What are, what are companies actually looking for now when they appoint a chief people officer? Because from what you're saying there, it seems that, that things might have changed a bit.

They have changed a bit.

I think it's important to recognize that every organization is at a slightly different point on its journey in terms of what it needs from the people function.

So one chief people officer mandate looks very different for us than another, and the art of being a headhunter, I suppose, is on picking exactly where an organization is, and therefore what skill set they need and approach they need at a particular point in time.

But the data suggests that boards and exec teams are no longer asking who's done this exact job before, and are thinking more about who's got the capability and the agility to navigate through transformation, a world of ambiguity, and think about it through a cultural change, workforce design type lens.

Ultimately, though, the traditional route of becoming a chief people officer probably still matters, so most chief people officers come through relatively conventional HR generalist pathways, and broad HR leadership experience remains valuable.

So very few appointments into that chief people officer seat come from the functional specialisms like talent acquisition, talent reward, very few of them.

And I suppose reflecting back to, you know, that kind of HR career path that you've sort of been talking about there, I mean, how well equipped is that to provide someone with these sort of skills? Where's the gap?