Top Companies for Leaders 2007

I have the same astonishment as Adrian from Sydney as to how these companies got on you list! I’m originally from India, how can there be FOUR companies from India – Hindustan Lever, Infosys,s Wipro and ICICI Bank – that just doesn’t sound right at all that you have them in a list that all 4 are in a list which is supposed to be the Top 10 companies in the world “for leaders”

I took a closer look at Infosys, a company I’m familiar with – it talks of how Infosys is allowing young employees to have their views – but what actual young leaders has Infosys produced? The heads of Infosys have all come from the group of founders of the company even at the quarterly earnings calls I see only the old guys.

I think it is always difficult to choose the items to populate a list like this. How do you evaluate the performance of a leader? Leadership is the ability or even necessity to inspire. A Leader, one who can instill passion and direction to an individual or group of individuals, will be using psychology to affect that group either consciously or unconsciously. onlinework

It would be a great deal more useful if Hewitt Associates actually interviewed some leaders of these companies. What most people don’t realize is that these benefits only apply to the very top leaders of a corporation. The gap in salaries between top executives and the average leader/employee of an organization is becoming wider and wider. Maybe Hewitt Associates should measure that and do a report on what is happening to the middle class!

I really question how some of these companies have got on this global listing. I have just looked at the Australian companies and see DLA Phillips Fox, a Sydney based law firm in the top three. I can honestly say that this company would be unknown to 99.999% of Australians. They must have done some great lobbying to get on this list. Maybe the guy who runs my local deli could get on the list if he tried !

A CEO is like a head of a human being with active brain.All the other parts of the body reflect various levels of executives and employees which makes the organisation full.

A CEO realises the simple fact he needs every part of his body to deliver in full capacity to perform with efficiancy and therfore has his periodical medical reviews done with out fear or negligence.

Similar should be CEOs approach to the organisation and its various assembleies.

Any neglect means disasater to the body and organisation

“I may have lost a job, but INTEGRITY is probably the most important value…” – Posted By New York City, NY

I think that your boss did you a favor by letting you go.

You may not be a bad person, but you obviously were not Director material. People only heed to boses when those bosses are aggressive and demanding. Those bosses that do not demand extra from their employees are not good employees themselves.

The Director’s position is not for the faint of heart. All of the money and perks and privileges that you would have gained are only for those who are as tough as nails. You knew that you were spineless and getting fired will save you the misfortune of being successful in life. I believe that your talents are better served taking orders instead of giving them. Your integrity will make good fodder for your next boss to use against you. Sacrificing success for integrity makes you a better servant in life.

A so-called “CEO” once told me that my Director title didn’t mean anything if I was “nice to the staff”. He further said that once one reaches the executive level, one must stump on anyone underneath so one is respected. I DISAGREED, and then he fired me. I may have lost a job, but INTEGRITY is probably the most important value one can never let these “fake poor-excuse of so-called Leaders” poison. In short, show me how much integrity a leader has, and I’ll show you how much of a real leader he/she truly is.

I find it incredulous that Japan — the largest economy in the region and second only to the US — was completely passed over. There is not a single judge, and not a single selected company, despite multiple influential multinationals from Japan. Many of these companies are models in terms of rotating and investing in their staff, with internal promotions to the top being the standard.

From your estimation, any Japanese looking for career development ought to move to India, China or Australia.

Major and small corporations or small mom and pop businesses have the opportunity all over the world to utilize a fanatastic organization. Are they doing it? Do they encourage their employees to take part in it for a small cost? Have they offered to sponsor a club?
I am speaking of Toastmasters International. It is available all over the world. They have developed a fantastic Leadership program to go along with their communication program.
Do you care about the future of your organization or company? Type in Toastmasters International and find a club to check out in your city.
The CEO training is out there the board of directors just have to open their eyes to different avenues of finding or training their key personnel.

I’m struck with the amount of CEO bashing! Sure, there are a lot of so-called “leaders” that are in the game primarily for their own gain, but there’s also lots of talented and sincere business leaders. I guess it all revolves around the question what leadership is. And you’d have to admit it: most CEO’s do have the ability to work the politics within their company and network which earns them their position…

i used to work in GE Capital Thailand. If good leadership means push as hard as you can (dream of) no matter how your employee suffer, yes you got great leadership. I was a finance person…running several financial model each of at least 7MB in file size, they gave us a Window 2000 PC with 128MB of RAM. When we requested PC upgrade, it took over a month, while whenever the Leaders need new numbers, we ran and finished it overnight.

You must be kidding.

How many leaders are you going to need after all the jobs are outsourced overseas? The service sector is not going to need that many.

I work for GE and I think its success is not so much in developing leaders, but in being successful at hiring people with the qualities necessary to be leaders. A lot of the GE growth traits are part of a person’s personality type…”external focus”, “imagination”, “inclusiveness”….these are things that people either have or don’t.

I work for Infosys. You have been reading too much PR.

Leadership is not based on position, as your article suggests. True leadership is the abilty to advance the objective of the whole through collaberation and consensus. Integrity is a core fundamental to successful leaders. As we approach the retirement of many of the old school leaders, it is critical that those who understand the needs of our future, and the value of our human resource, stand up and blaze the trail for tomorrows leaders. Failure to recognize and train future leaders early in thier career can only perpetrate the status quo. I strongly feel we must embrace this opportunity to faciltate change that will lead to better job satisfaction, increased customer service, and build pride in tomorrows workforce.

If you want to see how future leaders are developed at all levels look no further than BBY. You maintain an exceptional company this long without a substantial commitment to your people.

Completely agree. In every country there are several big companies which does this quite brilliantly. But what about the smaller scale ones which represent bulk of the employement? Do they have the capacity, depth and resources to do this? Fortune probably needs to cover this aspect as well.

The best leadership advice I ever received came from Lao-tsu

“To lead people, walk beside them … As for the best leaders, the people do not notice their existence. The next best, the people honor and praise. The next, the people fear; and the next, the people hate … When the best leader’s work is done the people say, ‘We did it ourselves!’”

Will, I disagree with your statement. Within a small business, I’ve learned that there is less room for growth and development when there is said to be more room to cross train. These smaller places often lack structure of any kind.

As a consultant, you speak of “leadership” skills. One must pay their dues, but as a leader one must demonstrate fluency in the respective subject material/work and knowledge of the company’s very own structure/resources. CEO’s are not the only people who have control over the performance of the company. There are many, MANY branches. Which is something that may be out of your realm in your line of work. Which may be why you prefer smaller companies.

The bigger firms will always produce more resources (ie. capital, leverage, continuing education, standard training, institutionalized HR/IT, relationships with vendors/resources)…

The bigger firms are more efficient and the CEO’s have to choose to see it that way. That’s it! If they’re there to scam people for their checks and for ego gratification, they shouldn’t be there at all. Unfortunately, lousy leadership makes the hard work and efforts lackluster.
And not everyone can afford a start up of their own. To demand that in lieu of the recent economy is delusional, and absolutely stupid.

The reason why they’re having so much trouble at the top is becasue of the corruption within the firms. I cannot count how many people I’ve met/worked under who were hired because they were either related to the right people, or because they were with the right drinking/golf buddies. Not everyone can budget a $10,000 annual golf membership.

I’ve worked under both talent and non-talent in leadership. Talent will act as a leader and give the team the proper tools for achieving it’s goals. THey are the ones who create the path for employee success and career development. Unfortunately, these people are few and far between.

The bad leaders will 1. demand that the person will already know the job without being trained – becasue they don’t know the job themselves 2. place personal ego gratification before acting as a leader 3. expect their subordinates to protect them from bad reviews 4. not care about the company’s goals 5. be quick to fire anyone for “personality conflict” or some other rediculously trite complaint…
6. have a high turnover within the team 7. be negative when referring to their subordinates because it keeps them from taking blame for their shortcomings.

I’ve seen the same traits in my current boss and I work overtime to cover her @$$ for job stability. In three months, I’ve been there everyday, on time, reliable, productive and efficient. This person has taken 3 vacations, takes time off all the time, ignores their duties, has no idea what the duties of the department is, fails to meet their own deadline, and find every corner to attack the subordinate if anything within their realm of responsibility goes wrong… that of course we don’t have the capacity to deal with.

This person makes more than double what I do, and there’s little I can do about it becuase of the political sphere in the company (this person has a certain relationship with the upper management).

All too often, it’s the little guys that suffer. The right talent doesn’t make it to it’s respectable department, talent is not developed, the performance suffers, they lose career development, suffer anxiety due to unhappiness in workplace and instability of income. It’s too often that the little guy takes the fall when the CEO’s need to hide low performace of the overall team
(including management) adn appease the shareholders.
The CEO’s take home HUNDREDS times more than their average workers. The middle managers make often double the average worker’s salary… for what? To screw it up.

Sometimes I wonder why there’s middle management at all.

It is somewhat amusing when thes emajor companies run on and on about the “Quality” of the leaders they develop. I havent met a leader in corporate amrica. Basic math skills are all that needed. You want some leaders? Go and talk too moast any member of the armed forces. I have seen more leadership ability in your average E-5 then I have seen in most CEO’s. The military actually requires leaders to lead, develop thier people, enhance the efficiency of the team, make life or death decisions etc. Most CEO’s (excluding CEO’s with combat experience) have never learned what an average E-5 kows.

Wonder where Cisco ranked?

Steve Ballmer, Procter and Gamble alumni? Hardly, he was only there two years spent the other 20+ years at Microsoft. Not too mention he was Bill Gates’ buddy whilst at Harvard (which I’m sure helps).

Anyone qualified can do these guys’ jobs. If you’ve got a driving license you can drive any car, a BMW or a Nissan. These guys have their jobs through networking.

Developing leaders requires a long term commitment to employees, and a desire to make the company an appealing place to be. Where I work, the total focus is on making earnings forecasts. This short term approach guarantees that no investments are made in employee development. If you need a skill, you are expected to get it on your own, using your own time and money.

IBM??!!!…HA!

The audience for Fortune is CEOs and those folks who want to be CEOs. Thus, fluff articles like this are done to pump up those fortunate enough to get to that level. Leadership these days is about cutting, not building. Everyone is a free-agent and it is survival of the fittest in this country. The problem is that many people never got the memo.

Businesses are most commonly led today by people that have never paid their dues to learn and grow within an organization. They may be MBA’s, (mediocre but arrogant), but have never learned the people skills that will provide the organization they lead a long-lasting competitive advantage. I am not surprised that current grow future leaders in their own disfunctional image. This does not bode well for the future.

Perhaps it would be of value to determine where one is needed to lead? Leadership skills differ in different social groups as a group of convicts being taught work skills for a company might require different skills than a group of public relations officers. What the norms are for the workers in your company – corporate culture – makes a difference in the leadership skills required. Skilled craftsmen are different from accountants for instance.

What a crock!

As a consultant I have worked in a number of the companies listed – there is no leadership development.

Big company CEO’s are nothing but meat-puppets for the major stock holders. All they know how to do is cut costs and send work overseas – they are corporate morons who couldn’t run a company from the ground up if their lives depended on it.

The real leaders in America are entrepreneurs and managers running smaller privately held companies – they are the real innovators and job creators.

There are some great companies in America, those listed are do not make the real list.

These big league CEO “Stars” are a bunch of bean-counting blow-hards.

This article is a joke. Let’s face it, what we have now in corporate America is a bunch of top 20 business school elite white guys and gals. They are making the same types of decisions, because they come from the same line of thinking. Any time innovation turns up they buy it up. Look at GE and Oracle for examples.
What has developed is a corp of corporate sheep who play for the short term and use money to influence Washington politicians to pass laws that give them a business advantage. Pleas do not call this leadership or innovation.

Most top management (leaders) come from similar backgrounds – undergrad at Harvard and an MBA from Harvard Business School (or equivalent). And they were also consultants. For example, an overwhelming number worked at McKinsey, BCG or Bain. Take Jeff Immelt CEO of GE (he was at BCG); Ken Chenault (he was at Bain); infamous Jeffrey Skilling (was at McKinsey and MBA from HBS); ousted CEO Philip Purcell of Morgan Stanley (was at McKinsey too).

There is a route to become senior management and it seems to depend on joining a particular company at the ‘right time for your career’. I noticed that many joined Mckinsey straight out of college, did their MBA then became leaders in industry and worked up from there. Only a few join these companies from the bottom. Keith Sherin CFO of GE is an exception who joined from the bottom and worked all the way up.

Same old corporate rah rah crap. Most corporate ‘leaders’ are only good at creating monopolies and treating their employees as expendible pawns, while they rake in indefensible paychecks.

If that is considered leadership, then it is no wonder why America is becoming the North American version of Brazil. All the money to big corporations and their big shot management and nothing but empty promises and propaganda to everyone else.

Top management in Korporat Amerika does not give a toot toot about developing leaders. All they want are YES men who flatter and adore the CEO and his lackeys. Also, the process of identifying and coddling “leaders” stiffs the other 95% of the company employees who really earn the profits. A few get the gold mine, most get the shaft.

Be consistant in your actions, the problem buck stops with top management, because they are the guys or gals who created it. Verbal, open praise should always go to the troops. Management should never pat itself on the back, if you do the troops will kick you in the _ _ _! Work at having fun at work and let it show! You must remember, mangement can only accomplish the objective through the troops. Cross-train, have flexibility, expect the best, coach but of up have to mandate, you are the leader! So, lead, follow or get the
h _ _ _ out of the way! Mangement needs to know when to follow the troop, when to lead the troop, and when to get out of the way and let the troops do their thing!

Two GE guys, Nardelli who went to Home Depot did not show great leadership,,and most think he was a joke.
Larry Johnson from GE took the hslm of Albertons, and all he could come up with was to sell it.
Neither of these guys knew retail nor did they ever master it.
I think GE execs are way overated.

Too many ‘leaders’ in corporate America manage numbers and not people. They are viewed by the employees as remote, distant, and totally unconnected to the day to day operations of the organization. They lack personal communication skills and often fail to build relationships with the people they manage. It creates a very dysfunctional atmosphere that breeds distrust on all sides. None of that encourages teamwork, builds loyalty, or increases productivity.

Don’t care ~ the middle class is just trying to survive and you want to know what we think of CEO’s and leadership?? Wake up – the american worker is getting squeezed by government taxes, employers who want to reduce benefits, health care and salary increases and by immoral sub-prime predatory lending companies, we’ve got bigger problems than who is creating the new leaders of the good ‘ol boy clubs in corporate america.

Leadership requires honesty and truthfulness. Lies and deceits will make ANY leader loose credibility quickly.

It takes an investment in money and time to produce great people and great performance. A balance needs to be struck between the two in order to be good at both. And it is particularly difficult to maintain that balance when the numbers are in the “trough” or in a down cycle. It is important that “new” talent and early stars are developed and many companies get a good start with that, only to be undone by middle and more senior level managers who have no leadership skills and don’t have the balance mentioned above.