A few columns ago in A Challenging Time For Talent Management, I recalled the decision of Paul Polman to scrap quarterly reporting. His reasoning, in part, was to create the space necessary for better decision making. It was a bold and sound move, but sadly one most managers are not able to make. As a result, "leadership" in many organisations is blighted by knee jerk responses to the latest crisis with managers only as good as their last quarter or month. In such a context, I use the term leadership advisedly, hence the quotation marks.
At the C-suite level, a manager must not only be able to lead their team, but more critically lead themselves and their peers. To add another level of difficulty, in large organisations, they need to do this at scale and all while exhibiting a high level of self-awareness, profound comprehension of others, and a detailed understanding of the operating environment.
Employee Experience
In A Challenging Time For Talent Management I observed:
Why I think it without hyperbole to compare the process to a tightrope walk is because the data is in and the traditional 20/80 rule, which stipulates that 20% of employees deliver 80% of organisational value, is incorrect. Research shows it is closer to 5% of employees delivering 95% of an organisation's value. This is because, particularly in the case of highly complex roles, the value to effort ratio clocks high performers as being 800% more productive.
Given the complexity inherent in senior organisational roles, it should come as no surprise that the 5/95 rule is writ large. For CEO's, 90% of the value in their industry is created by the decision making of the top quintile. Yet the CEO role is not only decisive in the realm of economic value because they can scale leadership throughout the organisation by appointing senior leaders who in turn appoint line managers. The latter of whom are the facilitators or blockers of employee performance and experience within an organisation. Thus, failure to get it right at the CEO level means it will be down to luck rather than good management when it comes to organisational achievement and employee engagement.
