The Hunt for the How
Season 1 Episode 1: The new era of stakeholder capitalism with Jon Iwata
From climate change, DEI and social justice, to economic inequality, worker safety and related issues, leaders are looking for guidance in addressing key questions as they lead their businesses into a future propelled by change and opportunity. In conversation with notable business leaders, Michael Dix, CEO of Intentional Futures hunts for the how.
Michael
It’s fitting that we’re starting this podcast series with Jon Iwata, a respected business leader who spent 35 years at IBM, including a decade as chief brand officer. Jon is currently a fellow at the Yale School of Management, helping tomorrow’s business leaders learn how to innovate and compete more effectively by applying the ideas behind stakeholder capitalism. Jon, I’m really excited to have this conversation with you. Thanks for joining the show.
Jon
Michael, thanks. I’m honored to help you kick off this podcast.
Michael
Yeah, this will be fun. Let’s start with something very fundamental. How do you define stakeholder capitalism and the promise that it holds?
Jon
I think it’s an rather unlovely term for a rather simple idea, which is that stakeholders of various types, bear on the success of a company, and therefore the company should commit to create value for all the stakeholders that bear on their success. And it is about value creation.
Michael
And then how does it differ from traditional capitalism or today’s business orthodoxy?
Jon
Yeah, that’s a debate that one can get caught up in pretty quickly. Because if you go back to Milton Friedman’s point, which is to optimize for the shareholder, then that will compel you to create great products and services for the customer. and treat your people well and play by the rules. That’s, that’s really unassailable. However, in practice, when you optimize for shareholder value creation, you can make decisions and do things that in the short term results and you know, profits, but in the long term, it may kill your company. And I think the stakeholder capitalism approach is not just more balanced, but it does result in more sustainable financial results for the investor, but also value created for the other stakeholders to
Michael
Yeah, and it’s, um, a different mindset. I would, I would argue as well, where you’re thinking less about getting as much of a kind of fixed pie in the near term and more about creating abundance, a larger pie over the long run. Do you agree with that?
Jon
I do. I do. And the time horizon makes a world of difference. I was talking to one leader who said he had an activist investor, making making a lot of trouble for the CEO. And one of his advisor said, you know, you and the activist actually agree on the same things. And he nearly leapt across the table, he differences, the activist wants you to do it in three years, and you want to do it in 30 years. Because if you do in three years, you’re going to have to make decisions that will really impair the the sustainability of the company. And I do think that time horizon does make a big difference.
Michael
Yeah, I love that example. Let’s say when you first started talking, we recognize that we’re fellow travelers in this journey to understand not just what these ideas are, or why they matter, but how to actually implement them in the real world. Because what we’re talking about is a pretty significant shift in mindset in practice in scorekeeping, and incentive programs. It affects a wide range of things. I’d love to hear more from you on what’s driving your quest, and then how your work at Yale factors into this.
Jon
Well, as you as you pointed out, I spent my professional life at one company IBM, I happen to be a very young, young guy at corporate headquarters. We’re in probably I spent 29 of my 35 years at corporate headquarters. I wouldn’t recommend it to too many people, but it was a tremendous education. And what I learned there was that a company could have several 100,000 1000 employees, but the decisions are made by small number of people, and what they believe, what they, what their mindset is, as you put it translates into decisions, large and small, big strategic bets and everyday behavior that reverberates throughout the business. And it and I and I came away from that really interested in understanding how people at the tops of businesses in particular, make their decisions, what drives their behavior, and it starts with what they believe the purpose of the company is. And here comes along stakeholder capitalism, was doing work at Yale as an Executive in Residence there. And I really wanted to focus on this. And I really wanted to focus on the how, as you do for the practitioners, and how are you approaching that at Yale. So we’ve got a great team of collaborators. And we have been, for the past year or more, interviewing and talking with CEOs, former CEOs, current CEOs, chief marketing officers, Chief sustainability officers, heads of HR leaders and civil society, and asking them, not the why of stakeholder capitalism, although they have points of view on that or defining it. But if you assume that the leadership of a company wants to create value for multiple stakeholders, aside from the mindset, is his Management Science, new Management Science needed or would help? In other words, you could be committed to it, but what will help you be excellent at it? And we have been hearing Yes, there there is a range of things that leaders and professionals can can learn, can can possess can apply skills, methods, tools, and where it’s very, very interesting to to hear this. That’s great.
Michael
Yeah, I agree that with you wholeheartedly that we need new tools, methodologies, ways of thinking about this, I want to turn the conversation a little bit to getting into what stakeholder capitalism is and isn’t a little more deeply. And maybe you could start with just your view on the myths that exist today about stakeholder capitalism that are that are common, and maybe a little little dangerous if we don’t overcome these.
Jon
Sure. One myth, stakeholder capitalism is, is about solving the world’s problems. And the world society, the planet, our stakeholders, to be sure, but they’re not the only stakeholders who matter to a company’s success. And often, you hear people immediately think that stakeholder capitalism is synonymous with addressing societal issues or planetary issues. And I don’t think that is correct at all. And then CEOs I’ve spoken with, some of them emphasize ESG, or aspects of ESG. But true cake, stakeholder capitalism, it’s in the term is all the stakeholders who matter your employees matter. Your your suppliers matter, your partners matter, shareholders still matter. So the risk here is that we the role formerly played for the past 50 years, the primacy of the shareholder is now it could turn into the primacy of societal issues. And I think that is, you know, a risk of another imbalance. So that’s a myth.
Michael
Yeah, I think that’s a really fine point. And it actually the degree to which it includes a stakeholder depends on the organization itself and the category it operates in and the stakeholder ecosystem it engages within depends upon exactly.
Jon
Exactly. I mean, stakeholders are there we don’t we don’t we don’t say it’s a it’s, it’s audience capitalism, you know, we think about the audience’s for our messaging, or these are people who have a stake in our success, and we have a stake in their success. And it’s a value exchange. They have choices, right? I mean, it’s, they can, they can invest in a different company, they could certainly work for a different company buy from different companies, they don’t have to grant you a license to operate in their nation or community. So you have to, you have to provide value, you have to differentiate to win them over as one colleague put it, if if you only do purpose work, if you don’t do purpose work, you’ll die but if you only do purpose work, you won’t win. And when you really are inside of the executive committee, when you’re really inside of those, those rooms, it is about winning, and it is about having people choose you and that that’s That is not new. So that’s one myth of stakeholder capitalism. and other one is that stakeholder capitalism is marketing, you know, very, very sophisticated marketing or, or ham fisted marketing. But that myth says, particularly the cynics, around the Business Roundtable declaration, and what’s really changed what’s really happening, it was good public relations, it was good marketing. stakeholder capitalism has implications for marketing, for excellent marketing. Excellent marketing, to me is not excellent storytelling. It’s not excellent narratives that inspire people and move people, there’s an element of that. But it also draws upon excellent marketing in terms of differentiation, and developing true value propositions. And understanding your, your, your stakeholders, through segmentation, being very precise, being very clear about that making choices. Try not to do everything. And then really good marketing also is not messaging and storytelling, it’s trying to cause people to take an action. You know, what another one that I hear sometimes at the stakeholders, CEOs who champion stakeholder capitalism, want you to look at that, because they’re not actually performing well over here. And that in the name of stakeholder capitalism, it’s a it’s a diversion from their financial performance. And, you know, it do some CEOs do that, I don’t know, possibly, but it is, you do hear that. And that’s back to the bottom line, the bottom line, the bottom line, that’s all that matters, rather than this is a way to arguably achieve financial performance a better way, a more sustainable way to achieve financial performance. And, and that is, you know, that is subject to a good debate too.
Michael
So I think you and I spoke recently about, and maybe the lofty aspiration of success here with stakeholder capitalism is the most hardcore capitalist becomes convinced to the point that you just made that this is the best way to actually achieve enduring long term success to out compete, and to thrive as a business and generate profits and shareholder value. Now, I believe that’s possible, and we’re working towards that. But there’s a lot of skepticism, naturally, and some of it is, you know, well founded and valid, I’d love to hear your views on maybe connected to miss some of the some of the more substantial critiques of this approach that are rising up.
Jon
I think that to be if you really want to make this pervasive in business, it cannot be dependent on a individual’s values, personal values, their their personal feelings of morality. Because when that person leaves, when that person moves on, you could go with them. You can institutionalize caring, I don’t believe you can institutionalize the basis of competition, you can institutionalize and put into the fabric of a business, this is how we win. This is how we perform. And this is how we will be here for another 100 years. And I think those things are not motivation dependent. I’m in terms of individuals, I think those things are are teachable, they’re more enduring. I’d love if people were motivated by higher principles, but one can’t count on that.
Michael
Yeah, I’ve also heard some CEOs that I’ve spoken with dismiss the evidence that this approach actually leads to better success by saying maybe there’s a fatal flaw in the logic it’s a little bit of a tautology this the few exceptional firms that are very purpose driven with visionary charismatic leaders have basically been successful maybe because of other reasons. And it looks like it’s it’s it’s it’s correlation not causation. And what do you say to that?
Jon
Well, I then I then I look at frankly turnaround situations because sometimes if you look at a company that is meteoric rise and new technology, born on the cloud, digital digital companies and they’re just you know, that market value is astronomical, then then the leader or founder can can opine as to why they’re been successful successful. They’re so high up on on the mouse low. They’re self actualizing and wanting to do all these things. You know, I I can see how people could be skeptical about that. However, if you look at other stories, who bears your Li at Best Buy, would you would you like to have led Best Buy You know, 10 years ago, big box retailer, and and what’s your hypothesis who they’re about how you’re going to get out of this? You know, what’s the future and his hypothesis was, my my people, our culture is broken, they they are not proud to work here, they’re not motivated, they don’t care about the customer, because they haven’t, we haven’t cared about them, we are going to focus on the culture, we’re going to focus on our people. And yes, we’ll do some things with our portfolio, we’ll make some bets. But, but we’re going to put more energy on that in the in the belief that that equation, you know, not all stakeholders equal employees come first and that will result in all good things. And keep he did it and and Best Buy today is, you know, kind of improbably doing quite well, jack row, no one very few more remember, jack row, he was a CEO at came into Aetna, you know, despised classic HMO. And everyone suing them, the only stakeholder who loved that, and it was a shareholder. And he said, we are going to fix this by actually caring about patients again, or for the first time we’re going to fix this by by by making our people proud to work here, because I’m watching them come into the building, because they won’t put their badge on until they get to the door, because they’re not proud to be here. So his hypothesis, similar to who bears and Howard Schultz is at Starbucks is you put your people first, and then good things will happen. And you see that. Now, I’m not I’m not saying that a people first employee, first stakeholder employee stakeholders is first among equals. But I’m just responding to the criticism or the critique that they are correlated, not causal, though CEOs would say absolutely not had I not invested here, I wouldn’t get the results that we we love over there.
Michael
Yeah, I love the notion of looking at turnarounds because you have a through lines and continuity. And you can really assess the change within that context over time. Microsoft’s another really interesting turnaround story, that now is heralded as being number one on just capitals rankings, and, and has paid a lot of attention to culture, and employees as a mechanism of, of sort of its rebirth. I want to go on a little bit of a side journey here with you, because I noticed that you were the chairman of IBM values and policy advisory board. And I’m, and a lot of what we’re talking about does hinge on values and how those are defined how clearly they’re defined how actionable they are, how they’re reinforced, in what ways by leadership over time and guide decision making, and I would love to hear your thoughts on on the role values actually play in this equation. And then what you saw at IBM, in your work there,
Jon
that board was created, you know, within months of President Trump taking office, and it was because of this, you know, this new dynamic, where it, it was expected of companies, particularly by employees, that they should speak out on a range of issues. And you will remember, everyone will remember the fact that there wasn’t a week that went by seemingly when there wasn’t some issue that caused companies to decide, are we going to have a position on this? Do we have a policy on this? Do we have a point of view? Are we going to remain silent? Are we going to talk to our employees only or talk publicly? Are we going to join forces to do something? And inside of IBM? You know, it would have been very easy to react week, week by week. And then the question is, what guides our thinking? Not not to tweet? But what guides our thinking on this particular issue? Is it going to be because the CEO decides is it going to be because the strongest, loudest, most passionate voice around the table wants us to take a stand. And, you know, so so Ginni rometty, the CEO at the time, after you know months of this churn says please, you know, I’m forming this, this orc this team, you laid it, I’m calling it values and policy, because they are together and help us not asking me to do that, but come up with a way to think through is through. And, you know, some of this is common sense perhaps but in the heat of the moment when you’re feeling compelled to speak out on something. These are helpful, like what Well, our values or values if they are to mean something should inform our decision here. Secondly, our business interests. Does the issue is it? Is it? Is it warm, hot, cold, cool, something in between? These are highly subjective. I understand another one, our stakeholders, do they do they care about the issue? I know they may want us to speak out, but but how relevant is any given issue to them? Can we make an impact? Do we have brand permission? Do we have resources to make an impact on the session, and a really important one for a company that’s been around for a while is our history. In other words, what has been our behavior through time on any given issue? And it doesn’t mean we’re handcuffed to the past. But it does mean that if we speak out or remain silent on something, take a position or not, it may represent either a consistent another data point in a long line of behavior, or it could be a departure from that. And if it’s a departure from that, let us be let us do it with intent. Let us explain it. Let’s defend it. Let’s understand that on that one. Just to give you an example, because a lot of members of the executive committee were relatively new to IBM, and were not aware of certain things. And they were quite agitated around these issues, as many were back then. I said, Okay, let’s be informed. Let’s have a vector called our track record. What did we do? When Cuba became conscious? What was our record in the Vietnam era? What was our record? In apartheid South Africa, what was our record during the Civil Rights Movement, not just in the United States? What was our record when this legislation was passed, and that and that, and the Supreme Court decision, what was our record in diversity and inclusion, at this moment in time, this moment in time, and again, it wasn’t to say, oh, therefore, we have to it just means that if we don’t behave, if this management team, if we make a decision today, let us be aware that is either consistent or inconsistent with with our business with our behavior in the past. So all of this, my goal is a big drink of water here. But I find in many discussions with companies, they eight out of 10 do not have what they consider to be any kind of rigor, or even philosophy about how to address these issues.
Michael
Yeah, I hear this come up a lot. And it may be the the most vexing shift, or pressure for CEOs were not so long ago, it was okay to stay neutral and silent on most issues, and be very selective on the few that were kind of obvious candidates to speak out or act out on because they were directly related to your business or something that historically you leaned into. And now that it seems like there is it CEOs don’t feel like they have permission to be silent on anything. Which raises the question of what what do you actually lead to? How do you choose? And and how do you figure out exactly what to do? What’s the volume level of the position to give take? How do you back it up through resources and action or fundamental change to how you’re conducting yourself as a business. And it’s very challenging, I love the notion of looking back at your history not to use that as a roadmap for going forward. But for understanding where you’ve been consistent, and where you’re going to break with that. And just being clear about that. Because, as we know, trust is born out of from consistency over time. And so a lot of the danger here is just being reactive to new pressures from various constituents, as you’re listening to more and more stakeholders, and you want to serve them, they’re going to be loud about many different things, and you need to have a rudder. I think that’s one of the really challenging issues here. And it’s maybe even some of the skepticism that you hear is like, well, now we’re just going to be blowing in the wind against all these pressures. And that’s not a great way to operate a business. And so you have some some people who are taking very strong stances against it, like Bryan Armstrong at Coinbase, for example. Yes,
Jon
yes. So so called CEO activism. It’s often personified by the CEO but it’s better to think about the institution I think, I mean, what you have different ways of thinking about these things and little tools I always found helpful for simple one is to finish the sentence since our founding, we have always believed or we have always stood for blank and that’s why we have example examples of example, today. We We We are going to you know, in consistent with that, we are going to this for that.
Michael
I love that it’s very The rubric and maybe even helpful if you’re going to be changing, say, like for the last 60 years, we’ve done it this way. Now we’re going to make a shift. It at least sets up that context as well.
Jon
Well, you know, Tom shoes is synonymous with by one, give one. And they they moved away from that, you know, recently, a whole bunch of good reasons for that. But that’s an example of where, you know, we say, since our founding, we have blank. But today, we are going to do this, we’re going to make this change. And it’s, Here’s the reason why. And I thought they did that quite well. In explain laying out the logic for that,
Michael
yeah. Another skepticism that I hear that might be worth talking about, and this and that, and then we can get into the most important questions on the Howl, which I would love to explore is on measurement. And some of the forms of value that I think we’re talking about generating for stakeholders are not economic, and can be very challenging to to measure and detect and assess. And if you believe that, you can’t actually drive change, unless you’re setting targets and measuring and having accountabilities against them, then you may dismiss this entire system as being something that sounds great, but is way too challenging to implement with rigor. And stick to
Jon
Yeah, there there are, if you are grossly oversimplified, and back to the C suite, there, there are two kinds of measurement systems that come into the C suite. One is, frankly, it feels like they’re being imposed on a company, or are there they’ve been created to define standards of performance and behavior that all businesses are expected to achieve or comply with everything from accounting standards, to supply chain standards, and so forth. And the other side, our targets and measurements, KPIs and metrics that the company chooses. Because it’s it’s an expression of their leadership, it’s an expression of their differentiation and uniqueness. Sometimes a company choosing a metric like that migrates over to something all companies eventually have to conform with, I would see what we’re seeing that happening right now, is these carbon goals. You know, x years ago, maybe months ago, leaders stepping out saying we will be carbon neutral by this date by this year. Then another one does another one does another one does. How much news are you going to generate today, if you if you articulate a carbon neutral goal? Maybe not as much, right? Because it’s beginning to migrate over to Well, what’s your carbon commitment? I think the same thing is going to happen, or maybe happening now around data and artificial intelligence and algorithmic safety. You know, some companies are stepping out saying we will and will not do certain things with your data, we will and will not do certain things with aspects of artificial intelligence, I would bet safe bet I think that some of those things will be required first, first, they’ll be expected. And then they may actually be required, you know, by the EU, or by California or by everybody. So when you come back to the C suite, the mentality of compliance is is one mindset. the mindset of leadership, though, I think, really is one that CEOs and other members of the leadership team, it’s that combination of things we have to do and should do and are expected to do. But what are the things we’re going to choose to do? Because we want to lead in our industry or in all of business, and I find that to be, you know, a kind of super motivating way for for to get the company moving.
Michael
Let’s shift into what your views on the most important challenges and questions that need to be addressed in order to have this actually be operationalized at scale by many companies in many different categories. Which I think is the challenge you and I are it’s the journey we’re going on. And this is maybe getting at the root of the issue of the how, you know, what is necessary in order to fulfill the question of how do you actually do this? Well,
let me let me start with with by quoting Jim Citron, who leads the CEO practice at Spencer Stewart, for the North America. And Jim says, just because you have a noble purpose doesn’t mean That the challenges of operations of a business are magically solved. And he differentiates between leaders and managers. And he says a leader leader does not scale leader can be passionate, inspirational, committed, hard charging. But if you really want to take your noble purpose and your mission or your commitments, and have that into the into the business into inner woven into the fabric of the business, you have to do the largely thankless unsexy work of looking at your business processes, looking at your functions, looking at decision rights, looking at Target setting, looking at your performance management system, who are you putting in what roles what accountability is in place, versions of this I’ve heard over and over again, from Ken tional, when he ran American Express from Howard Schultz from Kevin Johnson, and many others, where it’s sort of like purposes operating system or a management system that is driven Firstly, by this determination to create value in a particular way. But then you have to go through and complete all the other pieces of of the management system, so that it’s actually operational in your business. And again, that that that is hard work, it sounds like plumbing to some people. But the great debates, the great debates occur there. And the hard work can’t, can’t be ignored. So that’s one piece of it.
Jon
Yeah, and you get into, I mean, unpacking a lot of what you said there’s there’s many pieces within that, including the the sort of performance management system alone, that if you don’t actually start redefining what success looks like and how you can tell deep within the organization, for managers and beyond. You may have only skin deep change. That’s right. That’s right. There are two other very large challenges that that they loomed large for me, as I tried to puzzle through how to how to drive this shift for lots of organizations. One of them is just the timeframes, thinking simultaneously long term and short term, because I don’t think you can ignore either. And the other is making sure that this new approach is not significantly more complex than the current approach. Because if it is, it’ll, there will be real challenges in having it actually take hold. Because in order to operate, you need to be focused and people will gravitate towards things that are easier to understand and implement true on the on the time horizon, particularly the standpoint of investors and public companies. Part of this, I think, is setting expectations. And I don’t mean about your quarterly earnings targets or your or your annual financial objectives, but setting expectations about how the company will deliver those financial results. And over what time horizon. Sam Palmisano, when he was head of IBM. Eventually, we created these roadmaps, where we set expectations and we said, we are not we’re withdrawing. We’re never going to give you guidance in these increments of 90 days. But we understand that you need something to to help you understand and and to expect what we could do for investors. And these roadmaps provided a longer time horizon, but it did not liberate us from accountability. If If we perform the way we expect to and hope to You can’t expect this kind of performance over time, and it took years for the investor to not look at that askance. It took years for the investors to say that’s, that is something that I find a credible way to understand IBM. And to understand what I can expect from IBM. I’ve talked about this with many CEOs about the investor dimension. And some believe that you have to clearly articulate what they can expect. And some investors will flee, they will leave and you will you will see that reflected in your market value in the short term. But you want the right kinds of investors in your company. And if you stick to it and your board stands by it, then you will see a re mixing in in the investor base to some shareholders who buy into your strategy to buy into your purpose and also bought buy into the expectations that you’ve set in terms of what they can expect from you.
Michael
Yeah, I love that notion. There’s something There that resonates with me as a as a former Product Manager, where we used to try to get laser focused on who we’re actually serving. And I used to advise people because it can be a very uncomfortable exercise you have to make, you know, you want to, especially if you have a large product that brand Windows client product management. So you have a billion customers, and you know, how do you actually get sharper around who you’re serving. And I think, inherent in applying stakeholder capitalism is a similar exercise of being willing to optimize for certain audiences who understand them, you serve them, and you optimize for them, because their strong alignment with your purpose, and the value you’re actually generating. And you may lose some people in that shift to your point. But you will gain more over the long run, if you’re doing it right. And you’re actually making the right calls here, through customer loyalty through attracting more of that audience and finding more innovative ways to serve them and create the value that they want. Yes, agree with that? And how about complexity? So I know you think about this a lot. And maybe this actually can stray into my final question for you, which is related to if you had a magic wand, it could change sort of a practice. So change one thing, and have it just be implemented broadly at every company, in order to make significant steps forward towards operationalizing. These ideas, what would it be?
Jon
I wish leaders just added the stakeholder perspective, multiple stakeholders and their expectations, the value that we want to create for them, and give those challenges to their teams with the confidence that they will figure it out. I think that and I’ve heard this so often from leaders, that when they think about stakeholders, and they don’t live in an intersection of trade offs, you know, you might think that if you’re the CEO, or a company is sitting with all these stakeholders with these demands and expectations, you can’t satisfy them all. They might be in opposition to each other. So you have to make trade offs, you have to find common ground, you have to strike compromises. Sometimes you do, of course, but more often what I’ve been hearing is no, no, no, those requirements, which seem to be in opposition to each other, are in a designer’s language constraints that define a design problem. And the design problem is multi dimensional, because you have many stakeholders, how do we simultaneously solve this further employee without taking it out of the shareholders pocket, and doing it in a way that, you know, it addresses some environmental challenge. And giving that brief or giving that challenge to your team and adding to other things, which I’ve also heard, telling the team, this is what I’m asking you to do, it’s going to be extremely hard to do, because it seems to be unsolvable today. But I don’t know how to solve for it, I need your help. And I’m confident that you’ll figure it out. It sounds so simple. But in my experience, only I heard this from CEOs. In my experience in business, when when the leader comes into the room and says we need we need to figure out a way to do the following things. And we have a time constraint and an economic constraint. And we figure it out. And you can call that innovation. But what often comes out of it is new thinking, new solutions, and new approaches.
Michael
I love that concept. And it’s it’s a great foundation for all the other good things to follow, because you’re essentially redefining the problems and opportunities in ways that acknowledge the stakeholders and the value that can be generated and inspire new solutions and innovation that could be much more competitive. Exactly.
Jon
And this applies to ESG. targets, particularly, you know, sometimes sometimes I ESG target, let’s say plastics. It’s it is it is a one stakeholder dimension problem that’s been framed, you know, we need to use less plastics. But why why why not add to that? And we need to do it in that actually increases our profitability, that that increases our market share, and that our manufacturers can actually manufacture in volume without having to retool their, you know, their factories or what have you. And the team would say, I don’t know if that’s possible to simultaneously do all of that. But if there’s never been asked if that’s never been put to the team to try to figure out a way then it won’t happen. Yeah.
Michael
Yeah, and in essence, you’re saying that the easy response would be to say, these are hard trade offs, let’s make a few trade offs that we’re willing to live with. The path you’re talking about is saying, like, let’s not accept the trade offs. Let’s constrain let’s simultaneously generate value in these forums and have that be the challenge that we rise to.
Listen to The Hunt for the How on Spotify, iTunes, and Google Podcasts.
