Episode 88

Konstantina Kapetanidi on Cultivating Culture and Embracing AI in the Future of Work

TIM: We are live on the objective hiring show with Konstantina. Thank you so much for joining us. It's

KONSTANTINA: It's my pleasure. Thank you for having me, of

TIM: Our pleasure. And it would be great if you could start by just giving a brief introduction about yourself, what you're currently doing, just so the audience can learn a little bit about you.

KONSTANTINA: Of course. So I've been working for Shorter's for the past five years. I joined the client insights unit, as we call it; it's a team that has been supporting the client group, therefore marketing product sales and client service. And what we're doing is we're leveraging data when it comes to analytics, CRM, data science, and, of course, anything that's. Gen AI-related. And what we want to do is we want to empower all of our people to go out there and do their work as best as they can with data-driven solutions. And that's what they do. We have a team of around 60 professionals doing that. which is quite big. And yeah, that's what I do. And currently I've done quite a few jobs or positions within the team, initially heading the Business Intelligence team that my remit expanded within the Client Data and the Gen AI. And now I've also taken over the remit of the CRM. So I'm doing CRM, client data, and Gen AI. And I have very esteemed colleagues who are running the other teams.

TIM: It's fair to say you've got your hands full at the moment.

KONSTANTINA: A hundred percent, but I love a challenge. I'm very happy to be doing that.

TIM: And one challenge is hiring, of course, and finding the right people for the team because nobody can do it alone. So you have to find amazing talent to help you. When we chatted a month or so ago, you mentioned that you had overhauled your hiring process in the last couple of years. And I'd love to hear a bit more about that. Like, what prompted you to do that? What were the changes you made and, and what was the result of it all?

KONSTANTINA: So I think there are a few things that we did. Initially, and this is something that I definitely want to call out, we have a special team. And why I'm saying that is because we have a manager that sits on top of the man, the management team. So us, and he's a man, but Jeremy, it has a management team of four women. And that's something that you don't see very often in a data team. When we asked about that, he was like, I'm just hiring the best people that come in, that come through the door. Then at some point we sat down and we started looking at the pool of people that we've got and the pool of people that we're getting in when we started resourcing. And we sat down with our HR team. Don't forget that Schroeders is a big company, right? So we do have an HR team. And we started looking at like the job descriptions that are going out and we realized that There, even in our job descriptions, there is a bias in terms of words, in terms of terminology. So we did a couple of changes. The first thing that we did is we said, We want to ensure that there is no bias in our job descriptions. So we use, first of all, the help of AI; we eliminated anything that would kind of call for more male or female, or however people identify themselves these days, candidates to come in. And the second thing that we did is whenever we reached out to agencies, we said, We want you to bring us 50. So we want you to bring a female. And we don't want to actually be able to see, ideally as much as we can gender. We want to be, we want to see just what the CV looks like. And not only the gender, because sometimes we also have ethnicity bias and all of these things, which we don't do it consciously, right? We do it unconsciously. So the other thing, though, that we did, which is AI, and I think that's what you initially asked for, is we got a lot of it. We got a lot of CVs through the door. So what I call it, it's like AI; we're using it; it's like having a sous chef in our kitchen, handling our chopping, right? We still taste the dish; therefore, it says, Here's what we think. Here's what I think based on your criteria and based on your job description is the best. But then we go, and we make sure that with our HR department and everything we see. Now automation helps us sift through the large volume of CVs and applications efficiently. But of course, we ensure that we go through it through human judgment. Therefore, it doesn't mean that we don't go through it a hundred percent; we go through it. But then. We want to make sure that there is a second element on top of it, which says, Yes, it takes all of the boxes. it has helped us a lot.

TIM: Interesting. And so basically a couple of main themes here. One is using AI to make the whole process a lot easier. Let's call it AI plus human intelligence, some kind of combination. I wouldn't call it plus"; I would call it human, AI, human. And we are not putting human in the loop. There is a difference here. We're putting human at the helm. There is a difference, and I'm stressing that out because the human in the loop is as if you're taking out the human and you're just putting the human on the side. Which, I don't like that, because we humans, I feel, we feel a little bit left on the side, as if soon robots with cute eyes are going to come and take over. No, humans are going to be leading all of this, right? We're going to be at the helm, and then we're going to be saying, That's how I want this to be done. And now if there is a machine, a computer that can help me do it better, and I can do the things I like, I'd love that. So that's what I would like to stress out here. 'And the other element was around. Making it fairer, less biased. What I find interesting in this story is that the starting point was, if I understood correctly, that maybe there was bias in favor of women as opposed to against, which is what you might expect in analytics or engineering; normally, it's teams trying to reverse a very male-dominated team into something that's more balanced. Whereas it sounds like the motivation is almost the opposite, not to rebalance the team, but just to have a fairer process. Or if I misread that a little bit.

KONSTANTINA: I'll tell you that was not the case. It wasn't in favor or against, actually. What we realized is that in terms of the level of what we wanted to hire, we felt that at that level, it was just. the right fit for that position. When you go down to the level of data engineers, data scientists, and things like that, and this is a topic I think we've said we're going to delve into a little bit later in the podcast, there's still again that gap. We were not receiving enough CVs for some reason, right? So we were like, why don't we receive enough CVs? And we still do not. Although we have talked to agencies that have said, We want to receive CVs that are giving us like a 50-50 pool of male and female. Now, I would say that the job descriptions have changed, right? We are talking a lot about STEM; we're talking a lot about women in STEM. For us, having women in positions where they can talk about these topics. It is important. I think it's coincidental that we are a managerial team of four women that sit within the data space, but it is an interesting mix to be honest, and we are quite a strong team and strong advocates of what we want to do and what we want to achieve. and we work very well with our current manager, and we've actually grown the team from five people five years ago to 60 people, which is quite big globally.

TIM: That's a big increase. You mentioned in the job ad changing some of the wording, making it a little bit more kind of gender neutral. Let's call it that. Can you remember what were some of the phrases or words that were removed that were particularly male or female oriented?

KONSTANTINA: I can't remember exactly because we did this exercise like two or three years ago, but I can definitely remember it wasn't only regarding male or female, but it was also related to people that were neurodiverse; that is also another topic. And that does, that is an interesting topic as well because when you're talking about people being a team player or things like that. There are a lot of neurodiverse people that can be amazing data scientists, right? Or that can be, I don't know, they can be geniuses in their areas of expertise. But you know what? They are not; they cannot be a team player because they cannot work, and they cannot focus when they're surrounded by a lot of people. And they need a calm place where they can work solo, and then they need to talk to someone one-on-one and bounce on and off their ideas. And when they see this in a job ad, for example, they will not go, and they will not apply. So this is just one example where I'm talking about where we said, should we? Should we think about removing the element of being a team player? And how can we phrase it differently to attract? people, for example? So I'm just giving you an example of how we're thinking about these things and saying how we can include these people. So it's not about talking about gender or talking about how we can be more inclusive and remove the bias. Just that. Another interesting point. Yesterday, and if she hears this podcast, she will understand who I'm talking about. I had a drink with a friend of mine, and she was telling me, You're doing all of these podcasts and all of these things, and you're talking about gender. Have you ever wondered, is this actually a relevant topic these days? And I was like, what do you mean? What are you talking about? How do people identify themselves these days? Is there actually a gender? And I was shocked. was like, what? I was like, we are born. And it got me thinking. It really got me thinking, Tim, because I was thinking she might be right. Am I off when I'm talking about these things and I'm talking about gender? And then I was like, no, I am not off because I am really not talking about gender as gender. I'm talking overall about these topics, and I'm talking about how we can be more inclusive in whatever we do. Whether that is hiring, whether that is a pay gap, or whether that is thinking about our behavior within the space that we work and operate on. Can remove the tags, we can remove the labels, and we can say the way we operate and the way we go to work every day. Can we think that, you know what, we have another human, they're going through something, they are different than we are, right? How are they operating? How are they thinking? Do they need us to adjust? Can we just think about them for now? That is all I was, I think, talking about. So if you tell me now, can I give you an example? I can't remember the words. I can go back to it. I can come back to you, set your list so we can include it. But right now that's what I'm, I think I'm talking about. Let's be more inclusive in the things that we do. And shortest is a good place. It is a good place. It is promoting inclusion as much as it can. It is a corporate place, right? It is a big place, but we have a lot of things where we're talking about inclusion. We're taking action. We're making people more aware of these things. And that's one of the things that actually drives me personally and motivates me.

TIM: One. tricky element with this whole conversation, I think, is that there's a fine line between removing what is a legitimate criterion for that role and removing a bias. So in your examples, like, okay, rephrasing or rewording the team player requirement, because there's probably some introverts out there who are looking at that going, Oh my God, I have to do a daily standup scrum every day. I would rather not come to work at all than do that. Whereas if you reworded it, as you say, it would be slightly less intimidating to them to think, Oh cool, I can just have one-on-ones with my manager. I can, you know, chat one-on-one. I'm comfortable with that. I don't want to get up in front of a crowd every day to speak. So completely get that. What if, though? That is a core bit of the role; like, fundamentally, they're going to have to present at a board meeting every week, every month, or something like that. Like, is it then completely fair game to include that in the criteria to select for the people based on what they're actually going to need to do? And so is it almost a case of just making sure the job description is an accurate representation of the job? If you see what I mean. I'm right. And this is where sometimes we fail in the hiring process, that in order to get a candidate and to secure the best people, we tend to not be transparent. And this is where the candidate starts; they join a team, they're filled with expectations about what they're going to do and things like that, and all of a sudden, things fall apart. And that's where you see the friction, and that's where you see that people, they're not motivated, and they are not happy, and all of those things. And that's where we need to think about these things because maybe there is a better candidate who, if we were transparent, we would have found that talent, right?

KONSTANTINA: And they would say, yes, this is the job for me. It might have taken us longer, but this is where also we could have said, This is the job description, and I can say AI or any model could have told us, You know what? This person, based on your criteria and your authentic and transparent job description, is potentially the right match. And if we sat in front of them and said, you know what, you're going to need to do this stand-up. How are you feeling about it? Or if you don't need to do the stand-up, you're going to need. Once a week, sit with your manager for half an hour and bounce on and off your ideas because we need to know what you think because you are a talent, and although you're an introvert, you're going to need to discuss these things. So we need to know. I think this is something also on the introvert side. I am totally. Sympathetic, not sympathetic; I am an extrovert, right? But I've worked with introverts and extroverts and all of these different types of personalities. There are ways for people to communicate and we can all figure out the ways. We just all need to ask them, how would you like for us to talk to each other? Therefore, I think even in that we can be very transparent and ask, what is the best way for me to talk to you? To me, communication is key. And you need to ensure that you ask from day one, what is the best way for me? To talk to you. What is the best way for me to reach out to you and understand what you need? And slowly you build that trust so that the person can understand what it is that they need and what? What is it that you need from them?

TIM: I completely agree and think that. hiring traditionally is quite opaque on both sides because the candidates present some very polished version of themselves in an AI-generated CV and a glossy-looking LinkedIn profile, companies write a job description, and there's just such a level of lack of transparency, I guess, on both sides. Would it not be better to have radical transparency? Get in. Here's exactly everything you need to know about the job and the company. Here are all the good and bad things. Transcribed Here are all my strengths and weaknesses. Or I kind of imagined this in the dating world as well. Wouldn't it be better to just get in there for the first drink, just completely honest? I don't want to bullshit you for six months. Just, just get down to it. What are our problems? What are our strengths? What are our weaknesses? Get it all on the table. Because then you'll save everyone lots of time. What do you think about that approach?

KONSTANTINA: I would love that approach. No, I am so I'm the big one. I am one of the most transparent people. I love transparency. I think that not everyone is a fan of that, right? Also, there is an element of Do you know about this? The frog that goes into the boiling water?

TIM: Somewhat, but yeah, if you could continue the analogy.

KONSTANTINA: You know when you put this frog into the water? Like, you keep on boiling it hotter and hotter and hotter. So I don't want to make this sound like that, but you start going into something, and it might be hard initially, but then we're not going to throw someone into the deep end of things from the beginning. Every company has the goods and the bads. And there is a level of what can I tolerate and what not? So let's say that. can tolerate the chaos, but I cannot tolerate something that someone else tolerates, but they cannot tolerate the chaos, right? Therefore, I don't think, I think that the same way you will go on a date on your first date, looking glossy and all good. And then slowly, when you get into your relationship, your everyday life is going to reveal that you leave your socks here and there. And your mug, you're not going to put it in the dishwasher and things like that. I think it's very similar. And this is what happens when we get hired and when we go and start living the life, and it's also very similar to what's happening with our jobs, right? I also find it an interesting challenge, to be honest, because I go into my job, and every day it's something new, but every day I also feel that I have good days and bad days, and so is my life with my relationship and with my family. I have very good days, and I have very bad days, and I go to bed, and some days I feel that, yes, we've done something good. We've achieved something very nice. And I have days that I look forward to, and some other days I don't. So to be honest, knowing what to expect can be very boring to me, and I don't like boring things in life. And right now, Shrouders is, I must admit, a very exciting place. to work for. There's a lot going on, but it's still a very good place for it to work for. And I would say, yes, transparency is key, but let's work for it a bit more. Let's get things going. Let's get things. No, it should be a little bit groovy, and let's work for it. I like the challenge. I like the mystery. That's my personal opinion. Of course, if there needs to be an element of transparency, but of course, you need to discover things, and you need to go into a place and say this is not what I expected, but can I fix it? Can I try and work towards what I had imagined? If you can do that, and you can see that it can be fixed, I think you are in the right place. But there's something that's key, and that's culture. There's a good foundation of culture, then you are probably in the right place. So I think that is fundamental.

TIM: So you, you, you kind of embrace a bit of the uncertainty, a bit of the unknown. You don't need to know every detail before you accept a job. Like you're going in there with a bit of risk, and that almost sounds like part of the intrigue for you. It's a bit of a dance almost.

KONSTANTINA: It is, I would say, I would like 60 percent of certainty and 40 percent of uncertainty. I am not very good with uncertainty, but I also would be bored if I knew everything about everything. If you're reading a book, do you want to know what's happening in the end?

TIM: Well, you mustn't be one of those people that rewatches TV shows when they already know the ending.

KONSTANTINA: Unless I'm cooking and I'm super bored and I have to do something or I'm doing something, which I don't want to do, like cleaning or something like that. Therefore, I leave it playing in the background, and because I've heard it, I'm not watching it; it just plays on the

TIM: Right.

KONSTANTINA: No, so I'm not rewatching, definitely not.

TIM: No. Yeah, there's a comfort in the no, and it's almost like a comfort blanket, but yet you certainly couldn't say it's exciting.

KONSTANTINA: I think it depends again. We go back to the personality. We go back to the human, as we said before. To me, culture is this invisible hand that's guiding every decision for a company. And it's the difference between a workplace where people are thriving or where people are just surviving. And I think where you see that you have an opportunity to thrive, then you're in the right place.

TIM: So then, going down this train of thought, is it really important then, at least, that the culture is transparently communicated in hiring as honestly as possible? Because that is a key factor.

KONSTANTINA: A hundred percent. A hundred percent. I've heard, and I can't remember from whom, I think it was Peter Tucker? I'm not sure. But I've read somewhere that someone said culture eats strategy for breakfast. You'd rather communicate your culture than your strategy. It's much more important, especially when it comes to hiring. And right now, what I've actually seen, when we go into the hiring process and things like that, is that people mainly talk to us about culture. They don't ask us about, so what's your strategy? What are your plans for 2025? What's going on in that space? And things like that. People talk to us and ask us, so what is your culture? How are people? What do people think about Schroders? What is their intention? Are people staying? Are people leaving? Do people like it? Are people collaborating with each other? That's what people care about, right? They talk to us about what are the maternity plans. Are there paternity plans and things like that? They don't ask us things like, What does the investment world look like? and things like that. No. They talk to us about the culture because I think that people are more woke about these topics. They talk about diversity and inclusion. They talk about these things. To me, this is very important. And you know why? Because I think it's the younger generation that we're hiring, and I love this generation. I am so proud of this; they're a much better generation than mine, like I'm 38. I don't know. I maybe, I don't know how old you are. I'm 38. I think

TIM: Same age.

KONSTANTINA: of the 25s, and they're such a good generation that they'll take over the world, and I think they'll turn it into a much better place.

TIM: Why do you say that?

KONSTANTINA: They're asking the right questions. They're thinking about the right things, and they're doing good. They, if you, they are bright, they are smart, they are motivated, you see them, I see them coming into the office, and they also know about all of these things. They come to me and they're like, KK, they call me KK in the office because my first and last names start with a K and they're too long. So I've told them all, call me KK. So they're like, KK, have you heard about this? Have you heard about our blog? Do you know about all of these things? I go to them with challenges, and they present me with such quick solutions. They're so bright. They're amazing. I'm so keen to support them in any way I can; if I can, I'm so proud of this generation. I think they're going to all, honestly, me, they are the solution to everything. They're going to take over the world. Hopefully soon.

TIM: Is part of the fact that they kind of appear so smart and wise and efficient is that they are early adopters in AI, and they are almost like the early cyborgs, where they are not just human. They're almost part machine as well. Now, they've almost got Chachapiti on the hotline. Is that, is that part of it? Do you think?

KONSTANTINA: You know what? I think that they're adopting all of the new technologies. It's not about AI specifically. They're adopting everything, but they are, because they were born in technology. They were born, and they were born with a smartphone in their hands. Let's be honest about that. They're adopting it with a critical mindset. They are so familiar with all of these things; they already know what is right, what is wrong, what is there to use, what is fraudulent, and what is not. They will tell you right from wrong. And potentially, I think that is what kind of makes them. superhumans, is no chance that these, I call them our super creatures, will ever be, let's say, tricked. They will be sent a link where my mom is going to click on that, and someone's going to take money from her bank account, for example, right? Because they already know. It's also obvious to me and to you; they would laugh at something like that. These are the things, or, but they would even know other things; they would already, I think, know what the false news is; they can already distinguish; they have this critical mindset. These are already the examples of humans at the helm. They understand, because they already have this critical mindset of saying, This is right and this is wrong, because they read the news; they already know what's happening in the world. Because they've been bombarded from so early on with the worldwide knowledge, right? They, if you ask them what's happening in the U.S., what's happening in Gaza, what's happening, they know. Therefore, they can tell you. It's not like the same way we used to be. I know what's happening in the U.K. I know what's happening in the U.S. Or wherever I am. They are all over. So to me, that is their superpower, if you ask me. It's not about AI. It's about them adopting from the beginning all of this, knowing what's happening in the world, being woke about all of these topics, and therefore being able to critically assess what is happening and being able to set right from wrong.

TIM: And you mentioned part of that being that, yeah, so learning new things, or not just AI, but learning what's happening, not necessarily talking about that generation, but just in general, when you're looking at candidates in this time of such rapid technological change, is then that adaptability, that willingness and ability to learn, something you are explicitly looking for in hiring candidates? And if so, do you have any way to evaluate that?

KONSTANTINA: Big topic. Willingness and adaptability. That is a very big topic that we can keep on discussing for a very long time. I will talk to you specifically about Schroeders, and then we can talk broader. There is, there needs to be, first of all, a balance between soft skills and, of course, the hard skills in not only the hiring criteria but also in the criteria as you grow into your career, any career. When we hire for a role, let's start from the hiring initially. We, of course, are hiring for a specific role that needs to have some hard and specific skills. But then we're also hiring for a person. Therefore, we're looking for specific soft skills. Because it's, we are assembling, if you think about it, an orchestra, right? The hard skills are like the instruments of this orchestra, and then the soft skills are, I'm thinking of it, like the conductor. Therefore, this is something that creates the harmony. Now, when we are thinking of how people grow into their careers, we sit down with them, and we have what we're calling progression plans. And that's how we look at how they want to grow. Now, people could go, they could grow upwards, or they could grow sideways. Therefore, they can expand their remit. Either they grow into managerial positions and things like that. Or they can say, you know what, I want to expand. I want to learn more tools. I want to do different things. So depending on that, that's how they grow. The majority of the people, especially those. Our super creatures and the younger ones are the ones who tend to always say yes, and they are always willing to learn new things and things like that. I actually think also Not only those but everyone I have never seen a person who said no to training. I've never seen a person who said no to actually, Would you like to be trained on this? and then I've never seen a person who said no. I've seen people who said, I would prefer to do it. In the way I know, because it's quicker, but when you are offering them the option of being trained into a new tool or learning something new, I've never heard someone say, No, I wouldn't like to. And the reason is because they understand that as soon as they put this on their CV as an extra skill, it's a bonus. Whether they like it or not, whether they plan to stay at the same company forever or not, they know that this is going to be an extra thing on their CV. I don't know if that helped, if that answered your question, but this is how I'm thinking of treating, of treating like the way people want to progress. Does that make sense?

TIM: It does. And what about in the hiring process itself? So you know, you've got a bunch of candidates at the interview stage. Is there any kind of question you'd ask them to probe how willing they are to learn, how able they are to learn things? Yeah. Any thoughts there?

KONSTANTINA: Yes. I think there are some specific use cases that can show you the resourcefulness of a candidate. And I think from the resourcefulness aspect, you can understand how easily people are willing to adjust and are willing to learn new things or think of new ways. Based on that, you can understand how quickly their mindset can change from one thing to the other. Of course, this is not set in stone. We might be wrong. But also you can look at their CV, depending on the different things that they, Say, write, and of course, again, this is like the first date; the fact that you write on your CV doesn't mean that you don't leave your socks. laying around on the floor. But based on that, you can understand that if people say that they've learned a lot of, let's say, coding languages, or they've taken a lot of certifications, this is also a sign that they're willing to learn new things. Another thing is, and for me, for example, I'm one of those people that I love. Learning, like I love taking on new things, for example, an executive degree. I've done one of an AI and stuff like that. This is something that some people that they like or some others they don't. This continuous development of people, you can also see that on their CV. And this is something that if they say they have it, you can actually ask them. You can ask them questions to understand, and what did you learn from this? And what was the most interesting thing you did? You can probe them with questions and tell them, So how would you apply your learnings on this use case that we're talking about right now? And understand if they actually took something out of it or not. Therefore, understand the reality of things or not and the transparency that they're offering or not. There are ways to do it. I think it's not hard.

TIM: What about the element of almost stubbornness? I feel like if technology is changing so quickly as it is now, there might be, let's say, for example, software engineers who've been doing it kind of their way for the past 10, 15 years, used to writing code from scratch, along comes this machine that can do it for you, maybe with 100 percent accuracy in the next year, potentially, and if coding is almost part of their identity, I am a coder, and now suddenly they're not a coder. They're a prompter. Is there anything to be said for probing for that lack of ability to change? Even if they've done all these kinds of courses and seem to generally want to learn stuff, at the end of the day, they're still going to have to change their behavior and change their mindset to be able to keep up with. New technologies, which might have just profound changes on how things are done, not, not like an iterative improvement. Yeah. Have you ever thought about the kind of stubbornness element?

KONSTANTINA: Do you mean in terms of mindset? Is that what you're implying?

TIM: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Among the candidates who, although they like to learn things, I feel like there's almost a difference between being. I'm more academically interested in learning things as opposed to saying I'm going to completely change my behavior. I used to sit down and write code directly. Now I'm going to use LLM, and my whole identity as a coder is now gone. Like people are going to have to, I think, just have quite radical mindset shifts. And I'm wondering if, yeah, that's part of what you would look for in candidates.

KONSTANTINA: I think you have a very valid point there, right? But it is very important because right now, and I think that the people that we need to hire for are the, we're not, let's say, we shouldn't be hiring right now for. Developers or analysts or something like that. I think we should be in, I guess this word doesn't exist. We should start hiring for, I don't think it exists, right? For embracers. I don't know. I guess this one doesn't exist, right?

TIM: You've coined it. There you go. Congratulations.

KONSTANTINA: So maybe I should get, like, the copyrights or something. And what do I mean by that? We are going to need to embrace that the reality of the day-to-day of our jobs, some of the jobs that exist, is going to change, and it's going to look totally different, and I think in a lot of ways it's much better. Let's be honest, because a lot of the developers that I talked to. Getting lost in code where they couldn't find why this is not working, blah, blah, blah, and all of these things. I think it's a relief when they can write applications and things like that in minutes or with no code. And where AI goes there and corrects it and says, you know what, here is your bug. That's why it's not working. And then they see the end result where they have an application and it's working. And they're like, Oh, and now I can test it. And now I can make this happen. And they're like, Look here, we can test it. We can see how it works. And they have an end-to-end product in a couple of days where they can give it to their users. And actually something that's cool and it's working. They get recognized. If these people embrace the way that their jobs are changing and they have to look at it from a different point of view, then they need to think, So which elements of my previous job can I apply to this new role that I can take on, and what can I bring now to the table? These are the people that we're looking for. But these, again, come down to the character. This comes down to the personality. Warren Buffett said, You can teach people accounting, but you cannot teach them character, right? And this is important. I'm quoting too many people. I read a lot. I like it. I'm not in the 5 a.m. club. I've got a five-year-old daughter also. Laughs So, that's it. It's all about the character. It's all about, so these are the embracers. We need to embrace the change. I think it's a great revolution, right? And yeah, if people can free my time and I don't need to go through 10,000s of papers and things like that, and it can show me what I am doing wrong? How can I change things? How can I do this? And I have free time to do other things. If they can go out and talk to their stakeholders and say, Do you like this application? What can I do better? What can they, what? What can it help you deliver? Do you want us to change this? Do you want to do that? What are the other features you want to see? How quickly can we test it together? Isn't that amazing? They spend more time with their users if they get more visibility for their work.

TIM: I agree; if I were them, I would think that's amazing because my productivity is now going to be five times. What it was, if I measure my productivity correctly, which is product produced. impact on users. So how quickly do we ship the software? My feeling is, though, for a lot of, let's just say, software engineers, they probably wouldn't; they would need to completely shift their mindset to think the way you're thinking. I think, and actually led me on to another question I want to ask you: for some of these technical roles, is it the case then that they're going to become like the hard skill component is going to be slightly reduced? It's relative to the soft skill component. Like you've just mentioned an example, they're speaking more to stakeholders, doing more research, and getting out there is almost a shift in those percentages. Do you think that's coming?

KONSTANTINA: I, you said slightly, will say, you might correct me, but this is my opinion; I will say massively reduced. And you can correct me. I might be wrong. A lot of people might say, What is this? This lady talking about, I think it will be massively reduced is my personal opinion. A lot of people I was reading or not reading, listening to a podcast, or I think I was watching a video of—I don't remember who it was. I think the CEO of Microsoft is talking about, in 2026 or something, robots are going to come over and things like that. So imagine not robots; I'm not talking about taking over the world here. But I'm just saying. Things are coming, and they're coming quickly. So when we're talking about slightly reducing people writing code, I think it's going to come; no, it's coming. It's here. Is it a bad thing? Why? Why is it a bad thing? I don't think it's a bad thing; there is also another element here for the people who are leading the teams of software engineers. And developers and things like that. So for the leaders of those teams, it is our job. It's the job of their managers to actually sit down with them, to turn them into embracers, to show them that, you know, what is your role in this new era? How can we actually switch your mindset? How can we turn your role into something that is still as essential as it was before and make you super productive and super useful? Because their roles still exist, potentially in a different way, somewhat different. They are very essential, very crucial, there, but in a different way. And our roles as leaders and managers take these people through this journey and show them the way to become Embracers. I will definitely get the copyright for this one.

TIM: I'm adding the Wikipedia entry as we speak. And you're attributed. I love that embrace. It's awesome. Yeah, we all need to be embraced. One thing I was thinking about recently was, so I read the book Atomic Habits a couple of times in the last couple of years, which is a great one. And yeah, thinking about changing my own habits, which I think is tied into the same adaptability mindset shift. So I've been deliberately trying to do a lot of hard things that I'm very bad at. So I bought a guitar; I'm trying to learn how to play guitar, which, if you've never played an instrument, is very hard. I started tennis, so I'm trying to just deliberately do lots of things that I'm crap at. To embrace the suck, get used to that feeling of discomfort of going, I have no idea what I'm doing. And I feel like that's what we all need to have. With technology just changing so quickly, it's not going to wait around for us to catch up. That's for sure.

KONSTANTINA: that is definitely the, the true, and we should not be, the we shouldn't be here the gatekeepers, right? We're not here to be the the gatekeepers. I feel as I said, i'm 38 years old, I have a 5 year old girl, right? I'm here thinking, can I be the gardener? So can I be for at least my daughter and like for her little friends and if I can be also the gardener for the 20, 22 year olds, 18 year olds are coming to show like the gardener of all of this like young generations, the superhumans are coming and can I be the gardener for all of this younger generation to come and grow and take over and make this a better place? That's what I'm thinking of, right? And if I can still, I still have a lot of way to go. I'm not planning on, I can't, and I'm not planning on retiring anytime soon, but if even for myself, I can make things better and I can be a better leader, better manager. How can I change my ways of thinking? How can I keep on removing bias from my day to day? How can I keep on improving? Can AI augment and help me gain back lost time? Time that I spend, reviewing, and I can spend more with my people. Time that I can spend more with my stakeholders. Time that I can spend talking to external people. Can I do that? I think, and that's why I'm saying human at the helm, because I can leave it to technology to do all of the things that I don't want to do. Then for me, I can spend time communicating with people, which is something that I love.

TIM: And I imagine part of the reason you love doing that is, as you mentioned, you're an extrovert. So you get a bit of energy by speaking to people. What about for the introverts? Those who are like, Oh my God, I used to be able to sit in front of my computer for 90 percent of my job. Now, Konstantin is telling me that 90 percent of my job is going to be speaking to people. What am I going to do now? What? No.

KONSTANTINA: You know what, I think it's very good because soon enough, and potentially this is something that companies need to think about, all of these avatars and things like that. I mean, we don't have it yet. We don't. We use it with avatars, like to create trainings and all of these things, but I think sooner or later. People's avatars are going to come into the companies, right? And potentially this is going to be a way for an introvert to show up, to show their face, to create a video, and it's going to be very realistic. Now, if you tell me, I understand it's hard, and I think the same way you're talking about atomic habits, playing the guitar, playing tennis, and things like that, we all need to make an effort. To get out of our comfort zone. I hate going to the gym. I go to the gym. I really hate it. It's not my thing. What can I do? I'm 38. I'm starting to feel the pain. So I'm going to the gym anyway. So I think we all need to make an extra effort to get out of our comfort zone. Who am I to mandate what others are going to do? But AI is there. I think, in different shapes and forms, people, so there are ways, and I think for introverts, extroverts, and all types of personalities, I think there are the avatars. There are also ways to communicate. Therefore, I wouldn't say that avatars are the best, but there is this. thing where you can say, I can create a very good presentation, for example, which can be very compelling through a video. It doesn't have to be your face, but it could also be your face if your company allows it, right? It can be you, and you can do it, readers and things like that, and you don't have to show up if you want to. Potentially in the future, you can even do your own hologram. It exists, not in Schroeders. It already exists where your hologram can appear, right? You can be there without being there, but I will say I am not well aware of the different ways that an introvert can show up in the room without being in the room, but I think that's also going to be there. It really is something that, depending on who you are, I think is going to show benefits for all of us. But we need to be an embracer. Definitely copyrights. I have to remember that. I'll put it on my to-do list. I'll ask AI to do it for me. TIM: Be an embrace. So that's definitely the message of the podcast. Maybe also a good time to reveal that you have been speaking to AI Timbot. And I'm glad that I could leverage that amazing technology to automate myself a thousand times over. Not quite, maybe one day, but Konstantina, it's been a great conversation today, really wide-ranging. We've covered off a lot of different ground, and you've given us a lot of different perspectives to think about. So thank you so much for sharing all your insights with our audience today.

KONSTANTINA: I thank you. It's been a pleasure. I look forward to listening back to it, and hopefully it was good.