Back To The Office Of The Future
The last few years has seen an explosion in the terminology of talent. Processes, approaches and strategies when it comes attracting, managing, engaging and retaining talent are legion. Alongside this growth comes a bewildering array of talent titles such as talent management; talent acquisition and talent lead. But is all of this just a sexier re-brand of what used to be called ‘recruitment and succession planning? Has the hiring industry hijacked the word ‘talent’ from Hollywood turning this from ‘on-screen’ talent into ‘on-zoom’ talent?
Marc Effron is co-author of Harvard Business Review’s best-selling book “One Page Talent Management’ widely considered as the talent management bible. Marc is the Founder and President of the Talent Strategy Group a New York based organisation that advises some of the world’s largest and most complex organizations about human resource and talent management issues. Marc also publishes TalentQ magazine a publication he founded in 2013 designed to help executives makes smart decisions about how to manage talent.
[Chris]: If you’re enjoying the Oven-Ready HR Podcast, please do rate and review us and feel free to share with your network. To find out more about Chris Taylor, host, visit OvenReadyHR.com and follow us on Twitter too @OvenHR. Thank you.
This week’s Oven-Ready HR Podcast considers the world of talent. What does it actually mean to real-world organisations with a good team, offering good products, and turning a good profit? The last few years has seen an explosion in the terminology of talent, processes, approaches, and strategies when it comes to attracting, managing, engaging, and retaining talent are legion.
Alongside this growth comes a bewildering array of talent titles, such as talent management, talent acquisition, and talent lead. But is all of this just a sexier rebrand of what used to be called recruitment and succession planning? Has the hiring industry hijacked the word talent from Hollywood, turning this from on-screen talent to on-Zoom talent?
Joining me to discuss and hopefully shine a light on the world of talent is Marc Effron, co-author of Harvard Business Review’s bestselling book One Page Challenge Talent Management, widely considered as the “Talent Management Bible.” In his day job, Marc is the founder and president of the Talent Strategy Group, a New York-based organisation that devises some of the world’s largest and most complex organisations about human resource and talent management issues.
Marc also publishes TalentQ Magazine, a publication he founded in 2013 designed to help executives make smart decisions about how to manage talent. Marc also co-founded the Talent Management Institute at The University of North Carolina’s Kenan-Flagler Business School. That’s become the world’s most popular education programme on talent management with more than 3,000 graduates to date.
Marc, welcome to Oven-Ready. I read in your biography that you regularly contribute to some of the world’s most popular podcasts, so I feel I’m in the presence of podcast royalty.
[Marc]: Well, I’m happy to be here, Chris, and you were obviously in one of the best podcast lists, so I’m thrilled to be on your programme.
[Chris]: That’s very kind of you, that’s very kind of you. Now, I must confess, I’ve been much looking forward to talking to you, and I should declare an interest in that until November 2019, I had a recruitment business that found talent for clients. I ended up describing this business as a boutique talent agency because recruitment just sounded so 1990s. Was I correct in making that change, do you think, or was it really just a recruitment firm?
[Marc]: Well, the whole name change debate has been a big one in HR for many years. It incorporates that exact question, to what extent do people care what we call ourselves in this industry? I can expound on this, but my view is they really, really do not.
[Chris]: They don’t, do they?
[Marc]: No. I mean, there was a post on LinkedIn a couple of weeks ago, and someone put out what, to me, was red meat, which was, “We must change the name of human resources to people departments to change people’s impressions of us.”
[Marc]: I thought if I was eating at a horrible restaurant where the food was awful, and the servers were rude, and they changed their name, am I going back because, gee, they must’ve changed everything else because they swapped the sign? Probably not.
[Chris]: Probably not.
[Marc]: We do get wrapped up, though, and it’s a fair question to dig into.
[Chris]: Yeah, you were at Bank of America. Was that right?
[Marc]: That was many years ago. Many years ago, by 1999 and 2000.
[Chris]: What did they call themselves, personnel?
[Marc]: They called themselves personnel. That’s where I think we get wrapped up in. That was the most powerful HR organisation I have ever experienced in my life.
[Chris]: Was it really?
[Marc]: The saying at Bank of America was, “Finance runs Bank of America, and HR runs finance.”
[Marc]: Because it really was and only because HR added such value to the organisation that you wouldn’t make a business move, not just a people move, you would not make a business move without calling your people partner and saying, “Hey Marc, we’re thinking about buying X, Y, Z bag. What are your thoughts?” They would expect you wouldn’t be saying, “Well, it might be tough to recruit for that.” They’re thinking you have your business hat on because you know enough about the banking industry. You know enough about the strategy of Bank of America that you’re going to have an informed opinion. So, they couldn’t care less if they’re called personnel. What they knew is they got great insights when they talked to somebody from that group.
[Chris]: Yeah, no, absolutely. The clients you work with today, I mean, these are some really large, powerful organisations. How do they define it, do you think?
[Marc]: How do they define HR?
[Marc]: I think what falls in the bucket or falls underneath the umbrella of HR really has not changed much in 20 or 30 years. At the end of the day, you still need to bring people into the organisation. You still need to find some way to grow them while they’re there. You still need some way of sorting one from another in terms of who can move, how far, and how fast. You still need somebody to deal with the people who don’t behave the way that they should. There’s only so many things that we knew with people in an organisation, and those things that we do with people tend to still fit underneath that big bucket of HR. About the only advances or new components that we’ve seen recently is people analytics, which is still, despite all the talk is in its infancy in my experience.
[Marc]: Certainly, the whole DE&I world, which is hopefully finally gaining some traction in big companies.
[Chris]: Yes. Yeah. Well, how do you define talent then?
[Marc]: I define talent as the ability to build better at talent faster.
[Marc]: That’s really the encompassing framework is if you believe that better talent delivers better results, you should want as much of that better talent as quickly as you can possibly get it. Now, obviously, there are a hundred questions underneath that. What do you mean by better talent? How do we get it quickly? Do we grow? Do we buy? But if we start with that basic framework, Chris, you are head of talent management. Your job is to get us more great quality talent. Figure it out, talk to you in a month. That’s really the charge that we should be giving anyone in town. They can call themselves anything they want, as long as they give us more, better quality talent at the end of the year.
[Chris]: Okay, but there’s only so much talent that’s in the world, isn’t there? I mean, there are only so many Mozart’s. Although there aren’t that many Mozart’s, let’s be honest. There’s only one of them. How do you define that? I mean, who says it? Who says what’s good?
[Marc]: This is an interesting nomenclature difference that I find certainly between the States and Europe, and maybe a bit between other parts of the world in Europe, in that when I work with my European clients, talent does mean what’s that rarefied strata of people that we’re dealing with. I’m making hand gestures that you can’t see. Rarefied strata is me drawing a line high up in the air, whereas in other parts of the world, talent is just a synonym for people. Normally, when we say talent, we mean kind of managerial people. Not necessarily, the folks working on the front lines of a business.
So, I think it’s helpful if we say talent in the elevated capability sense of the word. Then it starts to feel a little exclusionary. But normally, when I use the word talent, when my clients used the word talent, they are talking about some of the population that is from the low end of supervisory up through the executive suite.
[Chris]: Okay, so that’s interesting. The Europeans have a slightly different take, you say, on talent as opposed to perhaps in North America, Asia, and other parts of the world.
[Marc]: Yeah, and it leads you to exactly the question that you brought up because, if by talent, we mean this rarefied strata, then it begs the question, “Well, what about everybody else who shows up, works hard, and behaves well, every single day?”
[Chris]: Yeah, exactly.
[Marc]: Which is a fair question, but I would like to subsume that question underneath the, we give everybody a great experience here, and for some people who we think can move far and fast, we do some extra stuff. That way, it feels hopefully a bit more like we certainly hope everybody is contributing, and we certainly hope that everyone has a fair deal for what they’re getting back from the company for what they’re contributing. But yeah, for a certain segment of the population, we’re going to play some bets. They’re going to get some extra stuff, and they’re going to be accountable to deliver extra goodies back to us for that.
[Chris]: Okay. Do you think talent today, do you think that actually they are looking for something much more from an organisation now than perhaps, let’s say, 10 or 15 years ago?
[Marc]: Yeah, there’s an easy answer to that. I’m not sure it’s the right answer. The easy answer is purpose, and we’re certainly, hearing a lot more about purpose. I would suggest purpose has always been an attractor. I mean, we’ve been talking about branding companies for years and years and years of employment brands. Oftentimes, that tried to capture some sense of purpose. But I think sometimes we get a little too lofty when we talk about purpose. I mean, I was just on the phone this morning with one of my clients, a big pharmaceutical firm, and interviewing one of their MD PhDs who is doing brilliant, lifesaving work with pre-born infants. Wow! What a great purpose!
[Marc]: I also work with companies who make busy sugar water. They enjoy making busy sugar water and selling it to people, and that’s a purpose as well.
[Chris]: And they are good at it.
[Marc]: Exactly. I think the easy answer is, “Oh, everyone wants more purpose.” Well, I think everyone wants something they can sign up for and feel good. If we want to put the purpose label on that, cool. But most of us want to show up every day and think we’re making a contribution in some way. If you need to trace that back to what you’re doing today somehow creates world peace in the future, cool.
But I think there’s still just the fundamentals of what we know, engage the vast majority of people at work, which is I’m working for a company that I’m generally proud of, so we’re not lying, cheating, stealing, pumping dirt into the environment. I have a manager who supports me. That doesn’t mean that I love them, but I feel like they care about my best interest, and I’m getting straightforward advice, and I have some opportunity to learn and grow. For some folks, that might be moving up quickly. For others, it might be just kind of keeping your brain a bit stimulated every single day.
It’s amazing when you look at all the research around how people connect with a workplace. Those three factors just emerge again and again, and again, and purpose is probably somewhere woven in there, but we should make sure we don’t over-rotate on purpose and forget about those other fundamentals.
[Chris]: Okay, and obviously, there’s a lot of latent talent within an organisation that maybe someone in talent attraction or whatever it’s called hasn’t really identified. You could have a receptionist, and you really don’t take much notice of him or her because that’s the role that they have, and it’s seen as rather a junior position. They could be a Pulitzer Prize writer type of individual, and you just haven’t spotted that. How did companies and organisations, how do they need to sort of make sure that they know what talent they’ve actually got?
[Marc]: Sure. I think there are a few points there. Let’s start with, do you have a crisp and clear standard for what differentiates people who move far and fast? If you don’t have a standard, then it’s, “Well, Chris is a good guy. Let’s give him a shot,” or “I never really see Chris, so he must not be that great.” I mean, it’s very easy to get into a highly biased situation if there’s not a clear reference standard. Do we know what good looks like at “ABC Company” so that we can say even for that a new person who joins in the mailroom—do we have mailrooms anymore? If we have a mailroom, then we could say, “You know what? I know we hired him in the mailroom, but we have three standards for great around here. He’s already showing promise on two of those. Let’s see if he can be supervisor of the mailroom.”
So, if we have that standard, then hopefully, what we’re doing is we at least have a clear way of measuring, but then let’s wrap a process around that so that everyone gets compared to that standard at least once a year, with the goal of saying, “Can we move that person far or fast with that standard?”
The starting point of that sounds so basic, but a lot of organisations either don’t have a clear standard or don’t have rigorous enough processes the other. I think that maybe I heard this in the back of your question. Well, what if Susie is really good, but no one knows that Susie is really good.
[Marc]: I wrote an article on this last year, maybe two years ago, called “Shy-Po’s.” Are there Shy-Po’s in your organisation? I never really thought about the question, but I was teaching a big tech company. We were in their Singapore office, I think. We were talking about potential and how to predict potential, and someone stood up with a lot of passion and said, “There are lots of people here who don’t show potential in the traditional way. We need to look out for them.”
I thought, okay, well, one is that possible? Is it possible that people are highly skilled at the things we need them to do? Not just, “Maybe they’re a great artist. Cool.” But are they highly skilled at the stuff we need them to do that we haven’t discovered? Okay, possibly. Let’s say we have a good process. Yeah, I guess it’s possible, but maybe not that many. Okay. Well, let’s say that’s 5% of people, if we went to those 5% of people. Is it that we didn’t discover them because they actually don’t want to move up, and so they’re keeping their heads down because they don’t want to be seen?
[Chris]: Okay, so they want to be invisible. Yeah.
[Marc]: It could be. Yeah, you’re right. “I could do that job. Thanks. I know what it’s like, and I’ll pass.” or it could be, well, the reason that, yeah, they have some of the latent skills that we’re looking for, but they aren’t able to package and communicate those in a way that actually would allow them to move up. In which case, it’s, “Hey Susie, I know you are someone who is very humble, doesn’t like to wait for a hand around. That’s actually one of the things that’s required to emerge in a company is people get to know you, get to know your work. We can help you get more comfortable doing that if that’s something you’re willing to do.”
[Marc]: That’s a long way around. Is it possible there are some Shy-Po’s hiding out your organisation? Yes. Probably a small number. If you have a good process for look for Shy-Po’s, and if you find them, let’s figure out if they want to be, but just haven’t thought about how to get there, or maybe, yeah, they’ve got the skills. They just don’t want to give them to you right now.
[Chris]: Yeah, they’re moving on. They’re leaving happy.
[Marc]: Yeah. “Hey, look, I’m happy. Don’t bother me with that stupid management stuff because I’m happy, you know, writing great code or turning out this cool drug.
[Chris]: Yeah, absolutely. Talent, nature, or nurture, or a combination of the two?
[Marc]: Science is pretty darn clear on this. It’s about 50/50, and it’s about 50/50 because there are things that we inherit from our parents that are strong determinants of how far and fast we move in life and in companies. One is good, old-fashioned intelligence. You either curse your mum and dad for that or thank your mum and dad for that, depending on how you ended up. But intelligence is still the largest single predictor of success in any organisation. So, you can’t do a darn thing about that by the time you enter the working world, but it’s highly productive—same thing with your personality. Now, by personality, I don’t mean behaviours. We can all show up behaving any way that we choose to, but your behavioural tendencies as driven by your personality, largely inherited, a little bit shapeable when you’re really young, but still, it’s pretty hard-wired. To that extent, some of it is born, but there’s also, and I wrote about my most recent book, “Eight Steps to High-Performance.” There are also things that come under that born category that are decidedly unfair. Like maybe you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth. Okay, well, you’re probably going to–. Go ahead.
[Chris]: No, no, no, no. I was just going to say, I mean, I think that’s particularly an issue in the UK is because there is a rigid, or there has been for very many years, a rigid class system. Perhaps in the United States, you do have that American dream, and actually, what you can do is you can aspire to be the president of the United States if that’s what you’d like to be. I mean, it’s open to you, whereas in this country, unless you’ve been to the right school and the right University, certain industries such as the judiciary or working in Goldman Sachs or something, a lot of these roles actually are not open for someone who comes from a more modest background.
[Marc]: Yeah. And that goes to, is that fundamentally unfair? Yep, it sure is.
[Chris]: It sure is.
[Marc]: It also goes to if you won the ovarian lottery as well, some famous investor, I think a Warren Buffet says, good for you, but also even silly things like your appearance. The research is extremely clear the discrimination that happens based on appearance, even things like, I think I had this in my last book as well. For every inch of height you are above the median, you get a thousand dollars salary premium. Unfair? Absolutely, and taller people are seen as leaders. No correlation, zero correlation, but it goes to a little bit of born and a little bit of made.
[Chris]: Okay. I’m going to wear shoes with some—
[Marc]: We’re your lifts. What the hell.
[Chris]: Okay, and in terms of culture, organisational culture when it comes to talent. We’ve all heard of organisations that actually have, for example, they might have taken a team from a different investment bank or a different law firm, and these people have had stellar careers previously. They’re parachuted in, and they’re dropped into their new organisation, and it just doesn’t work. It happens with footballers. It happens with all sorts of people. How much is organisational culture in that effect on someone’s individual performance, would you say?
[Marc]: Yeah, there are a lot of dynamics in predicting that. Let me just throw out a couple of things. Part of it is, does the individual have just a fundamental intellectual horsepower and personal style where they should be generally successful anywhere? So, kind of, is the raw material there, or did they just get lucky in one job? So, they joined Google when they were 22 when it just started, and they just happened to get promoted up.
One question is, is the raw material there, but then it gets to, to what extent was their success due to fit with the organisation or fit with the situation. We see this all the time with entrepreneurs. They are brilliant, driving that entrepreneurial mindset, attitude. They love it when things are a mess around them. But then, when their organisation becomes more successful and has infrastructure and processes, all of a sudden, they actually aren’t a high performer anymore because they don’t fit with that environment.
[Chris]: No, they aren’t fulfilled.
[Marc]: Exactly same smart, interesting person, but they don’t want to show up at a meeting for two hours and talk about HR policy.
[Marc]: So, sometimes it is that the organisation has shifted around them. Sometimes, it’s that, and Boris Groysberg’s research out of Harvard really talked about this. Sometimes it’s that you’ve been so enabled by the team that you have that while you got the accolades for driving great results, it was really a function of you had the right people at the right time, and you happen to be part of the team.
[Chris]: So, it was serendipitous almost.
[Marc]: Yeah. I mean, not that you didn’t contribute anything, but your contribution was so magnified by the team or the situation that was there that it kind of distorts, “Did you really perform that well?” But it does bring up balls to the question. You mentioned footballer, and I’ll use the American version of football.
[Chris]: That’s the only one, isn’t there?
[Marc]: That’s it. As far as I’m concerned, it is, but we can talk more, Chris. We can agree on cricket, though. I spent a lot of time in India, and I learnt to love cricket, so maybe we can have a cricket competition.
[Chris]: Yeah, but it’s not going so well. It’s not going so well on the cricket, so we’ll move on from that.
[Marc]: Let’s take the Tom Brady example. So, Tom Brady, for your listeners who don’t know, led the New England Patriots football team for many years, led them to many Super Bowl Championships. Tom, I think he’s 42 years old, which seems pretty old for a football player. How can he move to a new team with a bunch of new players and new coaches and lead them from worst to first in one year? It suggests there’s still some magic in the individual, and I think we’re still searching in this field for, “Well, what exactly is that magic?”
[Chris]: Yeah, no, and it’s incredibly difficult to define, isn’t it? I mean, it’s almost impossible, isn’t it?
[Marc]: Well, yeah. How do you technically break apart a situation in a way that you can analyse it to, “Well, Tom had these four receivers, and he had these plays? The new plays—.” I mean, there are so many variables that would go in to try and figure that out. I think what we can agree on is there are some people who have raw materials, which will likely make them more effective in almost any situation we put them into. That doesn’t mean they’re going to be perfect for every situation, but in general, you’re going to bet on them. Where they’re going to be others, you say, “Hey, they’re really, really good at X, but we don’t think there’ll be good outside of that.”
[Chris]: Okay. You touched on analytics earlier in our conversation. Where is talent going in that direction, do you think, and the data that’s provided now or becoming available?
[Marc]: I see a lot of good thinking in the analytic space. I think here, both the opportunity and the challenge is, let’s clearly define what problems are we trying to solve with analytics? I think for a while, people got excited with new software tools and just started spitting out numbers and results without thinking about, well, what are the problems that we’re trying to solve? And most importantly, does analytics add any incremental value to our ability to solve that problem?
If you’re simply telling me with analytics that people don’t like being rated in the performance management, well, great. We’ve known for 50 years people don’t like being rated, so the fact that you’ve now proven that again is lovely but not particularly helpful. Whereas what we don’t know and where analytics probably can help us is by sorting through just a ton of data-defined relationships or conclusions that we might not otherwise spot, probably more than individual level.
Meaning, could good analytics sort through all the data in my company and say, “Okay, we know Marc’s personality? We know Marc’s background. We know Marc’s tendencies. We know how many buildings at Marc’s company he’s badged into over the past three months, the individuals he’s met with. What it seems to show to us is that his introverted tendencies, which we know about from his personality profile, are affecting the number of people that he’s working with. It’s a very small number. He needs to expand his reach. Therefore, our specific advice for Marc to become a higher performer at “ABC Company” is to do this, this, and this.
I think that’s where the power is. It’s much more of an individualised basis than coming up with new fundamental truths about humankind. I doubt that they’re going to discover that, but I think there’s a ton of power once big data in the systems evolve.
[Chris]: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I was talking to a group this morning and actually what they’ve done with their data is that they’ve predicted of this particular team, which individuals will be leaving in the next 12 months.
[Chris]: Actually, so if you are looking at retaining talent and you’re worried that actually, your key pillars are walking off down the road, I mean, that’s quite a powerful piece of information, isn’t it?
[Marc]: Absolutely. That goes to also, I would challenge an organisation to say, “Are you gaining new information from the analytics to help you inform that, or if you had talked to Susie five months ago, could you have picked up on some clues that Susie wasn’t particularly happy?”
[Chris]: Yeah. You could have just gone to Starbucks, couldn’t you, and just had a coffee and talked about it?
[Marc]: Exactly. Susie was whining about how the bureaucracy here stilts your ability to grow. It’s like, okay, a smart manager should have her ears up saying, “Oh, that doesn’t sound too good. Let me talk to Susie, and let’s have a stay interview with her.”
[Chris]: Yeah. Yeah. Okay, and what irritates you? What nonsense is there about talent that absolutely drives you crazy?
[Marc]: Well, Chris, we only have a half-hour to talk, so I’m not sure we can really get into that fully, but.
[Chris]: Give it a go.
[Marc]: Here’s what causes me to sit up a bit straighter is that people take our, ‘our’ being consulting firms. People take our advice at face value because they trust the source.
[Marc]: In some cases, that’s great, and the more credentialed the source, the more we trust. The challenge is you can be a Harvard or a Stanford Ph.D. and still put out, excuse my language, bullshit that people buy into because it sounds right, and “Gee, that professors at Harvard.” I list a number of these in my most recent book, everything from grit to power posing to growth mindset. These are all things that people would, if you said, “Are these true?” They would say, “Absolutely!” Yet, the science is very clear. No, they simply are not.
Then the challenge is, and this is my personal frustration. If I’m working with a client who’s glommed on to one of those fads, I need to now walk them back from the ledge before we get on with other productive work because they’re saying, “No. We’re encouraging everyone to be grittier.” It’s like, “Okay, well, that’s called a dead end, but now we need to back the car all the way back on that road, and that’s just a waste of time.”
[Chris]: Yeah. Yup. So, actually, they’ve been seduced by snake oil salesman, you would say?
[Marc]: Yeah. I think in some cases, let’s separate good intentions from less than good intentions. Let’s take power posing. Power posing came out, let’s say it was five years ago, and there was a legitimate research paper that said, “If you stand in a particular way, it increases certain body chemicals, and you feel more confident.” That wasn’t beyond the pale. There’s lots of research around body, mind relationships. So, you wouldn’t instantly say, “Well, that’s garbage.” Here’s the secret. No one could replicate it. So that’s the secret. If you want to test the science, has anybody else done this and come up with the same result? I consider that well-intentioned science that goes wrong versus let’s take grit. A Harvard professor wrote a book on grit, a Harvard psychology professor, that said, “Hey, I’ve discovered this new thing, and it’s called grit. You can be more gritty.”
Other smart IO psychologists read that and said, “Grit sounds an awful lot like the conscientiousness factor of personality, which we’ve known about for many, many years, and you as a psychology professor certainly have known about it. Marketing this is not only a new thing, but something that people can learn to do, which would be very, very difficult, feels a little bit disingenuous.” So, I never want to cast aspersions on people’s intentions, but I would suggest things like that make me scratch my head a bit to say, are we leading people down a primrose path for less-than-ideal reasons?
[Chris]: Yeah. I mean, it’s interesting you say about the power pose because actually that was adopted here by quite a few politicians, and frankly, they were ridiculed in the press. The photographs that were taken by the photographers made them just look ridiculous, and it’s extraordinary. They were literally; they were ridiculed. So, it’s interesting. Hopefully, that one’s been put to bed now, hasn’t it? We don’t have to do that anymore.
[Marc]: I think mainly, but I guarantee you there’ll be another fad that pops up. I mean, I’m fighting these all the time, and it’s less because I want to waste my time doing it. Because it is, to be honest, a waste of my time to have to shut down other people’s ideas instead of coming up with good ones on my own. But it’s almost, you know, we should somewhat take a Hippocratic Oath in this field that we should do no harm. Unfortunately, what those fads do is actually harm is they because you to spend money, time, and attention, and in some cases, elevate people’s hopes falsely, when we have plenty of science that tells you exactly what does work.
[Chris]: Yeah. Only for you to have to walk them back, as you say, from that.
[Marc]: Yep, exactly.
[Chris]: Yep. Marc Effron, thank you very much indeed. It’s been a pleasure. Now, if anyone wants to get hold of you, how did they get hold of you?
[Marc]: Probably the easiest way is go to our website talentstrategygroup.com. Not only can you read lots of free, cool articles and see videos, but if you need to reach out, you can do it right on that page.
[Chris]: Brilliant. Marc, thank you very much, indeed. It was a great pleasure to talk to you. Thank you.
[Marc]: Pleasure was all mine, Chris. Thank you.
Share this podcast
Jeremy Hunt MP
Michael F Schein
Dr Sam Farley
Steve Browne, Emma Jones, Richard Merrin, Jarmila Yu, Carl Reader, Aoife Martin & Marc Effron