously is imposed hierarchy, like you mentioned before, and imposed, imposed authority. It was, I, I spoke to, to Hil Berg a couple years ago. He's the, the, the found, the founding father of soy. And you know, from there came holacracy and some other you know movements. But he, he literally said that like, hierarchy is not bad. It's just, we have to be very careful about how to use it properly.

Matt Perez (11:17):

Yeah. No, it is not bad. And like I said, there's always hierarchy, even the two of us talking. You listen, when you're talking, I'm listening. Yeah. And I wish I could get the audience into this, this thing as well, because they're now in the, we're imposing our hierarchy, just you, me, as leaders. And and they're, and the only way to get to ask questions is in that.

Jurriaan Kamer (11:47):

Yeah. But there's also a hierarchy between us, Matt, because you invited me into your podcast, so you are inviting me to play in your field, which then also means that I need to be respectful of that. And that if I, you know, if I start doing strange things, you'll kick me out, which means like, you have the authority over this podcast, which is a good thing in this case. Yeah. It's a healthy, healthy thing. It wouldn't be healthy if I would kick you out, Matt. Like, that's, that wouldn't make any sense in this, in this space.

Matt Perez (12:11):

I'll take that, that note.

Jurriaan Kamer (12:17):

And I think the point I'm trying to make is that there's, there's formal hierarchy and there's also informal hierarchy, right? In, in any human system, there is positions of power that is, that is felt maybe because someone is wise or old or experienced that that voice will just count more than other people's voices, right? In a natural system where we don't have a formal hierarchy, there's still an informal hierarchy at play. Right? and I think, I think if we, when we are creating self-managing organizations, we're often trying to match the informal and the formal hierarchy. But it, but it's not automatic. It, it's, it's, it's work that has to be done, right? So, yes.

Matt Perez (13:01):

So we, we, we, we have an idea of your view on the hierarchies and my view on the hierarchies. They're not quite the same, but one will lead to the other. By the way. Our, our view is that the things that we're proposing will happen. It is, is it is been getting better. We've seen progress. Some people feel more desperate and they feel that they're so slow and all that stuff, but it's happening.

Jurriaan Kamer (13:36):

So slowly but surely

Matt Perez (13:38):

Is going to be different, very different from two and three, four. The other aspect of it is ownership right Now, companies have one impact they want to make in the world. They want to make the boss richer, and the bus could be one or many the, the boss richer and everybody else, and employee do you do anything about that?

Jurriaan Kamer (14:08):

I mean yes, yes and no. Like the, the, the capital structures the shareholder structures of organizations are not easily mutable if you're not operating at that level with, with the shareholders themselves. And I think there's le different levels of ownership, right? I don't think, I don't think it's a problem per se, that in some organizations, the, the people that work there are not shareholders. Because still people can show up and own their work. They can own their, their role and the thing they're passionate about, and the type of transaction that you have there is you know, I bring my energy in my, in my brain to work, or maybe my hands or feet, whatever the type of work is, and I get paid by that. And that's not necessarily not, not necessarily bad. Like there's a, there's a, even in a self-managing company, you can have you know, you can, you can have owners and, and, and a lot of entrepreneurs inside, and you can hire people to do stuff for you and with you. And there's different level of investment in, in, in the work and in the, in the outcome. So, yeah. But also, like, I do believe that co you know, if you were, you want to go all the way to, to the most optimal situation that is, that every person that is in the company owns the share. And that is helpful in a lot of different ways. But it's also, so it's also, so the, the fact that that's often not the case, right? So how do we deal with those situations? Right?

Matt Perez (15:36):

So, so, yeah. Shares and things like that are not the answer. Share is a, is a realization by Dutch of all people that we can have a community of people that have capital by a company in pieces, you know, by our own piece of the company, you put 50%, I put 30% in and stuff like that. So there's certain conditions of the committee that has something to contribute that their, their capital. Yeah. And what we say in radical is that there's a committee, everybody that works in the company is a committee. And what they had to contribute is contributions. So not their feed and their, and their brain or anything like that. They're, they're co-owners of net shares that think we just came with the name rats for radical. And it's a recognition by the whole committee. This is a contribution. This is not a contribution, this is a contribution.

Jurriaan Kamer (16:45):

Right, right. Right. Yeah.

Matt Perez (16:47):

And based on that, when revenue comes in or capital comes in or whatever, you have rights to those, to those things. Based on the number of revenue you have, you accumulate, and like you said, the, the, the wiser older, you know, me, basically

Jurriaan Kamer (17:07):

Yes.

Matt Perez (17:08):

It is, can contribute more, but sometimes we forget things and we just relax, you know? Better to the work. And that, that came to us when we sold the company, and I received a third of the com of the value of the company. And my partnership a third, and everybody else received together a third, when in reality I was doing a very small piece. Everybody else was contributing to the cost.

Jurriaan Kamer (17:44):

So, and how did you determine, how did you determine how much you got? How was it determined that you got a third?

Matt Perez (17:51):

Oh, there, there was traditional third for me, a third for my partner, a third

Jurriaan Kamer (17:56):

Okay. Okay. Okay. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah.

Matt Perez (17:58):

Very traditional shares. And, and stuff like that. So and that's what I'm saying, shares have a fixed face value, right? If I got 50% of the company, or 30% of the company is forever

Jurriaan Kamer (18:16):

Yes. Until you sell or buy. Yeah.

Matt Perez (18:20):

People that have started Google and gave capital to Google got so many shares. And, and they're forever. And so Google has grown to be, I don't know how big it is now, but it is pretty big. They, they still own those shares. They'll say, oh, 10% of the company is fine. Holy. Yeah.

Jurriaan Kamer (18:45):

Yeah. That's a lot.

Matt Perez (18:46):

That that's a lot.

Jurriaan Kamer (18:47):

Yeah.

Matt Perez (18:49):

And we're saying is no, if you're contributing, you get your earmark. Right. If you're not contributing, heck with you. You're not contributing.

Jurriaan Kamer (18:57):

Yeah. So, yeah. That's, that, that's, I mean, that's interesting. And, and, and we've used that and my previous company where we had to figure out how do we, you know, there's, there's some dividend at the end of the year now it wasn't necessarily dividend because it wasn't to the shareholders, but like there was a a profit sharing scheme. That's what I wanted to say. Yeah. And who, you know, how do we determine who gets what percentage of the profits? Right. There's, there was a and, and we've experimented with lots of different ideas. One of them was indeed a contribution based system where we used a ranking tool. So you got, you know, you everybody got a link to website, which had like an app which had all the names of the people in the company. And you were asked to rank them in terms of how much did people contribute in order. And you know, and you would, you would put people out low and high and, you know, and that everybody's data points got collected and combined. And that created the picture of the, the, the highest contributors and the lower con contributors. And we, we did that every year. It's, it's, it's, it's also not a perfect system, but it is, it is close to what you're saying, Matt, where it's like, if you have contributed tremendously to the success of last year on general people's view, people will see that. And people can recognize that in, in such a way. And if that is then, you know, can translate into it's a pretty democratic way of translating it into actual profit sharing.

Matt Perez (20:26):

We have Carlos here, and he is gone.

Jurriaan Kamer (20:29):

We had our mystery guest.

Matt Perez (20:31):

Yeah. Our mystery guest.

Jurriaan Kamer (20:32):

The podcast producer showed up like, Hey, I'm still here. Good.

Matt Perez (20:36):

Know Carlos, he's sorry. Lip sync is off.

Jurriaan Kamer (20:40):

That's what I wrote before.

Matt Perez (20:42):

I'll trim it. Sorry. Okay. Carlos is for the audience. Carlos is the producer. He is the guy behind all the windows shuffling and stuff like that. And we started a couple of podcasts before that we were going to use this format of one-on-one rather than, than two two on one, which is heavy. And and so he's been producing all the stuff, and it was, it was a big deal to change windows and.

Jurriaan Kamer (21:17):

Oh, yeah. Yeah. It, it looks very professional for sure.

Matt Perez (21:20):

Yeah. Now it does. But before it, it wasn't, you know, because we're on the side, you'd be in the middle.

Jurriaan Kamer (21:30):

Right, right. Oh, yeah, yeah.

Matt Perez (21:32):

If I said something, then I would go on the side, but there was a delay and it was. And one of people like you to, to feel more like a participant. And you're right, that the, the idea of kicking you out or something like that is, is important. So we consider, I'm for sure. Yeah, yeah. Things, the so you were saying that the Yeah. What we do is, rather than wait until the end of the year to certain contributions, it's on the spot. So I'm sitting here with my phone, which I know where it's at, and that it's <inaudible> with my phone. And if I see you talking to somebody and bringing up, you know, we, we had a case where I was in Mexico in, in one of the big offices And there was this lady sitting about 3, 20 feet from me, something like that. And another one, the cleaning lady came through. And she went to the end, and she, when she went back, she, you know, the, the, the woman was still kind of head down playing solitaire and she started talking to her. And I lost attention. I focused more on my work. And, and but then I hear, yeah, it's just lost, not mine. I looked, holy, this has changed. It's more herself of as she sure was. And so that's a big contribution. And I can, on my phone say, Gustavo gave a big, you know, made a big contribution and say the reason. Right. And rather than wait until the end of the year, we did a similar thing. We wait, wait until the end of the year, and then it was it was very difficult to come up with real contributions.

Jurriaan Kamer (23:43):

Yeah. People's memory, people's memories does go, don't go back 12 months. That's a problem.

Matt Perez (23:47):

You remember the last month, and that's it. And, and not very well, whereas in the phone, you're doing it at this on the moment. In the moment. And it does make a difference, because that's interesting. Gives feedback to the person also doing the contribution to say, oh, I I did this. I didn't think it was a contribution.

Jurriaan Kamer (24:11):

Right, right. Yeah.

Matt Perez (24:13):

That feel interesting. The other thing that people don't think of that as contribution, she was like, mom to all the people in the, in the building. And she didn't see anything as she did it as, as a major contribution. And this was major because, she got somebody from just being down and feeling bad, and she, she had been dumped the night before.

Jurriaan Kamer (24:39):

Right, right, right. And

Matt Perez (24:42):

And it, and she turned that into a, Hey, it's a win for you. You can look at other guys and stuff like that. And so rather, I'm waiting until next year, next until the end of the year. Hold a second. Carlos trying to tell me something and that.

Jurriaan Kamer (25:04):

Well, he is telling us who's next week's participant.

Matt Perez (25:07):

Yeah.

Jurriaan Kamer (25:09):

And she's amazing.

Matt Perez (25:10):

Participant is Susan Basterfield and partner at GreaterThan

Jurriaan Kamer (25:20):

GreaterThan Yes.

Matt Perez (25:21):

Yeah. And we talked to her before in, in another podcast that we had. And so I'm looking forward to it. I don't think I'm going to do that. I think my partner Jose Leal is going to do that one.

Jurriaan Kamer (25:40):

Susan, Susan stayed at my house a couple years ago when she was visiting the Netherlands. Yeah. It was nice. Yeah. She's, she's lovely.

Matt Perez (25:49):

She, she's very, very nice person and very interesting.

Jurriaan Kamer (25:55):

Yeah. For sure. Yeah.

Matt Perez (25:56):

What did you, what, what did she say with you? She, was she helping you or?

Jurriaan Kamer (26:01):

No, she was traveling across Europe, like she sometimes does. And we set up a dinner with well, she was actually just visiting Europe and wanted to, to meet me. And then when she came here, we said, well, you know, let's, let's have a dinner with 2025 radical organizers, or like organization nerds, I call them. And that's what we did. So that's a, a, a big memory. Like lots of people must have been five, six years ago where, where some of this work was pretty, pretty new. We, we got a lot of good minds together and talks about you know, what, what, what we had to do in, in, in the Netherlands to, to, to build this movement a bit bigger.

Matt Perez (26:40):

Yeah. The, in the Netherlands I mean, you guys are doing a lot of things that is way ahead of the rest of Europe in farming in, you know organizing and stuff like that. So I got action for what the Dutch are doing, so.

Jurriaan Kamer (27:07):

Okay. Yeah. And I think, I think there, there's an interesting link here and I, I said it before, like Ard Denberg was the one who, who started codifying or experimenting with the system, the social sociocracy system. So socio Sociocracy Circle organization method, it's called officially. And that was in the sixties and seventies, right? Yeah. So it's a long time ago. And I think the reason that could come to life was he, he was in a school where which was which was also radically organized, where the, the, the, the, the teachers and the the students had an equal say in things, so the teachers and the students would make decisions together about how to organize the cleaning work, how to organize the, the school itself. So there was a lot of equal participation already. And, and that, that's what influenced him. And I think that could come to life because in, in, in our, in, in culture, if you look at different cultures, the Dutch have a very low power distance. Right? So, so our, our culture has very little distance between or felt, felt, diff felt difference in authority. I don't know how to, how to explain it. As opposed like, so like, to put it differently, if if, if a boss comes into a Dutch company and they said, you know what? You have to jump, people will say, you know, you jump yourself, like, who are you to tell me to jump? Right? Yeah. And in a lot of other cultures, it's like, okay, how high should I jump? Right? That's the example I sometimes illustrate is Right. So a lot of the self-managing self-organizing things were also like, it was a bit like a resistance to the typical authoritarian leadership. So that's why people are, you know, experimenting a lot with that here.

Matt Perez (28:53):

Yeah, yeah. Yeah. No, it's, it's very inspiring in a lot of ways. And sociocracy was a big part of what got me thinking about it.

Jurriaan Kamer (29:03):

Right, right.

Matt Perez (29:06):

Accuracy, which you mentioned doesn't, it's, I think it's quite the opposite. It stakes the superficial approach. But they have like 17 page constitution, which can blow out 47 pages. And it is more of a higher, it's more of a hierarchy of circles. Rather than a hierarchy of people. But again, the circles are embodied by the people. Yeah. They exist only because people, so I'm, I'm, I've no lot left for, for holacracy.

Jurriaan Kamer (29:52):

I'm also not, I'm not also not a super fan of, of the, of the work. Although I, I do value the, their contribution to what, what, what moved, you know, what their contribution to this movement, because some of the techniques that they've invented and practiced are super valuable. Right. So you know, one of them is the, well, so one of them is the, the, well, two of them actually is the, the tactical meeting structure. When we, you know, the, the, the meeting structure that gets the team unblocked every week we use that with, with c-level teams of all sorts of corporations that are not holocratic at all, but is, it's super helpful to to go through a facilitated process where, where teams can get their needs met as, as opposed to the traditional leadership team meeting that they had before. And the second one is consent based decision making using IDM, integrative decision making. And we apply that as well everywhere. Where, where it's helpful outside of the holacracy frame. It has value in itself as a practice. So yeah, it's and like every model and every method it has its limits. It has its design principles, it has, its, you know, it has its projections from the person who, who made it. And I, I, I would tell everyone to, to look at those with a grain of salt. But pick the things out of it that you think is is valuable to you. And this is even more, this is even worse in the world of, of, of software development and agile and and all the methodologies that are there. The moment, the moment a method becomes a, a blueprint then, then it then, then you have to be very careful. But in most methods, there are valuable things and there are valuable nuggets that you can use to improve your company if it is a response to a challenge you're sitting with.

Matt Perez (31:37):

Okay. Yeah. The, the consent base decision making is social.

Jurriaan Kamer (31:46):

Yeah. It, it, as, as a principle It is. Yeah.

Matt Perez (31:50):

It doesn't come from, from holacracy.

Jurriaan Kamer (31:53):

No. But are you familiar, Matt, with, with IDM, which is the decision making process data built on the principle of consent? No. Okay. So that I think, so like, I agree with you. Like, so consent, the whole idea of consent is was kind of popularized by sociocracy. And what, what holacracy built on top of that was a process where you bring a proposal a proposal the proposal gets clarifying questions there's a round of reactions, then a proposal has a ability to integrate the, the questions and the reactions bring your final proposal. And then there's consent. So it's a very pretty, pretty rigid step by step process that is extremely effective to get a whole group of people tackling it you know, a complex decision in a short amount of time.

Matt Perez (32:42):

So that may be a way to bring the way I would say it is fiat company is to the radical domain. In, in radical, we, we took the approach of going to the roots of, of what is, does this come from, you know? And not have it be something that I sent in my bathroom and I made some notes in the, in the toilet paper and then came out and said, oh, look, it is wonderful. We went to the rooster as much as we could, and that's what we get to co ownership, for example. ownership. A lot of people come really close with Mm-Hmm. Really, really close. But they treat co-ownership at Dutch invention. As a, as a magical thing is you can't, you can't go past that. You can, you, you know, ownership is given and we built everything or ownership is given, and we built everything <inaudible>. And we've won past that. We've said co ownership shouldn't be in the realm of who has capital. ownership should be in the realm of who has something to contribute. And capital is important. Okay. No question about capital, but it's a negotiated thing. It's, you gimme a dollar, give you two, right,

Jurriaan Kamer (34:09):

Right. Yeah.

Matt Perez (34:10):

A hundred dollars and give you 150 or whatever the, the thing is. Or you can say, oh, in five years you're going to give me double the, the amount or triple. Yeah. And if I think you can do it, I, I negotiated and, and, and that, so capital is important. To buy machinery to buy this, to paint the equivalence of salaries when, when you're starting and stuff like that. But it shouldn't be for, it must not be for.

Jurriaan Kamer (34:43):

Right, right. You buy dynamic, dynamic fluid thing.

Matt Perez (34:47):

Dynamic fluid thing because otherwise you, it is something you just can sit back, relax, and let other people do the work. And then you turn to go, which Yep. Is, is not a, a good force anymore. So with that, we're running out of time. We've ran out of time. Carlos's has been trying to tell me and I've ignoring it.

Jurriaan Kamer (35:10):

Stop talking. Stop it.

Matt Perez (35:15):

We're good. It. And so is there anything you want to close with or.

Jurriaan Kamer (35:22):

Well, I wanted to say, Matt, that thank you for this conversation was interesting on, on many fronts. If people are interested, I am writing my second book which, which I don't know the title of yet, but it is all about improving strategy, making better decisions and getting better results. So, you know, if you, if you're interested in that follow, follow my work. And yeah.

Matt Perez (35:47):

Do you have a copy of the book you can show?

Jurriaan Kamer (35:49):

No, because it's still I'm still writing it. I am I 90% done. It will be, it will be in stores in September. So I should be probably taking pre-order soon. And the ticket below shows you the, like, the, the, my, my current book is Formula X. And, and that's, that's something I do have here, which I can show you. Hold on. All right. So here's my, here's my current book, formula X. Oh. So it's a, it's a business fable if.

Matt Perez (36:19):

Back, I see it backwards, but.

Jurriaan Kamer (36:21):

Yeah, that's the, that's the camera flipping. I think the original will be, will be fine. I promise you, if you buy it in the store, it will not look that like this. It'll, it will, it will actually look like a book that you can read. No, but it's a, it's a business fable. So we I don't know if you're familiar with Patrick Lencioni's Business Fables there's, there's many authors out there. So it's a story, it's a novel you can read in a couple of hours, and it conveys a message about completely reorganizing your organization, put putting teams and experts and people in the lead. And it's also inspired by the world of Formula One motor racing, because I'm also using that as a source of inspiration for, you know, accelerating organizations in lots of different ways.

Matt Perez (37:09):

That's a good one. Are you a, a firm one person, or?

Jurriaan Kamer (37:15):

I'm a, I'm a fan for sure. I visited many races been able to go behind the scenes of a number of, of factories, like where they actually produce the cars. And it's a fascinating world because, you know, many, many people don't know that these teams are sometimes over a thousand people big. And to build two cars and race it. So they suffer or they, like, they, they have similar organizational problems as problems as other companies do in terms of how to divide the work, how do we learn, how do we innovate, how do we get feedback, stuff like that. But they've just found a way to do it in an extreme, extremely fast way. And so yeah. It's, it's not perfect and no, no organization or model or metaphor is perfect, but it's a, it's an interesting world to, to research and talk about.

Matt Perez (38:01):

Okay. So since, since you touched on the, on the thing of books this is the, the collection of books that are written so far. And this one is science fiction book.

Jurriaan Kamer (38:17):

Oh, yeah. And then they want to burn you. Oh, cool.

Matt Perez (38:21):

And the idea here is to talk about what the world will look like with radical organizations.

Jurriaan Kamer (38:30):

That's interesting.

Matt Perez (38:31):

But knowing fully well that radical won't be according to me, would be according to many people. And but it is, it is kind of the, the same thing you, you did as the novel and stuff like that. Yeah. But it was, when I was writing the second book mostly there were things that didn't fit quite in the book, but they were good ideas, so I would make notes and stuff. And then I decided to make it into a book. It is. I, my son, my older son, Adrian Perez, and I wrote all three books and Jose was the participant in, in, wrote a big part of the first book which we did as a, as a conversation. We had conversations every, every week. Yeah. And auto recruitment physicians, you know, he had some ideas and had some ideas, and Adrian had some ideas. And we would come to the, the closest to the route that we find. And yeah. That helped, that helped quite a bit. I mean, I started the book as a mage to my period. Somebody was, oh, we're great, we're doing, and I realized that we weren't that great. We're good. Better than, than most companies, but not the ultimate one. So it was missing was the ownership part. Right,

Jurriaan Kamer (40:02):

Right. Yeah.

Matt Perez (40:03):

And that's, that's one of the difficult things to, to somebody who wants to be rich to say, oh, you don't own this company anymore. It's all of ours, depending country.

Jurriaan Kamer (40:17):

Right. Yeah. Yeah.

Matt Perez (40:20):

And, and we'll see. But, you know some of the stuff you mentioned is good us how to make the transition. 'cause One thing that we're missing Yeah. How to make the transition from one to the other. Right. And some of the things you mentioned might, might be good ideas for that. All right. So with that, thank you very much, is been a wonderful conversation. And that's it. We let Carlos take his, take his cue.

Jurriaan Kamer (40:54):

Yeah. Carlos is telling us to remind the audience about Susan Basterfield coming again because it was supposed to be mentioned at the end.

Matt Perez (41:02):

Well, Matt, please remind the others again, I was supposed to mention at the end. Okay.

Jurriaan Kamer (41:07):

Don't forget.

Matt Perez (41:09):

So yeah, she's going to be the next guest and I can't, here we go. And she's a wonderful person. We both know her and looking forward to it. I think Jose's going to do that one. I'm not sure.

Jurriaan Kamer (41:30):

Okay.

Matt Perez (41:31):

Alright, so now we're ready. And anytime you want Carlos, take us out. Let's, let's see.

Jurriaan Kamer (41:38):

Thanks everyone for watching. If you're watching live.