Rui Morais, CEO Dis-Chem: Making Bold Bets. Disrupting the Healthcare Industry

Speaker A: Hello, everyone, and welcome to On Work and Revolution, the CEO series. I'm your host, Debbie Goodman. I'm CEO of Giacoma Global, which is Africa's largest executive search boutique. We operate in 24 countries across the continent. I'm also a CEO coach. I work with top leaders around the world. And in everything I do, my goal is pretty simple. It's to help companies and leaders to create amazing workplaces. This is season four of, um, the podcast. And in this season I go deep with CEOs, many of whom I've known for some time, to unpack their real behind the scenes leadership journeys. Not the PR version, not the polished LinkedIn version. I'm trying to get to what's sitting behind that. And today my guest leads one of, uh, South Africa's most recognized and most loved brands. A company that was almost everyone in South Africa has some kind of relationship with. Roy Marais is the CEO of Dyskim. He stepped into the role in 2023, having previously been CFO. In fact, he was, at the time of his appointment to that role, the youngest CFO of a listed company in South Africa. Roy is a chartered accountant, and one of his first audit assignments while he was at EY was with Diskim. So this is a man who knows this business literally from the inside out, which I guess is what was needed to be eligible to take the helm from the legend Ivan Salzman, who co founded the business with his wife Lynette in 1978. Okay, now here's the thing. By all measures, the past year or so at Dyskem, since Roy stepped into the CEO seat has been absolutely remarkable. Strong financial results. The the launch of X Biggly Labs, which is the group's own internal innovation unit, a strategic partnership with Capitec, which has already brought more than 550,000 new customers. Probably more than that by now. Then there's better rewards, which is this incredible loyalty program. If you're a customer, you'll know all about it. And then today, the day of recording this podcast, they have just launched this incredible store of the future, which is in Melrose Arch. So if you're anywhere close to proximity, Mila's Art, go and check it out. So this is all pretty darn impressive. And then a couple of weeks ago, a headline landed in the media, suggesting incorrectly, that discam was going to be going through a significant retrenchment process, which must have landed like a bombshell for everyone. So today I want to start right there with what actually happened, what the real story is. And also what this indicates about the realities of leading a large, complex, very public organization. And then we're going to go back a bit into the succession story. The shift from CFO to CEO. Board dynamics, what it takes to transform one of South Africa's most iconic brands into something new. And we're going to try and do this in 35 minutes. Roy, welcome.

Speaker B: Thanks, Debbie. Thanks for having me.

Speaker A: Okay, so you've had one hell of a day already. I have an exciting one. But let's go back a couple of weeks and let's talk about the restructure, the reorg. So a couple of weeks ago, one of the news outlets put out a media release inferring that there was going to be a big retrenchment process at Dischem that was going to impact your 22,000 strong workforce. I can imagine that was quite a moment. So walk me through what actually happened.

Speaker B: Sure. So, I mean, the landing of that, uh, article was slightly unexpected just because of how factually incorrect it was, but maybe context to it because I think it's important and kind of you described a little bit of what we have done and I guess that's always been rooted in our ambition as a brand. So when I took over the CEO role, the fundamental difference for me was that we weren't just running a retail pharmacy anymore. So you weren't just leading with pharmacy, but ultimately what you were doing is you were trying to increase access and reduce cost of healthcare delivery in South Africa. And as a function of that, that was our purpose. And that purpose led us to believe that we could be South Africa's healthcare authority. Now, when you think about that in a very, very competitive market from a retailing perspective and an equally competitive and complex market from a healthcare delivery point of view, you have to ask yourself the question whether you organized in the appropriate way to do justice to your purpose, because now it's something that's deeply entrenched in the brand and certainly and more importantly for me, in the way that everyone perceives the direction of brand. So, you know, we call them our priority customers, but essentially those 22,000 employees that you referenced, and when you go through a journey, and it was quite similar to what we had to do with XBL when we started to take pieces of the group that required a heavy lift from an innovation perspective and dropped them into an internal innovation unit, you have to ask yourself the important question around, am I organized in the right way and is it future fit? And, uh, what I had seen and I guess intuitively I knew Is that by creating XBL or Xpigli Labs, which really at its center controlled everything from kind of our digital ambitions to our customer ambitions. And as a function of that, essentially almost every single way of working that we existed in an organization, uh, the execution engine, which was the traditional business structured in a very traditional way, needed to be reorganized. And you know, reorganization is quite a general term, but for us what that meant was we needed to shift away from how the business was built and obviously done in a very purposeful and very successful way into an organization and a structure that catered for the direction or I suppose this next step chain of the business and align with our brand purpose. And we went through an exercise that said, you know, today we look like this, but we actually need to look like that to do justice to what we're trying to achieve. Unfortunately, uh, a reorganization of, of that size and of that size. It was 500 people that were impacted. And I'll talk a little bit about what impact means, but you know, you, you required to go through a CCMA process, you have to issue a Section 189 notice. And the truth is, and I mean, I'll be purposely honest, it's a relatively blunt instrument to do, um, or to use for multiple things. In our instance, the reorganization came with 200 additional roles. So we weren't only reorganizing and creating clearer lines of accountability, we were also adding, um, individuals into what we felt were underrepresented verticals, so very much into the traditional IT structure that supported the innovation hub, which was tech led in any event quite deeply into the commercial structure. And then we were setting up, uh, things like orchestration layers like a PMO office or strategic projects office that allows us to integrate all of these elements across the complexity and this ever changing and fast paced ecosystem. So I mean that's quite a positive story in its nature. You know, what you're doing is you're ensuring that the individuals in your organization are put in the right places to do justice to the brand purpose, but more importantly to ensure that they're the best version of themselves within the environment in which they work. The thing that that kind of shadows it slightly is that you only have one instrument to use. And that instrument denotes a very specific process and that process denotes a very specific legal language. And people immediately think about retrenchment. And unfortunately the media, again I'll say it as it is, but they miss headlines, right? And the headlines suited the media story means to a very surprising way for me, you know, which is almost not almost. It is factually untrue. So it's a super sort of thing for us. Obviously, uh, you need to give it context to the employees. But it would be very disingenuous to think about creating a purpose for the brand, as ambitious as ours is, and then not thinking that you needed to change the ways of working to achieve that.

Speaker A: Right. So a few things here. Firstly, not to undermine that. Of course there are some people that are impacted and that is a fact of corporate change. And obviously that is hard. Um, at the same time, a more balanced view is, is that this is not about downsizing. In fact, there are an increase in jobs that are going to be created. And the truth of it is that because of the labor laws and because of how things need to happen in due process, the section189 that everybody is like terrified to hear about is in, Is almost designed to create fear. And then the media of course do their job, which is trying to attract eyeballs. But it seems that this is more than just like a tidy up or a head office tidy up. This is actually a signal about where DISCEM is going in the future, which is actually a very positive story.

Speaker B: No, I mean, absolutely. Like, I think I was having a discussion about it with someone the other day because we were looking at some of the potential roles. Obviously this is a consultation process, but the way that we think about it as leadership and um, the way that we think we need to organize ourselves requires roles that don't exist in retail in South Africa. Now, I guess why that's important for me, or why that's the consequence of, or the right consequence of what we're doing is it almost implies or supports the fact that we are then chasing down ambitious things and we're doing it in a legitimate way. If I wasn't looking for a different type of resource or a different, uh, type of job profile within a traditional vertical, you know, how could I really, truly say that I'm dynamically shaping up a specific vertical in the organization to chase down these ambitious tasks. So for us, it's a very positive thing. Um, but to your point, I mean, I think change, even when it's just a reporting line, is always going to be viewed cynically. You know, people are uncomfortable with the concept of change.

Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. And, and understandably, of course, um, the workplace has just been through it, just like it's constant change. And right now it just feels like there's a lot of it happening that's very rapid. Um, but okay, so I think that we've uh, let's put that down because we've got a balanced view and hopefully anybody who's listening to this will be able to really understand all the sides to this complex situation. But that ultimately has a very positive growth trajectory around it. So let's go a bit back. Uh, two years back actually. We talk about the idea of like, the ladies in waiting. You were the guy in waiting because Ivan Salzman announced you as his successor two years before the handover. That's one hell of a long time. Um, what was that period like, honestly?

Speaker B: Um, honestly, at the beginning it felt like almost a, ah, specific creation of a moment where we would work side by side. So it felt quite thoughtful in its structure. I suppose with hindsight, it was an incredibly difficult period for both myself and Ivan as a team and as individuals. Uh, I think what we both underplayed was that the transition, if it's controlled by just ourselves and if we weren't influenced by what the transition was interpreted and meant for everyone else in the organization, made a lot of sense. You know, it was, I suppose, a time for Ivan to do justice to some of the things that he had started. Some of the, I suppose some of the momentum that had existed in the business. It was a time for me to settle my structure internally. I mean, I suppose I didn't truly ever play a CFO role. Maybe you shouldn't say that. When I, uh, listed the business as a cfo, I guess I had a good team and I was always more involved in the strategic side of the business. You know, over the three years before, the four or five years actually before I moved into the, into the seat of the CEO, um, a lot of the building of the ecosystem, uh, I inherently managed, um, a lot of the commercial decisions around how we shape up stores. You know, I was involved in and avenue worked alongside each other. But what, what happened in those two years? So in those two years, the way that he and I thought about it made a lot of sense. But what happened in those two years is as soon as the message was delivered, there was a very, very different reaction from the organization. Um, and what I mean by that is, I guess when we were alongside one another, we were treated as equals with the deserving respect for Ivan as the founder. Right. So simply speaking, if Arvind gave an instruction, um, and if the instruction was something that I didn't agree with, I had uh, a conversation with Arvind and if he agreed with me, we would change the instruction. But in actual fact, the credibility of the change came because it was delivered through Arvind as opposed to through the team. When the instruction, I suppose when the announcement was made that, I suppose the relationship that Arvind had with the rest of the organization changed because the perception was, well, now Roy has got sole decision making power. So certain things that would have previously been incorporated. Ivan, you know, Ivan was now excluded from, not maliciously, but just in the nature of the way it's working. You know, how people contextualize an announcement like that. And that created a lot of tension between Ivan and I, uh, because like, I don't think either of us expected it but, but also we were trying to manage this in our own individual ways as well because it was different for both of us. You know, I certainly wasn't going to slow down in terms of ambitions, um, step changing the direction of the group. Uh, you know, Arvind in some instances felt like that he wasn't being heard from the group. And it made that two year period incredibly difficult for us, if I'm honest.

Speaker A: I mean I can imagine that actually so much changes the way, as you've said, the way the organization treats you, the way the market watches you, your relationship. And it's almost like as much as you can think about it ahead of time until it's actually happening, you can't anticipate the actual succession process. You believe that succession transitions should be short. I understand why. But knowing what you know now, what would you design differently? I mean I work with so many organizations that are going through the succession process and everybody's got their own views on what good looks like. Um, what are your thoughts on this?

Speaker B: So firstly I think that sometimes succession and, and I mean I say this respectfully, but succession is almost deemed a governance principle. Right? So it's almost led by a board. And again I say this respectfully, but in some instances it feels Governance in some respects feels a little bit removed from operations. Right? It, it does, you know, because it's, it's, it's a layer that is influenced by people that are non execs for example and it feels once removed, Um, I think there needs to be certainly now that I've experienced it and my view on it has definitely changed and I've started to implement it in very senior levels of position. Succession almost needs to be embedded in the way that you think about things. Right. So I think that as part of your portfolio succession needs to be treated with as much importance as some of the things that are generally treated with important strategy, operational execution and those type of elements. And the reason I say that is because when you start to do that, you start to pull forward a lot of the things that ultimately manifest as problems. So in my mind, for example, like, I have a very good view on who my successor is. Um, your relationship with that individual starts to change the way that you understand the succession timeline starts to change, but it starts to change within the relationship that that person and you already have in the organization. So that when you're ultimately ready, that succession transition and the communication to the organization is clean cut. That's the first thing, I think the second thing, and it's a. I think it's the responsibility of someone handing over. Um, and again, it's my personal view, I think you have a responsibility to allow the individual that you are passing on to, to be uninfluenced by your view. What I mean by that, it's less, less about my kind of transition with Arvind, but it's more around that person needs to be empowered to deliver on their perspective of the brand. If that's not the case, then they're not the right successor in terms of how you've selected them. But you need to be super comfortable that at a point in time I, um, am almost able to step away entirely. And I have a very, very big responsibility to make that purposeful. Almost to the point where the need for the relationship that existed needs to be almost interacted by the person who's now leading as opposed to the other way around. Because there's a, uh. And this is something I learned through my transition period with Ivan. There's. There's always an element of respect for the person that you're taking over that sometimes clouds your decision and your ability to move as quickly as you could move if that didn't exist. Right. Uh, so sometimes you feel like you're doing good, but in actual fact you need to step away to allow the person to do justice to how they move, how they see the brand and the strategic direction. And you described it in a way, I think the two years, like all of the things that have landed in the specific year, um, landed in the specific year because of a little bit of that principle. Like some of those things were held back as a function of like reinforcing those principles to an Arban, where inherently I knew that they needed to go, we needed to do this. Um, so as much as it's the new CEO or whatever the succession title is, as much as it's that person's responsibility, it's equally the person handing over to make it successful.

Speaker A: I would actually add an element. You said there's a governance issue in succession and then there's the operational part of it. And I think that what's underestimated actually is the emotional part of it.

Speaker B: Oh yeah.

Speaker A: And particularly when you've got a founder CEO who's moving out and has been around for a long time and has been so incredibly successful and is revered by the entire ecosystem and completely even underestimates themselves what it's going to take to like, cut the apron strings, so to speak. I mean, there is just so much going on there that is not necessarily anticipated, is not thought through carefully, and comes into play when this kind of transition is happening. So I think that there's that element that gets left to, oh, uh, we'll figure it out when we get there. And of course that does happen, but it can cause a ton of discomfort and many issues. I mean, I think what you're describing is optimal and assumes that there is going to be some kind of internal successor for an organization. I've seen some organizations try to plan this and then get blindsided at the last minute when that successor leaves or something changes or decides not to take the role. So there's, there's that. That can. There's so many m. Moving parts with this. I do hope that your wish for you, for yourself, comes true, because you've said that you need to start planning your succession from the very beginning, which is a slightly unusual viewpoint. I get why you're saying this. And wouldn't that be great for every CEO to know that there's somebody who's being groomed ultimately for something that's next?

Speaker B: So I think, I mean, two things, Debbie. I think your point on kind of the emotional connection you make with a brand, I already see it myself.

Speaker A: Right.

Speaker B: And I certainly wasn't a founder. I mean, I was involved very early on, but I certainly wasn't a founder like Alvin was. And I think one of the things that was underestimated is how this process creates pressure on your own identity. You know, like Arvin and are one in the same. And, uh, he's always been comfortable that with that. And the brand has always been comfortable with Ivan being that because no one's had to think about any alternative. Now when that changes, that that emotional strain is something that I think is definitely underestimated because to your point, like, you don't just figure that out. Like, or maybe, maybe that's the only way you do. But, but, but you certainly don't just figure it out because it's less important than anything else. Uh, in actual fact, I think a lot of the challenges we had were as a function of Ivan feeling a little bit like, you know, his own identity was disappearing. Because, I mean, he is the brand, he will always be the brand. But from his perspective, you know, it felt very, very different. And then I suppose the second thing is I, I agree. I think succession can be kind of sidelined. But I think your best chance of navigating this process well is pulling someone with you through the process right from the outset. Because I think through that process you will start to understand whether it's going to go sideways. You know, like pulling someone in up front means that you have to have an appreciation for their belief in the purpose of the brand. You need to start discussing timelines quite early. And for all intents and purposes, you actually need to start to understand the impact that it has on your personal lives very early on. Because that's equally an important thing to understand. Like when you step into a role like that, the personal sacrifices that you make, um, either planned or unplanned, um, because the responsibility is huge. Uh, so yes, could be sidelined, but I think your best chance of success is directly linear or the relationship is linear with making that decision purposely quite early on, not the decision for the person, but the decision to make succession a part of your portfolio.

Speaker A: Yeah, I had a similar experience, uh, with my transition at Jackhammer. I had of somebody internally who is now the MD of Jackhammer Africa at Vet, and I do. Who was very clearly going to be the person to succeed me. And I had started planning this. We tried to make this process happen for three years and just I was still around in my office and we hadn't thought through it carefully enough. And it just lingered and lingered and lingered. And eventually it took me leaving the country for this actual process and the transition to happen, um, where people couldn't defer to me anymore. I just wasn't around. And, um, and then it happened really, really quickly. Um, but I think about my own and go, uh, wow, that took three years before it actually, it actually transpired. Could have done that a lot better.

Speaker B: It's really an action that, that, that was created by yourself, right, to, to unlock the potential for it to happen.

Speaker A: Um, okay, you started in the last, uh, little bit to talk about identity and uh, the. The way that that changes. And I, I want to talk a little bit about that. Um, because you spent more than a decade being known as the cfo. And even though you said you weren't a real cfo. I mean, you were. You were the operator, the youngest, the young. You had the label. The youngest CFO of a listed company in South Africa. You walked around with that for a while. Um, and that's a significant identity to step out of. So what did you have? Did you have to step away or discard or think about that for yourself? Anything you needed to unlearn?

Speaker B: I mean, truthfully, I never thought about myself with that title, and I've been in trouble a few times for saying I'm a recovering accountant, so I need to be careful about that label. But the reason I mentioned that once was purely because I never felt like the role I played or the value that I could create was in my capacity at cfo. So when I was a CFO and I spoke about not being a traditional cfo, I was doing things that were. I suppose, you know, that was almost like co. CEO type things. You know, Ivan and I almost split the portfolio. Um, and as a function of that, as much as I carry that label, I almost never created a relationship with it because it never felt me. I think what is. And a good example of that is I feel much more attached to the position I'm in now because of the level of responsibility I have and because I'm so closely knitted with the purpose of the brand that I too, ask myself, sure, you know, when. When this thing plays out, like, what is the thing that at the moment, like, I reconcile so well with, like, what does that become to me? So I'm almost starting to see a little bit of the challenge. And I'm not saying it's the same. It will never be the same as what I've been here, but I'm already starting to see how, like, knitted I am with the brand. I never felt that way. I never felt it felt that with the cfo, the young cfo, whatever that title was, but I certainly feel it now.

Speaker A: Right, okay. Because. Because now you're. You're needing to be the face, the public face, but also the culture carrier, the storyteller, which you're doing brilliantly, um, in a range of different media, but particularly social media, LinkedIn. Um. And do you think that was always in you or have you had to consciously cultivate that?

Speaker B: Um, no, I think an element of it was always in me. I think what I didn't realize is the importance of it. It's going to sound maybe a bit silly, but I've always enjoyed storytelling and I truly appreciate the importance of it. Not because of the nature of it, but because how it embeds a specific message. And uh, I'm a believer in like, once people align with your purpose, you know, the ability of a collective to deliver value is much higher than you just paying someone to come to work. I think there's an intangible element of that that you, you cannot quantify. And so I've always believed that, you know, truthful storytelling and creating that energy and ultimately influencing a culture and an organization is something of value that needs to exist before you try and do audacious things. I guess what I undervalued slightly is how important it actually is and how much you have to do it. Um, so I think I always had it in me, but I just.

Speaker A: All the time.

Speaker B: Yeah, all the time. All the time. All the time. Sometimes it feels like yeah. But, uh, yeah, I, I, I think I always had it in me, but I didn't realize the extent.

Speaker A: Okay, so, so aside from the intensity of that type of activity, what else has been harder than you expected? I mean, you kind of alluded to the visibility and it must be hard to all of a sudden be in the public scrutiny all the time.

Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, the lifting of your profile is tough. I think my nature is certainly as a human being, my nature is not necessarily. I don't like a lot of attention. I mean, anyone who runs a business which is consumer facing and as a bigger brand as we are in South Africa was going to get it. But I've always understood that it comes as part of the decision to do what I do. It's not easy. And I think in the beginning you almost find yourself in a situation where when you hear things about you that you know aren't true, you want to kind of change everyone's perspective on it. Um, and you quickly start to realize that that is an incredible waste of energy. Um, like an unbelievable waste of energy. And your energy is best spent on chasing the thing that you believe in and hopefully that your team believes in. And you know, people's views will be people's views, whether it's in good times or in bad times. And that shouldn't be the thing that motivates you or shouldn't be the thing that ultimately you spend a huge amount of energy on.

Speaker A: Yeah, but it's, uh, I guess it must be quite a, um, hard thing to be in the public eye all the time and they're going to be haters, as the celebrities say.

Speaker B: That is hard. It is hard, like simple things where you get recognized or where there's a feeling of people talking about you when you're sitting in a restaurant. I mean, I'm using silly examples, but those are, those are difficult things when you think about it. You think, oh, it'll be fine. But it's actually a difficult thing to experience. So it is hard. I mean it's not easy that. It's definitely not easy.

Speaker A: All right. You've alluded and spoken to the purpose of the brand a number of times. And in a previous conversation you shared with me that your board did something quite unusual in that they spent quite a lot of time over months, in fact, collectively working on and shaping the company's purpose. I mean that is so not typical. And I'm curious to know what did that process actually produce and does it change how decisions get made in the room?

Speaker B: So yes, I think that was something. If I reflect on some of the things that I think we've done well as leadership, I think leading that was probably one of the most important things that we did. And the reason I say that is like we fundamentally changed. So it's one thing to change like a tagline of a brand. Right. So you know, pharmacists to care to better health starts here is easy to do, easy to put on marketing material. Um, but if you then stay true to that, like what the consequences of that on you are, are significant. Right. So you know what I, what I knew it meant for me and what I started to understand as I started to build the asset stack to play in the ecosystem is I found myself in a situation where uh, I was almost defending investments and I was defending investments in a very narrow way. So like the theoretical way of looking at an investment, I mean it's always important. Like I'm an accountant by trader. I appreciate that our main thing is to deliver shareholder value. But, but at the same time, like value and value orientation can be looked at very differently through a long term and a short term lens. And I kept defending like an investment through a short term lens. I mean there was always support for it, but it felt like there was support in the way that you would build an asset portfolio. Like there was no appreciation for the importance of this asset in the way that it would integrate into an ecosystem. So what we then did is say, okay, well let's take a step back and let's get like the non exec type resources. So the board to really truly buy into the purpose and understand what we're trying to do as an organization, not just as a tagline, but let's try and build like the economic models that say when this purpose kind of unlocks like these are ah, the associated shareholder returns. Because when you do it at that level, so when you do it top down, you know, the conversation around why you're investing in an asset is always there. There's an investment committee, you have to generate the returns got to be higher than the wacc. But there's an appreciation for the role that that investment plays in an ecosystem. And I think as we went on the journey it allowed us to do things that were easier to do. Give you a perfect example like something like an innovation hub like X Bigly Labs is very difficult to model if I'm honest. It's very difficult to model the upside of it. I mean intuitively I know the upside is huge. Um, or the downside of not doing something like that means that we sacrifice the ability to compete against the market. But when you're sitting in an RC to go and develop a model on Excel that supports your investment case for 200 very highly paid resources, for example, is tough. Um, but when the, when the board understands the purpose, like it's natural to make that investment and it almost gives the business or affords the business the time to then go and develop the work parcels that demonstrate the economic benefit that comes from that investment. So to me it's one of the most important things that we've done and bringing the board on this journey has allowed them to be supportive of the things that we do right and it's alleviated a lot of pressure on the management team to concentrate on delivering against a longer term purpose. And, and to me, like, as I said, it's super important but specifically in a listed space where everyone was watching your next set of results and you know, the board is reacting to what they see in the media sometimes or you know, what they see in, in quarterly board meetings. Like it's very important to have that ability to step back and say, guys, like this is what we're trying to do, you know, this is what we're trying to achieve as a brand.

Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. I mean, I think what you're articulating is that there's actually a link between defining the purpose and commercial growth or commercial decisions. I think what people are sometimes are not clear about and what is often misunderstood, um, is that purpose sometimes feels like, oh, we're going to sit around and create some kind of mission statement with some nice words and that's going to be the purpose. And we're talking about two very, very different things here where you're talking about something that underpins the foundation of an organization that drives decision making around commercial imperatives. And it justifies and justifies things that don't necessarily have a short term return to that.

Speaker B: I mean, like I've always said that your purpose has to have a, uh, consequential long term return and you have to be able to measure it. You might not be able to measure it 100%. Right. But if you can't reconcile the two, then you have no purpose. Certainly not one that you can chase down or certainly not one that's going to be the guardrail for decision making or long term decision making.

Speaker A: Right. Speaking of which, you have got one massive purpose and drive around disruption of an industry that needs disruption. And what scares you most about this leadership challenge?

Speaker B: Um, sure, that is a good question. Um, I don't know if anything scares me. Longer term, nothing. I don't think it really scares me. I think if we weren't legitimate about what we are trying to chase down, you know, I think those fears maybe could materialize. I mean, the obvious things around, you know, am I able to generate the returns that are expected of the brand in the short term? I don't really see it as a fear, to be honest, Debbie. I mean, I see it as a challenge. I think the thing that, that scares me is just letting. That uh, sounds cliche, but letting South Africa down like the healthcare industry does need to be disruptive. I think there's a, there's a fundamental link between health and economic growth. And, and it's as, it's an easy thing to understand if you're not, well, you're not operating at your full potential, which means you're not generating economic growth in whatever way that you can. And uh, like we see that as a responsibility and uh, it would be, I suppose, very disappointing and scary for me if we weren't able to live up to that potential. Because the brand and the heritage of the brand has given us as the new leaders, an opportunity to do that. So if there was a scary thing, it would be like, it would be to fail on, on a long term level.

Speaker A: Goodness, that's one weight of responsibility, but also, as you say, a challenge. Yeah, man, you're taking it on, uh, a cool opportunity. So just one last question. If there's one story you want told about your time as CEO of Dusk M. What's the one thing that you want to be able to look back on and say, I did that?

Speaker B: Um, I mean, it's probably, and I was joking around with someone because I get told that I swing for the fences far too often. So maybe I do. But, um, I think the one thing would be that whether we were 100% right in terms of our ambitions to shape an industry, or whether we were 120 right, or whether we were 80% right, I would love for someone to say and look back and say, well, you know, he was bold enough to lead the charge. And whether discim wins were competitor wins. You know, like the success of that step change or the success of that initial kind of momentum drive forced an industry to almost disrupt themselves and deliver healthcare to millions of South Africans. I mean, I hate losing and, and a big part of me will not lose. But even if I do lose and I, uh, facilitated and encouraged that change, and you know that that would be the one thing that I would hope people would see and say, like, I initiated that.

Speaker A: Okay, well, based on everything I've seen and heard so far, I'm putting good odds on you.

Speaker B: Thank you.

Speaker A: Well, thank you for your time. I know it's been a hell of a day for you. It's been an absolute pleasure to spend this time with you. So thank you so much and all the best for shooting for the stars.

Speaker B: Thank you so much. I appreciate it.

Speaker A: Bye now. Thanks for hanging around all the way to the end. It would mean the world if you would rate and review on Work in Revolution on your favorite listening app. It helps people know that the show is worth listening to, and so I really appreciate that. Thank you so much.