수년전에 McKinsey & Co. 에 일하는 친구가 소개로 만났던분이 2002년에 카나다에서하신 speech 내용입니다. 지금은 McKinsey & Co. Singapore 사무실에서 Chairman, Asia 로 일하시고 계신다고 알고있읍니다. 이분 강의 내용들은 들을때마나 저자신이 깨닭는게 많더군요. 이분과 는 잠시동안만 만났었지만, 그때 인상은 아직고 기억에 남는군요. 저에게는 항상 존경하는 카나다인중에 하나입니다. 대학교 선배이 시기도 하고요. :) http://www.managers-gestionnaires.gc.ca/events/2002_conference/ tsun-yan_hsieh_e.shtml "MANAGERS FIRST": TSUN-YAN HSIEH N.B. This is a word for word transcript of Tsun-Yan Hsieh's keynote address "The Way Ahead: Leadership in the New Economy" at the Managers' First Conference, Banff, Alberta, April 22, 2002. TSUN-YAN HSIEH (Managing Director, McKinsey & Company): Good afternoon, everybody. It is indeed my pleasure to be here back in my home country, albeit briefly. I was just telling the people at my table I'm moving from here to Calgary and from there to Montreal, all in two days, and then on to London, Paris and Brussels, before returning to my office assignment, which is Singapore at the moment. So this gives me the perfect excuse, if you will, to breathe the fresh Canadian air. Thank you for the opportunity. Okay, I'm going to speak on leadership in the new economy. Some of you might wonder, why is a commercial guy with corporate experience talking to managers in the public service? And I cannot pretend to be conversant with the public service needs and so on and so I apologize on that behalf, but I did do quite a bit of research in my years with McKinsey about globalization, new economy and leadership. And from this seemingly eclectic research I will share with you some of the key underpinnings of what all of us are facing in the new economy and what opportunities you and I have for leadership. But before I do that, since this is the province of Alberta I have to say a few words about my relationship with Alberta. I graduated from the University of Alberta in Edmonton in 1974. At that time, as Madame Bourgon pointed out correctly, I was on a CIDA scholarship. There's no question after four years of the wonderful four seasons, the skiing and the record 39 degrees below temperature, I had to fall in love with this country. On graduation, if you're average in the class, you have three job offers. Those were the boom years, those of you who hail from that period, in the mid-70s. The tar sands was going, (inaudible)... and so on, and if you were an average engineer you would get three job offers. My option was to throw away my passport and go to the post office and apply to stay back, because the fall back option is to be constricted into the peacetime army of Singapore. They pay $90, which at the time worked out to be about $45 Canadian, a month and you buy your own broom(?) with that stipend. However, not being a quitter, I decided to go back to Singapore and vowed that one day I would return on my own volition to Canada. And that I did. And I'm glad I did. And so I'm standing here with great pride that wherever I am in my globe trotting, I'm first a Canadian, thanks to you all. [Applause] Okay, on to the topic. First let me talk a little bit about what is the new economy and paint that picture for you as starkly as I can. The new economy has very little to do with the dot com and it has to do with the micro-economic effects of declining interaction costs. What the heck does that mean? Interaction costs is simply the costs involved in research, monitoring, control, integrating, coordinating information. Whether you are going up to an office to apply for a passport, to make a deposit at a bank, huge amount of that activity has to do with interaction costs. In other words, the costs are not related in consumption of that service, whether it is procurement of a passport or getting my money deposited into my account. It had to do with all those other activities I talked about. Lo and behold, in the past ten years, across twenty-six industries that McKinsey and Company have researched, the costs have gone down by as much as 60 percent, the average between 55 and 70 percent. Whether it is banking, mining, transportation, you name it, twenty-six industries. And this reduction in costs had a lot to do with forces such as technology - of course the Internet is the prime mover of that -- that we're all familiar with - but it also had to do with the fact that in the last ten years approximately two-thirds of the world's land mass had gone through some kind of deregulation or re-regulation, of lowering the tariffs that promoted or increased world trade, if you will. Capital, mobility of capital is frightening. The financial stock, which is the amount out there in securities, cash, moves around at a speed of the press of a button and far exceeded the financial reserves of any country by an order of five to ten, depending on the country. That's why the George Soroses of this world could knuckle a weak currency under if they concentrated their charge at that particular currency. The consequences of all these mammoth events is it unleashed tremendous threats and opportunities to businesses and individuals that are stuck in the old ways. Let me highlight four salient principles that are relevant for this gathering here. First, intangibles are king. Intangibles, by that I mean talent, intellectual capital, network standards and protocols. It is an accounting definition because accountants love tangible assets -- plant, equipment, buildings. But nowhere in accounting standards, notwithstanding several tries on the international level, have they accounted for those intangibles that I talked about. The only time it shows up in the books, so to speak, is when a company is acquired and it shows up as good will, which has to be amortized, something that I always questioned the sensibility. How would you amortize something like TCPCL, which is that particular protocol that drives the Lotus notes that you and I now use and hate? The owner of that standard and protocol, TCP, which is Cisco, by the way, collects $19 billion US per annum. CDMA, which is a telephone system that powers the wireless in your world, is another standard and protocol. It shows up nowhere in the accounting statements. And yet CDMA's parent owner collects more than $5 billion of revenue a year simply because you and I, every time a cell phone is sold, pressed, used, received, they collect. That is the power of protocol and standard. At the heart of all this, these things don't just show up. They show up because talent is what is behind it. Talent and innovation. If you look at the result of all this in impact on organizations, let me quickly mention that of the global 150 -- these are the top 150 companies in the world by market capitalization -- if you measure by value added per employee (economists love to do that), or profit per employee (capitalists like me like to look at that), you come back to the same answer, which is the average top 50 of the 150 has a value added per employee or profit per employee three to three-and-a-half times that of the bottom of the class. And I'm not talking about also-ran companies, I'm talking about some of the world's largest and most successful companies in the global 150. If you look again at the market value of these stocks compared to its book value, the ratio is even more stark. The average ratio hovers around 1.2 or 1.3, whereas the market book ratio of the successful 150 companies is as high as 6.5 times its book value. Of course the market goes up and down. It could be 3, it could be 6.5, but it sure as hell is a whole lot more than what the book is able to capture. So what the heck is that? Is it all market sentiment? Is it hype? Or shall I say that is the value that is embedded in the intangibles. The world is struggling to come to grips and to recognize what has already happened, which is that intangibles are king. By the way, the top companies used to be General Motors, Chryslers and Fords of this world, R.J. Reynolds. They have a lot of employees. The value added per employee of those is around $80,000, they have gone up about 14 percent in the decade starting from 1989 when we tracked these companies. By the end of the '90s, the top companies have value added per employee of $180,000 per employee, US dollars. And all of that comes from talent that drives intellectual capital for companies that do not own close to any assets on their books. The second thing that is really important about the new economy is that talent is mobile. I'm not talking about Generation X, and those of you who have studied the Generation X and the demographics will tell you that the Generation X will tend to be more footloose than the baby boomers. However, what will sweep through the workforce, the majority of the workforce in fifteen years is going to be increasing churn and increasing mobility. In fact, one of my colleagues who wrote the book, The War for Talent, which is just out, would liken most large corporations, the average corporation, as a large temp agency. You're there to train people for others to hire. Now this is a very sobering thought. Why is that? Why in North America - I apologize I don't have the numbers for Canada but I do have the numbers that are predominately North American - in fifteen years the prime age for work force, those between 25 to 44 years old, will decline by 15 percent? That is sure as hell going to happen. It's too late to correct that. You can try but it ain't going to make a difference. Because in 15 years, the 25 to 44 demographic will be short by 15 percent. That means there is a fundamental supply and demand balance that is going to shift from a buyer's market to a seller's market. Now, this has profound implications for each and every one of us in this room and for our children. I grew up in an era where I had to learn how to write a resume from my father and go around and apply for a job and damn lucky if I got one. Imagine a world in which employers are lining up to ask you or your children to join. It's hard, isn't it? But that is one of the realities that's going to come to us, and as a result of that talent is going to be mobile. They will go to where the greatest opportunities are. In that world our research will show that challenge is going to be the number one attraction for talent, not money. Because money for that talent is not going to be an issue. Challenge, autonomy, and the third that comes closely after that is mentorship. And I'll touch on these in a moment. In our research that we have done, those three factors will outweigh hygiene factors such as pay. The third new economy principle I will talk about is institutions don't last. If I haven't scared the daylights out of the corporations, here's something else. The churning in corporations, I'm talking about large corporations that you and I and our parents looked to for lifelong employment, well, I've got news for you. The churn rate has gone up dramatically. The SMP 500, which is the US stock index, companies that are within them, 500 companies, again the most famous and supposedly well performing, in 1945 the average duration (meaning how long they will last) at that time based on turnover rate of membership to the SMP 500, was 95 years. A friend of mine, Jim Collins, wrote the book, Built to Last, on that count. Except that one of the ongoing debates I have with him is institutions don't last anymore, Jim. The average duration of a large corporation now is 12 years by the year 2000. It's going to hit below 10 by 2003 or 2005. Within the global 150, world-wide top 150 companies, the class of 1994, 50 percent of them did not make it back into the class of 2000. All of you, I'm sure, have heard of Enron but Enron is just one of the 75 that didn't make it back. What's the big deal? Last year alone there were 15 of them that dropped out. As proud a company as Texaco, Chevron bought them. Mobil, Exxon bought them. Name brand CEOs that used to be touted as the greatest CEOs, that turn around corporations, that led them to new places like (inaudible)... scarcely two years later, fired. One thousand CEOs lost their jobs in the United States in the last year alone. Our own John Roth -- I was on the stage with him a couple of years back and still today I remember it very well because in my RRSP I have quite a bit of Nortel stock and I was too busy to sell it -- John Roth said to all the crowd of CEOs in that room, Look to the left, look to the right, in two years' time half of you won't be here. I could never have dreamt that John Roth himself intended for himself not to be there. It's not just the world that we live in in terms of churn. Because institutions don't last. The forces that have been unleashed by the new economy can suddenly create heroes and they can suddenly destroy you in no time. Specialization wins is the fourth and last principle. Because it costs less, interaction costs, costs less to coordinate, to find, to search, you can go virtual and therefore you can in fact specialize. State Street is a backwater third-rate bank in Boston. Just like any other bank it tries to be everything to everybody. But around 15 years ago it transformed itself to concentrate on one very boring activity. You think banking is boring? The most boring part of banking is custody. It keeps records and keeps securities that are involved in the transactions between institutions. Well, I've got news for you. State Street is one of those global champions that I talked about. It operates in 28 countries and they have a return on equity that's (inaudible)... 28 percent. Specialization allows you to be champion in something, not all things to all people. Now, if these are some of the interesting principles, what does it mean for everybody? I'll talk about what it means for everybody, then I'll talk about what it means for you as a leader. First, the value of the work that you and I do will be dramatically different than what it used to be. Intellectual capital is valued, not knowledge. Now, let me just say it again. Not knowledge but intellectual capital. What do I mean by knowledge? What do you mean not worth anything to know something? The acid test is this: If you can write it down, if you can put it on a CD, you can, if you're suddenly in Asia, be pirated within the same evening, and the best you can hope for in W.H. Smith is $29.95. Knowledge is cheap. With the press of a button I can find out what is going on and what is the latest NHL score all the way out there in Asia. However, what is valuable is intellectual capital, which is different in one important way. And that is judgement and perspective. Judgement is not replaceable. Discretion is not replaceable. You cannot write it down. You cannot replace it with a computer. The second thing you think about in terms of the value of the work that you and I do is multiplier effect, not just repetitive tasks. Many of us, especially at first entry level jobs and sometimes even managerial jobs, tend to believe that if I work hard, if I keep doing something and I keep doing it and accumulate the experience, they can't get rid of me. Well, think again. Think again. If in the new economy there's going to be such a huge shortage of supply of talent, wouldn't it be better for you to think about the thing you do and how you can create a GDP multiplier? And that's how the firm that I belong to measures my performance. Not how many clients or how many dollars of billings that I can generate, but how many colleagues of mine can I help anywhere in the world based on the experience and the ideas that I've had generated. I've got to do that once every two years now as one of the most senior partners of this firm. Otherwise you do it every six months. The question they ask you is not what's your billings. The question they ask you is how many teams out there have you helped? How many colleagues out there have used your method? How many people out there have used and applied your concepts and have found it useful? You see? The emphasis is on innovation, on multiplication, the multiplier effect, if you will, and the network effect overall of your intellectual capital. By the way, a corollary of this, which I'll use my own company as an example, is that we live or die by our brand franchise or personal reputation. That's also one of the things in the new economy, which is that when somebody calls you up, are you ready and willing to help them? Are you known in a firm that has 85 offices around the world to be the go-to person, in other words the expert on Topic X. That regardless of what you are doing, they will find you and say, Could you help us with this problem? So you have a reputation in a network. I have. Everybody that works for McKinsey and Company has. Now, this is probably one of the things that I can project out to more and more institutions around the world to come around to having, because it's inevitable. Because talent is going to be short, everybody specializes, you more than anybody else will have the specialized knowledge that everybody else needs. The second implication for everybody is episodic career. It's happening. It means that rather than looking at one employer for the rest of your life and live long enough to collect pension, the new generation is all about taking three or four episodes of very different careers. What's common between them are portable skills, a set of values that each and every one of us hold dear to our hearts, that defines who we are, that seek out institutions that have those values so that we may be able to thrive. So the question you've got to ask yourselves at any one stage of the game is, Why are you here? Why am I here? Why I am still with this institution? Well, one of the things that my youngsters always ask me, regardless of where I am, is why are you still with McKinsey and Company after 22 years, because the average tenure of our staff is 4.5? I say there's only one reason: Because I'm still learning, I'm still having fun. And because I'm learning and I'm having fun, I'm still relevant and have an impact on my clients. That's why I'm here. Time flies when you're having fun. But for the younger generation and people in this room, the thing that you have to consider for yourselves is, if you're not doing what you're doing now, is there another career out there that would be a greater calling for you? Not jobs but vocation. What would you rather be doing? What are you passionate about? The advice that I got the first day that I joined McKinsey and Company was, Son, you've got to be sure. Don't do anything that people ask you to do unless you're passionate about it. Well, I'm passionate about people and organizations and 22 years later I'm still at it. What are you passionate about? What do you care deeply about? Because the demographics certainly will be in your favour. The shortage will increase. Never mind whether there's a recession going on, that's a temporary effect. The key question is, if you were not in the role you're in, what would you rather do? The last implication, constant learning, is obvious. In management consulting the average life cycle of a concept, of an idea, is six months. So I'm not here to tell you about the fact that McKinsey and Company is rated one of the top ten learning institutions of the world. It is rated the top employer or choice four years in a row in Fortune magazine. I'm telling you like it is, as an employee, if I do not learn and renew myself every six months I'm going to be out of here. Irrelevant, obsolete, useless. And that's the world of consulting. So speed may be a little bit in your favour. But nevertheless it's an opportunity for you to say learning is going to keep you current, keep you relevant, keep you at the cutting edge, and keep you in pursuit of what you're passionate about. And that's what learning is about. Now, let me talk about leaders. Leaders. Now, McKinsey, being a professional firm, we don't have any authority over our clients. We can't tell our clients what to do, in my entire working life I've been trying to influence people, trying to cajole them, trying to persuade them, trying to sweet talk them into doing something they would rather not do. Otherwise why hire a consultant? So I understand leadership in the most brass tacks level. In the new economy there are a number of principles that are really important to share with you today and as you progress in your career with the government of Canada. The first one is influence, not control. I think we are used to the instruction manuals, we are used to rule books in terms of how you should be behave, what authority that you have, what authority that your boss has, and who has what and that's how you can survive in a large organization. Let me tell you something. Your multiplier will be very, very small if you do that. Some of the most successful businesspeople in Canada control massive assets overseas, not in a traditional sense of owning them, but influencing them. Because influence knows no boundary. In fact, I saw a paper on the state of fine arts in the United States and they rated Hollywood motion pictures as the single most influential foreign affairs weapon that the United States has at their disposal. Even the Afghans and Palestinians would agree wholeheartedly. Because before they do anything they check with CNN. So influence is really what this thing is all about. How do you have influence? You have influence, number one, because of what you know, your intellectual capital. Number two, because of your network. You've got to know people. Now, let me ask each and every one of you in this room right now. Think of five people, not in your home city of residence, that you can call up and get them to do something for you. Buy a present, go get football tickets, something. Think of five people you can call up. Now, if that's easy enough, think of another five outside of Canada that you can call up, barring the time zone differences, and get them to do something for you of like kind. Now, if you are having trouble naming the five names outside of Canada, it begins to tell you a little bit about your personal network. If we're talking about a global village, we're talking about zero or diminishing interaction costs, the cost of search, monitoring and so on, each and every one of us has to have a personal network inside and outside of Canada that's going to be able to let you multiply the value, the benefits, the value added that you can bring to this world. So you can see the benefit and importance of building a personal network. One of the things that the senior officers of governments in Southeast Asia that I interacted with, when I told them how proud I am as a Canadian and so on and asked them for their impressions about Canadians and so on, they say they're very nice people, lots of good stuff. The one thing that I would report back to you for your consideration is that they say whenever a Canadian official, government, private sector, anything, show up they're one of the nicest people. They're not bullies like Americans are or sneaky like some of the other ones. But Canadians never follow up. We come home to our comfortable Canadian living, our land is so broad and wide, that we forgot about those people out there. So right now if I ask you -- I'm sure you have them somewhere in a dusty Rolodex, those cards you collected -- but can you call five people up outside this country to get them to do something for you? If you can't, think about why. I'm sure you've met more than five of them but you haven't done anything about it. That's the problem. So influence, not control, is key. Number two, purpose and objectives, not just goals. We all know about goal-setting. You are a manager or executive or deputy minister; you wouldn't be here if you did not know about goal-setting and management by objectives and all that other good stuff. Let me tell you something. That's not good enough. If you really want to be influential, you have to have a purpose, for yourself and for people that you hope to attract to work for you and with you. Madame Bourgon this morning said something about we in the public sector must attract and retain our share or fair share at least, of the talent out there. Let me suggest to you that before we can all do that, the government can come out with nice budgets to advertise, glossy brochures to talk about the greatness of working to serve the public in government service, but it ain't going to happen until people in this room begin to define a purpose. Because I told you the question people say is why do I need to join you? By the way, I'm saying the same things to the IBM people. There are all sorts of choices, so why you? Can you answer that question? The promotional scheme, the methods for advancement, is all very boring. What's important is that they're looking at you. When they say, Why should I join you?, the "you" does not mean government or Canada or Department of Fisheries or Department of Correctional Services. They're looking at you. Our research says the number one factor why talent will come is because they're looking for that challenge that you represent. I'm trying to build a better "save the salmon" program. Now, that's a purpose. You didn't say my job is I am the public liaison officer of the Department of Fisheries in the province of Nova Scotia. Who cares when I have five other offers? But you might attract somebody when you say, "you know what? I'm trying to goddamn save those salmon out there!" That's a purpose. And people that are like-minded, they will come because of that purpose. I don't know how many salmon I will save tomorrow or a year from now, but it's a purpose. You know the difference. Number three. Contextually effective is the key for leaders. When I first graduated from college, the key word for finding jobs was what's your relevant experience? If you wanted to be a cook, have you cooked before? That's the kind of question. But contextually effective, it means that in our lifetimes, in our employer's point of view as well, they expect every one of us to be able to be effective in dramatically different contexts. That's the number one factor that distinguishes people that rises to the top versus not in places like General Electric, one of the most powerful, highest performing organizations, for about four or five decades by the way. You can be with the gas turbine division in Italy and the next thing you know you're going to be working at General Electric GE Capital in Hong Kong. Different industry, completely different geography. And what makes the difference is are you able to bring your network, your skills, your intellectual capital, to bear. To be able to translate the experience that you have in a dramatically different setting. Because the world is changing so fast, I already told you the churn is going on, institutions don't last, times and place and context all change rapidly. So what will distinguish leaders from the followers are those who are able to be contextually effective in dramatically different settings. Now, if you believe in that there are two things that are very important to your development. One, focus on impact. Not what activities you are doing right now or plan to do - hold a conference, have tea with so-and-so - those are all activities. Impact. Which is to ask yourselves the question: Whatever you're doing for the rest of the year, what difference am I going to make? What results can I show? Not to anybody else but to yourself. Because if you had set yourself a purpose - I'm going to try to do my part in saving the Atlantic salmon; that's a purpose -- the question is after three years did you have any impact? That's the important question. Because then you'll be able to bring the necessary resources, reach out and solve the necessary problems and bring the help and the specialists from anywhere that you know in your network to accomplish that objective. When I was managing Canada, McKinsey and Company routinely look at 10,000 resumes for every opening. And we have people from all walks of life we looked at. We have MDs, doctors, astro-physicists, we have biologists, everybody. We hire almost anybody. You know what we hire? We don't give a damn to what education they have. We ask them, What did you accomplish? What did you accomplish in your summer camp? What impact did you have in the roles that you occupied? So job experience, roles, rank, are irrelevant and increasingly so in the new economy. Contextual effectiveness is key. Number four. Mentoring, not coaching, is the last implication that I'll share with you today in terms of impact for leaders. Because it is the top three factors why top talent would want to join you, not your unit but you, you've got to be a mentor to them. Now, I look around at the people in this room and you're around the age where you could begin to mentor. Let me tell you something. Mentor is as bastardised a word as I know. It's mixed up with a whole lot of other things and generally means coaching. And I'll tell you, I wouldn't be standing in front of you as chairman of Asia-Pacific for the leading consulting firm in the world if I had not had three mentors in my growing years at McKinsey. I'll tell you a little bit of the difference between mentor and anything else in a minute, but let me just stay on the topic about why mentoring is key. Because people will not come to you unless you have a purpose that they can subscribe to, you have a network that can help them accomplish the tasks, and finally that they can grow disproportionately and learn while they are with you. They can only do that when you're mentoring them. Coaching usually means transactionally respond to a request for feedback. How did I do in the presentation? Well, you did okay. Here are things that you do well, here are things you could have considered differently. Now, that's a classic coaching. You make that specific, you make that immediate, you make that actionable. I'm sure I summarized in thirty seconds what you had taken a day to learn in your coaching feedback course, which I'm sure all of you have taken. Now, that is exactly right. But you don't build a bond between yourself and the mentee about what is it really like to be successful in the government of Canada, according to you. And what you can impart in the youngsters will shape their thinking much more than any brochures or any speeches by anyone. The main difference between mentoring and anything else lies in the fact that the mentor has the success of the mentee as the primary objective function. And many of the activities that you go through - Come work on a project with me, come write this article together with me - look exactly like anything else that is transactional. There are lots of exploitations going on out there and quid pro quos are fine, especially for the struggling youngsters trying to go somewhere up the chain. But mentoring does not begin until there is a secure enough mentor, where he or she is saying, You know what? I'm pretty well secure about who I am that I don't mind giving something back. Now that is the difference. Giving, not taking. There are lots of takers out there in this world, very few givers. The world will be a much better place if there are more givers. And around about 40 years old in age, something kind if magically happens. You kind of stop being a runner to get somewhere. You feel that you kind of have arrived, not necessarily in the trappings of wealth or trappings of rank or the square meters of your office space, but arrived at who you are. You can answer the question, Why am I here? And that's when you know that it's about time you start giving back to youngsters who are struggling to find out who they are, why they are here, why they are not somewhere else. This is how you know (inaudible)... define to be a mentoring does work for you. How many people would rate you as having had impact on their development in the last twelve months? If you don't know the answer right off the top of your head, you're in trouble. And I don't care whether it's in your department, little baseball league that you coach on Saturdays, doesn't matter. Remember, this is McKinsey and Company, I don't give a damn about your job, I give a damn about who you are and what you do. So how many people would you rate as would call you and say that you have had an impact on their development in the last twelve months? Of those, how many would rate your motivation as their success rather than yours? Now, there are two simple questions that come right out of our mentor survey invented here in McKinsey and Company Canada that we now use globally in 85 offices around the world. Powerful, simple questions. We ask every partner to write down their lists of names of individuals and rate their impact on their development, one to five, and we go around and ask every employee to do the same. And we will do a computer matching and we'll give the person feedback. So we end up having a score that you'll say, well, if the average is 36 points, 5 points times how many people (inaudible)... go on down the arithmetic summary. You get a shock, you get a wake-up call. I thought I was a damn good mentor until I got that feedback. Half the people I thought I was a mentor for wouldn't even rate me as having been a good coach. Try that, you ought to try that in your department. It's very simple but powerful. The last distinction about mentoring is opportunity creation. Have you created opportunities for someone else that you may not benefit from yourself? It's easy when this opportunity might see a promotion for me. We know that stuff, we know that game, and you know it. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about creating an opportunity because you have the mentee's success so much in mind that you want to shape specific opportunities that are just right for them at this junction of their career. It takes work, it takes a lot of energy, it takes a lot of giving. Because with that kind of opportunity creation you're not expecting anything back other than the satisfaction that your soul will have that someone is successful as a result of your efforts. Now, this may sound interesting from the point of view of speaking about the corporate world. Is there anything different here for the public sector? I'll leave that to you because I'm not from the public sector. But let me close by saying this: Whether you're in the public sector or in the private sector, it doesn't matter. What matters is: are you able to make a difference in the community that you live in, in the society that you are a part of? That's what makes me wake up every day. Consultants have been called names but I can look myself in the mirror and say I'm glad I'm awake this morning because what I'm about to do has a purpose that I can explain to my children. That I can stand here in front of fellow Canadians and say that even though I'm 7000 miles away that I continue to be a governor on the board of the University Hospital Foundation in Toronto raising money so their hospital systems can be maintained, that gives me purpose. That I have worked very hard to make sure that the enterprises that I am a part of in consulting will be a better place for its employees. One of the things that I'm very proud of is in my 22 years, other than the one traumatic experience in my second year, I no longer accept cost reduction work. It's easy to do, it's good money, but I don't do it because… not because I don't want to make money, lots of people out there could do this, but because I want to look myself in the mirror and say I want to be a leader. And by that I mean I want to be able to have influence over the course of enterprise development so they can be a better employer, more successful competitor and generate more economic activity and economic development for the country, which is Canada. Thank you very much. 싱가폴이 지금은 사는곳이시지만 가끔 카나다에오셔서 강의나 발표하시기도 하십니다. 얼마전 오타와에서 key-note speaker 로 오셨었죠.