Global Leadership Perspectives

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

Over the last year, nearly every FMCG executive I’ve spoken to whether sitting in Chicago, Paris, or São Paulo has echoed the same challenge: “We need to get closer to the consumer, faster.” Global brand, local nuance the future of FMCG growth depends on how well your leadership understands the street, not just the spreadsheet. It’s no longer enough to run a global playbook and hope for local resonance. Why? Because the center of gravity in FMCG has shifted. 84% of FMCG companies are now increasing local decision autonomy in key growth markets. (Bain FMCG Operating Model Report, 2023) → That means your CMO can’t be the only one with a finger on the pulse. → Your regional GM can’t just execute HQ strategy. → And your global leaders can’t lead with assumptions they need cultural fluency and operational humility. In other words: local-for-local is not just a supply chain shift. It’s a leadership shift. The most successful candidates weren’t those who had rotated through five global hubs. They were the ones who could… → Read the cultural nuances of consumer behavior in that specific region → Navigate the regulatory quirks that could derail a product launch → Influence global teams while building trust with local retailers → Speak the language literally and commercially They understood the street not just the spreadsheet. And they had the rare ability to connect what’s happening on the ground with what needs to be shifted at the center. These are the leaders FMCG needs now. → Strategists who don’t just adapt to the market, they anticipate it. → Operators who don’t wait for HQ they build and test in-market. → Connectors who know when to push back and when to align. Because in today’s world, speed and relevance win. And that doesn’t come from waiting for global sign-off. It comes from empowering the right local leaders. Here’s where I see many companies trip up: They treat “local” as junior. As operational. As reactive. The truth? Your next competitive edge may be a GM in Manila, a Marketing Director in Lagos, or a Commercial Lead in Warsaw who’s trusted enough to build strategy from the ground up. That’s what global FMCG companies are starting to understand and what we’re helping them solve for in every executive search we run. Not just global leaders who can work across regions…but local leaders who can lead across functions, cultures, and expectations while driving growth with urgency and empathy. This is the new face of global FMCG. Not centralized, but coordinated. Not rigid, but responsive. Not top-down, but built from the middle out. #ExecutiveSearch #FMCGLeadership #GlobalGrowth #ConsumerGoods #TalentStrategy #LeadershipHiring

The UK released the best cyber security guide I’ve seen in 15 years… and made it 100% optional. I helped build it. Here's what smart leaders are doing instead: For the first time ever, the UK government has issued official cybersecurity guidance specifically for board-level leadership. It’s called the Cyber Governance Code of Practice, and it lays out exactly how senior execs should be thinking about cyber — and where they need to take accountability. Here are its 5 focus areas: A. Risk Management → Know what tech matters most to your business → Agree your cyber risk appetite (and stick to it) → Conduct assessments regularly — the threat landscape changes fast B. Strategy → Align your cyber strategy with business goals → Fund it properly → Track progress — if it’s not being delivered, it’s not working C. People → Create clear policies → Build a culture of accountability → Make sure everyone gets trained — and measure how effective it is D. Incident Planning, Response & Recovery  → Have a clear plan for when something goes wrong → Test that plan every year (at least) → Learn and improve from your mistakes E. Assurance & Oversight  → Assign cyber responsibility at board level → Align with audit and regulatory expectations → Hold regular conversations with your CISO (or whoever owns cyber internally) I was part of a few industry groups consulted on this. We advised the government to make parts of this a legal requirement… …but they believe the Companies Act already covers enough. 🤦♂️ It's a shame that none of this is compulsory, because there’s genuinely good advice here. Take Section E3 for example: → “Establish regular two-way dialogue with senior executives, including the Chief Information Security Officer (or equivalent).” That line alone would eliminate half the chaos I walk into during client engagements. It's not legally mandatory (yet). But, it’s still the clearest blueprint we’ve seen for what good cyber leadership should look like at the top. If you're in a leadership role, this gives you a no-excuses guide to get your house in order. Here are the 3 action steps I'd implement as soon as possible: E5 – Make sure your execs understand the regulatory and best practice obligations. A board that doesn’t know what it’s accountable for is a liability. B1 – Build security into your business strategy, not bolted on as an afterthought A3 – Set your risk appetite, then build your security action plan around it. The code may not be compulsory. But protecting your company’s IP, operations, and reputation absolutely is. — I've distilled the key insights from the full 10-page document into the chart below.   DM me 'CYBER' if you want it and I'll send it over. (PS: You must be connected with me in order to receive it.)

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.

Over the past few weeks, I’ve had conversations with clients across Europe, the Middle East, South America, and Africa (EMESA) who are navigating the new era of #trade policy uncertainty. It’s clear that trade policy is no longer a background factor: It’s center stage—and boardroom critical. And while the headlines might focus on China and the US, the ripple effects are already hitting businesses in our region: from pricing pressures to supply chain reconfigurations. What’s clear: businesses can’t afford to wait and see. - Companies must assess where they’re exposed—product by product, market by market. - They need a “tariff command center”—an agile team that can scenario-plan and act fast. - And above all, they must build geopolitical muscle: the ability to respond strategically to shocks that may not follow past patterns. At Boston Consulting Group (BCG), we’ve been working side-by-side with clients across EMESA to navigate this uncertainty—not with panic, but with clarity and readiness. Our latest article breaks down the EU’s phased approach and how companies can respond: https://lnkd.in/eA7Sf8h2 Here’s my key takeaway for you to keep in mind: #Resilience is no longer a luxury. It’s a necessity.

Democracy is not “sexy” for Africa anymore. It does not produce power fast enough. What is often described as the decline of democracy in Africa is, more precisely, the exposure of a model that was never structurally embedded in the first place. The contemporary political order did not emerge from long processes of institutional consolidation. It was layered onto states whose foundations were shaped by colonial rule, where power was organised around control, extraction, and administrative command rather than representation or accountability. After independence, democratic institutions were introduced, but often without the material and institutional conditions required to sustain them over time. Democracy assumes something very specific: that states can govern beyond urgency, that institutions can impose constraints, and that political competition can unfold without threatening the stability of the system itself. In many African contexts, power operates under very different conditions. Governments face volatile revenues, limited administrative reach, and populations whose expectations are immediate. Political authority is not abstract; it is negotiated daily through access to resources, positions, and protection. Stability depends less on rules than on the ability to hold together coalitions that are often fragile. In such environments, legitimacy is not secured by procedure alone. It is built through the capacity to act, to distribute, and to maintain order. This creates a structural tension. Democratic institutions are designed to regulate power over time. But when political survival depends on immediacy, the cost of fully adhering to those institutions increases. The issue is not that elections or constitutions disappear. It is that their ability to organise power weakens when they cannot respond to the pressures shaping it. This is why what we observe across several countries is not a simple rejection of democracy, but a gradual reorganisation of authority. Power concentrates, not necessarily to eliminate democratic forms, but to reduce uncertainty and secure control in environments where stability is constantly negotiated. External dynamics reinforce this evolution. The international context that once strongly promoted democratic governance has become more fragmented, offering alternative partnerships less dependent on institutional reform. At the same time, domestic political economies remain organised around access to state-controlled resources, making political competition inseparable from struggles over distribution. In this configuration, democracy becomes one instrument among others, no longer sufficient on its own to structure power. The question is not why Africa is turning away from democracy. It is why democracy, as it was introduced, was never aligned with the realities of how power is produced and maintained.

Technicolor India's shutdown is a wake-up call for all GCCs operating in India. Despite a track record of excellence and being a key production hub, their dependency on centralized funding and delayed communication from global headquarters proved fatal. This situation highlights the need for local financial autonomy and robust contingency planning. GCCs must reassess how closely they rely on funds flowing from HQ. The sudden absence of remittances led to operational paralysis and left talented teams scrambling for answers. This is a stark reminder that business models should incorporate risk buffers and local decision-making power to navigate unforeseen crises. Additionally, the lack of timely communication and alignment between global and local teams was evident. Transparent and proactive dialogue is critical to ensure that local units are not blindsided by global decisions. By establishing stronger communication channels and clear escalation protocols, GCCs can better prepare for potential financial or operational disruptions. The Technicolor India case underscores the importance of diversifying risk and empowering local leadership. Instead of being solely execution centers, GCCs should have the flexibility to manage certain aspects of their operations independently. This might involve developing local revenue streams or securing alternative funding channels. As industry leaders, it's time for GCCs in India to learn from this failure. Building resilient, agile, and locally empowered operations is not just advisable—it’s essential for long-term success in a volatile global landscape.

What does it take to top the world’s most innovative country rankings? Some countries have done it time and again. Here are the learnings. Produced by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the Global Innovation Index 2025 tracks the performance of 139 economies across R&D, technology, investment, and impact. These are my key takeaways. 𝗠𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀: • Switzerland, Sweden, and the United States remain the global innovation leaders. • China makes it into the top 10 for the first time, leading globally in patent filings and ranking 2nd in R&D spending. • Middle-income economies are steadily rising — India, Türkiye, Viet Nam, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Morocco have climbed consistently since 2013. • Innovation investment is slowing — global R&D growth is at its weakest level since 2010, and venture capital remains concentrated in the U.S. and AI-related sectors. • Technology progress is strong, adoption is catching up — rapid gains in green supercomputing, battery costs, and renewables alongside a more incremental uptake of 5G and electric vehicles. • Innovation continues to deliver social and economic benefits — productivity, health, and poverty indicators are improving even as climate pressures grow. • Innovation hubs are shifting — Shenzhen–Hong Kong–Guangzhou, Tokyo–Yokohama, and Seoul lead globally, while new clusters are emerging in Bengaluru, Cairo, and Mexico City. • Rwanda, India, Viet Nam, and Morocco outperform their income levels, showing that strong policy and focus can drive innovation anywhere. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗼𝗽 𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀 𝗱𝗼 𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗹: • Invest consistently in R&D and education, keeping research and talent development a priority even in slower growth periods. • Build strong bridges between business, academia, and government, ensuring that discoveries move quickly from research to the market. • Protect and enable innovation through robust IP frameworks, regulatory clarity, and pro-competition policies. • Build connected ecosystems — linking startups, corporates, and universities to share knowledge and scale faster. • Prioritize frontier technologies such as AI, clean energy, quantum computing, and advanced manufacturing to shape the next wave of growth. • Promote international cooperation, using global partnerships to expand reach and speed up progress. • Keep a long-term view, emphasizing resilience, inclusivity, and sustainability over short-term gains. Source: WIPO, Graphic source: The Economist, WIPO 𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫: https://lnkd.in/dkqhnxdg

Offshore wind is the canary. And it’s warning that the US is ceding cleantech leadership to China. Industrial leadership isn’t about rhetoric, it’s about demand certainty, scale, and policy stability. Offshore wind in the US is exposing what happens when those foundations are pulled away. In the past year we’ve seen: - Cancelled projects and rescinded grants. Last week, over $600m in offshore-wind port and infrastructure funding withdrawn. The Revolution Wind project stopped mid-build. Confidence shaken overnight - Tax credits chopped short. The Inflation Reduction Act’s 10-year certainty replaced with compressed windows and stricter rules. Developers and investors can’t plan pipelines beyond the next election cycle. - Capital retrenching. Banks widen spreads. Developers reprice risk. Supply-chain players; yards, vessel owners, OEMs, step back or shift capacity elsewhere. These are not abstract policy tweaks; they are direct signals that the US market is becoming smaller, less predictable, and more expensive to build in. Meanwhile, China compounds. It already controls 80 to90% of global solar manufacturing capacity and has reclaimed the #1 spot in global battery supply chains. In 2024 alone, it exported $177bn of clean tech, $66bn in solar, $62bn in batteries, $48bn in EVs. Much of this went to the Global South, where US soft power has pulled back due to stupid cuts in USAID. Ports are being built, grids reinforced, and standards set with Chinese kit, not American. Offshore wind makes the warning visceral. Without ports, vessels, and transmission funded and moving, the US can’t deliver a pipeline. And once that credibility is lost, capital doesn’t wait around. It moves to Europe, Asia, or wherever projects look bankable. But this isn’t just about WTGs in the water. It’s about who sets the rules of the next energy system. By shrinking its home market and unnerving capital, the US is effectively signalling withdrawal from industrial leadership… and Beijing is racing to fill the vacuum. The canary is US offshore wind. The warning is simple: you don’t lead by making your own market smaller and your investors more nervous. You lose. 📞📧 Reach out if you need to discuss this global volatility, and how you and your business can better navigate it. ============================================== ➡ Subscribe to the loudest, most seriously caffeinated #offshorewind newsletter on LinkedIn 👉🏼 https://lnkd.in/eNZX5W76 (Image: AI + John Mac prompt)

For the first time in history, wind and solar capacity in China have exceeded coal capacity. This is more than a national milestone. It is a global signal. China is the world’s largest power market. When renewables become the largest installed capacity there, it marks a structural turning point for the global energy transition. Scale matters, and what happens at scale reshapes supply chains, technology costs, and market expectations worldwide. Coal, particularly clean coal, will continue to play a role in stability and energy security. But wind and solar are no longer ‘alternative’ sources. They are becoming foundational infrastructure. The speed of this shift reflects years of investment in grid expansion, ultra-high-voltage transmission, storage deployment, and manufacturing innovation. It also reflects a broader reality: energy systems are evolving to support electrification, industrial growth, and the rising power demand from AI and digital infrastructure. When the world’s largest energy market crosses a threshold like this, the implications extend far beyond one country. The next phase is about integration — storage, flexibility, and intelligent grids — turning capacity into dependable supply. Milestones matter. Persistence matters more. #CanadianSolar #EnergyTransition #Solar #WindEnergy #CleanEnergy #GlobalEnergy #EnergySecurity #PowerMarkets