What Separates Life Science Startup Winners from Losers?

Why Startups Fail (Hint: It’s Not the Innovation)

In this episode, Carlo Odicino, CEO and Founder at One TEAM Partners, shares the real reasons why most early-stage life sciences companies struggle to survive—and it has nothing to do with bad science.

Learn the hidden pitfalls of scaling too fast, confusing innovation with execution, and chasing too many priorities at once. Carlo offers practical strategies for building focus, setting boundaries, and creating a people-first culture that actually scales. You’ll also learn why execution beats experimentation when commercial success is the goal—and how to stay aligned with investors without over-promising.

This conversation is packed with actionable advice for startup leaders, biotech founders, and anyone facing the complexities of early-stage growth.

🎙️ Guest: Carlo Odicino | CEO and Founder at One TEAM Partners
🔗 Connect with Carlo: LinkedIn
🔗 One Team Partners Website

📌 Chapters:
00:00 The Innovation-Execution Tension
07:30 Managing Investor Expectations
17:48 Establishing Core Values in Organizations
24:56 Work-Life Integration vs. Balance
35:11 The Role of Human Connection in Innovation

Subscribe for more insights on the latest in Life Sciences!

For transcripts, check out the podcast website - www.lifesciencespod.com

Chapters

• 0:00 The Innovation-Execution Tension
• 7:30 Managing Investor Expectations
• 17:48 Establishing Core Values in Organizations
• 24:56 Work-Life Integration vs. Balance
• 35:11 The Role of Human Connection in Innovation

Transcript

Harsh Thakkar (00:09.419)
All right, have you wondered why 90 % of life science startups fail? If some of you are thinking about that, you're probably thinking, it's because they didn't have a good product or they weren't good at innovating. There is some truth to that, but for most companies, innovation is not the problem. Some other problems are because these startups scaled too fast and burned too much investor money or

maybe they weren't focused and they were targeting multiple different areas or multiple different compounds. These are just some of the reasons, right? And I wanted to bring somebody on this show today that has worked with early stage life science companies and that has helped them to not only use the cashflow very effectively, but also help them to think how to prioritize and simplify

their operations so they can sustain that, not just to get to commercial, but beyond the commercial line. So my guest today is Carlo Odicino. He is the CEO and founder of One Team Partners. And he's spent about 24 years helping startups scale without falling into the common traps of overgrowth and inefficiency. So let's dive into this and have a chat with Carlo. Welcome to the show.

Carlo Odicino (01:40.258)
Thank you very much for having me, Harsh. Looking forward to it.

Harsh Thakkar (01:43.989)
Yeah, and you've, as I mentioned in the intro, you have told me this before, that the key for success for any early stage life science company is it's not the innovation. It's usually something else. So can you expand what are the other factors that come into play?

Carlo Odicino (02:02.476)
Yeah, I think it's what a lot of people think about is they want to attribute a success or failure against the innovation or the product. And really what it comes down to is I would posit that no early stage companies, if the innovation isn't there, they don't get the funding. They've already cleared the bar that the innovation is valuable and could be valuable to the market, and particularly for life sciences, valuable to patients.

outcomes. But what happens is the excitement that comes behind that then creates a tension of trying to do more instead of driving to the execution level of getting the product out to market. in order to become very good at innovating versus executing,

those things can come into tension because innovation by definition requires a lot of experimentation and trial and error versus execution. You want to be very focused and be able to drive results rather than new ideas. so what happens is when you have this tension of innovation and in order to try to translate that into execution, if you're doing too much at one time, you're just creating

an environment which I call, you you over promise and under deliver because the organization just isn't ready to be able to deliver on multiple things. It could likely deliver on one or two things. I like to say priority actually originally was defined as one, a single, and what organizations early stage get very excited about the possibility of the innovation of what it could do in step two, three and four.

Harsh Thakkar (03:32.663)
Hmm.

Carlo Odicino (03:57.9)
and they lose sight of, we haven't even gotten to step one yet. And that creates a higher burn rate in terms of investment dollars than is necessary in order to get to step one. And then once you get to step one, consider step two, step three, so on and so forth. So really, it's this prioritization tension that I think causes the failure.

Harsh Thakkar (04:01.791)
Yeah.

Harsh Thakkar (04:17.515)
Yeah.

Carlo Odicino (04:25.09)
trying to move too fast, scale too fast, and then putting the investment dollars into place to make that happen when you don't even need the scale that early. It can come later and you'll be just fine.

Harsh Thakkar (04:38.207)
Right, No, you reminded me of the one quote, I don't know how it goes, but it's something like, if three things are your priority, then none of them is your priority, or something along those lines. So, yeah.

Carlo Odicino (04:48.151)
Yeah.

Yeah, my favorite part of our similarity to that is when I work with clients and I'll say, what is your priority? And then they will say, oh, well, this is priority 1A and this is priority 1B. And I'm like, no, no, no, what's the one? Like 1A and 1B is two, even though you're calling them 1A and 1B.

Harsh Thakkar (05:10.427)
Mm-hmm, yeah. And you also mentioned another good point about innovation and the difference between innovation and execution and why innovation requires a different mindset. I actually, I'm looking at it right now. I had a book that literally talks about that same topic.

Carlo Odicino (05:23.832)
Mm-hmm.

Harsh Thakkar (05:39.509)
And I'm seeing in my notes here if I can find that book because, or maybe I can add it in the show notes after this episode. But it basically teaches you how, like it has two different flywheels of what you should be doing when you're innovating, which is like experiment, collect the data. If you passed, then move on to the next experiment. If you failed, you know, take that data.

Re-engineer your process using that data, try again, then re-engineer, try again, like keep going. Whereas execution is more like, this is our step one, step two, step three, step four, we cannot go to step four until these are complete. We cannot go to step three until the, it's more systematic, whereas innovation, you need a lot of adaptation that needs to happen because there is no,

one way to innovate, right? Because every company is innovating in its own way. So I think that was a really good distinction that you made. I want to ask you about, you mentioned about prioritizing. Do you have any examples of your work that you've done with startups? You can pick any example, but maybe an example where you came in and

Carlo Odicino (06:41.312)
Mm-hmm, yeah.

Harsh Thakkar (07:07.583)
you you helped the company was really good at innovating, but not so much at execution and you helped them. Or maybe they were good at execution, but within that, they weren't prioritizing or their team was disengaged. So any example you want to pick and show some, share some practical tips, that would be great.

Carlo Odicino (07:30.622)
Yeah, I I think this is a I'm thinking of a specific example, but it's it's broad to others where, you know, lot of the key innovations that come out across and where a lot of the investment dollars are going is that the innovation is what they would consider a platform technology. So it is. Yes, it's it's designed in this particular instance. It it it's designed as a diagnostic to diagnose a specific form of cancer.

Harsh Thakkar (07:47.329)
Mmm.

Carlo Odicino (07:59.724)
But the underlying technology can be used to diagnose multiple kinds of cancer, right? So it's a platform technology. So there's a lot of excitement. Investment dollars sometimes will drive because of the potential of the platform then drives investment into the organization that allows them to try to get that first.

what we call indication to market or that first use case of the platform technology to market. Now that then creates attention because the investors who invested in the company, a lot of times they're like, okay, I get it. You're doing one. When is the next one? And you know, they want to know that roadmap. And I think a lot of times folks that work in the company interpret that question as I want to know

Harsh Thakkar (08:46.827)
Hmm.

Carlo Odicino (08:59.886)
When that, how soon can you get that next use case for that platform technology into place? And most of the time in my experience, it's actually, so I share with people, what is your interpretation when you hear, I'd like that as soon as possible.

Most people will say, you know, it's like tomorrow, some version of tomorrow or next week. But if you actually think of the words, like, I'd like that as soon as possible.

Harsh Thakkar (09:27.337)
Yeah.

Carlo Odicino (09:33.676)
it's up to you to define what that is. And as soon as possible, could be three years down the road, and here's why. And so I think where a lot of organizations, when they're dealing with the leaders that are working in the company and then dealing with the board, they feel this pressure that may or may not be there without aligning to, understood, I heard you wanna know when our next use case is gonna be deployed.

Let me share the story of here's the roadmap to getting that first use case and where we can leverage that learning along the way to then get to the next one and the next one. And so the second, third, fourth, whatever ends up being much farther down the road. Let's say, and much farther, I'm saying instead of within the next year, you say it's going to be within three years or in year three. And then the next one is year five.

So many times when you look at this roadmap and it's all compacted into one year and then you start breaking that down into what that means for the organization, what's your hiring plan is to be able to meet that kind of stuff, what is the, because anything with version one has issues, so how do you fix the bugs, for lack of a better term, refine the product.

Harsh Thakkar (10:57.718)
Yep.

Carlo Odicino (11:01.422)
If you aren't telling that story holistically, then you're losing out on an opportunity to essentially explain why things are gonna come later than maybe somebody originally thought of, particularly, you know, investor or a board member. But if you can explain that in a rational way and give sound reasoning behind it.

you start to see that tension start to alleviate of this pressure of do everything now. And, you know, most board members and investors dollar signs mean something to them. And, you know, you can you can tell the story is very simply and I've been worked with clients very simply is just tell the story of objectively. Yeah, we could do.

Harsh Thakkar (11:32.49)
Yeah.

Carlo Odicino (11:55.03)
you know, work on A, B, C at the same time. And here's what it translates into hiring, expense, all of that. And then usually that's enough to say, no, we don't want you to do that. You know, just spend as much as you need to to get to A and then we'll worry about B and C later. But sometimes the question gets interpreted too quickly as, we need it now. And so we need to worry about.

Harsh Thakkar (12:03.19)
Yep.

Harsh Thakkar (12:08.502)
Right.

Carlo Odicino (12:23.788)
what's executed now. And then the innovation side of it that comes up, which is, we see another market opportunity for an innovation that is outside of your core competency in terms of innovation. And so as an example, cell and gene therapy, when it first came out, the whole idea concept of chain of identity, chain of custody.

and moving product from patient material from a clinical site to a manufacturer and back was, well, we need to manage those logistics in-house. Well, you're not a logistics company. You're selling gene therapy companies. So outsource those logistics. Don't try to figure out those logistics. There are logistics companies that exist, FedEx, UPS, that are very good at that.

Harsh Thakkar (13:08.695)
Mmm.

Carlo Odicino (13:20.118)
So don't try to innovate where that's out of your lane because it's creating a need to build an expense that you just don't need to capture at that point in

Harsh Thakkar (13:32.111)
Right. No, that's a really good point. And I'm glad you brought up the example of cell and gene therapy. And also, you mentioned about, I want to switch gears into a different topic, but there's something that came to my mind as you were talking about investing and showing the expense that if you want us to focus on three programs, this is what it's going to look like. But we've also seen sometimes that

investors, the board of directors and the companies do take that path. It creates a lot of publicity or recognition, rise in the stock, what have you. And then two years later, when they get through the different phases and look at the data, they come back and say, well, we should have not started this third one.

Carlo Odicino (14:15.81)
Mm-hmm.

Harsh Thakkar (14:26.931)
And then there is like a segment of the company that's laid off. They reorganize those, you know, dollars and they push it to the other two. Right. So it's kind of like I look at those things and I'm like, they've got to know out of like right off the gate that out of these three, this is a unicorn. These other two are, you know, plan B and plan C. But then eventually the plan C just falls off the wagon and,

they shoot for the A and B, right? So that's an interesting thing.

Carlo Odicino (14:57.101)
Yeah.

Carlo Odicino (15:02.188)
Yeah, I mean, that is the tension because you start off with that nuance of the money and then you have investors that really want to say, yeah, we're fine. Let's invest in it. Well, at some point in time, you're not going to be fine. So you have to plan for that. And again, not over promise and under deliver, even in terms of hiring, it can be a blessing and a curse to have that much amount of capital that's infused into an organization because you're absolutely right.

Harsh Thakkar (15:09.153)
Hmm.

Harsh Thakkar (15:15.681)
Yeah.

Carlo Odicino (15:31.47)
What people don't remember when you don't hit a specific milestone that you were anticipating is the people it impacts when you have to let people go. And you really want to manage that to not over hire and still be able to drive progress, meaningful progress.

Harsh Thakkar (15:41.907)
Right, right.

Harsh Thakkar (15:52.843)
Yep, agree, yeah. And talking about people, that's a good segue to the next topic that I have here, which is youth.

Sorry, your video is frozen, I'm not sure. Okay, you can hear me?

Carlo Odicino (16:12.225)
I can hear you.

Harsh Thakkar (16:14.709)
Your video was frozen for...

Carlo Odicino (16:18.808)
Hmm. I'm still seeing it on my end of it and I can hear you and.

Am I moving again?

Harsh Thakkar (16:28.255)
Yeah, you're moving, I can hear you. So we can keep going. All right, we'll cut that part out.

Carlo Odicino (16:30.188)
Okay.

Harsh Thakkar (16:36.695)
Okay, so I was saying, so talking about people, that's a good segue into the next topic I have to discuss. And this is something you and I have talked about before, and you even shared this in other podcasts and things, which is creating a people first environment, right? So when you're working at a 10 or a 20 person startup, it's much easier for the leadership to be

in sync, engaged with all the people, know them by their first names, know who's getting married, who's had a baby, whose parents are sick or whatnot, or who got a new dog, right? But if you are working at a thousand or a 5,000 person company, it is not possible to do that at a personal level. So my question to you is, what, so,

to create that environment, my first question is to create that people first environment. Should that be coming from leadership or should that be coming from a different department like HR?

Carlo Odicino (17:48.78)
I definitely think it needs to come from leadership and it depends on who's the leader of the, like it needs to start at the CEO and the leadership level. What I would say is sometimes that CEO in early stages is also the founder, sometimes it's not, but what it really needs to be driven by is what is the core set of values that the organization is gonna be about?

and core set of values I think of as things that here's what we believe as an organization and I recommend folks distill that down to three to five really kind of primary values that you think makes your organization unique. I think of, you can kind of think of organizations as

Harsh Thakkar (18:17.783)
Mmm.

Carlo Odicino (18:41.902)
people too, like everybody has their own personality, a set of values and things like that, and so an organization needs to have its own set of values. The reason why it's important, because to me that values driven approach drives your mission, drives your vision, because you can directly point to here's what we're doing, we believe this, and here's what we're doing in order to show that we believe it. Why I say that is important is,

You see on a lot of websites, here's what we value. And yet you ask the organization, OK, we value, you can see a lot, work-life balance as an example of a value. And to me, that sometimes in practice turns into a slogan versus an actual lived value.

Harsh Thakkar (19:32.769)
Hmm.

Carlo Odicino (19:34.99)
It's like, do we do as an organization that makes you feel like that, right? And so...

The importance of having a stated set of values is as you grow in an organization, if you're very disciplined about it, you say, here's our clearly stated set of values. Our expectation is that you hold us accountable to living these values. And please call us out when we don't. Because you know.

Harsh Thakkar (20:01.975)
Hmm.

Carlo Odicino (20:08.078)
Anybody a person or an organization can have a very clear direction about moving but they're not going to get it a hundred percent and that's not the point the point is is you're inviting people in to hold you accountable to that so as you grow from the 10 to 20 To the 50 to the hundred You shouldn't have a

a set of values that says we will know everybody intimately. Like that's a hard thing to live up to, but you can say that as an organization, we do care about individuals and the individual. And so we set up.

Harsh Thakkar (20:35.109)
Yep.

Carlo Odicino (20:44.256)
our organizational structure whereby each manager only has up to six people that report directly into them so that each of those six people and as it scales can be known and can be seen by their manager. And that's just an example of how do you sort of think of a set of values and then be able to scale that.

Harsh Thakkar (20:51.637)
Hmm.

Harsh Thakkar (21:01.003)
Very good point,

Carlo Odicino (21:14.698)
to a level that makes sense. And I do share with clients that there are two types of values. One that are the distinguishing values, the values that set you apart as an organization. And the other set is the table stakes values. So don't talk about honesty, integrity. You can talk about them as like holistic. These are basic values that

Harsh Thakkar (21:41.751)
Hmm.

Carlo Odicino (21:43.244)
that we want everybody to live, but they're not what hold us apart. These are the set of values that set you apart and what makes you unique.

Harsh Thakkar (21:50.006)
Right.

Carlo Odicino (21:56.546)
The reason why I like that Model 1, it creates a sense of ownership within the organization that we are empowered to live these values and hold the leaders accountable to their behavior and living those values. It also has the benefit of when you're trying to hire and recruit people, if you have that common language core set of values.

Harsh Thakkar (22:09.463)
Hmm.

Carlo Odicino (22:20.59)
Applicants can then say, I a good fit because this aligns with my values? Or they can say, I'm not a good fit because it doesn't align with my values, and that's OK. You're not trying to be everything to everyone. You're trying to be something meaningful for the right people where their values align with yours as an organization.

Harsh Thakkar (22:42.167)
Yeah. No, that's you mentioned about, you you gave the example of work-life balance as one of the values. And when you were talking about it, another example that came to my mind is, let's say, knowledge sharing or, you know, democratizing information. I keep seeing this. Right. So like, yes, when you are a 20 or a 50 person company,

Carlo Odicino (22:51.917)
Mm-hmm.

Carlo Odicino (23:07.363)
Mm-hmm.

Harsh Thakkar (23:12.361)
it is possible to do a company meeting every month or every other week and be able to share what you're doing with those people. But now when you go to the stage of having 5,000, 10,000 employees where half of them are in a different time zone, you no longer have the luxury to do that, right? So then either you need to stop saying that that's still your value because you're not able to actively demonstrate it.

Or you need to figure out to say, you know, we can't no longer get sandwiches and salad and get 20 people in our company and talk about it because we have 5,000 people. This is now going to go into a zoo or some kind of event. And that's our new way. Right. So it's always like and you mentioned work life balance. I was hoping that you wouldn't mention it because I feel like ever since covid this

Carlo Odicino (23:52.621)
Mm-hmm.

Carlo Odicino (24:05.813)
Harsh Thakkar (24:10.423)
It's more like the phrase has been used so much, like on LinkedIn and company events that I'm actually confused for multiple reasons. I don't know if there is this thing like work-life balance. And when companies are using that phrase, what are they talking about? Are they talking about 50-50 of work-life? Because that's not how the reality is, right?

Carlo Odicino (24:37.838)
Mm-hmm.

Harsh Thakkar (24:38.135)
I have a four-year-old toddler, I have a three-month-old baby, I'm a business owner, I'm a consultant. There are days when I'm working 80 % of the time and the life is 20%, and then there are other days when life is 80 % and the work is 20, right? So, yeah.

Carlo Odicino (24:55.662)
Yeah, I think and I shared that as an example of what other companies have said, but I completely agree in terms of I think there's the, it's a misnomer to call it work-life balance. Number one, it implies that work is somehow outside of your life when it isn't. It can be an all-consuming part of your life. And so why are we making this artificial distinction between what I think people mean is work-life and non-

non-work life. So what do I do while I'm at work versus what do I do while I'm at work? The issue that has come up very acutely, particularly since COVID, was we were faced with a situation where work and life had to, or work life and non-work life had to blend together. I used to be able to go into an office and now I'm logging in at home and there's a room that if I'm fortunate enough to have an office and I have a home office,

Harsh Thakkar (25:44.983)
Mmm.

Carlo Odicino (25:54.22)
And so I'm doing that work. But that creates this tension of work-life blending that work is ever present. And you cannot disconnect. so internal to one team, we have this concept of we want life balance. But the other thing that we value is the ability to be present. And so why I say that is we want to be able to say,

When I'm working, I'm fully present at work. And when I'm not working, taking my kid to school, coaching my son's flag football team, I am present at that place. And I'm not worried about work. I either don't have my phone on me or I've turned off notifications. And the value of that creates the balance because what I think where people start to feel

Harsh Thakkar (26:38.487)
Mm-mm.

Carlo Odicino (26:51.384)
burnout in this idea of work-life balance, what they really say in execution, becomes work-life blending. Work is just ever-present. I can be contacted at any time, and I will respond, you know, depending on the culture, within minutes or an hour or whatever. And that just creates, I use the analogy of a computer.

they're not much more effective, but the older computers as a process that is consistently running in the background that's causing your CPU to overheat. If you cannot turn off certain things, in this case, things that are related to work, it's as if you're running that process in the background constantly and it's undermining your ability to be present for things that matter to you.

Harsh Thakkar (27:23.681)
Hmm.

Carlo Odicino (27:45.482)
Work isn't all evil either. I think there's this idea that work, know, well, you know, if you focus too much on work, it's a bad thing. Well, certain people at certain life stages, work is really meaningful and the amount of time they spend on it, they're very energized by it and that's okay. And then later life stages,

they may say, well, this is taking more of a priority for me, and so I don't want work to be as all-consuming, so I'm going to choose this different path. And it doesn't need to be this kind of zero-sum game that people make it out to be. It's just about things keeping what I would say in fluid balance. So keep it in fluid balance. doesn't mean we're at scales and everything is ways the same. It's

for the particular point in time, I am focused on what truly matters to me at that point in time, and I'm not trying to focus on that and focus on something else at the same time. I can switch back and forth. So.

Carlo Odicino (30:06.926)
Mm-hmm.

Carlo Odicino (30:21.954)
Mm-hmm.

Carlo Odicino (30:31.33)
Mm-hmm.

Yeah.

Carlo Odicino (30:40.44)
For sure, it's definitely one of those, I've been on teams that are global teams. And being in California and the Pacific time zone can create this tension where you're waking up early to get on a call because you need to work with the team that's in Europe that's.

towards the end of their day. every, like, I remember one project I was supporting was there's like a nine hour time difference between the team. so we had to have all calls typically end by 7 a.m. because that was what 4 p.m. in Europe and yeah, in Germany and

Carlo Odicino (31:41.05)
if you didn't finish by seven, they're leaving to get on the train to go home. Like they were then, and they were unapologetic about it, which is good. Like that's not, and, then they did a good job of creating that boundary. But then in the U S culture, I think we're not great at creating that boundary because then that same group or that same project, we were getting on a call late at night to then be able to pick up the, you know, China or Singapore.

Right. And, and, so you're like running from 6 a.m. or sometimes 5 a.m. in the morning to six, seven o'clock at night to expand those time zones. and it just becomes untenable after a while. And, and one of the best global teams that I ever worked with, was there was a commitment upfront that we understand

that sometimes we'll have to have meetings at very bad hours for some members of our team. And what we're gonna do is we're gonna share the wealth. It's gonna rotate. And I was like, okay, like, so if you have a weekly meeting and it's four different regions, once one out of every four of those meetings is gonna be at an inconvenient time, but everybody is inconvenienced at the, and I think that's a good compromise to do, but a lot of times,

I think because of American work culture, which is always go, go, go, we lose sight of that boundary setting that is so important to be able to recharge.

Carlo Odicino (33:37.614)
Mm-hmm.

Carlo Odicino (33:41.154)
Yeah. Yeah.

Carlo Odicino (33:47.298)
Yeah, it is just dealing with the, and technology has allowed that, those different cultures to interact much more than we would when there was a lot more face-to-face time.

Carlo Odicino (34:19.841)
Mm-hmm.

Carlo Odicino (34:40.331)
Mm-hmm.

Carlo Odicino (35:10.222)
Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

Carlo Odicino (35:33.986)
Well, I think it's just that, that the human connection is irreplaceable. to have a good, you can't shortcut human connection in terms of relationship building and things like that. I operate by a model of relationship is built off of conversation. There is no relationship without conversation. Well.

in order to have a conversation with somebody, requires a rich and meaningful conversation, requires trust on both sides and a connection, a certain level of connection. You can't replace that with a machine. You will never be able to replace that with a machine. Because a machine, even though it can display or mimic emotion sometimes and things like that, it's not feeling.

the way we feel like it's not leveraging the all five human senses that I think come into what creates human connection. Now, I would argue the best use of AI, depending on different, have it help accelerate things that are important to the business, but that can be done much faster. Like, you know, build AI models to...

write a procedure or at least give you a good first draft or format a document. These are things that like, I don't think any human being really likes to do a lot. But then use it, leverage it in a way that allows you more time, because time is one of those things that is just not a scalable resource to build connection with the

the ultimate goal of connection then drives innovation, which tries, you know, that we can then problem solve to much richer things because we've used technology in a way that doesn't replace.

Carlo Odicino (37:45.394)
us it it augments our natural ability to make connections to recognize patterns to truly you know create and innovate if you use technology to kind of

address all the things that used to take us a long time or if we try to do it and they can do it much faster so that we can then augment our ability to problems to connect and problem solve and innovate.

Carlo Odicino (39:20.91)
Mm-hmm. Yeah.

Carlo Odicino (39:31.82)
Yeah, we did.

Carlo Odicino (41:09.046)
Yeah, I think and what I would say is, is our approach has always been similar to what I just what I said earlier, which was to build a relationship, it starts with a conversation. So anybody that wants to kind of learn more and and help have help kind of unpacking their particular issues that they're facing or things that they want to address, it's I invite them into a conversation.

and we can talk about whatever is top of mind. I usually start the conversation with either one of two questions that are very similar is how do you sleep at night or what gets you up in the morning? And then just see where that goes. But on our website, oneteampartners.com, there's a page there that they can.

look at my schedule and pick a time that is convenient for them to have a 30-minute conversation and see where it goes from there.

Carlo Odicino (42:22.925)
Mm-hmm.

Carlo Odicino (43:46.38)
Yes, I did too. Thank you for having me.

Carlo Odicino (43:51.566)
Bye.