Transcription
Hi everyone, and welcome to In Good Company. I'm Nikolai Tangen, the head of the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund. And today, I'm in particular good company because I'm here with Albert Burla, who is the chairman and CEO of Pfizer, one of the largest pharma companies in the world.
Now, Albert has been with Pfizer for 30 years, been CEO since 2019, and has led the company through a remarkable period of change. Warm welcome.
Thank you very much. And you know, I'm with Pfizer 33 years. I'm with my wife 30. All right. I, I got it mixed up there a bit.
Now, a lot of stuff has happened since you took over as uh CEO. What, what are you most excited about just now?
I think I'm always excited by by the future, like all CEOs, right? They see the the opportunities ahead. And um, uh, science is at the highest uh levels we ever had it, and science is affecting our business uh very big time. So I'm very, very optimistic about the scientific progress that we can see in the next years until the end of the decade.
You sharpened the focus on innovative medicine, solo consumer healthcare, and so on. Why did you think that was the right decision to make?
I'm a believer that, you know, a corporation's role is not to hedge. Uh, it is uh to be very good at a few things. Investors' role is to hedge. So I believe that requires a different culture for a scientific company, and a different culture for a consumer company, and a very different culture for an off-patent generic company. So I felt that uh, we should choose to be good at what it is really important, and that was science.
Mmm. Mmm. Now, we're not going to spend much time on on COVID, but we have to just touch on the fact that you did an unbelievable job, put a a huge amount of your own capital in there, and produced the vaccine in eight months. Just how was that possible?
Well, you know, it was possible uh for several reasons, but the most important is was exceptional times. So everybody felt that this is not uh business as usual, and everybody felt that um, the, the culture of society, our civilization is, it's at risk. So everybody gave everything. And when I say everybody, I mean the government, I mean uh, our people, I mean uh, our hospitals that corroborated.
So it was uh, not easy to be done without them being aligned.
Why don't we continue to work this way at full speed? Because uh, we don't have this big need that uh, is driving people's behaviors, and they have the tendency to go back to the old habits. I have seen that with regulators, but after being extremely uh, instrumental in being able to achieve what we achieved, they became back to more conservative. I have seen that with the government operations that were opening the ways to uh, to us to be able to accomplish what we accomplished, and now they are back to the normal uh, trend. So it's uh, unfortunately, you need a common enemy to motivate people.
Absolutely. No, we see that in many places.
Now, on the back of that success, you had a big pile of money, and then you had to decide what to do with it. Mmm. How do you decide on a thing like that?
First, let me tell you that I don't think that it was only the money that came to us that it was a very big asset. Uh, the most important, I think, was that they believe in our organization, that there is nothing that we can't do. Mmm. Our people felt so proud about what they were able to accomplish, and as a company and individuals, we were soured by awards and uh, by recognition uh, that um, make us all feel that uh, when we put our will together, we can uh, bend every curve. Mh.
Um, that's a very big asset, and I think that we found it extremely helpful once things went uh, not good after the COVID uh, uh, was controlled by what we did, and as a result, the money stopped being as big as they were coming. Uh, so the fact that we had developed this resilience culture helped us a lot to pivot to something new. Mmm.
Uh, now, the money were quite, quite, quite good, and we invested it all. There were a lot of uh, uh, of course, uh, people that uh, would have different views as to how this money needs to be invested. Um, there were the conservative people that would say, give it as a dividend. Uh, there were people that were saying, uh, buy back shares, and you know, our sales were at 50 at that time. Uh, and uh, there were uh, people that were saying, it's time to invest in business. So it's a unique opportunity. You have an L-O-E period. You need to to make sure you do investments. I've chosen the last part, and uh, we did a significant amount of investments, almost 80 plus billion dollars in acquisitions.
Uh, three of which are 80% >> of the total cost. And um, uh, still the jury is out, particularly in the bigger one of them, uh, which was Seagen. It had products that, they were in the market, and over there, it's an overwhelming victory. Those products are doing tremendously well.
Well, we, we'll come back to those, but just first, that kind of confidence that you gain by achieving uh, something like you did during COVID, how long time does that confidence last?
It was a very tough period in the year 2023. In '22, our revenues from COVID were 56 billion. Now it is six. >> So it's, it was a huge. >> But the confidence, I mean, the, you know, the fact that people think they are superhuman.
I'm, I'm coming to to that. So when you are having such a drop of reality from uh, the stock being the best performing to suddenly the stock being the worst performing, that puts a lot of doubts in everyone's minds, and collectively and individually, that included me. That, I was wondering if I'm a failure, just months after I was the hero of the world. But also, I knew that that included many people uh, in my organization, because they perceived the stock price as an external validation of success. And when that was not there anymore, and of course, not the weekly recognitions that we were receiving, they felt very bad. Uh, still, I believe because we developed this resilience, and because this memory uh, was lasting a lot, we were able to overcome it. And in '24, we came up uh, really as winners mentality, with the confidence that we can go and win in the marketplace, we can win in business development, we can win in research. And that's what happened. '24 and '25 were exceptional years in terms of performance. Everybody was very impressed how we are able to grow topline and beat analysts and reduce cost.
Organizational confidence is such an interesting thing, I think. And um, one of my favorite movies uh, is Kung Fu Panda. I don't know, you probably haven't seen it because it's a children's movie, but basically they're trying to >> I love children's movies. >> They're trying to figure out why this panda is so strong, and you know, uh, what's his magic thing? And they find these magic ingredients, and it's basically just a mirror. They, they, you know, he believes he believes in himself. How do you, how do you, how do you foster uh, organizational confidence, self-confidence?
Uh, it is um, coming with um, confirmation through successes. It's very difficult uh, to build a a culture of confidence if uh, people see only failures in front of them. They need, you need to to take it together with with successes, and you need to magnify, because there is always in the organization pockets that they are having examples of that, and pockets that they don't. And usually, everybody's attention it is on what went wrong. You need to make sure that you project to the collective organization what went right as well.
Um, let's go back to the uh, the acquisition. So you spent more than 40 billion uh, to buy uh, Seagen. What was it that you saw there that other people didn't see?
It was one technology, to be frank, and that technology was ADCs. It was a, a technology that um, was started to become one of the hottest new things in oncology. It was not yet at that time. It became much bigger. And there were a lot of singular players here and there that they could have ADC technology, but there was only one that uh, had four products in the market, and they had uh, 13 R&D uh, projects in clinic.
ADC being antibody-drug conjugates.
Antibody-drug conjugates. It is one of the latest uh, uh, and more promising ways to fight cancer.
Why does it work so well?
You should consider the ADCs like these extremely precise missiles that modern warfare is is using. Why are they so extremely precise? Because they have GPS systems that take them directly to the target, and then based on what is the target, they can adjust the warhead. They can make it big, small, explosive. This is exactly how ADCs work. The antibody is the GPS, and it is programmed biologically to identify a location in the body and go and stick to it. And uh, the drug, it is the warhead >> that uh, it is carried together with the antibody, and when it hits the target, it is releasing the impact. Imagine a chemotherapy that doesn't go everywhere, but uh, goes predominantly to the cancer cells. That's the ADC technology. You can change the antibody, and you can send from liver to brain, to bones, to stomach. You can change the payload, and you can use radioactive payloads, or you can use chemotherapy, or you can use proteases. You can use a lot of different weapons. But that's exactly the beauty of it, that uh, from a, from a scientific and business perspectives, gives you an opportunity to have so many combinations and so many sorts and goals. So that's what uh, I really believed in in that. And and we did. And if the technology is proven to deliver on the promise, it's going to be one of the most successful acquisitions. If the technology doesn't deliver uh, to what we were uh, hoping will do, I think will be like a modest return. >> But I don't think we will lose money.
So this was, so that was in oncology. Now, um, the other area you wanted to zoom in on was obesity, and you, you, you, you bought Marea. Why was that so important? Dubai and you out-Innovate Novo Nordisk there?
Yes, we, we always uh, believed that uh, obesity is a very big area, and we always believed that Pfizer, it is the company that can be very competitive over there. So we entered into the obesity space way back in the day, and um, if things wouldn't go wrong for us scientifically, because two major assets that we had in the clinic uh, they suddenly saw signs of liver toxicity. So we had to discontinue them, although they were very effective, right? Um, but uh, if that was not the case, we would be the first to launch an oral uh, product right now in the market, and uh, things will be very, very different for all of us. But unfortunately, this didn't happen. So now we are having a development organization that knows how to do primary care, very big, complicated studies. We have a commercial organization that it is a powerhouse and knows how to sell stuff. And uh, we have a manufacturing network that can make those stuff better and faster and cheaper than anybody else. And guess what? We didn't have a portfolio. So it was for us extremely important to cover this gap because of bad luck, of scientific bad luck, with an acquisition. And that's what we did with Marea.
Now you own it for a little while. Have your views changed?
Not at all. Not at all. I think uh, I'm more and more optimistic, if anything.
Why are you more optimistic?
Because we had um, the release of data post the acquisition. And we knew that um, the Marea has a very good weekly product that we were really certain. Uh, you can never be 100%, but we were 85, 90% certain that that will deliver. Uh, but we didn't have hard evidence that a monthly product could be delivered. Uh, we knew that the pharmacokinetics support something like that. We knew from phase one early data that it should work. Uh, but we needed the phase two data, which we didn't have available when we did the acquisition. The phase two came later. And indeed, it confirmed that we do have a monthly product. We can debate, is it going to be better than Lilly's, worse than Lilly's, but it's going to be monthly. Lilly's and Novo will be weekly. That we know now with very high level of confidence, to the degree, of course, that uh, science can provide you such. So that's why.
Um, why is your um, clinical success rate better than competition? So I think the success rate in the industry is something like 10, 11%. You are quite a lot higher than that. >> Why are you, why are you so good?
Um, I think because uh, uh, you can have, first of all, this type of success. And you're right, one in 10 succeeds in the industry. Almost two in 10 succeeds in our hands. So we are 18, 19% of uh, clinical successes. And we have a very, very long history as a research organization. And actually, Pfizer's research organization, it is, I believe, one of the best. I'm sure we will discuss what we have done to change the trajectory of Pfizer organization, but >> But why is it one of the best?
Because when it comes to capabilities, we are, all the metrics indicate that we can kill it. That you mentioned one, I can mention to you uh, the phase two uh, success rates that, with an industry being around 25%, and uh, uh, 30, and we were below that, 15, 20, and we jumped it to 50 plus. Uh, in regulatory success, we are almost at 95%. So all the metrics are showing uh, that we are very good. But I wouldn't also say the success because sometimes success is because you choose to do easy things, and not challenging things, right? Not scientifically big, big projects. If you see the number of breakthrough designations that we received from FDA, which is a recognition that this potential medicine, it is so good that I will put it in a fast track, because if it is successful, it can change the trajectory of a disease. We were among the top ones. If you see how many approvals we received, we were among the top ones.
So I think >> we were always very, very good when it comes to capabilities. So, but you restructured last year?
No, no, no, no. There is a big but. I don't think we were perceived as very good for a good reason, because when you measure how much we put in the system and how much we got out of the system in terms of dollars, we were mediocre, not top quartile. Because everything else that I told you, we were top quartile.
So what did you change last year?
What was the reason of of that? It became very clear to me that we made the wrong choices into choosing uh, which products to develop. They were not easy technically, which makes me even more angry. Uh, so it was technically challenging, but we miscalculated the commercial potential of those products. And there were silos between R&D and commercial that created that it was uh, uh, not focus on the R&D. We were going to whatever uh, we had as positive data, we would go and develop it. And that's the number one thing that I aim to change. The good news is that um, if it was a question of uh, capabilities for us, that would mean five, six, seven years journey to be able to turn that around. If it is a question of focus, with good capabilities but wrong focus, that's a cultural, that's a governance, that's a leadership issue. You can change within months.
So you got a new head of R&D. What are the other changes you made specifically?
We have multiple heads of uh, uh, R&D units that they are new, and um, they bring a different culture into the organization that I wanted to be, and particularly the focus. As I said, I was not looking for a better oncologist or a better uh, endocrinologist. I was looking for an oncologist that can focus. I was looking for an endocrinologist that can focus. And that were the type of changes that we did. We put together the entire R&D organization as an end-to-end, which was not the case also before. We had early and late, and then later also we separated oncology. Now we had early and late under one leadership. You know, it makes a very big difference because the handovers between early and late, when the two organizations are separate, early means someone discovers the molecule, and once he discovers, he gives it to the late organization. It means we have clinicians that do experiments to prove that the molecule works. This handover between "my baby" now, make sure that it is successful. It is one of the most challenging uh, phases in drug development and discovery, and I think that's what um, we, we did quite well.
Let's spend some time on uh, on AI. Um, we recently, you and I spent some time at a conference together, where some people think that within 10 to 15 years, we can get rid of all the illnesses in the world.
Yeah.
With more use of AI. Just, what are your, when you hear that, what are your reflections?
I, I think that it is a very bold statement that uh, probably exaggerates to make a point, but I think still the point is valid. I think that we will see in 10, 15 years, and earlier, I think by the end of this decade, in five years, uh, tremendous, tremendous progress that uh, it is uh, due to AI, in addition to advancements in biology. So that's the point. I don't think in 15 years all diseases will be cured. Uh, but I think that in five years, we will have a very different level of standards of care.
How does, how will that change the pharma industry?
It will change it. Uh, not only the pharma industry, it will change the pharma, the health system, it will change hospitals, it will change physicians, how they are uh, organized. Uh, it, it will change regulators, how they see products, and it will change pharma. And pharma will change in research and development, because I think we can identify better targets, and then synthesize better molecules, and then have better clinical trials. But also in manufacturing, and it will make a huge difference also in commercial uh, approaches.
Is it good news or bad news for Pfizer?
I think it's very good news. But uh, we need to be careful that that will be a radical change, that will be a disruption. And uh, disruption always creates new winners and new losers. The bigger the disruption, the bigger the new.
And how will you make sure that Pfizer is on the right side of that change?
That's all I sleep and uh, go to bed and wake up with in my mind. There are two things: China and AI. And uh, and politics, unfortunately.
Let's do, let's do AI first. Just specifically, how do you, how has it changed the way you were? Because it was, it was instrumental in in helping you with the with the COVID vaccine, right?
Yeah, it was. And it was not with the vaccine that much. It was with a treatment, Paxlovid. The pill that we discovered was indeed the first machine learning molecule that >> with such an impact, at least that I'm aware of. Um, AI cannot do everything right now, but can do way more than what we are using it for.
That's the fundamental question I'm asking. All these models can do way more than what are used for. And the question is, so then why they are not used as much? Because right now, we have been reached the level that it is not a question of technology. It is a question of uh, organizational ability to adjust and transform itself through AI. Um, that poses a question, what is the best way to enable leaders to transform their organizations >> with AI? And um, I think the first one, it is that they should receive the accountability of doing it. So there are two, two views to how to organize AI. One, it is centralized. You have visionary AI guys that they're coming, and they are building your discipline in your, and then they cascade to everybody else. And there is one that it is very decentralized, that says that the center is only the infrastructure, the data, the computing power, the cloud. But then the accountability, responsibility, and resources to create use cases uh, is with the units, is with manufacturing, it is with research, it is with commercial. Uh, I went to that, and we discussed it a lot with Pfizer, and we moved into giving accountability to our leaders to do those changes, but also they have to deliver. So they have all the obligation to deliver their transformational plans that will will really move the needle, really go to something very different. So I think that's a very, very important thing.
How do you close that technology overhang? I mean, the fact that these models can do so much more than we are able to utilize them for?
I think that's what I was trying, maybe not successfully, to explain that uh, the, the reason why they are not using MT is because there is inertia. There is fear. Uh, the fear is for my job. But also there is fear because I don't understand it. There is.
But what's the key? What's the key? What's the key to solving this? Because it's not only in the country, it's across society, right?
Yeah. The key to solve it is to understand it. So if you understand that people are scared because they don't understand it, you need to create the AI literacy.
How do you, how do you do that?
We train them. We have a, we are putting program thousands of people into programs that they will uh, understand how to interact with an AI uh, uh, model.
Is it mandatory? Is it mandatory to do it?
We haven't done it mandatory right now because it's still, we are, let's say, I would say we are having 3, 4 thousand people that they have gone through the programs. What we will have in Pfizer is certifications. So we will uh, have people that could receive a certificate if they are AI fluent, if they are AI very good, if they are AI experts. And um, we are working very, very intensively to develop uh, all the specifications of what this uh, will include. But we are moving into that very rapidly.
What kind of classification would Albert Burla have?
You know, it's a, it's uh, interesting. I need to go and pass the tests for for all of that. I did the training that the 2,000 people did. Uh, I saw huge difference in my ability.
Yeah.
And it was a very easy one, a weekend, right? Uh, I saw.
I think it has to be mandatory. We have it, we have it mandatory in our company because the people who need it the most are the least keen >> to do the training, right? So I think it has to be mandatory. In the beginning, everybody protested because nobody likes mandatory, but now they, well, my interpretation is that they like it.
Very good. It's a good learning.
Um, you mentioned AI and China. What is happening in China in the pharma industry?
I think the Chinese, when they put something in uh, their mind as top priority, they have proven that they can deliver exceptional results. So the saying is, they are working with the five-year plan, and they had 2025 was the 14th five-year plan from Mao Zedong's time, and this is where they first time spoke that they want to develop by years '35 to '36, global players in pharmaceutical space. And to do that, they said in the first years, they need to develop biotech and improve science, etc. They did tremendously well. Right now, the um, in the Nature Index uh, of uh, of ranking universities uh, based on uh, scientific outputs, out of 10, the top 10 was always eight US, the usual suspects, MIT, Harvard. In '25, only one was US, Harvard, and eight were Chinese. Eight of the top 10 were Chinese in the world, based on peer-review publications that they had, and grants, and PhDs, and all of that. So the progress that's happening is amazing, from uh, uh, the early stages of uh, drug discovery, to regulations, to IP protections, to utilizing talents, encouraging investments, subsidies. It's, it's uh, they are moving with the speed of light.
Is it the basic research uh, you think, which is the main reason behind this? One of the, what are the factors influencing it?
The factors that influence was the the execution of a meticulously well-thought-out plan. The first one was, you need to have uh, a regulator that, like their FDA, that it is not corrupt, that it, it is competent, that can differentiate between garbage and uh, diamonds when it comes to science. They did that meticulously well. They changed their FDA regulations after repeated visits to the FDA here in the US to know how they are doing it. The second is that they know that if someone invests his money to make uh, uh, something in biotech, the whole asset is a formula on a piece of paper. It's not uh, the machines, it's not the buildings, it's not the the drills. So to do that, you need to have very strong IP protection. So they developed a very strong intellectual property protection system in China that gave confidence now to investors that regulator will be fair and is on on science and objective. My patents will be protected because we have that this new law that came, and they created a judiciary system that can resolve uh, IP disputes very quickly. So if someone challenges your patent, you are not having uncertainty for 10 years.
Do they have a better system than we have?
Apparently, they have better results than what we have.
Are they ahead of us on oncology, for instance?
They are not ahead of us uh, yet. But uh, when you see the curve, and then you you come to the conclusion that it's a question of one or two years to become better than us. And I don't think it is right now. Very few things you can do to stop that. So within one or two years, China will be ahead of us >> in in multiple areas.
Which areas?
They are focusing on early right now because they can't have global clinical development teams yet, and they don't have commercial development teams yet. So on the early, which is chemistry, preclinical, developing of molecules, testing them, and in areas like cancer, obesity, you, you name it. Uh, they have for every one thing that we have, they have 10 companies working on it. So I'm sure that on the early stage, they would be very quickly better uh, and more productive than us within two years. Uh, then it comes to then they need to transition to being able to take those molecules and bring them to the world >> alone rather than together with us. And I think that will be their step, their second step. But so far, they do it um, with us. And with you, right? So you did a deal with uh, 3SBio, which is a Chinese biotech company?
Yes, we are, we are um, trying to tap into the Chinese innovation. So there are a lot of things that they are developing. We are looking at them, and when we find something good, we, we license it. Uh, but um, for me, this is not a long-term strategy. First of all, they won't give their molecules forever to others. They will develop their capabilities to take them all the way to the market, so that they can profit from the whole value chain. Chain of value. But um, uh, my focus is how to become better than them.
Yeah.
Because right now, they bring a very different league. They are doing everything with half the cost and three times the speed. If you compare Pfizer and Lilly and AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk, one is better in something, the other is better in something else. But in general, we are all within a range of same, let's say, productivity levels. R&D maybe one is better, commercial maybe one is better. They come, as I said, half the cost, three times the speed. That's a very different league. You need to transform your companies, and you have five years to do it, so that you will be able to compete in a world that they come, like they did with electric vehicles, like they did with solar panels, like they did with batteries, they will do with medicines.
And how is Pfizer going to have the costs and increase the speed by 300%?
Yeah, the, the best answer or the simple answer, it is through transformation, through technology. Um, I think it's, it's good thing to say, you know, I'm going to transform myself, but it's not that you were stupid before. It was that you didn't have technology that will allow you to do things very, very differently than you are doing them right now. Now we have with AI. So transformation through uh, uh, technology, it is pretty much number one. Culture, leadership, focus, all of these are extremely important as well. But uh, now it's high time to change the way we do things.
And what can um, regulators and society do? Are there any, if you were to change three things that would make your life easier?
I'll tell you what US should do. Should stop uh, trying with all the heart and brains that they have to put 80% of their effort how to slow down China. Very big mistake. Because we will, it's a waste of resources and brain power, because you will never slow them down. The genie is out of the bottle. We should put 80% of our focus and effort how to become better than China. And for that, I know what Pfizer needs to to do, and I know what the US government could do to help us.
Such as?
I have a very comprehensive plan that covers from regulatory changes, covers from NIA's funding, covers from universities and how they operate, uh, covers from drug pricing, because uh, the, all this debate about drug pricing drove 2025 to be the lowest multiple in the history of the industry and the lowest available fund for biotech. So without changing those things, uh, we won't have the uh, enough uh, investments there. China, it is scale, speed, cost, and scale. We should not underestimate. They are putting a lot of money out there. And in our case, we are holding money from this sphere because investors, they don't feel confident that those products will sell at prices that will give them return on investment.
Mhm.
But let's move on to leadership. Why are you a good leader?
I'm not sure if I'm a good leader, but I'm a leader that changes every year. I'm a leader that learns. And uh, one of the key characteristics of of a a good manager, it is that uh, uh, time uh, works on him like uh, in wine. So makes him better. The moment that I feel that the end of the year, I was exactly the same as it was in the beginning of the year, I think it will be time for me to go and retire.
So Parker rates the wines from uh, from 1 to 20. So how do you, uh, what kind of uh, wine rating do you give yourself?
Yes, I, I would say that one of the >> 20 is the highest, by the way. >> One of the key characteristics of a leader is humility. So it would be a very bad demonstration of of judgment trying to say. But um, I'll tell you something that uh, I am uh, judged by my people every six months. In Pfizer, we have a system that everybody is uh, uh, uh, getting a score every six months about specific leadership traits, like, is he creating a good environment? Is he creating, is he thinking big? Is he making decisions fast? Is he changing his decisions? Is he focusing the organization? Very specific questions. The same for years now. '19, I put that system in place when I became CEO. And who tells if you are a good leader or not? It was the reverse of before. Before, we have our scores for leadership that the supervisors will say, he's good, he's not good, she's bad. We did the exact opposite. Now, the people that are working for you will tell if you are good or you are bad, and the people that are working with you, the peers. So imagine a Pfizer, let's say, span of control of 10, means that every person will get 10 people that report to him, and 10 people that they are in the same team with him, tell every six months how he's doing in being decisive, for example.
What are the, what are the parameters where you uh, are trying to improve yourself?
I know very well because I'm part of this, and I'm getting all the, all the feedback. It is very consistent.
What did they tell you?
I'm Mediterranean. I am uh, more passionate.
Yeah. I got a hug from you when you came in here. Nice. It was nice. You know.
Are you like a hug? People appreciate. If you get a slap right or gale, then they don't appreciate. And many times I do that. So I'm uh, now, if you compare me to how I was uh, 10 years ago, when I was younger and more dynamic, I have significant improvement. And 20 years even more. But uh.
So what, so I'm sorry, but so which, so which part are you, so which part are you trying to improve?
To be less uh, passionate when I express my opinion, because the higher you are, you can shut down people. So to to create an environment that everybody will speak. Because if I let it, for example, when I have meetings, I'm not asking what people think. I go, "What do you think? What do you think?" All people. I call it around. Many times I say, "Okay, let's have a round." When the debate is in a, in a position that, you know, things are not uh, concluding somewhere, I say, "Let's do a round."
Where do you score highest? What is your superpower as a leader?
Think big. I'm getting very, very good scores. Measure outcomes. I'm getting very good scores. Um, very decisive. I'm getting very good scores. Um, speak up. I'm getting uh, very good scores. Um.
No, it's very clear that you take no. It's uh, I like it. It's, it's good.
Um, have you, how has your leadership style developed over the years?
Became, I developed more the softest parts of uh, of uh, uh, the managerial skills, and also I developed um, a lot um, my, my big admiration of culture. Um, I believe that in a company, you need the right structure, and then you need the right strategy, and you need the right leadership, and the right culture. But the areas that most of the companies are spending most time discussing it is the organizational structure, which is important, but it is the fourth important, because it's even more important to have the right strategy. If you don't have the right strategy, no matter how you organize your R&D organization, it will not be successful. But even more important than the strategy is to have the right leadership, because the right leaders, and I'm sure you know that better than anybody else, can take a mediocre strategy and make it brilliant. And bad leaders can take a brilliant strategy and deliver nothing of it. So leadership is probably one of the top. There is only one thing that it is better and more impactful than leadership, and this is culture. And you know why? Because at organizational level, you can have all the people in this organization of thousands of people to be triple A players. You will have the A+ and the A and the A- and the B and the C's. But if you have the right culture, the right culture uplifts everyone up. The C's are becoming C++, the B's are becoming B+, and the A's are becoming triple A's. So um, I'm a big believer that culture eats strategy for lunch.
How is uh, your corporate culture uh, impacted by the fact that you are basically situated in Manhattan, and I think you started in Brooklyn, right?
I think it's um, very much so. The uh, Pfizer was founded in Brooklyn 177 years ago. Never left uh, the city. Came to Manhattan 30, 40 years. We are more than 100 plus years in Manhattan. Manhattan is a very unique place, multicultural, big apple, extremely competitive, because it is the Wall Street, and the banks, and the lawyers, they are the most competitive people on earth. So that created a culture in Pfizer that irrelevant if you are sitting in Oslo or in Islamabad or in Paris or in in uh, Berlin. Uh, the Pfizer culture is very competitive. Mhm.
Um.
So when I, so let's say now I join Pfizer, if I'm lucky enough to get a job there, I work for a while. How do I feel? How do I feel that kind of, "Wow, Brooklyn is still part of this," and this is a bit like, you know, Wolf of Wall Street type environment?
People that are joining Pfizer uh, they are telling me that they found the company moving very, very fast. And they wouldn't, if they are joining from biotechs, they would say that we wouldn't expect that you will move faster or equal than a biotech. If they are moving from another company, they said, we didn't expect that the corporation can move that fast. That's the speed. It is the Wall Street. They also tell me that, u, wow, very competitive. So people really care to win. It's not okay to lose. And that's something that you need to be very careful in a company, because this competitiveness, if it is used, how one can stop the other, is very, the whole organization will go to hell. But if this competitiveness is used to say, "I'm going to be the first one to bring a COVID vaccine in the market," this is what gives you the drive. I'm planning meticulously how to be able to instill that second one, that it is about winning for the patients, winning for the research programs, and to do that, we need to work all together, rather than to create individualism.
And where does your drive come from?
My drive comes from uh, probably my younger age. I think most people develop those traits uh, when they are kids, all the way to maybe college. And >> And if you were to be a bit of a kind of a shrink, hair on yourself, and and look at your where you came from.
My mom. My mom was >> Tell me about it. Tell me about your mom.
My, my mom was a Holocaust survivor. So she, she was in hiding. Uh, she was a teenager. Uh, she was uh, arrested. Uh, she was abused physically, sexually, anything you can remember. She was put in front of a firing squad. Uh, and uh, the last moment, a BMW motorbike came and removed her and another one from the line. That was because a Christian relative paid everything that they had in bribes to Germans at that time to spare her life. So she talked a lot about uh, her uh, her experiences in captivity. And um, she never talked to me with a spirit of uh, "They did that to us." She never spoke about hate. Uh, I never saw her uh, hate Germans or Nazis or whatever. Never ever. Ignoring them. They were irrelevant for her. What she was uh, mostly focusing was celebration of life, that everything is possible.
There's nothing you can do in life. I was in front of a firing squad, and I was, I was fired. I remember when I would uh, go to her as a child and complain that I can't do my homework because it's too difficult, or someone told me something in school and I, I don't know, I don't want to go tomorrow. I can see her waving her finger in front of me, saying, "Don't tell me you can't do it. I survived the firing squad. Go and do it." That was my mom. And uh, she, she made me be very optimistic. It made me look not from what went wrong, not what was the reason, but from what went wrong, what was the opportunity that came up. And in her mind, her opportunity was that she had me and my sister. That was uh, the miracle of life. So.
Well, thank you for sharing that. Um, um, and tying that into your, to the beginning, you said that a CEO needs to be optimistic. Just how optimistic does a CEO need to be? And where is the kind of, you know, at some stage you become utopian and a bit, kind of, you know, too much? No.
Yeah, I'm a big believer in that. Uh, I, I think that uh, no one follows a pessimist. And if there is one thing that is not negotiable for a CEO, it is that he has followers. If you can have the people, yes, let's go with him, you can be a CEO. Now, the truth is that pessimists are usually right, but there is nothing great that has happened in humanity without an optimist behind it. Nothing. You won't find a single thing that the pessimists were able to crack the nut and bring the new medicine, or the electricity, or the nuclear power, whatever. So it is important that the CEO, the leader, is an optimist and focuses on the opportunities. It is important that he has people around him that uh, create a diversity of views, including very pessimistic views, because you need to do whatever you do with your eyes wide open. And clearly, it's not my talent necessarily to find what can go wrong before, because of that, as much as some of the other people that I have in my team. But it is my talent to see what we can do. By combining those two brings, and I need people that execute underneath to do that.
Against that backdrop, what is your advice to young people?
You know, my advice to young people, it is be yourselves. One of the things that you can't change is who you are. I mean, you can improve at the margins, uh, but you can't change basically psychological traits. Or very difficult to change them. So be yourself. Authenticity is number one. And if I would give an advice to young people, never try a field that you really don't have a great passion about it. Uh, it's not necessarily, it is not a condition that will necessarily make you successful if you have a passion. I have seen a lot of people that they have passion for what they do, and they were not successful. But I have never seen someone who is successful who is not passionate with what she or he is doing. So if you aim for the top, don't choose what your boss is telling you, or what your mom is telling you. Choose what you love to do.
Yeah. Well, it's very clear that you do what you love. Your passion and optimism is coming through very clearly. It's been extraordinary to talk to you. Thank you so much.
Oh, thank you very, very much.