The first value listed on the vaunted Solventum mission slide is Put People First. I don't get it. How can senior leadership say with a straight face that they "put people first" when they so obviously do not? They could change it to "Put People at the VP Level or Above First and Everyone Else Second" and that would more accurately capture it. But why lie about it? Why not be honest and say, "Put Stock Price First"? (Bryan Hanson couldn't figure out stock price gains at Zimmer, but we'll set that aside for a second.) Why say you're "transparent" when you're not? Why send a company-wide email announcing a 4-year "Transform for the Future Initiative" six minutes before announcing that initiative on a quarterly earnings call? So many questions. Here's an idea, which I know no CEO will ever implement. What if, instead of creating Transform for the Future Initiatives, hiring more SVPs, and laying off more peons to cut costs and "reallocate resources," what if a CEO did something real and radical? What if a CEO said something like this: "I was going to lay off 2,000 more employees this year, but then I said no. We put people first here, so I'm putting my money where my mouth is. I'm cutting my salary, bonus, and stock incentive compensation package this year down to the average Solventum employee levels, and all my direct reports will do the same. Any new hires at the VP level or above in the next two years will NOT get signing bonuses. For example, we won't give singing bonuses like the one we gave to Tammy Gomez that is approximately equivalent to 30 years of the average worker's salary. Also, no more guaranteed severance packages that exceed one year of salary. In other words, we will actually implement the value we hold most dear, and we will PUT PEOPLE FIRST!" Okay, I know this will never happen. I live on the planet earth. But imagine if it did. Imagine how loyal of a following a CEO would get from his or her tens of thousands of employees. Imagine how little it would matter financially to that CEO and his direct reports, all of whom are already rich. He could even ratchet their salaries right back up again after "the year of impoverishment" and no one would care. And in the meantime, he would have gained a cultlike following of people ready to take a bullet for him. I'd argue he would get even richer over time. And most importantly, for one tiny flash of an instant of his career, he would be putting people first. I dare you, Bryan.