Gil Y. Roth10.08.10
When I have a hard day at work - a rarity, but it happens - I get a lot of relief simply by walking my dogs on the one-mile loop around my neighborhood. I leave my iPhone in the house, leash up Rufus and Otis, and get a respite from the day's anxieties. Anytime they come creeping back into my thoughts, I take a deep breath and contemplate the wonder of the towering trees, the blue sky over the rolling hills, and the occasional deer, wild turkey or bear (!).
So I was partially cheered when I read a New York Times article (http://nyti.ms/a9e87n) on Lilly chief executive officer John Lechleiter's twice-daily practice of walking the one-mile commute between his home and his office. "Wow!" I thought. "A CEO who understands how important it is to have daily rituals of solitude and meditation! And no mention of golf!"
We're like peas in a pod! Like me, said the Times article,
He walks . . . for exercise and time to reflect.
Dr. Lechleiter said he has accepted a ride only once, in a snowstorm, in the four years since he and his wife moved closer to work, living in a penthouse in a downtown luxury hotel.
Sure, there are some differences between our situations. For one thing, Indianapolis doesn't have rolling hills, and Idoubt there's too much wildlife wandering the streets. For another, I don't have to steer a company that faces enormous patent expirations, an underperforming pipeline, and deep ties to its local community that preclude a go-go slashing of jobs.
Oh, and I also don't go home to a "penthouse in a downtown luxury hotel" and didn't receive total compensation of $15.9 million in 2009 (that's according to the Times; another report has it closer to $20.9 million, but that may be based on differing valuations of stock options).
I'm not saying Dr. Lechleiter's job isn't orders of magnitude more difficult than mine. The company is in dire straits, and most of those problems predate his 2008 accession to the CEO role. In fact, I applaud Lilly for having someone at the top who was actually involved in drug development. That's become a rarity among major pharma companies, and I think the loss of that perspective is a contributing factor in the transformation of pharma into the mega-corp cash-flow management business.
I think that Lilly's pursued a number of worthwhile bets to adjust for the new reality of pharma, but some haven't paid off. That's why they're called bets, and when you're on the losing side of them, sometimes you need to engage in mass layoffs and other drastic measures (Lilly's in the midst of firing one-eighth of its global personnel.)
I don't mean to single Dr. Lechleiter out. The Times article tried to add some personal touches to the story of pharma in flux, and I just happened to pick up on the big financial disconnect between executives and everyone who works for them. Maybe I'm just being sensitive.
After all, I'm sure Dr. L. makes good charitable donations and he did request that Lilly's board freeze his pay for 2010. Plus, the same report that cites his 2009 salary as $20.9 million also ranks him only fourth in pharma CEO pay for that year. The top payout went to Fred Hassan, who took in nearly $50 million for selling Schering-Plough to Merck. Before that, he had to get by on $16.2 million in 2008 pay, a cut from his $24.7 million total comp in 2007.
I'm no wealth-redistributionist, but I think something's gone awry when executives are given huge incentives to pursue mergers that will lead to firings of tens of thousands of their employees.
Which brings us back to what I admire Dr. L.'s mode of locomotion, and the personal touch it reflects. It contrasts nicely with a presentation I attended a few years ago.
A vice president from a major pharma company was going to speak on sponsor-CMO relationships. The VP lamented that foggy weather kept him from flying in on the company helicopter that day, and that the resulting delays prevented him from actually reading the PowerPoint slides on which he was going to present. The CMOs in attendance rolled their eyes at this preening.
Need I mention that the VP has been promoted since?
P.S.: My dad contends that Lilly's - and Amylin's - Byetta has changed his life, and that counts for a lot in my book. (I'm also happy that his doctor never put him on Avandia, but that's the subject of another editorial.)
So I was partially cheered when I read a New York Times article (http://nyti.ms/a9e87n) on Lilly chief executive officer John Lechleiter's twice-daily practice of walking the one-mile commute between his home and his office. "Wow!" I thought. "A CEO who understands how important it is to have daily rituals of solitude and meditation! And no mention of golf!"
We're like peas in a pod! Like me, said the Times article,
He walks . . . for exercise and time to reflect.
Dr. Lechleiter said he has accepted a ride only once, in a snowstorm, in the four years since he and his wife moved closer to work, living in a penthouse in a downtown luxury hotel.
Sure, there are some differences between our situations. For one thing, Indianapolis doesn't have rolling hills, and Idoubt there's too much wildlife wandering the streets. For another, I don't have to steer a company that faces enormous patent expirations, an underperforming pipeline, and deep ties to its local community that preclude a go-go slashing of jobs.
Oh, and I also don't go home to a "penthouse in a downtown luxury hotel" and didn't receive total compensation of $15.9 million in 2009 (that's according to the Times; another report has it closer to $20.9 million, but that may be based on differing valuations of stock options).
I'm not saying Dr. Lechleiter's job isn't orders of magnitude more difficult than mine. The company is in dire straits, and most of those problems predate his 2008 accession to the CEO role. In fact, I applaud Lilly for having someone at the top who was actually involved in drug development. That's become a rarity among major pharma companies, and I think the loss of that perspective is a contributing factor in the transformation of pharma into the mega-corp cash-flow management business.
I think that Lilly's pursued a number of worthwhile bets to adjust for the new reality of pharma, but some haven't paid off. That's why they're called bets, and when you're on the losing side of them, sometimes you need to engage in mass layoffs and other drastic measures (Lilly's in the midst of firing one-eighth of its global personnel.)
I don't mean to single Dr. Lechleiter out. The Times article tried to add some personal touches to the story of pharma in flux, and I just happened to pick up on the big financial disconnect between executives and everyone who works for them. Maybe I'm just being sensitive.
After all, I'm sure Dr. L. makes good charitable donations and he did request that Lilly's board freeze his pay for 2010. Plus, the same report that cites his 2009 salary as $20.9 million also ranks him only fourth in pharma CEO pay for that year. The top payout went to Fred Hassan, who took in nearly $50 million for selling Schering-Plough to Merck. Before that, he had to get by on $16.2 million in 2008 pay, a cut from his $24.7 million total comp in 2007.
I'm no wealth-redistributionist, but I think something's gone awry when executives are given huge incentives to pursue mergers that will lead to firings of tens of thousands of their employees.
Which brings us back to what I admire Dr. L.'s mode of locomotion, and the personal touch it reflects. It contrasts nicely with a presentation I attended a few years ago.
A vice president from a major pharma company was going to speak on sponsor-CMO relationships. The VP lamented that foggy weather kept him from flying in on the company helicopter that day, and that the resulting delays prevented him from actually reading the PowerPoint slides on which he was going to present. The CMOs in attendance rolled their eyes at this preening.
Need I mention that the VP has been promoted since?
P.S.: My dad contends that Lilly's - and Amylin's - Byetta has changed his life, and that counts for a lot in my book. (I'm also happy that his doctor never put him on Avandia, but that's the subject of another editorial.)