The Forum was thrilled to have Bill George as our closing speaker on Day 3. Former Chairman and CEO of Medtronic, Senior Fellow at the Harvard Business School, and author of Discover Your True North, Bill discusses finding your own True North – the internal compass that sets one on a path toward their fullest potential as a leader. Today’s global business community calls for leaders who will change the world for the better and inspire others around them to do the same.
This content was originally posted to stthomas.edu on 05/19/16.
With Dr. Glen Nelson's death this month, Minnesota lost a giant who led the building of our health care system for the past 40 years, making health care more effective, accessible, and efficient for everyone.
After graduating from the University of Minnesota Medical School, he began his career as a surgeon at Park Nicollet Medical Center. Nelson built Park Nicollet into a progressive multi-specialty practice as its president and CEO.
During the early 1980s, he helped create the health maintenance organization American MedCenters, becoming its chairman and CEO. He was part of the Jackson Hole Group, a leading proponent of managed competition in health care that influenced President Bill Clinton's health care plan and President Obama's Affordable Care Act. Joining Medtronic in 1986, he teamed with CEO Win Wallin and myself to transform Medtronic from a pacemaker pioneer into the world's leading medical technology company.
From 1986 to his retirement in 2002, Nelson led Medtronic's introduction of 12 major advances in medicine. The company achieved breakthroughs that included the pacemaker-cardioverter-defibrillator and treatments for heart failure, incontinence, and Parkinson's disease.
I first got to know Glen in the 1970s, but our deeper relationship began in 1989 when I joined Medtronic. We formed a partnership, with Glen taking the lead on all aspects of medicine and technology, both internally and through acquisitions and mergers. We teamed together on strategy and organization, and in resolving the most difficult issues facing the company, from FDA relationships to thorny quality and people issues. He served on the Medtronic board for 20 years, guiding it to aspire to greater heights for the company.
In no small measure, he played a leading role in the company's growth from $400 million in revenue to its current size of $29 billion in revenue and market capitalization of $112 billion, making it one of the nation's most valuable companies.
Glen's impact as a human being far exceeded his tangible accomplishments. To me, he was a friend, colleague, and mentor. When I was elected CEO of Medtronic in early 1991, I asked Glen to be my partner, not a subordinate, and to consult with me on all decisions, large and small.
He was the smartest and wisest person I have ever known. When I arrived at Medtronic, I had 25 years of high-tech experience but knew nothing about medicine. I relied on Glen to teach me the medical business and to explain how our products worked inside the human body. We worked together on a wide array of acquisitions, as we endeavored to broaden Medtronic's technology to treat diseases as diverse as cerebral palsy, sleep apnea, diabetes and spinal surgery.
In 1998, Medtronic faced a growth crisis; expansion in our core business had slowed to less than 7 percent, well below our historic 18 percent growth rate. Several key executives recommended retrenching to cardiac rhythm management, which would have spelled Medtronic's death knell as an independent company.
Instead, I asked Glen to ramp up our acquisition efforts. Within months, we made six major acquisitions totaling $13 billion and transformed Medtronic from a cardiac rhythm company into the world leader in medical technology. Had it not been for Glen's perceptive judgment and his skill at working with entrepreneurs, this never would have been possible.
After retiring from Medtronic, Glen devoted himself to helping young entrepreneurs translate their ideas into successful companies. At his peak, he served on 13 boards, as he became the "go to" person for aspiring innovators. He could never say no and always took time to help anyone who asked. No wonder so many people loved and admired him.
Glen Nelson was a visionary, entrepreneur and pioneer. More than anyone else, he understood the intersection of medicine and technology and what advances would work inside the human body. Far beyond that, he was a compassionate leader who strove to help people both inside and outside Medtronic.
His loss will be widely felt locally and nationally, as he leaves an unparalleled legacy for others to emulate in helping people create medical breakthroughs.
Bill George, the former chairman and CEO of Medtronic, is senior fellow at Harvard Business School and author of "Discover Your True North."
In health care, there are no shortcuts and no quick paths to market.
Health care companies face challenging times as they adapt to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) while still delivering for customers and shareholders. Most companies have navigated these fast-changing times well. But three bad actors – former Turing CEO Martin Shkreli, former Valeant CEO Michael Pearson, and Theranos’ Elizabeth Holmes – threaten to drag down the legitimate companies.
The Price Gouger
Pharma’s bad boy Shkreli became the poster child for abusing patients through price gouging by hiking the price of Daraprim, a 62-year-old HIV/AIDS drug, from $13.50 to $750 per pill. Then he had the audacity to flaunt it by saying, “I wish I had raised prices more.” Merck CEO Ken Frazier called Shkreli “a hedge fund guy masquerading as a pharmaceutical executive.”
Shkreli incurred the wrath of the general public. Even presidential candidates rebuked him. His actions had broad implications because they threatened the already unsteady alliance between big pharmaceutical companies and the Obama Administration. These pharmaceutical companies had agreed to pay $70 billion to support ACA in exchange for a legal restriction on the U.S. government in negotiating drug prices.
The “Quick Fix” CEO
Valeant’s Pearson also raised prices 500-800% on older drugs, but his flawed approach went much further. He claimed his company did not need to do research on new drugs because it could simply buy older drugs and take over companies like Salix and Bausch & Lomb. His business model called for limiting drug development expenses to 3% of revenues and paying only 3% in taxes through a series of clever tax schemes. Big investors like Sequoia, Pershing Square, and Value Act talked up the stock as Valeant’s market capitalization rose to $91 billion. And several other mid-sized pharmaceutical companies copied Valeant’s approach.
Those with a long-term view called out Valeant’s short-term game. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton ran ads attacking the company. Warren Buffett told CNBC, “You wouldn’t want your son to grow up like Mike Pearson.” Buffett’s partner, Charlie Munger, called Valeant a “sewer.” The game ran out when a short-seller exposed Valeant’s distribution through specialty pharmacies that forced enormous price increases. In the past six months, Valeant investors have lost $81 billion, dragging down the activist funds that propelled the company’s growth.
Theranos’ Holmes claimed her company could render obsolete the one billion blood draws done in the U.S. with a simple prick of the finger – an exciting prospect that caused investors to value her private company at $9.1 billion. Her board of directors included several former U.S. senators and former presidential cabinet members, but few with experience in medical technology.
With her story and her glamour, Holmes became the darling of the media and Silicon Valley moguls. Theranos went directly to the consumer market by cutting big deals with Walgreens and Safeway, but Holmes never produced any test data to validate the claims, citing confidentiality concerns. The media passively accepted her lack of transparency.
Then the Wall Street Journalpublished an expose calling into question the effectiveness of the company’s testing methods and scrutinizing its resistance to share test results to back up its claims. WSJ published this piece in spite of heavy pressure from Theranos’ legal team, which was led by high-profile lawyer David Boies. Since the WSJ article was published, the company has imploded. Now the U.S. government has launched a criminal investigation to determine whether Holmes intentionally misled her investors. Thus far, Holmes has yet to produce validated test results proving Theranos’ claims.
A Hippocratic Oath for Health Care Companies
While these three companies and their leaders will be mere footnotes in business history, they cause great harm to legitimate companies trying to help patients. Their missteps confirm the importance of putting patients first, rigorous testing, FDA oversight, transparency, and pricing products to support patient access, regardless of their income bracket.
When scandals occur, they have a negative impact on companies that are doing things right. The subsequent public outcry tends to harm the committed, experienced companies, as politicians paint all health care companies with the same brush. This leads to delays in the FDA approval process for the most scientifically minded companies, denying patients products they need. It also creates public pressure for price controls.
Theranos, Valeant, and Turing took multiple shortcuts, and they won handsome short-term rewards for their behavior. But others who jumped on board have now lost billions. Neither Shkreli, Pearson, nor Holmes had any health care experience before taking over their companies: Shkreli worked at hedge funds, Pearson was a McKinsey consultant, and Holmes was a 19-year-old freshman at Stanford. Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg’s motto of “move fast and break things” may be valid for social media, but it doesn’t work for heart surgery, drug development, or medical devices.
The first rule of the Hippocratic Oath all doctors take is, “First, do no harm.” Why did Theranos, Valeant, and Turing assume so much risk? They focused on the short-term at the expense of their companies, their patients, and the health care industry. These companies proved what others have known all along: when you’re dealing with human health, shortcuts backfire.
Worst of all, these three companies fostered the impression that health care companies try to take advantage of an unsuspecting public. As a result, legitimate medical entrepreneurs now have trouble finding the funding required to do rigorous clinical trials in leading academic medical centers—something that Theranos refused to do.
For capitalism to work in the medical field, companies must be able to make the long-term investments required for breakthrough bio-pharmaceuticals and medical therapies. There are no shortcuts and no quick paths to market, but the long-term payoff can be enormous.
Investors with a fiduciary responsibility to their clients should carefully evaluate the leaders of companies they are investing in to ascertain their medical expertise and soundness. Entrepreneurs, who are essential to foster medical breakthroughs, need to learn the lessons from these bad actors and avoid taking shortcuts when human lives are at stake. We need to be patient with healthcare timelines, so we can enjoy the tremendous benefits that legitimate companies can offer.
Bill George is Senior Fellow at Harvard Business School, former Chairman & CEO of Medtronic, and author of Discover Your True North.
This article was originally published by Fortune.com on 5/10/16
Iger places faith in his creative directors and allows them to propose original ideas.
In 2015, Bob Iger, CEO of Disney DIS -1.58% , told his top 400 executives, “The riskiest thing Disney can do is maintain the status quo.” Iger knows that simply leveraging the traditional Disney brands like Mickey Mouse and adding theme parks is insufficient to sustain the company’s growth.
As organizations grow, their capacity for innovation tends to stagnate—as my Harvard Business School colleague Clay Christensen explained in The Innovator’s Dilemma. Iger would not consider himself an innovator in the class of Walt Disney or Steve Jobs, but he is a master at identifying, motivating, and supporting creative leaders.
Why are there so many innovators, but so few innovation leaders?
Today, there are tens of thousands of innovators, but few outstanding innovation leaders. Those companies with innovation leaders at their helm, like Google, Apple, Amazon, Gilead, Disney, 3M, Tesla, and my former company Medtronic, have sustained their growth and performed exceptionally well. Meanwhile, one-time innovation pioneers that lost their mojo (such as Hewlett-Packard) have stagnated.
Startups, smaller companies, and academic institutions currently drive most of our nation’s innovation. It doesn’t have to be this way. Companies like Google GOOGL -0.59% , 3M, Disney, and Apple show that corporations can stay creative even as they grow large. Many people call these companies “experts on innovation,” but the truth is a bit more nuanced. These organizations don’t just develop innovative ideas; they develop innovation leaders.
Before Iger became CEO of Disney, his predecessor used a disciplined, “factory-like” process to produce films. Business development teams came up with ideas and then handed them to directors. Iger rearranged the process, placing faith in his creative directors and enabling them to propose original ideas.
Iger isn’t the only leader at Disney inspiring creativity. Disney subsidiary Pixar has two of the world’s finest innovation leaders in Ed Catmull and John Lasseter. Thanks to their leadership, Pixar has created the 12 most successful animated films of all time, including the 2016 Oscar winner, “Inside Out.” After he was fired from Apple AAPL 1.03% , Steve Jobs bought controlling interest in Pixar, and he learned first-hand from Catmull and Lasseter how to lead innovators. This experience paved the way for Jobs’ string of successes when he returned to Apple in 1997.
During a corporate board trip I took in 2013 to Pixar with Iger, Catmull, and Lasseter and learned first-hand why they are so successful. We visited their teams—the first-line innovators that create Pixar films – and saw how these innovation leaders interacted with them. Catmull said that as part of the merger, Iger asked him and Lasseter to take over Disney Studios because it had become bureaucratic and slow-moving. In turn, they revived its fortunes – a success which was evident in the popular 2013 film, “Frozen.” Iger didn’t stop with Pixar, though. He later bought Lucasfilm and Marvel Entertainment, and retained their innovation leaders.
Examining Alphabet (nee Google), we see the same caliber of leaders. The former CEOs of Nest, Genentech, and Bloomberg all work for Alphabet. They operate within a common corporate framework because CEO Larry Page, who is himself a great innovation leader, gives them the latitude, resouces, and teams to engage in highly risky projects.
So, what are the key qualities of innovation leaders? What makes them so effective at bringing out the creativity in others? After all, the characteristics of great innovation leaders are dramatically different from traditional business managers. The following seven elements are the key ingredients to innovation leadership.
Passion for innovation. Innovation leaders not only have to appreciate the benefits of innovation, they need a deep passion for innovations that benefit customers. Just approving funds for innovation is insufficient. Leaders must make innovation an essential part of the company’s culture and growth strategy.
A long-term perspective. Most investors think three years is “long-term,” but that won’t yield genuine innovation. Major innovations can change entire markets as the iPod and iTunes did, but they take time to perfect products and gain adoption by mainstream users. Thus innovation leaders are sometimes willing to sacrifice near-term financial results to seize longer-term opportunities.
Companies like Apple and Alphabet find ways to shield their leaders from the day-to-day demands of investors. Google’s “X” runs the moonshot projects of Alphabet, which include driverless cars, drone delivery, and robotics. The division doesn’t measure its success by dollars created. Instead, it focuses on “speed of failure.” By changing the metrics of success, Page and co-founder Sergey Brin are able to balance fiscal discipline with the need to give innovation leaders a safe space to incubate new ideas.
The courage to fail and learn from failure. The risks of innovation are well known, but many leaders aren’t willing to be associated with its failures. However, there is a great deal to be learned from why an innovation has failed, as this enhanced understanding can lead to the greatest breakthroughs. At Medtronic MDT 1.23% , our failures with implantable defibrillators in the 1980s led to far more sophisticated approaches to treating heart disease in the 1990s.
Deep engagement with the innovators. Innovation leaders must be highly engaged with their teams, asking questions, probing for potential problems, and looking for ways to accelerate projects and broaden their impact. That’s what HP’s founders Bill Hewlett and David Packard did by wandering around HP’s labs and challenging innovators. My HBS colleague Amy Edmondson says groups where members can air wild ideas are “psychologically safe.” In such settings, participants feel respected even when their ideas are rejected, and they don’t fear airing opposing views. The more failed ideas that come up, they more likely the group will land on a successful one.
Willingness to tolerate mavericks and protect them from middle management. The best innovators are rule-breakers who don’t fit the corporate mold. These people are often threatening to middle managers, many of whom adhere to standard practices. That’s why innovation leaders must protect their mavericks’ projects, budgets, and careers rather than forcing them into traditional management positions.
Opening up time for creativity and brainstorming. Innovation leaders understand how to give their people the time to think—the difference between “maker time” and “manager time.” As Paul Graham wrote, managers break up their time into 30- to 60-minute chunks, feeling satisfied with tight schedules of meetings throughout the day. For makers, this is disruptive, because it is impossible to generate the time and freedom to be creative. Innovative thinkers need a few consecutive hours to enter “flow” – a mental state in which people are fully immersed in the creative process. Innovation leaders fit meetings around the needs of their creative teams. For instance, Steve Jobs held three-hour meetings on marketing – an unusual amount of time in a CEO’s schedule.
Being self-aware and mindful. The best innovation leaders understand the importance of self-awareness. Without knowing their limitations, they’ll be unable to bring out the strengths of those around them. Honest feedback is often hard to get because many people tell leaders what they want to hear rather than the unvarnished truth. For this reason, many leaders use 360-feedback from their peers and subordinates.
Mindful practices such as daily meditation, prayer, journaling, or jogging also helps leaders to be more creative and open to new ideas. For Iger, this means waking up every morning at 4:30 a.m. to be alone. For Jobs, this meant Zen Buddhist meditation. As I have learned from my personal practice of meditation, mindfulness helps me reflect on myself and my ability to lead others. Many of my strongest ideas have come from meditation.
Innovation leaders don’t create innovations themselves, but they are effective at leading creative people. While many companies claim they are innovative, few successfully develop leaders who understand how to lead creative teams. Many large companies often stifle innovation leaders. Short-term pressures, zero-sum success, and an unhealthy focus on the status quo all prevent innovation leaders from emerging.
Iger calls creativity “the heart and soul of Disney,” but, in truth, innovation leaders are at the core of every creative company. Without their leadership, companies begin to manage for short-term results and eventually decline. To stay ahead of their competitors, companies must have innovation leaders who inspire the creativity of others.
Bill George is Senior Fellow at Harvard Business School, former Chairman & CEO of Medtronic, and author of Discover Your True North.
This article was originally published by Fortune.com on 4/4/16.
MPR News host Kerri Miller talks with Bill George, Senior Fellow at the Harvard Business School, and Washington University law professor Adam Rosenzweig about corporate tax inversions and why the issue seems to have taken a timid foothold in this year's presidential election. With both Democrats and Republicans taking aim at companies who employ tax inversion, Kerri delves into the reasons why, what the concerns are with this sort of corporate maneuvering and what might be done to get at the root causes behind U.S. companies taking their operations overseas.
CNBC Contributors Jeffrey Sonnenfeld of the Yale School of Management, and Bill George, former Medtronic chairman & CEO, talk about the leadership challenges facing Alphabet with the various companies in the corporate structure.
This article was originally posted to CNBC.com on 3/29/16.
Bill George of Harvard Business School, and Jeffrey Sonnenfeld of Yale School of Management, discuss the proxy fight launched at Yahoo by Starboard Value and how the current and proposed boards could do.
This article was originally posted to CNBC.com on 3/24/16.
Bill George, Harvard Business School professor, former Medtronic CEO and CNBC Contributor, weighs in on the Valeant Pharmaceuticals leadership change and gives his pick for who should replace Michael Pearson as CEO.
Weak leaders focus on all the things that are going wrong. Great ones bring out the best in us.
Much that is written about leaders these days seems to be negative: they are incompetent, arrogant, unethical, greedy, the list goes on and on.
No doubt, there is a great deal of anger and cynicism from employees, shareholders, and voters. When things go wrong in our lives, we are quick to place the blame for our ills on our leaders, and we often expect our leaders to fix things.
Are we justified in doing so? Or are we externalizing our problems by blaming those in charge? Is it time to accept responsibility for our lives and take action to make things better?
We live in an imperfect world, filled with violence, income inequality, a lack of jobs, corruption, ill health, and defective products. As much as we would like to eradicate these ills, there are no easy solutions that leaders can apply to make such problems disappear.
Meanwhile, political leaders are fanning the flames of anger and distrust in order to gain popular support. Their words are intensified by the 24-hour news cycle, with every outlet looking to gain viewers by highlighting the urgency of these ills.
This atmosphere brings out the worst in us. All we are doing is further dividing the country between rich and poor, conservatives and liberals, free traders and protectionists, hawks and doves. The next American president will be no more able to eliminate these problems than the last two have been. And blaming the media doesn’t solve anything because their incentive structure is built on giving people stories they want to grow the size of their audience.
In business, activist investors assault corporate boards with simplistic, short-term solutions to break up companies, leverage their balance sheets, or buy back stock by cutting investment required for their strategic success. These investors can find something to criticize at every company. And shareholders often give them the benefit of the doubt in order to see near-term bumps in stock prices.
But toxic leadership comes at a great cost. Such leaders create environments that bring out the worst in people and drag everyone down. Like malignant tumors, negative attitudes spread throughout organizations until everyone is playing “the blame game” and avoiding responsibility for the problems they create. Once this happens, organizations are on a path to self-destruction, creating in their wake enormous harm for employees and shareholders alike. At this point, the organization is no longer able to sustain itself and begins to unravel. That’s what happened to Sears, General Motors, Lehman Brothers, Kodak, and other victims of politics, cynicism, and short-term thinking.
Enter Positive Leadership
Authentic leaders, by contrast, try to bring out the best in people. They aim to see others’ potential, to empower people to take responsibility for their actions, and to work together to make things better for all people. That’s what great political leaders like Ronald Reagan, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Nelson Mandela have done in years past. It is what today’s leaders in business, health care, nonprofits, academia, and yes – in politics – need to do to bring us together to make life better for all people and to ameliorate our ills.
Sustainable, meaningful progress of any kind comes with a multitude of trials and tribulations. Yet the best leaders find ways to celebrate the incremental victories. As I highlight in my latest book, Discover Your True North, recent scientific research shows that positive approaches to empower people is a must-have leadership trait. By and large, the leaders I know are doing just that. They are doing their best to encourage people to grow, contribute, and live happy and meaningful lives. To use the words of author Adam Grant, they are “givers,” not “takers.”
In his book Focus, Daniel Goleman describes multiple experiments that demonstrate the impact of positive interactions with employees. One experiment showed employees perceived negative feedback more favorably when it was delivered in warm, supportive tones. When good news or positive feedback was delivered in negative tones, employees left the discussions feeling poorly, instead of feeling elated by their successes. Seligman’s research shows a 3:1 “positive-to-negative” statements ratio is necessary for healthy professional relationships.
When organizations hit roadblocks, people naturally get upset, and often their anger shows, but that doesn’t resolve anything. As Positive Intelligence author Shirzad Chamine says, there is an inner, often unconscious dialogue going on between your “sage” and your “saboteurs.” As leaders recognize this dialogue, they will be alert to avoiding negative responses that sabotage healthy relationships. By inquiring rather than directing, leaders can find opportunities within the challenges their organizations face. They also can build better relationships with colleagues who count on them to help solve problems.
Alan Mulally’s Positive Transformation at Ford
Navigating severe challenges requires strong, courageous, and authentic leaders. That’s what Alan Mulally offered at Ford Motor F 0.37% .
On his first day as Ford’s CEO in 2006, Mulally asked to tour Ford’s famous Rouge plant where Henry Ford created the Model T. Mulally was informed by one of his top executives, “Our leaders don’t talk directly to factory employees.” Ignoring that advice, he went to the plant immediately to talk to front-line workers.
Mullaly also set up mandatory weekly management meetings he called the business process review (BPR) for his top executives to get to the root cause of Ford’s long-standing problems. He quickly discovered that Ford’s challenges went way beyond financial losses: the culture at Ford was broken and in need of massive transformation. He observed, “Ford had been going out of business for 40 years, and no one would face that reality.”
In response, Mulally developed One Ford, an initiative based on “focus, teamwork and a single global approach, aligning employee efforts toward a common definition of success.” He started by redesigning internal meetings. As described in Bryce Hoffman’s American Icon, meetings had become “arenas for mortal combat” in which employees practiced self-preservation, trying to identify flaws in each other’s plans instead of recommending solutions to their problems.
Mulally reframed these meetings from negative to positive, fostering a safe environment where people had open and honest discussions without fear of blame. Instead of attacking executives for the issues they brought to the table, Mulally encouraged collaborative approaches to problem solving. He noted, “If you have a common purpose and an environment in which people want to help others succeed, the problems will be fixed quickly.”
Mulally introduced a “traffic light” system to weekly BPRs in which executives indicated progress on key initiatives as green, yellow, or red. After four meetings in which all programs were labelled green, Mulally confronted his team, “We are going to lose $18 billion this year, so is there anything that’s not going well?” His question was met with stony silence.
The following week, Ford’s North American President, Mark Fields, showed a red indicator that a new vehicle launch would be delayed. Other executives assumed Fields would be fired over the bad news. Instead, Mulally began clapping and said, “Mark, that is great visibility.” He asked the group, “What can we do to help Mark out?” As he frequently told his leaders, “You have a problem; you are not the problem.”
Mulally describes his leadership style as “positive leadership—conveying the idea that there is always a way forward.” He says a critical part of positive leadership is “reinforcing the idea that everyone is included. When people feel accountable and included, it is more fun. It is just more rewarding to do things in a supportive environment.”
With determination and positive leadership, Mulally created a culture of effective problem solving and teamwork. As a result, his team kept Ford out of bankruptcy, reversed market share losses with improved auto designs and quality, brought jobs back to the U.S. from overseas plants, and restored the company’s profitability by becoming cost competitive with foreign producers.
Weak leaders focus on all the things that are going wrong. Great leaders like Mulally bring out the best in us. The most effective leaders apply the principles of positive psychology, ensuring their interactions with employees contain a healthy balance of positive and constructive feedback. They maintain an optimistic outlook despite the setbacks, reinforcing that there is a hopeful way forward.
Bill George is Senior Fellow at Harvard Business School, former Chairman & CEO of Medtronic, and author of Discover Your True North.
This article was originally posted on 3/21/2015 on Fortune.com.