GE Case :Making of a CEO

GE’s Talent Machine: The Making of CEO

V.Sharada, PGP/17/058

We notice by the course of the case, that for each of the CEO of GE, talent management was one of the top priorities, and they ensured that they built and revamped the ideas of their forerunners. When we analyse the works of each of them: Ralph Cordiner 1. Implemented decentralization at a crucial juncture in the course of diversification, this eased strains imposed on GE 2. Introduction of Session C 3. Created a succession plan for managers, helped identify successors in each level Fred Borsh 1. Identified “Talent” as a general resource and not something that’s department specific: “Hoarding” reduction. The advent of EMS( Executive Manpower Staff) Jack Welch 1. Immense restructuring by elimination of over 1 Lakh jobs 2. Vitality curve starts now: Reward scheme also changes 3. Special emphasis laid on the GE value system and managers who didn’t adhere to the values were let gone Jeff Immelt 1. Suggested key elements for growth strategy on the face of environmental changes: a. Technological leadership b. Services Acceleration c. Enduring customer relationship d. Resource allocation and e. Globalization

Jeff Immelt also recognized the problems imposed by the Vitality Curve, the demotivation of the middle 70%. Under the head of globalization, he ensured diversity in the workforce and considered recruitment from international universities.

1

GE’s Talent Machine: The Making of CEO

V.Sharada, PGP/17/058

Some of the reasons for GEs success: 1. Comprised of a formal and an informal head 2. Continuous process, and not just a one time or a crisis management issue: recognized the fact that leadership succession is critical and an on-going process 3. Emerging leaders were exposed to various sectors and verticals. Example: GEMS exposure for Jeff was crucial. It helped the leaders develop a holistic view of the business and not remain a frog in well 4. The importance placed on Talent management by the organization as a whole: The woring together of the HR department and the CEO in the leadership development process. The realization that the work of any one alone wouldn’t be as effective

Key learnings: 1. Leadership and succession planning requires heavy investments and immense commitment: From the organization (HR) as well as the CEO 2. This is an ongoing process and abandonment of the same at any stage would result in a halfbaked outcome 3. The need for a leader to develop from within the organization is to ensure that the leader is aware and imbibed in the culture. There would be no mismatch and the time taken to acclimatize an outsider is avoided 4. But this also has its negatives, to identify processes which are of minimal or no value addition, an out siders perspective is critical: Example: The vitality curve: It seems to be causing more harm than good by demotivating majority of the staff

2