>> Announcer: From London, England, it's theCUBE! Covering Coupa Insp!re'19 EMEA. Brought to you by Coupa. >> Hey, welcome to theCUBE. Lisa Martin on the ground in London at Coupa Insp!re'19. Can you hear all the buzz around me? You probably can hear it, it's electric. The keynote just ended, and I'm very pleased to welcome, fresh from the keynote stage, we have Rachel Botsman, author and trust expert from Oxford University. Rachel, welcome to theCUBE! >> Thank you for having me. >> Your talk this morning about the intersection of trust and technology, to say it's interesting is an understatement. You had some great examples where you showed some technology brands, that we all know, and have different relationships with: Uber, Facebook, and Amazon. And the way that you measured the audience is great, you know, clap the brand that you trust the most. And it was so interesting, because we expect these technology brands to, they should be preserving our information, but we've also seen recent history, some big examples, of that trust being broken. >> Rachel: Yeah, yeah. >> Talk to us about your perspectives. >> So what I thought was interesting, well kind of unexpected for me, was no one clapped for Facebook, not one person in the room. And this is really interesting to me, because the point that I was making is that trust is really, really contextual, right? So if I had said to people, do you trust on Facebook that you can find your friends from college, they probably would've clapped. But do I trust them with my data, no. And this distinction is so important, because if you lose trust in one area as a company or a brand, and it can take time, you lose that ability to interact with people. So our relationship and our trust relationship with brands is incredibly complicated. But I think, particular tech brands, what they're realizing is that, how badly things go wrong when they're in a trust crisis. >> Talk to me about trust as a currency. You gave some great examples this morning. Money is the currency for transactions, where trust is the currency of interactions. >> Yeah, well I was trying to frame things, not because they sound nice, but how do you create a lens where people can really understand, like what is the value of this thing, and what is the role that it plays? And I'm never going to say money's not important; money is very important. But people can understand money; people value money. And I think that's because it has a physical, you can touch it, and it has an agreed value, right? Trust I actually don't believe can be measured. Trust is, what is it? It's something there, there's a connection between people. So you know when you have trust because you can interact with people. You know when you have trust because you can place their faith in them, you can share things about yourself and also share things back. So it's kind of this idea that, think of it as a currency, think of it as something that you should really value that is incredibly fragile in any situation in any organization. >> How does a company like Coupa, or an Amazon or a Facebook, how do they leverage trust and turn it into a valuable asset? >> Yeah, I don't like the idea that you sort of unlock trust. I think companies that really get it right are companies that think day in and day out around behaviors and culture. If you get behaviors and culture right, like the way people behave, whether they have empathy, whether they have integrity, whether you feel like you can depend on them, trust naturally flows from that. But the other thing that often you find with brands is they think of trust as like this reservoir, right? So it's different from awareness and loyalty; it's not like this thing that, you can have this really full up battery which means then you can launch some crazy products and everyone will trust it. We've seen this with like, Mattel, the toy brand. They launched a smart system for children called Aristotle, and within six months they had to pull it because people didn't trust what it was recording and watching in people's bedrooms. We were talking about Facebook and the cryptocurrency Libra, their new smart assistants; I wouldn't trust that. Amazon have introduced smart locks; I don't know if you've seen these? >> Lisa: Yes. >> Where if you're not home, it's inconvenient for a very annoying package slip. So you put in an Amazon lock and the delivery person will walk into your home. I trust Amazon to deliver my parcels; I don't trust them to give access to my home. So what we do with the trust and how we tap into that, it really depends on the risk that we're asking people to take. >> That's a great point that you bring about Amazon, because you look at how they are infiltrating our lives in so many different ways. There's a lot of benefits to it, in terms of convenience. I trust Amazon, because I know when I order something it's going to arrive when they say it will. But when you said about trust being contextual and said do you trust that Amazon pays their taxes, I went wow, I hadn't thought of it in that way. Would I want to trust them to come into my home to drop off a package, no. >> Rachel: Yeah. >> But the, I don't know if I want to say infiltration, into our lives, it's happening whether we like it or not. >> Well I think Amazon is really interesting. First of all because so often as consumers, and I'm guilty, we let convenience trump trust. So we talk about trust, but, you know what, like, if I don't really trust that Uber driver but I really want to get somewhere, I'll get in the car, right? I don't really trust the ethics of Amazon as a company or like what they're doing in the world, but I like the convenience. I predict that Amazon is actually going to go through a major trust crisis. >> Lisa: Really? >> Yeah. The reason why is because their trust is largely, I talked about capability and character. Amazon's trust is really built around capability. The capability of their fulfillment centers, like how efficient they are. Character wobbles, right? Like, does Bezos have integrity? Do we really feel like they care about the bookshops they're eating up? Or they want us to spend money on the right things? And when you have a brand and the trust is purely built around capability and the character piece is missing, it's quite a precarious place to be. >> Lisa: I saw a tweet that you tweeted recently. >> Uh oh! (laughs) >> Lisa: On the difference between capability and character. >> Yes, yeah. >> Lisa: And it was fascinating because you mentioned some big examples, Boeing. >> Yes. >> The two big air disasters in the last year. Facebook, obviously, the security breach. WeWork, this overly aggressive business model. And you said these companies are placing the blame, I'm not sure if that's the right word-- >> No no, the blame, yeah. >> On product or service capabilities, and you say it really is character. Can you talk to our audience about the difference, and why character is so important. >> Yeah, it's so interesting. So you know, sometimes you post things. I actually post more on LinkedIn, and suddenly like, you hit a nerve, right? Because I don't know, it's something you're summarizing that many people are feeling. And so the point of that was like, if you look at Boeing, Theranos was another example, WeWork, hundreds of banks, when something goes wrong they say it was a flaw in the product, it was a flaw in the system, it's a capability problem. And I don't think that's the case. Because the root cause of capability problems come from character and culture. And so, capability is really about the competence and reliability of someone or a product or service. Character is how someone behaves. Character gets to their intentions and motives. Character gets to, did they know about it and not tell us. Even VW is another example. >> Lisa: Yes. >> So it's not the product that is the issue. And I think we as consumers and citizens and customers, where many companies get it wrong in a trust crisis is they talk about the product fix. We won't forgive them, or we won't start giving them our trust again until we really believe something's changed about their character. I'm not sure anything has changed with Facebook's culture and character, which is why they're struggling with every move that they take, even though their intentions might be good. That's not how people in the world are viewing them. >> Do you think, taking Boeing as an example, I fly a lot, I'm sure you do as well. >> Rachel: Yeah. >> When those accidents happened, I'm sure everybody, including myself, was checking, what plane is this? >> Rachel: Yeah. >> Because when you know, especially once data starts being revealed, that demonstrated pilots, test pilots, were clearly saying something isn't right here, why do you think a company like Boeing isn't coming out and addressing that head on from an integrity perspective? Do you think that could go a long way in helping their brand reputation? >> I never, I mean I do get it, I'm married to a lawyer so I understand, legal gets involved, governance gets involved, so it's like, let's not disclose that. They're so worried about the implications. But it's this belief they can keep things hidden. It's a continual pattern, right? And that they try to show empathy, but really it comes across as some weird kind of sympathy. They don't really show humility. And so, when the CEO sits there, I have to believe he feels the pain of the human consequence of what happened. But more importantly, I have to believe it will never happen again. And again, it's not necessarily, do I trust the products Boeing creates, it's do I trust the people? Do I trust the decisions that they're making? And so it's really interesting to watch companies, Samsung, right? You can recover from a product crisis, with the phones, and they kind of go away. But it's much harder to recover from what, Boeing is a perfect example, has become a cultural crisis. >> Right, right. Talk to us about the evolution of trust. You talked about these three waves. Tell our audience about that, and what the third wave is and why we're in it, benefits? And also things to be aware of. >> Yes! (laughs) I didn't really talk about this today, because it's all about inspiration. So just to give you a sense, the way I think about trust is three chapters of human history. So the first one is called local trust; all running around villages and communities. I knew you, I knew your sister, I knew whoever was in that village. And it was largely based on reputation. So, I borrowed money from someone I knew, I went to the baker. Now this type of trust, it was actually phenomenally effective, but we couldn't scale it. So when we wanted to trade globally, the Industrial Revolution, moving to cities, we invented what I call institutional trust. And that's everything from financial systems to insurance products, all these mechanisms that allow trust to flow on a different level. Now what's happening today, it's not those two things are going away and they're not important; they are. It's that what technology inherently does, particularly networks, marketplaces, and platforms, is it takes this trust that used to be very hierarchical and linear, we used to look up to the CEO, we used to look up to the expert, and it distributes it around networks and platforms. So you can see that at Coupa, right? And this is amazing because it can unlock value, it can create marketplaces. It can change the way we share, connect, collaborate. But I think what's happened is that, sort of the idealism around this and the empowerment is slightly tinged, in a healthy way, realizing a lot can go wrong. So distributed trust doesn't necessarily mean distributed responsibility. My biggest insight from observing many of these communities is that, we like the idea of empowerment, we like the idea of collaboration, and we like the idea of control, but when things go wrong, they need a center. Does that make sense? >> Lisa: Absolutely, yes. >> So, a lot of the mess that we're seeing in the world today is actually caused by distributed trust. So when I like, read a piece of information that isn't from a trusted source and I make a decision to vote for someone, just an example. And so we're trying to figure out, what is the role of the institution in this distributed world? And that's why I think things have got incredibly messy. >> It certainly has the potential for that, right? Looking at, one of the things that I also saw that you were talking about, I think it was one of your TED Talks, is reputation capital. And you said you believe that will be more powerful than credit history in the 21st century. How can people, like you and I, get, I want to say control, over our reputation, when we're doing so many transactions digitally-- >> Rachel: I know. >> And like I think you were saying in one of your talks, moving from one country to another and your credit history doesn't follow you. How can somebody really control their trust capital and creative positive power from it? >> They can't. >> They can't? Oh no! >> I don't want to disappoint you, but there's always something in a TED speech that you wish you could take out, like 10 years later, and be like, not that you got it wrong, but that there's a naivety, right? So it is working in some senses. So what is really hard is like, if I have a reputation on Airbnb, I have a reputation on Amazon, on either side of the marketplace, I feel like I own that, right? That's my value, and I should be able to aggregate that and use that to get a loan, or get a better insurance, because it's a predictor of how I behave in the future. So I don't believe credit scores are a good predictor of behavior. That is very hard to do, because the marketplaces, they believe they own the data, and they have no incentive to share the reputation. So believe me, like so many companies after, actually it was wonderful after that TED Talk, many tried to figure out how to aggregate reputation. Where I have seen it play out as an idea, and this is really very rewarding, is many entrepreneurs have taken the idea and gone to emerging markets, or situations where people have no credit history. So Tala is a really good example, which is a lending company. Insurance companies are starting to look at this. There's a company called Traity. Where they can't get a loan, they can't get a product, they can't even open a bank account because they have no traditional credit history. Everyone has a reputation somewhere, so they can tap into these networks and use that to have access to things that were previously inaccessible. So that's the application I'm more excited about versus having a trust score. >> A trust score that we would be able to then use for our own advantages, whether it's getting a job, getting a loan. >> Yeah, and then unfortunately what also happened was China, and God forbid that I in any way inspired this decision, decided they would have a national trust score. So they would take what you're buying online and what you were saying online, all these thousands of interactions, and that the government would create a trust score that would really impact your life: the schools that your children could go to, and there's a blacklist, and you know, if you jaywalk your face is projected and your score goes down. Like, this is like an episode of Black Mirror. >> It's terrifying. >> Yeah. >> There's a fine line there. Rachel, I wish we had more time, because we could keep going on and on and on. But I want to thank you-- >> A pleasure. >> For coming right from the keynote stage to our set; it was a pleasure to meet you. >> On that dark note. >> Yes! (laughing) For Rachel Botsman, I'm Lisa Martin. You're watching theCUBE from Coupa Insp!re London '19. Thanks for watching. (digital music)

(click) >> Hey, welcome back everybody. Jeff Frick here with theCUBE. We're in downtown San Francisco at Moscone West at the Professional BusinessWomen of California Conference. 6,000 women, this thing's been going on for 28 years. It's a pretty amazing show. We see a lot of big women in tech conferences, but this is certainly one of the biggest and it's all about diversity, not just women. And of course, if there's a women in tech event, who are we going to see? Sandy Carter. >> Woo hoo! (laughs) >> Sandy, so great to see you. CEO of Silicon Blitz and been involved with PBWC for a while. >> I had suggested to Congresswoman Jackie when I saw her about three or four years ago about doing something special for the senior women. I proposed this leadership summit, and you know what they always say, if you suggest something, be prepared to execute it. She said, "Would you help us get this going?" Three years ago, I started the Senior Leaders Forum here, and yesterday we had that forum. We had 75 amazing women from all the great companies of California Chevron, Clorox, IBM, Microsoft Intel, Amazon, you name it all the great companies here in the Bay. Oh, Salesforce, Airbnb, all goes on. >> That was like a little conference in the conference? >> It was for C-Suite only and it was about 75 women. We do three TED Talks. We pick out talks that are hot but that are very actionable for companies. So yesterday, Jeff, we talked about millennials how to have inclusion of millennials in your workforce. 50% of the workforce by 2020 will be millennials. >> Is that a harder challenge than just straight-up diversity? >> This is really important. (laughs) It may be. But I had Allison Erwiener and Erby Foster from Clorox come and speak and they did a TED talk. Then we actually do little workshops to action. What would a millennial program look like? Our second topic was around innovation. How do you link diversity to innovation? There are so many studies, Carnegie Mellon Silicon Valley, Harvard, DeLoy that shows there is a linkage but how do you get the linkage? For all these amazing diverse- >> The linkage between better business outcomes, correct? >> That's right. >> Better outcomes. >> That's right. In fact, the latest study from Harvard came out at the end of 2016 that showed not only with diverse teams do you get more innovation but more profitable innovation which is everybody's bailiwick today. We had Jeremiah Owyang of Crowd Companies who's a innovation expert come and really do that session for us. Then last but not least we talked about diversity and inclusion, primarily inclusion in the next century. What is that going to look like? We saw some facts about what's going on in changes in population, changes in diversity and then how we as companies should manage programs in order to tap into those changes. It was an awesome, awesome session. Then of course we had Pat Waters from Linkedin. She is chief talent officer there. She came and closed it out with her definition of inclusion. It was powerful. >> You won an award. >> I won an award, yes. >> Congratulations, what did you win? >> Game Changer for PBWC, and I'm really proud of it because last year we had Serena Williams speak and she was the first recipient so I guess you'd say I'm in great company because it's now Serena and I with this great award. >> Absolutely. Before we went on air we were talking about some of this next-gen diversity and thinking about getting that into programming languages and you brought up, there was some conversation around bots and obviously chat bots are all the rage and AI and ML is driving a lot of this but ultimately someone's got to write the software to teach these things how to behave so you're going to run into the same types of issues if you don't have a diversity of the thinking of the way the rules and those bots work as you have in any other situation where you have singular thinking. >> I think Jeff, you're right on. In fact, I think it's really going to accelerate the desire for diverse teams. If you think about artificial intelligence machine learning, and bots you have to train the computer. The computer's not naturally smart. There is a team that actually uses a corpus of knowledge and trains the bot. If the data that goes in my dad always said, "Garbage in, garbage out." If the data that goes in is biased then the output is biased and we're seeing that now. For instance, I was just looking at some VR headsets and people are now looking at virtual reality. You know you get a little nauseous. They've been tweaking it with artificial intelligence so that you don't get as nauseous but it was done by all men. As a result, it greatly improved the nauseousness of men but not women. That's just one example. You want your product to go for 100% of the world. >> That's weird, you'd think that would be pretty biological and not so much gender-specific. >> You would, but there are apparently differences. We talked to a doctor yesterday. There's apparently differences in motion-sickness between the two and if you only have one set of data you don't have the other. >> But then there's this other kind of interesting danger with machine learning and I think we see it a lot in what's going on in the news and causing a lot of diversion within the country in that the algorithms are going to keep feeding you more of that which you already have demonstrated an affinity to. It's almost like you have to purposefully break the things or specifically tell it, either through active action or programming that no, please send me stuff that I'm not necessarily seeing all the time. Please give me stuff that's going to give me a diversity of points of view and opinion and sources because it feels like with your basic recommendation engine it's going to keep sending you more of the same and rat hole you down one little track. >> That is true, and that's why today we have a panel and we're going to be talking about especially for AI and bots you must have diverse teams. From the session this morning I really loved one of the speakers, Kim Rivera, from HP and she said, "It's hard, but we just said 'Look, we've got to have 50% women on the board. We've got to do this.'" I think the same thing's going to be true for AI or bots Jeff, if you don't have a diverse team, you will not get the right answer from a bot. Bots are so powerful, and I was just with a group of nine year old girls and we had a coding camp and I asked them, "What do you want to do?" All of them wanted to do bots. >> Really. >> They had all played with- >> What kind of bots- >> The Zootopia- >> Did they want to do? >> They all had played with a Zootopia bot from Disney. I don't know, did you see Zootopia? >> I did not see it. I heard it was a great movie. >> It's a great movie, animated movie of the year. >> Bunnies, bunnies, bunnies as cops, right? >> That's right. In fact, the bunny is what they made into a chat bot. 10 million kids use that chat bot to get a little badge. Now all the kids are into bots. They used bots to remind them to brush their teeth to do their homework. In fact, there was a chat bot written by a 14 year old boy in Canada that's a homework reminder. It's actually really quite good. >> Also I'm thinking of is the Microsoft little kid that didn't, I guess timing is everything. >> Timing is everything, that's right. >> That one didn't work so well. >> But I guess what I would just leave with people is that when you're looking at this great, great new technology for AI and bots in particular, you must have a diverse team. You must look at your data. Your data's got to be unbiased. Like you said, if you just keep doing the same old thing you're going to get the same old answer. You've got to do something different. >> You're doing all kinds of stuff. You're working with Girls in Tech on the board there. I think you're doing some stuff with the Athena Alliance who's driving to get more women on >> Boards. >> Boards. You're really putting your toes in all kinds of puddles to really help move this thing because it also came up in the keynote. It's not a strategy problem. It's an execution problem. >> That's right, and because I'm so passionate about tech I love tech and I see this linkage today that is been never really been there that strong before but now it's almost like if you don't have diversity your AI and bots are going to fail. Forester just said that AI and bots is the future so companies have to pay attention to this now. I really think it's the moment of time. >> We're running out of time. I'm going to give you the last word. What are one or two concrete things that you've seen in your experience that leaders can do, like came up today in the keynote tomorrow to really help move the ball down the field? >> I think one is to make sure you have a diverse team and make sure that it represents diversity of thought and that could be age, it could be gender it could be sexual orientation, race you got to look at that diversity of team, that's one. Secondly, just by having a diverse team doesn't mean you're going to get great output. You've got to be inclusive. You've got to give these folks great projects. Like millennials, give them a passion project. Let them go and do something that can really make a difference. Then third, I think you have to test and make sure what you're delivering out there represents that cognitive diversity of thought so make sure that you're not just putting stuff out there just to get it out there but really double-checking it. I think those are three actionable things that you can do tomorrow. >> That's great, Sandy. Thank you very much. >> Thanks, Jeff. >> Thanks for stopping by. We just checked Sandy's calendar and there we know where to take theCUBE because she's all over the place. She's Sandy Carter, I'm Jeff Frick. You're watching theCUBE from the Professional BusinessWomen of California conference in San Francisco. Thanks for watching. (synth music)