ReportWire

Tag: Leadership Next

  • How Taylor Morrison CEO Sheryl Palmer leads differently after almost 20 years—and who she’s met along the way | Fortune

    [ad_1]

    On this episode of Fortune’s Leadership Next podcast, cohosts Diane Brady, executive editorial director of the Fortune CEO Initiative and Fortune Live Media, and editorial director Kristin Stoller talk to Sheryl Palmer, chairman and CEO of Taylor Morrison. They reflect on the pressure CEOs face to speak about societal issues; how to work effectively with both sides of the political aisle; and why Palmer has spent almost 20 years with the company despite a brief resignation in 2010.

    Listen to the episode or read the transcript below.


    Transcript:

    Diane Brady: Hello everybody, and welcome to Leadership Next. I’m Diane Brady.

    Kristin Stoller: And I’m Kristin Stoller. 

    Brady: Quantum computing has the potential to transform industries by solving optimization problems, boosting machine learning, and sparking innovation in logistics, finance, and material science. Jason Girzadas, CEO of Deloitte US, is a longtime sponsor of this podcast and is here with us today. Hi Jason, thanks for joining us.

    Jason Girzadas: Great to see you Diane.

    Brady: So what is quantum computing, and how do you see it transforming industries?

    Girzadas: Well, quantum computing has been a topic for some time in research circles, certainly closely watched by business, but it’s fundamentally a different computing paradigm that uses the principles of physics instead of mathematics to drive the computing outcomes. That’s been largely the domain of research, and it’s becoming seen as being a more viable commercial computing methodology and an approach. And I think the real uses will be ultimately around very complex optimization scenarios, further enhancements to scaling, machine learning, and also very complicated simulations that could be relevant to a whole host of different business applications.

    Stoller: Jason, what steps should leaders take to prepare for both its potential benefits as well as its potential risks?

    Girzadas: It’s really about readiness planning right now, and preparing an organization to understand the implications. So it’s about understanding what skill sets would be required, what type of cybersecurity protocols would need to be in place, and begin to think about the types of use cases that would be very germane around optimization and simulation.

    Stoller: Excellent advice. Thank you so much, Jason.

    Brady: Thanks, Jason.

    Brady: In this episode, we are speaking with Sheryl Palmer, who is the Chairman and CEO of Taylor Morrison. And Sheryl, you are the first and only woman to lead a public home builder. Still to this day. You went there in 2007 and it’s an incredible job you’ve done, we’ll be talking about that. We are taping this episode here in Scottsdale, Arizona, before an audience of leaders. So thank you—for Deloitte’s North America Next Generation CEO program. Thank you all for joining us for this live conversation.

    Stoller: Absolutely, and thank you, Sheryl, for joining us as well. 

    Sheryl Palmer: Yeah, of course. 

    Stoller: So one of the things I love, Sheryl, and that you’re so good at, is—I love hearing stories. You’re really good at telling stories. You have interviewed so many high profile people, and I have it here, George W. Bush, Michelle Obama, Steve Case. You told Diane and I that you also worked for Ray Kroc at McDonald’s, which is a really fun surprise. But I’d love to hear your top story of interacting with them and the leadership lessons that you think about to this day.

    Palmer: Oh, goodness, so many. But if I were to–specific to your question, Kristin–you know, I think about—I’ve had the absolutely amazing opportunity to interview George W. three times, and so the first time was very systematic. I had to go through Secret Service to get all my questions. And the third time was very casual, and his authenticity and candor really came out because he was just not—he wasn’t on guard at all. He was very engaging. But what I loved about him was just his genuine one care: that I looked good in the interview, which how unique would that be? Right? We’re walking from the green room, and he’s like, “don’t worry. You got this. It’s my job to make you look good.” And I’m like, “No, I don’t think it goes that way, but I so appreciate that.” But he was really quite genuine. And then from a leadership standpoint, and this might sound so silly, but three interviews, I also had the opportunity to be in the rotunda when his dad passed and I’d sent him a note that I was sending my respects, and each one of those four communications, I got a handwritten letter from him, and that’s a lost…

    Stoller: My mom says it really matters. 

    Palmer: And it really matters!

    Brady: I just want to, because we’re before an audience of leaders, I want to also level-set why you’re doing interviews. You’ve got a podcast: is that something you’re doing because you think it’s important for a CEO to do? Is it something you’re doing just because of natural curiosity? And just give us some sense as to why you’re doing these interviews? It’s intimidating for us, the interviewers, as you can imagine.

    Palmer: Well, you know, I’ve been very fortunate. The first time was a circumstance where we were owned by private equity, and at our closing dinner when we went public, one of my new board members was Senator Flake, and he arranged it. And so it was just a very small intimate group, probably about 50 of us, and that was my first time. I had dinner with him, and then I interviewed him. Then I got asked to do the others. One was for a veterans cause, and he supports and paints veterans. But what it did for me, Diane, is in the research, which you will know so much better than I do, I learned so much. I read like three of his books, and I reached out to find friends that knew him personally, so that you’re more prepared. And that, to me, is the exciting part. Same with Donna Brazile and Karl Rove, when I interviewed them together. On TV, they’re very different, and this was for the home building association that they had very different beliefs. But the reality is, they’re two humans that are on different sides of the aisle, but at the end of the day, they’re still friends, and so being able to get into that chemistry and really get into the issues that can affect the veterans, if it was George Bush or our home builder association with the other two, you actually can make a difference through that process.

    Brady: Well, let’s stay in the moment. You have a fascinating background—some of the people you’ve met—but you actually gave up an opportunity to go to Washington, which many of you in this room will have to do throughout your careers if you don’t already do it, to come here. Life’s about tough choices. What did you give up to be here? And why?

    Palmer: Well, it really wasn’t a tough choice, because I had already made the commitment quite some time ago, and we have been trying to schedule a meeting with the new director of the FHFA, Bill Pulte. And in our industry, I think I’m known as the one with a lot of mortgage knowledge. I’ve taken the time to really understand. And so Bill had reached out to me and said, “I really need you at this meeting.” And so there were five CEOs in total that were going to join. He had reached out, and so I really wanted to be there. But in all fairness, we had been trying to schedule this for three months, and two weeks ago, he finally settled on a date, and we tried to see, could I be in both places? And it just wasn’t possible. So as important as that was, I know the meeting is in good hands with a lot of my peers, and I’m delighted to be here.

    Stoller: But you’ve been going to Washington—this wouldn’t have been your first time, right? So I wonder, Sheryl, what advice do you have for CEOs who are going to have to do this at some point in their career, you know, dealing with administrations on both sides of the aisle?

    Palmer: You know, it’s a really good question Kristin, because, like anywhere, it’s about relationships. And when you’re—I remember my first time on the Hill, you know, I was really focused on lobbying particular initiatives. This goes back almost 20 years, and it was daunting. It was scary, I have to be honest. It was like, these guys, they’re representatives of our country. They’ve been voted in by the people. They must be so informed. First thing I learned is they’re not as informed as you think, about all the issues. 

    Brady: We see that on TV. 

    Palmer: Okay, good. And I say that with respect that they’re learning almost as they’re walking in the meeting on some issues. And here, for the folks that are out there lobbying, these are really big, important issues that affect our business and affect the consumer. I mean, our business affects consumers all over the country, and so I was actually a little tiffed that they wouldn’t take the time, just like we talked about being prepared. But what you quickly realize is it’s not about the relationships you build when you’re in D.C. It’s about the relationships you build when you’re not in their office with their staff, because now all of a sudden, you have a different and personal connection, and that’s when real things happen, and it doesn’t matter what the issue is. So it’s about education, informing, relationships, and perseverance, because none of this stuff happens fast. I think about the Great Financial Crisis and how difficult that was. And how impactful the decisions they were making in banking [were] on our industry, and honestly, they were somewhat oblivious to it. And so it’s really about educating.

    Brady: Now, you came to the role in 2007, and I hope you don’t mind that I mentioned that you’re the first and only woman. I don’t want to see everything through a gender lens, of course. But I am curious, first of all, what positioned you to get that? You started at McDonald’s…

    Palmer: …I did. 

    Brady: You even knew Ray Kroc, who I believe, yelled at you.

    Palmer: He did.

    Brady: So what made you the right person to lead Taylor Morrison was in a very interesting time, the company had just come together, pre-IPO. Frankly, we knew at least some type of crisis was looming. In 2007, it hadn’t fully come to rest yet. What made you the right person for that job?

    Palmer: It hadn’t come to roost across the country, but it had in certain markets. And I had been the area president in Nevada for another brand. Another big, top five builder, and they had gone through a significant crisis. It was the first place that it hit. I left that to actually stay home with my kids, because they were heading off to college, and I felt like I’ve been traveling my entire career. And then this opportunity came, and when I joined, honestly, I joined Morrison Homes in 2006, so I’m just about at my 20 years. And I joined as an area president. It seemed like five minutes after I joined, there were discussions about—and we were a private U.S. company of a U.K. public, so we were a [subsidiary] of a U.K. public [company]. And it seemed like five minutes after I joined there was discussion about the two U.K. publics that had North American holdings coming together. So we spent about seven, eight months working on that. And there’s a lot of different laws in the U.K. So somebody else was brought in, the CEO of one of the companies was appointed, and about 90 days later, the CEO from the U.K. said, I think we need to make a change, and asked me to come to meet the board in the U.K. And I did. And you know, to be quite honest, there’s a little bit of fake it till you make it when you take on a new, big role. And it was private, so I didn’t have any public concerns about how to run a public company. Got the role, and it was all about surrounding myself with good people. I don’t think either of the companies, if I were to be really honest, I don’t think either of the companies would have made it independent at that time. Because, you’re right. It was 2006, then 2007 when I took over. But the next five years were really tough, and then the U.K. sold us to private equity.

    Stoller: Was there a moment either, you know, around 2008 during the housing crash, or, you know, a few years later, when you did the IPO, that you thought, this is too much for me. I want out?

    Palmer: There was a point in 2010 where I actually resigned.

    Stoller: Really? Tell us about that. 

    Palmer: I was owned by two private equity firms. They, and I hate to talk about the woman card, but they really didn’t have females…

    Brady: …I talk about the women card all of the time, I just like to disclose…

    Palmer: …they didn’t have any women in their portfolio as leaders, and, honestly, their style was about second guessing every decision, and you can’t run a company that way. I mean, I can’t stop with every decision and go ask permission, and if you don’t have trust in my judgment, then I’m the wrong person. And so I made a really, really hard decision, and thought, the best thing I can do for this company is step away and they can bring somebody in that they have confidence in. And so I took the day off because I knew this would be hard for me. I had been there for, you know, a number of years already, and I sent the note, and I had one of the board members call, and I’m like, I’ll be happy to stay, you know, as long as you need, or I’ll be happy to pack up. Whatever works best for you, but I’m happy to help find my replacement. And he calls, he’s like, “so where are you going?” And I’m like, “just like I said in my letter, I’m not.” But I had been through other experiences in life, that life is short, and, you know, things really matter. And he’s like, “you really don’t have another job?” I’m like, “No. I mean, what I said is true. I’ll stay as long as you need.” And he called one of the other private equity guys and asked him to come meet. And I’m like, “we don’t need to do that. It’s really okay.” And they came, we met for dinner, and after about four hours, he’s like, “I’d really ask you to give me another chance.” And next year, I was the CEO of the Year for their private equity firm. I took the company public

    Stoller: How did he convince you? What did he say? 

    Palmer: You know, at that point, I had nothing to lose, and sometimes it’s okay just to stand alone and not have the fear of repercussions. I had already resigned, and you don’t resign and think you’re staying, that wasn’t my plan. And he just, I was very honest with him on the whys and the way he was treating and the way he was undermining, and how difficult it was to operate a company that way. And if you don’t trust, then really you should move on.  

    Brady: Which gets back to one of the questions that this program addresses, which is, not who wants to be a CEO, but why would you want to be a CEO? Let’s start with, when did you realize, you know what, I can run this thing, and I want to run this?

    Palmer: When I got it. I mean, if I were truly honest, it was a big move from running a region to running a company that was being merged. So two big companies. But that’s, like I said, it’s when you really surround yourself with experts in every function, and you know enough to be dangerous at 5,000 feet because you’re generally operating at 30,000 and you have to know when to, like, swoop in and when to swoop out and let your team do what they do. You know, the honest-to-God truth, Diane, is I didn’t know anything more the day I took the job than the day before. But when you get in the role, you have access to a lot more information and a lot more people, and if you use that well and the team well, you begin to grow confidence.

    Brady: So when you lead in, day one, now you’re 18 years into the job. 20, if you include when you joined the unit. How do you lead differently today? Obviously the environment is different. But when you think about yourself as a leader, and you go back to that starting-out point, any advice you would give yourself?

    Palmer: Well, leading in crisis is different than leading a stable business. When we brought the two companies together, it was a crisis. The Great Financial Crisis was hard, and it was almost taking a street fighting mentality, and it did mean you were involved in a lot of details. I would say COVID [was] similar. It’s a crisis when someone is uncertain and scared and nervous, and everyone’s got a different emotion, and there’s no right or wrong. You do swoop in. But I think my lesson is to know the times when to do that and when to back away.

    Stoller: I’ll also add on that, because Sheryl, I feel like for me, in my career, I’ve been told the only way to get ahead is by job hopping, moving companies. You’ve now been at the same one for 20 years. Why didn’t you move around? Why have you stuck it out for that?

    Palmer: I love what we do. I love what our company does. When I joined, [and] our two companies came together, we were [worth] less than $1 billion dollars, and this year we’ll be closer to $9 billion. We went down to 600 people, and now we’re at almost 3,500. So I feel like, in some ways, I gave birth to this company, and what we’ve built—we’ve done seven acquisitions. Most of my senior team has been here. I think among my 10 direct reports, we have over 150 years of experience in the company. So I did it for the people. I’ve stayed for the people. I love what we do, and I love the impact. And it’s really important to stay grounded, Kristin, in what we do. It’s not just running a company, but building communities where people get—it’s soft and squishy. It really is, but it’s important to keep a foot on the ground and recognize the impact that we have every day when families get to move into a home and raise their families.

    Stoller: You have a very diverse workforce too. You have people of all ages. One of the things I was always really curious about, especially now, when you have all these external pressures coming at you, and a young generation—Gen Z, Gen alpha—who really want their CEOs to be very candid, very open: how do you balance that with with the pressures you have from up top? Everybody wants to know you. You can’t know all of them.

    Palmer: Yeah, it’s interesting. I have a CMO who is remarkably talented. She joined the organization I think just about 10 years ago, very young. I think I brought her in as a PR manager, and now she’s our CMO, and she keeps me pretty grounded on the difference in our workforce, and particularly about the issues. And my own internal policy is I will talk about the issues within the organization, [but] I won’t talk about people. So for me, if I can keep that separation, it should never be personal. I think for anybody in my role, it should never be personal. But what the organization knows they have, from me, is total honesty and transparency. COVID is a great example of that. I had half the organization that was like, do not make us get a vaccine. You know, that is not your decision. I had half the organization that’s like, don’t let them come to work if they don’t get a vaccine. And all I could really do is provide facts and data. We never made a decision that you had to do that. Now there was almost a time where we would have been required, but that came and went. But I was so transparent. I had weekly calls with the entire organization when we had to lay off people. These are hard conversations, but I didn’t hide behind a computer. I didn’t hide behind a memo I would get on camera. And so I don’t know them all, but I think they all think they know me really well.

    Brady: One of the things, and keeping with the demographics—talk a little bit about what differentiates you from the other home builders, because I think that we tend to sometimes see it as—we talk about home building as more of a macro issue, right? Like what’s happening to housing prices. You have many different brands that I think are adapting to how people buy. You know, you’ve got a brand for renters. Talk about how you are seeing the market right now, because there’s no question there’s an affordability crisis. What are you doing about it?

    Palmer: There is a significant affordability crisis, and we’ve attacked it with our rental brand, Yardly, and it’s still building lifestyle communities like we do. So we buy land, we build houses, we have a management company that rents them, but it allows for affordability with gates and a lifestyle component. So it’s very similar to what we do, but then we ultimately sell that asset to somebody that does this for a living. I used to have a business in Canada. We sold it, and we built high rises. And I remember, Diane, so vividly that over my years there we probably started with an average square footage in those units of 1,300 square feet. And maybe they sold for $600,000 or $700,000. By the time I sold that business, our average size was 600 square feet, still selling for $600,000 or $700,000 so you can only do so much to squish it down. So there’s other ways, but it all starts with the land. And it starts with some of the things we talked about with policy, because 25% of the average selling price of a home today is spent on regulation. Before I buy land, before I get a building permit, before I build the house, 25% of that average sales price is on regulation. So that’s where we’re spending a lot of time in Washington. That’s why I was supposed to be there today to talk about the things we can do. Because other countries have figured it out honestly, much better than we have.

    Stoller: That’s what I’m wondering. Because you travel a lot and you get a lot of different perspectives on that. What do you think other countries are doing that the U.S. should adopt?

    Palmer: Well, I had the fortune when I was owned by the Taylor Wimpey company in the U.K., and I was on their board for about eight years. So their whole process is different. We had board meetings every month. Nine months a year I was over in the U.K. But one of the most basic differences, Kristin, is every single map. So when we get an entitlement and get land approved to build houses, we get a final map. And every entitlement or final map had an overlay that said 15% of these houses are going to have to be delivered at an affordable level, meaning they have to be sold to someone at a median income, and we had to build them the same way. We all were bidding for this land, we all knew the same rules. And I’m not an advocate that we should go build section 16 housing and just go build a community of cheap or affordable houses, but integrate people, and that’s what it allowed for. So I wish we could do something like that here. There’s a few markets that have figured it out, but not enough.

    Brady: One of the big questions that a lot of leaders have to deal with is, do I want to go public? And sometimes you have a choice, of course, but what have you learned in terms of running a public company? Because that’s something that a lot of companies I see now try to put off, and when you’re such a public figure—it’s very different to be a public figure now than it was two decades ago. So talk a little bit about that and just share your experience and any advice you’ve had.

    Stoller: And leading through IPO, I think that’s a hard thing to do.

    Palmer: But so fun. I mean, honestly, the best experience of my career. 

    Stoller: I haven’t heard fun yet, but I’m curious.

    Palmer: It’s a lot of work, but I guess it’s because I love what I do so much. But getting to go on the road for 17 days and tell your story, probably no less than 250 times, about how we’re positioned, how we’re different. We’re the biggest home building IPO that’s ever happened. I think it’s going to be a hard one to beat, to be honest. And it was amazing. It was an amazing experience ringing the bell the first time. I think my cheekbones hurt by the end of that day. But just the pride of—I grew up in New York, but I had never been to the stock exchange. But the why, Diane, [inaudible]. I mean, if you were to really be honest about it. Sometimes I feel I live my life in six week increments. Earnings, call a board meeting, earnings, call a board meeting, and it’s a treadmill you’re on 20 hours a day.

    Brady: You have this great story—this gets to the other point I was mentioning about being a public figure—where you approached Arnold Schwarzenegger. I believe he was working out at the time, and he had that like “I’ve been recognized.” But I talk to a lot of CEOs who—that is the constant scrutiny. I think you become, to your point, very humanizing to your team. And we have not talked about the various ways that you’ve done that, but you’ve done a lot. I do think to understand the public figure nature of a role, especially in areas like home building, there’s a lot of anger out there about the cost of housing, and you could be sort of a symbol of that to a lot of people. So I’d love to just get your sense as to how you navigate that, because I think you lean into it in many ways.

    Palmer: Yeah, now it’s amazing how much time a day companies are spending on security. And with what happened in New York many weeks ago, it’s a little daunting. And everyone should appreciate that. Everyone believes they have the right to know everything about you and everything you’re doing at any time. I know when I separated from my husband, 10 years ago, everyone felt like they needed to know every detail. And so there are things in life that should be private, and that’s hard in a public role. I have chosen to own the impact of what we do, and so I’ve leaned in instead of out. So I do do a fair amount of media, but it’s helpful for our industry, because consumers need to be educated, and so I don’t do it for self promotion. I do it because it helps consumers recognize because, with all due respect, not everything that’s shared in the media is accurate. And so to be able to have a voice and share, I hear how often it’s impactful. Also, interestingly enough, this was the part that was surprising to me, how impactful It is to my team. They have a great deal of pride that their CEO is out and making a difference and tackling the big issues, but I’ll tackle the big issues in our industry once again. I think where it’s been most difficult for me, just honestly, is police violence, things that really don’t affect our industry, but every CEO is asked, “what’s your opinion on this or that?”

    Stoller: Yeah, and when do you choose to speak up?  

    Palmer: And that’s the debate that I have with my team on many of these big ones. And is there a way to speak up and not take a view? Because no view, when you have these issues that are so divisive in our country today, there’s no winning. I mean, there just isn’t. Winning is being strong enough and competent enough to say how you feel, but how you do it is really important, because some people are going to agree and some aren’t. The people that agree, those are potential home buyers, and the people that don’t, aren’t. That’s not how I want to be displayed.

    Brady: I want to ask, I know we’re winding up soon. The official part of this, when I talk to a lot of leaders, they often have a philosophy or tactics and strategies. For example, the more complex the external environment, sometimes people feel you need radical simplicity internally. Give me some sense as to what you’ve learned and advice you have as to the tactics for leading in what is always going to be a very complex environment that’s not going away. What have you done to sort of prioritize and know where you make the best impact?

    Palmer: Great question. Volatility, to your point, is not going away. I’ve always been a believer, and I don’t know if I always have or I’ve just learned it over time, but don’t let a good crisis be wasted. When you can influence change, when you’re running 100 miles an hour, it’s really hard. But I look at the environment that we’re in today, and it’s very difficult. To your point, the affordability crisis is daunting, and our homeless challenges across the country are growing.  Don’t waste the opportunity to really make a different impact. And sometimes that impact in today’s environment would be through innovation and technology and making sure we can control the things we can in the business today. And sometimes it’s about: how do you get through the other side and be in a position—many people pull back in an environment like this, in my opinion. This is the time to lean in and start making a difference. You know, we bought a big, transformational public company three weeks before COVID. I went from the smartest person in the industry, to: how stupid was that after it closed? And I believed in what we did, and you have to stay with that. We came out the other side much better. It was a good move, but it doesn’t always appear that way, and you have to, like I said before, you have to have the courage to stand alone and fight for what you believe in, because in the public market, a lot of people that don’t understand the business feel like they have a better view on it. If I could mention one other, coming right before COVID, I introduced a theme in our organization called Love the Customer. Now, love is not something that’s generally used in home building, right? It’s pretty street fighting, macho…

    Brady: …I love this kitchen. 

    Palmer: Yeah, love doesn’t have to be sexual, right? I mean, people love football. They love bacon, right? But I would tell you, when I traveled the country to share this new mantra of who we are and how we’re going to rep ourselves internally and externally, they thought I’d lost my mind. Finally, and now, seven years into it, we stand alone because our customer experience stands apart, and that matters. So dare to be different and look for how you can differentiate yourself amongst all the noise. I think that’s really valuable, and surrounding yourself with the best of the best, you have to have a lot of humility to do that. But to me, those are probably two ingredients that really allow you to manage and lead through anything.

    Stoller: That’s a great way to end. Thank you so much. Sheryl for joining us.

    Brady: Thank you.

    Palmer: Thank you.

    Brady: Leadership Next is produced and edited by Hélène Estèves.

    Stoller: Our executive producer is Lydia Randall.

    Brady: Our head of video is Adam Banicki.

    Stoller: Our theme is by Jason Snell.

    Brady: Leadership Next is a production of Fortune Media. I’m Diane Brady.

    Stoller: And I’m Kristin Stoller.

    Brady: See you next time.

    Leadership Next episodes are produced by Fortune‘s editorial team. The views and opinions expressed by podcasters and guests are solely their own and do not reflect the opinions of Deloitte or its personnel. Nor does Deloitte advocate or endorse any individuals or entities featured on the episodes.

    [ad_2]

    Fortune Editors

    Source link

  • Carmax CEO Bill Nash Talks About Selling Teslas and Industry Disruption

    Carmax CEO Bill Nash Talks About Selling Teslas and Industry Disruption

    [ad_1]

    On this episode of Fortune’s Leadership Next podcast, host Diane Brady talks to Bill Nash, president and CEO of CarMax. Their wide-ranging conversation covers the ever-evolving car market and how CarMax changed the way consumers think about used-car dealers. They also discuss why leaders in every industry need to think about disrupting their own business to stay relevant for the future.

    Listen to the episode or read the transcript below.


    Transcript

    Diane Brady: Leadership Next is powered by the folks at Deloitte who, like me, are exploring the changing roles of business leadership and how CEOs are navigating this change.

    Welcome to Leadership Next, the podcast about the changing rules of business leadership. I’m Diane Brady. 

    You know, few industries are more at the center of innovation and disruption than the auto sector. We’ve all read about the energy transition, the impact of inflation, AI that’s made the experience of driving more akin to riding an iPhone on wheels. Well, we recently caught up with Bill Nash. He’s president and CEO of CarMax. That’s one of the nation’s largest retailers of used cars and he has a very different take on the state of the car industry. He had interesting things to say about Tesla, the trajectory of innovation, as well as what Americans really want to drive. Take a listen.

    [Interview begins.]

    I’m here with Bill Nash, the president and CEO of CarMax. Bill, you run the largest retailer for used cars. I’m sure we all know it well. Let’s start, first of all, welcome. And second, give us some sense of what you’re seeing out there. I can’t think of a better barometer of the nation’s economy than the position that you occupy.

    Bill Nash: Yeah, well, first of all, thank you for having me today. It’s great to be here. We do occupy a position that gives us a little bit of insight into the consumer on a day-to-day basis. They have been pressured for a little while because of the inflationary pressures just across the board on what they’re buying every day. But when it comes to autos, that’s certainly no exception as well. You know, with COVID and the price run up after COVID, used cars, new cars have just become more expensive and then you add on top of that interest rates. So, the good news is prices are starting to come down a little bit, but the average consumer is trying to juggle. Where they used to be able to get in a car for, let’s say, $400 a month, that same car today between price inflation and interest rates is $500 or north of that. So, there is a feeling from the consumer that they’re having to juggle a lot of different things right now.

    Brady: You know, it’s interesting, we’ve seen this big push toward EVs. I know you just had an EV report yourself. Let’s start with what I think of as the elephant in the room, almost the Tesla effect. Can you give me some sense as to how that’s changed the calculus of what we want, hope, and dream for in a car, used or otherwise?

    Nash: Yeah, I think we’re in an interesting period right now. I mean, certainly EVs are here to stay and with a lot of the manufacturers putting targets out there of when they’re going to stop producing a gas combustion engine to go to fully EVs, although that’s down the road, certainly the early adopters are out there buying EVs now. And I think in the latest year, I think about 8% of new cars sold were EVs. Now, they have to be sold as a new car first in order to make it o the used car stream. So when we look at our business right now, it’s about a percent of the total that we sell is pure EVs, with about 5 to 6% in the hybrid EV space. That being said, I do think that as more models and options become available, as the pricing comes down on them, I do think consumers will eventually start to go there. You know, right now I think they’re still a little bit high for the average consumer, but I think that will change. And we’re trying to put ourselves in the position, just like we’re the largest retailer of used cars, to be the largest retailer of used EVs. So, we’re going to make sure that we’re kind of in that spot. And as you can imagine, there’s a lot of folks who have a lot of questions on EVs, whether it’s the battery, the range, the chargers, what kind of chargers should they have? And so what we’re trying to do is just make sure that our sales associates are educated, our technicians are educated so that we can handle that and really help the customer figure out what’s the right vehicle for them.

    Brady: Well, let’s unpack that a little bit, because we have such a finely tuned calculus over a used car. You know, tons of information, a lot of sense of which brands hold up, which models hold up, etc. What are you educating your staff on? What is the calculus for a used EV? Is it really all about battery life? Are you seeing any trends yet? To your point, it’s nascent, but …

    Nash: Yeah, I think first of all, if someone’s in the market for a used EV, this probably won’t surprise you. The big thing that they’re concerned about is how good is the battery? Because that is a big part of the valuation of that car. If you think about it, EVs have a lot less parts as compared to a vehicle that has a gas combustion engine. So, that is really where the consumer is, you know, how good is the battery, and so we’re working with partners to actually be able to measure the battery life on it, on a used EV, to give some assurances to the customer.

    But outside of that, they’re also just, they have lots of questions about charging and how much they should charge, what kind of charger they should have, what type of EV is best for me as far as the different ranges and what my daily life looks like. So part of our job is help educate them. And interestingly, some customers think that they’re in the market for an EV and when they start asking questions and we start educating, they realize, well, that really doesn’t suit how I live my lifestyle, maybe that’s not the right car for me right now, or vice versa. Someone may be thinking that they wanted a gas engine and realize they’re only driving so much and then all of a sudden they realize an EV might work out really well for me. So a lot of it is about the education at this point.

    Brady: I do think this is such an interesting neighborhood to be in, if you don’t mind, for a minute, in part because we are learning so much. Let’s talk about the consumer. Is it really a case where, look, if you’re a light urban driver with access to a lot of charging stations, of course, EVs are right for you? So that your locations are reflecting that. And in other parts of the country or more long-distance drivers, it’s not? I mean, that sounds very simplistic. So give me a sense as to how you think this is going to play out in terms of demand.

    Nash: Yeah, well, if I look at all the EVs that we sell, as you can imagine there’s certain parts of the country where you sell more than other parts of the country and certainly charging stations play a part in that. If consumers feel comfortable, they have plenty of chargers around them, because there is some range anxiety still for folks, who may be like, well, what if I go somewhere and I can’t find a find a charger? But again, I think the other way this is going to unfold, first of all, I think the prices need to continue to come down a little bit to become a lot more affordable. I think as the consumer realizes what their charging options are available in their area, but they also have to look at their lifestyle. Are they taking long trips? Where are they going on their long trips? So there’s a lot more that goes into that than just say, okay, well, how many chargers are basically close? And they may even in more rural places. Look, you can have an EV, especially if your lifestyle is one that, hey, you’re just driving it back and forth to work and you’re really not taking it long distances. Well, it may be a fine place for you to have one. So it really depends on the person and what their lifestyle is and what they’re looking for, the needs that they have.

    Brady: You know, you have to be a friend to so many in the auto sector. It’s such a fascinating sector to be in. So perhaps this is just a factual question with regard to top trade-ins and such, but are you seeing any trends that are on your radar? You want to put on ours on that front that perhaps are indicative of different ways of buying or even different types of models that we’re seeking out?

    Nash: As far as models that consumers are seeing, it really hasn’t changed much over the last few years. I think the big change in the industry, I’ve been doing this for a long time and I think probably I’ve seen more change in the industry in the last five or seven than I saw in the last 15 years before that. And a lot of that is being enabled by technology advancements, but it’s also being pushed by consumer expectations. You know, buying a car, whether it’s a new car or a used car, it’s a considered purchase and it’s a complicated transaction. People have questions, they may need to get credit. They have a vehicle that they have to trade in. Maybe they’re upside down in the trade. And so while it’s a very complicated transaction, consumers are expecting more. You know, when we got in the business, the only way to buy a car was to go into a physical dealership. We’re back in the nineties, the typical customer visited seven different dealerships before buying. Well, they don’t do that anymore. There’s a lot more transparency out there. And so I think the big transformation in the industry is really being driven by the consumers wanting a more simple and seamless process, which is one that we’ve really been focused on and kind of how we’re approaching the future of CarMax.

    Brady: One of the stereotypes that I think about is the demographic issues in this feeling of millennials and Gen Zs feeling different about car ownership in general. Have you noticed that or do you think we’re perhaps forgetting what we were like at Gen Z? I mean, I just, I’m curious if you think that car ownership is going to continue to be an aspiration.

    Nash: Yeah, it’s interesting. You know, I remember when I turned 16, I guess I could actually get my license before 16 and I couldn’t wait to get my license. And today there’s folks that have chosen to delay getting the license. But it is interesting, I think what happens is people are just waiting longer versus getting them as soon as they could. It’s just taking a little bit longer to get the license. People still like the freedom of having a vehicle. Certainly in the cities where you have ride sharing, that’s a great solution. But you know, you get outside of the dense urban populations, people want to have that flexibility of vehicles. And so it was interesting when ride-sharing was first coming up, there’s a period of time where the number of vehicles households owned actually went down a little bit. But then shortly after that, they started to go back up again and they really haven’t receded so…

    Brady: Everyone becomes a driver.

    Nash: What’s that?

    Brady: I said maybe we’re all becoming drivers.

    Nash: Maybe so. But I do think there’s something to people like that flexibility. You know, even though I use ridesharing a lot, I still like having the flexibility of having the vehicle when I needed to go different places. So I think that’s the change you see is that people just wait for that initial purchase, they’re just waiting a little bit longer.

    Brady: I have to ask, maybe you’re one of these people with 40 cars, but what car do you have?

    Nash: So I am not a person with 40 cars. I actually I love to find a good car and then I drive it forever. So even though I obviously see cars all the time, I actually drive a Cadillac Escalade right now, and I have been driving since about 2015, the same truck.

    Brady: Very nice. Can you give us a bit of your backstory as to how you got into this? You mentioned, of course, your own fascination at 16. Where did you grow up?

    Nash: I actually grew up on a farm. I grew up on a farm in a kind of rural part of Virginia, western part of Virginia. I’ll tell you, I don’t think there’s a traditional story of how you get into becoming a used car salesperson and, certainly, if there is, I probably am not that traditional story. I actually am an accountant by training and I went into public accounting and fairly early on I didn’t want to do that my whole life. But I’m also one that feels like you can have lots of good learnings, even doing things that aren’t your dream job. So I did that and ended up getting my license and then decided to make a career change out of public [accounting] into the corporate sector when my wife and I got married. And I actually started working for the parent company, which a lot of folks forget, the parent company of CarMax is Circuit City. I started working for Circuit City and was working for them when we started the CarMax concept. And then I came over full time, totally changing it once again and getting out of the accounting side of things and getting in on the operations. I came over to run the auction business.

    Brady: What an unusual parent. Can I point that out? Like, does it matter?

    Nash: I think it does matter. You know, the reason Circuit City started CarMax, you may remember back in the eighties and Circuit City was the retailer. And they had this this mentality about all about customer experience. And think back in the eighties and the early nineties before the Internet and all the technology advancements, you would think about the VCR, well people didn’t know how to use that. And so what did they do? They went to Circuit City where they had a great customer experience and explain all this. Well, Circuit City was trying to figure out, okay, how do we continue to grow? And so what are the other areas that we can disrupt in? And obviously the used car industry is highly fragmented. We compete with 35,000 other dealers that sell [one] year- to 10-year-old cars and not only is it highly fragmented, it’s also, at the time, it was a terrible customer experience. I mean, nobody wanted to walk into a used car dealership back in the nineties, much less work for one. And so they just thought like, look, we can bring our retail experience, our customer experience, we can bring that to the table and really take the things that folks don’t like about buying a used car, remove that and make it an enjoyable experience. And oh, by the way, our mission is to bring integrity and transparency to every interaction. So it’s a completely different way to think about it from a used car perspective.

    Brady: It’s true.

    Nash: I think it is important to remember kind of where we came from.

    Brady: Yeah, the term used car salesmen didn’t always evoke what you just talked about. I think of the movie Fargo and you know, yeah, as the daughter of a carpet salesman, I feel both the pain and the pleasure of the job that you’re in. Let me ask you, in terms of when you look ahead, where is the most exciting opportunities for growth that you see?

    Nash: I think both for us and the industry, I mean, like I said earlier, this is an exciting time to be in the industry. We’ve seen so much change. And I don’t see any reason why the change is going to slow down. If anything, it’ll continue to accelerate. I think that the biggest barrier right now we’re really focused on is as I spoke earlier, you know, there used to only be one way to buy a car and that was you go into a store, you work with someone in the store and you buy. Fast forward toward today and we’ve really been focused on this omnichannel experience, which is really, it doesn’t matter how you want to buy a car. You know, if you want to buy 100% online and have it delivered to your house and never have to interact with the person or step into the showroom, great. If you are, like a third of our customers, who want to do everything inside of a store, that’s great. But if you’re one of those customers, which is the largest subset right now, they want to progress on their own schedule. They want to do some things online, they want to do some things in-store, and they want it to be a seamless connection between the two. That’s where I think a lot of growth is going to come in the future, because it’s very hard when you think about a considered purchase like this for customers who are on physical assets in stores, they’re on digital assets, they’re back on physical assets and trying to keep that journey going through, not having to repeat or explain things that they’ve done, the better that you can do that, the more simple and seamless way you can do that which is really brought to life through technology and digital capabilities, great associates, physical footprint, bringing all that together, it’s really difficult, and connecting it so that in our case, several thousand sales associates have to be there where every single customer is at any given point. And that customer needs to know exactly where they are, even though they may have been to a couple of stores and in some things online.

    Brady: It’s an emotional purchase, isn’t it?

    Nash: It is. I think that’s a great opportunity going forward for folks that can really nail that experience. And I think outside of that, gosh, you’ve got technology advancements with AI, you’ve got the EVs, which we’ve already talked about. Down the road a little further you’ve got to start thinking about autonomous vehicles. So there’s just a lot to be excited about, a lot of challenges, but we also see them as a lot of opportunities.

    [Music starts.]

    Brady: We’re now starting to see companies deploy AI across the enterprise. The challenge for leaders is how to close the gap between the promise of gen AI and the results achieved so far. We spoke with Jason Girzadas, the CEO of Deloitte US, which is the long-time sponsor of this podcast. Here’s what he had to say.

    Jason Girzadas: I think every CEO and board interaction and conversation that I’m a part of proves the fact that the promise of AI is widely held and the hope is far and deep that it creates business value. But there’s challenges to be sure. What we’ve seen is that the probability of success increases dramatically with strong executive sponsorship and leadership. There has to be a portfolio of investments around AI as well as to link the business ownership with technology leadership to see the value of AI-related investments. Over time we’re optimistic and confident that the value will result, but it will be a portfolio where other short term opportunities for automation improvements around productivity and cost takeout and then longer-term medium-term opportunities for business model innovation that are truly transformational. So this is a classic case where it won’t be a single approach that realizes value for AI.

    [Music ends.]

    Brady: You know, Bill, I have to point out, for 20 years you’ve been on the Fortune Best Companies [to Work For] list, so I’d be remiss not to mention that. A., congratulations, but…

    Nash: Thank you.

    Brady: B., what does it mean to be a best company? I mean, especially in the context of a very far-flung workforce that you have? How do you do work on that?

    Nash: Yeah. Listen, the role that I am into, people ask me all the time what do you worry the most about it? There’s lots to worry about but the, the answer for me is very clear. The thing that I worry the most about are our people and our culture, you can’t separate the two, they’re so interlaced together. We are very proud to be on the Fortune Best Places to Work for 20 years. It’s not by an accident. We don’t do what we do to get on that list, but it is a great validation. I’m a big believer, and I even saw this at Circuit, in today’s world, every organization can be copied, CarMax can be copied with varying degrees of success. Every organization, whether you sell something, whether you have a service, but what can’t be copied are your people and your culture, and they’re only sustainable if you take care of them. If you don’t take care of them, they’re not even sustainable, then there’s no difference.

    Brady: Right.

    Nash: That’s the way I view the world is like our people are the reason we’ve been successful for the last 30 plus years. Our people will be the reason we’re successful for the next 30 years. So I spend a lot of my time with our associates in the field. I spend a lot of time doing townhalls and answering questions and talking about what’s going on because knowing what the associates voice, knowing what concerns them, what keeps them up at night, I want to know that so we can continue to make the organization better. So yes, we are very proud of being on that list but that’s also just, that’s who we are. That’s part of our DNA. We’re very much a people first culture. It’s always been that and we will continue to be that way as long as I’m here.

    Brady: You know I want to ask one other thing, because, again, I think you have such interesting insights into parts of the economy we don’t always pay enough attention to. And one is the fact that so many of the automakers have been really intertwined with China. We’ve also seen brands from China like BYD, etc. How have the tensions with China impacted your business, if at all? Again, I know you’re in a different portion of it, but I do often think about the auto sector because we’ve vilified that part of the world and yet that’s a part of the world where automakers have really found both a market and suppliers.

    Nash: Yeah and it’s a great question. I mean, we play a little bit different role. We don’t have some of the concerns that the automakers do. Obviously, for us, we’re going to sell what consumers want and what’s available out there. So we don’t have even with the supply disruption with COVID, that kind of thing, of course there were some parts disruption, but we don’t really face some of the challenges that the automakers are necessarily facing. And again, what we do is we focus on what are our consumers looking for, and let’s make sure that we have the available inventory to meet their needs.

    Brady: Excellent. Anything else you’d want to add, especially about what’s around the corner that we can look forward to next?

    Nash: Yeah, well, what I would tell you is around the corner is certainly going to be change. It is not going to stay static and for organizations that don’t make that change, I think the future — and that’s not necessarily even just in our industry, I think just in general — it’s ever evolving. And I think organizations that can evolve and meet the change are the ones that will remain relevant.

    Brady: Bill, talk a little bit about the demand. Since we’re looking at EVs now coming into the used  market. We have hybrids, the regular cars. What do consumers actually want when they come into your showrooms?

    Nash: Yeah, so look there’s a lot of press on EVs and rightfully so a lot of manufacturers have stated goals out there for switching the whole fleet over to EVs versus the gas combustion engines. I think we’re early, especially on the used side. We’re early into the adoption. And keep in mind, last year, I believe of new cars that were sold, only about 8% of them were EVs. You have to sell the new car first, be on the market, and then they become a used car. When I look at our own business, out of all of our sales, only about 1% of our total sales is pure EV. Now, if I take EVs plus hybrids, it’s more of like a 5 to 6% of our total sales. But I would expect that number to continue to go up. And that’s one of the things we’re focused on, is organizations, look, we’re the largest retailer of used cars to make sure we’re the largest retailer of used EVs. And so making sure that our associates, whether they’re our sales associates are equipped to handle the customers’ questions or technicians are equipped to work on those vehicles, [that] we have the infrastructure, the right partners, chargers, that kind of thing. We’re focused heavily on that right now because we know it’s only 1% today, but it will be ramping up over the next few years and you can easily see where by 2030, it could be 15 or 25% of our sales.

    Brady: Do you think the hybrid category is going to grow to the same extent? Because that really was to some extent a transitional vehicle.

    Nash: Now, I think we’re in a period here where hybrids may actually grow a little bit quicker than EVs, just because I think consumers, they still have some range anxiety. I think, too, they’re also, you know, they’re watching the purse strings and watching their wallets. They’re focused on overall cost. And some of the EVs are a little bit outside of the range of the average consumer. So they’re looking for alternatives. So I think it’ll be interesting to see, you know, there was a big push for EVs, to see if hybrid actually you’ve got some manufacturers that are focusing a little bit more on hybrids. So we’ll see how that pans out.

    Brady: There’s been such a luster around Tesla, you know, and I’m curious why people buy a Tesla, used or otherwise. Is it, do they come in looking for the same sort of specificity? Does it feel like a status buy? Can you give us some sense as to how the behavior may be different for that group of customers?

    Nash: Yeah, I don’t know if it’s necessarily different than other customers that are looking for EVs. I mean, obviously Tesla has been in the marketplace for long and they are very well known and they’ve done a phenomenal job really bringing the spotlight to the EVs. So I think, sure, in the early days there’s a lot of early adopters who wanted to get on that. But the reality is there’s a lot of folks that were looking for EVs and Tesla’s a great option. So I wouldn’t necessarily say that they are different than other consumers that are looking for EVs. But certainly there’s been more early adopters for sure.

    Brady: Has there been a used Cybertruck yet? Feels like early days.

    Nash: Yeah. We have not sold a Cybertruck yet.

    Brady: What do you think of the Cybertruck?

    Nash: Um, I’m sure it’s for some people it’s not. It’s not personally for me. It’s an interesting design. I don’t know. It’s got a following for sure.

    Brady: Spoken like a Cadillac driver. You know, when I look at the history of CarMax, you were born, you know, basically out of the parent of Circuit City and there is an industry that’s undergone a lot of change, consumer electronics. I mean, talk a little bit about the project that you’ve seen there and how that’s even informed your strategy at CarMax.

    Nash: Well, I tell you, having spent time at Circuit and then seeing what happened at Circuit, I do operate with a sense of a controlled sense of paranoia all the time. Because, you know, it’s a good example. You have to continue to evolve. You have to continue to make some bets on where the customer is going and make sure that you keep up with the times. And as we’ve  discussed, there’s a lot of change going on in the industry. There’s a lot of change going on from what customers expect in the experience. And I think you’re looking at a Circuit, who were very, very successful and look, they were thinking about future thinking about growth, but then all of a sudden you realize their space got really disruptive and what they used to rely on with the customer experience and being very informed on the product became less of a selling point for consumers because they were more educated, they had the internet, they can learn about all these new electronics versus having to go in and speak with sales consultants.

    Brady: And so it’s interesting though, because there is this innovator’s dilemma when you have such a large footprint in in an industry that is just itself being disrupted. I’m really curious when you’re living through that, you see what’s coming and yet there must be a certain degree of impotence of how to change it because you have to serve your existing customers. You know, you want to pivot to the future. What was that like?

    Nash: Difficult. You know, it’s a challenge. We are an organization that [was] set up to be a brick-and-mortar organization, and we’ve run that way, we ran that way for 25 years. And all of a sudden, okay, we’re going to pivot and we think the customer is going here. We need to have more of an omnichannel offering to be able to do online sales, to do in-store sales. You have to do a combination. We really got to a point where we simply stepped back and said, Hey, look, we are really good at the in-store experience and we can keep doing this, but there’s other ways to buy a used car and odds are consumers are going to start to expect more. So what do we, it’s almost like, what do you want to do when you grow up? And so we really thought about it and we think about the different markets people can buy a car in and we want to be great in all of them. But in order to do that, it’s a complete overhaul. I mean, you have to have different skills. You have to have different capabilities. As you bring those on, you have to insulate a little bit from the mothership, because there’s a tendency to reject the unknown, reject the new. You have to get some early wins. At some point, you have to bring your, what I would call your e-commerce piece, your digital piece, together with the brick and mortar piece. Again, that’s an area where we can see conflict. So yeah, disrupting yourself is not easy. Having gotten on the back side of this, obviously it’s harder than I thought it was going to be, it’s more expensive than I thought it was going to be. But the reality is if you don’t disrupt yourself, if you don’t continue to evolve, if you think that you’ve arrived, you’ll turn the lights out. You’re going down the wrong path. You will become irrelevant. In this day and age there’s just too much to going on. And as painful as disruption is, it’s really it’s not negotiable. You have to be able to continue to evolve. And I think we’ve put ourselves in a great position going forward that very few competitors will be able to match. And again, being in a highly fragmented market, the less competitors, that just means more market share for the folks that they can survive.

    Brady: Disrupt or be disrupted.

    Nash: That’s exactly right. That’s exactly right.

    Brady: Thanks for joining us, Bill.

    Nash: Thank you.

    Brady: Leadership Next is edited by Nicole Vergalla. Our audio engineer is Natasha Ortiz. Our producer is Mason Cohn and our executive producer is Hallie Steiner. Our theme is by Jason Snell. Leadership Next is a production of Fortune Media

    Leadership Next episodes are produced by Fortune‘s editorial team. The views and opinions expressed by podcast speakers and guests are solely their own and do not reflect the opinions of Deloitte or its personnel. Nor does Deloitte advocate or endorse any individuals or entities featured on the episodes.

    [ad_2]

    Fortune Editors

    Source link

  • Former Merck CEO Ken Frazier on the responsibility of CEOs to uphold principles despite politics

    Former Merck CEO Ken Frazier on the responsibility of CEOs to uphold principles despite politics

    [ad_1]

    On this week’s episode of Fortune‘s Leadership Next podcast, co-host Alan Murray talks with former Merck CEO Ken Frazier. In a conversation recorded live at a Deloitte Next Generation CEO event in Washington, D.C., Frazier tells Murray why the decisions he made to leave former U.S. President Donald Trump’s presidential advisory council, and to vocally support voting rights, were a matter of principle, not politics.

    Frazier also discusses the challenges he faced in his first few years as CEO of Merck—and the shareholders who trusted his vision enough to support him. Finally, Frazier, who is also the cofounder and former CEO of the the OneTen Coalition and current chairman of health assurance initiatives at General Catalyst, talks about starting the OneTen Coalition after the murder of George Floyd, and because he identified a need to find a common language to talk about ESG and DEI.

    Co-host Michal Lev-Ram joins for the pre-interview chat. Listen to the episode or read the full transcript below.


    Transcript:

    [music starts]

    Alan Murray: Leadership Next is powered by the folks at Deloitte, who, like me, are exploring the changing rules of business leadership and how CEOs are navigating this change.

    Welcome to Leadership Next, the podcast about the changing rules of business leadership. I’m Alan Murray.

    [music ends]

    Michal Lev-Ram: And I’m Michal Lev-Ram. Alan, the next two episodes of Leadership Next are a little bit different and a little bit special, although our episodes are always special. That’s because each of these episodes features an interview that you recorded live earlier in October in D.C., where Deloitte, our podcast partner, hosted a Next Generation CEO event. So to start, can you give us a little bit of context? What is the next generation initiative? And what made it the right crowd for a live Leadership Next recording? 

    Murray: Well, first of all, I wish you had been there, it was really kind of magic. Yeah, this is a program that Deloitte runs for people who’ve been identified by their companies as having a shot at the top job. And it’s really designed to give them a look at what it’s like to be a CEO of one of these large companies. So you’re dealing with about 20 people who are really tuned in to what they’re hearing from the CEOs. And first up was Ken Frazier, who is the former CEO of Merck, the pharmaceutical giant. He’s currently at General Catalyst. And as you remember, Michal, Ken Frazier played a critical role in the history of the stakeholder capitalism movement. He was the one, in 2017, when the Unite the Right rally happened in Charlottesville, and the president made some ambivalent comments about who was responsible and good people on both sides. He was the one who, at that moment, made the decision to resign from the president’s Advisory Council, and really, his resignation prompted a whole bunch of other CEOs to resign as well. And within a couple of days, the whole thing had shut down. So, he is a person of strong opinions. And he really was kind of energized by the Next Generation CEOs who were in the room. So it’s really a fascinating conversation. 

    Lev-Ram: Yeah, talk about leadership. Ken is just a super fascinating person with a really interesting professional and background story. So after graduating from Harvard Law, he started his career as a lawyer for a big Philadelphia law firm. And there he made a name for himself representing a wrongfully convicted death row inmate in Alabama, named Bo Cochran. After 19 years on death row, Frazier and his team worked to get Cochran’s conviction overturned, and it’s just a really amazing story all around. While still at the Philly firm, his future employer, Merck, became one of his clients. And Merck took him on as general counsel in 1992. And he’s been there in different capacities ever since. 

    Murray: He told a fascinating story about the early days when there was an activist investor in his stock trying to push him to cut his research budget so they could make greater profits in the short term. And he stood up and said, No, that’s not the way to run a company. For the long term, we have to be about the science, we have to be about the research. You know, the other thing he did, after the George Floyd murder a couple of years ago, he helped create this OneTen project, which is an effort to take disadvantaged people and get them into good jobs in big corporations. So a fascinating CEO who cares deeply about his impact on society. 

    Lev-Ram: Don’t forget, Alan, another accolade to throw in here. He was named one of Time’s 100 Most Influential People in both 2018 and again in 2021. So I’m very, very disappointed to have missed this live and in person. But looking forward to listening along with everybody else. We have an episode to get to. 

    Murray: Yeah, enough talking about Ken, let’s let Ken talk. Here’s my conversation, before a live audience with former Merck CEO Ken Frazier. 

    [music starts]

    [music ends]

    Murray: I’m Alan Murray, and I’m here today with a man who I’ve been trying to get on this podcast since February of 2020, and finally succeeded: Ken Frazier, the former CEO of Merck—you were still CEO when I first tried to get you on the show. Glad we finally got you here!

    Ken Frazier: Same here, Alan, thanks for having me. Yeah. 

    Murray: Thanks so much for doing it. I want to talk a little bit about your career as CEO at first. We have a lot of things to talk about. I mean, you’ve been involved in so many interesting corporate businesses, but also social issues over the course of the last few years. And we’re gonna get into all of that. But I just want to start by talking about how you started your career as CEO. You know, we’re here with a group of people who stand on the doorstep of becoming CEOs, they’re in the Deloitte Next Generation program. And we had a conversation earlier, that was based on the Mike Tyson quote, “everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face.” You got punched in the face pretty early. So, talk about the beginning of your career as CEO of Merck and what you did. 

    Frazier: So, I took over Merck Jan. 1, 2011, which was kind of an auspicious time in a lot of ways in the industry. At that time, Wall Street was encouraging CEOs in the pharmaceutical biopharmaceutical engineering industry, not to invest in R&D. In fact, there was  a prominent report by one of the banks that said, the way to create value was to cut your R&D budget and to invest in non pharmaceutical assets, there was a company called Valiant, you might remember them, their stock was going through the roof. And their philosophy is, we don’t invest in science, we invest in management. The challenge that I faced is that my company had five year EPS guidance. By the way, if you ever become CEO, don’t do that.

    Murray: First piece of advice…

    Frazier: Only one and a half years had elapsed. So I had three and a half years, this EPS roadmap 25 days into the job, I decided that that was the wrong thing for Merck, in the long term, it would help keep the stock price up in the short term, because we had in fact promised our shareholders that we’d follow this EPS roadmap. So I called my board 25 days into the job. And I said that you don’t really know me that well, but I just want to let you know, I intend to withdraw the last three and a half years of our EPS guidance. All hell broke loose. Right, my lead director said, We won’t let you do that, and I said, I don’t know exactly what you think you just said to me. But I feel strongly about this. And the board went into executive session, I called my wife and I said, Honey, don’t buy the expensive formica. Okay, not clear how long this is going to last. But they let me stay, and the stock plummeted. But you know, when you look back on things, you see things that you couldn’t have seen before. Every time a share of Merck stock got sold, somebody bought it, and the people who bought it were the right patient, long-term shareholders for a company that intended to invest in R&D. So I got the right shareholders, although the process of the transition was painful.

    Murray: Did your lead director stick with you? 

    Frazier: He did stick with me…with great hesitation. You know, it’s not easy also for the board to fire a CEO 25 days into the job.  It doesn’t make them look great, either. And I’ll be honest here, for a while, this board was not about to give me more money, because they weren’t happy with the stock price performance. And but at the end of the day, I think it turned out well, because Merck has always been a science-based company. And if I cut the R&D budget, I could then talk all I wanted to the scientists about how we’re a science-based company, but they would never believe me.

    Murray: Such an important turning point, as an observer, as a journalist who was watching what was going on from the outside over that period. By 2011, there were many, many polls that showed that your industry was the most hated industry in the country. It was, you know, and it was partly because of that kind of behavior. Right? 

    Frazier: You know, the industry does a lot of great good for a lot of people. I think COVID is an incredible example of that. But I think the challenge is, and it’s not just true for the pharmaceutical industry, as we begin to have this concept that CEOs have a responsibility to maximize returns to shareholders, we sometimes miss the fact that we also have other stakeholders that we have to think about, right? And I don’t think it’s at all inconsistent or, or wrong to think about driving value for shareholders and also driving value, for example, for patients, if you’re in the pharmaceutical industry.

    Murray: You got into the CEO job, by way of a career in law. But can you talk about, I know you were particularly well known, because you took on a someone who had been on death row for 19 years and got them off? Not the usual kind of corporate law practice. Can you talk about that case? 

    Frazier: Yeah. So I represented a guy named Bo Cochran, who was 13 days before his date in Alabama, who is totally innocent of a crime. And I didn’t want to take the case, but it was either I took it or he was going to be executed without being represented, and I took the case, and turns out that we were able to demonstrate after about five or six years of going back and finding evidence that we could prove him not only not guilty, but actually factually innocent. And that was the most important thing I’ve ever done in my life as an individual. 

    Murray: What did you learn from that? 

    Frazier: Well, I learned something that I already knew from having done criminal defense work in other cases, which is that the system that we have, in which—let me put it this way, if we were going to have a system under which someone could be sentenced to death, you would expect of that system a discipline, a consistency, a rigor is the word I’m seeking, that the system completely lacks. It would have to be the most rigorous thing we do in our democracy, and frankly, the way the system works in our country often is, if you’re poor, and you’re from an underrepresented group, the state appoints a lawyer for you, that lawyer often doesn’t do a good job of representing you. The state then runs roughshod over your constitutional rights. And then when you get a lawyer at the end of the process, who wants to vindicate those processes, those rights, often the courts think the concept of finality of the verdict is more important than the factual innocence thing. And so a lot of people in our country, and, you know, the Innocence Project has gotten more than 100 people off death row or life sentences by demonstrating with DNA evidence that they didn’t commit the crime. Now, DNA evidence usually involves rape murders, which is a very small percentage of cases. So we know for a fact that there are lots of people who are on the row who are under sentence of death, who can be demonstrably shown to be innocent. 

    Murray: Let’s fast forward. 2017. Donald Trump is president, he asked you to sit on one of his advisory councils, you agree, you’re the CEO of a regulated industry, you can’t really ignore the president of the United States or the government of the United States. And the Unite the Right rally turned into a disaster, happened in Charlottesville. And the next day, the resident comes out and makes some comments that were highly ambivalent about that event. You resigned. And it had huge effects—all the other resignations, I covered this pretty closely, all the other resignations happened because you resigned the other CEOs, once they saw you walked out, felt they had to do the same. Why did you do it? 

    Frazier: So let me start by saying, you alluded to it. But you know, the country is hugely divided along political lines. We know that. The Gallup poll last year showed for the first time Americans don’t consider themselves to be fundamentally divided by race, religion, or region. They consider themselves fundamentally divided by party affiliation. And that was true in 2017. I did not want to go on the president’s council. But my colleagues at Merck said, you know, we’re representing a pharmaceutical industry. He’s a new president. He’s the only president we have, he’s asked you more than once, you ought to go. So I did that. That took a lot of criticism from my friends on the left. Okay. When the comments were made about Charlottesville, I remember I was furniture shopping with my wife, and so I was paying maybe more attention to my iPhone than I normally do. 

    Murray: Not your favorite activity.

    Frazier: I saw the president’s comments. And I knew immediately that I could not remain on the president’s ouncil because of what was happening at Charlottesville.

    Murray: But is it your choice? I mean, you represent Merck, you represent a company .

    Frazier: I do, but also represent my family. I came home and my 20-year-old son was waiting for me. He never came home from college, but he was there when I got home. And he was challenging me with what passes for a searching inquiry for a 20-year-old. He said to me, What’s up dad? What’s up? Okay, which is his way of saying, all this talk. You’ve talked all these years about standing up for principle, we’re watching, okay. But what I ended up doing was, I called my board. And I said, I intend to step down from the president’s council. I was actually advised by my PR people to do it quietly. I said, No, actually, you might remember this. I was down there several times. And he always sat me next to him. So my kids are like, Dad, you’re killing us. Right? But I said, I’m going to withdraw, and it’s going to be a noisy withdrawal. I’m going to put out a statement, I’m going to say why I’m withdrawing. I said to my board, however, I do recognize I have a responsibility to the company. And so the question I’m asking you, is in my statement, do you want me to say I’m withdrawing from the council as a matter of my personal conscience? Or do you want me also to say I’m withdrawing because of the company’s values? And I’m happy to say that. Unanimously, they said, we want you to speak to the company’s values. 

    Murray: No debate?

    Frazier: No debate whatsoever. 

    Murray: And did you know at that moment that once you stepped down all the other CEOs would step down and the council would crumble? 

    Frazier: No, I didn’t know that. But that gets to the question of principle. At the end of the day, what’s hard about these decisions that CEOs face? Is what are you making the decision for this principle? And his pragmatism? The pragmatic thing is, why would you piss off the president of the United States? Right. And by the way—

    Murray: Who’s already talking about drug pricing.

    Frazier: Right, he’s already talking about drug pricing. By the way, this is August 2017. He’d been in the White House for about seven months, I think, whether you like President Trump or no, the jury was still very much out about President Trump at that point in time. So the pragmatic decision is, why put your company in that situation? But the principle decision for me was that I felt like someone needed to take a statement, and that if I didn’t, I would be providing my own tacit approval of what the president did and did not do. So for me, that was an easy decision. But I didn’t want to speak on behalf of the company, 

    Murray: Did you get criticism for it? 

    Frazier: Oh, yeah, I got criticism, a lot of criticism. And what the most important thing that I remember thinking about that whole thing was, shortly after I stepped off the council, and then you’re right, everyone sort of followed. Because, you know, frankly, I think people’s employees, a lot of them got challenged by their employees, because someone else had stepped off. So you know, what are you doing? And I had CEOs call me and say, you should have consulted us before you went out on your own. Right? Like, you can’t have your own conscience or whatever. But I do think one of the challenges that we have about political division in this country is that we don’t find a common language to talk about what we’re talking about, or what we’re feeling. So, after I stepped off, one of the first things I wanted to do was to go to one of my manufacturing plants, one of Merck’s manufacturing plants in the south, is located in a town that’s called Stonewall, Georgia. I’ll say it again, STONEwall, Georgia, if you hear me talking, okay. And I went to that plant, I was advised not to go there. But I went there to talk to my plant workers. And I wanted to say to them, I’m the CEO of Merck. I’m not here to tell you who to vote for, or who to like. You’re Merck people. I’m a Merck person. We all have common values. I’m not judging you, you may have many reasons why you support the president, and I support whatever political views you want to have. But you’re damn sure gonna support mine. And I will tell you, when I walked in that room, people’s arms were crossed. And when we finished having that conversation, people came up to me and said, we get you. Because what they wanted to hear was that I wasn’t judging them, and I wasn’t taking a position on them. And I think a lot of the division in our country is because we deal with issues without communicating with each other, and without what I call grace. 

    [music starts]

    Murray: Jason Girzadas, the CEO of Deloitte US is the sponsor of this podcast and joins me today. Welcome, Jason. 

    Jason Girzadas: Thank you, Alan. It’s great to be here.

    Murray: Jason, everyone in business is talking about AI. It clearly has the potential to dramatically disrupt almost every industry, but a lot of companies are struggling. What are some of the barriers that companies are facing in creating business value with AI? 

    Girzadas: Yea, Alan, AI is on every client’s agenda. I think every CEO and board interaction and conversation that I’m a part of proves the fact that the promise of AI is widely held, and the hope is far and deep that it creates business value. But there are challenges, to be sure. What we’ve seen is that the probability of success increases dramatically with strong executive sponsorship and leadership, there has to be a portfolio of investments around AI as well as to link the business ownership with technology leadership to see the value of AI-related investments. Over time, we’re optimistic and confident that the value will result, but it will be a portfolio where other short term opportunities for automation improvements around productivity and cost takeout and then longer-term, medium-term opportunities for business model innovation that are truly transformational. So this is a classic case where it won’t be a single approach that realizes value for AI.

    Murray: It sounds like you take it a step at a time. 

    Girzadas: I think a step at a time, and also a portfolio recognizing that some investments will have short-term benefit where you can see immediate use cases creating financial and business impact, but longer-term opportunities to really invent different customer experiences, different business models, and ultimately create longer-term benefit that we can’t even fully appreciate at this point in time. 

    Murray: Jason, thanks for your perspective. And thanks for sponsoring Leadership Next

    Girzadas: Thank you. 

    [music ends]

    Murray: Continuing the line of conversation: Three years later, Trump is out of office, the state of Georgia decides to adopt a voting rights bill that many people felt would restrict access to minorities in the state. But it also was about as political a piece of legislation, as you could imagine, supported by every Republican, opposed by every Democrat, because it meant Republicans would get more votes and Democrats would get less.

    Frazier: And people had to subscribe to the idea that the election was stolen. That was a big part of it, too. 

    Murray: So you stepped in? My understanding is, you and I’ve never talked about this, but my understanding is you personally called Ed Bastian, the CEO of Delta, you personally talked to Jim Quincy, the CEO of Coca Cola.

    Frazier: Well, Ken Chenault and I divided up the list, Ken Chenault of American Express.

    Murray: And together, the two of you called them and said, You’ve got to speak out. You’ve got to take a stand. You have to go against this. Almost explosive—this 2017, you had Mitch McConnell go on TV saying, you CEOs, this is politics. You CEOs stay out of—stay in your own swim lane. What are you doing telling us how to run—

    Frazier: Except for political donations.

    Murray: Yeah, they’ll take those.

    Frazier: Stay out of politics except for donations to me, please. That’s a principle. 

    Murray: So again, why did you do it was the right thing to do? Did you talk to the board? How did you handle it? Were you still CEO at the time?

    Frazier: I was CEO at the time. This is what’s really hard about being a CEO. I first of all, don’t believe that CEOs or businesses want to be in the middle of political disputes. And I try to be careful about whether or not I want to get into the middle of political disputes. But I also believe that in the long run, we need to have an environment in our country that is conducive to commerce, and it’s conducive to people. And that comes down to a set of principles that we were taught early in school, if we went to school in this country, and there’s certain things like you know, the rule of law, the right to vote, equal treatment, equal opportunity. Go through that list of fundamental American values. And if it’s a fundamental American value, it is my view that if our elected officials are either abandoning or ignoring their responsibility to uphold those principles, it falls to the American people to ensure that those principles are upheld. I happen to think CEOs are among the most influential American people. So if people have a responsibility to stand up for principle, then I think CEOs ought to stand up for those principles. And from my perspective, that’s one of those things that a lot of people will disagree with, because they’ll say that was political. And I said, wait a minute, the right to vote isn’t inherently a political issue. If somebody wants to politicize that principle, that doesn’t mean I have to be quiet about it. And the example that I’ve used recently in talking to CEOs is the American business community has stood in unison for democracy in Ukraine. But we can’t speak to it in Georgia? I mean, come on. It’s the same principle. Right. So at the end of the day, we talked about this later, I think one of the things that makes it possible to make decisions, tough decisions, is to ask yourself, What are your values? Because it’s your values, from your values when you’re hearing all of these contradictory things. I believe that values help you have both the wisdom to figure out what’s right, and the courage to do what’s right. Because if it really comes down to values, and I would say to people, you know, on this issue about the right of Americans to vote, that is so fundamental to democracy. And by the way, Alan, I’m sure you read it. The statement we made was so anodyne, it was so completely unpolitical. It was like, the CEOs in this country support the right to vote. Right? It actually didn’t say anything about Georgia, we avoided …

    Murray: Because some of the critics were saying, Oh, you don’t know what you’re talking about. You haven’t read the bill. You know, the specifics. They did the same thing in Connecticut that we want to do here. You weren’t talking about the specifics. 

    Frazier: We were talking about the right to vote as a principle, a fundamental principle and as I said before, I had read the law. And I was at pains to say, there are some things in this law that are really good. But there are some things in this law that you can say without question—by the way, I’d never said they had to do with race either. Right? When I would go on television, I would say, these provisions are going to make it hard for people who live in densely populated areas to vote. Now, you could figure out who that is. That’s code for some things. But the people actually stood in line for seven, eight hours, you might remember this in order to vote, and I thought, no one should have to do that. 

    Murray: It’s not right. So both of these examples 2017, 2020—those are you taking action to stop something that you thought was negative from happening. But I want to talk about the OneTen initiative, because this happened after the George Floyd killing, and there was an outbreak, that one was instantaneous. Every CEO, and by the way, 10 years ago, 10 years before that, that would not have happened. Yeah, it was, it was a—it was a change that 2017 created. 

    Frazier: I think it was a very hopeful development in our country, if I can be so direct as an African-American. I compare George Floyd to Rodney King, when the Rodney King thing happened, Black people were in the streets. When the George Floyd thing happened, everybody was in the streets, I would see these stories about places in North Dakota, where there were no Black people living, and people were protesting. Right. And, you know, frankly, I’m being a little political here myself, I actually believe that shows that the country is moving to a place where we can empathize with one another. 

    Murray: Yeah. So all these companies, you know, put out statements that double down on their commitments to diversity, equity, inclusion, but you know, I’m interpreting, so you tell me if I’ve got this, right. But you said, Well, wait a minute, if all we do here is all these companies compete for the same talent, then that talent will get higher pay, that’s fine, but we’re not really doing what we want to do, which is restart the escalator of mobility in this country and give these people an opportunity. So you created OneTen, talk about OneTen, what it is…. 

    Frazier: OneTen Coalition, of 70 leading companies that, in the wake of the George Floyd murder, came together and said, we are going to look at our hiring practices systemically, and ask ourselves which jobs really require a four-year degree versus which jobs should be skills-based jobs. Now, how does it relate to George Floyd? Well, in the 2020 census, 76% of African-Americans at age 26 do not have a four-year degree. So, if you reflexively require a four-year degree, systemically, unintentionally, you’re keeping 76% of that population from ever having an opportunity to go to the middle class. 

    Murray: But now wait a second, Ken. So are you saying OneTen is not explicitly about race? 

    Frazier: No, I’m gonna get to that in a minute. Okay. It was initially totally about race, and it continues to focus on communities that are underrepresented. I want to talk about what we’ve done since the Supreme Court case.

    Murray: Yeah, because you’re a lawyer.

    Frazier: Right, but my wife always says, when they say you’re a lawyer, you should add, but not in a pejorative sense of the word. When these companies were saying they wanted to do something to show that they stood for racial justice, we didn’t want to put out statements, we said, What in the wheelhouse of companies is to hire people, right? And if you start hiring people from these unheard, unseen, underrepresented communities, then you can be doing something about that. So that’s how OneTen started, with Ginni Rometty of IBM, Ken Chenault and myself, and Charles Phillips, and Kevin Sherar, who’s the former CEO of Amgen. So we all got together, we’re up to about 110,000 people that we’ve hired into family-sustaining-wage jobs, that’s the key. $50,000 income adjusted, depending on whether you’re in Mobile, Alabama, or Seattle, Washington. So that’s where we went now, explicitly, it was founded, with the mission of creating opportunity for Black talent. We have now changed the mission to make it very clear that while that was what it was founded for, we don’t exclude anybody from it. 

    Murray: And this is because of the Supreme Court. 

    Frazier: It was in response to the Supreme Court. 

    Murray: And how do you feel about that Supreme Court decision? 

    Frazier: Well, that’s a complicated question. But let me try to talk about what I think. 

    Murray: That’s a lawyerly answer. 

    Frazier: I think—I think what Chief Justice Roberts’s majority opinion says, is that colorblindness, or race neutrality, is a good organizing and governing principle for a multiracial, multicultural society. It’s a good aspiration, is what he’s saying. And I don’t think anyone can disagree with that, at the end of the day, that we should all be judged by who we are, as Dr. King said, by the content of our character, not by our outward appearance. But at the same time, I have to say that I do think that while we are now 59 years after the passage of the seminal Civil Rights Act of ‘58, after the Voting Rights Act, the reality of the world is there are vestiges of centuries of racial oppression, slavery, that continue to affect African-Americans differentially.

    Murray: This goes back to your death row case. 

    Frazier: It goes back to the death row. It’s law enforcement. If you look at life expectancy, if you look at education—I don’t want to be autobiographical. I sit here before you because in 1963, the civil leaders of Philadelphia, the social engineers of Philadelphia, decided to engage in what they called school desegregation. My parents were too poor to buy houses that were proximate to where the good schools were. Okay. So my younger sister and I got put on buses against our will and sent across town to all-white schools, where we got an education that was different from our siblings’. That was a race-conscious decision. It wasn’t intended in any way to exclude or hurt someone. But it was a decision that was made for the purpose of addressing the past discrimination. And that’s where I disagree with Chief Justice Roberts. He says any racial classification is invidious. Well, law school professor, that’s like saying in 1964, a sign in the South that said, “Blacks are welcome” is the same as when it says “Blacks are not welcome”. We all know those two things are different. Okay. And so the challenge we have in our society is twofold. On the one hand, again, as an organizing democratic principle, it is best to avoid classifying people on the basis of race, no one can disagree with that. On the other hand, if we’re ever going to address the huge disparities that exist, that I believe no one can disagree, are vestiges of the way this country has run for years, we have to think about, how do we include people without in any way excluding people? And that’s what we try to do at OneTen. What we say is, let’s go into those communities that we normally don’t go into.

    One quick example, one of our members—I won’t identify, the CEO said to me, OneTen company, he said, I did a tour of our plants. And for all of our plants, we would hire from the community surrounding the plant. Except our plant outside Detroit, he said, and then I discovered for some reason, our plant, which is near the interstate, everybody at the Detroit plant came in from the suburbs, went into the plant inside the gate, and then went home that night, and I went to my plant manager and said, why is this plant different? Why are we not hiring from the surrounding community?

    So again, I think it’s important for us, and this is an important issue for our society, to find ways to deal with one another, in such a way as to never take into consideration external factors that really don’t go to the heart of who people are. But I also think, and again I use my own example, I am fortunate that the social engineers in Philadelphia 1963, they must have heard Martin Luther King, and they somehow it pricked their conscience and they said, some of these kids are getting an education. I don’t think that hurt anybody that they did that.

    Murray: Yeah. Ken Frazier, you have now proven I was right to, since February of 2020, push to get you on this podcast. What a fascinating conversation. 

    Frazier: Can I say one more thing, though? What’s missing is a common language in our society. Right? We have to find ways of communicating, so that the other side understands our intent and doesn’t misunderstand what we’re trying to do. I think DEI, ESG, all of those things have become politicized and toxic. And I think we have to find ways to talk about these issues. You know, I like to talk about openness, because no one’s against openness, right? Nobody’s against fairness and opportunity. We have to find a common language in our society that allows us, irrespective of our political views, to see what the other person’s good intent is.

    Murray: But let me challenge you a little bit on that. Of course we need a common language so that we can talk about these issues without descending into fights. But this has been exacerbated by a broken political system. And, and, and my experience talking to CEOs is, and this gets back to where we started this conversation. From day one, you said, Merck can’t be about making money in the short term, it has to be about the long term. And we all know in the long term, what’s good for the company, and what’s good for society are going to start to meld, right? You can’t be a successful company if the planet’s on fire. You can’t be a successful company if you’re in a country that is melting down. Every CEO I talked to these days says, Please, please, please keep me out of politics. I don’t want to have anything to do with it. I don’t like it. I don’t want to be part of it. I don’t understand how that’s consistent with the long-term view of the health of the company, because surely our political dysfunction is at least as big a problem for the future of American companies.

    Frazier: I agree. And that was my point about having an environment that’s conducive to people as well as to commerce. The point I was making, though, is that rather than get dragged into the political fight, just be specific about what you’re doing. Right. Just be very specific about what it is that your company stands for, and don’t get pulled into the political debate about words. Because frankly, the good thing about the politicians is, they’re so shallow in their thinking that, if you call the thing something else, they don’t even talk about it. 

    Murray: Would you ever consider running for office yourself? 

    Frazier: Never!

    Murray: We’d all be better off. 

    Frazier: That’s kind of you to say but my wife would say, don’t go there!

    Murray: Ken Frazier, thank you so much. 

    [music starts]

    Leadership Next is edited and produced by Alexis Haut. Our theme is by Jason Snell. Our executive producer is Megan Arnold. Leadership Next is a product of Fortune Media.

    Leadership Next episodes are produced by Fortune‘s editorial team. The views and opinions expressed by podcast speakers and guests are solely their own and do not reflect the opinions of Deloitte or its personnel. Nor does Deloitte advocate or endorse any individuals or entities featured on the episodes.

    [ad_2]

    Fortune Editors

    Source link