Question: Given the high turnover of CEOs in recent years as a result of the company's inferior performance and P&G's continued practice to promote company veterans, some argue that P&G's leadership model is broken. Rather than promoting from within, they argue that an outsider might be better positioned to make the necessary changes. Which arguments can be mustered to support sticking with P&G's model to continue promoting from within? Which arguments would support the notion that appointing an outsider as CEO might be advantageous given that P&G has been in a turnaround situation for a number of years now? Where do you come down in the argument?