By John Gude

My firm, Boyden Global Executive Search, has operated in Brazil since 1968, and I would venture to say that we know this market very well.  We have just published The Boyden Report: Brazil for our friends and clients, and I just could not resist talking to you about the information that you can find in this extensive document. There has been a significant shift in Brazil’s global stature, and Boyden presents the views and insights of seven senior business executives to hear why they believe that this country is now walking on the ‘big stage’.

Who are some of these people?  For the most part, they head Brazilian subsidiaries of global companies, and they are noted drivers of key businesses and other organizations that are prominent in Brazil.  They include people ranging from the Presidents of Abbott Laboratories and Caterpillar in Brazil to the Chairman of CleanStar Brazil Bioenergia.

Brazil is moving and growing fast on the world stage, and if you question this, look at some of these facts:

Brazil had the world’s best-performing major current against the US dollar last year, with a 36% advance according to Bloomberg.

Brazil was home to the worl’s largest IPO in 2009.  Santader Brazil’s IPO valued the bank’s Brazilian subsidiary was valued at more than the whole of Deutsche Bank worldwide.

Sao Paulo is among the world’s top five futures and options markets.

Brazil was home to the world’s fastest growing car market in 2007-2009.

Brazil was a major source of stability for many multinationals in the global recession that started in 2007.

32 out of the 50 largest companies in Brazil are foreign multinationals.  But there are also 5 fast growing, Brazilian companies that have achieved recognition as serious multinational competitors in markets ranging from food to aircraft.

The World Bank predicts that if Brazil continues on its current path, it will move from being the tenths largest economy in the world to the fifth largest by 2016. As such, Boyden reports that the FTSE Group  positions Brazil as an ‘Advanced Emerging Economy’ along a different level of the development curve than the other so-called BRIC countries.

Given its stage of development, the contributors to this report provide a compelling case for the solid foundations of the ‘new’ Brazil.  They point to the political system, where the country has apparently achieved stability in the form of a robust, established democratic republic.  In terms of infrastructure, they talk to the banking systems and financial markets as large, stable, and relatively mature.

Brazil, it is pointed out, has new opportunity drivers that are unique in Latin America.  One driver is the consumer market, with millions of people who suddenly have purchasing power.  This shift is said to be dramatic, as people are moving from Class D to Class C or Class C to Class B.  By some estimates, over 30 million people have been lifted out of poverty and given discretionary income.

A second energy driver is the country’s emergency as an energy superpower based on its oil production and reserves.  But it has also taken a lead in on the energy stage through its growing renewable energy credentials including hydro-electric power generation and its well-known investment in the production of ethanol fuels.

Our people ‘on the ground’ tell us that there is an optimism and a pulse of positive activity and growth that is pulsating throughout the country.  One of our long-term partners in Sao Paulo says “I have never before witnessed such optimism here as I do today.”  Another long-term Boyden partner states “Brazilians always used to joke that they lived in the ‘eternal country of the future’ but it seems that our ‘future’ has now arrived”.

Would you like to know more about Brazil? Would you like to know our view on hiring in Brazil as a major executive search firm? Simply download the entire Boyden report on Brazil by clicking here.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

By Gunnar Branson

It is a common mistake to believe that innovation happens when someone comes up with a new idea.  New ideas are a common occurrence – every day, people all over the world come up with great new ideas, new solutions and brilliant potential inventions that could possibly end poverty, build a successful company, or make peeling an orange much easier.

Experiments, though crucial to discovering what is possible and how something might be innovated, aren’t innovation.  Prototypes and inventions aren’t innovation either, though they are an important step towards proving how innovation could happen.

Innovation doesn’t happen in the lab, the skunkworks or the strategy off-site.  It doesn’t happen in the garage of a genius, nor does it happen when a government task force comes up with an innovation blueprint.  Innovation might happen afterwards when the products of everyone’s labors are used by others, but there are quite a few good projects and initiatives that are easily forgotten in a few years.

What about all the patents?  According to the U.S. Patent office, over 350,000 new patent applications are filed every year with less than 200,000 patents secured – but a patent is no guarantee of innovation.  U.S. registered Patents in the last few years for the “Insect Death Ray”, the “Beerbrella”, (illustrated above), the “Flush Toilet for Dogs”, and the “Electro Shock Game”, are interesting, but can they be described as innovations?   They may be useful as entries in the Museum of Obscure Patents, but I question if they are innovation.

According to Richard Maulsby, director of the office of Public Affairs for the US Patent and Trademark Office, “There are around 1.5 million patents in effect and in force in this country, and of those, maybe 3,000 are commercially viable.” (Karen E. Klein, “Avoiding the Inventor’s Lament,” Business Week, November 10, 2005)

If someone invents something that no one buys, did innovation occur?

A good analogue to that question, surprisingly, can be found in metaphysics.  In the early eighteenth century, the philosopher and developer of “subjective idealism” George Berkeley introduced the idea of “To be is to be perceived”.  His ideas are usually introduced with the question,   “If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it really fall?”

Rephrased by Charles Riborg Mann and George Ransom Twiss in their 1910 book,Physics, the question became easier to answer, “When a tree falls in a lonely forest, and no animal is nearby to hear it, does it make a sound?”  When addressed as a physics question versus a metaphysical question, the answer is straightforward:  Sound, as explained by Mann and Twiss, is made up of three things:

1. A source of waves – such as a tree falling and creating vibrations as it hits the ground.
2. A medium for those waves to travel – such as the air
3. A receiver – such as an ear, which translates changes in air pressure into what animals perceive as “sound”

Without any animals around to hear the sound, there are only rippling changes in air pressure – no actual sound has been created.

Much like sound in a forest, innovation requires three things:

1. A source of innovation – a person or a team that is motivated enough to not only to come up with good ideas – but to develop them and influence others to follow.
2. A medium for their ideas to travel – such as the marketplace, writing, broadcasting, the Internet, classrooms, churches or any other gathering of people.
3. Receivers – People pay for the innovation, who will change their lives, collaborate with the source, give up something in order to innovate. The more people who receive it, the more innovative it becomes.

And just like the theoretical forest with no animals to listen – if no one adapts the new idea, process, concept or machine – innovation has not occurred. Put another way, “If someone doesn’t pay for it, then it didn’t happen.”

Innovation then, happens when others do it.  When customers buy a new technology, when a community stops doing what they did before and begins using a new rule of behavior, when an old paradigm is abandoned for a new one…when people make an invention their own – then innovation happens.

Innovation occurs, not when a new idea or invention is discovered, but when everyone else innovates.  The great innovators, whether it was Thomas Edison, Steve Jobs or Henry Ford, were not necessarily the greatest inventors – but they were the most effective at getting others to innovate their lives around a new invention.

So how do they get everyone else to innovate?

Consider the notion of “Desire Lines”.  Originally described by Gaston Bachelard in his 1958 book, The Poetics of Space, a desire line is a path left by people’s use of space.  A particularly graphic example is the erosion created in the ground as people and animals walk over vegetation towards their destination.  Most parks and college campuses have desire lines etched in the grass lawns – areas where people took short cuts off the carefully designed, planned and constructed concrete footpaths.  Frustrated landscapers have long tried to keep people from destroying the grass and flowers by creating fences and other obstacles – but they rarely work, as people tend to simply walk around those obstacles, creating new desire lines.

Most of the roads in older communities were built on top of desire lines created by horses, people and carts as they made their way from destination to destination.  Never a perfect geometric grid, these roads responded directly to the actual needs and behaviors of those who used them.  Instead of fighting desire lines – it is possible to put them to use.  Many designers will intentionally delay the building of walkways for several months and instead just plant grass around and between buildings.  After a few months, the natural traffic of students will create desire lines in the grass that can be “read” as a plan for final concrete walkways.  A wider path is built in the deeper areas of erosion and a smaller path in the light areas because the desire lines illustrate where more or less people walk.

By building on the desire line – it is possible to outsource the design to the hundreds of people who use the paths every day and unconsciously improvise their own course.

Desire lines can be found everywhere – not just on the ground.  Whenever people move through their lives, interact with others, buy things, change things and improvise things, they leave a path.  Everyone doesn’t always follow precisely the same path, but the desire lines can be read and understood.

A company that sells products to customers can often find desire lines right in their own balance sheet. A clear customer desire line was found when accounting discovered that one of their most profitable and steadily growing areas of business, despite falling new bike sales, was their after-market parts business.  In other words, customers were changing their Harley Davidson motorcycles themselves, using parts provided by the company.

Up until the 1970’s, Harley Davidson focused primarily on supplying transportation to military and police organizations.  The motorcycle gangs and tough guys that were modifying surplus bikes to their own needs were seen as an annoyance, and perhaps even a threat to their core business. Much as an eroded path through a field could threaten the beauty of a college campus.

Harley Davidson followed the desire line.  They started to sell more customization, club membership and the romance of an old-fashioned, rebellious, and incredibly loud experience that had been developed by their customers.  Motorcycle sales moved upwards, along with branded clothing, accessories, tattoos, and of course, after-market parts.

Harley-Davidson built their new business model on the desire lines laid down by their customers.  Despite some difficulties in recent years, this remains one of the more innovative re-inventions of a company in great part because, instead of trying to stop the desire lines, they followed them and strengthened them.

Finding desire lines should not be confused with typical customer research or focus group work.  Whenever a customer is asked, “what do you want?”  the answer is always a version of “what I have, but cheaper, easier, or more.”  As valuable as customer research is, it should never be relied upon solely to help companies and leaders chart an innovative path – largely because it reflects what exists today versus what could exist tomorrow.

One way to find a desire line in research is to ask customers or voters to fix something that bothers them.  Here’s an idea for a new product – how would you make it work better?  Here’s a new idea, how would you make it more attractive to others?

But even more powerful than asking questions is to watch behavior.  The Internet in particular has become a very good tool for finding desire lines – by aggregating data on what people look at, how they interact with it, how they change it, how they talk about it and ultimately, how they make it their own.

The desire lines are even easier to find and harness on the Internet.  Google, Wikipedia, Netflix, and now Twitter are all examples of on-line businesses that have figured out ways to harness the power of desire lines.  As Eric von Hippel, author of “Democratizing Innovation” (NYT Monday October 26, 2009) put it,  “Twitter’s smart enough, or lucky enough, to say, ‘Gee, let’s not try to compete with our users in designing this stuff, let’s outsource design to them.’”  The same thing can be said of many newer on-line businesses.  In an environment of transparency, where the behaviors of millions of people can be tracked and translated into data, the strange attractors become easier and easier to understand.

And if you can find the desire line – you can build new products, new services, new ideas that have already been “bought” by everyone else…that have already been innovated for you.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

In my professional life I serve as a Managing Director for Boyden Global Executive Search in Chicago.  As a part of a continuing series on leadership, our firm has just completed an interview with Robert Reich to obtain some of his thoughts and comments on best practices in the business community.  Professor Reich really doesn’t need much of an introduction.  Currently at UC Berkeley, he served as the 22nd Secretary of Labor under President Clinton.  Time named him one of the Ten Most Successful Cabinet Members of the Century, and the Wall Street Journal placed him among America’s Top Ten Business Thinkers.  I am so pleased with Boyden’s article based on his interview that I have reprinted it for your viewing in this blog.  I trust that you will enjoy it as much as I have.

Leadership Beyond the Crisis:

An interview with Professor Robert Reich

In this issue the legendary US cabinet member, Robert Reich, discusses best practices in corporate leadership, CEO compensation, motivating global teams, and the advantage of women in the corner office.

Robert B. Reich has served in three US national administrations, most recently as US Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton. He also served President-Elect Obama’s Transition Advisory Board.

He has written twelve books, including The Work of Nations, which has been translated into 22 languages; the best sellers The Future of Success and Locked in the Cabinet; and his most recent book, Supercapitalism.

Interview with Robert Reich

Boyden: Professor Reich, what do you believe is most important for corporate leaders in the future?

Reich: Context. They need to understand the environment of the companies they’ll be working in. This means the structural changes that are going on in the US and global economy include the changing needs and wants of consumers and the changes in the political environment as well.

Boyden: In Supercapitalism you write that CEOs are not overpaid, but that their compensation is too far removed from pay of average workers. In addition to your suggestion for a more progressive tax structure, does executive compensation need further evaluation?

Reich: Yes, there should be a say on pay. Shareholders, including large institutional shareholders, should have much more input. I didn’t say, by the way, that CEOs are not overpaid. I said that there is a very ready economic explanation for why they earn what they do. But explanations are not justifications.

Boyden: How can better pay for average workers be fixed other than changing the tax structure? Is it just a matter of the companies understanding there’s a return on investment for paying workers more?

Reich: Basically, the [US] tax structure does have to be altered, but beyond that workers need more opportunities for continuously upgrading their skills. And companies need to get beyond the quarter-by-quarter mentality that makes it so difficult for them to invest in their workers long-term.

Boyden: Today, if CEOs do not bring results in four or five quarters, in many cases they may believe they and their executive teams will be shown the door. Is there too much pressure too soon for results, which could alter better long-term corporate strategy?

Reich: This has been going on for 25 to 30 years. The stock market and investors are extremely myopic. One way to change that would be to change tax laws, and particularly, as they apply to capital gains so that the longer a share of stock is held, the lower the capital gains rate.

Boyden: Speaking of gains, what do you think of Goldman Sachs awarding CEO Lloyd Blankfein a 2009 bonus of “only” $9 million in stock? Was it just a smart PR move or was there more to it?

Reich: There is nothing more to it. It was public relations pure and simple. As soon as the American public calms down, Goldman will be back to awarding much larger compensation.

Boyden: What was your view of Britain’s move to heavily tax bonuses of financial company executives?

Reich: It’s completely justifiable if taxpayers are going to bear the burden of bailing out these companies. These measures are often necessary until we get the tough financial reforms that prevent a repeat of the kind of risky behavior that we saw leading up to the 2007 and 2008 crash. It’s entirely justifiable for governments to take a whack at the pay of the big bank CEOs.

Boyden: Many observers believe that in the case of the UK bonus tax, companies are just going to move their operations or transfer their executives to New York, Singapore or wherever to avoid the extra taxes. Does it just come down to responsibility?

Reich: There has to be international coordination. The most important players are the UK and the United States. If a big bank wants to move its executives to Singapore, and executives are willing to effectively lose their citizenship with the UK or the United States for the sake of some more bucks, then, let them lose their citizenship.

Boyden: You once said pay is usually not the most important motivator for employees. Does that still hold true and what’s changed?

Reich: It still holds true by and large. Employees want to feel a degree of autonomy and power over their work. They want to be part of a team and a company that is doing something meaningful, that they can feel proud of. And employees want to learn on the job and they also want a job that allows them to be good parents and good spouses. These are all vitally important, and employees, especially talented employees, are willing to sacrifice some pay at the margin for the sake of these other qualities.

Boyden: Is motivation different for CEOs?

Reich: It’s different for CEOs and top executives in the sense that they are competing for power and prestige with other CEOs. You know, it’s a testosterone contest.

Boyden: And that includes women as well.

Reich: Yes, but, interestingly, less so.

Boyden: Is that because female executives, by and large, are better suited to face today’s economic challenges?

Reich: The new economy depends upon relational skills and empathy. I hate to generalize, but women clearly have the edge.

Boyden: Would you say women have an advantage because of their empathy, relationship skills, and better instincts?

Reich: Absolutely.

Boyden: And sometimes not letting testosterone get in the way?

Reich: Well, you know, testosterone is a poison. And men are (pausing) . . . you only have to look at foreign policy. Much of the history of the world and much of the bloodshed in the world is due to testosterone poisoning.

Boyden: So like a politician that puts his personal interest ahead of the city or state; in the corporate world, men often prioritize their egos instead of the best interests of the company?

Reich: Right. Women are not immune to this kind of small-minded competitiveness but if you look at the bell curve with regards to the qualities that women and men both possess, clearly the median executive woman is better able to put the company, the workforce and the shareholders ahead of her own individual ambition. And a woman is probably also better able to understand the motives and the drive behind many of the people who work for her and around her.

Boyden: What do you think of corporate rating systems for executives and employees?

Reich: Well, 360 degree rating systems in which feedback comes from everyone who deals with a particular employee can be very helpful. Also, managers have got to look at the help that employees provide to their colleagues, what I call the “relational capital” that employees build up with suppliers and with customers. All of these may not show in the bottom line but they are critically important. And should, and deserve, an acknowledgment.

Boyden: Many believe that board members are at least partially culpable, and in many cases, very culpable for the financial crisis and companies’ underperformance. Do you agree?

Reich: I agree. The only reason for having a board is to look over CEOs’, top executives’ and managers’ shoulders and prevent the kind of short-sightedness that we saw on Wall Street. Boards need to be headed by chairmen who are different from CEOs. Boards need to have an opportunity to meet without CEOs. And boards need an opportunity to get the information they want, not just the information that CEOs are willing to give them. Most important, boards need to develop their own metrics of success, corporate success and analyze those metrics for themselves.

Boyden: A number of experts believe the best corporate leadership opportunities even for Western executives will be in the developing world. What can Western executives learn from the emerging markets?

Reich: First of all, “developing” is a misnomer. India and China are rapidly joining the ranks of the developed. And the main thing that Western leaders can learn is the narrowness of Western thinking. Boards as well as executive teams need to be comprised of some people who are Asian, Latin American, perhaps African, who see the world in different ways.

Boyden: So while many US multinational companies are diverse within US ranks, are we not seeing enough directors who are Asian or Latin American or African nationals?

Reich: Exactly. Given the size of the Asian markets and Brazil as well as other Latin American countries, executive teams need to be much, much more broadly-based than merely European and US-based teams.

Boyden: Are there companies that stand out and have it right in the leadership department and the people management department?

Reich: At different times, different companies have done it right. For example, ten years ago I would have said Starbucks, fifteen years ago I would have included Levi Strauss, but times change. Companies that at one time were leading the pack in terms of leadership skills have stopped paying attention maybe because they’ve had so much success that they feel it’s no longer necessary.

Boyden: Are there other companies that are interesting to watch in management?

Reich: IBM right now is doing some interesting things. Eaton is doing some interesting things. And Google is enormously interesting, but only time will tell.

Boyden: Are these companies that are simply a little more aggressive to try new areas, or what makes them interesting?

Reich: The one benefit from this terrible recession is that it gives top managers the opportunity to try fundamentally new things. The biggest barrier to innovation when it comes to leadership in management is past success. Now that almost everybody is being stressed, it’s possible to exert a different kind of leadership that says essentially, ‘Let’s at least try this . . . we don’t have to be bound by the past.”

Boyden: If you had just a few minutes to give advice to a first-time CEO, Country Manager or Division Head, what would you tell him or her?

Reich: Listen, listen, listen, listen. And then evaluate what you are hearing instead of cramming your calendar full of meetings in which you tell people things. Calm down, take some time, and learn as much as you can.

Boyden: What would be your final thoughts on leadership?

Reich: Just this: We still tend to think of leaders as lone individuals, kind of “cowboy types,” who come in to situations and rough up everyone and push everyone into shape – a kind of John Wayne or Jack Welch. That is not real leadership. Leadership is the art of creating a fabulous team of people who can come up with innovative solutions and spot new problems and opportunities quickly, and no individual can do this alone.

To learn more from Robert Reich’s public commentary, visit his blog atrobertreich.org.

The views and opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of Boyden: only those of Professor Reich.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

By Buckley Brinkman

It was something often heard from my parents, my teachers, and my bosses. There was always something happening around me…and it wasn’t always good. “Try it and see” was my motto. My friends and I weren’t always successful, but we were always learning – even if it was how not to do something! We were going to change the world.

Weren’t we all?

Then adult reality set in. Jobs, responsibilities, and nay-sayers all put limits on what we think is possible. We fall into our routines, go about our lives, and many times create more smoke than actual fire. Activity takes the place of real action and our lives unfold before us in a pedantic day-by-day fashion.

It’s time to ask a new question of ourselves. The question is no longer “What are you doing?” “What are you changing?” is what truly matters.

The new economy puts a premium on creating value, and it’s very difficult to create true value without creating change. Are you ready? Really ready to change yourself in order to create meaningful, lasting change? That type of personal change requires us to step out of our comfort zones and truly test our personal limits. It also demands that we ask difficult questions about every part of our lives and take constructive action.

It’s a tough challenge to accept. I’ve been involved with change my whole career. I turned around multiple companies in different industries, creating more than a half-billion dollars in realized value. I left that world in order to start Launchpad Partners and tell other people how to create that same value for themselves. There was plenty of activity: blogs written, Tweets sent, and hundreds of face-to-face meetings. I created a lot of smoke – great ideas, conversations, and friendships – but very little fire. There were few engagements and only marginal change.

Something was missing. My partners and I were making ourselves experts on change and innovation. We were learning everyday and engaging some of the best minds in the Midwest. We formulated great ideas for change – a tremendous amount of smoke – but almost no fire. We were telling people how to change, but we were not creating change. Without change, there was no value.

The difference between talking about change and creating change

became very clear when I came to Minneapolis and started running Vallon. Our challenge is very clear: to change the way companies staff their organizations. Traditionally, it generally takes between 60 days and six months to find and land talent for a vacant position. Vallon cuts that time down to 48 hours. The ability to deliver in a shorter time doesn’t guarantee the company’s success. That will require new beliefs, structures, and paradigms to make this model flourish. We are changing them all as we move forward: smoke and fire.

Our efforts are creating change and value by connecting activity with action. Vallon’s abilities and approach transform the flexibility and cost of a company’s talent. Activity is vital. The blogs, Tweets, and visits are critical to our success, but now they are focused and creating genuine action. Action that creates change, and change that creates value. That chain is growing the business and putting us in a better place to face the future.

So are you ready to change in order to create change? Where in the world will you make a difference? Are you willing to test yourself and your abilities?

You do have a choice!

You can decide to create change, personally defining your value to the world. Or you can opt for activity without action – smoke without fire – and allow someone else to set your value and future.

Which will you choose? Are you ready?

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

By  John Gude

Wise people would probably respond to either of these questions with caution and with the objective of providing no real answer.  Or at least no answer for which they might be held accountable.  This recession has been a tough one for most businesses and many people, and as defined by a whole host of measures. After all, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported an unemployment rate of 10.2% for October, the highest such measurement in 26 years.

My gut tells me that this recession will be remembered a little differently than most of the others since World War II.  This one will be remembered more for the pain that it has created for people–those who lost their jobs, those who couldn’t find any reasonable job, and those who just stopped looking. I also have come to feel that the effects of this recession have been internalized by a large segment of our population, and that all traditional socio-economic groups and geographies are well represented here.

This past July, I came across a Commentary by Susan Estrich that addressed the unemployment situation, and I was struck by the emotion that dwelled in her words.  You can read it here, but listen her closing thoughts:

“The point is, I have always had a job, usually more than one, had no sympathy for those who couldn’t find one.

“Until now.

“I have never seen or lived through anything quite like this.  There are no            jobs for lawyers or laborers, for painters or waitresses, for secretaries or              salespeople.  There are literally no jobs to be had.”

Get my point?

It is now early December, and there are two, maybe three indications of better news.  Last Friday (December 4), the BLS posted a news release to tell us that the unemployment rate had “edged down” to 10.0% from 10.2%.  This is a very modest movement, but at least it is in the right direction.

But before the BLS released their report, the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) issued a report that could be much more telling.  In the December 5 New York Times, Floyd Norris tells us that “The Jobless Rate May Have Hit Its Peak.”

Mr. Norris presents a very interesting analysis and commentary based largely on the release of one key economic indicator by the ISM.  If this indicator is accurate, the unemployment rate for October will have been high rate for the business cycle. He points out that this indicator has proved to be reliable in all 10 previous recessions since World War II.

But look at this:  Mr. Norris states that if other ISM data prove correct, the recovery from this recession will be very different from the “jobless” recoveries after the recessions of 1990-91 and 2001. In both instances, the unemployment rates rose for months after the official end of the recession.

As a part of their survey the ISM asks employers whether they would be adding to or reducing their workforce.  The report showed that more companies were hiring than reducing employment in both October and November.  In the past, Mr. Norris states, two such months of gains in the employment component always came after the recession was later determined to have ended, and after the unemployment rate had begun to decline, with only one exception.

So just maybe the jobless rate has peaked, and there could be something other than a “jobless” recovery to this recession.  If so, this recession will be called the Recession of 2007-2009 and not the Recession of 2007-2010.  And maybe the pain created by the unemployment associated with this recession will begin to fade.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

By Adam Hartung

$150billion. That’s a lot of money.  And that’s how much shareholder value has increased at Apple since Steve Jobs returned as CEO. Can you think of any other CEO that has aided shareholder wealth so much?  Do any of the cost cutting CEOs in manufacturing companies, financial services firms, or media companies see their share prices rising like Apple’s?

Fortune has declared this “The Decade of Steve“ in its latest publication at Money.CNN.com.  Such over-the-top statements are by nature intended to sell magazines (or draw page hits).  But the writer makes the valid point that very few leaders impact their industry like Apple has the computer industry, under Jobs leadership. Under his leadership Apple has also had a dramatic impact on the restructuring of two other industries - music and mobile phones/computing.  Another company Mr. Jobs founded, Pixar, had a major impact on restructuring the movie business. So with Mr. Jobs as leader, no less than 4 industries have been dramatically changed – and huge value created for shareholders.

No cost-cutting CEO, no “focus on the core” CEO, no “execution” CEO can claim to have made the kind of industry changes that have occurred through businesses led by Steve Jobs.  And none of those CEO profiles can say they have created the shareholder value Mr. Jobs has created. While Microsoft’s value has declined the last decade, Apple’s has almost caught up with the innovation-lacking behemoth.  Today Apple has more cash and marketable securities than the entire value of the historically supply-chain driven Dell Corporation.

Mr. Jobs is constantly pushing his organization to focus on the future rather than past products and customer requests.  It was a decade ago that Apple created its “digital lifestyle” scenario of the future, which opened Apple’s organization to being much more than Macs.  Jobs obsesses about competitors and forces his employees to do the same, to make sure Apple doesn’t grow complacent he pushes all products to have leading edge components.  Mr. Jobs embraces Disruption, doesn’t fear seeing it in his company, doesn’t mind it amongst his people, and works to create it in his markets.  And he makes sure Apple constantly keeps White Space projects open and working to see what works with customers – testing and trying new things all the time in the marketplace.

Almost bankrupt a decade ago, it wasn’t financial re-engineering that saved Apple. It was launching new products that met emerging needs.  Apple showed any company can turn itself around if it follows the right steps.Value is not created by cost cutting and waiting for the recession to end.  Value is created by seeking innovations and creating an organization that can implement them. Especially Disruptive ones.

Whether Steven Jobs is CEO of the decade or not I can’t answer.  But saying he’s one heck of a good role model for what leaders should be doing to create value in their companies is undoubtedly true.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Welcome to the first posting on this new blog, which I have simply named Chicago Marrow. This new site is dedicated to providing you with inviting, sometimes provocative news and opinion about business and innovation.  And it comes to you from Chicago.

This blog was created as a podium for some of the best thinkers and best minds to present you with their views and news on what they feel is important to you and to the larger business community.  And yes, I will also joining in with my own views on news and issues that I feel may be important.  Some of the areas that I visit will be of general interest, while others will relate more to talent management and executive search.

Chicago? Chicago is an international city and marketplace that represents the very pulse of America.  It also represents true diversity, and a host of world-class thinkers, authors and writers.  Many of these people also think and write with an underbelly and grit that is found nowhere else.

Marrow? Many people think of marrow as simply the best, the most essential part of many things.  It can also be the site and source of growth, nourishment, life.

Chicago Marrow will try to bring you the best, the most essential part of many issues from some of the best minds and authors that can be found anyplace.  Only from Chicago.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites