over time you don't improve, you don't meet your standards.

And that's when you

don't need to be... The whole organization must become better. In fact, on
yesterday, you can lose money in the first place, but at some point you need to be
profitable. That means your revenue per person must increase. So you must become
more practical. And while it was enough, maybe you know to sell ten pairs of two a
day per month. 20 years later, it should be 20. Yes, yes, yes. Per person. And so
while someone that five years ago sold ten was average and okay, they don't pick up
and don't use the better technology that we provide, the better lead filtering that
we need, the better prices that we now have available, and progress that into
higher sales rate, then we need to talk. Performance improvement plan. Very, very
complete training. Many trainers that are very, very sensitive need to take care of
an individual and really try to find them in the improvement areas. This goes on
for months. But if the months of almost one-on-one coaching takes no improvement,
then you have to say sorry. We are a performance organization. We have no
tolerance, we have no room for a lot of times. And then you need to find ways how
to separate. And I'm going to split ways. And the reality shows that there are many
misconceptions around that topic that especially Germany cannot separate from the
Chinese, cannot even identify. And that is actually not true. And also there is a
prejudice that this is perceived as very brutal and harsh in the organization. Very
few exceptions. Performance oriented teams appreciate that the role performance is
different. Because their team performance is dragged down by the wrong performance.
I'm not sure who will do that in teams' thoughts. So the classical knowledge. And
the way that we've done it. Maybe you know what I mean. If someone in the team is
not performing, and you have to play with that person again, you lose the game
because the wrong performance of that person, you're not happy about that. And then
you hope for your coach to take decisions, to change the teams that are performing
the next match. And then the person who is not performing, since maybe on the
bench, gets some intensive training and things go better, they might need a team or
something. Good teams want to play, but they don't expect no performance. Here's
the team. And that's the true business environment. There is no free riding. We
cannot lay back and have the team members do the work. No problem over the long
term. And also some experience in group work. In studies. And when someone who
stacks around doesn't make it happen. If the semester is almost over, I will care.
Well, here the professional partners work together over the years. And then we go
over it. So these teams are actually open to that. The second point I have to add,
people believe that it's completely impossible. Absolutely not. There are some
restrictions, some terms, some boundary conditions that we don't expect. There are
a lot of formal ways how this is going to separate from the actual game. And that's
not a problem. Yes, in very rare exceptions, such cases go to court. And we have,
in all these cases, then one by escort, known the numbers. We communicate with the
lawyer maybe five times a year. And we have to court maybe once a year. But we have
a large organisation with a large number of leaders as well. So it is a rare
exception. That is, those in terms of really, really important. In all the other
cases, we're respecting the new boundaries and its role in the problem. And let me,
just one more point of the error. The question is, even the individuals that are
attacking are in many cases, really, like with Sota, they realise that they are
dragging down the new problems. They are not feeling happy with the result. It's
not that something you try to take to a local problem, which is a proposal that
goes on over months. So it doesn't come as a surprise. It's a phase of facts. But
people are more likely to lose. And then they are open. And then they are, in many
cases, actually in the beginning. This stress, this pressure goes away. And then
maybe that happens. But better use another set up that is different. It doesn't
work with us, but it doesn't continue. It doesn't work somewhere else. I have two
questions. The number of cases, the 2% that went before it, the number of cases,
the 2% that you did lose. And secondly, I think it's dependent on the position
where you are trying to let off people. For example, in sales, which is very number
driven, and you have a conversion rate, you can argue better why the employee is
not the right performer. But in other departments like programming or marketing,
it's a little bit harder. So how do you approach these departments where it's hard
to get to the number of cases? I mean, what happens in these goals in more cases,
typically it's the question of discussion about how much of a separate value do
people get. How much do you know from your view of it? And then you add more from
9,000 euros to 12,000 euros in cases. How do you act in, so it's not that you stay
in the organization. And they don't want to leave the organization either. It's
back and forth and commercial trips. How do you deal with teams where performance
is not easily measurable, like in sales, but it's euros? I mean, you should be
aware of performance of anybody in an organization, even in areas where it's more
qualitative nature of what people are doing. And then you have to look at other
topics. We have this pretty broad growth feedback system where we look at different
perspectives. The criteria are different by teams. Sales teams have different
criteria than other teams. So of course we need to get more granular there than
other actions. And the polite question of who can see your people, I mean, you
would expect performance from them as well as leaders. Of course that maybe has a
little bit more of a connection. We have a, because we don't have a big talk
officially, one senior guy, our team, who he was. And he announced it, and he told
us. Oh, that's... He was on the list. Yeah, and how do we get there? One way is
that it sounds much more urban than part of it. He's a new sensor. If you don't
talk to people, they sense that they are not valid enough to get much energy. I
don't think, yeah, so I don't pretend to say, not if I'm feeling a certain
uncertainty about the performance of an organization. That would be a great sense
of... And they all have great opportunities. The world is full of opportunities.
Yeah, it's a great company. Thousands of other great companies out there. So why be
unhappy on both ends if there are other opportunities? And so in that case, what is
that? Oh, great for you. Congrats. A mutually beneficial solution. How many people
do you see have an idea of the night on average? Very few, about 14-10% of the
year. We take out the 14-10%. And then we have the additional... How expensive is
it with five people? Very sequentially. How expensive is it not by a month of
August? This is much more possible. And if I look back, in the last few months,
what is the state state of America? I would answer, taking out Trump's office, this
cost was beautiful. I talked yesterday with the people from media in these tech
talks. This legacy that we have on our tech stack was because we had one city, CTO
years ago, that very early on we felt it was the right one. We did have another
one. Hiring CTOs is super difficult. So we kept them. Big mistake. So 12% sounds a
lot, actually. Don't know how the average is. What was a good way to avoid hiring a
good mom for us? I mean, look at companies like... Average tenure there is maybe
three years, four years. So they have a churn rate of 33%. So it's a third of what
McKinsey has. Why does McKinsey kick out or lose a third of the people? Because
they do have bad review process. I wouldn't say so. They have a good review
process. But people develop in different ways. What do you expect them to develop?
Yes, you do make a mistake in the hiring process. But also you do the dynamics. How
do you get it? You're growing 20, 30, 40% a year. It's a decent performance. 20,
30, 40% a year. It's not easy to pick up the benefits. And it's nothing personal.
You don't do that. People are talking about their growing time. Maybe that's a
matter of fact. This is crazy. What we do is we face the speed, intensity is super
high. I wouldn't say mistake in hiring. Companies develop at very, very fast. And
not everybody in the sector does that. I don't think you can have any work in that
case. It's just a topic you need to grow performance. You need to benefit and not
take out your performance. Because it's real. Because then you have to make a
wrong. Please follow it. It's a whole performance. You need to hire somebody in
fact as well. And payout was a very good example of those. You put good people
together. You have many great good outcomes. Next. And it goes very much together
with these great people. Because something that great people are very capable of is
tolerating risk and ending it. They don't need clarity. Because if you're in a
highly scaling environment, one thing for sure is never there. Clarity. It's more
frozen. It's more than meaningless. It's all constantly under risk. Back to the
Bihar and our tel-algo. I don't know what could happen. It's a nuclear bomb. So
that we are still on it. And when you're in direct organization, you will try to
ignite it. And you will try to prevent it. But maybe you will be successful. Let's
see. Now, fundamental risks. Small risks. Let me get that first here. Where is the
cure for it? There. This is the airport of Bangkok. We did a small market test in
Taiwan. Also did a legal analysis in the war. Which we typically don't do. To make
sure that we are not in a very good position. Because I thought
Thailand is a regulated country. Very protective. Do you need a license to sell
earrings in Thailand? No? Just some earrings. Why? Because we thought. Is that
enough? Haha. We need a import license to get the earrings in the country. So what
did one of our guys do? And it's the last great book. He just put a suit, a trolley
full of earrings. And through to Bangkok. And then they, the customers, put the
suitcase full of earrings. No bribes. No cash. What do we do? Please take a seat
here. And then they walk away. And then they come back for breakfast. And then they
come back for dinner. And they go up. Or back to the jungle again. And put another
exit. That is risk taking. That is the best. Now, at this level of ambiguity, in
some form, or another example, that you need to be able to tolerate situations like
this. So, it's all about the detail of the business. But, talking about Singapore,
the biggest risk for a company is not to take business. No other has to take
business. There are a lot of people who are missing out on this. They want to
protect their own food. Their margin counts. Now, their piece of the cake. They
don't need it. They need to buy bigger. They are fighting. So, R. Look it up. We
are in a good market. We regulate the environment. We are keeping the market. That
is something that is in the market. We are hiring it in Germany and in France. So,
after draw, that is really criminal. So, if you are hiring it, you are drawn. You
personally hire it as a manager. And one of the biggest assets out of Germany. One
thousand people. One thousand people. Once we sign documents, adding people,
selling people, health influences, I must have a lot of trust in all our partners,
in all our employees, to knock through mistakes there. Because, you are violating
criminal law. That is the scientific consequences. Let's see what happens. This
industry is characterized by individual payment structures. Or, you are just paying
ENT doctors to give out prescriptions. It is about getting a subsidy and doing
prescriptions. So, very often, very close friendships. The ENT doctor and the
audiologist that are sitting in the state building, it is illegal. These are
structures that are difficult to overcome. Because they are trying to give us what
is legal cases around competition law. Our advertising is too aggressive. We are
not just in court discussing whether hearing aids can be invisible. Let's see what
happens. We will see what comes out from that case. We believe that you can't have
a price-back. There is one court decision in our favor. I have no faith in them.
They published these. And we lost in the first round the lucky region court. We
went to the higher court. And this process is not good. But they published a two
page article on that legal decision in the magazine of the association. So now all
audiologist in Germany believe it is illegal. And in one half sentence, they say
that they have the possibility of stealing this decision. Audiologist, they over-
need this. They don't know what it means. In case it is still ongoing. So, all
audiologist in Germany now believe that we made a mistake. And all marketing was
too aggressive. We lost the same editor of the info brochure. If we win, let's see.
We have now also published two pages. The higher court actually accepted our
advertising. So, we have at any time five to ten court cases around the world.
Because the incumbents, the existing players, tried to be us on the computer. And
what we get from what we published ourselves. It can be a business company. Not
only on the shelf. But on any business. I want to ask whether that's the common
average. Or do you believe that it's the common average? Or is it something you
have to do? Or do you want to get a lot of names that can be found in this scam? I
think it's a pattern that you see in the world of art. If you have a natural
proposal in your world, in half of the companies you have needed these things with
the existing players. If they can't meet you commercially, they try to. And the
same applies to funding. You will have difficult decisions to take when it comes to
funding. I mentioned the example of us supporting our local truckers at the school.
We don't want to do crazy stuff. We don't want to become counsel pilots. We don't
want to do that. We don't want to kill yourself. We want to take control of this.
Discuss it. Make it also a topic in your organization. Especially the leadership
team. And be a guide and be a guest. In a job. It goes very much together with
thinking, and I mentioned that logic. I believe you must start in your team, the
leadership team. You must start with a vision. What shall you do in five years from
now? And from that you arrive in the next six months. And all that for different
dimensions. And you must have that big vision in mind. The other way around. The
problem is small. The problem is 15% growth per year is enough. Sounds like a good
number, doesn't it? So if you start at 100,000 euros in revenue. In year one, you
say my goal is 50% growth. Well then, in year two it's 150, in year three it's 225.
In year three it's 337. And in year four it's 500. Something? Half a million
revenue. Four years spent. Far away from that. So as nice as 50% growth, sound. So
the problem is not enough. In the beginning you need to grow by 10. And then maybe
later by 5. And then you need to stop. And then at some point when you're at 400
million, 50% growth might be fine. But in the beginning you need a much different
level of aggressiveness. Much higher numbers than mine. When you come from the
right side and go to the left, you typically make a mistake of 50% too small. You
extract those 80% from the current stakes. The other way around, you find the long
term growth and then break it down into smaller steps. What does that mean for the
next growth? Coming from the big growth of small. So this is a very big topic.
Let's look at our venture portfolio. We have a range of full approaches in our
activities. But they do contain business and ones that can essentially approach a
much more successful. This is the very initial angel investment deck that we showed
for example. These were the expected growth curves. So we said in four years we
will generate 50 million in revenue. That was very clear for investors who needed
to be born to build something big. The back up slide for that was pretty detailed
numbers on the US. On the difference between Germany and the US. All capital three
markets seem to be bigger, growing. Very concrete actionable points that we wanted
to exploit. In order to get the numbers that we showed on the previous slide. So
it's consistent. Because we just owe the 50 million. But there was a grand behind
it. That came with Vestrus. He said these guys need it. They want to build
something big. And there are facts to believe why this will be something big. This
is all very good. We never simplify the numbers. We rarely see a simple deck of
past ideas. Most founders, back to the huge number of us, especially as the
developer of the year, think way too small. And don't know the details on these
things. I'm not a big fan of angles, research and analysis of fundamentals. You
should know now. So really think big from the start of the month. Because I believe
this is why we're here successfully. Because of our own. And with this, we also
kick out 80%. This is where it's at least. Because they don't have enough growth
opportunities. They're operating too much of an issue. Maybe still a viable
business, but not one that can really come from me because I would never have been
able to grab them again. So depending on what you want, maybe still you could have
heard it. But then maybe your case is not a easy case. Then you've got different
capacities. One petition brought, it's mint because I came across it some times, in
1813. Many people probably will know the 1820 principle. The traditional
interpretation of this is that 80% of the output from the human situation system is
created with 20% of the digital content. So the rule is you stop after 20% because
you already have achieved 80% of the output. You don't make perfect things. You
don't build the perfect machine. You ship fast, you go out fast, you iterate, maybe
over time you improve. But the biggest bang you already achieved in the initial
investment. And there is some truth to that. Does that make it true? There is
another type of writing that you can do. If you are a founder and your time is
limited, you can only focus on so many things. And then I believe it's about
picking the right topics that drive 80% of the output. Because that's in the end
the case. 20% of the topics drive 80% of the output. In our case, terrible. This is
one of his. His focusing on the people development is one of his big drivers that
massively drives the outcome. How exactly the design of our kitchen and toilet is,
is not in the new. We shouldn't spend much time on that. And if you have to limit a
number of topics that you deal in general, or that you delegate in terrible, there
is good. I trust you. Then you should pick those 20% of the people that you
identify with 80% of the results. And I see a lot of founders who micromanage
micro-tobias. Not really, not so much. The key micro-tobias are easy to manage.
They have a very fast reward. And the topic of the solution, I feel it can take a
little bit more. I think it should. So focus on the big topics that drive the big
outcome. And that is a very limited number of topics. Because we will solve the
problem. Back to the course side. Take time to proactively design time topics that
are important and not only mean to the people. So, how do you make the topics? You
have no time to do big analysis. Topics are so fast, I'm never spending more than
half an hour on one topic. It's super super fast. Good. A few more slides. We
talked
about the big topics. It's typically not the answer to the big topics. You cannot
clarify the problem. And you will never be all done. And you definitely should not
wait for the Europeans. The lawyers will always tell you what it does not to work.
We have the risk source. We have the risk source. We never should be performing as
big as this. Back to the local coming out of things. But overall, we don't get much
clarity from the experts. We did find out the quality. Like the visibility of the
workers. I don't know what the outcome will be. But it can be a little bit more.
But as long as the court gets the running, this is the exercise. So you have to set
the right outcome as far as possible. Almost exactly that time. As the first
question was, does it have to be here? So legal aspects, you need to handle them.
They put you there. All of the steps and everything. Get good lawyers. Ask what
would happen. I remember once a discussion around data privacy and some other
thing. I said you can't do that. But what happens if we do it? You have to pay
damage compensation. How much? 30 euros. Then we do it. But for the lawyer, it's
not a law. It's legal. But I don't care. The downside is 30 euros. Often you can
have a pre-empt if you have a regulated business. You can have what is the position
of the regulator. Now, you set the disposition. You know what the regulator wants.
And also, you can't release this. And it gets the intention of the regulator. In
written words, how we do it might not be in line with what the regulation says. But
it's in line with what the regulation wants. So to summarize, we have a legal topic
for many topics. It's better to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission. And
it's not easy to do. And a lot of these legal aspects also need to be budgeted. So
let's start with the financials. And what can we estimate how much? So let's start
with the financials. I want you to come along and check into the house and see what
the lawyers believe. So you know what we know. It's not crazy amounts. I have
always been handled with this question. This regulation, I don't know what the
rules are. I don't know what the rules are. Would you advertise your hearing aids
as invisible? Have you known that you face any of those challenges now? Yes. We
don't have an internal check with you. That's what we took at the company meeting.
They would have the meeting person check every advertisement before it's published.
To prevent any conflict with regulation, a high-end business value, because there's
a lot of regulation coming at the time. So then they would think, oh, I'm sorry,
this advertisement can't do this here. Marketing. I don't know where the boundaries
are. Some companies will come and then it will still change. Because the
consequences. It's very limited. 2,000 euros to the lawyers, implying to do better.
It's a high-shoot for taking risks and not caring too much about the details.
Taking risks is super tricky. And then over time, there are a great deal of people
working very closely together with each other. In this figure, you're still having
an example, a routine of teams. You have great people working together in very
dynamic ways, making the whole change topic project work, things going on in
parallel. And then it becomes really displiable. It's an art thinking bit. I'm
willing to take risks and not care about the legal aspects too much. This is a form
of boldness. We work together in a very creative way. The drawing is successful.
That can attract people and then it's new. I will get from the inside. And you can
put it in written form. It's a very strong grammar. If you do a detailed comparison
for our guiding principles, there are very similar priorities. I would spare that
for the last lecture. We have time. We'll come back in 30 minutes. Thank you. Thank
you.