Global Leadership Perspectives

Conglomerates don’t fail in a headline. What’s playing out around Nestlé is a stress test of the old “one giant logo” model. When portfolios get this big, decisions blur. Price and promo live in one room, innovation gates live in another, and the brand system is somewhere in between. Then a shock hits and you discover no one owns the full P&L for a single consumer problem. That isn’t a scandal story, that’s governance. The smarter conversation is already happening: should the world’s biggest food groups act less like empires and more like focused category companies. Coffee with one thesis, one board rhythm, one CEO who actually holds the levers. Pet care with its own narrative, its own capital allocation, its own talent bench. Nutrition that is run as a system, not a slide. When you focus like this, capital moves faster, retailers stop guessing who decides, and the story gets simpler to believe. New leadership helps only if the decision rights change. An “independent chair” sounds good, but value shows up when category CEOs can call price, promo depth, media discipline, and innovation gates without asking the mothership for permission. Otherwise you just swap names while the operating model stays the same. This is also a talent moment. Holding company CEOs and category CEOs are different athletes. The former manage stakeholders across very different businesses. The latter are narrative operators for one market reality. If boards want speed and accountability, they need to shortlist for the second profile and give them a scoreboard that rewards cash this year and penetration over the next four quarters. If PE is watching, they already know how this ends: clarity de-risks exits and removes the discount for complexity. I’m not arguing for breakups to please headlines. I’m arguing for category governance that travels. If a business is truly strategic, stand it up with a leader who has real levers and a clean mandate. If it is subscale or perpetually diluted by the parent, be honest about partnerships, carve outs, or a different owner who will love it more. If you sit on a multinational board today, try this out loud in your next session: can we explain each category’s thesis in 90 seconds without mentioning the parent. Can the leader name the three levers that move cash this year. Can the team scale one win to a second market without borrowing credibility from another division. If any answer is no, the fix is governance, not messaging. Curious how this lands with you. If you had to pull one category into sharper focus in the next 12 months, which is it, and what decision rights would you hand it on day one. #CorporateGovernance #FMCG #CPG #Board #CEO #CategoryStrategy #CapitalAllocation #ExecutiveSearch #ConsumerGoods

The leadership pipeline challenge in HR has never been more urgent. With CHRO turnover up 15% in 2025 and climbing globally, the question isn't whether we need better HR leaders—it's how we develop them for the complex challenges ahead. My colleagues Dick Beatty, Patrick Wright, Cori Jones and I have been wrestling with this reality. We see exceptional HR professionals struggling not because they lack talent, but because the traditional paths to HR leadership haven't kept pace with stakeholder expectations. The result? A widening gap between what organizations need and what even our most promising HR talent is prepared to deliver. That's why we've designed something different—the Global HR Leadership Experience (GHRLE). This isn't another executive education program. It's a 100-day transformation journey that brings together heads of six major global HR associations, ten Fortune 200 CHROs, and leading researchers to tackle the real inflection points facing our profession. The experience centers on one critical question: How do we help HR leaders deliver genuine stakeholder value through human capability? We're talking about moving beyond traditional HR thinking to create leaders who can navigate AI disruption, drive business strategy, and build organizations that thrive in uncertainty. I know what you're thinking—time, cost, relevance. We've heard these concerns, and frankly, they're valid. But consider this: What's the cost of continuing to develop HR leaders the same way we always have while expecting different results? The inaugural cohort launches October 28 at the University of South Carolina, and we're limiting participation to ensure deep, transformational learning. Companies can nominate candidates through July 31. What's your experience with developing next-generation HR leaders? Where do you see the biggest gaps between current capabilities and future needs? I'd love to hear your thoughts on what it truly takes to prepare HR leaders for what's coming next.

"Woah!” Tomoko-san told me. “It’s so strange. In Japan, we say American culture is egalitarian. But after living in the US for two years, I now see their decision-making is much more hierarchical than ours.” Dirk from Germany confirmed: “Americans pretend they are egalitarian with their open-door policies, first-name basis, and casual dress, but when it comes to decision making - the boss makes the decision and everyone falls in line.” These quotes hit the core of a global leadership truth. Culture shapes two critical dimensions: 1. The Leading scale looks at how much deference or respect is shown to an authority figure. In egalitarian cultures, it’s ok to disagree with the boss even in front of others. It’s ok to email or call people several levels below or above you without putting the boss in copy. In hierarchical cultures, an effort is made to defer to the boss, especially in public, and communication follows the hierarchical chain. 2. The Deciding scale looks at whether we make decisions slowly over time by groups (consensual cultures) or whether decisions are made quickly by individuals (usually the boss) but then may be changed frequently as more information arises (what I call top-down cultures). These two dimensions create four very different leadership styles: 1. Hierarchical and top-down cultures (hello, China, India, Mexico, Russia, and Saudi Arabia) where deference/respect to authority is high and decisions are made by the boss. 2. Hierarchical but consensual decision-making (like Germany and especially Japan) – decisions are made slowly over time by groups, but deference to formal hierarchies is strong. 3. Egalitarian cultures that make quick top-down decisions (enter the United States or Australia), where anyone can speak up, but the boss still calls the final shot. 4. And then Consensual, egalitarian cultures (that's you, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden), where decision-making is slow, inclusive, and everyone’s voice holds weight. Each style is effective on its own. But a lot can go wrong when working across cultures, and these methods collide. Global leadership requires mapping your style to where you are and adapting like your success depends on it. Because it does. So, what quadrant do you lead in? Explore the map of your team here: erinmeyer.com/tools #TheCultureMap #GlobalLeadership #CrossCulturalLeadership #ErinMeyer #CultureMatters #LeadershipTruths

90% of CEOs master spreadsheets and strategy. Only 10% master the skills that actually matter. The difference? They've developed 7 core competencies that separate leaders from managers. After coaching 100s of CEOs, I've noticed the same pattern: The struggling ones have impressive resumes. The thriving ones have these capabilities. 1. Emotional Intelligence Your IQ got you the job. Your EQ keeps you there. Reading rooms, managing reactions, navigating politics. This is 80% of leadership. 2. Critical Thinking Everyone analyzes problems. Few ask "What am I missing?" before deciding. That pause? That's where breakthroughs live. 3. Vision Setting Strategy without vision is just a to-do list. Great CEOs paint futures so compelling that people volunteer for the journey. They make tomorrow feel inevitable. 4. People Development Your job isn't to be the smartest person in the room. It's to build a room full of smart people. Coach by asking questions, not giving answers. 5. Managing Change Change fails when you start with process. Change succeeds when you start with why. People don't resist change—they resist being changed. 6. Accountability Weak leaders track activity. Strong leaders track outcomes. Make metrics visible. Let results speak louder than excuses. 7. Clear Communication Not just talking. Creating understanding. The best CEOs explain complex strategies like they're telling stories to friends. They repeat key messages differently until everyone gets it. Technical skills get you promoted. These competencies get you remembered. You can have the perfect strategy, flawless execution, record profits. But if you can't communicate clearly? If you can't read a room? If you can't develop others? You're not leading. You're just occupying an office. The CEOs who last don't just run companies. They master themselves first. Your legacy won't be your quarterly results. It'll be the leaders you created along the way. P.S. Want a PDF of my 7 Leadership Competencies cheat sheet? Get it free: https://lnkd.in/dvNZYvjT ♻️ Repost to help someone in your network. And follow Eric Partaker for more on leadership competencies. — 📢 Want to think & operate like the world's best CEOs? Then join my free training this week. "7 Steps to Become a Super Productive CEO" Thur, Aug 21 @ 12 noon Eastern / 5pm UK time: https://lnkd.in/dBcU-zHv --- 📌 Earlybird enrollment is open for the Oct cohort of The Founder & CEO Accelerator. OFFER ENDS Sep 7th Learn more & apply now: https://lnkd.in/d-EZtG3U

The benefit of a century-long history is a lot of perspective. In 1959, our former colleague Gil Clee urged CEOs in the Harvard Business Review to create “world enterprises” to match the emerging post-war geopolitical order. Today, we see a similar moment of change… with a slightly different recommendation. In a new paper, my colleagues and I look at 10 geopolitical factors—from tariffs and shifting trade patterns to new controls on exports, technology and foreign investments—and outline how multinationals can evolve yet again… this time to prioritize adaptability and resilience alongside expansion, growth, and efficiency. Three specifics we believe leaders should consider: -Value at stake: Now is the time to stress-test your value creation thesis—are you positioned for the upside on shifting trade corridors, new incentives, and more? What losses are you willing to risk? -Governance structure: What flexibility can you embed in your legal and capital structures to help mitigate uncertainties (and capture opportunities) ahead? -Org structure: Which strategic reorganizations—from BUs to IT/data, supply chains, and geopolitical capabilities—will position the business to thrive? Workflow, talent, and culture are also crucial. You can find the full report here: https://lnkd.in/gkhrRz7Q Thanks to my coauthors Shubham Singhal, Cindy Levy, Brooke Weddle, Matt Watters, and Zoe Fox. And as we approach McKinsey & Company’s centennial, thanks to our colleagues—past and present—who have helped our clients on these topics for nearly 100 years.

Technology Convergence Reportmby World Economic Forum The accelerating combination of technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), quantum computing and engineering biology is transforming industries and unlocking new economic and societal value. Yet many organizations struggle to identify where and how to invest. Written in collaboration with Capgemini, the Technology Convergence Report offers leaders a strategic lens – the 3C Framework – to help them navigate the combinatorial innovation era. This framework highlights three critical phases: combination (the integration of distinct technologies), convergence (restructuring of value chains) and compounding (network effects and ecosystem transformation). Drawing on a survey of 2,000 global executives and expert insights, the report maps 23 high-potential technology pairings across eight key domains. Kudos Aiman Ezzat, Jeremy Jurgens, Cathy Li and co. #Tech #Foresight #Futures #Insights

Ethical Oversight in Local Leadership Performance Management: The Risks of Remote and Flawed Judgments In today’s globalized business environment, multinational organizations depend on a balance of expatriate and local leadership. Expatriates bring international expertise and strategic alignment, while local leaders offer cultural intelligence, agility, and on-the-ground execution. Striking this balance is both a strategic necessity and an ethical responsibility for sustainable growth. Regional foreigner leaders ensure global alignment, but effective performance requires respecting local realities and practicing ethical, inclusive leadership. --- 📌 The Ethical Challenge: Assessing Local Leadership from Afar In many developing markets, local leadership evaluations are overly influenced by distant global leadership, who often rely on a narrow circle of junior or mid-level staff for input. These juniors may lack experience, holistic insight, and carry biases. Uncritical acceptance of such partial narratives risks undermining capable leaders, damaging morale, and prioritizing short-term appeasement over sustainability. --- 🔍 The Consequences of Flawed Judgments Eroded trust: Local leaders feel marginalized and disengaged. Reinforced silos: Juniors may pursue personal agendas. Strategic misalignment: Poor decisions weaken effectiveness. Investment risk: Talent attrition and stakeholder mistrust threaten long-term success. --- 🌱 Principles for Ethical Leadership Assessment ✅ Contextual Awareness: Understand local socio-economic and cultural factors. ✅ Multi-layered Feedback: Gather diverse, balanced input. ✅ Transparent Criteria: Use clear, objective KPIs. ✅ Development Focus: Prioritize mentoring over punitive action. ✅ Accountability: Own long-term consequences over short-term popularity. --- 🌟 Conclusion: Leadership Judgments that Build, Not Break Ethical, evidence-based, and contextual evaluation of local leadership is a strategic imperative. Long-term success requires investing in and empowering experienced, values-driven, locally attuned professionals. ✨ Fair, informed decisions are the cornerstone of future-ready organizations.

𝗠𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗗𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗽𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 I've been asked this at least 3 times in the last two months. "How do I know that my leaders are improving?" This is where we distinguish knowing from application. 10% of capability comes from learning from formal sources. 20% comes from networks and interactions. 70% comes from application to portfolios and projects. One thing that sets this all apart are data points. Even if I apply skills to my projects, how do I know I did it well? Most large companies have a 360-degree or leadership assessment process in place. So, I'll share my thought process for this in case you are attempting to develop this for your own organization. Step 1: Determine organizational strategy and business outcomes. This is necessary to align expectations of desired behaviors. This is where a Balanced Scorecard can come in handy. Step 2: Assess expectations of leaders. You'll then assess them across leadership behaviors for new, mid and even senior managers. Granularity of differences supports focus and clarity. Often, a list of pre-existing behaviors/competencies are used to make the exercise easier. Validated psychometric tools such as the 16PF help to anchor it to scientific rigor. Organizational psychologists like me conduct surveys to gather insights. Then, focus groups are used to drill down to details information. After that, we'll create categories basedon the information and produce working behavior-based definitions. Step 3: Prioritize the list Now, the leadership team decides which behaviors are more important by way of ratings. Step 4: Build the 360 We then build a 360-degree feedback survey questions. These questions are reviewed for validity. Step 5: Allocate the survey A system specializing in the 360 (there are many) can be used. Feedback Recipient selects 6 to 12 people to rate them. In organizations, to avoid selection bias, leaders of the feedback recipient can review and veto the people doing the rating. Then, the participant does the survey too (self-rating) Step 6: Debrief of survey Usually, participants need guidance from a trained coach who understands feedback requirements. This is to provide grounding and objective input. Often, 360 surveys tend to be met with resistance unless the coach is skilled in facilitating the reflection conversation. Step 7: Action Planning The participant then produces a set of actions for improvement. This plan and the priority of focus should be made known to the feedback givers. Step 8: Pulse Surveys After a designated time (within 6 to 12 month period) a validated pulse survey is set up for the observers to rate improvement in specific behaviors. Step 9: Continued Leadership Coaching, Mentoring and Peer Support A combination of these can be used to enhance development. Step 10: Final Comparison Survey Toward the end of the year, a comparison survey is done to see how the key areas have improved or not. ---

📝 🇺🇸 🇪🇺 🔎 Excited to see our new collaborative study on circular business models & circular economy policy in the U.S. and Europe published: https://lnkd.in/eddrsMh3 👉 🔍 💡 We investigate how policy in one jurisdiction might positively shape circular innovation in other jurisdictions that lack strong circular economy regulatory frameworks of their own 👉 🔍 💡 We specifically investigate the Brussels & California effects, known from previous work where positive policy spill-overs have been identified, because of more stringent environmental regulations in one jurisdiction compared to another 👉 🔍 💡 This new study shows us that there are various positive spillover effects driving circular innovations even where there is a lack of direct country legislation 👉 🔍 💡 Specifically, we found that U.S. companies are deeply influenced by both EU and Californian regulations in their circular innovation practices 👉 🔍 💡 Characteristics of the ‘typical’ U.S. consumer may call for specific circular business models, different from other contexts like Europe 👉 🔍 💡 Key barriers to circular innovation include the lack of a comprehensive policy framework in the U.S., opposition from competitors, and making novel circular business models work in the U.S. legal context 👉 🔍 💡 Strategies to overcome these include: getting legal support for circular business models, developing (local, regional) U.S. regulations, level the playing field for all U.S.-based companies, lobbying for supporting regulation, industry collaboration, and finding a good market fit for circular business models 👉 🔍 💡 Future research can build on this to further enhance our understanding on how policy might positively drive circular economy innovations in international companies affected by different jurisdictions Published today together with Matthew Coffay (Centre for Sustainable Business // CSB NHH) & Carl Dalhammar (IIIEE at Lund University) in Circular Economy and Sustainability - CIES (Springer journal): "The Brussels and California Effects? Circular Economy Policy Influence Across Borders". Circular X Maastricht Sustainability Institute European Research Council (ERC)

The lesson I take from so many dispersed teams I’ve worked with over the years is that great collaboration is not about shrinking the distance. It is about deepening the connection. Time zones, language barriers, and cultural nuances make working together across borders uniquely challenging. I see these dynamics regularly: smart, dedicated people who care deeply about their work but struggle to truly see and understand one another. One of the tools I often use in my work with global teams is the Harvard Business School case titled Greg James at Sun Microsystems. It tells the story of a manager leading a 45-person team spread across the U.S., France, India, and the UAE. When a major client system failed, the issue turned out not to be technical but human. Each location saw the problem differently. Misunderstandings built up across time zones. Tensions grew between teams that rarely met in person. What looked like a system failure was really a connection failure. What I find powerful about this story, and what I see mirrored in so many organizations today, is that the path forward is about rethinking how we create connection, trust, and fairness across distance. It is not where many leaders go naturally: new tools or tighter control. Here are three useful practices for dispersed teams to adopt. (1) Create shared context, not just shared goals. Misalignment often comes from not understanding how others work, not what they’re working on. Try brief “work tours,” where teams explain their daily realities and constraints. Context builds empathy, and empathy builds speed. (2) Build trust through reflection, not just reliability. Trust deepens when people feel seen and understood. After cross-site collaborations, ask: “What surprised you about how others see us?” That simple reflection can transform relationships. (3) Design fairness into the system. Uneven meeting times, visibility, or opportunities quickly erode respect. Rotate schedules, celebrate behind-the-scenes work, and make sure recognition travels across time zones. Fairness is a leadership design choice, not a nice-to-have. Distance will always be part of global work, but disconnection doesn’t have to be. When leaders intentionally design for shared understanding, reflected trust, and structural fairness, I've found, distributed teams flourish. #collaboration #global #learning #leadership #connection Case here: https://lnkd.in/eZfhxnGW