This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
We may well be overcomplicating the language of leadership and business. Gabrielle Dolan: The Future of Leadership Conference, Bris, Sept 2015 After attending the Future of Leadership – Workplace Culture conference in Brisbane last week I have been reflecting on the content from some of the speakers.
In research for our book, Time, Talent and Energy, my co-author Michael Mankins and I found that such investments do indeed pay off: The top-quartile companies in our study unlocked 40% more productive power in their workforce through better practices in time, talent and energy management. For knowledge workers, time is incredibly scarce.
At many companies the total cash investment in acquisitions, R&D, and fixed assets has not earned back its cost of capital after adjusting for the time lag in realizing incremental benefits. Decision making Leadership' That outcome reflects the wrong allocation and/or ineffective execution.
Critics imply that managing for shareholder value is all about maximizing the short-term stock price. Companies that manage for shareholder value, the thinking goes, do whatever it takes to engineer an ever-higher market price. If the market doesn't respond, management can take action to benefit from the value gap.
Investors punish companies with a short-term orientation by applying higher discount rates to them, which increases the cost of capital for those companies. In contrast, companies with a long-term orientation are rewarded with a lower cost of capital, which allows them to afford more innovation—a virtuous cycle.
Harry Joiner over at Marketing Headhunter , posted his favorite Top 20 quotes from the Daily Drucker , with respect being paid to management thought-leader, Peter Drucker. Leadership is not rank. Listening (the first competence of leadership) is not a skill, it is a discipline. There are keys to success in managing bosses.
The logic of NPV is to project cash flows into the future and then discount those flows back into today’s dollars at a given cost of capital. Yet for the small handful of companies that have managed to drive growth consistently – even through tough times – the payoff is great. How do they do it?
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content