The Bregman Leadership Podcast
Episode 221

David Cote

Winning Now, Winning Later Part II

What do you stand for? This week we continue our conversation with David Cote former CEO of Honeywell and author of Winning Now, Winning Later. Discover David’s rigorous system for choosing a successor, the pitfalls of false binaries, and the gap between what we know and what we do.

About

Get the book, Winning Now, Winning Later from Amazon here:

Learn more

Bio: As Chairman and CEO of the industrial giant Honeywell over 16 years, David Cote grew the company’s market capitalization from around $20 billion to nearly $120 billion, delivering returns of 800 percent and beating the S&P by nearly two and a half times. Currently, David is Executive Chairman of Vertiv Holdings Co, a global data center products and services provider. He is a member of the Aspen Economic Strategy Group and on the Boards of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Conference of Montreal.

Transcript

This transcript is unedited.

Peter:

Hi there. This week’s episode is part two of a longer conversation I recorded. If you missed part one, go back to the previous episode so you can get caught up. Thanks for listening.

Peter:

I want to get to the book and I want to get to Honeywell. So, so this is the book again is winning now winning later just for people who may have joined us midstream, we’re talking with Dave Cote who wrote the book winning now winning later, how companies can win in the short term while investing in the longterm. And, and what I love about our conversation so far, Dave, is that everything you’ve talked about in your own career is doing both of those things. Like the value of saying I’m going to focus on now and I’m going to focus on later. So you became a, you succeeded Larry Bossidy in, in 2002, I believe. And you were CEO president, and then chair of the board and the year you took off as Honeywell lost $220 million. Yeah. And and, and obviously that changed while you were CEO or we wouldn’t be having this conversation and so you, you really paint the picture in this, in this excellent book about how you did that, and you break it out into three parts, which is laying the foundation, optimizing the org invested actually four parts investing to grow and then protecting the investment. So I want to take a little bit of a walk through, through these parts laying the foundation, and you talk about it as the, as, as sort of laying the intellectual basis for achieving strong longterm and short term results. It’s, it’s funny, in some ways that we actually have to share and focus on creating an organizational mindset that cares about both short term and longterm results. I don’t want to get into the reasons why, cause I feel like we’ve talked about and written about that a lot, but I’m curious about, you know, a couple of key ways in which you can change that mindset in people where you can like, especially when they’re cut, they may not be saying what you’re saying, which is I’m gonna hold my stock for 10 years.

Peter:

And, and there’s some ways in which they are in many in which they are incented to achieve short term performance versus longterm growth, especially in, in an era now where people stay in a job for three years, they don’t stay in a job for 15 for the most part, or they don’t stay in an organization for 15, always. So, and this is true even of lots of CEOs who are in the job and they’re in there for five years and they move on. So I’m curious how, like, what are some things you can teach us about how you change people’s mindset around that?

David:

Well I’d say there’s two aspects to it. One’s easy. One’s tough. The first one and it’s easy is to talk about it and to say, okay, this is the kind of culture we’re going to have. This is the short and longterm focus we’re going to have. And this is how you, everybody in the organization is going to see it. That’s the easy part. You need to do it. But it’s the easy part. Now the tough one, which is walk the talk, everybody I mean, it goes back to parents who say, do, as I say, not as I do what happens kids do as they have seen their parents do while the same thing is true in organizations. So if they hear you say no more short term actions, yet they all recognize that a big chunk of the income came from an accounting transaction or distributor loading at the end of the quarter where they hit the ship out 25% of their shipments for the quarter in the last week, or they hear you talking about the importance of the long term. And in order to make a quarter, you cut funding for one of the longterm projects. Well, it very quickly goes back to exactly what it was you were trying to get rid of. So they have to see that you are absolutely steadfast in what it is you’ve described when it comes to your own behavior. And that walk, the talk is the toughest part because everybody’s watching

Peter:

Well. And it seems like you get a lot of bang for your buck in walking the talk when you’re willing to make a trade off, that will cost you, but reinforce your commitment.

David:

Yeah, I guess I didn’t look at it so much as a trade off, but I mean, going back to some of the stuff we were talking about before I started with, what do we stand for and what do I think is important if we’re going to be successful for a long, long period of time. And I knew that if we didn’t get this stuff, right, the accounting practices, the practices, the investments for the long term, I knew that if we didn’t get that stuff, right, all my dreams, whatever visions I had about what could be would not come true. So I felt it was more being steadfast to the kind of vision for the company that I thought was going to be important to us longterm.

Peter:

And it’s unusual for a CEO who comes in in some ways, because, you know, I think of a founder, I think of a Jeff Bezos. Who’s, you know, who’s legacy is the founding or Steve jobs, or like these people who, you know, I’m, I’m, I’m naming people who are well known by all the listeners, but there’s lots of people who start smaller businesses, but who are so committed to the longterm of the business, family businesses, you know, where there’s a real legacy that they’re creating an et cetera. It’s more unusual to come in as a new CEO and say, we’re in this for the longterm. Did, did you find skepticism in that?

David:

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The finance guys, especially the corporate finance guys, all thought I was off the rails and was going to destroy the company, destroy the stock price. I mean, I got a lot of very negative feedback in the beginning and investors, weren’t that happy about it either? So, no, I did not get a lot of support in the beginning. And what do you do in the face of that? Well, for me, this gets back to again, you got to decide what you stand for and what it is you’re promising you’re going to do. And I felt like I had run into something that was very different than what I’d been told was there, but okay. Life sucks sometimes and you just gotta suck it up and figure out how you’re gonna work your way through it. Getting back to your cages, blame a bunch of people or cry or whine about it.

David:

And as I’ve kind of joked to some people the book is called winning. Now, winning later, not whining. Now, winding later, this is something that I you gotta figure out what are you going to do and work your way through it. And I just kinda made that commitment to myself that I really thought this was possible and I was going to demonstrate it. And it was different than what I expected, but by golly, I was going to make it work. It got particularly interesting when watching a business TV show one day when they were talking about me on the on the show. And they said, well, we’re not sure this company can be turned around. And if it can, we’re not convinced this is the guy who can do it after all. He didn’t make it to the first tier or the GE succession race. And he wasn’t even the first choice to run a Honeywell. So yeah, there was a lot of interesting stuff going on at the, at the time. And Hank Paulson said yesterday, which was kind of funny. He remembered reading about my appointment in 2002 and he said, Oh, well, this is a really tough situation that exists in Honeywell and God, who is this no name guy they’re putting in the position. Is this even possible? It was, there was a lot of negativity in the beginning.

Peter:

You know, one of the things I love about that is that arguably, the only way to create a name for yourself is to be a no name in an impossible situation that like, that’s sort of, that’s sort of the definition of how we become a name. Right. Because otherwise –

David:

That’s an interesting…. I can’t say I’ve ever thought about it that way, but you’re probably right.

Peter:

Yeah. And I’m wondering like, did you have doubts? Like what, you know, like you, you’re sort of saying you take a stand, do you take a stand, you know, with a little bit of a sweaty Palm saying, God, I hope this works. Or like, what was your level of certainty in your stand?

David:

I would say I felt relatively confident that what I was doing was right. Cause I was pretty, I was, I’d say very confident that you couldn’t continue to run a company with a kind of business and accounting practices that we had. I was not so confident that I was going to survive all of it because while I felt it was the right thing to do for the company it was not quite clear. I’d be able to generate the short term results that would be required to hang on to my job or that the board was going to, or investors would hang with me long enough for me to demonstrate that things could be better. So yeah, I did have some apprehensiveness there about, was I going to survive this whole thing, but I didn’t see a lot of other choices.

Peter:

So, so there’s a third, there’s a, there’s a third piece, which I would fit in the middle of the two that you’ve just defined. Right. One is, I’m pretty sure it’s the right thing to do. I don’t know that I’ll survive it, but there’s this other piece in the middle. I’m pretty sure it’ll work. Meaning I know it’ll work versus God. I hope this works. Or I hope that I know it’s the right thing to do ethically. I know it’s the right thing to do in terms of running a business, but it, but, you know, I like is doing the right thing also, right. For growing the business. Like, will it work in terms of my objective of winning now and winning later? And then there’s this third piece which you’ve talked about is like, will I survive the process? I’m curious about the middle piece.

David:

That’s if it’s a word semi confident. So I, I felt like this was the smart thing to do and that you had to scrub a business down to it’s a good, good operating practices. I felt like there were a number of initiatives that I had launched that would work and would turn into something. But one of the points that I make about leadership is that no leader should ever make a decision, absolutely confident that everything is going to be perfect with that. And that they should always be looking for falsification bias as opposed to confirmation bias that their decision was correct. So, no, I, I spent a lot of time looking over my shoulder to say, am I right? Is this working, is it going to deliver the results? So, no, I was not a hundred percent confident that, yeah, this is absolutely going to turn into great longterm results. I was confident that unless we scrubbed it down and really got it down to the, the right foundation, that none of nothing would be possible that I was confident.

Peter:

You know, you really demonstrate, and I’ve had the conversation with Harry Kramer and on this podcast and, and I’ve written about it, a lot of this, you know, and, and, and this is throughout the book throughout the book and, and throughout this conversation, you’re talking about the, the things that are commonly seen as dualities and not accepting the binary nature of it. Right. And, and, you know, short term and long term they’re seen as dualities. They’re not doing great at your job currently and, and performing in a way that’s visible, that shows up stuff in the future, oftentimes not seen. And this thing that I’m seeing in you is both confidence and humility. And the two are really, really critical. Like you can’t succeed without confidence. And it’s funny cause I was, I I’m, I’ve been mountain biking a lot now that I’ve been in sort of quarantine and, and I’m, and I’m mountain biking on some pretty tough stuff that I love. And I, and I, and I mountain bike op, which is all effort and challenging. But then when I’m mountain biking down, this, this refrain keeps going. And in my head, which is like confidence, like I could do this and humility, which is, don’t be stupid, you know? And like these two things that really go together, which sort of keep us alive and help us perform. But a lot of people see that as a duality and you’re either confident or you have, you know, or you’re modest, but not both.

David:

For me, I think that’s actually a very good example. And you hear me talk a lot about this in the book is that success is about achieving two seemingly conflicting things at the same time, the duality you were talking about, right. And you don’t want to be overconfident and you don’t want to be over humble. Right. You want to figure out, okay, how can I be confident and with the right dose of humility so that I don’t do anything stupid. Right? So that I’m bold enough to make the right decisions and take the right chances, but not so confident that I’m stupid about it. So it’s a great example. I think of that that phenomenon that ends up being important to success.

Peter:

Let’s talk about optimizing the organization. This is part two of the book and it’s, I think where the rubber meets the road kind of thing. Right. Which is that you’ve sort of set the foundation. It’s hard to do. You’ve got to be thoughtful and strategic. You’ve got to be clear and consistent. You’ve got to be focused and committed to your purpose. And now you actually have to create the systems in place, the processes, the culture, the, the, the character and commitment of the people so that they actually institutionalize the ideas that you’ve promoted. I think that’s the hardest part is sort of the execution part. Give us a few thoughts as to, and there’s lots and lots of information in the book, but about how you, the kinds of investments you made in order to focus on, you know, the, the process and the culture and the people.

David:

You’ve hit on one of my hot buttons. And that’s the effect is a phrase I use a lot that says the trick is in the doing that. We all know this stuff. Customers are important, long-terms and important. If we all know this stuff, why is it there’s so much of a difference between companies on a performance there? And the answer is, it’s how well you do it.

Peter:

It’s a huge gap between what we know what we do in the book. I wrote on emotional courage, leading with emotional courage, the willingness to feel things is, is specifically to try to address that issue too, which is, you know, if we’re willing to feel everything, we can then do anything that we have to, we, we have to like if everybody did what they knew we would all be perfect.

David:

Well, the way I talked about leadership is it requires three things. And though I did a share owners letter on this at one point also saying the first one is the ability to motivate a large group. And I’ll say everybody sees that it’s the most visible. Everybody talks about it. And if somebody can give a great speech, everybody thinks they’re a great leader. In reality, that’s 5% of the job, right? The second big one is, can you pick the right direction? Because if you’ve got everybody motivated, but you spent 40 years wandering in the desert, you’re not a great leader. That’s why it hasn’t been successful. Then the third piece,

Peter:

You just say that Moses is not a great leader, because that’s what it sounded like.

David:

I would say I would have been happy not to be following him for that party. That might’ve been one where and maybe my Catholic upbringing only gives me a smattering of understanding on any of that.

Peter:

And you might argue that his board of directors, you know, kind of making some decisions that hamstrung him, but let’s stay off of that for now. Okay.

David:

So then the the third big one is can you get everybody step by step moving in that direction? And that’s one of the tougher parts and you hear people say, you know, it’s my job to make big decisions. And then I get great people and they execute well, it’s not the way the world actually works. And that’s where I say, you need to delegate not abdicate. You need to be a fundamental part of that execution process. So you need to make that make that happen to your point, because unless you actually execute and get there, get to that destination, nobody sees the benefit of it. That means you need to get out there. You need to understand your processes. You need to work your culture. They need to see that you actually walked the talk and you’re interested in people. You need to do all of those things so that people can actually see and feel the impact of what it is you’ve been talking about.

Peter:

And, you know, this is a massive question. So we could just pick one lesson here, but how, how do you, outside of being clear on your communication and walking the talk, you know, how do you build those processes? Or how do you build that high performance culture? How do you build the, or delegate in a way where the leaders have accountability to what’s right in the same way that you do?

David:

Oh, man to your point, there is a lot to talk about in there. I’d say first you gotta pick the right kind of people for your own staff who do know how to participate with you so that you know how to make a good decision. They know how to make a good decision and that you can be confident that whatever it is you ask them to do, or they agree to do that, it will happen while that’s all good. You still need to, as the old Reagan saying goes trust, but verify. So it’s one of the reasons that I spent five to 600 hours a year on the plane, which is like 23 days a year, 24 hours a day, just traveling all over the world to meet with customers, employees, plants, town halls just to find out what’s going on.

David:

And is it going on the way I think it is, are the stories I’m hearing consistent, how we did appraisals and making sure everybody got an appraisal how we tied appraisals into the behaviors that we wanted to see as an organization how we did compensation the process that we would do like with the Honeywell operating system, so that we could engage all of our hourly people and not just a salaried people. So there were a lot of these things that we did just trying to build that engagement so that everybody felt like they were a part of making this better.

Peter:

It seemed like the focus and being super clear on the smallest number of things that holds critical importance is really essential to being able to drive this through the organization, meaning if you really want everybody focused on and on, on million different things, you’re going to get a million people moving in a million different directions. But if you can kind of say, look, we, you know, we are investing for growth, right? We, we have to deliver cart results and we’re investing for growth. So like everybody might say, yeah, of course, but to be really clear that the decisions that you’re making and that you’re approving and the money you’re putting behind it is, is very clearly not sacrificing the, you know, or, or, or sacrificing in the in, in the right kinds of way to communicate the right kinds of message short term versus long term. I mean, you always have to make decisions based on some limited set of resources, but it’s, it’s the clarity, the, what you say yes to and what you say no to that feels is really critical to driving this throwaway.

David:

Well, I I couldn’t agree with you more and it’s a big point of the book is this idea of focus and the way I used to describe it my own folks is that if you’re in a war of some kind and you’re trying to move on a 3000 mile front all at the same time, you’re not gonna make the same kind of progress as if you focus on a 30 mile section and say, I’m going to put a bunch of resources here to make it through. I’d say, it’s no different than with anything you try to get done in business. And if you take a look at the Honeywell operating system, for example, we spent a bunch of time upfront getting it right, testing it, bring it back, test it again, make sure we had it right. But even once we had it right, we had 250 factories and I limited it to about 25 in the beginning to say, we are going to over resource these 25 and demonstrate that this is, this works and that it can be successful.

David:

Because if I do that, then I’m going to get pulled from all the other 225 plants who look at it and say, okay, I’m not being forced to do this. I want to do this. And that difference between compliance with words and compliance with intent is huge. And I to spend a lot of time working on how do I get compliance with intent? Because if I just get people to do something, because I said it, which is the way all the newspapers seem to think a CEO jobs work, you don’t get anywhere near the results you do as if, as you do, when people feel like I like this, I want to do this. I’m going to make this happen. Then you get past that feeling that people have about you mean, I need to do my job and this too, as long as you’re in this, this two phase, you’re never going to get there. Right. People need to feel like I want to do this. Right. Right. Okay.

Peter:

Talk to us about leadership transitions. So, you know, I think one of the hardest things to do is to build something and leave it in such a way that the growth that you’ve worked so hard to create, continues to essential. Like if, if it’s essential to effective leadership, I’m curious about what you, you know, how you approach this, such that you have the confidence to leave your shares in, in Honeywell for 10 years after you.

David:

Well, I went through a very extensive process in the selection. I know a lot of companies talk about how extensive their process is. Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t I would say in our case certainly the substance of it justifies the rhetoric and is consistent with it. I really started 10 years before I was gonna leave. So I was about 55 or so and said, okay, I want to start picking who are the people who are the right age seem to be performing in the right way that we want to start giving bigger jobs to. And we had a 10 or 15 at the time. Dairy is a Dom check. The guy who did become my successor, wasn’t on that list because he came in via an acquisition. About a year later, we were impressed with him and he ended up on the list.

David:

I wanted to get this right, because I’d seen too many cases where a bad transitions led to companies that just didn’t do well anymore. And I didn’t want that for Honeywell or for my own legacy. I wanted it to be one where this company continued to do great, even after he left because people process, portfolio were all done the right way. I spent a lot of time reading literature and found that almost all of it is not very good to be kind. And if somebody talks about what a great process a company had, but they fire that CEO four years later, or the stock price doesn’t move for 10 years. I think you have to question good is a process that yields a, let’s say an indifferent result, right? So we devised our own process, my HR guy, and I talked a lot about it.

David:

And I interviewed a bunch of ex CEOs to see what had worked for them and what didn’t in their own transition. We developed our own a process. And I felt like what was really critical here was not just performance, which had to be a given, but the ability, some certain key aspects of leadership capability that they had to have. And where I arrived at that one was a lot of people felt like, and this was in literature and comments made to me figure out what the future is going to be and make sure you hire for that future, which has a seductive appeal to it. But I think has more of a kind of sucky succubus type appeal than anything that’s real because nobody can predict what the future is. And if you say, okay, I’m going to take a different approach. The future is unpredictable.

David:

And you think back to a year ago, who was saying, Oh, COVID, you better keep an eye out for that pandemic, better, keep an eye out for that. I mean, there were a few, maybe not many, the good leaders have been able to figure it out. So I spent a bunch of time trying to determine what were those things that were going to be critical for any leader to have so that whatever it was, they could figure it out and they could perform. And I boiled it down to six items, which I actually talked about in my share owners letter at one point. And that’s the basis on which we chose a Derrius Adom cheque as my successor. And then we went through a long transition process and he’ll kind of jokingly, but also realistically say when he first heard that it was going to be him and that it was a two year transition process, he thought, my God, I have real doubts about how, how a two year transition is ever going to work.

David:

And when we got done with the two years, and when we interviewed him for the book, he said, it was the best thing that ever happened in terms of making this a two year transition. And the way we worked together made a big difference because it wasn’t just my behavior that had to change. I needed the successor needs to behave and be openminded and confident in a way also it requires open-mindedness and confidence on the part of both to make that work. So I couldn’t be happier about Darious as selection and how he’s doing in the job. And we still talk today cause we’re friends. Do you remember what the six criteria?

David:

All I know, not off the top of my head, but I can tell, I can go through some of them one we’ve just talked about and that’s, whatever it is, they’re going to be able to figure it out. They’re going to be smart, analytical, think about it. Another one was the ability to think independently and I phrase I use a lot is the ability to think independently is a lot more rare than being smacked. There’s a lot of smart people who do well on tests, went to good schools, but they can really tell you how the herd is thinking. They can’t really look at stuff and think independently. Third one was just an intense curiosity about everything. Cause if you were going to be successful 10 years down the road, you had to be as curious 10 years from now as you work today. Somebody who was so focused on winning that no matter what came up, no matter what problems kind of intruded, they would still figure out a way to win. They wouldn’t just say, ah, well, I guess we’re done. This is it. So it was those sort of things. We have, but they they’re all in my like 2017 or 18 share owners letter.

Peter:

You know, it’s interesting because how you’ve described the transition is yet one more piece of data supporting this non-binary solution to, to looking at the wounds, which is a lot of people. And I’ve been part of these transitions where they say, okay, this is how I’ve done things so far, but you’re the CEO. Now you’re the CEO. And the new CEO is saying, I’m not going to be, I don’t have exactly the same priorities. I’m going to put my Mark on things. It’s, by the way, similar to how you entered Honeywell, right? When you entered Honeywell in, in 2002, you basically said, look, it’s failing right now. Like I’m not interested in that. And so I’m going to do things differently and that’s often how a new CEO wants to come in and, and, and the old CEO sort of resigns himself to it. And that actually is really, really smart when you need a turnaround.

Peter:

But when, when the, the, the venture is successful, when it’s working, you actually wanna approach it differently, which is like, you want the new CEO to think independently. You want them to be sort of smart and be able to think of et cetera. And you want them committed to continuing not, not, not having to be different, but continuing what has worked in the past and not sort of trying to blow it up. So it’s like both the independent thinking and the sort of longterm and, and connection to both the past and the future that have

David:

To be balanced because it’s not a duality. Well, there’s a lot to talk about there too. Cause to your point, I think it’s different. If you have a failing company versus one that’s been successful, a failing company, I agree. Let the new guy just get started and change everything that needs to be changed in a company that’s been working a potential failure mode is to say, Hey, everything we’re doing is working great. So just keep doing that. That’s a failure mode also. And you have to keep evolving. And this is where I would say it’s important for both the successor and predecessor to be able to work together and to have the confidence in themselves and what needs to change and what doesn’t that neither one of them views change or lack of change as an aspersion on the other. Rather, I spent a bunch of my time telling the board investors and employees, I did not leave Derrius a perfect company.

David:

And there were things I would change if I was still here two years from now that he will things I might not have changed, but I support whatever changes he wants to make because I trust him and he’s going to do the right thing. By the same token, the successor has to have the confidence to not fall into either camp also, where look, this is what works. So I’m sure as hell not going to change it or look, I can’t I don’t have the confidence to be able to say that my sick, my predecessor accomplished anything. It all has to be me, but rather takes that duality path you were just talking about and says, you know, I’m going to get measured on results. So if I want results, I’m going to continue doing the things that are still working. And I’m going to modify those things that are not working in need to change because I’m going to get measured on results.

David:

And I’ve got the confidence that whether it was done by my predecessor or it’s done by me, I’m going to get measured on those results. And that’s what I want. And 10 years from now, nobody’s going to remember whose idea it was. They’re going to remember who delivered those results. And I’d say, this is where I see. I can’t, I keep saying it, but I could not be more pleased about how Derrius and I were able to work that. And we had conversations even in the beginning about the importance of trust. And I would say, look, directors will say things to me and they will say things to you. And the one thing we need to do is make sure that we both talk to each other about that because directors can cause issues in this. Also thinking they’re doing something good or, you know, they’re getting the scoop. But at The end of the day, the trust that has to exist between the two of us has to exceed any other trusts that we think we may have with other people. And we were both able to do that. And like I said, I think the world of the guy.

Peter:

Well, and it’s also, you’re, you’re exemplifying these two attributes. These two non-binary attributes that, that we were talking about also, which is confidence and humility. You’ve got to have confidence and the humility to learn from and follow through on the decisions that have been made in the past, not by you, but that were really great. And as the outgoing CEO, you have to have the confidence and humility to say we’ve built something really great and it’s not perfect. And there’s lots of things that this new person’s going to add. And I want to find someone who won’t just sort of continue my legacy, but, or will continue my legacy. But my legacy is not in all of the decisions I’ve made per se, but it’s in the focus on winning now, winning later and building a company with integrity and strong processes and leadership and culture that allows that to continue.

David:

Well, let me,ulet me compliment you a bit here, Peter. Cause,uwhen I start talking about achieving two seemingly conflicting things at the same time, a lot of people kind of nod their heads. Then uI’ll go through some of the examples that I use and they’ll nod their heads further saying, yeah, Oh, go ahead. I can’t guess that’s right. I guess that is a concept. They have a tough time taking that third step and seeing where else that shows up and it shows up everywhere, whether it’s, how do you reopen the economy, the confidence humility that you’re bringing up, but you’re able to take that third step. So,uI’m impressed. Congratulations.

Peter:

Thank you.

David:

You don’t need an appraisal from me, but no, I am impressed.

Peter:

I love appraisal from you and that’s a great place to end David. It’s a, I’m going to end on a high note for me at least David Cote who has written the book winning now, winning later, how companies can win in the short term while investing in the longterm, a fortune call that the best business book ever Hank Paulson said, it’s the best book he’s ever read. So it’s well worth a read this conversation. Dave has been delightful. Thank you so much for being on the Bregman leadership podcast.

David:

It was fun. And I appreciate your understanding of those concepts so readily. It’s impressive. Thank you.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.