Yesterday's news that Steve Jobs was stepping aside from Apple and today's announcement that Warren Buffett will invest $5 billion in Bank of America provides business leadership pause of the first order.
First, Jobs. Silicon Valley Icon. Successful entrepreneur. Failed CEO then back to a higher degree of success than ever before -- with the same company he founded. Unarguably the vision behind what may be the most successful suite of consumer products that the world has ever seen. Apple is a business case study of the highest order by any measure. The only possible exception may be the company's governance, or lack of clear succession plan. Then again, in reality, it's impossible to think that Apple's board could replace Jobs with anyone without taking a hit so why not kick the can down the road when everything is going well. Classic short-term vs. long-term thinking, which is another issue not worth going into here.
Now let's turn to the man himself. According to separate first-hand accounts from those who have actually worked with Steve Jobs (note to close readers: One was a Point of View LLC client; the other was someone who had close dealings when Jobs was replaced by John Scully as CEO), Jobs is at best a hard charging, take no prisoners, crush the competition business man. At worst, an asshole, according to first-hand impression.
The question then becomes: Does this type of behavior indicate anything relevant to standing as a business leader? Or are these traits simply what's necessary to be effective at a big business level? For comparison purposes, is there any difference between what Jobs demonstrated in one-on-one dealings to create great products vs. what Gen. George Patton (played brilliantly by George C. Scott in "Patton") modeled during World War II?
Oracle of Omaha comes to the rescue again
Buffett's investment in Bank of America Corp. essentially rescues an equity headed into the ditch following questions about the bank's capital reserves. The $5 billion investment, which comes with a guaranteed six percent return, also recalls a scarier time back when the market crashed in 2008 and the Oracle of Omaha came to the side of Goldman Sachs, which at the time was the country's largest still standing investment bank (if those distinctions matter anymore.)
Now, three years later, this gesture is viewed as absolutely necessary in the era of Too Big to Fail or negative reminder of how little banking has progressed since TARP bailouts. The Buffett brand remains directly positioned in the mix.
As a long-time observer and admirer, I'm slowly arriving at a different place when it comes to Warren Buffett's standing as a brand-name leader. It started back when his memoirs were published in 2008, and the Wall Street Journal reported that Buffett opposed some of what eventually was revealed with his own approval. This isn't uncommon but it still created a new perception. Buffett also been very vocal and publicly visible on CNBC almost to the point of calling into question when is it enough? When President Obama sought public approval to help reach a deal that eventually led to the nation's debt being downgraded, he called on Buffett and then proceeded to broadcast to the world what "my friend, Warren Buffett" had said. So much for confidential decorum.
There's a underlying nagging question out of all of this and that is...Do we need to see and hear from our leaders as much as we do now in the 24-7 news culture? Doesn't that take away a certain amount of gravitas or perceived credibility? Has the public/private disclosure balance been forever imbalanced?
Please let us know what you think sometime about these questions in the context of effective leadership. Always reaching for a different view to help sharpen our own. Thanks for reading,
JG
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Lost dignity of work
The oldest employment rule in the book is it's better to have a job when looking for another job. No one can argue that truth except of course if you're someone who needs to close one door to open another or you're stuck in the crosswinds of structural change.
Fast forward to the present or wake of the Great Recession. Employers are taking the current employment rule to the streets, according to today's New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/business/help-wanted-ads-exclude-the-long-term-jobless.html?ref=business
While not hiring the long-term unemployed is understandable from the employer point of view, especially the point about incompetence, there's something fundamentally wrong about denying someone work simply because he or she doesn't have a current job. This slope started with the advent of credit checks to deny applicants work.
Try going a little deeper here or beyond the surface of basic dollars and cents. Those who haven't worked for a long time generally need or want to even if they have to depend on public assistance. To be denied this desire can lead to mental or emotional problems. Or the loss of basic dignity.
It would serve large employers and their leaders well to evaluate whether the value called the dignity of work still exists in their workplace. Chances are if it doesn't exists then it becomes easier for HR folks and lawyers to list current employment as an essential for consideration.
Let us never forget that there are human beings behind these laws and rules even though it's difficult to recognize at times. Is the dignity of work a leadership responsibility?
Fast forward to the present or wake of the Great Recession. Employers are taking the current employment rule to the streets, according to today's New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/business/help-wanted-ads-exclude-the-long-term-jobless.html?ref=business
While not hiring the long-term unemployed is understandable from the employer point of view, especially the point about incompetence, there's something fundamentally wrong about denying someone work simply because he or she doesn't have a current job. This slope started with the advent of credit checks to deny applicants work.
Try going a little deeper here or beyond the surface of basic dollars and cents. Those who haven't worked for a long time generally need or want to even if they have to depend on public assistance. To be denied this desire can lead to mental or emotional problems. Or the loss of basic dignity.
It would serve large employers and their leaders well to evaluate whether the value called the dignity of work still exists in their workplace. Chances are if it doesn't exists then it becomes easier for HR folks and lawyers to list current employment as an essential for consideration.
Let us never forget that there are human beings behind these laws and rules even though it's difficult to recognize at times. Is the dignity of work a leadership responsibility?
# # #
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Just do something, please (Part II)
While the last TGR post laid out fallacies of taking a macro-approach to the jobs issue, this installment speaks to why it's nearly impossible to find actionable common sense among leaders in the public square. Following is an anecdote to help explain the case.
A client and friend runs a small business in Decatur, GA. It's a 25+-table restaurant that's been extremely successful for more than 15 years. Family owned and operated, this business represents what traditionally has defined the American Dream. Man/wife find local niche, decide to take risk and then establish customer base highly loyal to the niche. Pricing premium serves as no obstacle due to high quality product and delivery rewarded by customers willing to pay again and again.
This isn't to say that managing the business has been a bowl of cherries. Between trying to remain cash flow positive to keeping uninsured employees from walking out the door, the challenge is palpable -- hourly, daily and weekly. The basic difficulties, combined with personal physical toll, create complexity that the conventional "9 to 5" worker never experiences. Anyone out of the roughly 50 million independent small business or "free agent" workers who own their own companies in the United States is familiar with similar difficulty.
To compound the situation, no special interest or lobby has my friend's back. Plenty of organizations, such as local chambers of commerce and the Small Business Administration (SBA) pay lip service to the plight of small business. At least one political party likes to wax on about how small business creates 70 percent of the nation's jobs. Yet very little empirical evidence ever makes a difference when stacked against a system that's rigged to reward big business, big labor and big government. This reality is showing no signs of hope and change anytime soon. No one currently in the presidential race has the credibility to stand up for small business despite what they may be spinning.
It wasn't always this way. Our nation's founding fathers all worked "in the fields" so to speak. Necessity was the mother of invention. Jefferson and Franklin were land owners who invented everything from the dumb waiters to plows, bifocals, stoves and clocks. Going back to post-World War II, some veterans returned to start general stores, many of which were given rise out of debilitating injuries or chronic illness. The modern day version of this type of entrepreneurship is absent or mediated to appear like it only exists on-line in the technology sector. Today's military veteran returns home with very few benefits, if any, and very little chance at starting a business due to lack of financing and exorbitant costs. There's something fundamentally wrong with this picture -- one that's distorted even more by negative profiles of people outside of large cities depicted as simple minded and intolerant. Recall Joe the Plumber from the 2008 election before the ensuing publicity circus.
Doing something in this context means removing more obstacles for Mom and Pop, identifying with their cause and standing up to take the (country) economy back. This isn't to suggest ignoring the global marketplace; it's more about getting down to the local core where many have re-congregated. That's leadership defined. Too bad no one with the pulpit seems able to make a difference at this level. Herein lies the key to unlocking value and more domestic job creation; not continuing to move the chairs around on the big business tax cut/debt Titanic. Good day,
JG
A client and friend runs a small business in Decatur, GA. It's a 25+-table restaurant that's been extremely successful for more than 15 years. Family owned and operated, this business represents what traditionally has defined the American Dream. Man/wife find local niche, decide to take risk and then establish customer base highly loyal to the niche. Pricing premium serves as no obstacle due to high quality product and delivery rewarded by customers willing to pay again and again.
This isn't to say that managing the business has been a bowl of cherries. Between trying to remain cash flow positive to keeping uninsured employees from walking out the door, the challenge is palpable -- hourly, daily and weekly. The basic difficulties, combined with personal physical toll, create complexity that the conventional "9 to 5" worker never experiences. Anyone out of the roughly 50 million independent small business or "free agent" workers who own their own companies in the United States is familiar with similar difficulty.
To compound the situation, no special interest or lobby has my friend's back. Plenty of organizations, such as local chambers of commerce and the Small Business Administration (SBA) pay lip service to the plight of small business. At least one political party likes to wax on about how small business creates 70 percent of the nation's jobs. Yet very little empirical evidence ever makes a difference when stacked against a system that's rigged to reward big business, big labor and big government. This reality is showing no signs of hope and change anytime soon. No one currently in the presidential race has the credibility to stand up for small business despite what they may be spinning.
It wasn't always this way. Our nation's founding fathers all worked "in the fields" so to speak. Necessity was the mother of invention. Jefferson and Franklin were land owners who invented everything from the dumb waiters to plows, bifocals, stoves and clocks. Going back to post-World War II, some veterans returned to start general stores, many of which were given rise out of debilitating injuries or chronic illness. The modern day version of this type of entrepreneurship is absent or mediated to appear like it only exists on-line in the technology sector. Today's military veteran returns home with very few benefits, if any, and very little chance at starting a business due to lack of financing and exorbitant costs. There's something fundamentally wrong with this picture -- one that's distorted even more by negative profiles of people outside of large cities depicted as simple minded and intolerant. Recall Joe the Plumber from the 2008 election before the ensuing publicity circus.
Doing something in this context means removing more obstacles for Mom and Pop, identifying with their cause and standing up to take the (country) economy back. This isn't to suggest ignoring the global marketplace; it's more about getting down to the local core where many have re-congregated. That's leadership defined. Too bad no one with the pulpit seems able to make a difference at this level. Herein lies the key to unlocking value and more domestic job creation; not continuing to move the chairs around on the big business tax cut/debt Titanic. Good day,
JG
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Niche bloggers normally bask in obscurity, flourishing in the weeds as they wait to pounce on gaps or scoops otherwise not covered by mainstream media. Until of course they're recognized. Here's our own latest example via blog aggregator/evaluator, The Daily Reviewer. See link for more background: http://thedailyreviewer.com/blog/11830. TGR appears on page five (5.)
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Politics vs. performance
One of the nagging headaches with commenting on issues perceived as public policy is how so few are willing to discern substance vs. partisan viewpoint. It nearly always takes gravitas not to sound shrill these days, present company included. This is why reading over today's latest opine from Bill George provides pause. George is arguably the nation's leading "in the lab" expert on business leadership. Not only has he run and led a successful company, Medtronic, George has captured the experience via teachable content approaching on par with Peter Drucker. (Pity those who have to Google Drucker to be informed.)
Here's hoping TGR readers did not miss this substantive call for action from today's DealBook, New York Times: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/obamas-choice-on-jobs-politics-or-policy/?ref=business
Here's hoping TGR readers did not miss this substantive call for action from today's DealBook, New York Times: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/obamas-choice-on-jobs-politics-or-policy/?ref=business
# # #
Friday, June 17, 2011
Just do something
When it comes to jobs, has there ever been a time when so few leaders seem able to address much less solve an issue?
Exhibit A is whatever the President's Jobs and Competitiveness Council (JACC or JACK?) is trying to accomplish with their new publicity push, which was kicked off with a media blitz earlier this week. Here's a WSJ op-ed that spells out the perceived mandate: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576380323311523538.html
For those left scratching heads on how the Council formed, consider a refresher course. President Obama appointed General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt in January to head a lofty group whose mandate is to to generate more domestic jobs -- as in work for those in this country vs. everywhere else in the world. That leaves five months from formation to current frame. Hold that thought for later in the post.
Immelt's appointment was widely hailed despite the fact that as CEO of General Electric he has overseen one of the largest destructions of shareholder value in the company's history. Not to mention the additional fact that at the time of Immelt's appointment the company seemed unwilling to admit that they had failed to generate any high paying jobs in this country since the Jack Welch era. Efforts to contact the company directly for comment would be made with more vigor if there were assurance it would yield revelation beyond their standard line about operating as a global company.
Immelt has since teamed up with fellow smooth sailor American Express CEO Ken Chenault to address the situation. Following are some interpretative highlights of their recommendations. (You will need to read the previous WSJ piece to understand the takeaways.)
1.) Process isn't the product. "Ninety-day recommendations" proceeded by more "strategic actions" over the next 90 days translates into a lot of nothing for six months. Combine the lag between official appointments and final recommendations and we may have nearly a year of inaction during a period when economic recovery indicators have softened. Unfortunately those who occupy rarefied leadership air stumble around according to these frames all the time while Main Street burns. Those of us who actually have to work every day know that life doesn't allow extended strategic review. It requires actually doing something. Pity the rafts of PR staff and executive assistants who have to endure this nonsense.
2.) Flawed content. Specific content contained in the recommendations doesn't inspire a lot of hope in something new and better emerging to replace the old hinges. "Rehire more construction workers" and "boost jobs in travel and tourism" sounds like a pre-Digital Age prescription from the Carter or Reagan administration. If the Council and Obama administration are serious about more employment in the construction sector, where's a renewed public/private sector call for a Manhattan project to rebuild national infrastructure? (originally called for by former NYT columnist Bob Herbert.) Or has stimulus money from the Economic Recovery Act already run out? As to tourism jobs, does this mean turn the country into a big Disney World so more will come and spend their higher valued currency? Someone needs to go interview retailers in southern Maine about what they think about French Canadians from Quebec who invade every summer. That might actually yield some better ideas, or at the very least, dislodge tin ear wax at the 50,000-foot leadership level.
3.) Divide extends even further. Combine 1.) and 2.) with lack of entrepreneurial friendly focus, i.e., "hey guys, did anyone mention trying to start or build something new vs. masking the old via 'innovation?'" and you've got more of what got us into this mess. Status quo thinking from those who have felt zero personal pain in the Great Recession. Which in turn has yielded very little if any forward progress. Granted the economy has been on its ass for a few years but still. Left wing NYT columnist Paul Krugman calls the disconnect a "top down disaster," and more recently has compared the current climate to "rule by rentiers," http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/10/opinion/10krugman.html?ref=paulkrugman, which refers to special interests that reign supreme by pacifying the asset rich vs. serving common Joe and Jane. This is the most glaring issue that the current administration and none of the Republican candidates for president seem able to tackle. It spreads into most sectors, including big banks, which seem immune to change and forever determined to rig the system to their own benefit at the expense of fixing anything, such as the housing mess. Until the disconnect between the have mores and have nots is restored with something of meaningful value, Nighttime in America will remain present for the foreseeable future. That's a damn shame. We're better than this -- or at least better than what our leaders are supposedly doing to lead. Good day,
JG
Editorial note: Despite named subjects, this is not a political message. It's a call for more common sense that must exist somewhere but doesn't seem to make its way to the highest levels of perceived power.
# # #
Exhibit A is whatever the President's Jobs and Competitiveness Council (JACC or JACK?) is trying to accomplish with their new publicity push, which was kicked off with a media blitz earlier this week. Here's a WSJ op-ed that spells out the perceived mandate: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576380323311523538.html
For those left scratching heads on how the Council formed, consider a refresher course. President Obama appointed General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt in January to head a lofty group whose mandate is to to generate more domestic jobs -- as in work for those in this country vs. everywhere else in the world. That leaves five months from formation to current frame. Hold that thought for later in the post.
Immelt's appointment was widely hailed despite the fact that as CEO of General Electric he has overseen one of the largest destructions of shareholder value in the company's history. Not to mention the additional fact that at the time of Immelt's appointment the company seemed unwilling to admit that they had failed to generate any high paying jobs in this country since the Jack Welch era. Efforts to contact the company directly for comment would be made with more vigor if there were assurance it would yield revelation beyond their standard line about operating as a global company.
Immelt has since teamed up with fellow smooth sailor American Express CEO Ken Chenault to address the situation. Following are some interpretative highlights of their recommendations. (You will need to read the previous WSJ piece to understand the takeaways.)
1.) Process isn't the product. "Ninety-day recommendations" proceeded by more "strategic actions" over the next 90 days translates into a lot of nothing for six months. Combine the lag between official appointments and final recommendations and we may have nearly a year of inaction during a period when economic recovery indicators have softened. Unfortunately those who occupy rarefied leadership air stumble around according to these frames all the time while Main Street burns. Those of us who actually have to work every day know that life doesn't allow extended strategic review. It requires actually doing something. Pity the rafts of PR staff and executive assistants who have to endure this nonsense.
2.) Flawed content. Specific content contained in the recommendations doesn't inspire a lot of hope in something new and better emerging to replace the old hinges. "Rehire more construction workers" and "boost jobs in travel and tourism" sounds like a pre-Digital Age prescription from the Carter or Reagan administration. If the Council and Obama administration are serious about more employment in the construction sector, where's a renewed public/private sector call for a Manhattan project to rebuild national infrastructure? (originally called for by former NYT columnist Bob Herbert.) Or has stimulus money from the Economic Recovery Act already run out? As to tourism jobs, does this mean turn the country into a big Disney World so more will come and spend their higher valued currency? Someone needs to go interview retailers in southern Maine about what they think about French Canadians from Quebec who invade every summer. That might actually yield some better ideas, or at the very least, dislodge tin ear wax at the 50,000-foot leadership level.
3.) Divide extends even further. Combine 1.) and 2.) with lack of entrepreneurial friendly focus, i.e., "hey guys, did anyone mention trying to start or build something new vs. masking the old via 'innovation?'" and you've got more of what got us into this mess. Status quo thinking from those who have felt zero personal pain in the Great Recession. Which in turn has yielded very little if any forward progress. Granted the economy has been on its ass for a few years but still. Left wing NYT columnist Paul Krugman calls the disconnect a "top down disaster," and more recently has compared the current climate to "rule by rentiers," http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/10/opinion/10krugman.html?ref=paulkrugman, which refers to special interests that reign supreme by pacifying the asset rich vs. serving common Joe and Jane. This is the most glaring issue that the current administration and none of the Republican candidates for president seem able to tackle. It spreads into most sectors, including big banks, which seem immune to change and forever determined to rig the system to their own benefit at the expense of fixing anything, such as the housing mess. Until the disconnect between the have mores and have nots is restored with something of meaningful value, Nighttime in America will remain present for the foreseeable future. That's a damn shame. We're better than this -- or at least better than what our leaders are supposedly doing to lead. Good day,
JG
Editorial note: Despite named subjects, this is not a political message. It's a call for more common sense that must exist somewhere but doesn't seem to make its way to the highest levels of perceived power.
# # #
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Rare display
From the New York Times (April 26, 2011:) Sports Tuesday
BEHIND THE DECISION
'The public interest represented by the fans of professional football -- who have a strong investment in the 2011 season -- is an intangible interest that weighs against the lockout.'
-- U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson
Leave it to a judge in a labor dispute to give life to a dying cause: The public interest. The above quote leapt off the page the other day mainly because the value is so seemingly fleeting in leadership circles. Whether one side or the other "wins" in the NFL lockout case is beside the point. For a shining moment, the fans' interest was represented in full glory. Other spheres should take note.
BEHIND THE DECISION
'The public interest represented by the fans of professional football -- who have a strong investment in the 2011 season -- is an intangible interest that weighs against the lockout.'
-- U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson
Leave it to a judge in a labor dispute to give life to a dying cause: The public interest. The above quote leapt off the page the other day mainly because the value is so seemingly fleeting in leadership circles. Whether one side or the other "wins" in the NFL lockout case is beside the point. For a shining moment, the fans' interest was represented in full glory. Other spheres should take note.
# # #
Monday, March 14, 2011
Quote of the year
Intellectual honesty can be difficult to find sometimes when an executive speaks on the public record. In the case of Exxon's Chairman and CEO, Rex Tillerson, honesty last week in the Wall Street Journal ("Exxon tilts to oil again," March 10, 2011) came through with blunt candor. The context was a story describing how when most oil companies are diversifying exploration efforts Exxon has decided to focus on their bread and butter. Here's the quote:
...Rex Tillerson, Exxon's chairman and chief executive, said the company doesn't have a specific preference for producing oil or gas. "There is no bias for us one way or the other. Our bias is to make money."
During a time when big business enjoys low approval, this quote is refreshingly clear. Critics can cry all they want about means to an end in Exxon's case but at least shareholders know job number one. Thanks mainly to a leader who doesn't mince words.
...Rex Tillerson, Exxon's chairman and chief executive, said the company doesn't have a specific preference for producing oil or gas. "There is no bias for us one way or the other. Our bias is to make money."
During a time when big business enjoys low approval, this quote is refreshingly clear. Critics can cry all they want about means to an end in Exxon's case but at least shareholders know job number one. Thanks mainly to a leader who doesn't mince words.
# # #
Wednesday, February 09, 2011
Welcome to new normal transparency
Are you and your leadership position standing on a "burning platform?" Nokia CEO Stephen Elop has posed that question internally to employees in the following memo published this morning by the Wall Street Journal: http://blogs.wsj.com/tech-europe/2011/02/09/full-text-nokia-ceo-stephen-elops-burning-platform-memo/. It lays out a ringing indictment for why the company needs to transform due to an untenable market position. More significantly, it shows how the lines of communication and disclosure have now permanently blurred. "Public" is every time you hit the send button. Ignore this reality at your peril. Or in Nokia's case, to a future potential market advantage.
# # #
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Founder's syndrome at Apple
This blogger that could would like to point to a previous post on Apple succession originally published back in January 2009. Here's an excerpt:
...It's a little better in iPod land from a performance point of view. But not necessarily at the board level. Apple has been forced out publicly recently with the hormone imbalance admission by Steve Jobs, which hardly quelled speculation that he will need to be replaced. For a board filled with high powered names such as Gore, Wexler, Jung and Schmidt, Apple's slate leaves a lot to be desired in the area of succession, which is arguably a board's first or second largest responsibility. Yes, we know Jobs is an icon and only he (or God) will decide his ultimate fate. But that doesn't negate a stronger need to show investors what the post-Jobs era will resemble. For every day that they obfuscate this issue, the board loses credibility and founder's syndrome takes deeper hold...
Bottom line: Apple is Steve Jobs; Steve Jobs is Apple. The personal and business/product brands are one. The company is a dramatically successful commercial enterprise, which tends to render the governance argument moot. That is until something happens to the brand, which in Jobs case, is an extended illness that everyone has known about for years. Why the board wouldn't take steps to reduce dependency on Jobs speaks volumes on where business is right now in the new New Normal.
Oh, and if you're wondering what we mean by Founder's Syndrome, then please review the attached link sometime: http://startitup.indieword.com/view/curing-the-founders.
Thank you,
JG
...It's a little better in iPod land from a performance point of view. But not necessarily at the board level. Apple has been forced out publicly recently with the hormone imbalance admission by Steve Jobs, which hardly quelled speculation that he will need to be replaced. For a board filled with high powered names such as Gore, Wexler, Jung and Schmidt, Apple's slate leaves a lot to be desired in the area of succession, which is arguably a board's first or second largest responsibility. Yes, we know Jobs is an icon and only he (or God) will decide his ultimate fate. But that doesn't negate a stronger need to show investors what the post-Jobs era will resemble. For every day that they obfuscate this issue, the board loses credibility and founder's syndrome takes deeper hold...
Bottom line: Apple is Steve Jobs; Steve Jobs is Apple. The personal and business/product brands are one. The company is a dramatically successful commercial enterprise, which tends to render the governance argument moot. That is until something happens to the brand, which in Jobs case, is an extended illness that everyone has known about for years. Why the board wouldn't take steps to reduce dependency on Jobs speaks volumes on where business is right now in the new New Normal.
Oh, and if you're wondering what we mean by Founder's Syndrome, then please review the attached link sometime: http://startitup.indieword.com/view/curing-the-founders.
Thank you,
JG
# # #
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Where will the next set of CEO shoes drop?
The New Year is barely two cold weeks old, and already, brand name CEO changes have been occurring at a rapid clip. Newell Rubbermaid, NPR, Fox Networks, fallout from AMD. Name it to claim it.
The flurry of activity underscores a trend that started last fall: Turnover reflects companies need to change from a low to zero growth climate to a more aggressive posture in a slowly improving marketplace. Leadership tends to fall at the top of the change list, proving once again the chicken and egg battle facing boards. Do we need a star performer to create a winning strategy, or do we need better systems, process and culture/people to ensure sustainable performance? The answer is both but unfortunately far too many remain enamored with the savior mentality. We'll keep watching for exceptions to this conventional rule and will ask you do the same here.
Here's a prediction: After several years of declining turnover, this year will see more executive exodus than the previous two combined. Of course we said the same thing when the Great Recession was gathering steam back in 2009 and nothing really changed. Many boards decided the devil they know was better than the devil they didn't know. Guess that's how predictions go sometime. Some stick, others fail -- proving once again that trying to determine a new new normal future is a lesson in futility. It might just be better to enjoy the moment?
The flurry of activity underscores a trend that started last fall: Turnover reflects companies need to change from a low to zero growth climate to a more aggressive posture in a slowly improving marketplace. Leadership tends to fall at the top of the change list, proving once again the chicken and egg battle facing boards. Do we need a star performer to create a winning strategy, or do we need better systems, process and culture/people to ensure sustainable performance? The answer is both but unfortunately far too many remain enamored with the savior mentality. We'll keep watching for exceptions to this conventional rule and will ask you do the same here.
Here's a prediction: After several years of declining turnover, this year will see more executive exodus than the previous two combined. Of course we said the same thing when the Great Recession was gathering steam back in 2009 and nothing really changed. Many boards decided the devil they know was better than the devil they didn't know. Guess that's how predictions go sometime. Some stick, others fail -- proving once again that trying to determine a new new normal future is a lesson in futility. It might just be better to enjoy the moment?
# # #
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Beneath noise lies fundamental truth
Change is extremely difficult and damn near impossible without new systems, behaviors and people.
That's the takeaway on today's mid-term election. While the pundits and strategists argue ad nausea about who is going to win what, it would help to take a step back and understand this situation from a leadership perspective.
With all due respect to a good friend, what President Obama and the Democratic party's congressional majority face is not a communications issue. Or at least not fundamentally. More to the point it's a failure to answer the will of the people. The Great Recession has produced the most economic destruction since the Great Depression. Yet what was the first major initiative of the new administration and Congress? Stimulus in the form of government money, which as many Joe Q. citizens know, comes with at least a 5:1 ratio of cost vs. return. Translated dollar for dollar that means that for every dollar given back through the taxpayer it costs five more for the government to deliver basic product or service. The defensive argument that doing so helped save jobs that otherwise would have been lost just doesn't pan out in a capitalistic economic system. Never has, never will. The opposition's argument that stimulus has created crippling debt burdens isn't intellectually honest either. But that's another story and one best left to Paul Krugman at the New York Times.
Against this backdrop of both opinion and fact, we have had to witness the bailouts of banks, insurance and car companies too big to fail, which again while stemming red ink, galvanized public opinion. When people are losing their jobs and homes and they see big business being rewarded despite abject failure, isn't it normal to expect someone to deliver something back to them? To borrow a favorite phrase from another unpopular former president, that's just common sensical. Then came health care reform, which arguably is the most consequential piece of legislation since the Civil Rights Act. Yet most of what's contained in the new law either doesn't kick in right away, or worse yet, is unexplainable at a pedestrian level.
Here is what the current narrative boils down to. Our political leaders are failing us, but it's not entirely their fault (although they deserve the blame.) The system is broken. It's divided, dysfunctional, too big to fail and riddled with special interest, which only seems to grow during a time when it needs to be stomped out at the largest levels. Until someone with leadership chops and the will of the people can improve those two areas, nothing is going to change. The how is always dramatically more difficult than the what, where and when.
President Obama has all the personal leadership capability in the world, but until he finds a way to address and work like Hell to fix the system, his tenure will be marred by What Ifs. To suggest, just as his predecessor did, that it's impossible to manage a successful modern day presidency goes beyond the pale of passing the buck.
From a personal POV, it's been disappointing to watch how President Obama interpreted the original leadership mandate. See an earlier post from back in late 2007: http://povblogger.blogspot.com/2008/11/sailing-against-headwinds.html Such hope and promise only to be dashed by more of the same. What we have now is not Change We Can Believe in. It's more Change that Hasn't Happened yet. Or as John Stewart so appropriately asked in last week's interview: Are we still the people that we're waiting for? Too funny (For text enthusiasts, LOL or its lower case version, lol, which means not as funny.)
Here's hoping that the ship's course can be righted and the private sector economy continues to improve. To re-brand another old phrase: It's the Economy, Smarty!
###
That's the takeaway on today's mid-term election. While the pundits and strategists argue ad nausea about who is going to win what, it would help to take a step back and understand this situation from a leadership perspective.
With all due respect to a good friend, what President Obama and the Democratic party's congressional majority face is not a communications issue. Or at least not fundamentally. More to the point it's a failure to answer the will of the people. The Great Recession has produced the most economic destruction since the Great Depression. Yet what was the first major initiative of the new administration and Congress? Stimulus in the form of government money, which as many Joe Q. citizens know, comes with at least a 5:1 ratio of cost vs. return. Translated dollar for dollar that means that for every dollar given back through the taxpayer it costs five more for the government to deliver basic product or service. The defensive argument that doing so helped save jobs that otherwise would have been lost just doesn't pan out in a capitalistic economic system. Never has, never will. The opposition's argument that stimulus has created crippling debt burdens isn't intellectually honest either. But that's another story and one best left to Paul Krugman at the New York Times.
Against this backdrop of both opinion and fact, we have had to witness the bailouts of banks, insurance and car companies too big to fail, which again while stemming red ink, galvanized public opinion. When people are losing their jobs and homes and they see big business being rewarded despite abject failure, isn't it normal to expect someone to deliver something back to them? To borrow a favorite phrase from another unpopular former president, that's just common sensical. Then came health care reform, which arguably is the most consequential piece of legislation since the Civil Rights Act. Yet most of what's contained in the new law either doesn't kick in right away, or worse yet, is unexplainable at a pedestrian level.
Here is what the current narrative boils down to. Our political leaders are failing us, but it's not entirely their fault (although they deserve the blame.) The system is broken. It's divided, dysfunctional, too big to fail and riddled with special interest, which only seems to grow during a time when it needs to be stomped out at the largest levels. Until someone with leadership chops and the will of the people can improve those two areas, nothing is going to change. The how is always dramatically more difficult than the what, where and when.
President Obama has all the personal leadership capability in the world, but until he finds a way to address and work like Hell to fix the system, his tenure will be marred by What Ifs. To suggest, just as his predecessor did, that it's impossible to manage a successful modern day presidency goes beyond the pale of passing the buck.
From a personal POV, it's been disappointing to watch how President Obama interpreted the original leadership mandate. See an earlier post from back in late 2007: http://povblogger.blogspot.com/2008/11/sailing-against-headwinds.html Such hope and promise only to be dashed by more of the same. What we have now is not Change We Can Believe in. It's more Change that Hasn't Happened yet. Or as John Stewart so appropriately asked in last week's interview: Are we still the people that we're waiting for? Too funny (For text enthusiasts, LOL or its lower case version, lol, which means not as funny.)
Here's hoping that the ship's course can be righted and the private sector economy continues to improve. To re-brand another old phrase: It's the Economy, Smarty!
###
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
Brand name turnover reaches new heights
Don't look now but brand name CEO and executive-level turnover is rolling like rapids down a river.
Pick your stat. from an industry tracker, or for simplicity's sake, go to the WSJ's Management page for a full run-down: http://online.wsj.com/public/page/management.html.
Just within the past few weeks, new CEOs or plans to have new CEOs have been unveiled at Twitter, Skype, H-P, Nokia, Rolls Royce and Campbell Soup. Other companies experiencing high-level turnover include Comcast, HSBC, MTV, Yahoo and Tesco.
Turnover at an elite level exceeds last year's rate, which was essentially flat based on economic conditions.
So what does this all mean? Well, for starters, consider these moves a sign that the market is slowly turning to more growth vs. contraction. While this isn't true across all sectors and the pain from the recession continues to impact the consumer, executive hiring tends to be a leading indicator within the overall jobs category, which tends to lag other indicators.
This activity will portend more deal making in the coming months, which is confirmed through M&A stats predicting 4Q to be a more active quarter. According to a nationwide report by mergermarket and Merrill DataSite, there were 1,701 deals totaling $326 billion during the first half of 2010. That is a 9 percent increase from the same period in 2009 (source: Atlanta Business Chronicle.)
New executive hires also mean more re-organizations since that's what new CEOs generally do to build their power base. That will lead to more shedding of jobs in some cases. It also will probably lead to additional strategic hires, a New Normal phrase that describes pockets of hiring vs. the across the board job creation.
The $600 million question (or gorilla in the room depending on your POV) is whether companies, flush with nearly $2 trillion in cash by some estimates, will take the leap and do more hiring in 2011? With profits up 38 percent among the S&P 500 (source: Wall Street Journal), there clearly is enough cash to invest in more workers. The market, however, needs more certainty vs. uncertainty to feel like the risk is worth the reward.
Having said all that, what do you think? Are CEOs and other executive-level leaders too risk averse right now? What's it going to take to get growth really moving in 1Q 2011? The TGR welcomes your comments and feedback. Thanks for reading,
JG
Pick your stat. from an industry tracker, or for simplicity's sake, go to the WSJ's Management page for a full run-down: http://online.wsj.com/public/page/management.html.
Just within the past few weeks, new CEOs or plans to have new CEOs have been unveiled at Twitter, Skype, H-P, Nokia, Rolls Royce and Campbell Soup. Other companies experiencing high-level turnover include Comcast, HSBC, MTV, Yahoo and Tesco.
Turnover at an elite level exceeds last year's rate, which was essentially flat based on economic conditions.
So what does this all mean? Well, for starters, consider these moves a sign that the market is slowly turning to more growth vs. contraction. While this isn't true across all sectors and the pain from the recession continues to impact the consumer, executive hiring tends to be a leading indicator within the overall jobs category, which tends to lag other indicators.
This activity will portend more deal making in the coming months, which is confirmed through M&A stats predicting 4Q to be a more active quarter. According to a nationwide report by mergermarket and Merrill DataSite, there were 1,701 deals totaling $326 billion during the first half of 2010. That is a 9 percent increase from the same period in 2009 (source: Atlanta Business Chronicle.)
New executive hires also mean more re-organizations since that's what new CEOs generally do to build their power base. That will lead to more shedding of jobs in some cases. It also will probably lead to additional strategic hires, a New Normal phrase that describes pockets of hiring vs. the across the board job creation.
The $600 million question (or gorilla in the room depending on your POV) is whether companies, flush with nearly $2 trillion in cash by some estimates, will take the leap and do more hiring in 2011? With profits up 38 percent among the S&P 500 (source: Wall Street Journal), there clearly is enough cash to invest in more workers. The market, however, needs more certainty vs. uncertainty to feel like the risk is worth the reward.
Having said all that, what do you think? Are CEOs and other executive-level leaders too risk averse right now? What's it going to take to get growth really moving in 1Q 2011? The TGR welcomes your comments and feedback. Thanks for reading,
JG
Thursday, September 30, 2010
H-P Way near dead thanks to inept board
Today's announcement that an outsider without a current job will serve as CEO of Hewlett Packard officially brings the H-P Way to its final wake.
According to executive recruiters familiar with the situation, internal candidates who were glossed over for the top job are stronger than the new incoming CEO, Leo Apotheker. Choosing an outsider will only alienate the culture more, which regrettably has now been torn apart by a scared board of directors that desperately needs an overhaul.
The only silver lining to today's events is the fact that former Oracle executive and highly regarded venture capitalist Ray Lane will now serve as non-executive chairman. That's a coup for a company who used to have one of the strongest cultures in corporate America.
Now, unfortunately, that era is over. All in one badly intended decision to begin anew following a sequence of incompetence and ineptitude at the highest levels, earning distinction by the New York Times as the Most Inept Board in America: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/business/11nocera.html?ref=hewlett_packard_corporation&pagewanted=all .
Turn the volume down and you can probably hear the employee groans from inside H-P. There once was a time when that sentiment mattered. That time has now permanently passed. What a tragedy.
According to executive recruiters familiar with the situation, internal candidates who were glossed over for the top job are stronger than the new incoming CEO, Leo Apotheker. Choosing an outsider will only alienate the culture more, which regrettably has now been torn apart by a scared board of directors that desperately needs an overhaul.
The only silver lining to today's events is the fact that former Oracle executive and highly regarded venture capitalist Ray Lane will now serve as non-executive chairman. That's a coup for a company who used to have one of the strongest cultures in corporate America.
Now, unfortunately, that era is over. All in one badly intended decision to begin anew following a sequence of incompetence and ineptitude at the highest levels, earning distinction by the New York Times as the Most Inept Board in America: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/business/11nocera.html?ref=hewlett_packard_corporation&pagewanted=all .
Turn the volume down and you can probably hear the employee groans from inside H-P. There once was a time when that sentiment mattered. That time has now permanently passed. What a tragedy.
# # #
Monday, August 30, 2010
'Calmer-in-chief': My language, not theirs
Range of response to publicity never ceases to amaze. Earlier a friend suggested that "I wrote the AJC story." Uh, no, I contributed to the story, which the reporter wrote. Here's a link in case by some small electronic media chance you missed it: http://www.ajc.com/business/blake-is-home-depots-602558.html. And yes, the term "calmer-in-chief" was created precisely for this story (although admittedly we all have read that language before to describe U.S. presidents. Ok well, some of us have.)
There's something larger going on here beyond media foibles. A rapid fire tendency to offer opinion now permeates everything. We're all experts and the media doesn't know anything that we don't already know ourselves. This may be true in some cases, but for the most part, it's a dangerous place to be.
I couldn't have written the Frank Blake CEO story better mainly because I'm not objective nor am I compensated to write feature articles. That's a big difference in consultant/blogging land.
Which brings me back to the beginning: We need deeper feature writing to understand all the rapid fire going on around us. There will always be a market for perspective. Question is who is willing to pay for the need and where do those dollars travel to? Big brand media names? Niches? Bloggers? Twitterers? No one knows.
There's something larger going on here beyond media foibles. A rapid fire tendency to offer opinion now permeates everything. We're all experts and the media doesn't know anything that we don't already know ourselves. This may be true in some cases, but for the most part, it's a dangerous place to be.
I couldn't have written the Frank Blake CEO story better mainly because I'm not objective nor am I compensated to write feature articles. That's a big difference in consultant/blogging land.
Which brings me back to the beginning: We need deeper feature writing to understand all the rapid fire going on around us. There will always be a market for perspective. Question is who is willing to pay for the need and where do those dollars travel to? Big brand media names? Niches? Bloggers? Twitterers? No one knows.
# # #
Monday, August 09, 2010
H-P CEO Follies: Let the games begin
So another CEO, this one a high performing, successful operator, has bitten the dust due to character flaws. In typical form, the gaggle now is about who will be former HP CEO Mark Hurd's long-term replacement. Candidates galore are mentioned with rampant speculation. Following the normal and expected playbook, the company's board says it will search far and wide or both "externally and internally" according to the Wall Street Journal. A shootout among major search executive firms will soon take place. Turn the volume down a bit and you might be able to hear an echo.
Ok, let's stop for a minute and acknowledge a few truths. First, H-P will not be able to replace Mark Hurd overnight with someone from inside or outside the company. There's no one who knew the culture, people, strategy/execution and how that coalesces together to produce results more than Hurd. Not an interim CFO, not the lead director, not anyone presently identified in the mess. Ironically, Hurd was known as a great developer of talent, according to someone with direct knowledge of H-P. But unfortunately that skill evidently has now left the building, leaving the H-P Way under direct assault.
Number two, Hurd's departure with no clear successor, or no publicly defined succession plan*, means this situation will remain in crisis mode indefinitely. Which stacked against their recent troubles with previous CEO Carly Fiorina and board chairwoman Patricia Dunne begs the most important future looking question that no one seems able to ask -- much less answer.
What did Hurd and the board do to ensure someone could eventually take over when the current CEO could no longer serve? The CEO's primary responsibility is to lead the company and make sure it's well positioned for the future. That includes, along with the board, identifying who will lead when the current occupant no longer can. The story here is the board's inability to map out an effective succession strategy; not all the superficial stuff that drives day-to-day palace intrigue.
# # #
Ok, let's stop for a minute and acknowledge a few truths. First, H-P will not be able to replace Mark Hurd overnight with someone from inside or outside the company. There's no one who knew the culture, people, strategy/execution and how that coalesces together to produce results more than Hurd. Not an interim CFO, not the lead director, not anyone presently identified in the mess. Ironically, Hurd was known as a great developer of talent, according to someone with direct knowledge of H-P. But unfortunately that skill evidently has now left the building, leaving the H-P Way under direct assault.
Number two, Hurd's departure with no clear successor, or no publicly defined succession plan*, means this situation will remain in crisis mode indefinitely. Which stacked against their recent troubles with previous CEO Carly Fiorina and board chairwoman Patricia Dunne begs the most important future looking question that no one seems able to ask -- much less answer.
What did Hurd and the board do to ensure someone could eventually take over when the current CEO could no longer serve? The CEO's primary responsibility is to lead the company and make sure it's well positioned for the future. That includes, along with the board, identifying who will lead when the current occupant no longer can. The story here is the board's inability to map out an effective succession strategy; not all the superficial stuff that drives day-to-day palace intrigue.
According to the New York Times, the H-P board was so concerned about the Hurd situation that they hired the public affairs behemoth, APCO Worldwide, to measure what impact the "sexual harassment without the sex" charges would have on H-P's reputation. What they evidently failed to measure was how much not having a contingency in place in case something happened to the CEO would drain the company's equity value. Friday's 10 percent drop in share price ought to answer the question with or without a hypothetical study.
Strong cultures know what to do when the proverbial s*&^ hits the fan. For a recent example, consider McDonald's Corp., which effectively dealt with the death of not one but two CEOs on their way to a new leadership regime under current CEO James Skinner. Granted the company has stumbled a bit lately with other potential internal successors exiting. But the basic point remains: McDonald's has a succession strategy and H-P evidently does not. They're not alone. At least a third of all major companies don't have formal succession plans. Based on events over the past week, H-P and their board must be wishing right now that they didn't fall in this category.
Strong cultures know what to do when the proverbial s*&^ hits the fan. For a recent example, consider McDonald's Corp., which effectively dealt with the death of not one but two CEOs on their way to a new leadership regime under current CEO James Skinner. Granted the company has stumbled a bit lately with other potential internal successors exiting. But the basic point remains: McDonald's has a succession strategy and H-P evidently does not. They're not alone. At least a third of all major companies don't have formal succession plans. Based on events over the past week, H-P and their board must be wishing right now that they didn't fall in this category.
*Efforts to confirm whether H-P has a CEO succession plan were unsuccessful at blog posting time. The company did not return requests for information.
# # #
Monday, July 26, 2010
BP: Board gaggle or giggle?
If there ever was a case that demonstrates what ails 21st century boards still stuck in the 20th century, then the naming of Robert Dudley as worldwide CEO of BP more than qualifies. Here's why:
1.) While Dudley deserves major credit for leading during the worst ever corporate disaster in U.S. history, his tenure will be marked by the same legacy culture that gave rise to the current role. Dudley worked for Hayward, which means he's inextricably linked to previous strategy. That never leads to innovative change yet somehow boards have convinced themselves that it does. The primary saving grace seems to be BP's solid financial performance globally minus huge losses mounting in North America.
2.) Boards under pressure never make good leadership decisions. While they may think Dudley is the right answer for right now, the fact that the board hasn't been transparent or even visible in the remotest way will continue to leave lasting questions about what they signed off on under Hayward. Those questions, combined with no sign of shared vision and values, means more of the same until Dudley can re-position the brand. That process will take infinitely longer than if an outsider came in to mix things up in what amounts to a complete repuational rebuild.
If Dudley is cagey on governance, he'll move quickly to consolidate his power and replace a few board members with stronger, more crisis-proven leaders from within industry. Surely there must be a few out there somewhere who would be willing to serve in a new regime?
1.) While Dudley deserves major credit for leading during the worst ever corporate disaster in U.S. history, his tenure will be marked by the same legacy culture that gave rise to the current role. Dudley worked for Hayward, which means he's inextricably linked to previous strategy. That never leads to innovative change yet somehow boards have convinced themselves that it does. The primary saving grace seems to be BP's solid financial performance globally minus huge losses mounting in North America.
2.) Boards under pressure never make good leadership decisions. While they may think Dudley is the right answer for right now, the fact that the board hasn't been transparent or even visible in the remotest way will continue to leave lasting questions about what they signed off on under Hayward. Those questions, combined with no sign of shared vision and values, means more of the same until Dudley can re-position the brand. That process will take infinitely longer than if an outsider came in to mix things up in what amounts to a complete repuational rebuild.
If Dudley is cagey on governance, he'll move quickly to consolidate his power and replace a few board members with stronger, more crisis-proven leaders from within industry. Surely there must be a few out there somewhere who would be willing to serve in a new regime?
# # #
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Spencer Stuart guides Nokia CEO Search
ATLANTA (July 20, 2010) -- The Garlington Report (TGR) has learned that executive search firm, Spencer Stuart, is guiding an effort to find a new CEO at Nokia, the Espoo, Finland-based phone manufacturer. One of the firm's market leaders, Jim Citrin, is reportedly leading the search for Nokia's board yet directly refused further comment earlier today.
It should be noted that "learned" and "reportedly" are not the same as confirmed. Based on the firm's lack of official confirmation despite repeated attempts, we are reporting what we believe to be true vs. citing unnamed sources or "persons familiar with the matter."
This marquee assignment further illustrates Spencer Stuart's hold on major search and advisory work at the Fortune 500 level. Tracing back to last year following the market crash in late 2008, the firm has handled several of the more consequentially perceived board/leadership makeovers at GM, AIG and Citigroup. A Wall Street Journal article published last year reported that senior-level members of the Obama administration suggested calling one of Spencer Stuart's top recruiters, Tom Neff, directly on the GM situation. That effort led to the selection of former AT&T Chairman and CEO Ed Whitacre as the company chairman, and then CEO of the newly re-organized company.
Stay tuned for more coverage on who may fill the Nokia CEO position, and perhaps more importantly, what the selection of Spencer Stuart may mean to Nokia's current board composition. Here's a teaser:
According to governance guidelines on the company's web site, http://www.nokia.com/about-nokia/corporate-governance/board-of-directors, the board currently comprises 10 members with nine non-executive directors who are "independent as defined by Finnish standards." That same number drops to eight, according to "rules of the New York Stock Exchange."
At Nokia's annual meeting held on May 6, 2010, the board's independent directors elected Jorma Ollila to continue to serve as chairman and Marjorie Scardino as vice chairman. Scardino formerly served as chief executive of the Economist Group (1993-1997) and has been CEO of the Economist's owner, Pearson PLC, since January 1997.* Ollila formerly was Nokia's CEO (1999-2006) and currently serves as chairman of the board of Royal Dutch Shell in addition to his chairman duties at Nokia.Out of the non-executive director slate, only Scardino currently serves as CEO of a major company. This fact, combined with the selection of Spencer Stuart, suggests a further shake-up of the board may be in the works.
Left to right: Jorma Ollila, Marjorie Scardino and Jim Citrin (Credit: Nokia and Spencer Stuart web site photos)
It should be noted that "learned" and "reportedly" are not the same as confirmed. Based on the firm's lack of official confirmation despite repeated attempts, we are reporting what we believe to be true vs. citing unnamed sources or "persons familiar with the matter."
This marquee assignment further illustrates Spencer Stuart's hold on major search and advisory work at the Fortune 500 level. Tracing back to last year following the market crash in late 2008, the firm has handled several of the more consequentially perceived board/leadership makeovers at GM, AIG and Citigroup. A Wall Street Journal article published last year reported that senior-level members of the Obama administration suggested calling one of Spencer Stuart's top recruiters, Tom Neff, directly on the GM situation. That effort led to the selection of former AT&T Chairman and CEO Ed Whitacre as the company chairman, and then CEO of the newly re-organized company.
Stay tuned for more coverage on who may fill the Nokia CEO position, and perhaps more importantly, what the selection of Spencer Stuart may mean to Nokia's current board composition. Here's a teaser:
According to governance guidelines on the company's web site, http://www.nokia.com/about-nokia/corporate-governance/board-of-directors, the board currently comprises 10 members with nine non-executive directors who are "independent as defined by Finnish standards." That same number drops to eight, according to "rules of the New York Stock Exchange."
At Nokia's annual meeting held on May 6, 2010, the board's independent directors elected Jorma Ollila to continue to serve as chairman and Marjorie Scardino as vice chairman. Scardino formerly served as chief executive of the Economist Group (1993-1997) and has been CEO of the Economist's owner, Pearson PLC, since January 1997.* Ollila formerly was Nokia's CEO (1999-2006) and currently serves as chairman of the board of Royal Dutch Shell in addition to his chairman duties at Nokia.Out of the non-executive director slate, only Scardino currently serves as CEO of a major company. This fact, combined with the selection of Spencer Stuart, suggests a further shake-up of the board may be in the works.
Left to right: Jorma Ollila, Marjorie Scardino and Jim Citrin (Credit: Nokia and Spencer Stuart web site photos)
# # #
*Scardino's current role at Pearson is not listed on her bio under board of director information posted at Nokia's web site.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
For every owner and brand steward
http://www.pehub.com/77098/hefner-sends-letter-to-playboy/
Every now and then a major business owner will stand up for what he or she thinks is in the best interests of the brand. This doesn't happen very often and rarely if ever does it occur at the Fortune 500 manager or glorified CEO level. Playboy majority shareholder and founder Hugh Hefner is making a play to buy back the company that he created. Note the language (contained the attached link) directed at the brand vs. what the rest of us mere mortals tend to obsess about every day. I can hear the wise cracks from here, but for today, the TGR's hat tips to Hef. What a great American icon!
Every now and then a major business owner will stand up for what he or she thinks is in the best interests of the brand. This doesn't happen very often and rarely if ever does it occur at the Fortune 500 manager or glorified CEO level. Playboy majority shareholder and founder Hugh Hefner is making a play to buy back the company that he created. Note the language (contained the attached link) directed at the brand vs. what the rest of us mere mortals tend to obsess about every day. I can hear the wise cracks from here, but for today, the TGR's hat tips to Hef. What a great American icon!
# # #
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Giving credit where credit is due
So the BP board has taken action. According to their Chairman who appeared at the White House yesterday to make the following statement (and gaffe), http://http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp=37736716� the board has decided to:
1.) Postpone payment of the stock dividend for the remainder of 2010 and
2.) They've appointed (actually, the government has) what's called an "adjudicator" to oversee payments to parties impacted by the disaster. None other than Ken Feinberg who is perhaps best known for handling monetary relief efforts following 9/11.
These aren't exactly bowl us over with great action moves but they're moves nonetheless. If you do manage to watch this clip, feel free to chime as in the "little people," which must be what the Chairman meant. Long way to go before we sleep on this thing called leadership.
1.) Postpone payment of the stock dividend for the remainder of 2010 and
2.) They've appointed (actually, the government has) what's called an "adjudicator" to oversee payments to parties impacted by the disaster. None other than Ken Feinberg who is perhaps best known for handling monetary relief efforts following 9/11.
These aren't exactly bowl us over with great action moves but they're moves nonetheless. If you do manage to watch this clip, feel free to chime as in the "little people," which must be what the Chairman meant. Long way to go before we sleep on this thing called leadership.
# # #
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)