1.Management consulting firms did very well on a per-employee basis, partly because they are mostly comprised of managers (as opposed to blue-collar or entry-level workers). How big a factor do you think composition of the workforce is in likelihood of producing a CEO?

2.Do you think so-called leadership factories are also better places for non-leaders to work? Why or why not?

3. Assume you had job offers from two companies that differed only in how often they produced CEOs. Would this difference affect your decision?

4. Do these data give any credence to the value of leader selection and leader development? Why or why not?

Companies differ markedly in their ability to produce futureleaders, as several recent analyses of the 1,187 largestpublicly traded U.S. companies revealed. Among theCEOs in one study, a remarkable total of 26 once workedat General Electric (GE).

However, as the following table shows, on a per-employeebasis, that ability earns GE only tenth place interms of the likelihood of a current or former employeebecoming CEO of a large company. Top on the list ismanagement consulting firm McKinsey & Company.Amazingly, if we extrapolate into the future from thecurrent stock of McKinsey alums who are CEOs, of every

1,060 McKinsey employees, one will become CEO of a Fortune 1000 company.

Some companies did not fare nearly as well, such asCitigroup (odds: 30,180:1), AT&T (odds: 23,220:1) andJohnson & Johnson (odds: 15,275:1).While some might dismiss the results, not surprisingly,the companies at the top of the list do not. €œWe area leadership engine and a talent machine,€ said retiringProcter & Gamble CEO A. G. Lafley.

Transcribed Image Text:

Size (employees) CEOS produced Odds Company McKinsey & Co. 1.061:1 16 17,000 48,500 Baxter International 4,410:1 11 8,750:1 Motorola 60,000 10,310:1 Intel 82,500 127,000 287,000 Proctor & Gamble (P&G) 12 10,580:1 11,040:1 General Electric (GE) 26 Ernst & Young 144,000 12,000:1 12