A January 2017 Google search for the term ‘leadership’ yielded about 787,000,000 results. Even allowing for duplication, this reflects the enormous volume of material that has been written about leadership, including many bestselling leadership biographies and autobiographies by and of leaders that have been broadly perceived as successful at least at the time of publication. A sample of such “How I or, he did it” literature could include; Bill Gates, Henry Ford, Steven Spielberg, Sir Richard Branson, Steve Jobs, Donald Trump, Sam Walton, Michael Dell, Andrew Carnegie, George Soros, Walt Disney and many others.
“Literally thousands of empirical investigations of leaders have been conducted in the last seventy-five years alone, but no clear and unequivocal understanding exists as to what distinguishes leaders from non-leaders, and perhaps more important, what distinguishes effective leaders from ineffective leaders.” In 2007 Vroom and Jago claimed that “Although this assertion is over 20 years old, our position is that any serious review of the more recent literature would reveal that the quote is as relevant today as it was then.”
Generic Approaches to Leadership -- AGSL
As yet there is no generally accepted definition of leadership and only a wide variety of generic guidance as to appropriate leadership action therefore, each leadership practitioner must develop and continuously update a personal contingent view of what leadership means to them given their context. We propose a number of generic approches from which a starting point that might assist could be selected.
Stakeholder Leadership Practice -- AGSL
In complex dynamic environments, leadership will need to continuously re-assess the net value derived by each key stakeholder from the exchanging value with the organisation given the risks and costs borne by each party to the exchanges. In turbulent contexts this requires the support of automation and artificial intelligence and organisation are now emerging to provide such services.
“According to a recent Fortune survey, only 7 percent of CEOs believe their companies are building effective global leaders, and just 10 percent said that their leadership-development initiatives have a clear business impact. Our latest research has a similar message: only 11 percent of more than 500 executives we polled around the globe strongly agreed with the statement that their leadership-development interventions achieve and sustain the desired results.”
The clear majority of pre-existing work in the published domain of competitive bidding requires large sample sizes for reliable econometric, probabilistic or game-theoretic modelling techniques. Such unrealistic large data requirements have prevented the successful application of bid modelling in managerial practice. This article presents a new predictive analytics method for very small samples of historical bidding data. Requiring as few as nine competitive bid prices for a group of pooled/aggregated competitors over a 30-month period is the standout differentiator of this research from any previously published research. This minimizes the demands on competitive intelligence and, therefore, realistically enables its application in the real world of practice. Maximum likelihood estimations are used to evaluate two new, revolutionary bid strategies against a range of evaluation criteria, taking into account the pricing judgements made by competitors, including a degree of competitive reaction among them. Using off-the-shelf analytics software, a case study of a bidder from the telecommunications infrastructure sector demonstrates how commercial outcomes can be improved substantially: A 400 per cent improvement in win ratio, an 86 per cent increase in contribution margin and 76 per cent revenue growth. In addition, the difference between the submitted bids and the lowest-priced competing bids (which is an opportunity cost, sometimes referred to as the ‘spread’ or ‘money left on the table’), has been reduced to 2 per cent on a total revenue of US$210 million.