The following is a conversation between Thierry Malleret, Co-Author of COVID-19: The Great Reset, and Denver Frederick, the Host of The Business of Giving.
Denver: Thierry Malleret is the co-founder and principal author of the Monthly Barometer, a highly respected analytical and predictive newsletter on macro issues for high-level decision-makers. He is also the co-author of the much-talked-about book, COVID-19: The Great Reset. And it’s a pleasure to have him with us now.
Welcome to The Business of Giving, Thierry!
Thierry: Thank you so much for having me, Denver! It’s a great pleasure.
Denver: You and your co-author, Klaus Schwab, the Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum, wrote this book with remarkable speed. What gave you the sense when the coronavirus first hit us, that this was going to grow and develop into a full-blown pandemic?
Thierry: It was easy. I was in charge of the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos. It was a big yearly jamboree that takes place in Davos every January, in 2002, ’03, ’04, ’05, if I’m not mistaken. And every year, we had a session on the coming pandemics. Bill Gates was part of it. There were scientists. WHO was a part of it as well. And we knew that a pandemic was coming. If you listened to the argument put forward in that fashion, you knew that it would come. So, it’s not a black swan, it’s a gray rhino as people say. It’s one of these risks, which are certain, but the timing of the risk is completely unknown.
So when the pandemic began and we learned about it, which was, I think, early January. It was in Wuhan. There were rumors that it might spread. Nobody knew. There was a great deal of uncertainty. I took my phone. I talked to a few virologists and epidemiologists whom I trust, and it became totally obvious that it would spread. And, of course, Klaus Schwab, being the Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum, was of the same opinion. We’ve collaborated in the past. I got this idea of writing a book; so did he, and we connected and we wrote it together.
Denver: Thierry, what’s the history of cataclysmic events, such as plagues and pandemics, in creating long-lasting and really dramatic consequences for the world?
Thierry: It’s very much part of our human history. Pandemics have been with us forever, and we have a few pages devoted to past pandemics, which were absolutely dreadful in terms of mortality rates. Nothing compared with COVID-19. If you think about the pandemic, for example, the Justinian pandemic in the early centuries after Christ, or if you think about the Black plague in Europe in the 13th and 14th century… half of the population of Europe at that time was erased.
So pandemics have been with us forever. They are a substantial part of our human nature. These viruses live with us. There have been pandemics on every single continent, I think with the exception of Antarctica, and we shouldn’t be surprised. I think the reason why we’ve become so complacent with these pandemics is that we’ve lived in such a secure, safe world for so many years after World War II, that the idea that we could be struck by a risk upon which we have no control was sort of alien to us. But here we are. We are reminded of our human condition, which is embedded with the idea of fragility, of course, and I’m sure we’ll learn a great deal from it.
Denver: And speaking of World War II, is that kind of a comparable mental anchor, I guess, that we should be looking at in terms of transformative change that’s going to occur in our society?
Thierry: It’s something which has been hotly debated over the past months. In the book, we established a parallel with one or two in the sense that both the war and the pandemic are a tremendous shock to the existing system, but wars are fundamentally different. Because wars… they’re an extremely strong exogenous shock to the system. However, when we build the economy, there is a huge amount of stock to be rebuilt, so that’s usually a great opportunity for economic expansion.
In the case of a pandemic, it’s sort of different. It’s also a very major shock. However, no capital has been destroyed. The only thing that has been destroyed is our human capital. People who die, people who get incapacitated by the disease. We talk a great deal at the moment about long COVID and, of course, the effects of long COVID remain unknown. We know it’s going to affect us, but we don’t know: how is that going to pan out? There is going to be a so-called second pandemic in terms of mental health problems caused by COVID.
Denver: There’s no doubt.
Thierry: It can’t be totally compared. However, policymakers make a comparison every time. And I was reading this morning, I think in the newspaper, saying that in the US, very soon the threshold of 500,000 deaths would be reached, which is comparable… which is not far from the deaths during World War II and World War I.
So we have this metaphor being used all the time. It’s not absolutely perfect, but it renders the idea that it’s a shock of tremendous magnitude.
The Great Reset is a simple metaphor for arguing that we should take advantage of the shock inflicted by COVID and the many policy measures that need to be put into place to redress the situation, to address the two most important issues that have affected us over the past 10-, 20-, 30 years: inequality and the environment.
Denver: So what would your elevator speech be if somebody asks you, “Thierry, what is The Great Reset?”
Thierry: The idea underpinning The Great Reset is incredibly simple. The Great Reset is a simple metaphor for arguing that we should take advantage of the shock inflicted by COVID and the many policy measures that need to be put into place to redress the situation, to address the two most important issues that have affected us over the past 10-, 20-, 30 years–
And in our mind, these two issues are rising inequalities — the World Economic Forum had been talking a lot about these for the past 15 years — and the other one, of course, is climate change and environmental degradation. So our hope is that policies will be geared towards addressing these two critical issues, and this is what The Great Reset is all about.
Changing, as we were discussing earlier, is painful. Psychologists always explain that change entails a loss. You lose something with change. Its personally very painful to do so. Now, we are against a war. We’ve got to do something. And if government hadn’t intervened in a massive way, we’d be in a state of profound depression, economic depression. So, we’ve got to do something. So let’s do something in a way that addresses these two most critical issues: inequality and the environment.
Denver: It would seem that the tectonic plates underneath us have changed, and therefore, as difficult as change is, you would hope it would be a little bit easier because we have had this event. We’re not trying to manufacture change. I think everybody can sort of say “Something’s got to happen.” Because there’s going to be another pandemic as well. This is not going to be a one-off. There’s going to be other things, and we’re either prepared for it, or we’re not prepared for it.
You also discussed in the book, Thierry, that there are three prevailing secular forces that are shaping the world today. And they would be interdependence, velocity, and complexity. And I think a lot of listeners probably understand the first two, but complexity is a little bit harder to get your arms around. Tell us a little bit about complex systems, and what we need to do to be able to navigate those systems.
Thierry: There’s an argument that is being very hotly debated among policymakers, among academics: the question of whether we live in a more complex world than in the past. Many people would argue that, of course, we’ve been dealing with complexity all our lives across the world, that the world is complicated, et cetera.
The point about complexity is that we fail to realize that the notion of interdependence is based upon connectedness between nodes. We have issues that we have to deal with. We have connections with other groups, other people. When these expand, you have more linkages between these nodes, and you create also nodes that are more relevant to your activity, to your professional activity, to your personal activity. And the greater the connectedness, the greater the complexity becomes.
I’ve been talking to a great number of heads of state or policymakers or a central bank, which was the purpose of the book, and before when I was at The Forum…before, if you were a head of state, you had to deal with policy measures, with social implications of these policy measures, with economics, et cetera, and that was it. Today, if you’re head of state, you are dealing with an innumerable number of issues. It’s not only social issues, economic issues, financial. You have to deal with the environment. It was not a problem before. You have to deal with the issues pertaining to tech, and how that’s going to affect us from the human point of view, in terms of employment. And all these are immensely complex issues from a technical point of view, with incredibly complex moral consequences. Take privacy, freedom, et cetera.
On top of that, the fact that the world is characterized by more velocity and also more transparency means that you have to make decisions, complex decisions faster than in the past because we can see that there is a set of immediate expectations. People want the results of your policies immediately… or the measures, if you are in a business, whereby our institutions are not geared towards addressing issues instantly, just like that.
So all these drive me to the conclusion that the world of today is more complex. In fact, we should think of societies as a complex, living organism. We think of societies having tubes and nodes and… but it’s not that. The best metaphor for thinking about our society is the biological metaphor. We are a living, complex organism that changes all the time, that is subjected to feedback routinely.
Denver: That’s a great point you make about governments, too, because I think as a citizen, I am used to same-day delivery by Amazon. I’m getting everything. I order it; it comes. If it’s not here today, it’s here tomorrow.
Thierry: And you’re upset if it doesn’t come.
Denver: Yes. I was like, “Where is it? You said by 9 o’clock. It’s 10 o’clock already.”
But governments can’t operate that way, or they’re not operating that way. And it’s that dissonance between my expectations of having things happen immediately, and government being much slower that you see this frustration growing on the part of citizenry around the world.
So, what’s the answer to this complexity? I think exactly the way you described it is precisely on point. But how do we get our arms around it? What do we need to do to be able to deal with the fact that what happens here can affect something that happens halfway across the world? It really is complicated. Is there a way to navigate that, to deal with those types of complexities?
Thierry: It’s a humongous issue you’re addressing.
Denver: I know. I don’t expect a one-word answer on that, but it’s–
Thierry: I’d like to respond in two ways. One, which is public, and I’m not qualified to address it. But when I talk to policymakers or global CEOs, they tell me, privately, in many, many cases, that they feel overwhelmed by complexity. And the reason is simple to understand from a personal point of view. If you’re a global CEO, and you receive 800 e-mails a day– which is the norm, the average– how do you deal with that? The only way to deal with this impossible complexity is to simplify your life.
So, in my case, we offer a solution to our subscribers beside the Monthly Barometer, which is our digital offering, our own summits, Summit of Minds. And I think there is a solution, which, of course, doesn’t apply to everybody. But the solution, we have to find it in ourselves, by simplifying our lives. So, in my case, and in the case of the people who work with me, we reconnect with nature. When we reconnect with nature, we don’t get our mobile phone. I don’t respond to the calls. I don’t listen to my screen 20 times a minute. And in doing so, you become more creative. You become calmer. It has a very positive impact on your mental and physical well-being, and you make better decisions.
And the question you’re asking me, I’ve been asking it to so many people, to so many key decision-makers, and it strikes me that key decision-makers who project an image of competence and calm are people who have a simple life. Now, I don’t want to enter into American politics, but I was reading yesterday an article about Biden who stops at seven o’clock and spends time with his wife.
It’s an illusion to think that by doing a thousand things at the same time, we’re going to cope with complexity. In order to cope with complexity at an individual level, in terms of sound decision-making, we need to simplify our lives and do basic stuff.
Denver: I read the same article.
Thierry: Yes. Exactly. It’s in the New York Times. Well, that’s wonderful. I think it’s an illusion to think that by doing a thousand things at the same time, we’re going to cope with complexity. In order to cope with complexity at an individual level, in terms of sound decision-making, we need to simplify our lives and do basic stuff. Multitasking is a dead end, and being connected with too many devices is a dead end. In my case, I barely do social media because I think it’s a complete waste of time. And that’s how, at my very modest level, I deal with complexity.
Denver: Yes. Well, you and I are on the same page. I’ve never been on Facebook because I just think it’s a time-suck. And I think that the point you’re making, part of our complexity is being reactive to our devices. So, it really isn’t as complex as that it’s all this busy-ness that we create. And I think there’s been this avatar that’s been set up. To be really successful, you’re just going nonstop. One meeting after another meeting, and tons of emails and stuff like that. And that is a dead end.
And as you said, it doesn’t… so you’ve created life where you can be proactive, that you’re not reactive, but you’re actually thinking about it. And then you’re also not dealing with a hundred things, if I get you right. You’re dealing with three things that really make a difference. So you have to really prioritize, which takes some discipline.
So, let me move on to this about acceleration and emergence. I would say that, undoubtedly, this pandemic is going to accelerate systemic changes that were probably apparent already and were going to occur anyway, but now are going to happen that much sooner. What would a couple of those be?
Thierry: There’s so many examples. The most obvious one is telemedicine. Telemedicine being almost impossible a year ago because of regulatory compliance issues and the fact that it was so hard to implement around the world, in the developed world in particular. And now, we see that it’s happening everywhere.
Many digital trends have been accelerated by the pandemic for very obvious reasons. With counterbalance in terms of a negative impact, for example, an industry like physical retail. So all of these preexisting trends had been accelerated by COVID-19 as you just said.
And then, there are trends that were very much weak signals prior to the pandemic. One of them I know well because it’s part of my core business is nature and the economic impact of nature. We know that we need nature as an input to economic activity. If we didn’t have the bees to pollinate the fruit, the flowers, there wouldn’t be any agricultural production. So the price is free, and yet, it’s a prize with contribution. So, all of this, we knew. It was discussed vaguely but it’s not very much taken into account.
And the pandemic has had the effect of accelerating gigantically this trend of the return to nature, the importance of personal well-being, the relevance of air quality in terms of what happened with COVID. The rate of infection was correlated with air quality, is correlated with air quality. The importance of deforestation. Deforestation might have been one of the causes that accelerated, that triggered COVID. There is abundant literature on that subject.
So, all these weak signals have taken some great amplitude, have been developed, and something that would have taken probably 20 years a year ago is happening today.
The greatest winner in terms of where the pandemic forced us to reconsider, I think, is nature.
Denver: I feel that way sometimes. I wake up and I feel it’s 2040. It’s just sort of like after a long night’s sleep I had; what in the world has happened? Do you see anything emerging that really had not been envisioned prior to this pandemic that is just coming out of nowhere that might impact our lives?
Thierry: Yes. Something which I see emerging with a great deal of strength is the reconsideration of the role of nature. Again, as I just said, we took it for granted in the past because it contributed to the creation of economic activity. But since there is no price for all the bounties that nature gives us, we sort of think… it had no value because we live in a system in which if something has no financial value, it has no value at all, which is, of course, a fundamental mistake.
So, I think that one of the big things which is coming is a complete reconsideration of the concept of a value– and it could be attached to human value, to moral values– which will become more important. We should start asking ourselves, for example, is it normal that a nurse is being paid thousandths of what a money manager makes? We need to reconsider our social contract. So these are very pertinent questions.
And so that the greatest winner in terms of where the pandemic forced us to reconsider, I think, is nature. My belief is that nature a few years from now will become an asset, and that we’ll think of nature as an input to activity. And as a result, we’ll be much more careful about how we treat nature and the importance of biodiversity for our lives, for the environment, for climate change, et cetera. So, I think it’s going to be a very major turning point in the years to come.
Denver: That’s very interesting. And there’s a thread of what you’ve been saying here, and that’s simplicity. And it’s almost, to look ahead, we have to look back to a simpler time. Simplify your life and appreciate nature. And it’s almost ironic, that paradox that we need to go back to those things.
Let’s talk about the conversation that’s been going on for a decade or two between stakeholder capitalism and shareholder capitalism. How do you think that conversation has changed over the course of the past year?
Thierry: It’s changed dramatically. The concept of stakeholder capitalism was developed by Klaus Schwab back in ’71. It was a very lonely cause because the concept of shareholder capitalism was so dominant. Everybody knew the concept elaborated by Friedman, the economist.
Denver: Yes. Milton Friedman.
Thierry: Absolutely. And at that time, it was almost obscene to claim that a company had an obligation towards its employees or clients or towards shareholders first.
Well, this has changed. Again, it’s one of these examples that you were referring to before. We knew before the pandemic where the winds were turning or shifting, and there were more concerns about eradicating the supremacy of shareholder capitalism. But it’s been accelerated by the pandemic because of all of the other trends that I was mentioning before. Like the role of nature, the responsibilities that you feel towards the people you work with, towards your community.
And something that the pandemic has made completely obvious is that social capital plays a huge role in terms of sustainable economic growth. If you want to grow healthily as a nation, it’s better to do it with a strong sense of community, of empathy, of altruism. If you are a country that is totally polarized, how are you going to grow in a sustainable manner for years and years and years? It’s impossible, or you do it in a way that is incredibly destructive from a societal welfare point of view.
So, all these suggest that the most extreme form of neo-liberal capitalism has come to an end, that we’re more conscious of other forms of social organizations that are quintessentially important for growth, social capital and natural capital. And all these entail that you put into place a system that is based on the principle of stakeholder capitalism, not shareholder capitalism.
And it’s not a refutation of capitalism. Capitalism is good. But I would argue, and it’s a personal opinion, but I would argue that Nordic countries’ capitalism is probably safer and better than the neo-liberal form of capitalism as it exists at the moment in the US or in the UK.
Denver: I may be wrong on this, but I always look at shareholder capitalism and stakeholder capitalism… that stakeholder capitalism, to me, is almost like the old capitalism. Because in America, capitalism seemed to work right after World War II. There was a lot of equality. Labor and management had a nice tension between each other. Everybody’s boat was lifted. And it wasn’t really until the 1980s, maybe about 10 years after Milton Friedman wrote that article, that shareholder capitalism just went crazy on steroids. And the thing deteriorated.
And so, it’s sort of like we were talking about nature before, some of it’s going back. Not always looking ahead, but I’ll tell you… we had a burgeoning middle class and everybody was doing better. It’s not that way anymore.
Thierry: And I think it coincided with the Reagan Revolution.
Denver: That’s when the balance became out-of-balance.
Now, let me ask you something about stakeholder capitalism. We had this thing in America, the Business Roundtable all signed on to that letter. I think 181 companies. But I saw recently, Thierry, that the Ford Foundation did a study. It was called “A Test of Corporate Purpose.” And in the wake of the pandemic and what’s happened since then, those companies did really no better than those who did not sign that letter when it came to worker rights and workplace safety. So, the question is, is stakeholder capitalism really working, or are people just sort of signing a document, but pretty much the behavior is not comporting with that?
Thierry: I can’t comment precisely because I haven’t read this Ford Foundation study. I would read it. I didn’t know about it. I’m not surprised with what you’re saying because, of course, there is a tremendous amount of greenwashing, social washing, work washing. Many companies embrace these ideas because they are good from a planning point of view. It’s better to, at the moment, you’re much better off saying that you embrace stakeholder capitalism than shareholder capitalism because it’s… the zeitgeist.
And of course, I can well imagine that so many companies would not be walking the talk because it’s more comfortable to do as before, as usual, to preserve the status quo, which is much more comfortable. But back to the conversation we had at the beginning: if you don’t change, it’s fine. It’s fine up to the point where it’s easy to be fine, but I can understand why so many companies are refraining to act accordingly.
Denver: Stakeholder capitalism is nice to do, and it’s nice to live until sometimes when you get punched in the face, like a pandemic, and then do you revert to form and your old ways of doing things when it becomes a little bit more difficult?
Thierry: No, if I may. There is an argument that we put forward in a book, which I think is going to make the position of all the companies that are slowly moving, adapting much tougher in the coming years… is the young generation. There is a wave of activism that is going to be a tsunami, and companies have no idea. Some companies have no idea about the way in which the Millennials or Generation Z are going to put forward its principles. Green investing, ESG principles, stakeholder capitalism, et cetera. And it’s going to come from the younger generation, and they’re adamant to change.
The companies that succeed are those that are capable of deploying contextual intelligence to think about the broader picture, to constantly pay attention to what’s coming, to be constantly aware of the disruptions that are coming.
Denver: I think you’re absolutely right. And I think when you look at stakeholder capitalism, a lot of consumer-facing companies have to do it for their business, but I just saw a study the other day that all B2Bs are now beginning to do it. Because even though it doesn’t impact their business, it impacts their ability to recruit and retain that younger talent that you’re talking about. They want to work for a company that has purpose. So, no matter where you are in the system, you’re going to have to comport with that.
You know, you have said, Thierry, that the changes we face can be summed up into one word and that’s agility. The agility to pivot and implement a strategy to forge ahead as quickly as possible. What does a company need to do to be agile?
Thierry: Many things, and there’s always such an abundance of academic literature in business school about agility.
First and foremost, they need, I think, to open their radar. They need to be thinking about contextual intelligence. They need to be aware of what is coming, and the best way to do so is to be curious, intellectually curious, and to be open to contrary ideas, and to have diversity embedded at the company. And I think it’s absolutely fundamental.
I think the former Dean of Harvard Business School wrote about this a lot when coining his expression “contextual intelligence.” So the companies that succeed are those that are capable of deploying contextual intelligence to think about the broader picture, to constantly pay attention to what’s coming, to be constantly aware of the disruptions that are coming.
And the only way to do that is to nurture diversity in the company, to have young voices, not to fall victim to group-think. If you have only people of our age, white men, 60-years plus on the board, well, it’s not that great for thinking about tomorrow morning and further. So you need women. You need young people. You need minorities. That’s how you nurture diversity, and that’s how you get much more aware of the disruptions that are coming your way. And then if you’re capable of changing fast, you become agile.
….Many, many nonprofits are involved in what we do, and it strikes me that they crystallize what we are missing, which is a capacity to demonstrate altruism, fairness, compassion, community building, not being transactional all the time when you’re dealing with others… and that’s absolutely key. It’s absolutely fundamental. And the countries that are capable of deploying these qualities at scale are, in my opinion, the countries that will do best in their governance.
Denver: And I get what you say about context because the old expression is: “Think outside the box,” and I think people are now beginning to say: Think outside the building. Because if you’re not… because we think everything is happening within our four walls, and the answers are there, and the answers are outside. So, if you’re not getting outside to find out what those answers are, you’re not going to know where you fit into a changing ecosystem and can respond accordingly to be agile.
We talk a lot about business. We talk a lot about government. I just wanted to see if you have any thoughts on this, about the roles of nonprofits and NGOs. What can they do in this “great reset” to be responsive and to maybe change the way they go about their own business to contribute to the greater good?
Thierry: A huge amount. A huge amount… because this idea of stakeholder capitalism is also predicated upon the observation that you can’t attack in isolation to address today’s problems. All the big issues we face are global issues: climate change, fiscal policies, coordination, monetary policies, pandemic, terrorism et cetera. So, all these issues are by nature, by essence, global issues. So if we think we can solve them in isolation, it’s a complete illusion. They need to be addressed collectively. And the best way to address something collectively is to work in unison with organizations that have a say in the way in which we are moving forward. So, it’s business, of course, it’s politics, and it’s civil society, and it’s philanthropy, and it’s NGOs. All those that shape things are social fabrics that unite us.
I work a lot, and many, many nonprofits are involved in what we do, and it strikes me that they crystallize what we are missing, which is a capacity to demonstrate altruism, fairness, compassion, community building, not being transactional all the time when you’re dealing with others… and that’s absolutely key. It’s absolutely fundamental. And the countries that are capable of deploying these qualities at scale are, in my opinion, the countries that will do best in their governance.
There is an example, I think, that we put in the book, which is Finland. In Finland, you teach altruism in kindergartens, and then you continue. And it has been measured because the impact, the effect of teaching altruism in schools has been measured. And it’s huge in terms of decreasing the number of people who go to jail, in terms of making stronger communities, in terms of creating trust… greater trust; and high-trust societies are better-performing societies. And so, all these very often belong to the nonprofit sector.
Denver: And I think to your point about collectivism, the nonprofit sector, at least in my opinion, is going to have to change the way they think because they think very much along issue-by-issue, organization-by-organization basis. And I think that unless the boards of those nonprofits or those NGOs redefine what success means, they’re going to continue along the lines about: How many meals did we serve… and how much money did we raise? But as you say, they have to begin to look broader and outside to other organizations to collectively come together and to solve an issue, and not be thinking about their own stake as an organization and how successful they are.
Thierry: Absolutely. Yes.
Denver: Let me close with this, Thierry. You wrote this book in the very early innings of the pandemic. So, looking back, what things did you get right, that when you wrote it, you were saying, “I’m not so certain about this. This may or may not happen,” but turned out to be the case? And maybe what are some of those things that you either got wrong or maybe you didn’t foresee at the time of writing?
Thierry: Right. Well, the book is divided into three parts: macro, micro, and individual effects.
I think for macro, we got it completely right, explaining how painful it would be from an economic point of view, the necessity to put into place very accommodative policies to support companies and individuals suffering from the pandemic. We said that it would exacerbate geopolitical risk, which is the case. We saw that it would favor green policies, which at that time was very, very contentious but is proving to be right. We talked about tech and the problem associated with pervasive intrusion of technologies in our life and the issue of privacy, and I think it’s a very big issue at the moment. So, I think this, we got it completely right.
Individual effects, it was so hard to measure because a year ago when we wrote the book, we had no clue about… we try to get a sense of how would this affect travel. Will we travel less? I thought because I wish we would travel less that it would happen, but maybe not. Early indications are that, in fact, we have this amazing capability to restart and to go back to the situation ex-ante, the situation that prevailed before. So we should be… maybe we would be more responsible in terms of consumption. We won’t consume the stuff that we don’t need. We’d be more careful about consuming animal proteins. These I’m not sure. We might have got it wrong. Well, we have to wait. We have to wait.
Denver: I think you did a pretty darn good job, to tell you the truth. That was pretty hard to do that early on. Thierry, how can listeners learn more about The Great Reset, and also tell us a little bit about The Monthly Barometer.
Thierry: Thank you so much for asking. The Monthly Barometer is a one-page predictive newsletter that we send to our subscribers on the last day of each month, and it’s complemented by a weekly selection of op-ed articles. So, what we do is, first of all, to connect the dots between macro issues — economics, geopolitics, finance, the environment, and tech — because, as I said earlier, if we want to understand complexity, we need to connect the dots between these. Otherwise, we’ll operate in a well, and we don’t see very much.
Denver: That’s exactly right.
Thierry: And then, the other big problem we face in terms of dealing with complexity is: How do we simplify this complexity? So, our job is to simplify complexity for our readers. So we try to be simple without being simplistic, and just to distill into one page all the issues that decision-makers need to pay attention to, considering that all of them are time-poor people. So we don’t have much time, and our goal is to allow decision-makers to grasp in four minutes a month what matters to them.
Denver: That’s hard… trying to get it down to one page. That is really hard. Well, thanks, Thierry, for being here today. It was so great to talk to you.
Thierry: Well, Denver, thank you so much for having me. It was a real privilege to talk to you. Thank you.
Denver: My pleasure. Thanks a lot.
Thierry: All the very best to you. Bye.
Listen to more The Business of Giving episodes for free here. Subscribe to our podcast channel on Spotify to get notified of new episodes. You can also follow us on Twitter, Instagram, and on Facebook.