SAP, a 53-year-old German tech giant, builds software for almost every business function, from supply chain and resource management to finance, sales and HR. Its products are used by more than 440,000 customers worldwide, including 98 of 98 of the 100 companies worldwide. Overall, its client base generates more than 80% of global commerce, according to the company.
At the helm is Christian Klein, 45, who has been at SAP since 1999. “I started here as a student. And I still know the people back then. I work at SAP here. It's a company of 110,000 people.”
Under Klein's leadership, the company accelerated its transformation into cloud-first enterprises, with cloud revenue accounting for more than half of its total revenue in the first quarter of 2025. Meanwhile, SAP embeds AI into its core products with the goal of becoming a “#1 Enterprise Applications and Business AI Company.” SAP is one of Europe's most valuable public companies, and made the headline when it took the top spot in March.
Klein spoke with time on June 4th about his success as a leader, how AI can change companies, and the differences in power and influence.
This interview is condensed and edited for clarity.
What have you changed your mind since becoming the sole CEO in 2020?
Our software helps build bridges and promote global trade. We have multinational companies in the US, China and Asia that do business worldwide no matter where you are. Five years ago, when I took this job, everyone in the world was a winner. I saw democratic values in most parts of the world and said, “Oh, that's not going to change.”
I'm still quite young and don't live in this era, so I didn't think things could change that quickly, at least when it comes to world trade. But here we are. For example, I have to deal with more in all geopolitics than I had to do five years ago. That definitely changed.
Why do you think you're good at your job?
When you are CEO, for many years, you believe, “I have the right strategy for a nice PowerPoint – I wrote it all down – the rest is just about execution,” you're totally wrong.
Especially if you are a European company with many stakeholders, you need to first think about your strategy from a customer perspective. Everyone says that [laughs]but you really need to make sure you're pounding that nail. Otherwise, you can take the company completely in the wrong direction.
You need to make sure you are excited, committed and passionate about your employees, shareholders, the Workers Council, and everyone (the strategy and where you lead the company). You have to be a bridge builder: to ensure that everyone is involved, understand the strategy, and make sure everyone is moving in the same direction. Otherwise things can fall apart very easily.
In May CEO's addressyou said we can think of AI agents as “digital colleagues.” Why hire humans when AI agents can function robustly as digital colleagues at close range?
An example is: I had economic revenue from SAP. Currently, AI provides specific simulations and forecasts on how the year ends, taking into account all trade disputes and uncertainties in the market. Does AI completely trust you to say, “This is how this should give you financial guidance for the rest of the year”? No: I feel that at the end of the chain, there is a need for humans at the end of the chain, where past experiences can be incorporated.
Or consider selling software. When you travel the world, cultures are very different. When I step into a customer meeting in Japan, it's not like when I step into a customer meeting in AI in Germany or the US. And I haven't seen any AI that can do that yet. At least it's not better than humans.
You point to emotional connections and cultural understanding. The AI is already I'm very nervous You can understand emotional nuances. An important limitation is that current AI systems become inconsistent over time. If that changes and the same system could run for months or years at a time, do you still think AI can't do these parts of the job?
You are right, your emotional intelligence will become better and better. There is no doubt about that. But at the end of the day, there must be someone in the company that can take responsibility. I don't want to see SAP in the headline saying that the customer “relied solely on SAP AI agents to completely ruin it to close books or run the supply chain.” Despite doing 99% of the work, AI didn't roll out as expected. ”
Ultimately, I'm sure there must be some people still in the mix. Do you think we'll need the same amount of developers, salespeople, and consultants in the future? It definitely isn't the job profile they have today. But do I still need other jobs that are approaching: more data scientists? Is there more people thinking about the future of the industry? Yes, absolutely.
It would be an illusion to believe that AI will help and promote more productivity, but the workforce still looks the same. That's definitely not the case. But I can't imagine a workforce that is exclusively digital workers.
Can you imagine a scenario in which 90% of the workforce will no longer be in five years?
Ah, that's tough. You absolutely know that certain job profiles can be 60% to 70% digital. For example, take an audit. Of course, we have a company policy, but for example, I don't really like all policies (EU data law), but there's always a gray zone. You ask five lawyers and five large language modules about interpretation. Does this agreement comply with EU data laws? – And you get a different answer. It seems like when you have a problem with your back and ask five doctors, there are five different root causes. These things still exist. Therefore, I don't think there are only digital workers in these jobs. In other jobs, I definitely see a much higher share. It really depends on the job profile.
Do you think you're alive to see an AI system do every part of your job?
A part of that. I need to make many decisions every day. They are pretty logical decisions, sometimes just by looking at the facts. But sometimes there are tough decisions you have to make using your emotional intelligence. There are certain market trends that may not be captured in fact, but you talk to people, other stakeholders and make other decisions. So I don't think CEOs will be able to become purely digital in the future. Sometimes you still make decisions based on your gut sensations.
What is the biggest bottleneck for AI's enterprise adoption?
In the enterprise world where you have agents set up, 100% accuracy is required. So, for example, a digital assistant Joule cannot disrupt compliance checks regarding travel, sourcing, or material flow instructions. People bet their jobs and companies with our software and AI. This requires 100% accuracy. If you don't understand business processes as a tech company – if you don't have data or you can't access everything – this is a big problem.
This is a major obstacle for many businesses. Understanding how to apply technology. A good place for SAP is to run these business processes, know the rules and workflows, and have data. There are many more people in the infrastructure and hardware layer. There is no business context. They have missing data.
Is accuracy the biggest challenge? Or are you somewhere else?
The second piece is on the data. Every company you enter has data silos: There was a tendency to collect data and create data lakes, but no one has solved the problem of matching all the data. And if it doesn't fit, the AI can't immediately cast a spell.
The third piece includes regulations. This often kills innovation before it starts. Certain parts of the world need to be careful not only to see risks, risks and risks when it comes to AI, but also to see the benefits of the economy.
What do you think is the appropriate regulatory framework for AI?
This is my practical view. In the European Union, it's good that we have a union, and I'm all part of it – we have AI regulations in many member countries, and the EU has another regulations on top. As a result, there is disruption, different interpretations, and it's already game over before companies and startups use technology to compete with others in the world. That's the problem. I say: We have one framework across Europe, giving freedom within this framework, especially if it's early in the development and testing cycle. You cannot do anything harm at this early stage.
Of course, the moment you bring it to the market and scale it, you need regulation. But don't regulate technology! To regulate results, AI is deployed in the right way in the chemical, automotive and defense industries. But don't regulate technology. After that, we will not regulate innovation.
You need to see that you don't live on an island here in Europe. All of these tech players are the only large tech players in Europe, but there are many startups. There is competition everywhere, and overregulation alone cannot put these companies and startups at a disadvantage when it comes to speed of innovation.
If you were 22 today, what would you do when you graduate from university?
At 22, I still wanted to be a professional skier. I'll try again. That's my passion. I love being in the mountains, I love skiing, and I try to turn that passion into a profession.
So why don't you set out to become CEO?
I had no plans to become CEO when I was 22. The goal was developed over time. When you say “I need to be CEO” and you're too early, I don't like it. I'm on the “first stream” side. Prove yourself, work as a team and prove you can achieve great results. The rest continues.
The goal of becoming CEO was to develop the goal of becoming a cloud company only when he became SAP's Chief Operating Officer. We had a strategy and the software helped us. But I saw that it's not just a technology that makes the conversion work. It is also an understanding of culture and the tone from above. You need to understand: where do you want to go with your company? Do you want to be a Cloud PureThurs company or still be a legacy? What do I need? You can then connect software, technology and AI.
So, “Oh, I can be CEO of SAP. I have a vision for how to move to this company into the next century. It sounds a little strange, but it's not the power and responsibility that drew me to the role. I saw how we were working and what we needed.
What do you think is the distinction between power and influence?
Become CEO and now you have made the decision and believe you have the power, so everyone just following is probably the biggest mistake you can make. You can put more policies in place and put more pressure on them, but people don't just follow automatically. To convince people, we need to be over-communication during change. When I made this dramatic change and the stock price collapsed five years ago, I couldn't say, “Yeah, now we did it. The strategy is clear. Now I have the power to tell you exactly what to do.” You need to influence people. You need to persuade them.
(Click to receive weekly emails of conversations with top CEOs and decision makers around the world here.))
