Major tech companies like Google, Apple, Dell, and Netflix are significantly more productive than the average company. In fact, according to research from Bain & Company, a research consulting firm, they are about 40% more productive.
You might look at that number and think that perhaps it has something to do with all the high performers that end up working there. After all, these companies tend to attract the top talent of the world; people who are naturally gifted at whatever they do and tend to be in the top 1% of global talent in their respective fields, whether they be coders or best essay writing service
According to Michael Mankins, a partner at Bain & Company, that’s not true at all.
“We found that, in terms of the ratio of star employees, these companies only beat other companies by about 1%. They have about 16% star employees while your average company is at about 15%.”
So these companies start at about the same level as other companies, but still manage to produce significantly more productivity.
The answer is in what they do with those high performers. Executives at large companies around the world, in different sectors, all agree that the productivity of the company boils down to energy, talent, and time.
“Businesses at the top organize these three factors to create 40% more productivity and generate up to 50% high product margins as a result,” says Elizabeth Dalberg, an executive at an Assignment help UK.
So what methods do they use to get there? Well, there are 3 pieces to the strategy:
They group the stars together
The average company tends toward egalitarianism, but it isn’t necessarily deliberate. The talent in the company is distributed across all sorts of roles, and this is where egalitarianism kicks in. It’s an egalitarianism of how they treat the top talent versus everyone else.
Companies like Apple and Google, however, don’t follow the same strategy. Instead, they pick out business-critical roles that affect the company’s success and fill the majority of them with the top talent. The star players are concentrated in these roles, with very few of them filling the other roles.
The best example of this is a comparison between Microsoft and Apple of the 2000s. The iOS 10 was developed, debugged, and deployed in less than 2 years by 600 engineers. Meanwhile, at Microsoft, Windows Vista was developed, debugged, and eventually retracted in a matter of 5 years by 10,000 engineers. The reason why there is such a stark difference is that the companies constructed their teams differently.
“Apple’s team was made up of all-star players because they saw the iOS 10 as a business critical project,” says Mankins.
Apple also provided performance-based rewards to their teams. No one individual could be given an excellent performance appraisal without the whole team getting the same.
Microsoft, on the other hand, based their rewards on stacked ranking. Compensation was based on individual performance and about a fifth of every team got exceptional performance appraisals. Microsoft eventually had to do away with the stacked ranking system.
Get rid of organizational drag
About 25% of the productivity of the average company is lost to organizational drag. Organizational drag is the collection of processes that stop people from getting important things done, leading to time wastage as a result. Organizational drag tends to increase as a company grows. According to the Harvard Business Review, it costs the US economy over $3 trillion every year.
The most common sources of organizational drag mostly have to do with the management of expenses. Audits and spending limits lead to this. “You won’t find that at Netflix, though,” says Mankins, “The policy at Netflix is simply that everyone act in Netflix’s best interest. The company is showing employees that it trusts them and isn’t going to police them.” Employees are more productive as a result, since they feel they have more of a stake in the wellbeing of the company.
Inspire the leaders
An engaged employee is bound to be far more productive than an unengaged one. In fact, Mankins asserts that inspiration gives even better results. He says that, while an engaged employee will be 44% more productive, an inspired one can be up to 125% more productive. Inevitably, companies that seek to inspire their employs just do better.
In fact, inspirational leadership isn’t something that you just have; it can be taught. Dell Technologies, for example, recognized this in its sales teams. The ones that were led by an inspired leader were about 6% more productive than those that weren’t. Dell therefore sought to inspire its leaders so that they could in turn inspire their teams.
For Elizabeth Dalberg’s service, getting to be the dissertation writing service boils down to inspiring their teams by hiring the best leaders. She says every since the service adopted this strategy, the results have been stellar.
Ultimately, the lesson to be learned here is that, while having great individual talent is a good thing, it’s not enough to turn your company into a top 1% company. It boils down to how the organization is run, and it has more to do with focusing on the collective than on the individual.