Naji Gehchan: Welcome to SpreadLove in Organizations, the healthcare leadership podcast where we explore leadership with purpose.
Naji Gehchan: Welcome to Spread Love in Organizations, the healthcare leadership podcast where we explore leadership with purpose.
I am Naji your host, joined today by Greg Tietjen co-founder and CEO of Revalia Bio, a biotech company pioneering human-centric data platforms to improve how new medicines are developed. Revalia Bio was born out of Greg’s academic work at Yale University, where he was Assistant Professor leading a laboratory focused on human organ perfusion science and translational innovation. Greg holds a PhD from the University of Chicago. His transition from academia to entrepreneurship was driven by a deeply personal motivation to make biomedical innovation more predictive, more human-relevant, and ultimately more impactful for patients. Today, he leads Revalia Bio with a strong focus on scientific rigor, culture, and purpose-driven leadership.
Greg, it’s so great to see you again and have you with me today.
Greg Tietjen: Yeah, thank you so much. It’s great to be here.
Naji Gehchan: I always love to start with the story behind the leader. Can you share the personal and professional journey that led you to becoming CEO of this biotech?
Greg Tietjen: Yeah, sure. Happy to. Um, it’s a, it’s a long and winding path, and I, I usually, uh, start with a joke that my, my CV reads like this guy must have a really supportive wife, uh, which I’m, I’m really fortunate to do.
And I say that because I, my ha- my, my journey had a lot of twists and, and turns, uh, along the way. So, um, while I’m a PhD trained scientist, uh, my journey actually started, uh, in the humanities. Um, so I, uh, um, uh, went to school. Originally, I wanted to be an astrophysicist, but, but actually fell in love with my English class and literature, and so I ended up, uh, pivoting and getting a- an English degree.
Um, and along the way, found, uh, uh… had some friends that were phenomenal musicians and really got immersed in that world, loved performance. And so ended up, uh, after undergraduate that I did at Wake Forest, I, um, uh, took up, uh, studying jazz guitar and spent several years, uh, training to be, uh, um, a musician, you know, just with the idea of, like, being a performer, teaching, just surviving in it.
Loved it, um, but found that, uh, unfortunately, I was having, um, health issues. So I was having, uh, nerve impingement issues when I was doing long days on the instrument and, um, long story short, after a couple of years, I was having… uh, hands were going numb. I was trying to be in school, and I just was kind of hitting a roadblock that I couldn’t, I just couldn’t be, I couldn’t hold, uh, the instrument long enough.
I couldn’t do what I needed to do to be able to get to the level. Uh, and, uh, fate intervened. I was, uh, playing a indoor soccer game, um, hit the ground and, uh, snapped my elbow backwards on my fretting hand and had a reconstructive surgery. And the surgeon said, “You know, you’ll be lucky to hold a guitar, let alone make a living off of it.”
Uh, which at that point, because I had been struggling so much, just felt like enormous relief. Uh, and so I pivoted again and, and ended up going back to my first love. Uh, I was, I was already at the University of Oregon studying music, and so I could just pivot into a second undergrad degree, and, uh, went back to physics.
Uh, and so I hadn’t done a math problem in like seven or eight years, so thankfully, um- uh, for Wikipedia and some very patient, uh, TAs, I was able to pick that up. And then, you know, from there, uh, ended up going to U Chicago where I did a PhD in a really unique program that was, uh, about… It, it, it was a dual-mentored program where the, the role of the student was to be at the interface of different disciplines, and that’s really where I found my calling in life, was, um, you know, having been through a bunch of already career switches and, and coming from more of a communications background, um, and performance background, I loved being at the interface of brilliant people working in different domains, but, but sometimes were so far out there that it was t- a struggle for them to communicate well together.
And so in my case that was applied physics and, and structural immunology, and so I got to work at the interface, develop some really cool tools. It was really fun. I did combinations of, uh, you know, mela- uh, simulation work. I got to work at Argonne National Lab. I got to do a lot of really cool things with cool people.
But the missing element for me, um, was it was very molecular biophysics, and I was missing kind of the human impact. And so I came to Yale, um, as a postdoc 12 years ago, uh, to work f- with a guy named Mark Saltzman, who’s an absolutely brilliant, uh, pioneer of the nanomedicine world, was one of, uh, Bob Langer’s first PhD students and And so I got to come and work on some really exciting technology in the nanomedicine world in around 2012, uh, 2013, I guess, when I came.
It was a very exciting time. Brilliant technologies, amazing papers. The problem was it wasn’t translating well. Um, you know, there were some successes, but there were also a lot of failures where the s- it was like, it was hard to understand because the tech was good, the science was good. The problem was the model systems, right?
We would engineer, they would, you know, folks would engineer these beautiful systems in animal models, and then they just wouldn’t translate. And it was at this level of fidelity that we’re trying to get to, we’re trying to target disease and things that, you know, it just didn’t translate well. Uh, and so I was kind of fortunate that the program I came through at Yale was a human translational immunology program, and my other, uh, advisor, Jordan Pobur, was a real pioneer of the world of human immunology.
And it was through, through Jordan, um, that we got the opportunity to connect with, um, pioneering transplant surgeons, um, in the UK who were developing perfusion technology so that they could, uh, make, uh, more organs transplantable. They were really frustrated with the state of where things were, that they would– they had no real way to assess whether an organ could function.
It led to a lot of organs not being used. And so they came up with the idea of taking cardiopulmonary bypass machines from, you know, that would be used for things like heart-lung bypass and, and putting these organs on those pump systems, which was actually, uh, bringing back an old idea. So that’s actually a different story.
That was something where the field started, but they brought it back, and they would do normothermic, and it becomes like, basically, you could put the organ on a treadmill and see if it functions before you put a patient’s life at risk. So that was– The folks we got to work with, Mike Nicholson, Sarah Hosgood, they were the pioneers.
They had already done this in, in, you know, successfully in people. Um, but they were recognizing that there was a lot of instances where those organs still couldn’t be used, right? And this happens in the world of donation, where it’s like ninety percent of the time, roughly, um, when a, when a donor passes away in the hospital under conditions that will support donation and they want to, to transform that loss into some type of impact and legacy, um, they’re not able to because if that patient dies of cancer or fibrosis, those organs couldn’t be used.
So what Mike and Sarah and others realized was that didn’t mean that those organs couldn’t have impact, and you could use this perfusion technology as a new setting within which to test therapies before they’re ready to go in. And so we were the fortunate ones that got to take these nanomedicines that we were developing, that were designed to target endothelial cells, cells that line our blood vessels for site-specific immunosuppression.
Um, we got to test them, uh, in human organs that were non-transplantable. They failed miserably. They worked great in a petri dish. They did not translate to the human organs. But this was now a system within which we could understand failure in a, in a relevant human setting The failure was really fast.
We didn’t have to wait years like for a clinical trial. And then the failure was profound in that we didn’t just learn about things that were going wrong with nanomedicines. We learned about fundamental things about human biology that there was no other way to learn, but, but by using this like sort of complex adaptive system that was autonomous.
And, and I absolutely fell in love with that, um, both for all of those components of it, like, uh, just the best model, but also, um, for the notion that, um, every time we were running an experiment, there was a family that was grieving the loss of their loved one. And, and this organ represented a way to help support their journey of transforming the loss and pain of a loved one into a new kind of legacy, a- an endurable truth that can have a profound impact on, on humanity in, in the long run, you know?
And I, uh, by getting immersed in that donation world, it’s that ability to transform loss into truth that endures, uh, that, that comforts. That, like, was just this beautiful intersection of humanity and science and technology that I just decided I wanna dedicate the rest of my life to. I was fortunate enough to get a position at Yale where I could take what we were doing in the UK and kind of rebuild it, and so we did that for six years.
Um, built the infrastructure to do this, which is a 24/7 operation, so it’s not for the faint of heart. Like, you gotta be ready to receive organs at any time of day or night, build the collaborative models around it. We did well, NIH funding and all those kinds of things there. But at some point, it just became clear that, that this would scale or needed to scale bet- behi- beyond the academic, uh, landscape.
Uh, and so yeah, we made the… I took another pivot. I guess I just could only sit still for so long, and then decided to leave my, uh, faculty position, um, you know, a few, uh, uh, it was a tenure track faculty position, um, but gave all the funding up and then, and then left to, to st- come into Revivio Bio, which was about, um, a little over three years ago.
Naji Gehchan: Wow, Greg. Well, so many things to unpack. But before… A- and I’m gonna go into Revaluer Bio, but, but when you talk about humanity, science, tech- Yeah … um, I, I love how you brought all these together. Uh, o- one of the questions, you know, I, I interview, uh, obviously I have the pleasure to sit with, uh, several execs, leaders.
Uh, a lot of us actually have some music in our lives. Yeah. So, uh, like- Yeah … what, what did you, uh… You know, a- and I always kind of like to ask this question, like, did you, did music teach you anything, like this instrument? Like, what, what, what- Yeah … is your relationship as you think about humanity, science, and tech, your musical journey-
Greg Tietjen: Yeah
Naji Gehchan: and being a guitarist? What, what did this bring to you?
Greg Tietjen: Well, a couple of different things. Now first, I, I wanna be really clear about it too, is like I was not, like, I came to it late. My, my… When I decided I wanted to be a jazz guitar player, my, my grandma, who was really important to me, I, I, uh, partly raised me, uh, she’s like, “I don’t even think I ever heard you whistle, let alone play an instrument.”
So, so, uh, but I was fortunate to be around good people. Uh, and I also then, you know, I… What, what music taught me was how to learn, okay? Because when I first started on it, I was late to it, you know? I mean, I, I was like, you know, I was really like, uh… It was college. I mean, I think I was 18 when I first really picked up an instrument.
I’d grown up around music. My dad was a, uh, a… Both my parents. My dad was such a lover of music and, and my parents divorced when I was really young, so we, he would… It was a three-hour drive, so every weekend we were in the car for long, and he was Woodstock and Hendrix and, like, I just grew up immersed in great music.
Um, but I never had an outlet to learn it. And so then when I came to it, I came to it late in life, but, but in order to do it, I had to really deconstruct the process of learning. And so that ti- When I first started training in music, I mean, I could only hold my focus for, like, 20 minutes and then, and then I would sort of fall apart.
And eventually over time, I figured out a practice regimen where I could go for, like, 10 hours, like, locked in with different things. And then I could start to feel like, oh, wow, like the human brain is really good at learning if you structure things the right way. And that actually, that served me so well as I jumped into these new fields because, I mean, at the beginning, I would feel like an idiot, right?
Like, I don’t understand anything. But if I could sit with that discomfort and just start to figure out, okay, but what’s one thing I do know? Or what’s one thing… And, and then you s- you learn that, that there’s an o- there’s a natural path towards learning new fields and integrating. And because I’m a multi di- like, because my, in the end, art form, I guess, is, like, how do you sit between people and help them find common ground, a big part of that is learning how to learn new things really fast.
And so for me, music was about, like, really getting deep on the human learning process- And, you know, and then music I think is such a beautiful way of doing it because you can just get lost in it, and it’s beautiful. It’s a beautiful practice, right? Like-
Naji Gehchan: Yeah …
Greg Tietjen: you, you get the natural rhythms and the rituals of like, “I just practice this thing every day, and then I watch my thinking and, and my skills evolve around that.”
So I think it gave me an, a, an, a, like, a recipe for learning and a recipe for integrating new skills that feels deep and meaningful and profound. Like, that’s, that’s what music does for me, I guess.
Naji Gehchan: Yeah. I, I, I love it. Well, same here, you know, from, from learning to this discipline to the creation. Like, it, it touches on- Yeah
so many different things.
Greg Tietjen: Yeah, totally. And
Naji Gehchan: I
Greg Tietjen: love how
Naji Gehchan: you bring
Greg Tietjen: it. And, and, and the, the collaboration of it, too. I mean, so, you know- Yeah … unfortunately after my… I couldn’t do jazz anymore. I mean, that’s such a technical… I just, my hands wouldn’t do it. But I did, I did, I, I… You know, the surgery was wonderful, too, but I did prove them wrong.
I was able to hold the guitar again, and I got to, like, do first dance. I perform at friends’ weddings and, and get to perform, you know, in meaningful things. I, I actually recently did a, a gig with a friend at a bar for the first time. I did, like, three hours music. And, and it’s that connection. I think that’s the other thing, is it’s something that can connect in, in really moving and meaningful ways, and I think that’s the other, like, great gift of music.
Naji Gehchan: Oh, oh yeah. It brings people together, which is- Yeah … also a, a great pivot, again, in our discussion- Yeah … towards what you’re doing now, you know, and, and how you think about the company now. So I, I’d love to go more, uh, from the story, and then you just gave us this, uh, hint. You built a company three years ago- Yeah
um, with, uh, with a strong purpose and meaning, uh, as, as you, um, as you’ve always had as a leader. So tell us a little bit more what excites you most about the problem you’re trying to solve with Revalia Bio and how you see this- Yeah … moving forward.
Greg Tietjen: Yeah. So, um, the way that… I mean, our mission as a company is to, you know- transform loss into the future of, of medicine.
And, and we– the way that we think about that is from a very one team mindset, right? Because I think one of the challenges that we face in medicine, and I’ve, I’ve kind of been on so many different sides of it. I’ve worked with brilliant drug developers who are so dedicated and so passionate about trying to create new technologies that impact patients.
But unfortunately there– it’s a, this is a natural interface for them to be kinda working with a patient every, every day. You know? Like, we develop, like, a new software platform, you make sure you’re talking to the customer every day. Well, with, with new medicine, especially, like, very advanced stuff, like, there’s no real way to do that.
And then I also, my faculty position, I was actually in the Department of Surgery. I wanted to live with clinicians ’cause I didn’t wanna be building, you know, solutions to problems that, that weren’t their problems, you know? And so living with them, you know, it’s a whole different, uh, feel. Like, you know, it’s like I got a patient in front of me I gotta care about, and I wanna help support that innovation, but if it’s so far off, like, you know, h-how do we, uh, connect all of those dots?
So, so what that means is I think one of the biggest challenges we face is all of the silos and different languages that people speak, but yet we gotta pull everyone together in order to be able to get a drug through. And so we, when we think about the reality as it is today, where it takes, you know, 10 to 15 years to go from a new concept to a, a, you know, a successful clinical trial, uh, u- usually several billion dollars, and we fail 90% of the time, that’s our shared problem, right?
And, and that’s what, what we’re here to s- to solve, but not solve alone, right? Because that isn’t gonna happen. Um, so what do we need to reduce the, the friction and the, the misunderstandings that happen at the interface is what we actually see as the problem. I don’t think it’s a technology problem. I think it’s a, a fundamental economic and collaboration model problem where we have an, a sort of antiquated system that hasn’t been updated yet in– to the complexities of what we have today.
So what we’re interested in doing is creating a new kind of infrastructure and, and platform for how, especially the pre-clinical and translational phases of a, of a drug development process. So, okay, we have a lot of really cool and exciting things happening in the drug discovery to find a new mechanism of human biology.
But then there’s this massive chasm between, like, having that drug, figuring out, okay, how do we get it delivered to the right location? Is it efficacious before we go into a patient? Is it safe? And then we can go into a patient successfully for the first time. There’s this huge gap in, in the tools that we have available We also now have FDA and other regulators saying, “Hey, human-centered.”
Like animal models can have their role, but now the future is human. And that creates a really big challenge because I can tell you from the work that we’ve done, being able to be the, the expertise required to plug into the source of human organs and tissues to be human-centered, which is healthcare systems, academic health systems, um, requires a certain expertise, a certain language, a certain understanding of the day-to-day of those folks And then we need to transform that access into something that’s on demand and ready to use for, for the biotech and pharma drug developers who need to be able to not spend all of their time building and maintaining infrastructure, but actually get to do the development work.
So the problem that we’re working on is to create a new interface that is easily sort of plug and play for both sides, gives great value to both sides, but is really designed to remove a lot of the, the just the friction that arises from, um, people having different needs. And so our company is i- i- in the platform we call Human Data Trials, is about creating a new kind of interface that, that, that really works for everyone, um, to meet them where they’re at, but removes the friction from the system in a h- in a, in a way that’s all built around a new standard of human data to act as that organizing element.
Naji Gehchan: Uh, th- this is, this is fascinating. So I, I w- wanna go a little bit more deeply into what you guys are doing and the science, uh, the sci- the science you’re building. Uh, and I love how you, uh, brought it, right? Like, this, there’s a huge amount of innovation with also obviously AI on the discovery side and the work done there.
But then the… between this INT first in human and what you will figure out once your drug gets in people, it’s, it’s a black box, right? It’s huge.
Greg Tietjen: Yeah,
Naji Gehchan: and it’s like- And biology is uncertain.
Greg Tietjen: Yeah, and I think if you really live in the shoes of the folks who it’s like, okay, you’ve dedicated your life to this, you know, new drug concept or technology and, you know, go through all of these enormous hoops and check all the boxes, and it’s decision after decision that could, if you choose the wrong thing, it collapses and, and dies and never helps a patient.
And then you get all the way there to that night before that first patient is dosed.
Naji Gehchan: Yeah.
Greg Tietjen: And I can’t imagine anybody sleeps too well that night because- Oh, yeah. … there’s so much, like, leaps of faith, so many leaps of faith of, like, did we choose the right dose? Are we choosing the right thing? Like, and, and that’s the problem is, like, you know, right now I’ve had folks explain it, including folks from FDA say, like, that it feels like when you go to an IND, you know, it’s like a novel with a bunch of chapters ripped out because there’s no way to, for example, answer the question of, if I’m developing a new cancer drug, is it actually gonna get to the tumor cells and not get stuck out everywhere else, right?
And so a lot of great technologies that are super promising at that discovery phase die in this translational space because we just haven’t had the right models for them. And so what we’ve found is that, um, you know- T- two key things here that can bring everyone together. So first, um, we need to think about human-centered development not through the lens of one individual technology layer.
So organoids, organ-on-chip, really exciting technology. We’ve used it a lot, but it, it answers a particular set of questions, right? And it’s good for a particular set of things. Um, you know, population-wide sort of patient demographic data, again, really important, allows you to, uh, distinguish certain things, but it can’t give you a mechanism, right?
Naji Gehchan: Mm-hmm.
Greg Tietjen: Um, patient biopsy data, really powerful, really important, can give you a lot of different things, but it can’t connect to sort of physiology and higher order things. And so I think a really important distinction is that we need to think about human models in an integrated approach rather than a competing approach.
We need to think about how they all integrate together, and that’s where this organ model system that we’ve worked on for, you know, the better part of the last decade, I think, is so unique, is because it, it’s an integrator. It’s not a replacement, okay? It’s like a Rosetta Stone that integrates the other layers, because every time an organ is donated for research, you get the de-identified medical history.
Because we can bring them to life on perfusion systems, you can get unique physiology. You can also do imaging, so you get anatomy. You can use that an- anatomy to, to register as you take biopsies, and these are biopsies that are not limited by keeping a patient alive, so you can do a lot more of them, and you can do them from different locations.
You can do real-time sensing of the physiology. You can take those biopsies, and you can go down and do multi-omics, digital pathology, but you can also seed organoid and organ-on-chip.
Naji Gehchan: Hmm.
Greg Tietjen: So every donor then becomes the ability to create an entire multi-dimensional stack of information that traces deep biology from one individual rather than shallow biology from lots of individuals, and that’s, like, the really important conceptual switch, is that integrated human data approach.
But then there’s one other critical element of this, which is that, um, when, when we organize it around, um, a patient that we’ve lost, it’s something that all of us relate to, right? So Naji, you know, when you and I have had, got a chance to get to know each other a little bit, but, you know, beyond that, there’s something that I know that we share in common, I know that everyone that’s listening shares in common, um, regardless of our background and what we do and what we think about, is that we all either have or will lose people we love, right?
We’ll all, we’ll all experience that moment of, of knowing that person’s gone, and- And the way that we survive those instinctually is, you know, we feel the grief for sure. Um, but, but then we start to remember great memories. We start to… You know, we come together, we laugh, we cry. Like, we think about what, what, what does it mean to carry that person’s memory forward, to turn the pain that we’re feeling into some kind of enduring truth about who that person was and what their impact on us was.
That’s h- that’s true to all of us. All of us will have that experience multiple times in our lives. And so anchoring this new kind of trial around that tr- that very human thing that we do is we… You know, when we’re our best selves, we transform loss and pain and suffering into truth that endures, you know?
And so I, I think that’s the other really unique element about this and, and, you know, it’s why I did it in the first place, is I, that, that, that intersection of this beautiful humanity and, and science and technology, I think is something that, that, that really can be world-changing for the future and, and help us work together in ways that, you know, have felt sometimes impossible in the past
Naji Gehchan: Oh, I, I, I love this, Greg.
Um, w-when you, um, so I have a couple of, uh, questions on this. Uh, they- Yeah … we feel the purpose and the mission that you have and how you’re com-connecting this, again, like humanity, science, and tech. Uh, so I’m very interested to s- to, um, to hear from you how you keep this alive with your teams-
Greg Tietjen: Yeah …
Naji Gehchan: as you guys are building this up.
Um, and my second question is around scalability of what you’re doing. Yeah. ‘Cause you’re obviously, uh, looking for donors, like the science you’re doing and what you will be testing is certainly- Yeah … a bridge, but is this– how scalable is this in the area of, like in silico patients and all the other- Right.
Yeah … what you talk, organoids, et cetera.
Greg Tietjen: Yeah. Um… No, it’s wonderful. I’m gonna, I’m gonna take those questions in reverse order. Um, but I love both of them. Thank you. So, uh, uh, first, the scalability. So that’s actually why we’re building a product, right? So, so I think in the old model, it would be like contract research organizations, and you just kind of like, okay, but the problem is that doesn’t scale, right?
Because it, it, it’s like linear with the effort that you put in, so you fundamentally can’t do it. And, and i- and if, and if we can’t scale, then we can’t honor our, our stewardship and promises to those donor families that their loved ones’ gifts are gonna change the world, right? If it doesn’t scale, it doesn’t hold the promise.
So, okay, then the next question is, well, what are the bottlenecks to scale? Why doesn’t it scale? So the first bottleneck, and this is what we’re working on building today, is it’s the bottleneck of expertise, right? So the fundamental bottleneck in like a serial model or something like that is, well, there’s only so many people that know how to do this stuff, right?
And, and if you don’t, it, you know, apparently they’ll have, they have to sleep every once in a while, myself included like we, you know, it, it can’t work. And if the people that are trying to consume, like our human data trial platform, if, if their ability to use that is bottlenecked on access to our calendars, that doesn’t work.
So this is where the moment that we’re in with agentic AI and all those capabilities is profound. And you know, there are a lot of use ca- there’s a lot of still discovering how to use these technologies, but I think one of the most clear use cases is removing the bottleneck of expertise, right? Um, way I use it, uh, both in my day-to-day but also within the company, is that those of us that have spent the past twelve years, like kinda, uh, plus figuring out how to do the science, we don’t wanna, you know, we have to make it scale beyond this.
So our team that we’ve brought in, tech team w- from Google and, you know, phenomenal folks with great background and pedigree, is like they’re, they’re taking our expertise and making it scalable, making us unnecessary, right? And so it’s still human in the loop because that’s what the u- the end users really want on this, but we’re removing our bottleneck of scale of our expertise first.
And then there’s the second bottleneck to scale, which you highlighted, which is actually access to the physical organs and tissues. And so the way that we do that is the sort of second wave of product evolution, um, which is to build digital twins and, and in the in silico versions. But we do it in a way that’s not about– It, it sort of really understands that the world today is not ready for a digital human, right?
There needs to be really high interpretability. We have to understand, like people are making huge– There’s huge risk. There’s patients’ lives at stake, right? And so the notion that we’d just build a digital human and everyone will trust it, I, I don’t think that we’re there yet. So the way that we do it is we have our physical system.
We’re removing bottleneck of scale through agentic AI platforms. So as we do trial des- human data trial design, quality control, analysis, interpretation, and ultimately communication reporting of that, that can become less dependent on us over time, right? We just– We build agentic versions. And then that creates a product platform, and then we can start to release new features where it’s like, okay, in our human data trial, for, for example, for, for drug toxicity or drug safety, let’s create a digital replica, but not of the whole like kidney, for example, but of a particular failure mode.
Like let’s say, you know, breakdown of cap- of the capillary barrier function in peri- in peritubular capillary networks, right? Oh, okay, cool. We can induce that, we can model that, and then have that be a feature where now what we can do is like, okay, uh, we can simulate with a new drug. Do we, do we have a prediction that this will fail?
And if so, then we rapidly test it in the organ systems, and it’s about turning a fast loop and then, and then slowly carrying people on that journey to a more digital platform, right? Now I’ll, I’ll, I’ll close that with saying that the other part of your question is profound too, is because what does it look like for a team to be able to do that?
So what I just described to you in our organization requires that we have at minimum sort of three professional cultures working seamlessly together. So in order to be able to receive organs, do the preparatory work, and manage them for, for really high quality data generation, we need people from clinical backgrounds.
We have ICU nurses, and we plug in with clinical partners. So it’s, it’s, it’s understanding what it’s like to be a clinician every day. Um, and then once those things are done, we have, you know, really high rigor, super great quality scientists who turn those into one of a kind data sets and help create meaning out of them.
And then we have product and tech people from that, you know, background and, and more consumer facing products that understand how to create a great user experience, how to make this scalable. So those three cultures living and working together, uh, is a ch- it creates challenges because people speak different languages.
They have different ways of working together. They have different ways of giving feedback, like… And, and so, you know, the, then the real challenge becomes how do you create a shared mission, a shared language internally so that folks… It, like, what we do internally is a microcosm for what we’re trying to do in the world, right?
Is to create seamless ways for people to work together that traditionally never have, you know? And, and, and I think that that to me is like, this feels like this full arc of what my whole life has been about, and it’s not easy. You know, it’s, it’s hard to, to find common ground, but, but the, but you know, it, it really comes back to the mission.
How do you do it? Well, on a day to day, what happens when we don’t speak the same language? I get frustrated, like, “Why don’t you understand me?” Like, ah. But, but then the thing is, is we, we stay with that discomfort, right? So rather than just getting frustrated and walk away from it, we, we figure out, no, there’s some underlying truth there.
There’s something that if I can stick with that and stick with you, then on the other side of that we can find something that endures, the connection that endures, and that is exactly what the broader mission of transforming loss and pain into enduring truth is all about. So it’s really, we just gotta practice what we preach, man.
You know, like we gotta do internally what we’re trying to create externally, you know?
Naji Gehchan: Of course. A- and so it seems, a- and it’s fascinating because you went immediately into the culture, and it seems you’re very intentional- Yeah … as a CEO on building this culture within the team. Yeah. So c- Yeah … can you tell us like the behaviors, values you’re actively trying to model yourself, like as a CEO of the company?
Greg Tietjen: Yeah. Thank you. No, and I think that’s so important, right? Like, I mean, whatever we do, like the leaders always have to hold the standards, right? And so I think first and foremost, trust, okay? So we- As an organization, um, we do not work if we aren’t sort of masters of building and maintaining trust, right?
Because on one side is the integration with care providers and, and health systems and more, and most importantly, donors and donor families that, that they have to trust us that we’re gonna be good stewards, right? Or else we don’t work, right? On the other side are the folks that are dedicating their lives to, to a technology that they think can really transform the world, but at some point are gonna have to have that really sleepless night before it goes into a living patient, right?
They have to trust us that the data that we’re gonna generate for them, the way it’s being put together has to be the highest standards of rigor and quality, and, you know, that the way it’s put together is gonna help them move forward as fast as they possibly can, um, you know, as they navigate all the, the risks associated with that journey.
And so the trust and then, you know, regulators, like, the e- everything is predicated on really deep trust, okay? And so my sort of message to my team and to myself is, okay, if the outside world requires of us that we are so deeply reliable and trustable in everything that we’re doing here, but we can’t do that internally as a team, how does that work?
It doesn’t, is the answer. Which means that, that in everything that we do and how we move internally, and, and certainly for myself, it’s gotta think about, how do I master the art of building and maintaining trust, especially when it’s hard, especially when we’re up against deadlines and difficult things?
‘Cause it’s easy to have trust when it’s easy.
Naji Gehchan: Mm-hmm.
Greg Tietjen: Right? It’s hard to have trust when it’s hard. Um, but that’s when it counts, and so I think, you know, that’s sort of number one. And, and I think related to that is how do you really master the art of being a, a great collaborator, okay? Because trust is a collaboration.
It’s never a one-way street. And what that means to me is that I need to, I need to be able to find the middle path of trust, right? Because collaboration is fundamentally about making sure that both of our needs get met. Right? It’s about finding a shared solution where you get what you need and I get what I need, and we both feel really good about it.
That’s, that’s what a great collaboration is. If I’m, you know, putting my needs to the side just to meet your needs, okay, sometimes we’ll do that, but if that’s always the case, that’s not, that’s not collaboration. That’s gonna build resentment , right? Or if I’m, like, overly assertive and, like, dominating and only getting my needs met, that’s not collaboration.
So it’s harder, but that’s the work, is to find that Venn diagram where both of our needs get met, right? And so I think those are the two cornerstones. But it’s not sufficient because we also have to make sure, and, and you know, this is from kind of leadership stance for me, is like we ha- absolutely have to be crystal clear about our focus and our direction Um, because we have so many different directions that we could go with this, that if we don’t focus, we’ll run in all directions at once and we’ll go nowhere.
Then the second thing is the, the quality of the work that we produce as we’re going through this journey has to be so high because our ambition is so high. Like, good enough won’t cut it, right? So we have to have really, really high standards. And then the third element of that is it, it has to be sustainable.
Like- Yeah … it has to be built into systems, and I think this is one of the hardest things as a, as a founder. I mean, we’re, we’re, you know, a seed stage company. I mean, we, you know, w- w- we’ve been around for three years. We’ve raised a good chunk of money, so you know, we’re premature. We’re generating a lot, you know, generating revenue and all these kinds of things.
But, but we’re still an early company. And, and I think for founders, you know, the journey is one of letting go, right? And making yourself not so central, right? Uh, because if you can’t transfer it into a system that supports upholding all of everything I just told you, then it won’t, it won’t scale, and it, and it, it fundamentally will break.
So that’s kind of my five dimensions. I, I think- … there’s the clarity, the really high quality, and, and, and having systems carry. But everything needs to be done in a way that builds trust, and where, you know, we really are able to collaborate profoundly well, which, which is very much about making sure that we’re meeting each other’s needs, right?
And communicating well and all that. So anyway, that’s my sort of philosophy on how we do it. And so- But as you say, it is something that is really … Like, we don’t work if we don’t do that stuff well.
Naji Gehchan: Yeah. A- and it’s so very well, so very well said. Um, I can relate to several parts of what you said. But let me ask you, did you master the art of trust?
Greg Tietjen: Well, h- here’s the thing about mastery. It’s a journey. It’s never a destination, right? And so, no. Definitely not. Uh, I mean, I, I think one of the most important elements of it is also to just be human, right? And, and I think, um, the … You know, I’ve, I’m sort of a, a … I love Buddhist thought and philosophy and, and thinking, and it’s like, you know, I’m definitely not awakened yet.
Uh, uh, you know, every … We all have days, right? Like, where we fall down, and I, and I think what’s most important is to own that and be honest about it. And I think from a leadership perspective, one of the things that I’ve always, I’ve always … I, I, I think it has felt sort of instinctual to me, um, just in part like the way I was raised, but it’s also s- served me well, um, is just vulnerability, ri- right?
Like, it’s okay. Like, I’m not perfect at all. Like, I’m sure today, at some point today, I will clearly demonstrate that I have yet to n- master trust, right? Building and maintaining trust. But it’s not about, do you do it perfectly? It’s about the journey that you’re on of learning, right? And so I’ll go back to that, that great question you asked about what music taught me.
Is it taught me … Like, are you ever done learning music? No. But, but it’s about the path, right? It’s about can you efficiently, like, dedicate yourself to the practice? Mastery is The re- it’s the result of a, of a lifelong journey of dedication to practice, right? And so what I’m way more focused on is am I dedicated to the path?
Am I dedicated to the practices that are necessary? Or that if you, if you find someone that you could look at and say, “Wow, that’s an enlightened master of, of trust,” what do they do on a daily- what are their daily practices? Because they’ll have them, right? And, and so I think that’s what I am, am working on.
Work in progress, for sure, but I’m just trying to be as, uh, what I’m trying to model, like, to my team and to anyone, uh, is being honest with how hard that is. Um, and, you know, especially when you’re in the crucible of building a company where there’s so much at stake, you know, people’s livelihoods, families, the mission, everything.
Yeah, it’s hard. It’s hard. But it’s worth it, right? I think, and it, and it… And the, the thing about a great practice, and I learned this in music too, is it’s really hard, it’s deliberate work, it’s tough, but it feels good. Like, so at the end of it you feel exhausted but fulfilled at the same time, you know?
Naji Gehchan: Oh, yeah. And it, it is worth it. As you said, it’s about people and the journey and- Yeah … what your, what your team is, uh, delivering on the mission, but also how they’re doing it and going, uh, through it with you- Yeah … uh, a- as you lead them, which is, which is great. Yeah. And you said several things that are truly profound, and might sound easy to do, but they’re not.
You know, like, you talked about letting go, um, and not being central as a founder and CEO. Like, that’s not easy. You know, so-
Greg Tietjen: No, and of
Naji Gehchan: course you can’t let go- … several people trip on this …
Greg Tietjen: you can’t let go completely either because then-
Naji Gehchan: Exactly …
Greg Tietjen: this is why I, like, come back to the Buddhist middle path thing, right?
Because there’s the, uh, there’s the one thing is like, “Er, I overly control,” and I, and, and that of course doesn’t work. But then there’s the other one that, you know, where I just, “Well, I just let it all go.” And that doesn’t work either, right? It doesn’t work. Because- Exactly … you know, and I, and I think that’s the, the challenge in the CEO role, is to, like, which, uh, which I definitely don’t, definitely don’t do perfectly all the time, um, is to find that balance point.
Because, you know, really what I, what I find exciting about the role that I’m in is it’s very much about being an enabler and a, and a supporter of the growth of, of every individual in the company. Uh, uh, you know, um, a lot of that often is focused for me on the leaders that are, are directly reporting to me, but, but for everybody in the company.
So I gotta be that enabler of growth, which means that I can’t… Growth fundamentally requires mistakes and discomfort and pain and, like, getting it wrong. Um, but that can’t get in the way of the progress that we need to make. So it’s, it’s fin- it’s like the containerization of that, right? Is to find the right degree of being able to allow someone to learn, but in a way that doesn’t disrupt the company.
A- also, I would add to that too the right path of growth, right? So, you know, I think one of the lessons– I’m a first-time founder, right? So I was an acade- I mean, I’ve done all these different things, but I was in an academic before this, so I’ve had to, like- You know, I didn’t go to business school. I’ve had to just kind of learn all this stuff from first principles.
Um, and you know, one of the real tactical things I’ve learned is, boy, it is so important to have a really clear operating model, really clear, you know, sort of job descriptions, role, like real clarity on that for people, especially when you’re doing something like us, which is a new category. There’s not like a blueprint out there for us.
Mm. We don’t know what is… how is a company like ours supposed to be organized? How is it supposed to work? And oh, by the way, we’re evolving constantly, so what was the answer to that question yesterday may not be tomorrow. Yeah. Um, so I think that, like, that’s been a big upgrade and lesson for me is that…
And, and it’s a, it’s actually a good example of where sometimes you can over-tip into like, “Wow, I want everybody to be included, so you tell me what you think your job description means.” Like, boy, that doesn’t work. It’s like folks are like, “No, I, I gotta go do stuff.” Like, and, and I can’t be thinking about how does the whole system…
That’s my job is to think about how does the whole system fit together and integrate and, and how do we learn and get better, you know? And so I think, um, yeah, it’s just, it’s, it’s a really, it’s a really, uh, rich challenge to figure out that balanced middle path. Um- Yeah … you know, and yeah, like I said, like no one’s, no one’s perfect.
Again, I’ll, I’m sure there’ll be multiple times today that I will not do that well. But- … my commitment is, when I get to the end of the day, is to reflect on those and say, “Okay, cool. What did I learn from that?” It will feel uncomfortable. Nobody likes to do things wrong.
Naji Gehchan: Yeah.
Greg Tietjen: But what I’ve learned is, and again this is sort of the metaphor for everything that we’re doing, is there’s truth in that discomfort.
And as long as I can sit with it and listen to it and find it, then tomorrow will be a little bit better, and that’s it. That’s all I’m trying to do is just be a little better tomorrow.
Naji Gehchan: That’s, that’s profound, Greg. Uh, I, I’m gonna give you a word now, and I would love your first reaction to it. Okay. Like what comes to mind when you hear it?
Yeah. So the first one is leadership.
Greg Tietjen: Yeah. Um, stewardship. You know, I, I think, uh, that, that, you know, I love Simon Sinek’s Leaders Eat Last. Uh, I think leadership i- i- is, is being a steward of the, the faith and trust that people put in you to, to take them in the, to, to lead in the right direction and in a way that, that supports their ability to shine and, and to create, be the best versions of themselves, you know?
And I, I think, like, one thing that I try to really hold true, and I, I’m, I’m, I know I’m… I don’t actually think I’m stealing this from Simon Sinek, I heard him say it, but I love it, um, is that I want everybody that, that I lead and that works in this organization, you know, maybe for a short term and maybe for a long time, I want them to be a better version of themselves when they leave, right?
And so to me, that’s like, again, I think stewardship feels like the right word of that, is like for whatever time I have the privilege of, of being a leader for them, I, I need to be a good steward, right? I need to be a good steward of helping them become a better version, and in a way that, that delivers on our mission and the company, uh, delivers on what we’ve promised to others
Naji Gehchan: What about biotech?
Greg Tietjen: Yeah. So, what’s the one word that I have for that? Um, transforming, I think, right? So my initial thought when you say that is biotech to me, and I think to a lot of people, means drugs, right? People that make new drugs. But are we a biotech? I think so. Uh, like, w- we are working in the technology, intersection of technology and sort of biomedicine.
And so I say transforming because I think it doesn’t have to be just companies that make drugs. I think increasingly it can be companies that, that live at the intersection of technology and biomedicine to make the process of developing new medicines better. So, uh, I think we are, we are at a moment in time where there’s, like, a, a cataclysmic change happening in how we think about that process, how value gets created, the economics of it all, the collaboration of it all.
So I think that feel to me feels like it’s, it’s under a major transformation, which I find really exciting.
Naji Gehchan: Guitar.
Greg Tietjen: Hmm. Uh, well, the, the… I’ll just be honest, the word that came to my, my head is joy. Like, and I, and I think it’s that, uh… Yeah, it’s that, like- Mm-hmm … just the, the… I, I, I think I will always find deep joy in getting lost in, in lear- it’s such a beautiful vehicle for learning, and it just-
brings me such joy to be able to do it. And again, I… it’s, like, not always well, but, um, but it’s a beautiful thing because it brings people together and connects, as we say. So yeah, joy is, is what immediately comes from guitar for me. The
Naji Gehchan: last one-
Greg Tietjen: Four fingers would’ve been a close second, but…
Naji Gehchan: Yeah. That’s also true.
Uh, the last one is spread love in organizations.
Greg Tietjen: Hmm. The future, right? So I think- I think a lot about Getting to stand on the shoulders of giants, right? And I mean, of course, we wanna, as a really a technology company first, we wanna understand from the great technology companies that have come before us and that are, you know, still around, Apple, Amazon, you know, Google, um, there’s incredible great lessons to be learned, especially as a founder, to understand how did those folks navigate that journey from beginning to, you know, huge world impact.
But I also think that w- we have to understand that the ways in which they did it and the problems that they were solving are very different than the ones we are today. So for example, you know, figuring out how to, um, create an online marketplace, you know, and take bookstores in- into the internet is a very different problem than how do you create a centralized system for building trust with the people that care for dying people every day versus those that are trying to create new inventions to save them.
The, the complexity of that problem from a technology perspective is really radically different, and it involves a human level of trust and iteration that’s not the same anymore. And so I think that there has to be y- you know, correspondingly an evolution of the culture within organizations, and I’ll, I’ll come back to this notion of if my– if our, as a company, our product is all about increasing the quality of collaboration and trust, I mean, really at the, at the end of the day, that’s what we’re– that’s what our– what– that’s the value we’re seeking to create in a way that would remove friction and create better efficiency.
Um, then the nature of how we build our internal culture for us to be congruous, for us to be coherent, for us to be able to do that well in the world, we have to be able to do it well internally. And so I think a lot of the things that work when you have an individual culture, like so for example, if it’s just a tech culture, cool.
Okay, well, we all speak the same language. We can work in a certain way. We can have a certain culture. Like, that can go. But, but when, when we have multicultural internal organizations and we have multiple dependencies in different worlds, that requires an entirely different skill set. And, you know, going back to the music metaphor, like, we are what we daily practice, right?
And so if we don’t practice how you build those core capabilities as a team every day internally, then we won’t be successful, right? Mm-hmm. And so that’s where I think… And I, and I don’t think that’s unique to healthcare. I, I think that’s, you know, the future of, you know, entrepreneurship and industry is working on problems that are, that are complicated- More complex
and, and require, like, people from different interfaces working well together. And so I think that that fundamentally requires a new type of internal culture that’s really good at metabolizing difference- into greater trust and greater momentum. So that’s why I would say it’s the future. Like every CEO, every leadership team is gonna need to be really good at this stuff, not because it feel good, feels good.
It does, but, but it’s not, it’s strategic. Like you won’t survive if you don’t figure out how to master building trust internally. Because also great employees, where do they wanna go work? It’s not just the places that have the best perks. It’s the place where they’re gonna have the opportunity to grow and thrive and be challenged, but in challenged in ways that, that feel safe and, and, and help them become better versions of themselves.
So I, I really think that this is gonna be, that the, the, the businesses that are gonna become the Apples, Amazons, Googles of the future are gonna be the ones that do this the best
Naji Gehchan: I can’t agree more obviously, Greg, with you on that. A- any final word of wisdom for leaders around the world?
Greg Tietjen: Um, yeah, I, I think what I’ll come back to, um, is the stewardship con- concept, and maybe another one is humility.
Um, you know, I, I think a lot about my journey. I’m from a, you know, I didn’t, I don’t know if I said, but I’m from a very small town in Western Pennsylvania. I grew up, uh, in Bradford. I was born in Pittsburgh originally, but then my folks divorced and I, I grew up in Bradford. Um, and if I think about all of the steps that were from being that kid there, you know, and navigating everything, you know, and some, you know, we all have family stuff and all these things.
So just navigating all of the complexities of going from that small town, raised by a single mom, uh, um, and a wonderful dad too, but didn’t have them together, um, and getting into col- Like, I already gave that whole journey. So if I think about that- It, it isn’t because… Well, the most dominant reason why I was able to get through all of that and where I am is because of a lot of singular moments, and more importantly, singular people, who, for reasons that I still often don’t fully understand, decided to open a door for me or decided to give me a chance, um, when they didn’t have to.
Um, and none of what we’re doing today or whatever would’ve been possible without all of those folks. Um, and one of my mentors, Mark Salzman, said this about, about an experience that, that he had, uh, with his advisor, Bob Langer, about, like, I won’t tell the whole story, but, but the sum of it was to say that as a leader, y- you never know when that one moment, that thing you’re gonna say on a Tuesday afternoon is gonna be that thing that changes the course of the person in front of you’s life.
And, and so I think that requires that notion of stewardship, but also humility to understand that the words that we say and the way that we show up has huge impact. It can change the, the course of not just that individual’s life, but everyone that they’ll touch after, right? So with that potential impact comes a lot of responsibility.
And, and so I think it’s so important to stay humble in that, right? And, and to recognize that, um, it’s not about being perfect in it, but it is about being aware of the responsibility that that kind of potential impact is. And, you know, often in that, I mean, the best leaders I’ve ever had are the ones that are the best at, at admitting the mistakes that they make and just being really honest with you.
Um, and so again, I think it just all comes back to being really grounded in humility, the concepts of stewardship, um, and, and vulnerability. Being willing to not have to be perfect all the time is, to me, the, the right center to start from, uh, and, and being a good leader.
Naji Gehchan: Well, this is a beautiful way to end our conversation.
We can go on and on, uh, Greg, you and I, I know that. And hopefully, uh, we’ll do it again at some point. Yeah. Uh, but thanks so much for being with me today.
Greg Tietjen: Thank you. It was a real pleasure.
Naji Gehchan: Thanks for listening to the show. For more episodes, make sure to subscribe to spreadloveio.com or wherever you listen to your podcasts.
Let’s inspire change together and make a positive impact in healthcare one story at a time.
Naji Gehchan: Thanks for listening to the show! For more episodes, make sure to subscribe to Spreadloveio.com or wherever you listen to your podcasts. Let’s inspire change together and make a positive impact in healthcare, one story at a time.
Follow us on LinkedIn and connect with us on spreadloveio.com. We’re eager to hear your thoughts and feedback. Most importantly, spread love in your organizations and spread the word around you to inspire others and amplify this movement, our world so desperately needs