I was intrigued when I read on the Harvard Business Review web site “Do we celebrate the wrong CEOs?”  The article quickly pointed out that many of the best known CEOs – and often named as most respected – didn’t come close to making the list of the top 100 best performing CEOs.  Some of those on Barron’s list of top 30 most respected that did not make the cut as best performing include Immelt of GE, Dimon of JPMorganChase, Palmesano of IBM and Tillerson of ExxonMobil.  It did seem striking that often business people admire those who are at the top of organizations, regardless of their performance.

I was delighted when HBR put out the full article “The Best Performing CEOs in the World.”  And it is indeed an academic exercise of great value.  The authors looked at CEOs who came  into their jobs either just before 2000, or during the decade, and the results they obtained for shareholders.  There were 1,999 leaders who fit the timeframe.  As has held true for a long time in the marketplace, the top 100 accounted for the vast majority of wealth creation – meaning if you were invested with them you captured most of the decade’s return – while the bulk of CEOs added little value and a great chunk created negative returns.  (It does beg the question – why do Boards of Directors keep on CEOs who destroy shareholder value – like Barnes of Sara Lee, for example?  It would seem something is demonstrably wrong when CEOs remain in their jobs, usually with multi-million dollar compensation packages, when year after year performance is so bad.)

The list of “Top 50 CEOs” is available on the HBR website.  This group created 32% average gains every year!  They created over $48.2B of value for investors.  Comparatively, the bottom 50 had negative 20% annual returns, and lost over $18.3B.  As an investor, or employee, it is much, much better to be with the top 5% than to be anywhere else on the list.  However, only 5 of the top best performers were on the list of top 50 highest paid — demonstrating again that CEO pay is not really tied to performance (and perhaps at least part of the explanation for why business leaders are less admired now than the previous decade.)

Consistent among the top 50 was the ability to adapt.  Especially the top 10.  Steve Jobs of Apple was #1, a leader and company I’ve blogged about several times.  As readers know, Apple went from a niche producer of PCs to a leader in several markets completely unrelated to PCs under Mr. Jobs leadership.  His ability to keep moving his company back into the growth Rapids by rejecting “focus on the core” and instead using White Space to develop new products for growth markets has been a model well worth following.  And in which to be invested.

Similarly, the leaders of Cisco, Amazon, eBay and Google have been listed here largely due to their willingness to keep moving into new markets.  Cisco was profiled in my book Create Marketplace Disruption for its model of Disruption that keeps the company constantly opening White Space.  Amazon went from an obscure promoter of non-inventoried books to the leader in changing how books are sold, to the premier on-line retailer of all kinds of products, to the leader in digitizing books and periodicals with its Kindle launch.  eBay has to be given credit for doing much more than creating a garage sale – they are now the leader in independent retailing with eBay stores.  And their growth of PayPal is on the vanguard of changing how we spend money – eliminating checks and making digital transactions commonplace.  Of course Google has moved from a search engine to a leader in advertising (displacing Yahoo!) as well as offering enterprise software (such as Google Wave), cloud applications to displace the desktop applications, and emerging into the mobile data/telephony marketplace with Android.  All of these company leaders were willing to Disrupt their company’s “core” in order to use White Space that kept the company constantly moving into new markets and GROWTH.

We can see the same behavior among other leaders in the top 10 not previously profiled here.  Samsung has moved from a second rate radio/TV manufacturer to a leader in multiple electronics marketplaces and the premier company in rapid product development and innovation implementation.  Gilead Sciences is a biopharmaceutical company that has returned almost 2,000% to investors – while the leaders of Merck and Pfizer have taken their companies the opposite direction.  By taking on market challenges with new approaches Gilead has used flexibility and adaptation to dramatically outperform companies with much greater resources — but an unwillingness to overcome their Lock-ins.

Three names not on the list are worth noting.  Jack Welch was a great Disruptor and advocate of White Space (again, profiled in my book).  But his work was in the 1990s.  His replacement (Mr. Immelt) has fared considerably more poorly – as have investors – as the rate of Disruption and White Space has fallen off a proverbial cliff.  Even though much of what made GE great is still in place, the willingness to Defend & Extend, as happened in financial services, has increased under Mr. Immelt to the detriment of investors.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are now good friends, and also not on the list.  Firstly, they created their investor fortunes in previous decades as well.  But in their cases, they remained as leaders who moved into the D&E world.  Microsoft has become totally Locked-in to its Gates-era Success Formula, and under Steve Ballmer the company has done nothing for investors, employees — or even customers.  And Berkshire Hathaway has spent the last decade providing very little return to shareholders, despite all the great press for Mr. Buffett and his success in previous eras.  Each year Mr. Buffett tells investors that what worked for him in previous years doesn’t work any more, and they should not expect previous high rates of return.  And he keeps proving himself right.  Until both Microsoft and Berkshire Hathaway undertake significant Disruptions and implement considerably more White Space we should not expect much for investors.

This has been a tough decade for far too many investors and employees.  As we end the year, the list of television programs bemoaning how badly the decade has gone is long.  Show after show laments the poor performance of the stock market, as well as employers.  We end the year with official unemployment north of 10%, and unofficial unemployment some say near 20%.  But what this HBR report  us is that it is possible to have a good decade.  We need leaders who are willing to look to the future for their planning (not the past), obsess about competitors to discover market shifts, be willing to Disrupt old Success Formulas by attacking Lock-in, and using White Space to keep the company in the growth Rapids.  When businesses overcome old notions of “best practice” that keeps them trying to Defend & Extend then business performs marvelously well.  It’s just too bad so few leaders and companies are willing to follow The Phoenix Principle.