Having the right balance where company culture is concerned is vital to a successful and growing organisation. Pf’s Iain Bate focuses on where companies often get it wrong.

Company culture is very much like gravity. You may not be able to see it, touch it, smell it or hear it, but, good or bad, it’s everywhere you turn in every organisation. But just what is it? And, more importantly, what makes the difference between a productive company culture and a damaging one?
In 1966, Marvin Bower from global management consulting firm, McKinsey & Company, described company culture as “how we do things around here”. Sure, it can seem to be as simple as that. But company culture is far more than preferences or working habits. It’s in the metaphorical bloodstream of a company. Or at least it should be. During induction days at a new job, company culture is very rarely mentioned. In fact, you may go throughout your whole working life in a job and it never be discussed. You may be given tips on sales techniques or how to walk in a single line to exit offices during a fire drill, but training on company culture is seldom given or heard of.

Gabrielle O’Donovan, a company culture expert who penned The Corporate Culture Handbook, said in an interview in 2007 that the role of company culture is to preserve the past via tradition while stimulating via innovation. However, if organisations are neglecting company culture and failing to express the principles from which they were founded upon, then how can they possibly move forward?

There are many facets of company culture. In fact, no two companies’ methodologies will be the same. These may include having a strong mission clarity, having committed and empowered employees, forging strong relationships between staff and highly effective leaders and a commitment to learning and development. Whilst there are many more to mention, if one element of these is badly wrong within an organisation it can affect ideologies towards company culture – especially from an employee’s point of view.

Each year, Pf’s Company Perception, Motivation and Satisfaction Survey gives those working within the medical sales industry the chance to vent their frustrations or express their gratification on the issues which matter the most to them. Participants are asked to outline what it is like working for their current employer and what they consider to be the most significant things that characterise their past twelve months in their job. Behind a shield of anonymity, respondents rarely pull any punches. And this year’s survey was no different. Pf took a look at some of the latest responses, and examine what they say about the key components of company culture. The following are real examples of feedback from the Pf Survey 2010/11. They outline some of the ‘deadly sins’ of company culture that, where they exist, can be very damaging.

1.  Job security
“It’s at an all-time low. My new manager is one of the most unprofessional, unethical and dishonest people I have ever come across with no integrity, drive or desire to assist in any way. I have been bullied and harassed; I’m demoralised with low self esteem.”

At a time of widespread industry job losses, one thing that employees value more than anything in the current market is security. Immediate managers and their seniors have an important role to play in ensuring a sense of security in the workplace. Dr Jill Miller and Rebecca Clarke, research advisers, CIPD, note that although job security may not seem an obvious or important factor in company culture, acknowledging and delivering this to employees not only eases any office-based worries but also creates loyalty and promotes retention – something which is important in an era when employees are less likely to have company affinity or search for a ‘job for life’. 

2. Leadership
“The Managing Director has been parachuted in and knows very little about the industry. He behaves like Napoleon and morale is at rock bottom. After 2009 being the best year ever, a 0% pay rise leaves everyone in the wrong frame of mind.”

As in any organisation, those at the top of the career ladder must lead by example. How are employees on the ground expected to promote a healthy and successful company culture if their superiors flaunt expected values? For example, the banking sector has again come in for wide-spread criticism recently for its bonus culture for senior leaders despite huge losses, whilst those working behind counters up and down the country still struggle to pay the bills. The same principles apply in any sector. If company culture is seen as the heartbeat of a company, then the brains – its leadership – must promote these elements and find ways of improving upon these at every opportunity.

3. Management
“The new line manager is not a great people person. He doesn’t answer his mobile and is slow returning calls. He also sends very blunt emails!”

The behaviour of line managers is equally important as those in senior positions. While staff on the ground may never even see or speak to a company chairman or a managing director, they are likely to have daily interaction with their boss. Dr Miller and Jill Clarke explain that managers throughout an organisation have a key role to play in “maintaining the company’s culture, role-modelling expected attitudes and behaviours”. As a result of the absence of training in expected values, many organisations find that articulation and communication of the expected values of the company, and how to maintain these, is a vital step in ensuring staff are aware of what is expected of them. Line managers are in the perfect position to do this on a daily basis.

4. Training
“My company is too self engrossed and not willing to develop talent. Instead it is more keen on supporting those who have worked for the company for longer despite knowing results are not being achieved. There’s no logic or rationale for recognising individuals. It is more likely to put people off trying to progress.”

At a time when pay rises are well below the rate of inflation – if you’re lucky to have one at all – and the fear of the axe looms large, training is seen as an avenue of progression. Sure you may not get paid for a promotion, but it looks good on your CV and new skills and qualifications can be gained in the process. But when training programmes are withdrawn or neglected by organisations there’s an immediate impact on the ground. These schemes offer a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel. Without these in place, staying in the same role – or even company – for the next 12 months may seem a dark place to be.

5. Career development
“It’s difficult, as the company move the goal posts with reference to development.”

There’s nothing worse than being stuck in the same routine without a glimpse of career progression. But, as companies have tightened their belts, opportunities to work the way up the career ladder have decreased. The need to work longer has also seen positions which would’ve come available after retirement blocked by established colleagues. Dr Miller and Jill Clarke believe that a new approach is needed by organisations to increase the amount of opportunities open to staff. “Organisations need to think smarter about their approach to training and development, taking a strategic approach to ensure the development offered is closely aligned to the current and, most importantly, future needs of the business.”

6. Salary and bonus
“I love working for my company; there’s a great culture and the management are very approachable. However, there’s a lot of responsibility and the hours I commit cut into evenings and my personal life with a low salary.”

No-one likes to think they’re overworked and underpaid. But human nature suggests that many of us do. In last year’s Pf survey, the median salary of respondents was £46,000 – of which 46% were unsatisfied with. The Office of National Statistics published results in 2011 which revealed that median gross annual earnings for full-time employees was around £26,000 – considerably less than those working within the medical sales industry. However, where money is concerned, there’s never enough. With food, clothing and energy prices continuing to rise – coupled with low interest rates – every penny spent needs to be justified. So if companies are squeezed and cannot budget for pay increases, they need to consider other means of rewarding, recognising and, ultimately, motivating staff.

7.  Work-life balance
“It is competitive with a lack of regard for personal needs. There is a lack of recognition unless you are in the clique! Ideas and individuality are not respected. It’s very administration focused with more and more time being spent on the computer. We are expected to do the same daily job of seeing face to face customers contributing to a very one sided work-life balance.”

Despite being well paid compared to other professionals and the UK average, there’s no point earning thousands of pounds each year and not being able to enjoy it. The balance between time spent at work and with the family has been placed under the microscope recently when staff are expected to work longer hours without any reward. Employers have a responsibility to improve work-life balance. Full time employees in the UK now average 42.7 hours a week at work. It’s arguably more for those travelling up and down the country visiting clients. But a refreshed and happy worker is a productive one. While employers may be happy to drain every last ounce of energy from their staff, in the long run it’s doing them no good. Danish workers, who only work 39.1 hours a week, are unsurprisingly more productive than UK counterparts. It’s no surprise.

Culture change
So how can companies address issues with job security, leadership and management, training, career development, work-life balance and issues with remuneration? In its report, Developing organisation culture, the CIPD advises companies to plan any attempted switch in values. A clear, public plan of action should be devised that communicates the need for new working measures and thinking, and outlines how the new approach complements the overall vision of the organisation.

Next, employees should be engaged for their opinions with managers also encouraged to play an active part in discussions. Senior leaders and managers on the ground need to ‘buy-in’ to any new measures and be seen to be transparent in their approach.

The report says it’s also important to identify and develop the necessary skills and behaviours required from staff to incorporate any new elements set to be introduced. If resources are tight, companies are encouraged to be creative to develop staff capabilities.

Finally, it’s important to measure and assess the impact of the new culture change. Without having staff onside and willing to help introduce change, any attempts will be futile. Staff need to buy into a vision they really see and hear the next time they look around the office.

Biopharmaceutical company Genzyme, part of Sanofi, has appointed William ‘Bill’ Sibold as Head of Multiple Sclerosis and Rogério Vivaldi as Head of Rare Diseases.

These two businesses make up Genzyme’s core focus following its integration with Sanofi.

David Meeker, Genzyme’s President and CEO, commented: “These appointments are a critical step in launching the new Genzyme. Bill and Rogério are dynamic leaders with the experience, energy, vision and commitment to patients needed to move us forward.”

Bill Sibold has worked in the biopharmaceutical industry for two decades, primarily in commercial roles – including responsibility for the MS drugs Avonex and Tysabri. In eight years at Biogen Idec he rose to become Senior Vice President of US Commercial. He joins Genzyme from Avanir Pharmaceuticals, where he was the Chief Commercial Officer.

“Our goal is to build a world-leading multiple sclerosis franchise,” said Meeker. “Bill’s substantial commercial experience and his deep knowledge of the MS field will be critical to the launch of Lemtrada and Aubagio, two investigational therapies with the potential to transform the lives of people living with MS.”

Rogério Vivaldi joined Genzyme in 1997; his roles have included President of the company’s Renal and Endocrinology Business and President of Genzyme Latin America. As a doctor, he became a recognised expert on the rare Gaucher disease and its treatment.

“Rogério’s experience as a physician treating Gaucher patients in Brazil and his subsequent work in building our rare disease business in Latin America will provide both continuity and an energising new beginning for our global rare disease business,” noted Meeker.

Based in Massachusetts, US, Genzyme specialises in biopharmaceutical therapies for rare and debilitating diseases. As part of Sanofi, it benefits from the commercial reach of a leading global pharmaceutical company.

Inconsistent NHS leadership questioned

The NHS has suffered due to inconsistent leadership over a prolonged period, peers in the House of Lords have been told.

Baroness Cumberlege, a Conservative peer, told the House the number of different health secretaries in recent times has led to a lack of trust and confusion by the health service.

Speaking during the committee stage of the Health Bill, Baroness Cumberlege compared the Sir Alex Ferguson’s 25-year reign at Manchester United and asked “what difference it might make to the NHS” had it had a leader for a similar tenure.

Since 1997, there have been seven different health secretaries – six of which under the previous Labour government.

“One of the real problems that we have, and it exists even if it is the same party in power for a length of time, we lack a consistency of leadership, because the Secretaries of State are here one minute and gone the next,” said Baroness Cumberlege.

“I think that contributes to an NHS that gets confused, that gets fed up and is mistrustful of its masters.”

The NHS faces financial risks and worries over organisational success due to the lack of female leaders on Clinical Commissioning Groups, a new report has warned.

Releasing Potential: Women doctors and clinical leadership found women had experienced difficulties joining CCG leadership committees despite evidence showing gender diverse boards improve financial performance.

GP Penny Newman, report author, says the lack of diversity presents “a risk to developing the collaborative and inclusive leadership behaviour needed for organisations to succeed in a complex system”.

The report, funded by the National Leadership Council, was based on in-depth interviews with 26 leading female GPs and consultants with the outcomes tested on a further National Leadership Council workshop which included 43 female medical leaders and other experts.

Several interviewees said they had signalled an intention to take a senior role within CCGs but had experienced issues in joining. Previously, claims had been made of a ‘jobs for boys’ culture from female GPs following a similar study by Pulse. One interviewee even described one leadership committee as consisting of “clubs, gangs and mafia”, insisting there was “exclusion, inequity and disengagement of the rest of the profession”.

Research from the report said that female GPs were more likely to work with marginalised and vulnerable communities and were found to have qualities such as empathy, being able to question and admit vulnerability and offering support and development to others.

“While the number of female doctors continues to rise, there remains an unacceptably small proportion in leadership positions within the NHS,” said Dr Newman.

“Female doctors represent a valuable resource to the health service, both in terms of the style of working and individual talent.

“The NHS needs to enable them to achieve leadership positions through more flexible working and other initiatives to maximise the potential of the workforce and ultimately provide a better service for patients.”

The report follows an investigation by HSJ which revealed that 85% of CCGs were led by men.

Despite the ongoing criticism of the Health Bill as it passes through the House of Lords, structural changes are still happening at ground level. Dr Thoreya Swage outlines the timescale for changes as PCT clusters switch responsibilities to CCGs.

The momentum of reform of the National Health Service in England continues to gather pace. Following a four month hiatus while the wise and the good of the NHS Future Forum pondered and produced recommendations for the adjustment of the Bill, the DH published further guidance on the developing role of the Primary Care Trust (PCT) clusters.

Although the 151 PCTs have been squeezed into fifty-one PCT clusters in preparation for their demise in April 2013, it seems that they have a vital part to play in the development of the emerging Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs).

This guidance or ‘shared operating model for PCT clusters’ has been produced by the mandarins at the DH to ensure that the commissioning landscape is as consistent and smooth as possible in time for the takeover by the CCGs. This is so that the nascent NHS Commissioning Board inherits a robust enough system to take account of further developments and improvements in healthcare in early 2013.

 

A shared model

There are six main functions or ways of working for the shared operating model for the clusters. These have been identified where consistency of approach is considered to be of importance and they are listed as commissioning development, financial and operational issues, ensuring quality, emergency planning, development of providers as Foundation Trusts and communications.

 

CCG development

The most important function is the preparation of CCGs for authorisation as soon as possible following the successful passage of the Health Bill through Parliament. The process of authorisation to become fully fledged commissioners is due to begin in the second half of 2012.

Although this is a year away, CCGs can commence their preparations now using a self diagnostic tool – an interactive computer-based assessment that helps them to determine their capability in six domains and identify their development needs.

The areas covered include:

• A clear clinical focus of the CCG commissioning plans to include tackling health inequalities and improving primary care
• Demonstration of meaningful involvement of patients and the wider community
• A plan for development that is clear and credible which, in particular, delivers the QIPP (quality, innovation, productivity and prevention) agenda
• Capacity and capability of the CCG, i.e. robust constitutional and governance arrangements which enable the CCG to commission care effectively and ensure financial control
• Collaborative arrangements for working with other CCGs, local authorities and the NHS Commissioning Board
• Capacity and capability of the CCG leadership which ensures effective working.

The tool helps the CCGs identify priority development areas which form the basis of the developmental plan paving the way to full authorisation.

To support all this work CCGs will receive £2 per head from the PCT clusters as well as extra management resource to help the groups hone their commissioning skills and capability.

CCGs experiencing difficulty in defining their boundaries will have guidance from PCT clusters on how to resolve this. PCT clusters also have the unenviable task of engaging the reluctant practices that so far have not participated in their local CCG discussions, with the aim of being part of a viable commissioning group by October.

 

Separating commissioning functions

All through the last quarter of this year a very detailed exercise is being carried out by PCT clusters to identify and segregate the service areas that CCGs and the NHS Commissioning Board will be responsible for. Although CCGs will be commissioning acute, mental health, community and ambulance care there are other services that PCTs currently commission which will need to be transferred to the Board.

Services such as GP and other primary care contractor groups – primary dental care, pharmacy and optical services – secondary dental care, prison, specialised and military health services are set to go under the umbrella of the NHS Commissioning Board. Even though the contracts for GP services are held by another body, the CCGs are expected to have an input into primary care development and improvement.

 

Quality assurance

A vital component of the commissioning process is ensuring the quality of healthcare. Practices may have been involved to a greater or lesser degree in various quality assurance processes in the past. However, CCGs are required to take on board these responsibilities seriously.

There is a whole raft of procedures and measures including delivery of better health outcomes for patients, meeting the Care Quality Commission (CQC) requirements for safety and quality of services, standard contracts, the NHS Operating Framework, professional guidance and other relevant requirements that CCGs need to get to grips with.

This could potentially be a vulnerable time for the development of the CCGs if attention wanders and serious patient safety incidents are not acted on promptly. Clinical governance processes must therefore be extra secure.

 

Budgets and responsibilities

Over the next year or so there will be a period of dual functioning and handover as the CCGs mature and the PCT clusters delegate more and more responsibilities until April 2013. The handing over of the baton has started now with PCT clusters having identified a “clear percentage of budgets” to CCG pioneers or pathfinders in August and plans for future delegation of budgets set by October.

Sandwiched in between will be the agreement on which mental health and community services will be subject to ‘Any Qualified Provider’ (AQP). This policy is set to be implemented from April next year when GPs can refer to providers of certain services eligible for AQP from a list of approved organisations, including the private sector, drawn up by the DH.

A review of commissioning support required by CCGs has already been undertaken in July with clear arrangements agreed by the end of the year.

In March next year, CCGs will be required to enable the development of the local health and wellbeing boards supported by their PCT clusters – health and wellbeing boards being the mechanism for joint health and social care planning and commissioning locally.

Meanwhile, individual PCTs will continue to carry out their statutory functions through the clusters until their abolition in April 2013. The statutory functions include contract monitoring, ensuring that providers meet their QIPP obligations and other statutory requirements, for example, safeguarding children and vulnerable adults.

The big challenge for CCGs will begin when they will be required to lead the next planning round for 2012/13. This begins in the latter part of this year and is a function previously undertaken by the PCTs.

This will involve doing a needs analysis, identifying local inequalities, understanding demand and activity for local services, negotiating and setting priorities with partners and developing the local strategic vision. Handover of commissioning functions will continue with CCGs being an active participant in the subsequent contract negotiations and agreement.

 

The outside world

It is apparent that despite the pause for reflection on the proposed changes in the NHS earlier this year, the momentum for restructuring and dissolving healthcare organisations continues. The picture remains a little confusing however, as CCGs are in varying stages of development and maturity and it is not clear that all will be truly viable by the tight deadline set for October.

What is clear is that that work of commissioning and delivering healthcare has to go on and now is a good time to find out who the key movers are within the CCGs.

It is at this point in time when the developmental needs of CCGs will be uppermost and it is here that pharma can provide some input. Skills and knowledge in leadership development and highlighting therapeutic areas where evidence-based care really works are two such possibilities.

CCGs will be keen to smooth patient pathways across primary and secondary care and nowhere is this more pertinent than in prescribing effectively. Delegated prescribing budgets are now very real for CCGs and they will be keen to ensure value for money and improvements in care for their patients. This provides a good opportunity for pharma companies to demonstrate the effectiveness of their drugs in specific disease areas.

On the commissioning front, by December of this year, CCGs and PCT clusters will have had to agree what commissioning support they need to carry out this function. Given the requirement to reduce costs, commissioning skills and expertise may actually be thin on the ground within CCGs.

Bearing in mind that effective commissioning will be judged by outcomes achieved as outlined in the NHS Outcomes Framework, pharma is well placed to demonstrate how their products can meet the requirements of domain 1: preventing premature deaths, domain 2: enhancing the quality of life of people with long-term conditions and domain 3: aiding the recovery of people who have an acute illness or injury.

The next few months will be busy while the NHS sorts itself out structurally. Once the picture begins to clear, pharma will need to engage with the new clinically skilled commissioners who now have the financial responsibility for making decisions about healthcare.

Dr Thoreya Swage was formerly an NHS clinician and a senior manager in various NHS organisations covering acute and primary care. She has expertise in commissioning health services and is currently working for a number of NHS organisations, including DH agencies, to develop a more commercial approach to the commissioning of healthcare.

Professor Malcolm Grant (pictured), an authority on genetic technology, has been named by Health Secretary Andrew Lansley as his choice of Chair for the new NHS Commissioning Board.

The national board, which has been called the biggest quango in British history, will commission primary medical care and specialist health areas, as well as controlling the allocation of NHS resources.

Professor Grant, currently Provost of University College London, will be interviewed by the Health Select Committee before his appointment but is expected to take up the post at the end of October.

A qualified barrister and lawyer, Professor Grant has worked in the Local Government Commission and been a UK Business Ambassador. He is a recognised authority on the regulation of biotechnology.

Malcolm Grant commented: “We need to build on the very best NHS qualities of dedicated public service, professionalism and pride, and seize the opportunity to create long-term stability and focus on getting constant improvement in quality and openness to innovation.”

Grant’s commitment to new healthcare technology is reflected in his recent statement: “We know that there will be a revolution in the next few years as we try to ensure that improvements in diagnostics and pharmacogenetics and self-care and self-treatment are brought home to patients, giving them the capacity to control their own medication and their own choices.”

The NHS Commissioning Board will provide strategic leadership for NHS commissioning. It will directly commission primary medical care and some specialised healthcare; support and regulate the Clinical Commissioning Groups; allocate NHS resources; and promote patient choice and information.

Andrew Lansley said: “Professor Grant has distinction and authority, is outstandingly capable and has excellent leadership skills, demonstrated by his success at UCL. He has a strong track record of delivery in complex public sector organisations, and shares the public sector ethos and values of the NHS.”

Andrew Lansley has selected Professor Malcolm Grant CBE as his preferred choice to become the chair of the NHS Commissioning Board.

The New Zealander barrister, academic and former government advisor currently holds the post of President and Provost of UCL (University College London).

The Health Secretary says that Professor Grant is “outstandingly capable and has excellent leadership skills” and he “shares the public sector ethos and values of the NHS”.

Professor Grant, who has also served as a UK business ambassador, is expected to take the post at the end of October, following a pre-appointment scrutiny hearing in front of the Health Select Committee. It will be his first role in the health sector.

In the past ten years, Professor Grant has held a number of high profile positions including the pro vice chancellor of Cambridge University, chair of the local government commission, chair of the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission.

His role as the head of the NHS Commissioning Board will be to provide strategic leadership and vision for commissioning.

“I am honoured to be named the preferred choice for this vital role,” said Professor Grant. “I am passionate about the NHS and see the Commissioning Board as playing a key part in delivering a service which meets the future needs of patients and of the nation.

“We need to build on the very best NHS qualities of dedicated public service, professionalism and pride, and seize the opportunity to create long-term stability and focus on getting constant improvement in quality and openness to innovation.”

Eli Lilly has appointed key appointments to its senior management team after the retirements of Bryce D. Carmine, Senior Vice President and President of Lilly Bio-Medicines, and Frank Deane, President of Manufacturing Operations (both pictured below).

The two will step down at the end of the year with Dave Ricks, President of Lilly USA, replacing Mr Carmine and Maria Crowe, Senior Vice President for Global Drug Product Manufacturing, succeeding Mr Deane.

John C. Lechleiter, Chairman, President, and CEO, Lilly, says the outgoing pair have been “pillars of the company who have had a lasting, worldwide impact”.

Mr Deane, who has let the Bio-Medicines division since 2009, and Mr Carmine, the leader of global manufacturing since 2007, have a combined 69 years of experience at the company.

“We’re grateful for their dedicated service,” said Mr Lechleiter. “We'll certainly miss Bryce and Frank and the extraordinary leadership they provided.

“At the same time, we're very fortunate to have talented leaders who are well-prepared and ready to step into these critical roles.”

As a result of Mr Ricks’ promotion, Alex Azaz is being promoted to President of Lilly USA.

Bryce Carmine

Frank Deane

Merck’s chairman of its board of directors, Richard T. Clark, has decided to take retirement in December.

The former president and CEO of Merck will be replaced by Kenneth C. Frazier as the board’s new chair.

Mr Frazier thanked the outgoing chairman for the “leadership and the innumerable contributions he has made to our company and our industry”.

He first joined Merck back in 1972 and went on to lead the company for five years between 2005 and 2010. Mr Clark has served as a director at the company since May 2005 and became chairman in 2007.

“I have been a part of Merck for more than 39 years – I always have and always will consider Merck to be an important part of my life and my extended family,” said Mr Clark. “It has been a great pleasure to work with the talented, dedicated people of Merck who are so committed to our mission of saving and improving lives around the world.

“I am confident that under Ken Frazier's leadership, the company is well positioned for continued success in the future.”

In times of economic turmoil, we are all feeling the pinch of our increasingly tightened belts, even those who are working in positions that are thought to be significantly safer.

In fact, recent statistics collected by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) have revealed that business leaders are actually missing adequate leadership skills.

According to the CIPD’s survey, UK Highlights: Global Leadership Forecast, only a third (36%) of UK leaders and one in five (18%) of UK HR professionals rated the quality of leadership as ‘high’ at their own organisations. These figures are unsettling as leaders have admitted lacking the key qualities to encourage success in the workplace.

As we all know, effective leadership in pharma is important to managing a team and achieving success in long-term business strategies, especially as we have now apparently double dipped ourselves in the already soul-destroying recession. It just seems a shame that leaders don’t feel like they are sufficiently trained to be ‘leader of the pack’.

So why are leaders suddenly feeling self-conscious?

Maybe it’s the pressure? I’m sure that everyone has felt a knock of confidence since the recession began. So, leaders must truly feel the blunt of the blow as they try to muster enough poise to carry on and motivate their team. And it’s true. As a figurehead, the leader must represent their employees as one and motivate them through this dark time.

Of course, there remains many talented leaders in the marketplace - both within pharma and outside of it -  but as businesses tighten the purse strings, attracting them against a backdrop of fiscal prudence, is proving challenging. Companies are desperately seeking leaders with innovative ideas for growth - but finding and attracting them is another matter.

Vanessa Robinson, Head of HR Practice Development, CIPD, notes the predicament that we face, as “Leadership development budgets remain tight, particularly in the UK, yet effective leaders make a real difference to the success of organisations.”

So it seems the issue of leadership creates a catch-22 effect as we come to realise the importance and worth of great leadership to encourage business success but also struggle to find the money to fund it. Perhaps ‘speculate to accumulate’ should be our way of thinking when it comes to leadership in future? How would you rate the leadership at your organisation?