« Mounds of Data Vs. Useful Knowledge | Main | Automation Innovation Changes Banks »

October 25, 2013

Corporate Leadership Involves Growing Pains

Posted by Simon Towers (View Profile | View All Posts) at 12:36 PM

Drew Dudley "Everyday Leadership" - TED Talks [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR2UnsOuKxo]

It's a fairly fine line we business leaders walk. On one side are shareholders and directors who scrutinize the bottom line. On the other are the people in our organizations whom we expect will create and maintain a pipeline of innovative offerings.

The issue is that the innovation process can be relatively expensive and unpredictable. Major shareholders and company directors obviously want the same results as your R&D people, but they prefer those results to happen within a specific set of cost guidelines. The reason you're in the C-suite to begin with is that you can presumably bridge those two outlooks and make the organization work as one.

When Eric Schmidt, the hard-driving CEO of Google, first joined that company in 2001, one of the young founders, Sergey Brin, told a reporter that Schmidt's appointment was to bring "parental supervision, to be honest" to the company. To me, that remark captures the essence of the kind of organization many of us are attempting to build in the digital world. We want to be as competitive as possible, especially with fierce, new upstarts nipping on our heels every day.

We also have a responsibility to ensure that the organization embraces best practices and is soundly managed. In fact, I'm eagerly awaiting Eric Schmidt's new book, to be published next fall, titled No Adult Supervision Required: How To Build Successful 21st Century Companies. After announcing that he would be stepping down as Google's CEO, Schmidt tweeted that "day-to-day adult supervision [was] no longer needed" at the company.

However, many of us - depending on where we were during the dot-com boom of the late 1990s - recall all too well that many technology start-ups fizzled not because of their lack of smart people or innovative ideas. They couldn't survive because there was nobody to execute the big, day-to-day decisions an enterprise needs to grow. Even Schmidt recently said that getting products right requires attracting and managing a new breed of technically savvy workforce. His new book, he said, offers a practical and accessible guide for how to do that.

Therein lies the secret to creating an effective organization for the long-term: knowing how to manage the new breed of technology workers. Just as technology itself is changing rapidly, so, too, are the innovators behind it. The fine line that we walked as business leaders even five years ago won't cut it anymore. We need to be more responsive to the needs and concerns of their younger, more dynamic workforce.

The good news, I think, is that we are increasingly aware of these new realities. We're more responsive to the challenges that a business leader must face in a marketplace defined and shaped by new technologies.


Hi Everybody,

Cool & vibrant article.

The article correct to say that managing lead bridges the two demanding essentials,one emphasis on commercial progress and other on structural resource progress. To me :: Both should strike a balance without which sustained commercial excellence not reachable.To maintain both in balance "Managing Lead" get down to artistic crafting the details that inspires the two to willfully aspire to attain the common objective that is "Success" - Which is the very essential of everybody's existence in a commercial entity.

Also,This article spans across two real facts towards common objective[Success] but producing contradicting results in real world.

1.The successful practicing leader's ( CEO - Eric Schmid )view that is" Day-To-Day audit supervision not needed."

2.Failures of many companies that distanced from day-2-day auditing.

So,which is contradicting the real fact ? I will say none,there is no contradiction between these two eventualities - then why both same condition derive two different results[ One is success another is failure ] towards objective [ Which is "Success" ] ? The reason is - both conditions /statement,are correct but in different frame / structure of functioning.

So,now it will be evidently clear that after establishing systematic structured functioning, the words of the CEO of Google[ Mr.Eric Schmid ] will definitely sound effective & true but before establishing the systematic structural functioning,anybody dives to practice as said by the CEO [ Mr.Eric Schmid ] may land in failure.

So,as a conclusion - Success yields only through introspective implementation based on collective available system & resources.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Please key in the two words you see in the box to validate your identity as an authentic user and reduce spam.

Search InfyTalk

+1 and Like InfyTalk

Subscribe to InfyTalk feed

InfyTalk VBlogs: Watch Now

Infosys on Twitter