Monday, March 9, 2015
The outlook for global growth in 2015
Despite tempered expectations, most forecasters see strong growth ahead, accelerating in 2016. As our Global Economics Intelligence team reports, executives are focusing on divergent opportunities.
March 2015 | byLuis Enriquez, Ina Kota, and Sven Smit
Leading forecasters estimate that the world economy
will grow by between 2.8 and 3.8 percent this year—about one percentage
point lower than last year’s consensus forecasts. Yet as monitors of the
global economy lower their expectations for 2015, executives are
increasingly focusing on opportunities presented by diverging growth
rates among regions, countries, and even sectors. This means an
essential element of strategic and financial planning for 2015 and
beyond is taking closer account of critical regional trends and risks,
with sensitivity to key economic indicators and government policy
responses.
McKinsey’s Global Economics Intelligence (GEI) team closely tracks forecasts of leading financial institutions and multilaterals. By the latest estimate of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), in October 2014, world GDP growth was measured at 3.3 percent for 2014.1 For 2016, the IMF and other organizations have lowered previous global GDP growth projections to 3.1 to 4.1 percent (Exhibit 1). Most forecasters expect a robust US economy to continue to lead the way, and the eurozone’s new program of quantitative easing is a sign the region is ready for expansion. And while falling oil prices weigh heavily on growth prospects for commodities-dependent Brazil and Russia, China and India are benefiting from easing inflationary pressures.
Exhibit 1
Market volatility is being stoked in part by the steep decline in oil prices, which will adversely affect oil producers while benefiting consumers. Although the net impact of the lower prices will differ by country, a very rough estimate of the potential consumer savings is nearly $450 billion,2 which represents a considerable transfer of wealth from producing to consuming countries.3 In addition, while executives were confident about their own companies, “geopolitical instability” was cited as the leading risk to global growth in McKinsey’s global survey of nearly 1,700 business leaders at the end of 2014.4
Region by region
The first GEI reports of 2015 show the following regional pictures emerging (for a comparative snapshot, see Exhibit 2).
Exhibit 2
The US economy has momentum from stronger-than-expected growth at the end of 2014. Consumer sentiment and trade activity increased, the unemployment rate fell to 5.6 percent in January, and financial markets benefited from upbeat investor sentiment. However, retail sales dipped in December, and real wages continued to stagnate. The US economy has overcome a number of hurdles to see its way clear to a deeper and stronger recovery: the range of growth forecasts exceeds 3 percent for 2015.
In the eurozone, macroeconomic conditions are improving after sluggish growth last year. Even with a depreciating euro, deflation, and financial pressures hitting smaller economies, the underlying real economy appears to be gaining. A brighter picture is reflected in consumer sentiment, manufacturing, and trade—thanks especially to lower energy prices. If negotiations with Greece are effectively managed, the eurozone could be well positioned to benefit from Europe’s looser monetary policy, evident recovery in several of the region’s economies, and low or falling oil prices. Monetary uncertainty persists. The euro continues to depreciate against the dollar, falling sharply when the Swiss franc was unpegged on January 15. The European Central Bank has since announced that asset purchases would be expanded to €60 billion a month until September 2016. GDP growth forecasts for the eurozone in 2015 have been lowered slightly, with most estimates coming in above 1 percent.
China and India have both experienced broad improvements in macroeconomic conditions, especially as low energy prices eased inflationary pressures and import bills. Financial markets gained in China but remained volatile in India. Forecasts for both countries have been tempered slightly for 2015. For China, the economy is slowing in line with expectations, with most projections approaching 7 percent growth for 2015 and 6.3 percent in 2016. Conditions in India appear to be improving, and growth through 2016 is forecast at around 6.5 percent.
Brazil is struggling, but inflation has eased recently. The central bank remains cautious and has raised its overnight rate by 50 basis points. Trade and fiscal deficits posed new challenges for the newly elected government, as a possible debt downgrade looms. Most forecasts for Brazil’s GDP in 2015 were lowered, with a range of less than 1 percent.
Russia’s economic conditions worsened noticeably, as consumer confidence hit a five-year low and indicators for manufacturing and trade both fell. Inflation soared to 11.4 percent on an annual basis, as the ruble lost nearly half its value over the past 12 months. Most GDP forecasts for Russia in 2015 have been cut sharply, ranging from zero growth to a contraction of 0.7 percent.
Even the lowered global-growth estimates of more than 3 percent in 2015 and 2016 remain well above the historical average of 1.8 percent annual growth during the past 50 years.5 But executives remain wary of macroeconomic and geopolitical risks, including oil and gas price volatility and its impact both on major exporting economies, Russia foremost, and on consuming economies, including Europe, Japan, and the United States. Other significant risks are the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, with its European and global ramifications; China’s downshifting economic pace, which has implications for global trade; the effects on foreign exchange levels and capital availability of diverging monetary-policy actions by central banks around the world; and Greece’s unresolved status in the eurozone, which raises significant questions about the economic future of Europe and the global economy.
McKinsey’s Global Economics Intelligence (GEI) team closely tracks forecasts of leading financial institutions and multilaterals. By the latest estimate of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), in October 2014, world GDP growth was measured at 3.3 percent for 2014.1 For 2016, the IMF and other organizations have lowered previous global GDP growth projections to 3.1 to 4.1 percent (Exhibit 1). Most forecasters expect a robust US economy to continue to lead the way, and the eurozone’s new program of quantitative easing is a sign the region is ready for expansion. And while falling oil prices weigh heavily on growth prospects for commodities-dependent Brazil and Russia, China and India are benefiting from easing inflationary pressures.
Exhibit 1
Global GDP forecasts anticipate gradual strengthening in 2015 and 2016.
Market volatility is being stoked in part by the steep decline in oil prices, which will adversely affect oil producers while benefiting consumers. Although the net impact of the lower prices will differ by country, a very rough estimate of the potential consumer savings is nearly $450 billion,2 which represents a considerable transfer of wealth from producing to consuming countries.3 In addition, while executives were confident about their own companies, “geopolitical instability” was cited as the leading risk to global growth in McKinsey’s global survey of nearly 1,700 business leaders at the end of 2014.4
Region by region
The first GEI reports of 2015 show the following regional pictures emerging (for a comparative snapshot, see Exhibit 2).
Exhibit 2
Indicators show steadiest improvement in developed economies.
The US economy has momentum from stronger-than-expected growth at the end of 2014. Consumer sentiment and trade activity increased, the unemployment rate fell to 5.6 percent in January, and financial markets benefited from upbeat investor sentiment. However, retail sales dipped in December, and real wages continued to stagnate. The US economy has overcome a number of hurdles to see its way clear to a deeper and stronger recovery: the range of growth forecasts exceeds 3 percent for 2015.
In the eurozone, macroeconomic conditions are improving after sluggish growth last year. Even with a depreciating euro, deflation, and financial pressures hitting smaller economies, the underlying real economy appears to be gaining. A brighter picture is reflected in consumer sentiment, manufacturing, and trade—thanks especially to lower energy prices. If negotiations with Greece are effectively managed, the eurozone could be well positioned to benefit from Europe’s looser monetary policy, evident recovery in several of the region’s economies, and low or falling oil prices. Monetary uncertainty persists. The euro continues to depreciate against the dollar, falling sharply when the Swiss franc was unpegged on January 15. The European Central Bank has since announced that asset purchases would be expanded to €60 billion a month until September 2016. GDP growth forecasts for the eurozone in 2015 have been lowered slightly, with most estimates coming in above 1 percent.
China and India have both experienced broad improvements in macroeconomic conditions, especially as low energy prices eased inflationary pressures and import bills. Financial markets gained in China but remained volatile in India. Forecasts for both countries have been tempered slightly for 2015. For China, the economy is slowing in line with expectations, with most projections approaching 7 percent growth for 2015 and 6.3 percent in 2016. Conditions in India appear to be improving, and growth through 2016 is forecast at around 6.5 percent.
Brazil is struggling, but inflation has eased recently. The central bank remains cautious and has raised its overnight rate by 50 basis points. Trade and fiscal deficits posed new challenges for the newly elected government, as a possible debt downgrade looms. Most forecasts for Brazil’s GDP in 2015 were lowered, with a range of less than 1 percent.
Russia’s economic conditions worsened noticeably, as consumer confidence hit a five-year low and indicators for manufacturing and trade both fell. Inflation soared to 11.4 percent on an annual basis, as the ruble lost nearly half its value over the past 12 months. Most GDP forecasts for Russia in 2015 have been cut sharply, ranging from zero growth to a contraction of 0.7 percent.
Even the lowered global-growth estimates of more than 3 percent in 2015 and 2016 remain well above the historical average of 1.8 percent annual growth during the past 50 years.5 But executives remain wary of macroeconomic and geopolitical risks, including oil and gas price volatility and its impact both on major exporting economies, Russia foremost, and on consuming economies, including Europe, Japan, and the United States. Other significant risks are the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, with its European and global ramifications; China’s downshifting economic pace, which has implications for global trade; the effects on foreign exchange levels and capital availability of diverging monetary-policy actions by central banks around the world; and Greece’s unresolved status in the eurozone, which raises significant questions about the economic future of Europe and the global economy.
Women-led companies perform three times better than the S&P 500
Boston-based
Quantopian looked at how well Fortune 1000 companies led by women
performed compared to the S&P 500 over a 12-year period.
You’ve heard that companies with women executives at the
helm tend to perform better than those led by men— and a new study
furthers that claim, finding that women CEOs in the Fortune 1000 drive three times the returns as S&P 500 enterprises run predominantly by men.Quantopian, a Boston-based trading platform based on crowdsourced algorithms, pitted the performance of Fortune 1000 companies that had women CEOs between 2002 and 2014 against the S&P 500’s performance during that same period. The comparison showed that the 80 women CEOs during those 12 years produced equity returns 226% better than the S&P 500. (Global nonprofit women’s issues researcher Catalyst compiled the list of women CEOs used in the simulation.)
“It’s based on a buy-and-hold strategy aimed at looking at how well women CEOs have performed cumulatively,” says Karen Rubin, Quantopian’s product manager. She says she is now working with Morningstar to create an algorithm for a fund built on the same premise using real-time data for live trading.
Here’s how the simulation works: Rubin invests a hypothetical $100,000 in the companies that had women CEOs between Jan. 1, 2002 and Dec. 31, 2014 and another $100,000 in the S&P 500. Rubin buys a company’s stock when the woman becomes CEO, and holds it through the CEO’s tenure.
According to the algorithm, the women CEO fund would end up being worth $448,158, or a return of 348%, while the S&P 500 investment would have risen to $222,306, or a return of 122 %. The results are even on the conservative side for the performance of the women CEOs, since dividends weren’t reinvested automatically as they were with the S&P 500.
Of the women CEOs tracked over those years, the two best performers were Mindy Grossman at HSNi, parent of the Home Shopping Network, and Debra Cafaro at Ventas, a healthcare and senior living real estate investment trust. Both women, still CEOs of their respective companies, increased the initial investment by more than 500%. Cafaro has been chief through the entire 12 years, while Grossman became the head of HSN in 2006 when it was still part of Barry Diller’s IAC. HSN was spun off in August 2008 at the height of the recession and just in time for the stock market meltdown. The simulation calculated Grossman’s performance from the IPO date.
Other top performers within the make-believe fund include Carol Meyrowitz at TJX, Linda Lang at Jack in the Box, Denise Ramos at ITT and Gracia Martore at Gannett—all of whom increased Rubin’s initial investment by more than 200%, and 300% in Meyrowitz’s case.
Of course, not every woman CEO had a stellar performance. The biggest loser on the list was Janet Robinson at The New York Times, where an investor would have lost more than 80% of his or her investment during her tenure from Dec. 27, 2004 to Jan. 3, 2012. Others in the negative were Mary Sammons at Rite Aid, Kerrii Anderson at Wendy’s International, and Patricia Russo at Lucent.
There are six companies on the list in which two female CEOs led during the 12 years, including Yahoo, where both Carol Bartz and Marissa Mayer held the top spot, Xerox with Anne Mulcahy and Ursula Burns, HP with Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman, and Avon Products with Andrea Jung and Sheri McCoy. Best performing of these was Yahoo!, where the investment increased in value 20% under Bartz and an impressive 224% under Mayer, who was a beneficiary of the increasing value of the interest in Alibaba purchased by Yahoo! founder Jerry Yang.
Rubin decided to embark on this experiment after seeing the results of the Credit Suisse Gender 3000, which showed the return on equity for companies with women in more than 10% of key positions was 27% better than for those with less than 5 percent and the dividend payouts had a 42% higher ratio. The study by the Credit Suisse Research Institute tracked some 28,000 executives at 3,000 companies in 40 countries.
Thursday, March 5, 2015
The Social Sector's Glass Ceiling: Why Women In Leadership Jobs Matter
Two weeks ago, the Pew Research Center released the results of a national survey
on women and leadership – results that still show major challenges in
public life and the corporate C-suite for women in the U.S.
We all know the big scores: 44-0 for the U.S. Presidency and the noted dearth (just 4.6% of the S&P 500) of women in the CEO role of major companies. There are 104 female member of the U.S. Congress – the most ever – but it’s somehow seen as a victory that a shade over 19 percent of elected representatives in our national legislature are now women.
The Pew study showed that attitudes are slowly changing – but that hurdles to parity (and fairness) still exist. According to the survey, women are far more likely than men to see gender discrimination in today’s society, and that “women and men are seen as equally good business leaders, but gender stereotypes persist.”
Reports Pew: “…the public does not see major differences between men and women on key business leadership qualities. Where they do see gaps, women have a clear advantage over men on honesty and ethics, providing fair pay and benefits, and offering mentorship to young employees. Men have an edge when it comes to being willing to take risks and negotiating profitable deals.”
That got me thinking about my own sector: nonprofits, philanthropists, social ventures. Where I go to work every day, the gender gaps tends to run in the opposite direction – and yet even here, the glass ceiling remains stubborn.
Go to a philanthropy conference or a fundraising convention or a summit on social entrepreneurship or a roundtable on corporate social responsibility. Women predominate. The programs I’ve taught in here in New York – first at NYU and now at Columbia – are filled with ambitious and talented women seeking masters degrees to help them attain senior executive ranks in the social sector. In my own consulting practice over the last decade, working for nonprofits and foundations large and small, the person I report to (usually the executive director or development chief) has been about two times more likely to be a woman than a man. And I daresay, there’s at least parity among the strongest social sector writers, analysts and public intellectuals.
According to a 2013 survey by the White House Project, fully 73 percent of employees in the nonprofit sector are women. Yet, by all accounts, women have not yet reached parity in terms of leadership positions or pay.
”The social sector has a long way to go to meet gender equity in executive compensation,” said Guidestar research chief Chuck McLean last fall, when the organization released its annual report on nonprofit compensation. Guidestar found that women who are nonprofit chief executives made 11 percent less on average at organizations with budgets of $250,000 and 23 percent less at organizations with budgets between $25 million and $50 million. Further, the raw numbers are also troubling: when budgets are small, women make up the majority of executive directors and CEOs. As the budgets increase, the number of women in charge decreases; just 17 percent of nonprofits with budgets of more than $50 million had female leaders.
It’s hard to explain why this glass ceiling still exists in a sector so dominated – and frankly, made possible – by the work of women. Last year, the Chronicle of Philanthropy teamed with NYU to survey female nonprofit executives about their careers. The research found that 44 percent of female nonprofit workers “think their organization favors men over equally qualified women for chief leadership positions.” The survey found that big organizations also don’t take women donors as seriously as they do wealthy men – clearly a mistake in the changing world of U.S. philanthropy, where some are starting to urge a specific gender lens be applied to giving.
In its annual report on the state of governance of nonprofit boards of directors, the organization Boardsource cited a continued gender gap in leadership – with smaller organizations often led by women, but organizations of medium size (over $1 million) or large (over $10 million) employ female chief executives at a rate of just 37 percent. More encouraging was the data on women and board participation and leadership: the survey showed that women trailed men only by 52-48 in board membership, and by 54-46 in chairing nonprofit boards. This mirrors my own experience in the sector, and I think it’s encouraging.
I do believe that attitudes are changing, particularly among younger people. While parity in national politics and in the big companies is still far away, it’s a lot closer farther down the power pyramid. In this shift – which is happening now – the social sector can proudly claim its own leadership, and take pride in leading society forward.
We all know the big scores: 44-0 for the U.S. Presidency and the noted dearth (just 4.6% of the S&P 500) of women in the CEO role of major companies. There are 104 female member of the U.S. Congress – the most ever – but it’s somehow seen as a victory that a shade over 19 percent of elected representatives in our national legislature are now women.
The Pew study showed that attitudes are slowly changing – but that hurdles to parity (and fairness) still exist. According to the survey, women are far more likely than men to see gender discrimination in today’s society, and that “women and men are seen as equally good business leaders, but gender stereotypes persist.”
Reports Pew: “…the public does not see major differences between men and women on key business leadership qualities. Where they do see gaps, women have a clear advantage over men on honesty and ethics, providing fair pay and benefits, and offering mentorship to young employees. Men have an edge when it comes to being willing to take risks and negotiating profitable deals.”
That got me thinking about my own sector: nonprofits, philanthropists, social ventures. Where I go to work every day, the gender gaps tends to run in the opposite direction – and yet even here, the glass ceiling remains stubborn.
Go to a philanthropy conference or a fundraising convention or a summit on social entrepreneurship or a roundtable on corporate social responsibility. Women predominate. The programs I’ve taught in here in New York – first at NYU and now at Columbia – are filled with ambitious and talented women seeking masters degrees to help them attain senior executive ranks in the social sector. In my own consulting practice over the last decade, working for nonprofits and foundations large and small, the person I report to (usually the executive director or development chief) has been about two times more likely to be a woman than a man. And I daresay, there’s at least parity among the strongest social sector writers, analysts and public intellectuals.
According to a 2013 survey by the White House Project, fully 73 percent of employees in the nonprofit sector are women. Yet, by all accounts, women have not yet reached parity in terms of leadership positions or pay.
”The social sector has a long way to go to meet gender equity in executive compensation,” said Guidestar research chief Chuck McLean last fall, when the organization released its annual report on nonprofit compensation. Guidestar found that women who are nonprofit chief executives made 11 percent less on average at organizations with budgets of $250,000 and 23 percent less at organizations with budgets between $25 million and $50 million. Further, the raw numbers are also troubling: when budgets are small, women make up the majority of executive directors and CEOs. As the budgets increase, the number of women in charge decreases; just 17 percent of nonprofits with budgets of more than $50 million had female leaders.
It’s hard to explain why this glass ceiling still exists in a sector so dominated – and frankly, made possible – by the work of women. Last year, the Chronicle of Philanthropy teamed with NYU to survey female nonprofit executives about their careers. The research found that 44 percent of female nonprofit workers “think their organization favors men over equally qualified women for chief leadership positions.” The survey found that big organizations also don’t take women donors as seriously as they do wealthy men – clearly a mistake in the changing world of U.S. philanthropy, where some are starting to urge a specific gender lens be applied to giving.
In its annual report on the state of governance of nonprofit boards of directors, the organization Boardsource cited a continued gender gap in leadership – with smaller organizations often led by women, but organizations of medium size (over $1 million) or large (over $10 million) employ female chief executives at a rate of just 37 percent. More encouraging was the data on women and board participation and leadership: the survey showed that women trailed men only by 52-48 in board membership, and by 54-46 in chairing nonprofit boards. This mirrors my own experience in the sector, and I think it’s encouraging.
I do believe that attitudes are changing, particularly among younger people. While parity in national politics and in the big companies is still far away, it’s a lot closer farther down the power pyramid. In this shift – which is happening now – the social sector can proudly claim its own leadership, and take pride in leading society forward.
Tom Watson covers social change movements,
nonprofits, philanthropy and digital networks. He’s president of
CauseWired LLC, a company serving the social sector.
6 Ways Vision Will Inspire Your Employees And Culture
Even
as kids, we developed radar on leadership. Consider the classic
schoolyard game, Follow the Leader. Everyone has to do exactly what the
leader does, or they’re out. Growing up, I remember watching that game
dissolve time after time. The leader would start doing scary climbs or
huge leaps, and the followers felt put at risk. The leader would make
seemingly pointless changes in direction, the followers got frustrated.
Finally someone would yell, What are you doing? You’re a terrible leader! And set off a culture mutiny.
Since we left the playground for the workplace, what’s changed? Not much. Though these days, vision’s become a buzzword — to the point where She’s a leader with a real vision can simply mean Nice marketing strategy. But still: effective leadership, particularly at the juncture between the old ways of working and the new, requires far more than a charismatic, alpha personality, and far more than a good PR team.
Here’s how to hone its critical ingredient, Vision, To Stay On Pace With The Future of Work:
1) Vision Is Mission Plus Tech Strategy
True vision involves a clear mission that informs every strategic action and decision. Bring that into a talent management context for a moment. If a CEO’s vision includes attracting the best and the brightest minds to the organization on a global scale, a visionary talent strategy will include a platform that’s social and mobile, agile and timely, shaped with this clear target group in mind. If it doesn’t, the strategy isn’t supporting the vision.
2) Vision Should Come From Within
Consider our iconic leaders. They appear to be so filled with their vision that they’re incandescent with it; lit from within. Steve Jobs is a great example: he lived and breathed his vision; such a part of Apple’s mission that “Think Different” could have had a black turtleneck as a flag. Such distilled strength gives a brand coherency and momentum. But to transmit your vision to others and inspire them, you first have to be filled with it yourself.
3) Vision Is Creative
What makes a leader stand out is that their ability to conceive of an objective that may not even exist: stores serving nothing but fancy coffee, cars a working family can afford to buy, a system of storing data without physical form or shape, yet nearly infinite capacity and capabilities. Then, when it comes to problem solving, where one person sees a dead end, the leader sees a road ahead. Bolstered by an unshakeable faith in their own vision, leaders see obstacles as opportunities.
4) Vision Takes Tenacity
It takes tenacity to adhere to a vision and defend it against the prospect of failure. But leaders roll up their sleeves and the world throws in behind them. Consider the recent news that insurance giant Aetna and retail mammoth Walmart are both raising wages is bound to cause ripples in the pond, as businesses are forced to similarly act in order to keep pace and attract employees — that’s one of the byproducts of a firmer job market. But the cost of these decisions is immense: Walmart, for once, has 1.3 million U.S. workers. It’s not hard to imagine the resistance such a strategy could come up against within the organization, and how hard fought the battle to get it done.
5) Vision Takes Vision
No, it’s not a typo: vision requires a sense of the big picture and a laser-sharp view of the future. This kind of foresight takes practice, but it’s part of what keeps the train on the track. Leaders need to be able to look at past performances, whether successes or failures, and be able to use that to predict future outcomes. Further, a leader can envision more than one possible outcome, and still have it adhere to their stated objective.
6) Vision Requires Communication
None of this will go anywhere if a leader doesn’t also have the tools to convey that vision to the organization, and inspire them to get the job done. That may also be why marketing has taken such a hold on the term: marketing is about creating the most engaging expression of an idea. Implicit in our ability to convey our vision is that vital compact that leadership needs to have with employees: one of consideration, and inclusion, and respect. Together, we can do it, as the slogan goes. And that, drives employee engagement and helps talent attraction and retention across the board.
Photo Credit: Startup Stock Photos
Meghan M. Biro Contributor
Since we left the playground for the workplace, what’s changed? Not much. Though these days, vision’s become a buzzword — to the point where She’s a leader with a real vision can simply mean Nice marketing strategy. But still: effective leadership, particularly at the juncture between the old ways of working and the new, requires far more than a charismatic, alpha personality, and far more than a good PR team.
Here’s how to hone its critical ingredient, Vision, To Stay On Pace With The Future of Work:
1) Vision Is Mission Plus Tech Strategy
True vision involves a clear mission that informs every strategic action and decision. Bring that into a talent management context for a moment. If a CEO’s vision includes attracting the best and the brightest minds to the organization on a global scale, a visionary talent strategy will include a platform that’s social and mobile, agile and timely, shaped with this clear target group in mind. If it doesn’t, the strategy isn’t supporting the vision.
2) Vision Should Come From Within
Consider our iconic leaders. They appear to be so filled with their vision that they’re incandescent with it; lit from within. Steve Jobs is a great example: he lived and breathed his vision; such a part of Apple’s mission that “Think Different” could have had a black turtleneck as a flag. Such distilled strength gives a brand coherency and momentum. But to transmit your vision to others and inspire them, you first have to be filled with it yourself.
3) Vision Is Creative
What makes a leader stand out is that their ability to conceive of an objective that may not even exist: stores serving nothing but fancy coffee, cars a working family can afford to buy, a system of storing data without physical form or shape, yet nearly infinite capacity and capabilities. Then, when it comes to problem solving, where one person sees a dead end, the leader sees a road ahead. Bolstered by an unshakeable faith in their own vision, leaders see obstacles as opportunities.
4) Vision Takes Tenacity
It takes tenacity to adhere to a vision and defend it against the prospect of failure. But leaders roll up their sleeves and the world throws in behind them. Consider the recent news that insurance giant Aetna and retail mammoth Walmart are both raising wages is bound to cause ripples in the pond, as businesses are forced to similarly act in order to keep pace and attract employees — that’s one of the byproducts of a firmer job market. But the cost of these decisions is immense: Walmart, for once, has 1.3 million U.S. workers. It’s not hard to imagine the resistance such a strategy could come up against within the organization, and how hard fought the battle to get it done.
5) Vision Takes Vision
No, it’s not a typo: vision requires a sense of the big picture and a laser-sharp view of the future. This kind of foresight takes practice, but it’s part of what keeps the train on the track. Leaders need to be able to look at past performances, whether successes or failures, and be able to use that to predict future outcomes. Further, a leader can envision more than one possible outcome, and still have it adhere to their stated objective.
6) Vision Requires Communication
None of this will go anywhere if a leader doesn’t also have the tools to convey that vision to the organization, and inspire them to get the job done. That may also be why marketing has taken such a hold on the term: marketing is about creating the most engaging expression of an idea. Implicit in our ability to convey our vision is that vital compact that leadership needs to have with employees: one of consideration, and inclusion, and respect. Together, we can do it, as the slogan goes. And that, drives employee engagement and helps talent attraction and retention across the board.
Photo Credit: Startup Stock Photos
Meghan M. Biro Contributor
Wednesday, March 4, 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)