[MUSIC PLAYING] ADI IGNATIUS: Hi. Welcome to Harvard Business Review's The New World of Work. I'm Adi Ignatius, Editor in Chief of Harvard Business Review. It's great to have you here.
Every week on this show, I speak to a CEO or another leading thinker. And we talk about this reset moment for all of us in how we work, how we collaborate, how we innovate. So we have a great guest today. But before I introduce him, a word from our sponsor, Unisys.
Where some see barriers, Unisys sees breakthroughs. Unisys pushes what's possible across digital workplace, app modernization, cloud, and beyond. Unisys-- keep breaking through.
If you like this content, I also want to make a quick pitch for our flagship podcast, IdeaCast. Same format as this. One of our editor hosts speaks to somebody who has big ideas about the workplace, about management, about the future of work. So check us out wherever you get your podcasts. And we also have a newsletter associated with this show, with The New World of Work.
So if you're a subscriber, go hbr.org/newsletters. It's something like that. And you can subscribe to The New World of Work newsletter. So with that, I want to introduce our guest today. And he is Tiger Tygarajan, who is the CEO of Genpact, which is a global firm that advises clients on digital transformation.
Tiger himself helped transform a division of General Electric, GE Capital International Services, into Genpact, which is a company that now has more than 100,000 employees and annual revenue of $4 billion. He originally served as its COO, and since 2011, has been Genpact's CEO. So Tiger, welcome to the show.
TIGER TYGARAJAN: Ali, thank you so much for having me on the show. Thank you. ADI IGNATIUS: All right.
Well, let's jump right into it. So as I said, a lot of the work that you do is advising companies that are going digital. I want to ask you about that a little bit because I would imagine practically every company describes itself at this point as digital. But you're probably seeing a more sophisticated-- you have a more sophisticated lens on this.
So talk about-- what is the biggest blind spot for companies that are on this transformation? TIGER TYGARAJAN: So Adi, it's a great question because we're clearly seeing every company think through, what does digital transformation mean? And the first thing I'll say is we've got to distinguish what one could call digitization, which is automating processes, making it straight through, touchless, just no human touch it, as compared to digital transformation, which is really running the entire business differently, having people take decisions differently, leveraging technology, and tools, and the cloud, and AI, and machine learning, dramatically improving user experience, customer experience, all of those things. So parsing those two would be important. And when it comes to digital transformation, one of the big learnings we've had is that it's not just about technology. It's about processes. It's about the data underlying those processes.
It's about people because in the end, you really want to have people change the way they work. And that's where you really achieve digital transformation. So if you ask me for the single biggest roadblock, it's how do you drive change through an organization? And by the way, the more successful an organization, the more that challenge increases, as you can imagine. ADI IGNATIUS: So just to the audience, if you have questions for Tiger, put them into the chat. And I'll try to get to audience questions later, but I want to pick up on what you were just talking about. So you were saying one of the keys to digital transformation is how we're interacting with our colleagues.
What do you mean by that, exactly? What's the digital version? What's the most effective version of that? TIGER TYGARAJAN: So there are many versions of that. So let's take a couple of examples. So think about a bank that lends to small businesses, something that's very important for the economy, something that a lot of banks do.
And the application comes in. Typically, someone in an operations function puts all the data that is available in the application onto the system. And then the system then lines up and takes the application to a risk officer, whose job it is to evaluate their application, blah, blah, and take a decision. Now the reality is that you have a human who is prone to making errors, who has biases, et cetera, often do that underwriting. You change that to a completely transformed way of running that lending operation and approval of a loan.
You could think about the application coming in, getting read by a machine, getting ported onto the technology. The technology then uses past data and patterns to say here's the kind of prediction that I have about this customer-- payments, what the customer likes, the interest rate that works, should you approve or not, et cetera. And then finally, the risk officer then takes a look at it, and then takes a final decision. You can drop cycle time for approving a loan from-- sometimes, it takes 20 days-- to minutes and hours. And the impact that has on the customer, the delight of the customer, the fact that it actually drives economic value for the customer, and therefore for everyone, is what really digital transformation is about in that one example. And you can apply the same example to supply chain, where a retailer places an order for milk, or chocolates, or cheese.
And that has to be processed. Now all of that can be done, again, by the machine, including getting the truck, getting the right truck, having the best route, driving low carbon footprint, not just lower cost. Those are the kind of things that people are really beginning to do in order to change the way a business runs. ADI IGNATIUS: All right.
So if you're talking about machines, machine learning, machine response, we've got to talk about OpenAI. We've got to talk about ChatGPT. So we did the show last week from Davos, the World Economic Forum in Switzerland. And I probably had more conversations about ChatGPT than about any other topic. So everybody's playing with it. I'm sure you're playing with it, experimenting with it.
I'd love your thoughts on-- what is that going to do to business? What is that going to do to jobs? I'm amazed by the technology. I'm also aware of its limitations at this point, but I think it's going to get better quickly. What are some of your early thoughts about ChatGPT and what it says about the future of AI? TIGER TYGARAJAN: Yeah, I think it's obviously very, very topical. I've had a couple of hundred of my team spend a couple of days kicking off the year just the last couple of days. And ChatGPT has been one of the central themes that people kept bringing up.
I'll start by saying ChatGPT is one more step in the evolution and the sophistication of AI and AI technologies. Not that unexpected. This progression has been expected, and will continue to make progress. And the view that we've always had, I've always had, is that it will change the way work gets done. I've had a clear view that it does not replace labor.
It changes the way that labor will get used. It changes the skills that are needed, et cetera. I almost correlate this to the invention, and the building, and the spread of calculators or Excel spreadsheets. Go back to the time when we didn't have calculators. It was important for people to know how to add, subtract, multiply, divide. And those were tests conducted before you hired someone into a particular job.
You don't do that these days because everyone uses a computer. Everyone uses Excel. Everyone uses a calculator.
So it becomes a common platform that everyone uses. Now the question is what can you do with it? How do you use it? How do you create value? So our view is that ChatGPT is going to open up a whole set of avenues for value creation. I heard someone talk about an example just in the last few days, where a developer has been able to use ChatGPT in order to pull government documents and serve it easily to someone deep inside a village in India in order to have the farmer take a better decision on getting government subsidy, or ordering seeds, or fertilizers. So I think the vision that I've always had about AI is that it's going to make the cost of so many things lower, that it's going to increase the spread of education, healthcare, all of those things, where sometimes, the barrier for a couple of billion people in the world is that the cost of those things is very high. And the spread is very difficult. So very optimistic
view on this. ADI IGNATIUS: Yeah. That's great. And then those are very positive use cases. At the very least, we're talking about a short-term dislocation.
Seeing the ability of ChatGPT to write code quickly that's effective makes you wonder about-- code is the same thing. The people who used to sit around adding and subtracting were replaced by machines. Are coders going to be replaced by machines? By the way, are editors are going to be replaced by machines? I could see the need for an editor or two to make sure the machine is coming up with good content.
But aren't we talking about far fewer individuals needed to collaborate with the machines as they get better and faster? And I just wonder what all this white collar labor is going to do. TIGER TYGARAJAN: So the answer is yes. We will probably need far fewer x, y, and z, all the kind of people you described. But we'll need a whole set of new people that we didn't need before.
One of the things that I believe is going to happen-- and this is a journey that actually has been on for some time. The importance of soft skills in everything in the world is just going to keep rising. The importance of building relationships, empathy, delighting the customer, really understanding the needs of the customer by actually listening. Then the curiosity that a human being brings-- I don't think yet AI has been programmed to actually become curious. In fact, AI has been programmed for the reverse, which is, what has the pattern told us so far? And therefore, what moves should make, whereas curiosity actually says that's the move I probably should make, but I want to explore something that I haven't done before. So I want to go north even though the machine says go south.
Only a human can do that. So we are big believers in augmented intelligence rather than artificial intelligence. And transition always has pain. Every technology transition has had pain. Reskilling therefore takes on a whole new meaning.
It's been going on for some years now in the world. And I think it just takes on a whole new meaning as these technologies become more pervasive, ubiquitous, and usable. ADI IGNATIUS: So one thing ChatGPT is very bad at is a sense of humor.
And I keep trying to get it to write decent jokes. And they're always terrible. They're just basic puns. And it is responsive if you say, that's not funny. That's just a basic pun.
It'll say, all right and try another attempt, and try another attempt. But I think the joke writers are safe, at least for another few years. But on the reskilling question, all right. So this isn't the first technology that has prompted a conversation like this.
I have people tell me sometimes we have good intentions. We're not very good at reskilling. Whether it's on national levels, or corporate levels, or by any other educational platform, we talk a good game, but we're not very good at reskilling. Give me your thoughts on where we are, and what we need to do. Because we're talking about large numbers of people for various reasons who need reskilling to succeed going forward.
TIGER TYGARAJAN: Yes, Adi, that has been a problem in the world for some time now. You're right. And the bad news is I think we still have a long way to go, both in terms of the impact and therefore the response in terms of reskilling. The good news-- the glass half empty, the optimist view-- and I am an optimist-- is that over the last five-odd years, corporations, businesses such as ours-- but we're not alone in this-- have taken significant steps to reskill their workforce.
And the reason to do that is actually very simple because if you find a way to do that, it becomes a competitive advantage. You actually excite your employees. You actually make them valuable for your clients and your customers as they learn these technologies and use them.
It requires a whole new set of motivation, incentives, time allocation. It requires an understanding that I've always had, which is I don't think any more life is about 20 years of education followed by 40 years of work followed by, let's say, another 40 years of "retired life." It's actually about continuous, every couple of years, refresh, reskill. Even maybe take time off to do that a couple of months. And I think businesses must have programs that do that.
Platforms that allow reskilling to happen have become so much easier to use, so much better. And it's not about big classroom training programs. It's bit-sized, video-based, gamified. We've done that across the company. In the last 18 months, we've had 70,000 out of 110,000 of our global workforce enroll themselves and learn data analytics at the base level using a program that we call Data Bridge. And it's caught on like wildfire because everyone needs to learn, wants to learn.
And of course, we've been driving it. So now governments, educational institutions-- they all also have to approach this. But I sometimes think that at least in the Western economies and the more democratic and capitalist economies, corporations such as ours have to take the lead.
ADI IGNATIUS: So I want to bring in a question from our audience that's on topic. I don't want to just talk about high level technology and AI. But this is a good, provocative question. This is from Chander in Zurich.
And the question is, how could generative AI like ChatGPT potentially disrupt the business model for a firm like Genpact? TIGER TYGARAJAN: Oh, a lot. [LAUGHS] A lot. ADI IGNATIUS: Don't worry.
Chatham House Rules here. So you can speak freely. TIGER TYGARAJAN: It's a lot.
And when I'm responding to that question-- which by the way, a great question-- I interpret the word "disrupt" in a positive and a problem sense, a threat and an opportunity. So left to its own devices, the work that we do will change. And if you don't do anything about it, then of course, we are going to get disrupted. But the smart people, businesses like ours, and other businesses like ours, will actually say, therefore, I'm going to find a way to use that technology. So if you think about-- at the core, often, the work we do is take information from one source, take another information from another source, often from within the company-- our client's company-- and then take information, sometimes, from the outside world.
It could be the weather report. It could be what's happening with interest rates. And then bring all that together, apply mathematical and algorithmic models to then take a decision that then gets put back into the system.
At its core, a lot of the work we do, a lot of the work that knowledge workers do, is that. And then there are people who build those models, code those models, et cetera. You could have a ChatGPT generative AI thing to actually do some of that. Having said that, it could also write the report that comes out of that, too, that says this is the decision that I took.
And here is the rationale for the decision. All of that, you could actually have that ChatGPT generative AI do it. However, I would argue that you still sometimes need a lot of information from the customer.
And it's not being provided. So you've got to call the customer up, explain to them what they need to provide. And they, then, need to provide it. Two, you need a human to say this is a gray zone. I don't think this is the right decision.
I'm actually going to increase the risk in my portfolio. And therefore, I'm going to actually take a decision yes, even though the credit score here right now says a no. So every aspect of the work that knowledge workers do will change.
I don't think there's any denying that. There are going to be firms that are going to grab that disruption and be the disruptor. And there are going to be others who will get disrupted. So the question is who's more agile? Who's more nimble? Who has a culture to embrace new things? Who has the culture to reskill? That's going to differentiate the winners from the losers in every industry-- in our industry as well. ADI IGNATIUS: So here's another question. This is from Autumn from the US, from the city of Indianapolis, who's asking how do you see AI implementation into education, specifically to prepare students with these skills we're talking about needed for the future? In other words, to what extent will AI be part of this retooling, reskilling effort? TIGER TYGARAJAN: Phenomenal question.
And actually, it goes to the core of often, when technologies start maturing and start disrupting, the answer and solution often is the technology itself. So if you take the case of AI and you say it's going to disrupt jobs-- however, that same technology is going to create jobs. Education is a great example of that. As I said, pick a number. A billion and a half people in the world do not have access to education of the kind that, actually, they should have partly driven by time, asynchronous nature of their education being required. The creative back and forth that often only a teacher can do and that's very difficult in places like deep into the interiors of Africa, India, Latin America, and so on-- and all of a sudden, on digital platforms with AI sitting behind the scenes as an engine and understanding the person who needs to get educated so that the right material gets served in 10-minute, 15-minute bit-sized, consumable, video, gamified.
And dropping that cost down to literally cents versus tens of dollars will change the game. You suddenly bring a billion and a half people into the education workforce. The pie for education will expand.
The cost will reduce. And therefore, more course content will be needed. More people will be needed to make it gamified. I can talk about a whole set of new industries that will get created just on that one question.
ADI IGNATIUS: Are you bullish on the metaverse at this point? TIGER TYGARAJAN: Long term, yes. And I want to explain bullishness. I'm bullish that it will become a thing that will become part of the way people live their lives, work gets done, business gets transacted, et cetera, et cetera. I worry a little bit about what it does to human and social interaction. Will it further drag humans into the virtual world at the expense of time being spent in the real world with real people with nature? And we can go on and on. Over a hundred-year period, I guess in an accelerated fashion, that's been happening.
And I do worry about that because I think there is real value created in the world when people come together and debate with each other, fight with each other a little bit in a constructive way. I worry a little bit that all of that joy of that gets taken away. I also worry about what it does to mental health, and so on, and so forth. So still a long way to go.
Bullish in what it will do and can do, and not so bullish in the impact it actually has. And how do you balance that, like all technologies? ADI IGNATIUS: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Good question.
All right, I want to shift a little bit. And I know that in your consulting work, in your engagement, you think a lot about ESG. You talk a lot about ESG.
And ESG is problematic. I think at least in the US, the right thinks ESG considerations are too "woke," and that companies should just think about generating profits, and that everything else will take care of itself. On the left, there's a feeling that ESG as we measure it is insufficient. And for anyone who doesn't know the jargon, I apologize.
ESG-- it's Environmental, Social, and Governance. And companies are ranked by independent observers on their ESG ratings, and on their ESG potential. And it increasingly drives investor decisions and things. I almost think we need to throw out ESG, come up with a new term and a new approach. But anyway, we're in the ESG era still. How do you think about-- what is a valuable way of looking at and thinking about ESG at this point? TIGER TYGARAJAN: It's a great question, Adi.
And I'll start by saying maybe the word, and the phrase, and the acronym should be thrown out. It doesn't matter. What really matters in our thinking and in my thinking is business is about being sustainable in the long run, in serving four stakeholders.
I think that clarity is incredibly clear for us because those four stakeholders, are clients, are talent, are investors and shareholders, and are the community and society. All four are equal stakeholders. And the reason they are equal is because they feed into each other.
Obviously, you've got to satisfy your shareholders. You've got to satisfy your clients. That's an obvious virtuous cycle. Talent is at the middle of all of that.
And that talent makes a difference to both investors and to clients. And none of that is possible if you can't do two things. You need to attract talent and excite them. And I would argue until anyone comes here saying our strategy is to attract talent. And in order to attract talent, we must be able to explain how we are helping our planet sustain itself in the long run because everything shows us that it can't.
And if we don't have a role there, I may not be able to attract talent. I may not be able to serve my clients. So it's very clear to us that we can call it by whatever name. Our strategy of long-term, sustainable value creation for the four stakeholders requires us to focus on things like the environment, the climate, on society, on diversity, on inclusion so that we can get the best minds to attack problems. And of course, good governance-- so I'm not I'm not conflicted on the word ESG.
It doesn't matter because it's core to our strategy. The problem is when you keep it separate and you say, I have an objective that I need to serve these four stakeholders, or three stakeholders. And I have this other thing called ESG, which I need to satisfy some people.
We don't think about it that way. We think ESG is core and central to long-term strategy of companies. ADI IGNATIUS: So I think that was the rhetoric, at least, of a lot of CEOs of big public companies for the past several years. We've had a great run for the past several years. We're in tougher times right now.
There may or may not be recessionary threats in certain parts of the world, not in all parts of the world. So I wonder-- and you're having conversations with people out there. As times get tough, we're certainly seeing the layoffs, particularly in tech, and finance, and media, although not limited to those industries. So I wonder to what extent thinking about everything you just listed-- sustainability, diversity and inclusion, all these things.
When times get tough and tough decisions have to be made about where the money goes, do you worry that the emphasis that's been put in these areas could fall to the side? TIGER TYGARAJAN: No, Adi, you're right. And that's no different than many other strategic imperatives that an enterprise and a business undertakes. And when there is short-term pressure on serving, let's say, investors, and shareholders, and so on, you then have to evaluate those long-term strategic imperatives, and the investment, and the time, and effort, and the money that goes against it. I think great companies find a way to navigate through such tough times in a way where they try and protect some of those strategic imperatives because they know that just as the world could be slowing down, and there's a recession, it's going to come out of it. When it comes out of it, the winners are going to be those who invested in those strategic imperatives through a cycle like this.
So I think business research has shown so often that in times like these, the winners and losers-- there's a shift and in the tables. And those who tend to win tend to be the people who didn't take their eye off the long-term ball, and found a way through other means, including digitization, and digital transformation, and applying technologies, to preserve some of the longer-term investment they are doing. Because that allows them to take off when the economy takes off. So great question-- will come under pressure. I think finding a way to navigate that without killing it is a very important goal of great companies for the long haul.
ADI IGNATIUS: Yeah. Tiger, one of the reasons that we've done this show is we just feel this is a reset moment for business, for how we think about business. And part of that is what the pandemic has done, how it turned everything upside down, and what we learned from that experience. Part of it is new technology. And there are other factors as well.
I guess to start this part of the conversation, you're a company of, I think, roughly 100,000 employees. To what extent are you the same company with the same culture now that you were in 2019 before the pandemic and before some of these shifts? And to what extent have you changed? TIGER TYGARAJAN: It's a great question, Adi. I'll start out with a meta answer, saying our belief is that there are core parts of our culture that we always try and preserve-- our maniacal focus on our client; or the way our teams collaborate with only one objective, to solve the client problem; the way we drive curiosity and learning in the company. At the same time, we've always been a big believer that culture is not static.
You've got to find new things to incorporate into that culture because that's what the world requires. And if there's one thing that the pandemic has taught us, and all this digital transformation has taught us, it's the exponential curve on change. And I actually believe that change is here to stay. The pace of this change in the world on a variety of topics is here to stay.
What that means is that it's therefore important for businesses such as ours-- and we've changed, and we continue to change-- to become much more agile. And you have to do that now in an environment where it's actually different. It's no longer everyone who comes to the office every day in every location in the world. We operate from 35 countries, 120 sites across the globe. Our business, of course, has a set of people who are often constantly traveling and consulting with clients, but a set of other people who sit in operating centers. That world has changed.
It's no longer 100% in-office. It's a mixture. It's hybrid. It's two days a week, three days a week, five days a week in some cases, five days a month in some cases, and a week and 1/4 in other cases.
So it's a lot of variation. And in that variation, how do you preserve culture? As new people come into the company, how do you mentor them, sponsor them? How do they learn? What is apprenticeship? All of those are undergoing change as we speak. One example I'll give you-- we spend three days here, a group of 200 of us. And normally, we would have spent one day to kick off the year. We deliberately spent three days physically all together.
Why? Because we don't do this as often as before-- run into each other in an office, et cetera, et cetera. So we decided we're going to invest in three full days. And then people will go off, do their thing for probably another four or five months, and then bring them back together. So rhythms are changing. Communication is at an extreme high. The pace of that change requires us to communicate continuously.
Obviously, things like videoconferencing, and Zoom, and the ease with which that can be done has raised the game and our ability to do that. But now our job is to leverage those things. So lots of changes as we speak are very important in the way we deal with our clients as well.
Clients have become very comfortable doing video conference calls, and Zoom calls. However, I think there's still a requirement where you make that social connect. You break bread. You share experiences.
You have a debate on a very contentious topic. And you come out of that and say, I trust you. The world that we are in and the world in the future requires even more trust.
That requires real human connect to continue. And that's part of the culture we've got to find a way to keep maintaining-- more difficult than before, but more tools available than before. ADI IGNATIUS: So you talk with ease about change, about embracing change. Not everyone does. And I'm going to raise a question that's come in from Veronica in Prague.
And the question is why do so many companies resist change? TIGER TYGARAJAN: It's the ultimate question in business. It's the ultimate question in your first question, Adi, that you started off this conversation with, which is at the core of digital transformation, it's actually about change and driving change. Humans are humans. If something has worked, and it's worked for a long time, and it's been successful, there is no reason to change. And who are you to tell me to change? So first is why do I need to change? And who are you to tell me to change? And then understanding each person's motivations, making the collective motivation the same rather than two motivations that pull against each other-- that, I think, will always be the central topic of society irrespective of generative AI or not. And if anything, it'll probably increase in its importance as more and more of those technologies can be leveraged, but only if change is embraced.
It's scary to embrace change. I don't know if I'm going to be successful in this new way of working, even though on theory and on paper, it looks like the right thing to do. I don't know if I'm going to win, or my colleague is going to win. Lots of things like that-- I'm biased. I don't like the person who's telling me because I don't trust that person.
All of those things come in the way of change. Our business actually exists to some extent because our job is to help our clients drive change. ADI IGNATIUS: All right, so here's another question. This is from Manu in Delhi. By the way, I love the global nature of this audience and the questions that are coming in. So thank you all for putting questions in the chat.
And this is about emotional intelligence. The question is how can an organization successfully create awareness on emotional intelligence, as it seems necessary for how we collaborate and grow these days? TIGER TYGARAJAN: Again, a great question. And I'll start with storytelling. I think good old storytelling is still the best way. Examples, real-- the storyteller should be the protagonist.
So it's about the person. It's me telling my story. It has to be a humble, exposing, vulnerable story.
Then you have an audience that is listening. The stories must come from diverse people so that the listener then says this is not a one side story. And then making heroes of those who demonstrate that in a client's situation, in a team situation, in a peer group situation, and showing that when they do that, not only do they become heroes, but they actually create value for the stakeholders I talked about.
So I think this is, again, not something that you take lightly, not something that you can teach in a class. You've got to live it every day. It has to become part of culture. And one of the best definitions I've heard about culture-- not my definition, but I love it-- is culture is something where the way people behave without a standard operating procedure, and without anyone watching them.
That's culture. And I'm a big believer that culture drives everything. ADI IGNATIUS: I love that. So I can't let you go without-- I know you're a big cricket fan. So I'm going to ask you-- this is the type of question that you ask to ChatGPT, which is so talk about cricket as a metaphor for how we work and live together.
TIGER TYGARAJAN: Oh, my God. You've hit a-- what is it called? What is the opposite of a raw nerve? You've hit an amazing-- ADI IGNATIUS: I don't know. TIGER TYGARAJAN: --passion of mine. ADI IGNATIUS: Your vein that is spewing blood. TIGER TYGARAJAN: Exactly.
Our board meetings are set up based on a calendar that is based on, when is the India cricket team playing its big matches? And based on that, the board meeting is set up so it doesn't clash. It's that important. But to your question, it's a team sport. So you can learn a lot from that. It's a sport where there are so many variables. I think the best description I have is compare cricket to baseball.
And one of the things that's interesting about baseball is that you have a hitter. You have a ball. You pitch your ball. It's all very similar. However, a lot of variables that are there in cricket are taken out in baseball. The ball, when pitched, cannot hit the turf.
In cricket, most of the time, it hits the turf. Once it hits the turf, it can go in all kinds of directions. You can make it catch the turf and spin.
If it's a wet wicket, something happens. If there's dew, something happens. If it's a hot, humid day, something happens. So you just have so many variables. It's so unpredictable. It's so volatile.
I can go on and on. And that teaches you a lot about grit. If there's a game that teaches you grit, it's cricket. This completely freaks out all my US colleagues. You can play a game of cricket for five days between two arch rivals-- India versus Pakistan.
And at the end of the days, the two captains can come together and say, you didn't win. I didn't win. We'll come back another day. That's a crazy game. [LAUGHS] ADI IGNATIUS: No, we don't understand that. And you'd probably be rocking a sweater at that point, too.
And we don't understand that, either. But anyway, I'm a baseball fan. Well, here's the deal.
You will come to a baseball game with me at some point. I will go to a cricket match with you. TIGER TYGARAJAN: Done.
ADI IGNATIUS: And we'll continue this conversation. TIGER TYGARAJAN: The cricket match has to be in the best cricket stadium in the world-- Melbourne, Melbourne Cricket Ground. ADI IGNATIUS: All right, that's a deal. Tiger, I want to thank you for joining us today.
It was really great to hear your perspectives. A lot of audience questions. Thank you for being here. TIGER TYGARAJAN: Thank you, Adi. Really enjoyed it. Thank you.
ADI IGNATIUS: All right. So I just want to quickly say my guest next week will be Janice Bryant Howroyd, who is an entrepreneur, a businesswoman, an author, and the Founder and CEO of the ActOne Group, which is the largest privately held minority woman-owned personnel company founded in the US. She's the first African-American woman to build and own a billion-dollar company. So make sure to tune in next week for that. And before we go, another word from our sponsor, from Unisys.
Where some see barriers, Unisys sees breakthroughs. Unisys pushes what's possible across digital workplace, app modernization, cloud, and beyond. Unisys-- keep breaking through.
So thank you for being with us. Thank you many, many, many people all over the world for listening, for putting in your questions. I'm Adi Ignatius, and this is The New World of Work. [MUSIC PLAYING]
2023-01-28