Businesses that don’t have a greater purpose will fall behind: Paddy Upton | News

And now the knowledge has gone out of their heads and onto the worldwide web and (it) is available to everybody with an internet connection. It is obsolete to stand as a leader and tell people what to do. That’s a very disempowering leadership approach that creates a culture of fear.

Most leaders over the age of about 50 are just continuing to do what they did yesterday, even though the world has changed. Leaders need to be much more inspiring, they need to create empowerment, they need to create better cultures. Leaders need to be more real, more vulnerable, more engaging, listen more and speak less.

There’s so much opportunity for forward-thinking leaders to upgrade their leadership software and create better, more nimble, more engaging cultures. It’s the people and the teams that deliver the productivity more often than not.

You emphasise on the medium- and long-term goals of a company. Legacy companies’ decision-making tends to be more traditional and orthodox, while startups are known for being quick. What is the key difference between them?

(Cricketer) M S Dhoni’s leadership style is apt for illustrating how quick decision-making is as important as focusing on long-term goals. Leadership should focus on the process, not the results. The same applies in the business context. Focus on the process, which means dealing with what is in front of you right now, making a decision, and moving forward. We make quick decisions and if they are wrong it’s fine.

We can always change and rectify the decision. The only time we need to pause is when the decision is truly significant and consequential. But if it’s not, we make the decision quickly and move on. However, we should not make decisions solely to achieve short-term results, as that becomes problematic. In today’s fast-paced environment, especially with the rate of change accelerating, many businesses, particularly larger ones, make decisions aimed at delivering strong quarterly results.

 

This often, though not always, leads to medium-term disadvantages and sometimes even bigger issues. It might lead to unethical business practices or push the company down the wrong path. Yes, make quick decisions and keep moving but do not do it just to satisfy short-term gains.

One of the most common things we often see is people compromising on ethics to make a quick buck.

Now, you may have short-term success, but when ethics are compromised, it may deliver a short-term win if you don’t get caught. However, you almost always do get caught, and it will inevitably lead to long-term loss. So, when making decisions, the mantra I use is to recognise the situation: Is this a short-term gain that could lead to long-term pain?

Sometimes, we need to endure short-term pain to achieve long-term gain. And typically, the latter approach almost always works.

Athletes motivate themselves to work towards a goal. How can corporate leaders draw inspiration?

If I look at the more traditional setup, it doesn’t work as well when a business’s sole goal is to make money and satisfy shareholders. That focus on the bottom line isn’t very appealing to employees, as they’re essentially working to make someone else rich. As a result, employees often adopt a selfish mindset, thinking, “I’m going to use this environment to further my own career as best I can.”

They become focused on their own benefits and career progression. They may help generate some profit for the company along the way, but as soon as a better opportunity for career advancement comes along they’ll move to another business. This contrasts with businesses that exist for more than just profit.

That’s why, about 10, 12 or 15 years ago we started hearing about the ‘triple bottom line’, which focuses on profits, the environment, and people. While many businesses merely paid lip service to this idea, those that genuinely contribute positively to the environment or society, and communicate that effectively, stand out.

People want to work for businesses like that. We are hearing more and more from young people entering the workforce that they seek something beyond just trading their time for money. That exchange is no longer enough for them. They want to feel that their six to 10 hours a day, five or six days a week, are contributing to something meaningful and making the world a better place.

If businesses fail to create environments where young, high-potential employees can contribute to more than just the bank balance, they’re missing a vital opportunity. In time, those businesses will fall further and further behind companies that have a greater purpose for their existence.

The Indian hockey team won a bronze medal in Paris Olympics. What lessons does it have for the corporate world?

At the Olympics, we had a great team, the coach was highly supportive and we had an excellent fitness trainer. The players understood why they needed to put in all the extra effort – the hard work in Bangalore (Bengaluru(, away from the TV cameras, running and sweating day in and day out.

This was all done to achieve the long-term goal of being successful at the Olympics. Similarly, in business, your team needs to be fit, whatever that may mean for your company. If upskilling is required, you must focus on the necessary upskilling, education, and training. Strategy and skills are important, but mindset is equally critical.

Employee wellness and engagement are crucial. If your staff are unhappy or disengaged, you won’t get the best out of them. In a business context, it’s important to remember that the three conditions that support success are:

Attract the best talent. Great cultures attract the best people. You want the top graduates to come to your business instead of having to poach talent from elsewhere.

Retain talent. A strong company culture will keep employees happy, so they won’t leave for a small salary increase elsewhere.

Enhance average performance. In most sports teams and business organisations, the majority are average performers. These employees often work at around 55 per cent capacity, just doing enough to meet expectations. If you can raise the output of this group from 55 per cent to 60 per cent by increasing engagement and discretionary effort, you’ll see significant gains.

This comes from cultivating a healthy culture. In the hockey team, the coach understood the importance of listening to the players. Family and downtime were important and instead of exhausting them by squeezing every last effort we made sure they were happy.

In a business context, the only way to ensure employee satisfaction is by listening to them, paying attention to what’s happening on the ground, and genuinely valuing people as much as you value profits. Ultimately, it’s the people who will deliver your profits.

Do you believe companies are adopting an employee-first approach?

I wouldn’t say employee first. I would say profits first, employees first, and benefiting the community and environment first. All three of these are equally important – none should be prioritised over the other. If you place one above the others, compromises start to occur. So, it’s about balancing all three. At a very high level, I don’t think many people would argue against that as a formula for success.

The reality is, however, that many companies, perhaps the majority, are not placing sufficient emphasis on all three. Some are, and those that do, along with having a strong product, competitive pricing, and excellent customer service, are almost always successful.

There are still many opportunities for companies, particularly in leadership, culture, and employee experience, to do an even better job and attract the best talent. Once you attract the best, the challenge is to retain them, as the top talent tends to move every two to three years. The aim should be to keep them longer and get the best out of the rest of the workforce.

And now the knowledge has gone out of their heads and onto the worldwide web and (it) is available to everybody with an internet connection. It is obsolete to stand as a leader and tell people what to do. That’s a very disempowering leadership approach that creates a culture of fear.

Most leaders over the age of about 50 are just continuing to do what they did yesterday, even though the world has changed. Leaders need to be much more inspiring, they need to create empowerment, they need to create better cultures. Leaders need to be more real, more vulnerable, more engaging, listen more and speak less.

There’s so much opportunity for forward-thinking leaders to upgrade their leadership software and create better, more nimble, more engaging cultures. It’s the people and the teams that deliver the productivity more often than not.

You emphasise on the medium- and long-term goals of a company. Legacy companies’ decision-making tends to be more traditional and orthodox, while startups are known for being quick. What is the key difference between them?

(Cricketer) M S Dhoni’s leadership style is apt for illustrating how quick decision-making is as important as focusing on long-term goals. Leadership should focus on the process, not the results. The same applies in the business context. Focus on the process, which means dealing with what is in front of you right now, making a decision, and moving forward. We make quick decisions and if they are wrong it’s fine.

We can always change and rectify the decision. The only time we need to pause is when the decision is truly significant and consequential. But if it’s not, we make the decision quickly and move on. However, we should not make decisions solely to achieve short-term results, as that becomes problematic. In today’s fast-paced environment, especially with the rate of change accelerating, many businesses, particularly larger ones, make decisions aimed at delivering strong quarterly results.

 

This often, though not always, leads to medium-term disadvantages and sometimes even bigger issues. It might lead to unethical business practices or push the company down the wrong path. Yes, make quick decisions and keep moving but do not do it just to satisfy short-term gains.

One of the most common things we often see is people compromising on ethics to make a quick buck.

Now, you may have short-term success, but when ethics are compromised, it may deliver a short-term win if you don’t get caught. However, you almost always do get caught, and it will inevitably lead to long-term loss. So, when making decisions, the mantra I use is to recognise the situation: Is this a short-term gain that could lead to long-term pain?

Sometimes, we need to endure short-term pain to achieve long-term gain. And typically, the latter approach almost always works.

Athletes motivate themselves to work towards a goal. How can corporate leaders draw inspiration?

If I look at the more traditional setup, it doesn’t work as well when a business’s sole goal is to make money and satisfy shareholders. That focus on the bottom line isn’t very appealing to employees, as they’re essentially working to make someone else rich. As a result, employees often adopt a selfish mindset, thinking, “I’m going to use this environment to further my own career as best I can.”

They become focused on their own benefits and career progression. They may help generate some profit for the company along the way, but as soon as a better opportunity for career advancement comes along they’ll move to another business. This contrasts with businesses that exist for more than just profit.

That’s why, about 10, 12 or 15 years ago we started hearing about the ‘triple bottom line’, which focuses on profits, the environment, and people. While many businesses merely paid lip service to this idea, those that genuinely contribute positively to the environment or society, and communicate that effectively, stand out.

People want to work for businesses like that. We are hearing more and more from young people entering the workforce that they seek something beyond just trading their time for money. That exchange is no longer enough for them. They want to feel that their six to 10 hours a day, five or six days a week, are contributing to something meaningful and making the world a better place.

If businesses fail to create environments where young, high-potential employees can contribute to more than just the bank balance, they’re missing a vital opportunity. In time, those businesses will fall further and further behind companies that have a greater purpose for their existence.

The Indian hockey team won a bronze medal in Paris Olympics. What lessons does it have for the corporate world?

At the Olympics, we had a great team, the coach was highly supportive and we had an excellent fitness trainer. The players understood why they needed to put in all the extra effort – the hard work in Bangalore (Bengaluru(, away from the TV cameras, running and sweating day in and day out.

This was all done to achieve the long-term goal of being successful at the Olympics. Similarly, in business, your team needs to be fit, whatever that may mean for your company. If upskilling is required, you must focus on the necessary upskilling, education, and training. Strategy and skills are important, but mindset is equally critical.

Employee wellness and engagement are crucial. If your staff are unhappy or disengaged, you won’t get the best out of them. In a business context, it’s important to remember that the three conditions that support success are:

Attract the best talent. Great cultures attract the best people. You want the top graduates to come to your business instead of having to poach talent from elsewhere.

Retain talent. A strong company culture will keep employees happy, so they won’t leave for a small salary increase elsewhere.

Enhance average performance. In most sports teams and business organisations, the majority are average performers. These employees often work at around 55 per cent capacity, just doing enough to meet expectations. If you can raise the output of this group from 55 per cent to 60 per cent by increasing engagement and discretionary effort, you’ll see significant gains.

This comes from cultivating a healthy culture. In the hockey team, the coach understood the importance of listening to the players. Family and downtime were important and instead of exhausting them by squeezing every last effort we made sure they were happy.

In a business context, the only way to ensure employee satisfaction is by listening to them, paying attention to what’s happening on the ground, and genuinely valuing people as much as you value profits. Ultimately, it’s the people who will deliver your profits.

Do you believe companies are adopting an employee-first approach?

I wouldn’t say employee first. I would say profits first, employees first, and benefiting the community and environment first. All three of these are equally important – none should be prioritised over the other. If you place one above the others, compromises start to occur. So, it’s about balancing all three. At a very high level, I don’t think many people would argue against that as a formula for success.

The reality is, however, that many companies, perhaps the majority, are not placing sufficient emphasis on all three. Some are, and those that do, along with having a strong product, competitive pricing, and excellent customer service, are almost always successful.

There are still many opportunities for companies, particularly in leadership, culture, and employee experience, to do an even better job and attract the best talent. Once you attract the best, the challenge is to retain them, as the top talent tends to move every two to three years. The aim should be to keep them longer and get the best out of the rest of the workforce.

And now the knowledge has gone out of their heads and onto the worldwide web and (it) is available to everybody with an internet connection. It is obsolete to stand as a leader and tell people what to do. That’s a very disempowering leadership approach that creates a culture of fear.

Most leaders over the age of about 50 are just continuing to do what they did yesterday, even though the world has changed. Leaders need to be much more inspiring, they need to create empowerment, they need to create better cultures. Leaders need to be more real, more vulnerable, more engaging, listen more and speak less.

There’s so much opportunity for forward-thinking leaders to upgrade their leadership software and create better, more nimble, more engaging cultures. It’s the people and the teams that deliver the productivity more often than not.

You emphasise on the medium- and long-term goals of a company. Legacy companies’ decision-making tends to be more traditional and orthodox, while startups are known for being quick. What is the key difference between them?

(Cricketer) M S Dhoni’s leadership style is apt for illustrating how quick decision-making is as important as focusing on long-term goals. Leadership should focus on the process, not the results. The same applies in the business context. Focus on the process, which means dealing with what is in front of you right now, making a decision, and moving forward. We make quick decisions and if they are wrong it’s fine.

We can always change and rectify the decision. The only time we need to pause is when the decision is truly significant and consequential. But if it’s not, we make the decision quickly and move on. However, we should not make decisions solely to achieve short-term results, as that becomes problematic. In today’s fast-paced environment, especially with the rate of change accelerating, many businesses, particularly larger ones, make decisions aimed at delivering strong quarterly results.

 

This often, though not always, leads to medium-term disadvantages and sometimes even bigger issues. It might lead to unethical business practices or push the company down the wrong path. Yes, make quick decisions and keep moving but do not do it just to satisfy short-term gains.

One of the most common things we often see is people compromising on ethics to make a quick buck.

Now, you may have short-term success, but when ethics are compromised, it may deliver a short-term win if you don’t get caught. However, you almost always do get caught, and it will inevitably lead to long-term loss. So, when making decisions, the mantra I use is to recognise the situation: Is this a short-term gain that could lead to long-term pain?

Sometimes, we need to endure short-term pain to achieve long-term gain. And typically, the latter approach almost always works.

Athletes motivate themselves to work towards a goal. How can corporate leaders draw inspiration?

If I look at the more traditional setup, it doesn’t work as well when a business’s sole goal is to make money and satisfy shareholders. That focus on the bottom line isn’t very appealing to employees, as they’re essentially working to make someone else rich. As a result, employees often adopt a selfish mindset, thinking, “I’m going to use this environment to further my own career as best I can.”

They become focused on their own benefits and career progression. They may help generate some profit for the company along the way, but as soon as a better opportunity for career advancement comes along they’ll move to another business. This contrasts with businesses that exist for more than just profit.

That’s why, about 10, 12 or 15 years ago we started hearing about the ‘triple bottom line’, which focuses on profits, the environment, and people. While many businesses merely paid lip service to this idea, those that genuinely contribute positively to the environment or society, and communicate that effectively, stand out.

People want to work for businesses like that. We are hearing more and more from young people entering the workforce that they seek something beyond just trading their time for money. That exchange is no longer enough for them. They want to feel that their six to 10 hours a day, five or six days a week, are contributing to something meaningful and making the world a better place.

If businesses fail to create environments where young, high-potential employees can contribute to more than just the bank balance, they’re missing a vital opportunity. In time, those businesses will fall further and further behind companies that have a greater purpose for their existence.

The Indian hockey team won a bronze medal in Paris Olympics. What lessons does it have for the corporate world?

At the Olympics, we had a great team, the coach was highly supportive and we had an excellent fitness trainer. The players understood why they needed to put in all the extra effort – the hard work in Bangalore (Bengaluru(, away from the TV cameras, running and sweating day in and day out.

This was all done to achieve the long-term goal of being successful at the Olympics. Similarly, in business, your team needs to be fit, whatever that may mean for your company. If upskilling is required, you must focus on the necessary upskilling, education, and training. Strategy and skills are important, but mindset is equally critical.

Employee wellness and engagement are crucial. If your staff are unhappy or disengaged, you won’t get the best out of them. In a business context, it’s important to remember that the three conditions that support success are:

Attract the best talent. Great cultures attract the best people. You want the top graduates to come to your business instead of having to poach talent from elsewhere.

Retain talent. A strong company culture will keep employees happy, so they won’t leave for a small salary increase elsewhere.

Enhance average performance. In most sports teams and business organisations, the majority are average performers. These employees often work at around 55 per cent capacity, just doing enough to meet expectations. If you can raise the output of this group from 55 per cent to 60 per cent by increasing engagement and discretionary effort, you’ll see significant gains.

This comes from cultivating a healthy culture. In the hockey team, the coach understood the importance of listening to the players. Family and downtime were important and instead of exhausting them by squeezing every last effort we made sure they were happy.

In a business context, the only way to ensure employee satisfaction is by listening to them, paying attention to what’s happening on the ground, and genuinely valuing people as much as you value profits. Ultimately, it’s the people who will deliver your profits.

Do you believe companies are adopting an employee-first approach?

I wouldn’t say employee first. I would say profits first, employees first, and benefiting the community and environment first. All three of these are equally important – none should be prioritised over the other. If you place one above the others, compromises start to occur. So, it’s about balancing all three. At a very high level, I don’t think many people would argue against that as a formula for success.

The reality is, however, that many companies, perhaps the majority, are not placing sufficient emphasis on all three. Some are, and those that do, along with having a strong product, competitive pricing, and excellent customer service, are almost always successful.

There are still many opportunities for companies, particularly in leadership, culture, and employee experience, to do an even better job and attract the best talent. Once you attract the best, the challenge is to retain them, as the top talent tends to move every two to three years. The aim should be to keep them longer and get the best out of the rest of the workforce.

And now the knowledge has gone out of their heads and onto the worldwide web and (it) is available to everybody with an internet connection. It is obsolete to stand as a leader and tell people what to do. That’s a very disempowering leadership approach that creates a culture of fear.

Most leaders over the age of about 50 are just continuing to do what they did yesterday, even though the world has changed. Leaders need to be much more inspiring, they need to create empowerment, they need to create better cultures. Leaders need to be more real, more vulnerable, more engaging, listen more and speak less.

There’s so much opportunity for forward-thinking leaders to upgrade their leadership software and create better, more nimble, more engaging cultures. It’s the people and the teams that deliver the productivity more often than not.

You emphasise on the medium- and long-term goals of a company. Legacy companies’ decision-making tends to be more traditional and orthodox, while startups are known for being quick. What is the key difference between them?

(Cricketer) M S Dhoni’s leadership style is apt for illustrating how quick decision-making is as important as focusing on long-term goals. Leadership should focus on the process, not the results. The same applies in the business context. Focus on the process, which means dealing with what is in front of you right now, making a decision, and moving forward. We make quick decisions and if they are wrong it’s fine.

We can always change and rectify the decision. The only time we need to pause is when the decision is truly significant and consequential. But if it’s not, we make the decision quickly and move on. However, we should not make decisions solely to achieve short-term results, as that becomes problematic. In today’s fast-paced environment, especially with the rate of change accelerating, many businesses, particularly larger ones, make decisions aimed at delivering strong quarterly results.

 

This often, though not always, leads to medium-term disadvantages and sometimes even bigger issues. It might lead to unethical business practices or push the company down the wrong path. Yes, make quick decisions and keep moving but do not do it just to satisfy short-term gains.

One of the most common things we often see is people compromising on ethics to make a quick buck.

Now, you may have short-term success, but when ethics are compromised, it may deliver a short-term win if you don’t get caught. However, you almost always do get caught, and it will inevitably lead to long-term loss. So, when making decisions, the mantra I use is to recognise the situation: Is this a short-term gain that could lead to long-term pain?

Sometimes, we need to endure short-term pain to achieve long-term gain. And typically, the latter approach almost always works.

Athletes motivate themselves to work towards a goal. How can corporate leaders draw inspiration?

If I look at the more traditional setup, it doesn’t work as well when a business’s sole goal is to make money and satisfy shareholders. That focus on the bottom line isn’t very appealing to employees, as they’re essentially working to make someone else rich. As a result, employees often adopt a selfish mindset, thinking, “I’m going to use this environment to further my own career as best I can.”

They become focused on their own benefits and career progression. They may help generate some profit for the company along the way, but as soon as a better opportunity for career advancement comes along they’ll move to another business. This contrasts with businesses that exist for more than just profit.

That’s why, about 10, 12 or 15 years ago we started hearing about the ‘triple bottom line’, which focuses on profits, the environment, and people. While many businesses merely paid lip service to this idea, those that genuinely contribute positively to the environment or society, and communicate that effectively, stand out.

People want to work for businesses like that. We are hearing more and more from young people entering the workforce that they seek something beyond just trading their time for money. That exchange is no longer enough for them. They want to feel that their six to 10 hours a day, five or six days a week, are contributing to something meaningful and making the world a better place.

If businesses fail to create environments where young, high-potential employees can contribute to more than just the bank balance, they’re missing a vital opportunity. In time, those businesses will fall further and further behind companies that have a greater purpose for their existence.

The Indian hockey team won a bronze medal in Paris Olympics. What lessons does it have for the corporate world?

At the Olympics, we had a great team, the coach was highly supportive and we had an excellent fitness trainer. The players understood why they needed to put in all the extra effort – the hard work in Bangalore (Bengaluru(, away from the TV cameras, running and sweating day in and day out.

This was all done to achieve the long-term goal of being successful at the Olympics. Similarly, in business, your team needs to be fit, whatever that may mean for your company. If upskilling is required, you must focus on the necessary upskilling, education, and training. Strategy and skills are important, but mindset is equally critical.

Employee wellness and engagement are crucial. If your staff are unhappy or disengaged, you won’t get the best out of them. In a business context, it’s important to remember that the three conditions that support success are:

Attract the best talent. Great cultures attract the best people. You want the top graduates to come to your business instead of having to poach talent from elsewhere.

Retain talent. A strong company culture will keep employees happy, so they won’t leave for a small salary increase elsewhere.

Enhance average performance. In most sports teams and business organisations, the majority are average performers. These employees often work at around 55 per cent capacity, just doing enough to meet expectations. If you can raise the output of this group from 55 per cent to 60 per cent by increasing engagement and discretionary effort, you’ll see significant gains.

This comes from cultivating a healthy culture. In the hockey team, the coach understood the importance of listening to the players. Family and downtime were important and instead of exhausting them by squeezing every last effort we made sure they were happy.

In a business context, the only way to ensure employee satisfaction is by listening to them, paying attention to what’s happening on the ground, and genuinely valuing people as much as you value profits. Ultimately, it’s the people who will deliver your profits.

Do you believe companies are adopting an employee-first approach?

I wouldn’t say employee first. I would say profits first, employees first, and benefiting the community and environment first. All three of these are equally important – none should be prioritised over the other. If you place one above the others, compromises start to occur. So, it’s about balancing all three. At a very high level, I don’t think many people would argue against that as a formula for success.

The reality is, however, that many companies, perhaps the majority, are not placing sufficient emphasis on all three. Some are, and those that do, along with having a strong product, competitive pricing, and excellent customer service, are almost always successful.

There are still many opportunities for companies, particularly in leadership, culture, and employee experience, to do an even better job and attract the best talent. Once you attract the best, the challenge is to retain them, as the top talent tends to move every two to three years. The aim should be to keep them longer and get the best out of the rest of the workforce.