Chairman of the Supervisory Board, Koninklijke Philips N.V. (Royal Philips)
Feike Sijbesma: van DSM tot Philips - Duurzaam Leiderschap in Actie - Iconische Doorzetters 04
In deze aflevering praten we met Feike Sijbesma over zijn leiderschapsreis, de transformatie van DSM en zijn visie op de toekomst van duurzaam ondernemen.
Belangrijkste Gesprekspunten en Takeaways:
De transformatie van DSM onder Feike's leiderschap.
Het belang van luisteren en verbinding in leiderschap.
De uitdagingen van duurzaamheid en bedrijfsvoering.
Memorabele Citaten van de Gast
"Je moet willen kunnen luisteren naar anderen en ook iets ingeven."
"Het is niet de sterkste of snelste die overleeft, maar degene die zich het beste aanpast."
"Je kan alleen maar een samenleving hebben als je...
Transcript (44 segments)
F
Feike Sijbesma0:00
Look, ultimately we completely transformed DSM. Perhaps the greatest success is that it became one of the most sustainable companies and an economic success when you look at revenue, profit, market cap. We suffer the most, we cost the least, and you don't care. When people who are not well-off have to pay a heavy bill for climate, they feel that as unfair, too expensive, and so on, and we need to do something about that. You can only have a society if you keep that society together. Why would you leave 50% of the world's talent, women, underutilized? That's just stupid. It's macro-economically stupid, it's micro-economically stupid in companies, it's just stupid. You must be willing to listen to others, also give input, and also grant something to others. If you don't do that, yes, you are very firm but achieve nothing. It is not the biggest, it is not the fastest, it is not the strongest, but it is fit for the world.
R
Richard Bros1:01
Welcome to Doorzetters. Here we talk with inspiring guests, true entrepreneurs, idealists, fanatics, and real perseverers. Amdax is the proud partner of Doorzetters. Just like Ruud and Richard, invest safely in crypto with the trusted custodian asset manager of the Netherlands. If you enjoy Doorzetters, if you watch on YouTube, if you listen on Spotify or Apple Music, subscribe to this program, press that subscribe button, follow us on all those beautiful media, and let's persevere together towards success. Thank you for your support, and now on to the show. Richard Bros: Good afternoon, Ruud. Hello, how are you? Good, had a good week? Yes, had a great week. And you can probably see from me, at least I think so, that my hair is cut, and I also didn't do anything silly, I'm wearing a blazer. I see it has everything to do with the guest we are about to welcome. Because our guest is Feike Sijbesma, a prominent Dutch businessman, known as former CEO of DSM. He has a background in medical molecular biology and business administration. Under his leadership, DSM transformed from a chemical company into a life sciences and materials sciences company. He is still honorary chairman of DSM, chairman of the Supervisory Board at Philips, commissioner at Unilever, and was involved in the restart of Lightyear. He is also a member of the Board of Trustees of the World Economic Forum, climate leader of the World Bank, and member of the external advisory board of the IMF. Now you've given the concise version, that's the limited version. Feike, welcome. What does an honorary chairman of DSM do?
F
Feike Sijbesma2:38
Nothing at all. No, being honorary chairman is more about doing? Actually, it's more of a recognition or something like that for the past. It has nothing to do with governance. I have no voting rights, I am not on the Supervisory Board, and upon request I help and give advice or opinions, but that is very rare, a sounding board. Yes, only when needed and only upon request, because you should never get in the way of your successors. But did they ask you, Feike, what do you think of the potential takeover or merger of Firmenich? They asked, I said what I think, but they certainly discussed it with me just before the decision was made, but they made the decision entirely themselves. And what do you think? DSM in recent years, under my leadership but then their leadership, has focused on the food industry, and now they have also made the step into flavorings to also make the nutritional ingredients they sell and can put into food taste good, because people not only want to eat healthy, they also want it to taste good. Yes, what is your greatest business success when you look back on your career? Oh, a difficult question. If you look at it very broadly, I think it is the transformation of DSM. I was chairman of the board and CEO for almost 13, 14 years, and the transformation. I think when I started compared to when I left, we had about 90% of the revenue I had at the beginning, 95% at some point we no longer had, so it was a very dramatic, in a positive sense, transformation of the company. That is the biggest. Within that, there are all kinds of steps: acquisition of part of Roche, other acquisitions in America, of high-quality fatty acids that played an important role, breakthroughs in innovations that are still very important for this. And perhaps, because I am no longer the youngest, the successes within the GSP framework, but those are all part of the larger whole. And perhaps the greatest success is that it became one of the most sustainable companies, winning all prizes in sustainability, and an economic success when you look at revenue, profit, market cap. That combination is perhaps the most important.
R
Richard Bros5:38
And where does your strength lie? Because we have talked about it before, we have spoken a few times, that you do so many things and are part of so many large processes. Not all lead, but you are part of them. I remember what you just said about that transformation: 95% of revenue, 90% was completely different revenue. I remember that Steve Ballmer was CEO of Microsoft and then Satya Nadella came, and Satya Nadella carried out the same transformation, with cloud and integration of other large platforms, actually competing with competitors, which was very dangerous, but he did it. So where does your strength lie? Is it high-level, determining where a vision lies and a certain strategy, and then all the large project groups adopt that, or do you also go into the details? What are you very good at? That's a long question, of course, but I didn't know how to ask it differently.
F
Feike Sijbesma6:41
The people who have worked with me will certainly not say that I am only high-level and never go into details. They will say that I often go into details, sometimes perhaps to the point of annoyance. But I think that when you set the strategy and direction, that is only one part, and often that is not rocket science. But then you also have to implement it, and perhaps it is even more important to implement a good strategy well than to have the most brilliant strategy that is not implemented, which is of very little value. So implementation is very important. But if you ask where my strength lies, or how should I say it, where I think my strength should lie, and perhaps I am too modest about myself, and how I view leadership: I think leaders must have insight. That's where leadership begins: insight. If you have leaders without insight, they can be as visionary or decisive as they want, but they are not good leaders. You need insight into yourself, your strengths, your weaknesses, insight into the people you work with, and insight into the world in which you operate. If you don't have insight, forget the leadership journey. And I think I have traveled a lot, read a lot, spoken with people who have helped me gain insight. The second thing you need to do is develop a vision. But vision, how do you come up with that vision or that image? It is not very high-flown: very sustainable, adding value to the world while making money. That's how complex all my visions were. But what is important in vision is not only to lay down the vision, but also to show that what you envision is possible, and to indicate the route to get there, and to have the right leadership to realize it. All that together I call vision: not just the vision itself, but showing that it can be done, showing how it can be done, developing the leadership for it, and then taking people along. Then you need to be inspiring, empathetic, connective. With these elements, you can go far, I think.
R
Richard Bros9:28
No, what is the biggest misconception people have about you?
F
Feike Sijbesma9:34
Oh, well, perhaps many misconceptions. I have experienced internally and externally that when people get to know me, they say, 'Gosh, you're actually quite nice.' I think that myself too, because, well, you are the big boss of a company, both internally and externally, and people attribute all kinds of elements to how you should be. And then they get to know you, and many people say you're actually quite nice. But can you also be ruthless, and do you need to be able to be ruthless as CEO of such a large company? Yes and no. I think, look, ultimately we completely transformed DSM. It was once the state mines, from coal to chemicals, and then to what it is now. And I think I have been ruthless in implementing the vision and making it a different company. That is different from being ruthless towards people or towards your history or whatever. I think I have been ruthless, if you find that word, and it's a very spoiled word actually, but I have been very clear about the direction of the company and we have implemented that. I think I have certainly not always been the opposite towards people; I give people many second, third, sometimes fourth chances. And I have sometimes found that difficult, but I have done it, with a lot of respect for the past of the company, where it came from. So on those soft aspects, I am not at all ruthless, but perhaps on the aspects of where we want to go, 'clear' is a better word. But sometimes you cannot avoid it. Let me not use the word ruthless, but heart.
R
Richard Bros12:00
You are chairman of the Supervisory Board of Philips, and Frans van Houten left half a year earlier than originally planned as a result of the entire apnea affair. Did you say to him, 'Frans, it's been enough, time to step down'? Yes, I don't think it's appropriate to talk about specific people in a podcast, in this case van Houten, and the conversations between him and me and the board committee. He did leave a bit earlier than planned. But in general, as chairman, you have to be able to give such a push, I think. And I don't call it ruthless, but for the person in question it is of course quite hard. No, yes, some decisions you make are not always pleasant for people. But I think about it three times, and I find it quite difficult when it comes to people, because I am a people person and I care about people. There are many elements that play a role: are you guilty of something, or do you have responsibility? Those are two other things. Is it that you didn't commit enough? That can also be internal in a company. I think, 'This could have used more commitment,' versus 'Do you lack certain skills and can I help you with that?' People at DSM who lacked certain skills, I was always willing to help them. If people don't really want to put in effort, then I think, yes, maybe it's better to end it. What I find really exciting and what I think suits you is that everyone was talking about Philips because of the claims and the apnea issue in America and everything that's going on. Yes, and then suddenly a new shareholder comes in, of serious stature, and I think that's quite clever. You're talking about that Italian family that recently bought 10%. Yes, but okay, the house is on fire, so to speak, every newspaper wrote about it, and there was a lot of talk. And at the same time, such a 10% shareholding doesn't happen in a week, so I assume it was discussed for a long time, and you had a parallel track: on one hand this is happening, and on the other hand you have a conversation about wanting to work with that party and then 10% and a serious family of name. That is quite clever, or at least, others can judge whether it's clever. What role did you play in that? Yes, of course, as chairman of the board committee, an important role together with the CEO. But it is mainly important because it shows a lot of confidence in a company that has taken a hit in recent years, also in trust. With such a large investment, because let's be honest, they are putting a lot of money in, it shows trust. Others also pick up on that. It gives Philips time to develop. It is an equity deal? No, it's an investment; they buy shares in Philips. They now have about 15% of the shares. That is a considerable investment for them, and thus they show confidence. They give Philips time to develop. And let's be honest, if you have had the affairs that Philips has had, with the claims and such, you are busy with that for a while before it is resolved. But the origin of the company, like DSM, is a technology company with innovations, and you don't do that from one quarter to the next. You need shareholders who want to be in it for the long term and have confidence, and who don't look at incidents. What I find remarkable is that you are chairman of the RVC of a company that is in such trouble, and that costs you an incredible amount of time, I know from experience. I can imagine you are willing to spend that time on the main issues, but when Frans van Houten says he won't give back his bonus of 1.7 million while he made a mess of things, then it's only about 1.7 million, which in the grand scheme of things is nothing, but the image of such a company and of Frans van Houten himself takes a hit, and you have to spend time on that. That seems frustrating to me. Yes, but I don't talk about individuals, and I don't talk about exactly what happened there. Everyone has the right to their own vision and their own things. I have my own visions, and then you resolve it and move on. But there are also unpleasant things involved in being chairman of the RVC, but also as CEO of DSM, and also in what I do with the climate cell. In all things, there are occasionally unpleasant matters. It's not always fun, but I'm not the type. My wife sometimes asks why I am still so busy after DSM. And now I have the standard line: 'Aren't you going to golf and slow down and whatever?' And I have solemnly promised her that the day I turn 85, I will start slowing down. That's still 21 years. And then I have more than 20 years to do all kinds of beautiful things. And I want that. I want to stay active, I want to be busy, I want to see if I can have an impact on things in the world. That gives me incredible joy. And I notice that the older I get, the more urgency I feel. But you also have a lot of energy. I remember, I was able to experience it up close, at 11:00 or 11:30 PM, if I then texted, for example, 'Shall we do it tomorrow morning?' 'Fine, now?' 'Yes, I think it was Sunday 11:30 or Saturday 11:30, that's fine.' So you have to be able to do that. But it's also fun to help companies. I advise companies, I invest in companies, I help the nation with climate and certainly climate and hunger, malnutrition in the world. Those two themes are close to my heart, and I want to commit to them. And as I said, I even feel urgency because I think I have another 20 years to have an impact, so it all has to be solved before I leave. Yet, you said just now that in your current roles, and you have many roles, and in your previous jobs, you also had to overcome many difficulties. What was the most difficult moment in your career?
F
Feike Sijbesma19:27
A difficult moment in my career was at DSM when we started the transformation of the company: selling things, developing things, buying new things, integrating things. That is always a difficult process because it doesn't work one-to-one, and things go wrong in the purchase or integration. So what happened was that we were doing well with the transformation, but the stock price was not rising quickly, because the public didn't understand it, partly because the shareholders didn't understand, but also because not everything worked at the beginning. You have to integrate companies, there are different cultures, people who probably need to leave but haven't yet. That's a whole process. That was really the most difficult moment. And then an activist came and took a position, thinking this could all go much faster as a shareholder. 'Yes, if you fix things up, change things, etc.' But I didn't want that because we were on a completely different track. 'Yes, but my track is much faster.' 'But not necessarily better.' That was a difficult phase. You are also in the media because of such an activist shareholder. There was a threat of a hostile takeover or something. I don't know, such an activist takes only 3% of the shares, so not buying the whole company, but it creates a lot of pressure. You never know what will happen: hostile takeovers or other things. I found that very difficult. We had just set a direction, just started execution, sold various companies. That was in 2013, 2014 I think. I had just started, and after a year or four we had already done a lot, but not yet reaped all the fruits. Ultimately, the stock price was four or five times higher when I left than when I started, very sustainable. So in the end everything worked out, but it was tense. What did you do with that man? Did you have a cup of coffee with him and say, 'Listen, this is how it is,' or did you handle it PR-wise? How did you fight that battle? That's a good question. Some others who have dealt with the same have done it PR-wise, going hard with PR and saying angry things. I think that's pointless. These activist shareholders are billionaires who fly in on their own planes, and they are not thrown off by Mr. Sijbesma from the Netherlands. I think that's pointless. You have to look at what they want. You must stay true to your own things and believe in your own things, and see what they want and see if you can make something of it so that they are also satisfied in the end. And in the end, they also want a higher stock price, and I want that too. So you negotiate. Is that one of your greatest talents? Yes, I have the national negotiation process. Maybe listen to that sometime. An important quality, and that is true. I have an example: I was in a very tough negotiation about an acquisition that we had been working on for months, and it was going nowhere. The boss of the other side with his second-in-command and many other people came over, and I with my team. We sat negotiating for two hours, both on opposite sides of the table. I thought, this is going nowhere. So I picked up my chair and went to the other side of the table with my chair, and I squeezed myself between the chairman and the second-in-command and said, 'What do you want? Move over, let me in between. What do you want here? Let me in on your side.' So I finally got a place on the other side, leaving a free place where I first sat. And I said, 'Now I have one question: What are you missing from the DSM team? Why is it unclear what we want?' So I was on the other side of the table. 'We want this, this, and this for these reasons. Is that clear now?' The chairman looked and thought, 'I couldn't have formulated it better, that's correct.' The DSM team was a bit confused about what I wanted. There was a lot of laughter. At some point I went back to the other side. He said, 'What did you come here for?' I said, 'I don't know. I negotiated for two hours on the other side and it led to nothing, so maybe I had more added value here.' And eventually we got the deal. What I will never forget is that the boss later said, 'Do you know what the most important thing was?' I said, 'Maybe the humor and breaking the ice to the other side.' He said, 'No, that was also good. You broke the ice, but when you summarized what we wanted, and until now we had always explained what we wanted and you countered with what you wanted, and now for the first time you said flawlessly what we wanted, and then I thought, he gets it, we will come to an agreement. He gets it.' And that is listening, and perhaps also giving recognition to the other side. So this is exactly what you want. And if the other side feels that is exactly what I want, then you can't everything, but you also have the calm and patience.
R
Richard Bros25:46
What is your zodiac sign? When were you born? March, March? But you have invented a new phenomenon. You are one of the few top business people who has introduced a completely new word into the Dutch language, namely 'super listening'. Listening is very important because by listening to what the other side wants and also giving recognition, not just listening but active listening and giving back, that you have listened, also giving the other the impression that you have listened, gives a good feeling to the other side. And does your wife also think that? I'm always curious: does your wife say to you, 'Feike, I think you always listen so wonderfully,' or are you different at home?
F
Feike Sijbesma26:35
Yes, she always says that I always listen very well. No, no, no. But let's be honest, I am also human. I don't always listen well. Sometimes I don't listen well, and sometimes I can be irritated, and sometimes I can be in high gear. So I am just as human as other people and make mistakes. However, when something is very serious, and also at home, if I have a very serious issue with the children or my wife, then I am very sharp on my listening, on which words I use, what feedback I give, etc., when it matters. And of course, at many other moments, I let myself go and I am far from the nicest in that. But when it really matters, I try that. And then I also try, exactly as you say, to take the time. I consciously take the time, a minute of calm, and I also try sometimes in speeches, when you really want to convey something, people say I can tell stories well, but what I also do is take time, lower my voice, or speed up and raise my voice, play with that to create more connection with the other side.
R
Richard Bros28:00
You are in a fairly unique position: on one hand, you are very busy making the world more sustainable, not only did you make DSM sustainable, but you are also working to make the world more sustainable. At the same time, you undoubtedly meet many top people from the business side that is still very dependent on or a producer of fossil fuels and such. If you look at the whole discussion between the climate activists of Extinction Rebellion on one side and the top of the fossil industry on the other, how can you bring them together with super listening?
F
Feike Sijbesma28:41
Yes, that is sometimes difficult. I have made many attempts. After the Paris Agreement, I founded the CEO Climate Leaders Alliance, now 125 companies that want to position themselves progressively on climate, learn from each other, take joint positions, etc. I brought them together, sometimes by pushing, sometimes by laying out my vision, sometimes by listening, a combination. I started with 40 companies in 2015-2016. And then at some point I said, 'Now we also need to be external, we need to be strong, tell what we are going to do.' I immediately lost 10 of the 40. So I had 30 left who didn't want to say anything externally. But I managed to get a mass, and then we had an external statement in the Financial Times. Many others immediately came back: 'Oh, if they have signed, then we also want to become members again.' So we grew to 100. Then I thought there were a lot of greenwashers who wanted to be members but didn't want to do anything. So we went back to 90. And now we have built up to 125. So it has been a bumpy road. But that's how I try to bring those companies together. But one thing: how do you bring them together with the climate activists? Because that gap must be bridged somehow. Yes, I try to explain to those companies that the climate activists naturally have a point. You can say I don't agree with all their actions and things they do, but that is an expression of their concern. You can have your opinion about that, but go back to the concern: the concern for the planet, the concern for communities in the world that otherwise cannot live here anymore. I think that is incredibly justified. Try to focus on that, and not on the 3000 lawsuits that are now being filed against companies on climate. I don't know if that is the route, but those are all expressions of enormous concern.
R
Richard Bros31:00
Are you positive about the future? Well, I think we have to be careful that we don't get enormous polarization, like many debates in the world. How do you get that genie back in the bottle? I really think about that. Which genie? The genie of polarization. And just how things are going in the world. By connecting and by listening. On one hand, we see the extreme concerns, and rightly so, and I understand that. On the other hand, we see that not all fossil fuel companies are moving forward at the same speed. So it is quite difficult. We also see, I am together with Ban Ki-moon chairman of the Global Center on Adaptation, so adapting to climate change. We had a very important conference a year ago in the Netherlands, with more than 10 African presidents, many ministers from the West, except the Netherlands? Mark Rutte was there, but for the rest, the West had all ministers delegated. I found that disappointing. Those African leaders flew 10 hours, people with a 1-hour flight distance, they thought this could have been better. And at some point, the head of the African Union said, 'It irritates me. Because we Africans, we suffer the most, we cost the least, and you don't care.' And then I know one of the Nordic ministers said to me and Ban Ki-moon, 'I don't think such a polarizing statement helps.' I said, 'Yes, I agree that it is an inconvenient statement, but I don't know if it is incorrect.' Inconvenient truth, right? And yes, Africans say, the president of Ethiopia said, 'Listen, I have 110 million inhabitants, 80% are farmers, and increasingly I cannot provide my own food. What do you want me to do? I need help. And if I don't get help, more and more of my people will come as boat refugees to Europe, and you can't handle that either.' Which is true. And we don't keep all borders closed everywhere, so we must bridge this gap.
F
Feike Sijbesma33:35
And what I find incredibly frustrating: suppose that the masses want it to be good, and then we have the election in America, and suppose Trump wins. Then you go back four years in time, or actually more years. And you often talk about hop-step-jump, but then you do go forward. So you go a bit this way and then three steps back, like chess. But we can't keep doing that on a global level. So suppose he comes back, which many people are talking about. Then all kinds of things will be scrapped and done, and then you have to wait another four years. Or am I seeing it too black and white? Well, the question is, if someone is elected, the same applies in the Netherlands and other countries. It is interesting to see what is happening in England now, and also in Sweden, where the government is making retreating moves on climate actions. Why? Because the opposition in England, Labour, says this will cost too much for the average English person, and that is not good. Then you get electoral tension, and then the conservative leader says...
We are going to do a bit less on climate. The underlying issue is that we have to do a lot to solve the climate problem, but if it is financed by large populations who are already not well off, especially today with inflation, they become angry and feel threatened. Populists like Trump then easily polarize.
H
Host35:39
In that context, you are a member of the supervisory board of the World Economic Forum. If there is one institution that has been polarized in the past three years, especially during the corona period, it is the WEF, with the most absurd stories circulating. How do you view that and what do you do about it?
F
Feike Sijbesma35:57
Well, it is a large supervisory board of about 30 people. As an individual, you cannot do everything. The WEF itself could also communicate better. But more importantly, populists are often blamed, but they can only function if there is an underlying feeling in the population. So it's more important to ask: what is that underlying feeling, and is it justified? I said earlier: if people who are not well off have to pay a heavy bill for climate, while the Netherlands is not the biggest emitter, they feel it is unfair. We need models that do not come at the expense of these people, and make climate action more inclusive. Globalization has lifted many out of poverty, but not all. For example, the coastal areas of the US profited from globalization, but the middle of the country lost industry. If you tell those people that America is better off, they will say 'not for me'. So we need to make globalization and climate action more inclusive.
H
Host36:54
What underlying feeling is there in the population, and is it justified?
F
Feike Sijbesma36:59
As I just said, if people who are not well off have to pay a heavy bill for climate, while the Netherlands is not the biggest emitter, they feel it is unfair. We need models that do not come at the expense of these people, and make climate action more inclusive.
H
Host38:20
I agree. When you describe it like that, I understand. But then how do you handle something like a fine for using a phone while driving? Do you know how much the fine is?
F
Feike Sijbesma38:46
I don't know, I think around 30 euros.
H
Host38:52
Yes, around 300 or 80? Actually, the fine is 380 euros. And I have a self-driving car, but that doesn't apply. Okay, I got one at home, it was 30 euros? You have to pay before October 4, otherwise it goes up. There are parliamentary questions saying fines have become too high. Many people cannot pay. So you get a fine for everything.
F
Feike Sijbesma39:37
It's complex. Someone said we have gone too far, fines are too high. Now you are asking me to have a vision on all fines in the Netherlands. No, but this is easy: you can say fines should go down. But it's all interwoven with globalization. I don't have a vision on all fines, but as an example, using a phone while driving can cause a fatal accident, so it's right that it is taken seriously. The broader issue is: how do we keep society affordable for nearly everyone? If a large part of the population feels they cannot make ends meet, then unrest arises. We must address that. There is also a psychological aspect: people can easily move forward but very difficult to move backward, and they become angry. That feeling is real and we must do something about it. If we ignore it, we create tension in society.
H
Host42:46
But that pain is widely felt now. I think many people are experiencing it, even those we wouldn't expect. Keeping up appearances has become the norm.
F
Feike Sijbesma42:59
Yes, so we need a more inclusive approach on climate, on the planet, and on society. You can only have a society if you keep it together.
H
Host43:16
Let's look at that inclusiveness. Women have had the right to vote since 1918, but there are still fewer women in boards. Do you believe in the glass ceiling? How do we solve that?
F
Feike Sijbesma43:32
I believe it is a fact that there are fewer women at the top. I think that is bad for three reasons. First, I don't like living in a male-dominated society; men have made a mess of things. Second, it's stupid from a macroeconomic and microeconomic perspective to ignore 50% of talent. Third, I have seen at DSM that when you create a mix, the company functions better, especially for innovation. You need to move from a 'celebration of confirmation' to a 'celebration of surprise'. A group of same-age, same-university men reading the same newspapers is a nice evening for confirmation, but you get nowhere. The celebration of surprise brings progress.
H
Host46:40
How do you manage that? If someone runs a company with a few hundred employees and the board is still all male, what can you actively do?
F
Feike Sijbesma46:58
You have to appoint women. At DSM, the board was 50% female. I was initially against quotas, but I came to think it's good to push ourselves over the hill with quotas and legislation. It helps. In 2018, you were voted the most influential executive. That still sticks. You can then push things through in your own company, and as a commissioner, I insist on 50% quotas. When I speak at conferences, I ask about gender balance. If there are no women, I say then there is no panel. They say: do you have to find a woman just because she is a woman? I say no, you have to find a woman who is also very good and fits.
H
Host48:54
Let me talk about another company that has received a lot of attention recently: Lightyear. You are an early investor, together with Richard Bros. You came in after it filed for suspension of payments. How is it going now?
F
Feike Sijbesma49:03
I am not closely involved now. I am glad we managed a restart. I believe in the mission: a car that doesn't need to charge from the grid but uses solar energy, charging 50 km per day even in the Dutch climate. Most people drive less than 50 km per day, so they never need to plug in. Whether it will succeed remains to be seen. Little money was raised in the restart. They need to think hard: stick to the original mission or shift to something more achievable with less capital. The original mission of building the car requires billions. But they can build a technology platform that others can build on, setting a movement in motion. That remains to be proven.
H
Host51:07
I want to say something about that. We were summoned to take our podcast offline after you made some comments. You said things that I found unpleasant, and I would say them again. We never take podcasts offline, that's not how we work. I thought you were one of the few fellow fighters. But you have everything to lose; I have nothing to lose. I understand you tread carefully. But then... You are not from Rotterdam, are you? Where were you born? Loosdrecht? But you have a bit of Rotterdam mentality.
F
Feike Sijbesma52:40
What I saw when things went wrong was that everyone hardened their positions. Management thought this, committees thought that, investors had different views. I told the large investors: you can stand firm and move zero millimeters, but then you'll have nothing. You're better off dealing, giving in, listening. If you don't, you may be firm but you achieve nothing. That's what I worked for.
H
Host53:45
How big do you think the chance is that Lightyear survives in some form?
F
Feike Sijbesma53:50
I can't say. But we must realize that about 90% of startups don't survive. Statistically, you're better off not investing in startups. Unless they go through a startup accelerator, where 76% survive the first four years. But I think it's too soon to say. Why do I engage in all this? I am a biologist at heart. I grew up with Darwin. He wrote 'The Origin of Species' and said: 'It is not the biggest, not the fastest, not the strongest that survive, but the most adaptable.' That applies to species, organizations, countries. The insight is: do you understand how the world around you changes and do you have the strength to adapt? That's a difficult balance. Sometimes you need steadfastness, sometimes flexibility. I was in London and heard someone say 'Despair is an insult to creativity'. That's a great saying. I hope the management of Lightyear is creative enough. At DSM we organized funerals for failed projects. One project was a coating for glass that eliminated reflection, so you couldn't see the glass. The only market was museums. It was a wonderful innovation, but no market. After spending 10-15 million, we decided to stop. At the funeral, someone said: 'I understand photons, and they go through this. What if you put this on solar panels? Would you get higher yield?' We hadn't thought of that. We tested it and got 15% more yield. That became a big business. So creativity is needed. When you see a problem, put it to a diverse group of people. That person was a man; it would have been better if it were a woman. But he said: 'Why didn't you do this?' Because we hadn't thought of it. That's stupid, but thanks.
H
Host58:57
I think that is a beautiful example.
F
Feike Sijbesma59:13
Yes, and that shows that creativity is needed. When you see a problem, put it to a diverse group.
H
Host59:50
Thank you for your wise words and anecdotes. We have a few fixed segments in this long podcast, so we'll quickly go through them. Richard, the Entrepreneur of the Week. We often talk about his biggest rival. For listeners: it's about the cage fight between Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg. Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp. He was quiet on AI until now, and now he's hitting back aggressively. Meta will integrate AI into WhatsApp, Messenger, and Instagram. Soon you can do what ChatGPT does. We got a preview of what's happening in Silicon Valley. We'll come back to that. Then the State of Tech: this week I want to talk about the collapse of NFT values. A dune analysis shows that 99.5% of NFT collections have a market cap of zero. 23 million people bought NFTs and they are worth nothing. These were pure hype. What do you think?
F
Feike Sijbesma1:01:51
I never owned NFTs. I found it fascinating that people paid so much. My question always was: is this a hype or a keeper? I never engaged because I found it curious. People talk about a physical world and a virtual world, but I think there is only one world. The virtual is an enabler and helper, but not a separate world. I am curious what will happen with Meta's metaverse. But there is only one world.
H
Host1:03:13
Tips of the week. Richard?
R
Richard Bros1:03:16
Yes, I went cycling on the border of Belgium and Netherlands this weekend. There are junction networks for cycling and walking. I didn't know you could do that for walking. The app Komoot is great for that. It's like Spotify, it records and suggests great routes. I recommend it.
F
Feike Sijbesma1:04:36
My tip: I was in London last week speaking at the Boardwave live event, with Phil Robinson, former CEO of Exact Software, who has Parkinson's. It's a great event for software people in Europe, with proceeds going to Parkinson's research. I recommend joining Boardwave, a kind of LinkedIn for the software world. There I heard two quotes: 'Despair is an insult to creativity' and 'Pain plus reflection is progress'. Those are wise words to end this episode.
H
Host1:07:35
Feike Sijbesma, thank you for coming to De Brouwers Schacht in Amsterdam. Richard Bros, always a pleasure. Thank you for watching and listening. Never give up, keep going, because giving up is not an option. See you next week.