A 2011 article in the TIME magazine had listed ‘CEOs’ as India’s leading export. Today, they also happen to be the country’s more prized resource. There is a severe mismatch between the supply and demands for CEOs in the Indian context, which is leading to ever-higher levels of executive compensation in the country. This has been a revealing insight that we found in Hay Group’s recent Executive Compensation research. Our team gathered data from 87 Indian organizations, ranging from chemicals, oil and gas, FMCG, retail to industrial goods sectors – and all of it pointed to one thing: CEO compensation levels never seen before.

Hay Group’s Top Executive Compensation Report 2011-12 report shows that the average CEO salary in India is over USD 400,000, on a CTC basis, reflecting an increase of about 30 per cent over 2011 figures. Further, this can shoot up to USD 1.4 million in larger organizations which have greater complexity and geographic spread for a CEO to deal with.

To what can we attribute this exponential rise? The first is, of course, the demand-supply gap. The Indian CEO market has always had a vast pool of “operationally-excellent” CEOs, but an acute scarcity of “managing-business” CEOs. This prompts companies to shell out a premium for a CEO who can look to the future rather than carve out a short-term plan.

Second, confronted with this lack of supply, companies are becoming more open about recruiting with a sector-agnostic focus. We are now witnessing a rise in cross-sector employability of CEOs, or “lateral CEOs”.  To cite a case, a global cement company recently hired an investment banker to head its India operations. In another instance, the CEO of a manufacturing company left to join an IT company as head of their manufacturing vertical.

These trends of pay increases have begun to cascade to the next line of executives. The average compensation for a rung lower than the CEO is now USD 200,000 or more, on a CTC basis. This implies that the average CEO’s salary is at least 2.6 times more than that of business heads a rung lower (in CTC terms, excluding long-term incentives). Further, there is very little differential between Heads of Sales & Marketing and Operations (business roles) on one hand, and Heads of HR, R&D, Chief Information Officer (Enabler roles) on the other. In my opinion, this suggests that organizations have begun to value top teams as equal stakeholders in business performance.  

Another clear message that we have across is that although they are willing to pay more for the right candidate, organizations are also careful about getting a high ROI – evident in the widening variable pay component at 15 to 30 per cent of the total CTC. This performance focus is also evident in long-term incentives – 29 per cent of the respondents were receiving some format of LTI at the CEO level and another 32 percent reported having an LTI plan for the rest of the top management team. 11 per cent said they preferred cash-based incentives.

Although a spiral can move both ways, at present it is only moving upwards in case of executive compensation. Perhaps it is time for renewed focus on India’s CEO supply pipeline.

Mikään ei ole kliseisempää kuin johtajuuskonsultti, joka ottaa esimerkkinsä urheilusta. Kliseisiä ovat myös urheiluvalmentajat, jotka pyrkivät olemaan johtajuuskonsultteja. Kuitenkin Mestareiden Liigan finaalin jälkimainingit herättivät huomion, että kliseiden takana on ehkä myös asiaa.

Kuten moni jo tietää, Chelsea voitti kaksi viikkoa sitten maailman suurimman seurajoukkueiden kilpailun, kun se kaatoi jalkapallon Mestareiden Liigan finaalissa Bayern Münchenin. Chelsean kauteen kuului korkeimman luokan dramatiikkaa laidasta laitaan, alkaen joukkueen kapteenin rasismioikeudenkäynnistä ja tappioputkista ja päättyen lopulta finaalivoittoon rangaistuslaukauskisassa.

Jääkiekon puolella Jyp kävi läpi samantyylisen vaikeuksista voittoon tien matkallaan kohti jääkiekon Suomen mestaruutta. Jyp voitti kauden ensimmäisen ottelunsa vasta kahdeksannessa ottelussaan ja kausi näytti olevan ohi jo marraskuussa. Sekä Chelsea että Jyp tuntuivat kulkevan samaa tappion tietä käsi kädessä. Silti loppujen lopuksi tappion tie kääntyi voittojen tieksi ja draaman kaari kummassakin tapauksessa oli täysin sama.

Mutta mikä selittää joukkueiden täydellisen uudelleensyntymisen vaikeuksien jälkeen? Oliko kyseessä ainoastaan tuuri vai onnistuneet pelaajahankinnat kesken kauden?

Mitä tarkemmin asiaa pohtii, sitä lähemmin se liittyy johtajuuteen ja joukkueen ilmapiiriin. Urheilujoukkue on tiimi siinä missä mikä tahansa projektitiimi missä tahansa yrityksessä. Urheilujoukkuetta johtaa valmentaja siinä missä projektitiimillä on projektijohtaja. Ja miten paremmin johtaja joukkojaan johtaa, sitä paremman ilmapiirin hän joukkueeseensa luo. Ja mitä parempi ilmapiiri joukkueessa on, sitä menestyneempi se on.

Sekä Jyp että Chelsea vaihtoivat valmentajaa kesken kauden. Kummassakin tapauksessa lähtenyt valmentaja oli luonut joukkueeseensa ilmapiirin, joka sai pelaajat lukkoon. Ja kummassakin tapauksessa uusi valmentaja keskittyi ilmapiirin parantamiseen, itse taktiikat jäivät taka-alalle. Ammattilaiset tietävät mitä heidän pitää tehdä kunhan he voivat hyvin.

Jypin tapauksessa Jyrki Aho keskittyi visionääriseen johtamistyyliin luomaan uskoa pelaajiensa taitoihin. Aho kertoi Veikkaajan haastattelussa keväällä kuinka nykyaikainen valmentaja ei enää huuda pelaajilleen vaan kuuntelee ja pyrkii ottaman kaikkien näkemykset huomioon. Chelsean tapauksessa Roberto Di Matteo keskittyi kokeneiden pelaajiensa kuunteluun ja osallistavaan johtamistyyliin jakaen vastuuta päätöksistä pelaajilleen. Di Matteo rakensi taktiikkansa pelaajiensa mukaan, ei päinvastoin. Tulokset ovat kaikkien nähtävissä.

Vaikka se kuulostaa kliseeltä, menestystarinat urheilussa tarjoavat parhaat esimerkit siitä miten hyviä tuloksia osaavat johtajat saavat. Hyvä johtaja käyttää useita eri johtamistyylejä, osallistaa alaisiaan päätöksentekoon, luo heihin uskoa ja valmentaa heitä parempiin tuloksiin. Perinteisellä määräävällä johtamistyylillä, joka monesti urheiluun ja yleisemminkin suomalaiseen työelämään yhdistetään, saadaan ainoastaan huonoja tuloksia. Tästäkin tosiasiasta huolimatta Hay Groupin tutkimusten mukaan 43% suomalaisista kokee valitettavasti työskentelevässä epämotivoivassa ilmapiirissä. Näissä joukkueissa kukaan ei voita.

Mitä yritykset voivat tehdä, jotta niistä tulisi voittavia joukkueita? Tärkeintä on tunnustaa, että hyvä johtajuus on yksi tärkeimmistä tekijöistä yrityksen kilpailukyvyn kannalta. Paraskaan strategia ei toteudu, mikäli pelaajat eivät ole motivoituneita. Tämän tunnustaminen on ensimmäinen, mutta samalla myös tärkein askel.  Yritysten pitäisi antaa johtajilleen myös työkalut ja tuki hyvää johtajuutta varten. Myös johtajat tarvitsevat johtamista.

Jos tämä kuulostaa vieraalta, voit miettiä milloin esimerkiksi Raimo Summanen on viimeksi voittanut jotain?

Hay Groupin ja Fortunen Most Admired Companies – tutkimuksessa on peräkkäisinä vuosina saatu varsin yllättävä tulos, Apple on ottanut ykköspaikan kategoriassa ”Most Admired for HR”. Sinänsä tuloksessa ei ole mitään ihmeteltävää, Applehan on tunnettu innovatiivisista tuotteistaan ja sitoutuneesta henkilöstöstään. Se, mikä tekee ykkössijasta yllättävän on se, että Applella ei ole ollut vuosikausiin henkilöstöjohtajaa. Siitä huolimatta sen henkilöstö on erittäin sitoutunut, yritys on arvostettu ja tekee vielä loistavaa tulosta.

Meillä insinöörivetoisessa Suomessa henkilöstöasioita on historiallisesti hoidettu ad hoc-periaatteella ja valitettavan monessa yrityksessä ollaan vielä kovin kaukana strategisesta henkilöstöjohtamisesta. Suomesta löytyy isojakin pörssiyrityksiä, joissa ei ole HR -johtajaa tai joissa sellainen toimii esimerkiksi talousjohdon alaisuudessa. Näin ollen valitettavan harva HR -johtaja on mukana johtoryhmässä ja päätöksenteossa. Vastaavaa tilannetta on vaikea kuvitella esimerkiksi talousjohtajien kohdalla.

Henkilöstöjohtamisen paradoksi: hyvällä johtamisella on tutkitusti valtava vaikutus tulokseen, mutta silti huono johtaminen suvaitaan suurimmassa osassa suomalaisia yrityksiä

Kuitenkin henkilöstöjohtamisessa on kyse kiistatta yrityksen tärkeimmästä ja vaikeimmin hallittavasta pääomasta – liikevaihtoa ei synny, jos myyjät eivät myy, uudet innovaatiot jäävät vain haaveeksi, mikäli   henkilöstö ei niitä kehitä ja jopa pitkälle automatisoitu tuotanto ei toimi, jos sitä ei joku suunnittele ja valvo. Ihminen on vieläpä siitä mielenkiintoinen resurssi, että yksilön suoritus voi vaihdella merkittävästi sekä sisäisten että ulkoisten olosuhteiden vaikutuksesta toisin kuin esimerkiksi paperikoneen, jonka tuotosta pystyy ennustamaan hyvin tarkasti ja pitkällä aikavälillä. Useat tutkimukset ja jo terve järkikin todistavat, että motivoitunut ja sitoutunut henkilö on merkittävästi tuottavampi kuin epämotivoitunut. Hay Groupin tutkimuksen mukaan lisäys tuottavuuteen on jopa kaksinkertainen.

Miksi sitten henkilöstöjohtamista tehdään usein niin matalalla profiililla suomalaisissa yrityksissä? Vastauksia on varmasti yhtä monia kuin vastaajiakin, mutta väitän, että pääsyyt ovat riittämätön tieto ja pelko. Riittämätön tieto siksi, että yrityksessä ei ymmärretä hyvin johdetun henkilöstön vaikutusta tulokseen. Pelko, siksi että henkilöstöjohtaminen koetaan todella vaikeaksi ja omaa epäonnistumista tai huonoutta siinä ei haluta kohdata. Esimerkiksi suuressa osassa yrityksiä hyväksytään edelleen huono johtaminen ja sitä ei millään tavoin ole kytketty johtajien henkilökohtaisiin tavoitteisiin. Kuitenkaan oppiminen ja kehittyminen ei ole mahdollista, mikäli epämukavuusalueille ei uskalleta mennä.

Arvostetuimmissa yrityksissä esimiesten henkilöstöjohtamistaidot todella punnitaan

Voisimmeko oppia jotain Applelta ja muilta Most Admired Companies –tutkimuksen arvostetuimmilta yrityksiltä parhaista henkilöstöjohtamisen käytännöistä? Ainakin sen, että nämä yritykset todella pitävät henkilöstöä arvokkaimpana resurssinaan ja investoivat siihen täysillä. Esimerkiksi yli kahdeksassakymmenessä prosentissa arvostetuimmista yrityksistä henkilöstöjohtamista ja henkilöstön kehittämistä ei nähdä ainostaan henkilöstöhallinnon asiana vaan myös linjaesimiehet ovat vastuussa oman tiiminsä motivaatiosta ja sitoutumisesta. Suomalaisista yrityksistä ainostaan kolmanneksessa on henkilöstömittareita viety esimiesten suoritusmittareihin. Seuraajasuunnittelu on myös eri tasolla, arvostetuimmissa yrityksissä 90 prosentilla on selkeät ja toimivat seuraajasuunnitelmat ja 80 prosenttia niistä valitsee seuraavan toimitusjohtajan oman yrityksensä sisältä. Yleisesti 94 prosenttia arvostetuimmista yrityksistä kokee, että panostus henkilöstön motivointiin ja sitouttamiseen on tuonut heille selkeää kilpailuetua, kun Suomessa vain 24 prosenttia yrityksissä kokee onnistuneensa tässä.

Henkilöstöjohtajan tehtävä Suomessa onkin usein varsin haastava. Toisaalta on perusteltava vedenpitävästi, miksi henkilöstö on yrityksen tärkein pääoma ja toisaalta autettava vastahakoista organisaatiota oppimaan hyvää henkilöstöjohtamista. Palatakseni alun esimerkkiin Applen ehkä maailman parhaasta henkilöstöjohtamisesta voisi kärjistetysti sanoa, että henkilöstöjohtajan tärkein tavoite on tehdä itsestään ”tarpeeton” luomalla kulttuuria, jossa henkilöstöjohtaminen on arvossaan. Kun johto ja jokainen työntekijä on vakuuttunut siitä, että henkilöstöä kannattaa vaalia ja sen hyvinvointiin panostaa,  on hyvä henkilöstöjohtaminen siirtynyt osaksi organisaation dna:ta, eikä sitä voi enää ulkoistaa ainoastaan henkilöstöjohtajan tontille.

Lisätietoja World’s Most Admired Companies -tutkimuksesta: http://www.haygroup.com/fortune/

A snapshot from 2030…

Mavis Tang fired up her tablet ready for the Billgo Mining plc Remuneration Committee meeting. Once everyone was online it would project a hologram of her fellow Committee members around the dining table in her Nanjing penthouse. It would also provide her with her committee papers on screen.

She intended to leave the camera off this time and just attend by audio as she was in her dressing gown. She and her partner had put the kids to bed a couple of hours ago and not having to be dressed for work at 10.30pm was one of the smaller perks of these virtual meetings. She had an early start the next day and wanted to balance her time carefully between her Asian consulting work, her university commitments, and her non-executive roles with Billgo (a London and Beijing listed a raw materials company operating in Africa, South America and China) and Nanpan Retail Co Ltd (a Shanghai listed department store group operating across Jiangsu province) on the one hand, and her family on the other.

Although Mavis spoke fluent English, as well as Guajarati and Mandarin (her native tongue), she preferred to rely on the tablet’s translator. Once you got used to the short time delay, the mismatch between the lip movements of the projected image, and the words coming from the speakers, its syntax and business vocabulary were flawless. This was helpful as although two of the Committee members were English, one had a strong accent which Mavis sometimes struggled to follow – a particular issue as his mental processes were so fast. In addition the third member was Brazilian, who spoke limited business English and she too would be attending remotely.

In her late thirties, Mavis was an internationally renowned executive pay expert; one of three non-executive director ‘monitors’ on the Billgo Board, the others being a risk expert (who served on the Risk Committee and sometimes attended the Remuneration and Audit Committees to provide risk-related input) and an environmentalist (who ran the CSR Committee). The other Billgo non-executives were past or present senior executives from the global mining industry and banks – some things never change.

Mavis was first and foremost a university academic; she had studied the growth of executive pay in Western economies shortly before the European Unrest of 2013/14, the revolutions in Greece and Spain and the changes to executive pay that happened thereafter. Her doctoral thesis had examined the socio-economic reasons why high executive pay contributed to instability in the European Commission but not in the USA and what the post-communist Chinese economy might learn from these events.

As a specialist Mavis considered that her role was to help Billgo develop executive pay structures that would motivate the management team to deliver its global strategy, satisfy the UK and Chinese regulators and convince the company’s investors that the management team’s interests were properly aligned. Others on the Committee would have a stronger perspective on the business issues (and the external consultant would advise on the pay practices and levels in the relevant economies). But Mavis wanted to ensure the process would surpass box-ticking and satisfy the spirit as well as the letter of the UK’s anti pay ratcheting regulations…

Fantasy? Certainly. But possible? Perhaps.

The big changes which will affect the lives and the nature of the future non-executive director can already be seen in current-day trends. Influence will be felt of factors such as:

• new technology
• the introduction of specialist non-executive roles
• invasive executive pay and other regulation
• changes in the demography for potential candidates
• the changing expectations of potential candidates
• possible economic upheaval
• shifts in corporate ownership and changing shareholder priorities
• the drive for greater board diversity.

It is possible, however, that there may be less change than some expect. After all, quite a few enthusiastic participants in the 1960s counter-culture are now very much part of the establishment and perhaps have come to have more in common with their parents’ generation than anyone expected.

If we were to consult our crystal ball (and barring major upheavals), we would see that by the time Generation Y makes it to the boardroom they will value face-to-face contact more. There will certainly be more diversity around the table in terms of background, sex and even age – many will be younger then at present but some of Generation X will still be in post, healthy and working long past what is now considered normal retirement age. The continuing globalisation of capital movements will mean investors will have to embrace a version of the UK’s agency-based approach to corporate governance. And hopefully we will not see as much over-regulation as is feared, thus preserving the value of the all-rounder non-executive director (effective and constructive strategic challenge will be difficult without them).

On balance, change is likely, but perhaps we will see evolution rather than revolution. It is very possible that if one of today’s non-executives were to stumble from a time machine into a 2030 boardroom, he or she would find a great deal that remained familiar.

Learn more about how Hay Group can help you now and plan for the future:

• Leadership 2030: our recent research explores the six global megatrends that will impact our leaders and organisations in the future.
• Leadership and talent: when it comes to finding your future stars, developing a world-class talent pipeline, and developing your leaders of today and tomorrow, we can help.
• Executive reward: we can help with designing executive reward measures and packages that suit your business and motivates executives to achieve goals and results.

During the past 15 years, organizations have faced increased globalization, fluctuating economic conditions and political uncertainty. But, despite consistent change, the World’s Most Admired Companies continuously endure these challenges and position themselves for long-term success. How do they do it?

 The answer is simple: they don’t play defense.

The WMACs adapt to challenges, instead of react to them. They create structures to sustain performance in good times and bad, focus on the long-term, and consistently bake new initiatives into their organizations to stimulate growth.

 But, the WMACs aren’t the only organizations that can “play offense”. Below are three important attributes HR leaders can engrain into their organization to sustain performance and drive long-term success:

1. Embed innovation into your culture. The WMACs put employees at the heart of innovation. Employees are consistently encouraged to spot problems, fire off ideas and give suggestions to improve processes and practices. The most successful organizations create a constant state of innovation where the development of new ideas is ever-flowing and everyone is part of the solution.

WMACs are ten percent more likely than peer organizations to see innovation as “very important.” And 91 percent of WMACs regularly reach out to employees for ideas on how to improve efficiency.

1. Balance global scale and local presence. WMACs distinguish themselves by their ability to create simultaneously global and local organizations. WMACs develop ideas centrally and leverage them worldwide, and also capture local initiatives and feed them back to the corporate headquarters.

For example, for Procter & Gamble’s large, global brands, a centralized brand manager makes major brand decisions and sets parameters for local market autonomy. But for P&G’s local brands, local managers make local decisions, using local resources.

1. Focus on long-term business success. The WMACs are always looking toward their next move. Instead of reacting to external triggers, WMACs develop long-term strategies to proactively manage through change and sustain performance. WMACs also develop reward programs that are designed to drive the right behaviors long-term. They are 56 percent more likely than their peers to have performance measures based on building customer loyalty, and 23 percent more likely to evaluate their CEOs on success in developing human capital.

While organizations cannot stop change, they can adapt to it. By being proactive, as opposed to reactive, organizations can sustain performance and enable long-term business success.

Learn more about this year’s FORTUNE World’s Most Admired Companies at: http://bitly.com/w3y1CP, or register for our April 18^th complimentary webinar at: http://bitly.com/wrvydq.

Despite an unemployment rate of more than 8 percent, the war for talent rages on. Even so, it’s not clear that most organizations are taking the steps needed to identify, groom and retain the right talent to achieve their strategic business objectives. Year over year, one of the key differentiators of the World’s Most Admired Companies is their recognition of the critical role their employees play in driving their success. Unlike their peers, these organizations go to great lengths to create an environment where their people can thrive. Given the scarcity of top, specialized talent, it’s critical that other companies begin to follow suit.

Here are three steps HR leaders can take to ensure they have the right talent in place to drive their organization forward:

1. Articulate and promote an HR strategy that is aligned with and conveys support for your business strategy. In order to effectively manage an organization’s human capital needs, HR must evaluate where the organization is going and then determine the skills required to get there.

The WMACs recognize the importance of tying HR strategy to business objectives. In fact, WMACs are 22 percent more likely to have a human capital strategy in place that has been reviewed and approved at the board level.

2.  Audit your current employees to identify high performers, high potentials and skill gaps that may exist. Once HR knows the company’s future needs and the composition of its current talent pool, it can conduct a gap analysis, determine timing requirements and develop a plan to either acquire external talent or develop needed skills within its current workforce to round out the competencies critical to the organization’s future success.

3. Create climates and development opportunities that allow your people to excel. Getting people in the door isn’t enough and it’s typically more costly than “growing your own”. Effective HR strategies must provide development opportunities that enable employees to continue to grow and ultimately, tie them to the organization.

The WMACs recognize the importance of employee development, engagement and retention. In fact, these companies are more likely than their peers to measure CEO performance against “success in developing human capital” versus financial and strategic success. At the same time, a majority of WMACs regularly review human capital metrics such as employee turnover, employee engagement and recruitment to ensure their HR strategies are achieving the desired results.

As companies evaluate the skill sets and competencies required to achieve strategic business objectives, what other steps should HR leaders take to ensure they have the right talent in place to reach their goals?

Learn more about this year’s FORTUNE World’s Most Admired Companies at http://bitly.com/w3y1CP

Rakentelin viime viikonloppuna Legoilla poikani kanssa. Alussa tarjolla oli vain iso kasa palikoita, josta kaksivuotias poikani halusi tehdä talon.

”Millaisen talon?”, kysyin

”Ison talon”, hän vastasi silmät innosta kiiluen, ”Tehdään isi iso punainen talo”.  

Seuraavat kolme tuntia elämästäni menivät kuin siivillä (noista kolmesta tunnista rakentelin kaksi viimeistä itsekseni poikani väsyttyä rakenteluun). Talosta tuli eittämättä hieno (kuva saatavilla erillisestä pyynnöstä). Jälkeenpäin aloin miettimään, miksi innostuin rakentelusta niin paljon? Ei kait tässä iässä pitäisi enää millään Legoilla leikkiä. Olenhan aikuinen, jolla on vastuulla työ ja perhe. Eihän tässä pitäisi olla aikaa mihinkään lapselliseen.  Eikö vanhemmuudessa, mikä on sekin johtajuutta, pitäisi keskittyä vakaviin asioihin?

Lasten mentyä nukkumaan aloin selailla Twitter-tiliäni ja löysin tämän artikkelin. Artikkelissa pohdittiin hauskuutta ja miten työssä helposti pidetään hauskuutta työnteon vastakohtana. Artikkelin mukaat kaikki parhaat tulokset töissä tulevat nimenomaan hauskuuden kautta. Erityisesti tämä kommentti teki vaikutuksen:

” Most people think that the opposite of play is work (especially in the corporate world) but the opposite is boredom or even depression”

Jatkoin Twitter-tilini selausta ja löysin seuraavan lainauksen Nilofer Merchantilta:

“Opposite of innovation isn’t execution. Opposite of innovation is when organizations demand you know answer by X, and measures by Y.”

Koin valaistumisen hetken, sillä artikkeleista löytyi syy miksi innostuin legotalon rakentamisesta niin paljon. Poikani oli määritellyt tehtävän, antanut resurssit ja toivotun lopputuloksen. Tiesin, mitä piti tehdä, mutta sain itse määritellä kuinka päästä tulokseen. Aikataulutkaan eivät päässeet ahdistamaan liiaksi. Tuloksena oli kliseisesti sanottuna tekemisen riemua ja talo, joka oli taatusti enemmän mitä tilaaja halusi alun perin. Tehtävä, jonka pariin halusi palata vielä seuraavanakin aamuna. Ja mitä tähän vaadittiin? Kasa palikoita ja vapaus.

Jatkoin pohtimista ja aloin miettiä kuinka saada sama innostus osaksi työelämää yleisemmin. Eikö hauskuuden pitäisi olla nimenomaan kaiken työnteon ytimessä? Voisiko innostusta ja hauskuutta saada liikkeelle niin sanotun legojohtamisen kautta? Tiukkojen ohjeiden ja mikrojohtamisen sijaan työntekijöille annettaisiin vapautta tehdä työnsä aivan kuten haluavat, kunhan tulokset ovat mitä halutaan. Kyllä, siitä seuraisi todennäköisesti virheitä. Ehkäpä jopa joku epäonnistuminen. Mutta vastapainona tulisi työympäristö, jossa uskaltaa kokeilla ja oppia. Ympäristö, joka mahdollistaa uuden luomisen. Ilman oppimista ei voi olla kehitystä ja ilman kehitystä paraskin yritys kuihtuu ajan myötä.

Mitä tämä vaatisi johtajuudelta? Erään määritelmän mukaan leadership on vision luomista ja ihmisten saamista mukaan. Vahvan suunnan luominen (”Rakenna talo”) pitäisi tällöin riittää kaikissa mahdollisissa tilanteissa parhaan tuloksen saamiseen. Jos poikani olisi ohjeistanut suomalaisittain tahdittavaan tyyliin

”Isi rakenna punainen talo, joka on kahdessa kerroksessa, jossa on savupiippu ja autotalli”

ja tämän jälkeen kommentoinut sekä seurannut jokaista liikettäni, olisi tulos oli ollut juuri sitä mitä hän pyysi. Tekemisestä olisi tosin puuttunut hauskuus ja paras mahdollinen tulos. Nyt hän sai iloisen rakentajan ja talon, jossa oli kolme kerrosta, kaksi savupiippua, autotalli ja eläintarha.

No ano em que atingimos sete bilhões de habitantes no planeta Terra podemos analisar algumas megatendências (processos transformacionais de longo prazo, numa escala global, com um escopo amplo e um impacto dramático) que deverão impactar a humanidade nos próximos anos, especialmente, em um Mundo onde ainda há muita fartura em alguns países e muita miséria em outros.

Alguns dados da ONU apontam que, em 2050, teremos dois bilhões a mais de habitantes no planeta. Este número trará impactos não só econômicos, mas também sociais e políticos. Como, por exemplo, aumentar em até 70% a produção de alimentos no Mundo, sem interferir no meio ambiente.

Como especialistas no desenvolvimento das melhores práticas no desenvolvimento de líderes, o Hay Group associou-se a Consultoria Z-Punkt, uma empresa especializada em previsões, baseada em Cologne, na Alemanha, com o objetivo de identificar as megatendências que terão maior impacto nas organizações e nas lideranças ao longo da próxima década. A análise de megatendências considerou o contexto global atual e projetado para os próximos 20 anos.  

Mas, especificamente, a meta principal da pesquisa era entender como essas megatendências iriam afetar o trabalho e as práticas de liderança em três níveis diferentes: ambiente corporativo, organização, pessoas e equipes.

Desta forma, foram identificadas seis megatendências que terão maior impacto para a liderança:

1. Globalização: Principais desafios – demandas cognitivas e estratégias/agilidade;
2. Mudança no clima e impacto ambiental: Principais desafios – raciocínio estratégico e conceitual (equilíbrio entre as demandas conflitantes do sucesso financeiro, a responsabilidade social e a custódia ambiental) – / impulsionar mudanças;
3. Individualismo e pluralismo de valor: Principais desafios – criação de lealdade/estrutura plana e flexível;
4. Estilo de vida digital: Principais desafios: Divisão indefinida entre a vida pública e privada, mudança no poder, maiores demandas de abertura, transparência, integridade, ruptura entre gerações;
5. Mudança demográfica: Principais desafios – criação de espaços virtuais de trabalho que sejam, ao mesmo tempo, apropriados para as atividades laborais e capazes de manter a conexão entre as pessoas;
6. Convergência de tecnologia: Principais desafios – Garantir conexão tecnológica entre as pessoas em tempo real e, ao mesmo tempo, com alto nível de “conexão emocional”.

Os líderes do futuro precisarão de apoio para se adaptar a uma série de mudanças organizacionais que terão implicações sociais, políticas e econômicas. Os comportamentos mais relevantes neste processo envolverão resiliência, flexibilidade, inteligência emocional e social e, principalmente, um processo de auto- reflexão que seja capaz de provocar a mudança de comportamentos.

A equipe do Hay Group se antecipou a estas megatendências  a fim de se preparar para apoiar os seus clientes e empresas no processo de transformação do perfil das lideranças nos próximos 20 anos.

First things first: getting matrix leadership right is increasingly important in business organizations of every description, because the use of matrix structures to accomplish important business goals is increasing.

Hay Group’s study of Leadership in 2030 suggests this trend will continue and accelerate. With the increase in globalization, more companies will be competing in markets around the world, striving to leverage the lessons learned in one region across the entire enterprise.

At the same time, the need to respond quickly to competition in more markets will require companies to forge effective links between on-the-ground managers with local knowledge and manufacturing or product development teams that may be halfway around the world

Finally, strong economic pressures will force all businesses to maintain lean staffing profiles – all of which adds up to more cross-functional business structures. The matrix is here to stay.

Technology paves the way… Improvements in communications technology – particularly video conferencing – have played a significant role in enabling businesses to implement matrix teams that are geographically dispersed. People don’t have to be in the same room – even the same hemisphere – to share insights and work cooperatively.

Unfortunately, the only user’s manuals that accompany this and other technologies are about how to get it to work – not about how to use it to get work done.

…and gets in the way. Technology has its limits, and leaders have to recognize them. For one thing, technology-enabled communication such as email encourages a tactical mindset. We’re all trying to shorten our messages, get to the point, keep them focused.

That’s fine for immediate operational issues. But it’s hardly conducive to the thoughtful, innovative, strategic consideration of conflicting priorities or contradictory customer data – exactly the kinds of challenges that businesses seek to overcome with matrix structures.

The empathy issue. Technology also has a tendency to strip the “personal” out of interpersonal communications. That’s an issue of particular concern for leaders in a matrix.

At Hay Group, our research has shown repeatedly that interpersonal skills such as empathy and self-awareness are essential for leaders to navigate successfully in matrix structures. Without clear positional authority, matrix leaders must persuade and motivate their team to deliver the effort that will produce positive business outcomes.

That kind of leadership requires a clear understanding of other people’s point of view. But the subtle visual and behavioral cues that communicate a person’s underlying attitudes are mostly lost in electronic communication – even in video conferences, where fixed cameras can obscure or diminish individual actions and behavior. 

What leaders can do. The first and most important lesson is also the most obvious: to acknowledge that technology has limitations, and to make the effort to recognize when those limitations are affecting your team.

Here are some more concrete steps you can take:

• Take every opportunity to meet face-to-face: You don’t have to email your colleague down the hall, or even across the campus. You’ll gain more insights with a call, even more in person – and you might avoid a misunderstanding that wastes a lot of time.
• Set rules about what you must do face-to-face. No one should ever break up on Facebook. Similarly, some business situations shouldn’t be left to impersonal technologies. Serious conflicts, for example, are best resolved in person.
• Be especially mindful when working across cultures. The potential for misinterpretations increases exponentially when colleagues come from a different background. Our cultural preconceptions and filters don’t show up in emails.
• Develop your own empathy skills. Here’s a great exercise: Watch part of a movie you don’t know with the sound off, and write down what you think is going on. Then turn the sound on and see how close you came.

Most of all, be prepared to turn the technology off. Producing solid results from a matrix is a challenge in the best circumstances. Technology is simply a tool. Don’t let it raise any more barriers.

Technology company leaders have a particular set of strengths and weaknesses which can often set them apart from leaders in other sectors. The nature of work and job requirements in the sector, suggest that a subtly different mix of leadership behaviours is required; not only for the technology sector in general, but for each job specifically. Over the last few years Hay Group has supported many of our technology clients in addressing their leadership challenges. Based on this wide experience, we have developed deep insight into the challenges facing the sector and have identified five key issues facing technology companies which are getting in the way of long-term success.

1. A large proportion of leaders in technology companies lack essential leadership qualities that drive high performance. Recent research that we conducted showed that 43 per cent of leaders actually destroy value; by creating de-motivating work climates for their teams. It’s a rare company – particularly in these economic times – that can tolerate 43 per cent underperformance.
2. The requirements of leadership roles in technology companies are different to elsewhere. Essentially it boils down to the fact that in many industries the core of the manager’s job is about motivation. But in technology employees have a strong natural motivation; often driven by the brand, the slick products, the thrill of invention or solving a technical problem. So the manager does not have to focus here, and can rather invest time supporting the team, unblocking obstacles to performance, and channelling the team’s energy rather than creating it. Many actually end up inadvertently creating frustration as the team’s energy builds up without release. 
3. One of the reasons this energy builds up without release is that, from our experience and organizational benchmarking work, we know that technology companies are particularly complicated, especially compared to retail. This is partly driven by the nature of the business models, but also because when times were good and margins were their teens, technology companies ‘grew’ extra jobs, matrix roles and expertise functions. Consequently, jobs and accountabilities became confused. This, coupled with relatively weak leadership and central processes, meant that things like performance management, job design, workforce planning and decision-making were sub-optimal. Frequently the manager’s job overlapped the subordinate’s, there was confusion on accountability, and organizational sclerosis broke out. As one client in Europe has discovered: paralytic processes produce pathetic products and poor performance. When times were good this didn’t matter too much but now we are finding that technology companies are trying to simplify their businesses to improve performance, and make the manager’s job simpler. We are helping many learn lessons from retail/FMCG about how to survive on smaller margins.
4. Even for leaders who have been successful, past performance doesn’t predict future performance. There are many leaders who deliver excellent results in good times but who are now discovering that their previous one dimensional approach isn’t working. One manufacturer we know discovered that its leaders were actually very good at driving performance and focusing energy. They drove costs out very effectively, made some tough choices, got directive and hands-on and generally saved the company. But now this company is doing much better and they need leaders who can take a slightly different approach like fostering innovation, taking risks, going for growth and enabling decision-making. It’s a tough message: “Thank you for saving the company, now please go away as we don’t need you anymore.” Our experience of assessing technology leaders is that they sometimes have trouble adapting to changed circumstances which is particularly troublesome for the sector, as seen in the next point. 
5. Business is changing. No longer is there a straight path from invention to product excellence to revenue. Success now depends on partnership, matrix working, being nimble, marketing magic and – most especially – the transformation of technology organizations from product-orientation to service-orientation. Technology companies are increasingly looking to how they deliver services and solutions and less about products. This ranges from the simple software updates or tailored search to more ‘outsourcing-type’ contracts. But it is a hard transition for many leaders who are used to leading in a traditional way. Hay Group’s leadership matrix and Leadership 2030 research can help leaders and organisations overcome these challenges.

Our experience of assessing hundreds of leaders in technology companies is that, while many of them are world-class, there are too many who are either are in the wrong job (destroying value), or are having trouble adapting to changed circumstances. Organisations would benefit from good assessment processes to fully understand the ‘fit’ of the person to the role and organizational needs; because the precise circumstances or root causes of underperformance are often a different mix of these five issues. To misquote Tolstoy’s opening lines from Anna Karenina, “Successful leaders are often alike; every unsuccessful leader is unsuccessful in his/her own way.”