Navigating CEO Transitions — When, Why, and How to Make a Change | LSI USA '25

David Krahe  0:05  
All right. Good morning everyone. Thank you for being here. So my name is David Crane from Russell Reynolds associates. I'm thrilled to dive into our panel discussion today on a topic that is both complex and critically important for the success of any company, which is CEO transitions. So we have an incredibly esteemed lineup of panelists. I'm going to introduce them here in a second. I'm also going to ask our audience if we could get the LSI presentation up the one on this HDMI. We're going to ask for your input on where we start today. So today's discussion is really around the when, why and how of making these incredibly complex and critically important changes at the top. So I will do my best to introduce an incredibly esteemed lineup of panelists. So I'm joined today on my left by Mika Nishimura. Mika is a operational partner at Gilda healthcare, a life sciences focused venture fund with $2 billion in assets under management. She is a seasoned commercialization and board leader, leveraging her expertise to guide Medtech ventures through critical growth phases. She's launched disruptive medical technologies in over 50 markets worldwide, ranging from cardiovascular to oncology, and has also played a very pivotal role in scaling early stage organizations, most notably with the $275 million acquisition of Envision medical by Boston. Scientific Mika sits on the board of SI bone, as well as accurate NEC and Hoya Mika, thank you for being here today. Pleasure. Ink it. I'm also joined on my far left by Stuart Simpson. So Stuart is currently the CEO of THINK Surgical. Stuart to the forefront of disrupting and expanding access to robotic surgery, bringing a very important cutting edge technology to a broader patient base. In his former life, he was with Stryker for over 20 years, where he played a really key role in growing that organization from a three and a half billion dollar competitor to what was in excess of $80 billion dollar juggernaut. By the time he departed, he also led the acquisition of Mako surgical $1.75 billion robotics play into Stryker so Stuart, thank you for being with us. Thank you. And then my final panelist, Paul LaViolette in the middle. Paul is the CEO of pulse Biosciences. He's also the managing partner for SV Health Investors. For those of you that aren't familiar with pulse, it's actually a NASDAQ listed pulse frequency ablation. Did I get that right? Paul? He'll tell me what I got wrong later, after doing and and then, SV has been around for several decades with quite a successful track record, over 75 exits through either IPO or M and A Paul previously served as the CEO of Boston Scientific where he helped scale the company and increase revenue over 20 fold during the 15 years he was at The helm leading in excess of two dozen acquisitions expanding the global presence of that organization. Paul's been a director of over 25 Medtech companies, so I have that right. Paul seven public and been chairman 10 times. So he currently sits on the board of Edward Lifesciences, and brings a deep investor as well as operational lens to our discussion today. So I have droned on long enough I don't know if we have the Mentimeter up anymore computers locked the benefit of technology, so we'll unlock it briefly, and then most times. Can you guys see that? All right. So if you could scan the QR code, and if you can't get to the QR code, there is a website on the next slide, mentee.com, you can enter the code. We want to get your input on what's most interesting to cover first. So the when, the why and the how of executing these leadership transitions. So Stuart, I'm going to pick on you first. We're going to test your crystal ball skills. Where do you think the audience is going to drive us? So

Stuart Simpson  4:55  
I would go for a spread, but I think the when and why. So the big questions are the most important topics in my mind. If you force me to pick one of them, I'd say when?

David Krahe  5:07  
Okay, so it looks like we have a riveting race between the how, which is executing the successful transition. We have two people coming in for the how, and one person, all right, so, real time. So Mika, I'll put you in conflict with Stuart here for a second,

Mika Nishimura  5:29  
because I would have actually said, why? Okay, maybe the first one to come knowing the audience a little bit like, Okay, you're a founder, CEO. Why? You know, should my board think about potentially making a change?

David Krahe  5:44  
And I think the why is an interesting one in the sense of the tension between what we call the continuity at the top, so balancing that tension between leadership continuity and change. So why don't we start with what looks like the when on the far left. Okay. So, Stuart, your spread. Bet works. So we'll go ahead and stop the live. Mency, thank you for your input. So, Mika, you picked why? Stuart, you picked one. So we'll start with you. Stuart, so on the when, when you think about the decision to make a change, what are those subtle signs that a company needs a new CEO for that next phase of development or growth?

Stuart Simpson  6:39  
So I think it's a very, very good question, and my board experience is nowhere near the experience of the other two panelists. But in my experience, I don't think this is a question that is addressed often enough or deeply enough in board conversations. And I think there are several things. Obviously, there are tell tale signs, if you as a company are missing your deliverables, if things just keep seem to slip and then be explained away, if things that you predict don't actually materialize. There's, there's all those sort of tell tale signs. But also in an early stage company, you're you're iterating quickly, and you're learning quickly, and it's all part of the process. So it's hard to for those signals to emerge up through the organization. But I think that's one, is when there are telltale signs. The other important tell tale sign for me is around culture. And I don't think, as a board member, I've ever spent enough time digging into understanding the culture, culture of the CEO, culture of the leadership team, and the deeper culture within the organization, or whether the culture is a fit for the phase of company that you happen to be at. And I would say the last point I would make is understanding and being intellectually honest about where are you? Are you in discovery? Are you in product development? Are you in early commercialization? Are you in a scaling phase? Are you trying to take over the world? It's very important to know where those actual transition points are, and it's hard to identify them largely but to know where those transition points are, because that is a perfect time to say, do we have the right leader and team for the next phase. So that would be my way. Yeah. And

David Krahe  8:44  
when you think about what you mentioned, the the subtle signs of is the culture, right? Paul, you've you've seen this at large corporations. You've seen this at early stage corporations. How do you think about in a kind of really getting the smoke signals from what's going on in the organization and identifying is the culture putting the organization on the right

Paul LaViolette  9:05  
path. Well? And a, it's a great point, and I agree with it completely. B, it is hard, right? When you're in a governance role, you're not walking the halls of the business every day. You're seeing the business through the eyes, often not exclusively of the CEO, but of the CEO and the senior management team, there's a degree of insulation there that separates you from what's really going on. And you think about a smaller company that's got a site in 50 or 100 people, think about a larger company that's got 20 sites you have really, you're very limited in your ability to assess what's the feel of the culture, what's the feel of the organization? Is it healthy? Is it hand in the right direction, in addition to all of the other performance metrics? So I do think you have to deduce it in some ways, from Hey, is I always like to think, if you have a person and you see that person this way, you. You think, Well, maybe they treat other people that way, or maybe they're perceived differently by the team than by the board. What you realize over time is actually no what you see is what other people see. And so if you think there are issues with fundamental things, listening, humility, sensitivity, about the business, responsiveness, whatever you may think that could relate to culture and might not yet show up in lagging performance. Those are signs that you should assume other people see. They're probably more accentuated in the real world of that facility and those facilities than you see in the boardroom. So I actually think the board members should really be thinking, hey, if we think it's an early warning sign, don't be dismissive. Assume that it's actually more accentuated in the day to day operations of a company than what you're actually being shown. And there are people, right? There's a Senior Vice President of Human Resources or of human capital there are, there are turnover metrics or other things. Does your company do a culture kind of survey? How are we doing on that? How is that trending? There are measurable things. But in the end, assume that, I would say, be a little bit more pessimistic than optimistic, because you are insulated and you could be misled.

David Krahe  11:24  
Yeah, that's a really good point on the you know, kind of going through the organization, through the head of HR, but as Mika, as you think about communicating these underperformance issues, these subtle signs, what? What do you find most effective in terms of moving from identification to addressing it in terms of that first step, yeah,

Mika Nishimura  11:48  
you know. And by the way, I think you know, Paul and Stuart have brought up an excellent point, and let me relate to a story. So as an operator, as an advisor, as a board member, I've seen some great CEOs, and I've seen some ones that were just truly, you know, your ugly cases that you wish upon no you know company. And one of those ugly cases involved a CEO that I literally counted. There are eight people who reported to the CEO, and in the course of about four years that CEO had turned each of those positions over at least three times. So, so that should have burst. A clue you know that, like not all those people could have been idiots, right, and total under performance. So why didn't the board really catch on to, hey, maybe there was an issue here? Yes, of course, organizations change the skill sets that are required in any given position, whether it's VP of engineering or, you know, Chief Financial Officer, may change as a company evolves, but as a board, you know you really should have picked up on those signals, and maybe you should have done, you know, some informal exit interviews yourself, with people that you have come to know who recently left. Hey, you know I would benefit from, you know, hear more about your experience and what you know potential changes might happen. So I think those the board can't just attend the board meeting and just listen to what the CEO or some of the senior management is telling you, if you start to kind of see those signs that cultures eroding, that you know there are issues in turnover, maybe haven't done an engagement survey, but maybe you could look a little deeper, go a level down to maybe two levels down, have a great relationship with a chro. So you can hear about those informal things and maybe designate one person on the board to who has perhaps the best relationship with a CEO to kind of have those honest discussions, you know, and also, of course, have internal board discussions about, Hey, what is everybody seeing here, and do we need to take action? Can I

Stuart Simpson  14:13  
make one final point here, question of when, if at any point in time as a board, you don't have 100% belief and conviction in the CEO and what that person's doing. 99% is not enough. 98% not close enough. It has to be 100% if you ever have anything but 100% you need to have a conversation about whether it's time to change.

David Krahe  14:43  
And when you think about that conversation, moving from the boardroom to taking action, is the conversation with the CEO? Is it with the CHRO? Is it with both? How do you think about navigating that conversation when you move from 100% to less than 100% confidence? Yeah,

Stuart Simpson  15:01  
talking from experience and experience is a euphemism for mistake.

Paul LaViolette  15:07  
I'm very experienced

Stuart Simpson  15:13  
in one particular situation. We kept believing that 95 could get to 100 or we kept hoping, probably it was better than believing that 95 could get to 100 and as a board, we should have spent more time in executive session talking about that one and only topic, to either get ourselves to 100% to figure out a pathway to 100% or we should have taken action. So we let some doubt linger, and even although it was a small amount of doubt, that small amount of doubt grew and grew and that company didn't have a good outcome. So as I look back, I made a commitment to myself that if I am ever in a position where I have anything but 100% belief, I'm going to start that conversation. I

Paul LaViolette  16:12  
just want to add on the board first, yeah, please. I want to comment on Stuart's point, because I think it's, it's so vital, and it speaks to the board dynamic, right? And so in a and we'll you can talk about the risk right of of changing versus the benefits of of changing. And the board is likely to be divided on that. Yeah, some members of the board are likely to be a fan of the CEO. Maybe the CEO brought them on as directors. Some members are going to be more objective just because of their their perspective and their backgrounds. And so you can never assume that the board is is unified in that view. And so if there is a question, the first thing you have to do is get a sense for what what does, what other members of the board think. And ultimately, that's the role of the chair of the board is the chair of the board has no power, no voting authority other than calling a meeting. It really comes down to all right. Now it's my job to herd the cats and figure out where are we if we're greatly divided. I've got a lot of work to do if we're actually all kind of thinking the same thing, but it hasn't congealed yet. Now I have to get the board together and reach consensus, because if we need to make a change, there's a lot of work ahead. But if you're we'll talk about the when. But if you're not ready as a board with consensus on the most important issue in your governance role, which is to determine who runs the company, then we got a problem.

David Krahe  17:41  
Yeah, well. And you know, one of the common things we hear, from our vantage point, when we're brought in to replace the CEO from our board clients, is we waited too long. There's, there's very rarely a situation where they said we acted too soon. So tying these two points together, I'm curious, and maybe I'll ask Mika you this point or this question, is the, you know, kind of gap, the amount of time the board's dedicating to the topic. So if you, if you vector into that less than 100% area, is the resolution to spend the appropriate amount of time to actually discuss it. Because I imagine that you're tight on time. You're meeting quarterly. It just kind of gets pushed to the side. You don't give it enough air time. Is that your experience?

Mika Nishimura  18:26  
Yeah, and I think it depends a little bit on the stage of the company as well. With venture back companies, you know, the investors you know, are usually having a lot of different conversations between board meetings, I find out that, you know, much larger companies, it's hard to hurt the cat sometimes, but with venture back companies, sometimes it is because we've all seen the pattern recognition, and you tend to recognize the issue. It's easy. You're to corral the group and have these sorts of phone calls to discuss about these topics, but it is still, I agree with you that oftentimes the regrets that we have had as a venture investor is we should have done the CEO change sooner. Rarely do we say, Oh, we let a good one go and look what happened sometimes you know, financing, or looming financing ground, you know, catapults that discussion. You know as well, right? You know, because you're starting to think about having different sorts of investors, they're asking questions, you know, they might even like we have done on in a term sheet, you know, say the CEO has to change that. You have to bring the new CEO. We've done that, and those were the right decisions to do it, because we recognize that there was a gap between where the company says they wants to go in the next two, three years versus what the current CEO brought to the table. So sometimes it is externally. Catapult it. You know, to have these discussions, but never, ever, ever do a CEO change when you only have like, four months left. Can go cash runway. That's not a great

Paul LaViolette  20:10  
unless you're unless you're anxious to put a bridge in.

David Krahe  20:14  
Yeah. So maybe if we pivot into the why around the CEO changes. So we talked a little bit about the tension between the leadership continuity and the need for change. So I'm curious, Paul, from your experience, you know, distinguishing between just normal organizational challenges, growing pains, and the actual, you know, kind of genuine deficiencies that you feel like require intervention. How do you think about that tension?

Paul LaViolette  20:41  
Well, you can listen. Companies have problems. We get as operators. We don't get paid to, like, run things. We get paid to solve problems. We wake up every morning thinking, all right, it's just, it's just a question of what new problem is going to emerge today that I hadn't anticipated. So managing problems is no big deal, and and there should be some facility with which the CEO can take on problems and get over them. So when you see more problems emerge that were not anticipated or that don't get handled with some some acuity and some some agility, at that point, you say, you know, we're we're struggling a little bit more than I think we should now, that's a judgment call. If you then Pair that with any kind of a phase change, scaling up dramatically, going from pre commercial to commercial, or any anything else that introduces new burdens. Then you then you have to look and say, okay, is my team not engaged? What's causing this? Do we just not have the right skills? And you can lack a skill, you can say, we can compensate for a skill. You can acquire a skill, but if you lack more than a couple for where the company is going at that point, you say, Listen, theoretically, this person is a good person, and we can invest in them, and maybe we'll get there, but that may not be the best approach and the fastest way to get the company well positioned. So I look at it the skills gap. Is it something that is, you know, very acutely bridgeable, or if it's meaningful, at some point you just have to admit the company's demands are moving in a direction that this individual's background and phenotype don't match you are where you are.

David Krahe  22:29  
And Mika, you talked about the good, the bad and the ugly. So when you think about some of the ones that didn't go well, how do you as a board member or an investor, think about a seamless transition. What does that look like, and what can companies do to set that up correctly?

Mika Nishimura  22:46  
Yeah, and I'll be very interesting hearing, you know, my fellow panelists, some views on that too. I think so. First of all, typically, people kind of think about, well, okay, here's a founder, CEO who was a technical person or a surgeon in clinical person, and and you come to terms, you know that, okay, you know, we need to get a different type of of CEO in. And the easiest thing, or the most tempting thing to do is to say, Okay, we'll just slot that person to be a CTO or a CMO. And sometimes that's right, depending on the personality and how you define those roles. But I've also seen ugly cases where there's that now you know a CTO, the former CEO, still wanted to just put, you know, himself into making decisions that may be at odds, you know, with the new what the direction the new CEO wants to take? So you have to really take a hard look to see, when is it the right thing to do it? What benefits do you get out of how do you define it? How to ensure that there's understanding all around including people in the organization, like, who gets to call the shots here, right? You know, so that there's no confusion about it. A lot of times, you know, it doesn't work out, as tempting as it may be. So then the question is, as a board, what's another, you know, way to handle it? And if you don't have a ready made candidate that immediately take over the new CEO position. You know you might have the designated intern person if you have a capable CFO or COO second income manager knows the business really well. That could be a bridge to make the transition a little easier for the new but I'm really curious what Stuart I'm experiencing, what, for example, has been.

Stuart Simpson  24:47  
Well, I think you have to remember that if you make that decision, unless it's because the CEO has done something just, let's just say bad. There's no urgency. Right? So you have time to plan your next moves and to plan them thoroughly, and either we've done our job well as a board, and we've been building some succession candidates into our organization, and we want to start looking at them through a more critical lens about are they ready now? Are they capable of being ready soon? Or we've been sourcing or identifying people out in the market that if ever, if anything ever happened, we would want to have that person come lead our company, right? So building a pipeline, it's a bit easier as an operator to do that external pipeline building than it is as a board member, but it can still be done. So I I very much believe that once you've made the decision, you take your time and are deliberate about it, the next thing is to be very, very clear about what you're looking for. And I don't see this done well most times. And by that, I mean obviously there's experience, obviously there's capabilities, there's also personality and impact on culture and fit in the organization. And you have to think about all those four components. And when I'm doing this, I spend days actually writing a position description before I even pass it over to David or someone like David. And within that, for example, in experience, I will my recent CTO hire. I wanted somebody with both big company and early stage company experience for and I explained the reasons why, and then I said that a in a tie this one is dominant over that one, and here's why. So that means that the recruiters know exactly what I'm looking for on every attribute and how I prioritize every attribute, and funnily enough, we ended up getting that. That was the first candidate I met in that process. We ended up hiring him, and he's been phenomenal.

David Krahe  27:09  
You'd be amazed at how oftentimes that level of diligence is not done, and it is unbelievably critical. An earlier panel today talked about forced ranking, and I do think what you described Stewart is really important on the trade offs, because there's always trade offs. So getting a board to force rank, seeing where there's lack of alignment, because so much of a CEO search when you do get to the replacement decision, is about managing the boardroom dynamics that you mentioned earlier, Paul, and figuring out what those traders trade offs are, and getting the

Paul LaViolette  27:46  
alignment. The other thing I would say, I love the force ranking. I think that's really important. It's important to do it ahead of time, because if when you finally have your two candidates, you're already forming opinions about who likes whom. But if you made those ranks rank orders earlier and set them in stone earlier. Now we have a clearer set, set of decision criteria, I think on the continuity. I think continuity is overrated. I think we worry too much about the future and not we're not optimistic enough about what new blood can bring to a company I never worked for Medtronic. Let the record show. But Bill re Bill George was a good friend and a mentor. And you know, when Bill George left after 10 years and he said, I'm done, I need to leave now. Bill was a phenomenal CEO, no one would have ever said he should leave. But he said, you know, my run here, I just feel somebody else now should take it to the next level. And he didn't want to stay on the board, clean break, let the new team come in. You guys figure it out. And so I think that that was a great example of where, you know, perceived continuity. He's now still a professor of leadership at Harvard Business School, like listen, let the new group come in. They'll think of things. They'll energize in ways that we as a existing team may not and you never know what's ahead. So let that happen. And I'll just make a quick comment on the board of Edwards and obviously Mike musalum, legendary CEO, only CEO the company's ever had, you know, 11 million times return to investors. And he says, I'm going to retire. I'm 70 plus years old. And we were really worried, how do you replace Mike Musallam? And the answer is, you can don and and we had people in the company said, Well, if Mike leaves, you know, I'm going to leave. Well, why would you leave the company? It's about the company. Yeah, it's about your role, and it's about what we do for patients. And so got people over that notion that this is not just about a single person. This is about. About advancing the cause and, oh, by the way, the next generation of leadership can do special things for the company in ways that Mike knew and we had succession plan. But the point was, how do you you kind of embrace the fact that, yeah, we're going to go through discontinuity from a legendary no one would ever say they would want to work for anyone more than they would want to work for Michael, well, but you got to move on. And guess what? That doesn't mean the company can't absolutely thrive, although it won't always just feel exactly the same way. Yes, so I absolutely agree with your points there the there are four things that people need to be able to follow some buddy or a team,

Stuart Simpson  30:42  
compassion, stability, hope and trust and stability is by far and away the least important one of the four attributes. So if you don't have trust and hope, then stability is important. But if you got trust and hope and belief, so you keep changing. Yeah, iterate. Just iterate.

David Krahe  31:06  
We're going to pivot into successfully executing the transitions. We've already delved into that topic quite a bit, but I want to encourage those in the audience, we have a little bit under 10 minutes left to interrupt us at some point in the next six minutes and 54 seconds with your questions, because we do have a wealth of experience up in front of us from a panel today. You Paul mentioned the successful transition away from Mike to Bernard, a lot of fear in you know, kind of replacing a giant like Mike. Last time I checked, Edwards is still in business doing well. So I imagine some of that fear was misplaced. But whether it's an at scale CEO transition like that, or an earlier high stage growth venture, when you think about executing a successful transition, what would be those hallmarks of success for you?

Paul LaViolette  32:02  
Well, AI would go back to Stuart, with his high level of preparation, identification of the key attributes and then rank ordering. What's most important? Because there is no there's no perfect profile. You will find surprisingly good candidates that may be of a different form, but you ultimately have to come back to, what is it that we are really prioritizing about, a little bit about stability, but much more about taking us to a new level? And so you have to really think about, what's the business strategy? What will we look like, not next year, but in the next especially for a large public company, as compared to a series B, going to Series C, a large public company is thinking about a five and 10 year horizon. So where will we be then and and what do we what do we like? It's easy to fall in love with your company. What do we love about our company? But what do we really want to change? And we need to bring in someone who's willing to be a change agent for that, for that positive growth. And so you really just have to think it through, talk it through. No one's got the right answer drive a process. And importantly, succession. There's no There's no time not to be in succession planning mode. It's got to be ongoing. Anyone can get hit by a bus. You never know, and you can never be too prepared.

David Krahe  33:29  
Yeah, we do get that question quite a bit in terms of, when do we start thinking about the CEO transition? And the right answer is the day after the CEO starts, because it's never too early to start, particularly as it relates to internal versus external succession. So Mika, when you think about portfolio companies that you've been involved in, I believe there's a kind of bias that at those smaller scales, that there's not enough room for internal succession. But I think that's probably not always the case. So when you think about internal versus external. What would you challenge, as far as the thinking of, you know, some of these higher growth stage ventures?

Mika Nishimura  34:07  
Yeah, yeah. And again, it kind of comes back down to what Stuart and Paul were saying, right? You know, so just objectively, from a clean blank, you know, piece of paper, write down what is going to be, you know, your hope for the company for the next few years, where is the puck going and how do you need to skate to and then translate those to the qualities, the experiences, the skill sets, the personality and the growth potential for these internal candidates, right? Because, okay, unless you know, the CEO wins a mega, you know, lottery and decides to retire, you know, you have to, kind of like, you know, think a few years ahead. So it is true that it is rare for venture back companies to have a strong. Long internal candidate. Seen it where a CEO was able to step into the CEO. We thought initially that it may be a temporary arrangement, but it turned out that actually, you know, the person performed wonderfully on use the board very effectively and was able to make that transition. But that is a little bit rare for that. But that doesn't mean that you need to have a good succession plan, even for a smaller organization. And it's not just the CEO position, but it's the next level down. You know, do you again for each position? Where do you want that position to evolve? And do you have the right mix, can you potentially still have the right next three years from now in those positions? So yeah, it has to be a continuous process. I would

Stuart Simpson  35:50  
encourage early stage companies to seriously consider a high level operator, and I don't mean an operating partner necessarily. I mean an operator on your board, because it does buy you a level of fallback comfort and an option if you have an unforeseen CEO transition,

David Krahe  36:12  
we refer to that as the installed spare. So there's a word for it. I don't know if that's the right work. I need to remember this, sir. So we have less than two minutes left, so maybe we'll start with Paul, followed by Mika and Stuart. You will back clean up just a few kind of parting comments on this topic.

Paul LaViolette  36:35  
Well, everything revolves around the CEO, so you can't ever take this lightly. You don't want to just go into change and not respect all of the ramifications. But CEOs come and go. So embrace the fact that if there is a need for a change, voluntary, involuntary, whatever the circumstances, recognize that this is true. We've all said this. There's always an opportunity to upgrade. There's always an opportunity to put someone in who's even if not, better for today, better for the future. So I just look at and say, don't, don't fear it. It's a big change. Don't underestimate it. But never, never hesitate to embrace that. Need to change. You can improve the company every time. Ben,

Mika Nishimura  37:24  
I echo that. And one of the things that I always thought like, okay, so you want the CEO in like, early stage company to be a visionary, right? But visionary doesn't equate to being a cult leader. And so again, you know, to Paul's point, you always can bring in a different type of visionary leader that may be visionary, but a different stage of the company. You know, from the founding CEO and the boards really need to spend the time thinking about it. The where I think we have a problem as a board for venture back companies is if you have a board member who sits on 12 different boards and has become a clipboard board member. It is not engaged enough to steward Your point is not an operator doesn't understand those things. That's where you you can get into trouble, you know, as a board. So get somebody without on your board

David Krahe  38:16  
and and Stuart over to you, to

Stuart Simpson  38:17  
yeah, let me the CEO is everything, but the CEO is not everything. Is the key message, and don't be afraid to have the conversation. Don't be afraid to make the decision. And don't be afraid to reach higher, because invariably, you're having the conversation and making a decision because you're not satisfied there is a better future, a better tomorrow. You just have to have confidence about acting on it.

David Krahe  38:49  
I wrote down the four things you said, compassion, stability, hope and trust. Did I get those right? With stability being the least important? So the thing I learned from you, the three of you today, was just the tension between continuity and change is definitely hyped in our minds, and whether you're replacing a giant like Mike nu solo or even Bill George, you know, the companies will will persist. So thank you. 

Stuart Simpson  39:15  
Thank you. 

Paul LaViolette  39:16  
Great. 

Mika Nishimura  39:17  
Thank you.