Connect with us

Business

McKinsey studied the most successful Fortune 500 CEOs and found they share one similar trait

Published

on



The modern leader faces a leadership environment that is rapidly growing in complexity, grappling with roughly twice as many issues on a CEO’s desk as just five to seven years ago. This pressure has driven senior partners Kurt Strovink and Carolyn Dewar, co-leaders of McKinsey & Company’s CEO Practice—the firm’s top “CEO whisperers”—to empirically study the world’s top 200 corporate chiefs.

Their new book, A CEO for All Seasons, breaks down the mindsets and methods required to succeed in a role that 68% of incumbent CEOs admitted they felt “ill-prepared” for when they stepped into the shoes. While the research conducted by Strovink, Dewar, and co-authors Scott Keller and Vikram Malhotra found that these elite performers possess unique habits for challenging complacency, fostering brutal candor, and staying humble enough to keep learning.

The high-performing leaders studied in the book distinguish themselves through a pervasive “curiosity and learning mindset,” which came through in “almost every interview,” Dewar said in an interview with Fortune.

The top leaders are the first to admit they don’t know everything, Strovink told Fortune. “It wasn’t that they were superhuman. It’s that they learned faster, they were more adaptable and they had structures … institutionalized methods for being able to neutralize their excesses and capitalize on their strength and edge.”

One of the most striking mandates for high-performance culture came from JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon. As Strovink related it, Dimon tells his teams: “don’t bring your best self, bring your worst self—put the problems on the table.”

Dewar added that this isn’t meant to encourage bad behavior, but rather organizational candor. It means being “willing to share when things aren’t going well … so we can fix it.”

Strovink added that this level of discomfort is necessary, as great leaders must create conditions for “edge thinking, for candor and for confidence building over time … they put it in the room, they put it on the table and they create, and they do it in their own authentic styles.” Strovink said that good leaders have to find a way to have tough conversations that maybe wouldn’t happen under another leader, “but not have those be scarring, brutalizing experiences.”

The challenges of modern leadership

Strovink explained that advising CEOs, while a core of McKinsey’s mission stretching back nearly 100 years, has reached a new level under the CEO Practice, founded several years ago. This was partly a reflection “that the role of the CEO is becoming more and more important.” We live in an era, Strovink added, “where people are pulling down leadership and saying it’s a bad thing and nobody wants to be led. But the reality is if you’re led by an enlightened leader who’s doing it well, it’s actually a glorious thing that’s so relevant in this generation, maybe even more important than ever.”

Dewar turned to hard data, arguing that the book and the practice are both vital now because it’s frankly challenging to be a CEO. She alluded to the reporting (some of it in the pages of Fortune) about the ever-shortening tenure of the CEO, “but it turns out it’s actually quite bifurcated.” She explained that 30% of CEOs don’t make it past the first three years, and the odds of a long tenure rise significantly once that threshold is passed. She noted that private equity looks closely at this, talking about the cost of churn for a CEO. “We don’t want people churning.” Dewar cited estimates that in the S&P 500, $1 trillion in value is destroyed each year due to failed CEO transitions.

Strovink added that their research really has put a number on good leadership. The top quintile CEOs that we’ve studied, over time, create disproportionate value for their companies, for economies as a whole, for the world,” he argued, adding that McKinsey estimates that the top quintile generates 30x the economic profit of the next three quintiles combined. Leadership—and CEO talent—is “unevenly distributed,” he said.

Jim Rossman of Barclays, global head of shareholder advisory, has been tracking hedge-fund activist campaigns against publicly traded companies for decades, including CEO churn. He found in early October that CEO turnover resulting from activist campaigns was set to hit a record in 2025, exceeding the 2024 record. He told Fortune in an interview that this was making the CEO role more tenuous than ever before. “It feels like what activists have done is basically [to hold] public companies to the standards of private equity,” he said, and they view the CEO “more as an operator, not somebody who’s risen through the ranks.”

Shareholder activists have successfully enforced the strict standards of private equity ownership onto public companies, according to Rossman, holding them to quarterly performance measures focused relentlessly on maximizing efficiency and value. This contrasts sharply with the historical view of a CEO as a “local hero” or “revered figure.” Activists realized they didn’t need to take a company private the way a private-equity firm would to enforce this view, Rossman said; they could simply buy a stake and lobby the board, making the organization instantly subject to immense external pressure. “I think the CEO [churn] is directly linked to the ongoing infiltration of the private equity model in the public companies,” Rossman added.

Rossman noted that this operational focus is accelerated by technology, which provides instant information on a company’s performance relative to peers, and by the consolidation of ownership among index funds, making it easier for activists to organize support among the top ten shareholders. Consequently, new boards—themselves adopting a more private-equity-like mentality—are highly brand-conscious and quick to replace underperforming executives.

Dewar agreed with this line of thinking, saying, “if you think about how much of the economy is shifting to private equity and privately held companies, their churn rate is much higher.” She recently shared an anecdote about talking to a board member at a private equity firm, who said that 71% churn was average for them in terms of leadership turnover. This central question is why she is so passionate about leading the CEO Practice, she added: “how do we actually serve CEOs and boards and organizations to help each of those stages go well?”

Power of candor and discomfort

To survive in this high-stakes environment, McKinsey’s research found that top CEOs are adaptable, not necessarily ruthless. They succeed by embracing a “curiosity and learning mindset” and structuring discomfort into their operations.

Strovink and Dewar referred again to JPMorgan’s Dimon, who has a crucial technique for combating complacency in this relentless environment. The investment bank chief believes that every large organization has a tendency to “rest,” Strovink noted, and this requires the CEO to constantly be “catalyzing it and pushing it.” The “sociology of large organizations” means things turn incremental if a leader is complacent, he added.

This proactive discomfort is the necessary internal counterbalance to the external pressure. Michael Dell exemplifies it, Dewar noted, who fought complacency by forcing his team to imagine an attacker who understood their customers better, encouraging his company to “disrupt ourselves.” (She also noted that Dell has been disrupting himself since becoming a founder CEO at age 19.)

Dewar recalled how Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella told her the CEO Practice’s previous book, CEO Excellence, about the loneliness of the job, stemming from an “information asymmetry problem” in which he literally cannot talk to many of his colleagues about what he knows. They can’t afford to realize it. “No one else in your organization or above you, like your board or your investors, see all the pieces you see.” She said she thinks it’s vital for CEOs to have some trusted advisors, “a kitchen cabinet” of sorts.

Ultimately, the book suggests that the most successful leaders in this highly accelerated, private-equity-influenced era are those who can navigate the core duality of the role: making bold, confident decisions with incomplete information while sustaining the humility and constant learning required to meet relentless performance demands.

The authors emphasize that the goal of the book is to trace the “development of leaders through time,” including the fourth season, which sets up the next generation. Brad Smith, the former CEO of Intuit, was cited as an extraordinary example of legacy building, having had succession discussions with his board 44 times over 11 years—every single quarter. Smith is “really proud of the fact that many people who worked with him went on to be CEOs other places,” Dewar said, calling him a “sort of engine of leadership development. And I think that’s really remarkable as a leader, as part of his legacy.”

Strovink said he was particularly surprised by one, maybe counterintuitive finding: at least for the population of 200 leaders profiled in the book, the authors did not find the famous “sophomore slump” in leadership. “At least for this group, they didn’t have a sophomore slump. They were consistently getting better over time.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Senate Dems’ plan to fix Obamacare premiums adds nearly $300 billion to deficit, CRFB says

Published

on



The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) is a nonpartisan watchdog that regularly estimates how much the U.S. Congress is adding to the $38 trillion national debt.

With enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies due to expire within days, some Senate Democrats are scrambling to protect millions of Americans from getting the unpleasant holiday gift of spiking health insurance premiums. The CRFB says there’s just one problem with the plan: It’s not funded.

“With the national debt as large as the economy and interest payments costing $1 trillion annually, it is absurd to suggest adding hundreds of billions more to the debt,” CRFB President Maya MacGuineas wrote in a statement on Friday afternoon.

The proposal, backed by members of the Senate Democratic caucus, would fully extend the enhanced ACA subsidies for three years, from 2026 through 2028, with no additional income limits on who can qualify. Those subsidies, originally boosted during the pandemic and later renewed, were designed to lower premiums and prevent coverage losses for middle‑ and lower‑income households purchasing insurance on the ACA exchanges.

CRFB estimated that even this three‑year extension alone would add roughly $300 billion to federal deficits over the next decade, largely because the federal government would continue to shoulder a larger share of premium costs while enrollment and subsidy amounts remain elevated. If Congress ultimately moves to make the enhanced subsidies permanent—as many advocates have urged—the total cost could swell to nearly $550 billion in additional borrowing over the next decade.

Reversing recent guardrails

MacGuineas called the Senate bill “far worse than even a debt-financed extension” as it would roll back several “program integrity” measures that were enacted as part of a 2025 reconciliation law and were intended to tighten oversight of ACA subsidies. On top of that, it would be funded by borrowing even more. “This is a bad idea made worse,” MacGuineas added.

The watchdog group’s central critique is that the new Senate plan does not attempt to offset its costs through spending cuts or new revenue and, in their view, goes beyond a simple extension by expanding the underlying subsidy structure.

The legislation would permanently repeal restrictions that eliminated subsidies for certain groups enrolling during special enrollment periods and would scrap rules requiring full repayment of excess advance subsidies and stricter verification of eligibility and tax reconciliation. The bill would also nullify portions of a 2025 federal regulation that loosened limits on the actuarial value of exchange plans and altered how subsidies are calculated, effectively reshaping how generous plans can be and how federal support is determined. CRFB warned these reversals would increase costs further while weakening safeguards designed to reduce misuse and error in the subsidy system.

MacGuineas said that any subsidy extension should be paired with broader reforms to curb health spending and reduce overall borrowing. In her view, lawmakers are missing a chance to redesign ACA support in a way that lowers premiums while also improving the long‑term budget outlook.

The debate over ACA subsidies recently contributed to a government funding standoff, and CRFB argued that the new Senate bill reflects a political compromise that prioritizes short‑term relief over long‑term fiscal responsibility.

“After a pointless government shutdown over this issue, it is beyond disappointing that this is the preferred solution to such an important issue,” MacGuineas wrote.

The off-year elections cast the government shutdown and cost-of-living arguments in a different light. Democrats made stunning gains and almost flipped a deep-red district in Tennessee as politicians from the far left and center coalesced around “affordability.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is reportedly smelling blood in the water and doubling down on the theme heading into the pivotal midterm elections of 2026. President Donald Trump is scheduled to visit Pennsylvania soon to discuss pocketbook anxieties. But he is repeating predecessor Joe Biden’s habit of dismissing inflation, despite widespread evidence to the contrary.

“We fixed inflation, and we fixed almost everything,” Trump said in a Tuesday cabinet meeting, in which he also dismissed affordability as a “hoax” pushed by Democrats.​

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle now face a politically fraught choice: allow premiums to jump sharply—including in swing states like Pennsylvania where ACA enrollees face double‑digit increases—or pass an expensive subsidy extension that would, as CRFB calculates, explode the deficit without addressing underlying health care costs.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Netflix–Warner Bros. deal sets up $72 billion antitrust test

Published

on



Netflix Inc. has won the heated takeover battle for Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. Now it must convince global antitrust regulators that the deal won’t give it an illegal advantage in the streaming market. 

The $72 billion tie-up joins the world’s dominant paid streaming service with one of Hollywood’s most iconic movie studios. It would reshape the market for online video content by combining the No. 1 streaming player with the No. 4 service HBO Max and its blockbuster hits such as Game Of ThronesFriends, and the DC Universe comics characters franchise.  

That could raise red flags for global antitrust regulators over concerns that Netflix would have too much control over the streaming market. The company faces a lengthy Justice Department review and a possible US lawsuit seeking to block the deal if it doesn’t adopt some remedies to get it cleared, analysts said.

“Netflix will have an uphill climb unless it agrees to divest HBO Max as well as additional behavioral commitments — particularly on licensing content,” said Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Jennifer Rie. “The streaming overlap is significant,” she added, saying the argument that “the market should be viewed more broadly is a tough one to win.”

By choosing Netflix, Warner Bros. has jilted another bidder, Paramount Skydance Corp., a move that risks touching off a political battle in Washington. Paramount is backed by the world’s second-richest man, Larry Ellison, and his son, David Ellison, and the company has touted their longstanding close ties to President Donald Trump. Their acquisition of Paramount, which closed in August, has won public praise from Trump. 

Comcast Corp. also made a bid for Warner Bros., looking to merge it with its NBCUniversal division.

The Justice Department’s antitrust division, which would review the transaction in the US, could argue that the deal is illegal on its face because the combined market share would put Netflix well over a 30% threshold.

The White House, the Justice Department and Comcast didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. 

US lawmakers from both parties, including Republican Representative Darrell Issa and Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren have already faulted the transaction — which would create a global streaming giant with 450 million users — as harmful to consumers.

“This deal looks like an anti-monopoly nightmare,” Warren said after the Netflix announcement. Utah Senator Mike Lee, a Republican, said in a social media post earlier this week that a Warner Bros.-Netflix tie-up would raise more serious competition questions “than any transaction I’ve seen in about a decade.”

European Union regulators are also likely to subject the Netflix proposal to an intensive review amid pressure from legislators. In the UK, the deal has already drawn scrutiny before the announcement, with House of Lords member Baroness Luciana Berger pressing the government on how the transaction would impact competition and consumer prices.

The combined company could raise prices and broadly impact “culture, film, cinemas and theater releases,”said Andreas Schwab, a leading member of the European Parliament on competition issues, after the announcement.

Paramount has sought to frame the Netflix deal as a non-starter. “The simple truth is that a deal with Netflix as the buyer likely will never close, due to antitrust and regulatory challenges in the United States and in most jurisdictions abroad,” Paramount’s antitrust lawyers wrote to their counterparts at Warner Bros. on Dec. 1.

Appealing directly to Trump could help Netflix avoid intense antitrust scrutiny, New Street Research’s Blair Levin wrote in a note on Friday. Levin said it’s possible that Trump could come to see the benefit of switching from a pro-Paramount position to a pro-Netflix position. “And if he does so, we believe the DOJ will follow suit,” Levin wrote.

Netflix co-Chief Executive Officer Ted Sarandos had dinner with Trump at the president’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida last December, a move other CEOs made after the election in order to win over the administration. In a call with investors Friday morning, Sarandos said that he’s “highly confident in the regulatory process,” contending the deal favors consumers, workers and innovation. 

“Our plans here are to work really closely with all the appropriate governments and regulators, but really confident that we’re going to get all the necessary approvals that we need,” he said.

Netflix will likely argue to regulators that other video services such as Google’s YouTube and ByteDance Ltd.’s TikTok should be included in any analysis of the market, which would dramatically shrink the company’s perceived dominance.

The US Federal Communications Commission, which regulates the transfer of broadcast-TV licenses, isn’t expected to play a role in the deal, as neither hold such licenses. Warner Bros. plans to spin off its cable TV division, which includes channels such as CNN, TBS and TNT, before the sale.

Even if antitrust reviews just focus on streaming, Netflix believes it will ultimately prevail, pointing to Amazon.com Inc.’s Prime and Walt Disney Co. as other major competitors, according to people familiar with the company’s thinking. 

Netflix is expected to argue that more than 75% of HBO Max subscribers already subscribe to Netflix, making them complementary offerings rather than competitors, said the people, who asked not to be named discussing confidential deliberations. The company is expected to make the case that reducing its content costs through owning Warner Bros., eliminating redundant back-end technology and bundling Netflix with Max will yield lower prices.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

The rise of AI reasoning models comes with a big energy tradeoff

Published

on



Nearly all leading artificial intelligence developers are focused on building AI models that mimic the way humans reason, but new research shows these cutting-edge systems can be far more energy intensive, adding to concerns about AI’s strain on power grids.

AI reasoning models used 30 times more power on average to respond to 1,000 written prompts than alternatives without this reasoning capability or which had it disabled, according to a study released Thursday. The work was carried out by the AI Energy Score project, led by Hugging Face research scientist Sasha Luccioni and Salesforce Inc. head of AI sustainability Boris Gamazaychikov.

The researchers evaluated 40 open, freely available AI models, including software from OpenAI, Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Microsoft Corp. Some models were found to have a much wider disparity in energy consumption, including one from Chinese upstart DeepSeek. A slimmed-down version of DeepSeek’s R1 model used just 50 watt hours to respond to the prompts when reasoning was turned off, or about as much power as is needed to run a 50 watt lightbulb for an hour. With the reasoning feature enabled, the same model required 7,626 watt hours to complete the tasks.

The soaring energy needs of AI have increasingly come under scrutiny. As tech companies race to build more and bigger data centers to support AI, industry watchers have raised concerns about straining power grids and raising energy costs for consumers. A Bloomberg investigation in September found that wholesale electricity prices rose as much as 267% over the past five years in areas near data centers. There are also environmental drawbacks, as Microsoft, Google and Amazon.com Inc. have previously acknowledged the data center buildout could complicate their long-term climate objectives

More than a year ago, OpenAI released its first reasoning model, called o1. Where its prior software replied almost instantly to queries, o1 spent more time computing an answer before responding. Many other AI companies have since released similar systems, with the goal of solving more complex multistep problems for fields like science, math and coding.

Though reasoning systems have quickly become the industry norm for carrying out more complicated tasks, there has been little research into their energy demands. Much of the increase in power consumption is due to reasoning models generating much more text when responding, the researchers said. 

The new report aims to better understand how AI energy needs are evolving, Luccioni said. She also hopes it helps people better understand that there are different types of AI models suited to different actions. Not every query requires tapping the most computationally intensive AI reasoning systems.

“We should be smarter about the way that we use AI,” Luccioni said. “Choosing the right model for the right task is important.”

To test the difference in power use, the researchers ran all the models on the same computer hardware. They used the same prompts for each, ranging from simple questions — such as asking which team won the Super Bowl in a particular year — to more complex math problems. They also used a software tool called CodeCarbon to track how much energy was being consumed in real time.

The results varied considerably. The researchers found one of Microsoft’s Phi 4 reasoning models used 9,462 watt hours with reasoning turned on, compared with about 18 watt hours with it off. OpenAI’s largest gpt-oss model, meanwhile, had a less stark difference. It used 8,504 watt hours with reasoning on the most computationally intensive “high” setting and 5,313 watt hours with the setting turned down to “low.” 

OpenAI, Microsoft, Google and DeepSeek did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Google released internal research in August that estimated the median text prompt for its Gemini AI service used 0.24 watt-hours of energy, roughly equal to watching TV for less than nine seconds. Google said that figure was “substantially lower than many public estimates.” 

Much of the discussion about AI power consumption has focused on large-scale facilities set up to train artificial intelligence systems. Increasingly, however, tech firms are shifting more resources to inference, or the process of running AI systems after they’ve been trained. The push toward reasoning models is a big piece of that as these systems are more reliant on inference.

Recently, some tech leaders have acknowledged that AI’s power draw needs to be reckoned with. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella said the industry must earn the “social permission to consume energy” for AI data centers in a November interview. To do that, he argued tech must use AI to do good and foster broad economic growth.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.