Performance Through People 1688810297

People & Organizational Performance Practice
Performance
through people
Transforming human capital into competitive advantage
February 2023
About the McKinsey Global Institute
The McKinsey Global Institute was established in 1990. Our mission is to provide a fact
base to aid decision making on the economic and business issues most critical to the
world’s companies and policy leaders. We benefit from the full range of McKinsey’s
regional, sectoral, and functional knowledge, skills, and expertise, but editorial
direction and decisions are solely the responsibility of MGI directors and partners.
Our research is grouped into five major themes:
— Productivity and prosperity: Creating and harnessing the world’s assets most productively
— Resources of the world: Building, powering, and feeding the world sustainably
— Human potential: Maximizing and achieving the potential of human talent
— Global connections: Exploring how flows of goods, people, and ideas shape economies
— Technologies and markets of the future: Discussing the next big arenas of value and
competition
We aim for independent and fact-based research. None of our work is commissioned
or paid for by any business, government, or other institution; we share our results
publicly free of charge; and we are entirely funded by the partners of McKinsey. While
we engage multiple distinguished external advisers to contribute to our work, the
analyses presented in our publications are MGI’s alone, and any errors are our own.
You can find out more about MGI and our research at www.mckinsey.com/mgi.
MGI Directors MGI Partners

Sven Smit (chair) Michael Chui
Chris Bradley Mekala Krishnan
Kweilin Ellingrud Anu Madgavkar
Marco Piccitto Jan Mischke
Olivia White Jeongmin Seong
Jonathan Woetzel Tilman Tacke
About McKinsey’s People &

Organizational Performance Practice
McKinsey’s People & Organizational Performance Practice equips people and
organizations to unleash sustained performance. In a time of significant change in the
workplace, companies need the ability to transform again and again, with success relying
on their most critical resource: their people. From the employee value proposition to
the operating model, every part of the organization needs to enable talent and drive
momentum. We help companies architect an organization and make the best of their
people so they can realize their strategy today and sustain performance in the future.
Find out more at www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/people-
and-organizational-performance/how-we-help-clients
Performance
through people
Transforming human capital into competitive advantage
February 2023
Authors
Anu Madgavkar
Bill Schaninger
Dana Maor
Olivia White
Sven Smit
Hamid Samandari
Jonathan Woetzel
Davis Carlin
Kanmani Chockalingam
Editor
Lisa Renaud
© Angel Santana/Getty Images
Contents
In brief iv
1. The companies that make people development pay off 2
2. How organizational capital activates human capital 14
3. A blueprint for leaders: How to transform organizational capital 24
Acknowledgments 32
In brief
Performance through people: Transforming

human capital into competitive advantage
How does developing talent affect financial returns for earnings brackets than those of Performance-Driven
firms? This research finds that companies with a dual focus Companies. People-Focused Companies have similarly
on developing human capital and managing it well have a high levels of employee satisfaction and even lower attrition
performance edge. These People + Performance Winners than P+P Winners, although not with the same stellar
rank among the most profitable firms within their industries. financial performance.
They further stand out in two important ways: greater
P+P Winners achieve higher returns on human and
earnings resilience and a superior ability to attract and
organizational capital investment. Firms invest in different
retain talent, key advantages as businesses face economic
types of capital to boost revenues: physical capital, human
headwinds and a war for talent. In addition to building skills,
capital, organizational capital, and other varieties of
these companies have distinctive organizational capital—that
intangible capital (such as intellectual property and brand).
is, their management practices, systems, and culture. They
P+P Winners achieve roughly 30 percent higher revenue
challenge and empower employees while fostering bottom-
growth than both Performance-Driven and People-Focused
up innovation to make their human capital investments pay
Companies for every dollar they invest in human and
off. While focusing solely on financial returns is one path to
organizational capital (spending that amounts to one-third
success, choosing the P+P model of emphasizing people and
of all firms’ revenue, on average). By contrast, Performance-
performance can yield the longer-term benefits of resilience
Driven Companies generate higher return on R&D and sales
and talent retention.
and marketing investment (typically one-eighth of all firms’
People + Performance Winners develop talent and deliver revenue) but may stand to gain by making their human and
top-tier financial returns in tandem. We analyze 1,800 organizational capital spending more productive.
large companies across all sectors in 15 countries, sorting
Certain mixes of organizational practices are more
them into four categories based on markers of human
effective at activating human capital. Organizational
capital development and financial performance over the
capital is the fabric that surrounds employees, and its pattern
prepandemic decade relative to sector peers. P+P Winners
matters. We compare the practices of each group using
excel on both dimensions. They average high economic
McKinsey’s Organizational Health Index diagnostic and other
profit and returns on invested capital, similar to firms in our
firm-level metrics. P+P Winners achieve higher returns with
second category, Performance-Driven Companies. But
a signature characterized by consultative and challenging
P+P Winners put a greater emphasis on talent, with a higher
leadership; bottom-up innovation and collaboration;
share of internal role moves and more training for employees.
positive, inclusive work environments; and rewards and
Members of our third group, People-Focused Companies,
advancement opportunities for employees. Performance-
also emphasize talent development but are unable to
Driven Companies have similar leadership styles but are
translate that into strong financials. Typical Performers stand
more externally oriented to customers and competitors, with
out on neither dimension.
less emphasis on company-wide innovation, motivation,
Firms that invest in human capital have greater resilience work environment, and on-the-job coaching. While People-
and more consistent earnings relative to their peers. Focused Companies have many practices in common with
P+P Winners closely track Performance-Driven Companies P+P Winners (such as motivating employees and creating
on profitability and shareholder returns. Yet they are positive work environments), their leadership is less results-
roughly 1.5 times more likely to remain high performers oriented, and they do not emphasize bottom-up innovation.
over time and have about half the earnings volatility. When
Leaders can transform their organizational capital to
the pandemic hit, they maintained profitability and grew
drive sustained outperformance. People are a company’s
revenues twice as fast as Performance-Driven Companies.
core asset, and the organizing principles governing how
Even beyond the top-quintile financial performers, investing
they work are crucial to realizing their potential. While some
in talent development seems to pay off: People-Focused
organizations have a singular focus on financial results,
Companies showed more consistency and resilience than
supporting talent with effective organizational practices
Typical Performers.
does not come at the expense of performance. Companies
Developing human capital helps firms retain talent and that make their systems more people-centric stand to boost
deliver a better payoff for their people. P+P Winners are their bottom lines over the long term—while delivering
talent magnets, with attrition rates almost five percentage for employees as well. At a time of uncertainty and talent
points lower than those of Performance-Driven Companies. scarcity, leaders can choose to capture lasting benefits by
Their employees report higher job satisfaction, and they ensuring that their organizations truly work for their people.
are 1.3 times more likely to move into higher lifetime
iv McKinsey Global Institute | Performance through people: Transforming human capital into competitive advantage
Companies can gain a competitive edge
with a dual focus on people and performance
Organizational People + Performance (P+P) Winners
signatures by
company type
Collaborative
Share of companies
in each category, %
9
Challenging Nurturing 15
21
Goal-oriented Caring
Top-down Encouraging
55
Typical Performers
No clear patterns
observed
Performance-Driven Companies People-Focused Companies
Top-tier financial results Top-tier human capital development
P+P Winners excel across a range of business outcomes

Profitability Consistency Resilience Retention Size
High returns on Greater likelihood Better revenue growth Moderate rate Greater economic
invested capital of outperformance during the pandemic of attrition profit
28% 28% 4.2× 8% 7.9% $1.1B

8.5%
3.0×
6%
$0.4B
Out-
performance 4%
9% 1.1×
Under- $0
6% 1.5× performance 3% 13.4% 13.5% –$0.1B –$0.1B
Greater likelihood High attrition Economic loss

of underperformance
Other firms can transform to emulate the “P+P Way”

Empowering and challenging Support for entrepreneurship Widespread ownership Inclusive work
leadership style and initiative-taking and alignment with vision environment
Transparent performance Effective on-the-job coaching Companywide innovation
expectations and incentives and training and collaboration
© Nitat Termmee/Getty Images
1 McKinsey Global Institute | Performance through people: Transforming human capital into competitive advantage
1. The companies
that make people
development pay off
Recent research from the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) found that employers that excel at
building skills, create more options for internal mobility, and have better overall organizational
health help their employees maximize the value of their own human capital. These effects
persist long after individuals move on. Time spent early in a career in a positive workplace
setting that emphasizes learning is the best predictor of whether employees eventually propel
themselves into a higher lifetime earnings bracket relative to their starting point.1
Yet business leaders sometimes naturally ask: while human capital development pays off
for workers, does it actually benefit companies? Most agree that developing people is the
right thing to do. But they are less clear on how those efforts relate to the bottom line—and
why some organizations are so much more effective than others at turning human capital
investment into a real competitive advantage.
To explore these questions, we analyzed a large data set of companies from varied countries
and sectors. One subset in particular stands out. People + Performance Winners manage to
create opportunities for their employees to build skills while consistently clearing a high bar
for financial performance.
We find that achieving these dual goals requires effective organizational capital—that is,
the management practices, systems, and culture that make a workplace unique. When this
organizational fabric works effectively, it creates a productive workplace that becomes
a magnet and an incubator for talent. While every company has its own unique form of
organizational capital, P+P Winners have a distinctive signature, particularly in their
leadership styles and how they empower employees. In subsequent chapters, we will examine
the specific organizational practices that set them apart—and how other companies might be
able to replicate their “secret sauce.”
Not every company will choose to follow the P+P Winner template. Some are singularly driven
by financial results; focusing on people may not be in their DNA. Remaking organizational
culture is a difficult undertaking that requires sustained engagement and a willingness to
change familiar patterns. But companies that do shift in this direction have a lot to gain. In
addition to financial returns, they can improve their consistency, resilience, talent attraction,
employee loyalty, and reputation—the hallmarks of companies that are equipped to thrive
over the long term.
1
Human capital at work: The value of experience, McKinsey Global Institute, June 2022.
McKinsey Global Institute | Performance through people: Transforming human capital into competitive advantage 2
We identify a set of People + Performance Winners that deliver
exceptional value to both shareholders and employees
MGI’s research on human capital has focused on how talent develops in the workplace.
After exploring the benefits of building skills for the individual in our previous report, we now
investigate the effects on financial returns for companies—and how organizational capital
influences that process. We analyzed roughly 1,800 companies across sectors in 15 countries,
benchmarking them along two dimensions: financial results and human capital development
for their employees. (See Box 1, “Data sources and methodology,” for details.)
Box 1
Data sources and methodology

We gathered data on financial performance and indicators quintile among some 22,500 companies with data on
of human and organizational capital for some 1,800 economic profitability, rather than the smaller subset of
companies with annual revenue of more than $100 million. 1,800 companies for which we also have human capital
They span 15 countries: Australia, China, France, Germany, development indicators.
India, Japan, South Korea, the United Kingdom, the
To evaluate human capital development, we focus on three
United States, and multiple countries in Southeast
metrics: internal moves as a share of all moves (measured
Asia (Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore,
from 2015 to 2019 for companies based in the United
Thailand, and Vietnam). These companies represent all
States), average training hours per full-time employee
sectors, including communication services, consumer
(averaged over 2017 to 2019), and the overall OHI score
discretionary goods, consumer staples, energy, financials,
(latest available since 2016). We regard companies as top
healthcare, industrials, information technology, materials,
performers in human capital development if they are in
utilities, and others, as defined by the Global Industry
the top quintile within their sector on at least one of these
Classification Standard (GICS).
three metrics. We verified that these three inputs move
We rely on multiple data sources to measure financial together; a company in the top quintile in one of the three
performance, human capital development, and elements is likely to be in the top quintile in the other two metrics,
of organizational capital across companies. These include and vice versa.
metrics from company balance sheets and profit-and-loss
To account for differences between industries, we
statements from 2010 to 2021, drawing on McKinsey’s
evaluate each company against peers within its own
Corporate Performance Analysis Tool powered by
industry. The threshold benchmark for what constitutes
Capital IQ; and data from Refinitiv, which looks at more
a top-quintile performer in each metric therefore differs
than 600 environmental, social, and governance (ESG)
across industries. The share of companies in the top
metrics for thousands of global companies spanning 2017
quintile on either of these dimensions may add up to more
to 2021. In addition, we used results from McKinsey’s
than 20 percent depending on data availability.
proprietary Organizational Health Index (OHI), which
employs surveys to assess management practices and To substantiate the robustness of our approach, we
workplace outcomes. OHI has been used to gauge the tested several different approaches for classifying
state of more than 1,500 companies (based on more than companies (for example, excluding internal moves as a
seven million responses). We also draw on the database measure of human capital development), country-level
from our previous human capital research, which includes variations, threshold sensitivities (for example, using
licensed, de-identified data from millions of online public top-quartile instead of top-quintile companies), and
professional profiles through 2019 in Germany, India, the causalities between financial performance and human
United Kingdom, and the United States. capital development. Our findings remained valid across
all the tests. Finally, we reweighted all findings by industry
We classify companies into four categories based on
to avoid potential sectoral bias and also checked for
two dimensions: financial performance and human
statistical significance.
capital development.
For more detail on methodology (including sector
To characterize financial performance, we focus on
thresholds), robustness, and statistical checks, see the
economic profitability, measured as average economic
technical appendix, which can be downloaded as a
profit as a share of revenue from 2010 to 2019. We pick
stand-alone document.
out true outperformers by identifying the top
We analyze a decade’s worth of financial results, setting a high bar for what constitutes
outperformance and using economic profit as a share of revenue as the primary benchmark.
Separately, we measure human capital development by considering three metrics: average
training hours per full-time employee, internal role moves as a share of all employee moves,
and overall organizational health as measured by a proprietary, survey-based McKinsey
diagnostic.2 We choose these metrics intentionally, since our previous research established
their correlation with the likelihood of employees moving into higher earnings brackets over
their careers. In other words, companies that emphasize human capital building and create
healthy cultures are engines of upward mobility for the individual.
We sort companies into one of four categories, reflecting whether they rank within the top
quintile in their sector for financial performance and the human capital metrics described
above (Exhibit 1). The four groups are:
— People + Performance (P+P) Winners. Just under 10 percent of companies in our data
set outperform on both financials and human capital development.
— Performance-Driven Companies. Twenty-one percent of all companies post financial

results in the top quintile for their sector but fall short on developing people.
— People-Focused Companies. Fifteen percent of all companies emphasize human capital

development but are unable to translate talent into strong financial performance.
— Typical Performers. More than half of the companies in our sample (55 percent) do not
stand out on either dimension.
P+P Winners exist in all sectors. They are not just the products of superstar industries such
as technology and finance that are more profitable and knowledge-intensive by nature. 3 Our
categorization looks at the best performers relative to their peers within each sector so that
these effects do not obscure the picture.
P+P Winners manage to create

opportunities for their employees to
build skills while consistently clearing
a high bar for financial performance.
2
The second metric considers people taking on new roles within a company (whether promotions or transfers) as a share of
total moves (which also includes people leaving the company, whether voluntarily or involuntarily). For more information
about the Organizational Health Index, see “How OHI works,” McKinsey.com.
3
Superstars: The dynamics of firms, sectors, and cities leading the global economy, McKinsey Global Institute,
October 2018. This research defines a “superstar sector” as having a substantially greater share of income than others
(measured in this case as gross value added and gross operating surplus accruing to various activities that cut across
business establishments), with a gap that has grown over time. Superstar sectors include financial services; professional
services; real estate; pharmaceuticals and medical products; and internet, media, and software. Although P+P Winners
are present in all sectors, they are more common in healthcare, consumer staples, and technology while less so in capital-
intensive sectors such as utilities and energy. In addition, P+P Winners are found in all countries covered in our data set
(more commonly in India and the United States; less so in France, the United Kingdom, Japan, and Southeast Asia).
Exhibit 1
We categorize P+P Winners as companies that outperform on both financial results and
human capital development.
Sample size: 1,793 companies across sectors in 15 countries
21% 9%
People + Performance
Top performers Performance-Driven Companies
Financial performance, by sector1
(P+P) Winners
Others Typical Performers People-Focused Companies
55% 15%
Others Top performers
Human capital development inputs, by sector2
1 Measured as economic profit (EP) as a share of revenue averaged over 2010 to 2019. “Top performers” are top-quintile companies among the ~22,500 companies for
which this data is available (95 percent have data for all 10 years, and the remaining have data for at least 7 years).
2 Measured using three input metrics: annual training hours per employee (averaged over 2017–19); internal moves as a share of all moves (as of 2019 for only US
companies); and overall scores from the Organizational Health Index (OHI), which is a proprietary McKinsey diagnostic (latest available data since 2016). “Top performers”
are top-quintile companies in any of the three metrics, among ~2,200 companies with at least one of the three data points available.
Note: Companies are benchmarked against peers within their own sector to account for differences between industries when evaluating financial and human capital
development metrics. All companies are later combined by category.
Source: Organizational Health Index by McKinsey; Refinitiv; McKinsey’s Corporate Performance Analytics; S&P Global; McKinsey’s proprietary Organizational Data
Platform, which draws on licensed, de-identified public professional profile data; McKinsey Global Institute analysis
Companies that invest in human capital achieve more consistent
and resilient financial performance than their peers
Considering financial performance over a decade, we find that investing in human capital
provides an edge to all types of companies, although in different ways.
Both P+P Winners and Performance-Driven Companies are top performers on economic
profitability by definition. As Exhibit 2 shows, they have similarly strong results in terms of
return on invested capital (ROIC). Yet comparing People-Focused Companies and Typical
Performers reveals a large gap in economic profitability (negative 5 percent versus negative
14 percent). People-Focused Companies also slightly top Typical Performers in ROIC and
revenue growth. Additionally, they have somewhat higher growth in EBITDA (7 percent
versus 5 percent) and ten-year total returns to shareholders (8 percent versus 7 percent).
Our segmentation shows that investing in human capital clearly pays off for companies
regardless of whether they are in the top band of financial performance.
While the top-performing companies in our data set—the P+P Winners and Performance-
Driven Companies—have very similar profitability and shareholder returns (13 percent
and 15 percent, respectively), a key difference emerges in the quality of their earnings.
P+P Winners have an added edge: resilience that tends to smooth out the ups and downs
of business cycles and helps these companies withstand disruptive events. This attribute is
increasingly valuable in an era of heightened uncertainty. 4 Focusing on people development
alongside financial performance seems to offer some protection from volatility.
P+P Winners were P+P Winners were 4.3 times more likely than the average company to remain in the top
4.3x
quintile of their sectors in ROIC for at least nine out of the ten years from 2010 to 2019.
Performance-Driven Companies also topped the average company, but their likelihood of
maintaining outperformance for nine out of ten years was smaller, at 2.7 times. This implies
that P+P Winners were 1.6 times more likely than Performance-Driven Companies to
more likely than the average
consistently outperform on ROIC over time (see Exhibit 2). They also exhibited lower earnings
company to maintain top-
volatility across the decade, with a 9 percent standard deviation in ROIC, versus 16 percent for
tier financial performance
Performance-Driven Companies.
for 9 out of 10 years
When the pandemic struck, P+P Winners were better able to weather the crisis and
avoid taking major hits. Only 54 percent of P+P Winners saw a reduction of more
P+P Winners grew revenues than 0.5 percentage point in ROIC from 2019 to 2020, compared to 65 percent of
2x
Performance-Driven Companies. In fact, 36 percent of P+P Winners saw an increase of
more than 0.5 percentage point (versus 29 percent of Performance-Driven Companies).
More P+P Winners found growth opportunities in the crisis years as well. From 2019 to
2021, they grew revenue twice as fast as Performance-Driven Companies (8 percent versus
faster than Performance-
4 percent). Organizations that had spent years building reserves of loyalty, goodwill, and
Driven Companies during
innovative capacity by investing in people may have had more internal resources to draw on
the pandemic
when the chips were down.
Investing in human capital is associated with consistency and resilience for other companies,
too. Focusing on the two segments that are not top performers financially, People-Focused
Companies demonstrated greater stability than Typical Performers. Typical Performers
were 1.5 times more likely than an average firm in our sample to remain in the bottom quintile
of profitability in nine out of ten years, while People-Focused Companies were only 1.1 to
1.3 times as likely. They also demonstrated greater resilience during the pandemic, growing
their revenue twice as fast as Typical Performers (6 percent versus 3 percent) from 2019
to 2021.
4
On the cusp of a new era? McKinsey Global Institute, October 2022.
Web <year>
<article slug>
Exhibit 2
Companies that emphasize human capital development are more consistent

and resilient than their sector peers.
Ranking of company categories across six performance metrics Rank: Top Bottom
Performance-Driven Companies People + Performance Winners

ITY¹ ITY¹
ABIL ABIL
FIT FIT
RO Return on RO Return on
P
P
invested capital invested capital
RE
RE
28% 28%
SIL
SIL
Economic Pre- Economic Pre-
IEN
IEN
profit/revenue COVID-19 profit/revenue COVID-19
CE: REVENUE GRO
CE: REVENUE GR
9% 7% 9% 10%
Return on Peak Return on Peak

invested capital pandemic5 invested capital pandemic
2.7× 4% 4.3× 8%
O
CO
CO
WT
W
Economic Economic
TH
NS
NS
H²
profit/revenue profit/revenue
²
IS
IS
N N
TE (
TE (
3.0× 4.2×
LI CY: LI CY:
KE O KE O
L IH U T P L IH U T P
OO ERFO R OO ERFO R
D)³ ,⁶ MANCE D)³ ,⁶ MANCE
Typical Performers People-Focused Companies

,⁵ ,⁵
ILITY¹ ILITY¹
AB AB
OFIT OFIT
R Return on R Return on
P
invested capital invested capital

RE
RE
6% 9%
SIL
SIL
Economic Pre- Economic Pre-
IEN
profit/revenue COVID-19 profit/revenue COVID-19 IEN

CE: RE
CE: RE
–14% 6% –5% 7%
VENUE GR
VENUE GR
Return on Peak Return on Peak

invested capital pandemic invested capital pandemic
1.5× 3% 1.3× 6%
O
O
CO
CO
W
W
TH
TH
Economic Economic
NS
NS
² ⁵,
² ⁵,
profit/revenue profit/revenue
IS
IS
N 1.5× N 1.1×
TE
TE
C C
(L Y: U (L Y: U
IK N IK N
EL D E EL D E
IH O R P E R IH O R P E R
OD) , FORMANCE OD) , FORMANCE
⁴⁶ ⁴⁶
1
Averaged over 2010–19. 2Compounded annual growth rate; pre-COVID-19 covers 2010–19; peak pandemic covers 2019–21. 3Likelihood of companies in the
category having stayed in the top quintile of financial metric for at least 9 out of 10 years between 2010 and 2019, relative to an average company in the sample.
4
Likelihood of companies in the category having stayed in the bottom quintile of financial metric for at least 9 out of 10 years between 2010 and 2019, relative to
an average company in the sample. Rank based on the inverse of the likelihood. 5Values represent statistically significant differences with respect to
corresponding values of P+P Winners (at confidence interval of 95 percent with p-value <0.05). 6Likelihood is significantly different from 1 (at confidence interval
of 95 percent with p-value <0.05).
Note: Numbers are rounded. All values are sectorally reweighted.
Source: McKinsey’s Corporate Performance Analytics; S&P Global; McKinsey Global Institute analysis
P+P Winners are Along with consistency and resilience, P+P Winners also seem to have a superior ability to
3.6x
build scale. Their average economic profit is $1.1 billion, well above the $400 million average
for Performance-Driven Companies. Many of them rank among the world’s “superstar” firms.
Previous McKinsey research on companies identified about 600 superstars among 6,000 of
the world’s largest public and private firms with revenues greater than $1 billion. In this group,
more likely than the average
the top 10 percent of firms capture 80 percent of the economic profit. Furthermore, the gap
company to be “superstars”
between superstar and median firms has widened over the past two decades. Relying on
technological advantage, productivity, and market power, many superstars are giants in their
markets, with marginal costs of expansion. 5 P+P Winners are 3.6 times more likely than an
average firm in our sample to be superstars, while Performance-Driven Companies have a
smaller likelihood (1.9 times) of ranking among the superstars.
While investing in talent provides a meaningful performance edge, it is not sufficient to propel
a company into the top tier. Both P+P Winners and People-Focused Companies emphasize
human capital development, but P+P Winners are more effective at translating their
investment into profitability. Over the prepandemic decade (2010–19), P+P Winners posted
an average economic profit of 9 percent of revenue, while People-Focused Companies
averaged negative 5 percent. They also have sharply higher ROIC (28 versus 9 percent),
faster revenue growth (10 versus 7 percent), higher total returns to shareholders (13 versus
8 percent), and more robust EBITDA margins (28 versus 14 percent).
Although human capital development metrics indicate that People-Focused Companies are
doing the right things when it comes to helping their employees learn and grow, something
is lacking when it comes to channeling their efforts toward effective business outcomes.
They seem to be missing some crucial elements of organizational capital that would harness
their employees’ potential more fully. In addition to development opportunities and a positive
workplace environment, employees need effective management to be as productive as
possible. (The following chapter will explore the management practices and leadership styles
that set P+P Winners apart.)
P+P Winners generate greater payoffs for employees,

which helps their talent attraction and retention
Our previous research on human capital found that people were most likely to move into
higher lifetime earnings brackets if they spent time early in their careers working for
organizations that devoted more time to training, created internal pathways for people
to advance, and had healthier and more effective working environments.6 We consider
companies to be top performers in human capital development overall if they have top-
quintile metrics in at least one out of these three areas.7 P+P Winners as well as People-
Focused Companies stand out here.
74
By definition, P+P Winners and People-Focused Companies provide more training for
their employees than other companies. But the size of the gap is remarkable. P+P Winners
provided 74 hours of annual training per employee on average, equivalent to a four-credit
semester-long university course; some offer as much as 140 hours annually. Compared to
hours of annual training per this, Performance-Driven Companies offer just 19 hours per employee on average. Beyond
employee provided by P+P formal training programs, P+P Winners also emphasize informal on-the-job coaching.
Winners on average In McKinsey’s Organizational Health Index surveys, employees from 44 percent of these
companies (and from 49 percent of People-Focused Companies) ranked talent development
among the top 15 management practices in their workplaces. It is a lower priority for many
Performance-Driven Companies; only 33 percent of their employees rank it among the top
15 practices.
5
Superstars: The dynamics of firms, sectors, and cities leading the global economy, McKinsey Global Institute,
October 2018.
6
Human capital at work: The value of experience, McKinsey Global Institute, June 2022.
7
Human capital input metrics data available for 1,793 companies, with training hours data available for 808 companies,
internal moves data available for 782 companies, and OHI data available for 479 companies, with some overlaps (see the
technical appendix for further details).
35%
Companies that prioritize human capital development help employees grow by making
promotions and internal transfers more readily available; those that do not create internal
opportunities and pathways often force their employees to leave if they want to find a better
fit or boost their earnings. In a June 2021 Gallup survey of 15,000 US workers, 61 percent said
of employees who work for
that the opportunity to learn new skills is an extremely or very important factor in deciding
P+P Winners go on to move
whether to stay at their current job. 8
into higher earning brackets
Forty-two percent of total employee moves at P+P Winners involve internal mobility.9
By creating opportunities for people to keep learning and reinventing themselves, these
companies are better able to build their employees’ skills. Our previous research found that
people enhance the value of their human capital over a working life by adding skills obtained
through varied work experience. Changing roles, whether internally or externally, fuels this
process. Similarly, a report by the Burning Glass Institute also found that companies’ hiring
and mobility practices have a profound impact on the careers of their employees, including
the speed with which they earn promotions and their ability to secure better jobs on leaving.10
P+P Winners are, therefore, engines of upward mobility for the employees who pass through
them. Thirty-five percent of their workers go on to move into higher earning quintiles over
their lifetimes relative to their starting points—a share that is 1.3 times higher than that
of Performance-Driven Companies. Similarly, 33 percent of workers in People-Focused
Companies are upwardly mobile, compared to 29 percent for Typical Performers (Exhibit 3).
Work makes up much of a life, so in addition to the training and long-term trajectory an
employer provides, the day-to-day experience of a job is a major determinant of employees’
happiness, life satisfaction, and even health.11 P+P Winners also deliver on this front. They
have a better reputation among employees. Their employees are more likely to describe
their work environments as positive, with a net promoter score of 20 percent, similar to
People-Focused Companies (19 percent). Both are ahead of Performance-Driven Companies
(16 percent) and Typical Performers (14 percent).12 P+P Winners are also four times more likely
than an average firm to feature in Fortune’s Best 100 Companies to Work For; Performance-
Driven Companies are only 1.7 times more likely than the average firm to make the list.
P+P Winners deliver a better

workplace experience, and they are
engines of upward mobility for the
employees who pass through them.
8
The American upskilling study: Empowering workers for the jobs of tomorrow, Gallup and Amazon, 2021.
9
This refers to internal role changes as a share of total employee moves (a metric that includes internal moves plus hires,
quits, and separations).
10
The American Opportunity Index: A corporate scorecard of worker advancement, The Burning Glass Institute, Harvard
Business School, and Schultz Family Foundation, October 2022.
11
See, for example, Jarrod M. Haar et al., “Outcomes of work-life balance on job satisfaction, life satisfaction and mental
health: A study across seven cultures,” Journal of Vocational Behavior, volume 85, issue 3, December 2014; and Berrin
Erdogan et al., “Whistle while you work: A review of the life satisfaction literature,” Journal of Management, volume 38,
issue 4, January 2012. In addition, a recent McKinsey Health Institute analysis of the modifiable drivers of health found
that productive activity–including work–is often tied to better health outcomes.
12
We define a net promoter score as the share of people who express an overall positive sentiment about a company’s
work environment minus the share of people who express an overall negative sentiment on surveys from McKinsey’s
proprietary Organizational Data Platform, which draws on licensed data from several sources.
Web <year>
<article slug>
Exhibit 3
Employees of People + Performance Winners are more likely to

be upwardly mobile over their careers.
Spread of value by company
Share of employees on track to move into higher Minimum Maximum
earning quintiles, by company,¹ % 25th percentile 75th percentile
Mean
1.3×
People +
Performance Winners 35
Performance-
Driven Companies² 27
1.1×
People-Focused
Companies 33
Typical Performers2
29
0 40 80
¹Based on projected lifetime earnings of employees, which are the sum total of the nominal salaries an individual receives over a 30-year working life.
This combines estimates based on salaries of roles held by a person during the observed work history plus projections for the remaining years of that person’s
working life, applying historical rates of wage growth to the final observed role (assumes no further moves).
²Means represent statistically significant difference with respect to corresponding values of P+P Winners (at confidence interval of 95 percent with
p-value < 0.05).
Note: Sample sizes with data on employee earnings outcomes: People + Performance Winners = 31; Performance-Driven Companies = 43;
People-Focused Companies = 30; Typical Performers = 84. Averages are sectorally reweighted.
Source: McKinsey’s proprietary Organizational Data Platform, which draws on licensed, de-identified public professional profile data;
McKinsey Global Institute analysis
Almost For companies, one of the biggest potential benefits from focusing on people is the ability
5 p.p.
to retain talented employees. P+P Winners had moderate levels of attrition, indicating that
these companies strike a balance between generating payoffs for employees and applying
consequence management principles (Exhibit 4). By contrast, attrition rates were roughly
five percentage points higher at Performance-Driven Companies and Typical Performers
difference in total attrition
from 2017 to 2019. This often has real financial and operational costs (see Box 2, “Attrition:
between P+P Winners
Good, bad, or ugly?”).
and Performance-Driven
Companies before Not only do employees leave Performance-Driven Companies voluntarily at a greater rate, but
the pandemic these firms also fire more frequently, which seems to indicate that they are doing a less-than-
optimal job of hiring candidates who will be a good fit. Even during the Great Attrition sparked
by the pandemic, which affected all companies, P+P Winners were better able to retain their
people. Their attrition levels rose to 11 percent from 2020 to 2021, but this was still lower
than the 15 percent turnover experienced by Performance-Driven Companies. Interestingly,
attrition is lowest of all among People-Focused Companies. While this seems positive at first
blush, these companies could examine whether they need greater accountability and whether
they are challenging employees to grow. They may be people-friendly places to stay but may
lack enough flow to inject fresh ideas and energy.
Exhibit 4
P+P Winners seem to occupy a sweet spot of moderate turnover with healthy returns.
P+P Performance-Driven People-Focused Typical

Winners Companies Companies Performers
Total attrition Voluntary attrition Involuntary attrition

2017–19 average, % 2017–19 average, % 2017–19 average, %
14
13.51 13.41
13
12
11
10
9 8.81
8 8.5 8.11
7.91
7
6.6
6 5.81
5.0
5
4.61
4 3.2
3 3.0
2
1
0
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10
Economic profitability
(average EP/revenue from 2010–19)
1 Values represent statistically significant difference with respect to corresponding values of P+P Winners (at confidence interval of 90 percent with p-value < 0.1).
Note: Sample size for total attrition: Typical Performers = 121, Performance-Driven Companies = 46, People-Focused Companies = 32, P+P Winners = 25. Sample size
for voluntary attrition: Typical Performers = 136, Performance-Driven Companies = 52, People-Focused Companies = 36, P+P Winners = 31. Sample size for involuntary
attrition: Typical Performers = 125, Performance-Driven Companies = 47, People-Focused Companies = 34, P+P Winners = 26. All values are sectorally reweighted.
Source: Refinitiv; McKinsey’s Corporate Performance Analytics; S&P Global; McKinsey Global Institute analysis
Box 2
Attrition: Good, bad, or ugly?
Attrition rates can deliver important signals to companies. when labor is abundant. But in an environment of labor
But determining what level is optimal—and calculating the scarcity, that can suddenly turn problematic, as it did for
true cost of employee turnover—is more nuanced than it many companies in the Great Attrition.2 Turnover is also
may seem on first reading.1 problematic for roles that require highly specialized skills
or a specific geographic commitment. Corporate leaders
The costs and risks associated with attrition are highly
may need to adjust their talent attraction and retention
dependent on the state of the job market. An organization
strategies based on whether they see structural shortages
may be willing and able to absorb high levels of turnover
1
B. Latha Lavanya, “A study on employee attrition: Inevitable yet manageable,” International Journal of Business and Management Invention, volume 6,
issue 9, September 2017.
2
“‘Great Attrition’ or ‘Great Attraction’? The choice is yours,” McKinsey Quarterly, September 2021. See also “The Great Attrition is making hiring harder.
Are you searching in the right talent pools?” McKinsey Quarterly, July 2022; and “Gone for now, or gone for good? How to play the new talent game and
win back workers,” McKinsey Quarterly, March 2022.
Box 2 (continued)
persisting beyond the Great Attrition, perhaps driven by Departures, whether voluntary or involuntary, make room
demographic changes and long-term business strategy for new hires to bring dynamism and different skill sets to
and skill requirements. 3 the organization. When no one leaves, there is no room for
this kind of infusion to take place.
Part of finding a level of attrition that is sustainable
involves assessing the cost of turnover. However, few The variations in attrition rates across the company
studies exist on this topic, and no single rule of thumb categories described in this research are striking.
applies. The cost of replacing a knowledge worker with Performance-Driven Companies have high rates of both
specialized skills is far higher than the cost of replacing voluntary and involuntary attrition. This is not necessarily
a frontline fast-food worker, for example. One study of detrimental if the jobs that are turning over do not require
turnover in the retail industry found that a 10 percent highly specialized skills and are designed to enable new
rise in turnover would be as costly as a 0.6 percent wage hires to ramp up quickly. But these companies do need to
increase for the entire workforce. 4 periodically reassess—and one major motivator for doing
so is the fact that attrition seems to be linked to resilience.
Turnover involves hard costs, such as severance;
administration; recruiting; covering the vacant position While some companies can sustain higher attrition rates
with temporary help or overtime; and onboarding when a in normal times, those that stay loyal to their employees
replacement is found. Depending on the dynamics of the may be rewarded in return during times of crisis. Indeed,
talent market and the seniority levels involved, companies more people-oriented companies had better performance
may be able to fill a role while offering a lower salary—or during the pandemic. As noted earlier, P+P Winners and
they may find themselves paying a premium. Beyond those People-Focused Companies had relatively low attrition
quantifiable effects are hidden costs, including a potential levels of 8.0 to 8.5 percent before the pandemic struck;
hit to morale and productivity for the team members who they went on to achieve 6 to 8 percent revenue growth
remain as well as a lower-productivity learning curve for during its peak. By contrast, Performance-Driven
the replacement hire. Companies should consider the Companies and Typical Performers had relatively high
often-hidden opportunity costs of operating short-staffed attrition levels of about 13.5 percent before the pandemic,
or letting institutional knowledge depart. 5 and revenue growth of only 3 to 4 percent from 2019
to 2021.
While no company likes to see valued employees go, some
turnover is expected and healthy. When people know that Examining the underlying causes of attrition can help
it’s time for a change of scenery, it can be beneficial for identify whether it is sustainable or not—and what
them to move on or retire before they become stale or companies may want to do about it. Working conditions
discontented, even if they have been solid performers. In or burnout could drive high attrition. The people
fact, if someone who has grown with the company lands management skills of a direct supervisor can be a major
an offer for a more senior position with another employer, factor causing employees to leave a particular office or
their success is worth celebrating. unit.6 In a recent McKinsey Health Institute survey, many
respondents linked mental-health struggles to the feeling
When it comes to involuntary attrition, companies that
of always being on call, unfair treatment, unreasonable
retain poor performers for too long not only accept
workload, low autonomy, and lack of social support. Data
lower productivity but also risk frustrating their strong
suggests that improving workplace factors could be
performers, who may have to carry extra workload to
several times more predictive of employee well-being
compensate. Letting underperforming employees go, if
than providing access to resources alone.7 Alternatively,
handled fairly and compassionately, sends a message
hiring criteria may be inadequate to the task of identifying
to the broader organization about expectations and
candidates who are more likely to succeed over the long
accountability.
term. Companies can benefit from digging into what is
driving their attrition numbers.
3
Helen Tupper and Sarah Ellis, “It’s time to reimagine employee retention,” Harvard Business Review, July 2022.
4
Peter Kuhn and Lizi Yu, “How costly is turnover? Evidence from retail,” Journal of Labor Economics, volume 39, number 2, 2021.
5
Kevin Mendonsa et al., “Predicting attrition: A driver for creating value, realizing strategy, and refining key HR processes,” SMU Data Science Review,
volume 3, number 2, August 2020.
6
Mitchell Hoffman and Steven Tadelis, “People management skill, employee attrition, and manager rewards: An empirical analysis,” Journal of Political
Economy, volume 129, number 1, 2021. See also “Employee burnout: Are you solving the right problem?” McKinsey Health Institute, May 2022.
7
“Present company included: Prioritizing mental health and well-being for all,” McKinsey Health Institute, October 2022.
© Morsa Images/Getty Images
2. How organizational
capital activates
human capital
Human capital is necessary to win, but it’s not sufficient. The P+P Winners described in the
previous chapter achieve results not only through hiring and developing talented people but
also by creating the right conditions to unleash their potential. It takes effective management,
systems, and culture to turn a collection of talented individuals into a cohesive team.
Every year, contending baseball teams set out with a single-minded mission: to go after a
championship. It’s up to the general manager to assemble the right human capital—in this
case, players. His scouting department is continually on the lookout for raw young talent as
well as underutilized players who can be acquired from other teams. He also decides when
to offer big free-agent contracts to established superstars. The sum total of these efforts
should be a roster with complementary skills and a balanced mix of seasoned veterans and
hungry rookies.
While an enormous payroll is a clear advantage, it is notoriously difficult to simply buy a

championship. Some free-spending teams crash and burn—and once in a while, low-budget
teams defy expectations and create alchemy by combining the right people and approach.
Successful major-league teams sustain pipelines of talent over the longer term with minor-
league affiliates and training camps geared to help players develop their skills. At the big-
league level, the manager runs day-to-day operations and sets the tone. He juggles lineups
to deploy the right mix of players against specific opponents on a given day. He maintains
team norms, morale, and discipline over a grueling season. Everyone must buy into the
organization’s approach to preparation, playing time, the use of analytics, and game strategy.
Individual players get pointers to improve their form in daily batting and fielding practice
sessions. The clubhouse and home ballpark provide an energizing environment where every
detail supports performance.
So it goes with companies. Like sports teams, some click on all cylinders and run like
well-oiled machines, while others sputter and fail to live up to their potential. Part of the
difference comes down to the talent and drive of the individuals involved. But another critical
differentiator is organizational capital—that is, the processes, accumulated knowledge,
norms, and layers of leadership that define the way people work. Every workplace is unique
because every employer has its own organizational capital.
Organizational capital is hard to measure and easy to take for granted. Yet it is crucial for
realizing the value of investment in human capital since it choreographs individual efforts.
This chapter looks at what goes into organizational capital—and how P+P Winners take a
distinctive approach to it.
An underappreciated asset for companies, organizational
capital comprises the systems that make people productive
Companies have multiple types of capital at their disposal to help achieve their business
goals. An organization’s human capital is the cumulative knowledge, skills, attributes,
experience, and health of its workforce. Workers in turn create value by interacting with their
employer’s other forms of capital, both tangible and intangible.
Physical capital is perhaps the most straightforward and easily quantified. Employees may
work in a factory, for example, or use specialized machinery. Beyond this type of tangible
asset, companies also have intangible capital.13 Broadly, this category includes innovation
assets and intellectual property; digital and analytics assets (such as software, databases,
and customer-facing digital platforms); and brands. It also includes organizational capital, or
the practices and systems that define “the way a company works.” Organizational capital is
perhaps the most elusive—and human—of all intangible assets, since it relates to how people
work, their relationships with and within the workplace, and their development.14
Each company has its own culture and mix of management practices; this organizational
capital belongs to the company and stays with it. Yet, as previous MGI research showed,
workers gain valuable knowledge and experience from interacting with it, and they carry
these new capabilities wherever they go for the remainder of their career. The value of their
human capital increases, and they are frequently able to command higher wages in the
next role.
From the worker’s perspective, organizational capital determines both the quality of their
immediate day-to-day experience and their potential for longer-term development and
earnings, among other things. Work is at the center of people’s lives and well-being. The
pandemic highlighted the importance of “good work”—that is, the access to good-quality,
safe, and secure work—and the value of human skills.15 From the company’s perspective,
organizational capital is one of the crucial mechanisms for realizing the value of investment
in human capital.16 It choreographs individual efforts and coordinates and channels it into
productive activity and financial outcomes (Exhibit 5).
Many components go into organizational capital. It encompasses everything from training

programs and talent-management and capability-building systems to workflows, department
and team structures, business processes, employee communications, norms, culture,
and leadership.
These systems constitute the interpersonal fabric of a company, determining whether it is

thriving and productive or whether it wastes resources.17 Organizational capital is the invisible
infrastructure of the workplace; it is the glue that makes the whole entity greater than the
sum of its parts. Although it does not explicitly show up on corporate balance sheets, it is key
to maximizing returns on human capital and on the physical, financial, and other intangible
assets a company holds.18 In short, people need operating principles in order to be productive.
13
Getting tangible about intangibles, McKinsey Global Institute, June 2021.
14
The term “organization capital” was used by Edward Prescott and Michael Visscher in a 1980 article that emphasized
the information that resides with a firm and its ability to match people with effective teams. See Prescott and Visscher,
“Organization capital,” Journal of Political Economy, volume 88, number 3, 1980.
15
The good work monitor, Institute for the Future of Work, January 2021.
16
John F. Tomer, Organizational capital: The path to higher productivity and well-being, Prager, 1987.
17
Oliver Ludewig and Dieter Sadowski, “Measuring organizational capital,” Schmalenbach Business Review, volume 61,
October 2009.
18
Baruch Lev and Suresh Radhakrishnan, “The valuation of organizational capital,” in Measuring capital in the new economy,
Carol Corrado, John Haltiwanger, and Daniel Sichel, eds., University of Chicago Press, 2005.
Exhibit 5
Organizational capital is one of the key activators of human capital in the workplace.
Innovation assets and intellectual
property, digital and analytics
assets, and brands.
“How an organization works” or company-specific
management practices, systems, and culture,
which are the company's assets.
Early childhood Education

development
Work experience
Knowledge, skills, attributes, experience,
and health—assets that individuals own and Stock of property, plant, and equipment.
bring to their employers.
1 Part
of intangible capital.
Source: McKinsey Global Institute analysis
Organizational capital manifests itself in every corner of a company. Most large organizations
pour considerable effort into crafting and reinforcing mission statements. They may have
formal onboarding programs for new employees and periodic training courses for existing
employees. Many undertake initiatives to make their workforce more motivated and cohesive.
They establish performance standards, performance management processes, and internal
career pathways. Technologies and communication platforms that help employees share
information and do their jobs more efficiently are part of the equation. So are design choices
in physical offices, which can promote collaboration or concentration. Crucially, organizational
capital includes the art of matching the right people to the right tasks and providing them with
guidance and structure—which means that frontline and middle managers play a crucial role
in executing the overarching vision on a day-to-day basis.
Organizational capital can be measured through widely varying approaches. By our

estimates, organizational capital, measured as the capitalized value of expenditure on
building a company’s systems and processes, is roughly equal to the value of physical capital
in the sample of companies we studied (See Box 3, “Measuring organizational capital”).
Box 3
Measuring organizational capital

Attempts to measure organizational capital have followed expenditure is not short-lived but instead has an enduring
three main approaches. The first focuses on the cost of impact. Its value depreciates over time but at a slower
creating organizational capital. Some studies have used pace than physical and other intangible capital, as
the overhead costs of establishing systems and processes organizational practices are more ingrained, firm-specific,
that enable people to work together as the measure of and harder to imitate. 4 The rate of depreciation depends
organizational capital. These costs are estimated using upon the attrition of employees from the company as well
proxies from the company’s profit-and-loss statement, as the obsolescence of skills possessed by employees
typically the selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) over time. Studies have typically assumed a 10 to
expenditure.1 SG&A expenses include components 15 percent depreciation rate over time, implying a useful
that go into building organizational systems and talent life of seven to ten years. 5
development. Spending on training, onboarding,
In this research, we create a rough approximation of
recruiting, and building digital and other tools that enable
organizational capital by capitalizing SG&A expenditure,
employees to collaborate are included, as are location and
excluding compensation as well as sales and marketing
infrastructure expenditure.
expenditure (where included). For companies in our
The second approach attempts to identify the different sample, we find that organizational capital is estimated at
components of organizational capital using nonmonetary 70 percent of revenue. For comparison, physical capital
and survey-based approaches. Studies have gathered (measured as plant, property, and equipment assets from
information from companies about their managerial corporate balance sheets) is about 60 percent of revenue.
practices.2 In this chapter, we apply this approach by using These estimates vary by sector. In the energy, materials,
McKinsey’s Organizational Health Index (OHI) diagnostic and utilities sectors, for example, physical capital is
and other firm-level measures to identify the distinctive 140 percent of revenue, while organizational capital is
organizational signatures associated with each of our four about 50 percent. In the healthcare sector, organizational
company categories. capital is estimated at 75 percent of revenue, while
physical capital is approximated at 32 percent of revenue.
Another measurement approach attempts to capitalize
For any company, however, organizational capital
the value of investment in building systems and putting in
accounts for a significant outflow of expenditure, making it
place management practices—that is, to capitalize SG&A
vital to think about how to utilize it meaningfully.
expenses. 3 This approach assumes that the effect of this
1
Baruch Lev and Suresh Radhakrishnan, “The valuation of organizational capital,” in Measuring capital in the new economy, Carol Corrado, John Haltiwanger,
and Daniel Sichel, eds., University of Chicago Press, 2005.
2
Sandra E. Black and Lisa M. Lynch, “How to compete: The impact of workplace practices and information technology on productivity,” Review of Economics
and Statistics, volume 83, issue 3, 2001; and Nicholas Bloom and John Van Reenen, “Measuring and explaining management practices across firms and
countries,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, volume 122, issue 4, 2007.
3
Supriyo De and Dilip Dutta, “Impact of intangible capital on productivity and growth: Lessons from the Indian information technology software industry,”
Economic Record, volume 83, number 51, 2007.
4
Claudia Tronconi and Giuseppe Vittucci Marzetti, “Organizational capital and firm performance: Empirical evidence for European firms,” Economics Letters,
volume 112, number 2, 2011.
5
Ibid.; and Andrea Eisfeldt and Dimitris Papanikolaou, “Organizational capital and the cross-section of expected returns,” Journal of Finance, volume 68,
issue 4, 2013.
P+P Winners generate superior returns on their
human and organizational capital investments
Applying one of the approaches described in Box 3, we estimated investment in
organizational capital by using SG&A overhead expenditure as a proxy. We also estimated
investment in human capital as the compensation paid out to employees.
We find that P+P Winners not only invest in human and organizational capital but also do
a better job of translating those investments into top-line impact to benefit the company.
Since companies in the sample spend an average of 33 percent of revenue on compensation
and organizational overhead combined, it is vital to make these substantial investments as
productive as possible.
P+P Winners generate roughly 30 percent higher revenue growth for every dollar invested
in compensation and organizational overhead than Performance-Driven Companies (not
controlling for other drivers of revenue growth). In other words, P+P Winners follow a strategy
in which they channel their talent effectively, with systems, management practices, culture,
and leadership that enable them to execute successfully against business priorities.
By contrast, Performance-Driven Companies, which roughly match the financial returns of

P+P Winners, derive their advantage from other types of capital (Exhibit 6).19 They generate
similar revenue growth for every additional dollar of physical capital and double the revenue
growth for every dollar of other intangible capital (estimated as R&D and sales and marketing
expenditures, which amount to 12.5 percent of revenue). At a time when the cost of top talent
is rising, Performance-Driven Companies may stand to gain by making their investments in
compensation and organizational overhead more productive. This is a clear avenue remaining
open for them to achieve even higher financial performance.
19
In addition, we used a regression approach to quantify the sensitivity of revenue growth to the different investment drivers
discussed above. We then identified “high-efficacy” companies with disproportionately high revenue growth compared
to growth in human and organizational capital investment, controlling for all other drivers (see the technical appendix
for more details). We found that 24 percent of P+P Winners were high-efficacy companies, compared to 17 percent of
Performance-Driven Companies.
Exhibit 6
P+P Winners and Performance-Driven Companies focus on generating higher returns from
different forms of capital.
Revenue growth per $ increase in . . . P+P Winners Performance-Driven Companies2
. . . human capital (compensation) . . . physical capital . . . other intangible capital

and organizational overhead,1 $ (PPE), $ (R&D and sales and marketing), $
3.4 1.9 8.0
-5%
+31%
-51%
1.8
2.6
3.9
1 Organizational overhead is estimated as selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenditure, excluding compensation, sales and marketing expenditure, R&D
expenditure where included.
2 Values represent statistically significant differences with respect to corresponding values of P+P Winners (at confidence interval of 95 percent, with p-value < 0.05).
Note: Sample size for revenue growth per dollar increase in organizational expenditure and human capital: Performance-Driven Companies = 220 ; P+P Winners = 109.
Sample size for revenue growth per dollar increase in physical capital: Performance-Driven Companies = 341; P+P Winners = 163. Sample size for revenue growth per
dollar increase in other intangible capital: Performance-Driven Companies = 260 ; P+P Winners = 131. All values are sectorally reweighted.
Source: McKinsey’s Corporate Performance Analytics; S&P Global; McKinsey Global Institute analysis
Organizational capital is unique to each employer—
and its effectiveness varies widely
A distinctive set of organizational practices can be a source of competitive advantage that
boosts financial performance.20 However, developing and executing it requires investment
and energy. Neglected or poorly designed organizational capital can hinder productivity,
waste resources, and harm a company’s reputation. Toxic workplaces tolerate unnecessary
stress within the system and drive people away; well-run workplaces tend to attract talented
people and give them space to innovate. Organizational capital determines the employee
experience, which also makes it important to job satisfaction, life satisfaction, and individual
well-being.21
Employers can take highly divergent approaches in pursuit of productivity, with positive or
negative implications for the employee experience. In the baseball example described at
the beginning of this chapter, different organizational practices could be equally successful.
One team may thrive because its manager is highly disciplined, while another may succeed
because its manager keeps the clubhouse loose. Similarly, one company may insist on rigid
hours; another may offer flexibility as long as goals are met. Some employers set tough
quotas or install surveillance software to monitor every keystroke; others operate on a
culture of trust. Sometimes even good intentions to create a collegial workplace can have
ambiguous results. A startup that brings in a ping-pong table and beer tap may fail unless
its performance management practices are as good as its perks. A company that opts for an
open office plan to spur collaboration may find that employees cannot perform with the noise
and distractions.
Each employer chooses its own combination of management practices and injects its own
philosophy and personality into individual elements. Execution also matters. One study found
that higher productivity does not stem from adopting a particular practice but from how that
practice is implemented.22 To give just one example, teams in one company may waste time in
meetings, while those in another stick to agendas and use meetings to make clear decisions.
In addition to business processes, institutional knowledge is an important element of

organizational capital.23 This includes knowing how things have been done in the past as
well as the ongoing integration of new knowledge. Organizations that excel at accumulating,
integrating, and sharing knowledge efficiently build a strong basis for innovation.24 They also
tend to provide employees with the kind of learning environments that in turn build human
capital. Working in this type of setting is especially beneficial for individuals near the
beginning of their careers, since they add knowledge and capabilities that they carry with
them as they move to other organizations.25
Developing and executing a distinctive

set of organizational practices
takes investment and energy.
20
“Organizational health: A fast track to performance improvement,” McKinsey Quarterly, September 2017. See also
Mariagrazia Squicciarini and Marie Le Mouel, Defining and measuring investment in organizational capital: Using US
microdata to develop a task-based approach, OECD Science, Technology and Industry working papers number 2012/05,
September 2012.
21
This time it’s personal: Shaping the “new possible” through employee experience, McKinsey & Company,
September 2021.
22
Sandra E. Black and Lisa M. Lynch, “How to compete: The impact of workplace practices and information technology on
productivity,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, volume 83, issue 3, August 2001.
23
Andrew Atkeson and Patrick J. Kehoe, “Modeling and measuring organization capital,” Journal of Political Economy,
volume 113, number 5, October 2005.
24
Antonio Carmona-Lavado, Gloria Cuevas-Rodriguez, and Carmen Cabello-Medina, “Social and organizational capital:
Building the context for innovation,” Industrial Marketing Management, volume 39, issue 4, May 2010.
25
Victoria Gregory, Firms as learning environments: Implications for earnings dynamics and job search, Federal Reserve
Bank of St. Louis, January 2021.
P+P Winners share a distinctive organizational capital signature
McKinsey’s Organizational Health Index (OHI) diagnostic has been applied to thousands of
companies over the years. It is a survey-based tool that aggregates the views of employees
and managers on a set of nine key organizational outcomes and 37 management practices.26
While it is often used to take the temperature of organizations and diagnose problems, OHI
data, when consolidated across companies, also offers a rare look at their inner workings.
It should be noted, however, that the resulting picture shows where companies have spikes.
It does not mean that companies completely reject or neglect the practices that do not show
up in the set of top priorities; rather, it shows what they emphasize.
When we overlay OHI data onto our company categorizations, clear differences emerge
(Exhibit 7). The mix of individual practices chosen by each type of company adds up to a
distinct organizational fabric. While Performance-Driven Companies are challenging, goal-
oriented environments that focus on optimizing resources, People-Focused Companies are
more caring, encouraging, and nurturing. P+P Winners tend to balance these two aspects,
emerging as both challenging and nurturing. They are also more collaborative than firms in
the other categories. In addition to hiring and developing talented individuals, they build the
kind of organizational capital that enables them to succeed. This dual focus creates its own
virtuous cycle, since this kind of energizing environment becomes attractive to people in
the future.
26
How OHI works, McKinsey & Company, mckinsey.com/solutions/orgsolutions/overview/organizational-health-index/
how-ohi-works.
Exhibit 7
P+P Winners possess a distinctive organizational signature.
Organizational elements prioritized by each category of company, based on Organizational Health Index surveys and
other metrics
Clear top-down vision
Defined performance goals and focus on efficiency
Performance-Driven People + Performance

External orientation to customers, competitors
Companies (P+P) Winners
Empowering and challenging leadership style

“Challenging, “Challenging,
top-down, collaborative,
goal-oriented” nurturing” Widespread ownership and alignment with vision
Company-wide innovation and collaboration

Typical Performers People-Focused
Companies
Inclusive work environment
No clear patterns “Caring, Transparent performance expectations and incentives

observed encouraging,
nurturing” Support for entrepreneurship and initiative-taking
Effective on-the-job coaching and training
Source: Organizational Health Index by McKinsey; Refinitiv; McKinsey’s proprietary Organizational Data Platform, which draws on licensed, de-identified public
professional profile data; McKinsey Global Institute analysis
Looking in more detail at the overall set of 37 management practices examined in OHI
surveys, we see that the leaders of P+P Winners give employees autonomy to make their own
decisions and challenge them to achieve more. These companies motivate through financial
and nonfinancial incentives and career opportunities. They also have cultures of innovation
and collaboration as well as entrepreneurial, challenging, inclusive work environments. (See
the technical appendix for more detail on specific practices.)
Survey respondents from P+P Winners often pointed to employee involvement in setting
company direction and to consultative leadership, which gives employees some autonomy
and weighs their opinions on important decisions. They also reported having room for
creativity and entrepreneurship, with managers encouraging employees to experiment
and protecting them from day-to-day pressures to allow them do so. Finally, P+P Winners
emphasize knowledge sharing and bottom-up innovation, with clear processes and systems
for employees to contribute ideas and work together. Notably, this type of employee
empowerment is paired with challenging leadership and transparent performance standards
and consequences. P+P Winners motivate employees who perform well with rewards and
advancement opportunities. This combination seems to strike a balance between giving
employees autonomy and providing structure, expectations, and guardrails to channel their
efforts effectively in support of business goals.27 P+P Winners are well run, and they spend
wisely on human capital—in a way that yields returns for the company and for its people
as well.
In addition, P+P Winners are standard setters when it comes to inclusivity (Exhibit 8). They
have the lowest gender pay gaps—in contrast to Performance-Driven Companies, which
have the profitability to rectify these disparities but instead have the largest pay gaps. P+P
Winners are also more likely to host employee affinity groups, with the aim of supporting
diverse talent and making their workplaces more inclusive; companies at any level of
profitability should be able to do this. Perhaps most striking, P+P Winners are far more
likely than companies in other categories to provide childcare support, which is a powerful
mechanism for attracting and retaining working parents. Because this can be a costly benefit,
the most profitable companies are best positioned to offer it—but Performance-Driven
Companies are least likely to do so.
P+P Winners have some areas of overlap with the other categories of companies—and some
key areas where they depart from the rest. Their challenging and consultative leadership
style, interestingly, is shared by Performance-Driven Companies, which seems to indicate
that it is crucial for top-tier financial results.
But Performance-Driven Companies diverge from P+P Winners in a number of crucial ways.
They do create a unified vision throughout the organization, but the vision and decisions tend
to flow from the top down. Motivating employees, creating a positive work environment, and
encouraging new ideas tend to take a back seat to rigorous management of employee output
and an external focus on customers, competitors, and the marketplace (see Exhibit 7).
The combined emphasis on performance contracts (written performance goals that clearly
define what employees are expected to deliver), outsourcing expertise, and professional
standards speaks to a somewhat transactional relationship with workers. This approach
is based on a view of the company as an optimal allocator and manager of inputs that
maximize output—and it is a valid one that obviously yields results, since Performance-Driven
Companies are in the top quintile of financial performance. But this choice may come under
pressure as industries, technologies, and labor market dynamics change, requiring more
organic responses from within organizations.
27
This lines up closely with the execution edge “recipe” (or mix of management practices) identified in previous McKinsey
research based on Organizational Health Index results. See “The hidden value of organizational health—and how to
capture it,” McKinsey Quarterly, April 2014.
Exhibit 8
P+P Winners focus on inclusivity.
Average of Typical Performers and Performance-Driven Companies

Gender pay gap Hosts employee resource
Cents earned by women to Provides childcare support groups
$1 earned by men, 2020–21 Share of companies reporting Share of companies
average “yes,” %, 2020 reporting “yes,” %, 2020
P+P Winners 96 48 43
1.1x 1.8x 1.9x

Performance-Driven 91 1
23 1
29 1
Companies
People-Focused 94 361 311

Companies
Typical Performers 921 291 191
91 27 22
1 Values represent statistically significant differences with respect to corresponding values of P+P Winners (at confidence interval of 95 percent with p-value < 0.05).
Note: Sample size for gender pay gap: P+P Winners = 42, Performance-Driven Companies = 71, People-Focused Companies = 28, Typical Performers = 96.
Sample size for childcare support and employee resource groups: P+P Winners = 146, Performance-Driven Companies = 322, People-Focused Companies = 197,
Typical Performers = 759. All values are sectorally reweighted.
Source: Refinitiv; McKinsey Global Institute analysis
Performance-Driven Companies are more externally focused on customers and markets than
P+P Winners. While “customer focus” does not appear as a priority practice for P+P Winners,
it does not mean that they are not geared to addressing customer needs. However, they are
more likely to use internal innovation to anticipate what customers need and create solutions
for them, while Performance-Driven Companies focus externally on gathering customer
feedback and addressing opportunities detected through market intelligence. This difference
could possibly explain why Performance-Driven Companies are better at riding the upside of
business cycles. Yet their lack of focus on enabling internal innovation and change means that
they may be more exposed to volatility on the downside.
People-Focused Companies emphasize many of the same “feel-good” practices as P+P

Winners. The areas of overlap include employee involvement, creating a positive work
environment, and motivating employees through performance incentives and growth
opportunities. People-Focused Companies also emphasize talent development through
on-the-job coaching even more than P+P Winners. They have an added focus on risk
management (encouraging employees to escalate issues at the right level), personal
ownership (creating a sense of belonging), and inspirational leaders (who find ways to make
work more meaningful for their employees and provide praise and recognition).
But P+P Winners go beyond nurturing their employees in their more challenging leadership
style that pushes people out of their comfort zones and encourages them to experiment.
People-Focused Companies appear to be less results-oriented. These companies are also
missing an innovation engine, unlike P+P Winners, with their focus on enabling knowledge
sharing and collaboration throughout their organizations.
© Peopleimages/Getty Images
3. A blueprint for
leaders: How
to transform
organizational capital
Because it is not measured, organizational capital is not always actively managed. It is easy
for firms to become complacent and stick to “the way we have always done things.” But letting
this source of competitive advantage stagnate can be a real risk to performance. This is
especially true at a time when disruptive technologies and demographic shifts are upending
business dynamics, and labor markets are recalibrating after the profound shock of the
pandemic. Even thriving companies need to establish new kinds of connective tissue, norms,
and expectations for remote and hybrid work.
Guiding principles, working norms, frontline managers, and support systems have to be in
place so that talent can execute. If these elements are ineffective, resources go to waste,
resulting in lost potential. Management practices should add up to a recognizable corporate
fabric that engages employees at all levels. Unsurprisingly, this has never been easy for
companies spanning multiple units and geographies, and remote and hybrid work is now
exacerbating the challenge. But it is possible for companies to implement more effective
management practices—and unleash more of the potential within their people in the process.
This chapter offers a brief overview of the key questions—the why, what, and how—involved in
taking on this challenge (Exhibit 9).
Corporate leaders need a deeper focus on the nuances of organizational capital.

Human capital is not merely a labor input; people are any company’s core asset.
The workplace should work for people, with coaching to help them develop, structures for
support, and workflows that remove frustrations. Employees know what works on the front
lines, and their voices and viewpoints should inform any redesign.28 Beyond improving the
employee experience, these principles can enhance competitiveness and adaptability in a
fast-moving world.
Companies can implement more

effective management practices–
and unleash more of the potential
within their people in the process.
28
Josh Bersin, Irresistible: The seven secrets of the world’s most enduring, employee-focused organizations, Ideapress
Publishing, 2022.
Exhibit 9
Blueprint: How can you transform your organizational capital?
How to track progress?

What to change?
Financial metrics:
Why become a P+P Winner? eg, training spend, organizational
Company-wide policies
overhead and compensation
To outperform in a time of economic Transparent performance relative to revenue growth,
uncertainty and talent shortages expectations and incentives gender pay gap
through: Internal talent growth and Operational measures:
Greater consistency and resilience development eg, attrition, internal promotion
Inclusive work environment rate, inclusivity policies, diversity
Lower talent attrition ratios
Leadership behaviors Experience-based indicators:
eg, employee sentiment,
Employee involvement
organizational health
Autonomy
Bottom-up innovation and
collaboration
Source: McKinsey Global Institute analysis
Other types of companies can make real gains by emulating

P+P Winners
Should all companies aspire to be P+P Winners? The answer is an unambiguous yes for the
Typical Performers and People-Focused Companies in our data set (and it is worth noting
that the majority of firms we analyzed fit into the Typical category). Both of these groups have
ample scope to improve; their financial performance lags well behind that of the other two
groups. People-Focused Companies in particular need to address the leadership, cultural,
and strategy issues holding them back from converting their investment in human capital into
productivity and innovation. The halo effect of investing in people development is not enough
on its own to produce top results without the right organizational capital in place. Typical
Performers have even further to go in developing employees to prepare them to execute.
Aspiring to be a P+P Winner has not historically been a clear-cut imperative for Performance-
Driven Companies, however. While investing more resources into developing people
is positive for employees and society, these companies are already top-tier financial
performers. Their innate characteristics may also make it more challenging to implement a
more people-centric model. Performance-Driven Companies may drive results through a
more standards-based, top-down model, with an external focus on customers and market
opportunities (as opposed to the bottom-up innovation and employee empowerment that
P+P Winners enable).
P+P Winners and Performance-Driven Companies look very similar in average financial
performance over a long cycle historically. Yet this is an incomplete picture. Performance-
Driven Companies experience more bumps and pain getting to the same destination. In a
scenario where market trends are in their favor, these companies seem to be able to capture
the upside well, but in periods of uncertainty, they lack the stability of P+P Winners. Not
prioritizing human capital development seems to increase the exposure of Performance-
Driven Companies to volatility and risk in turbulent times. This susceptibility is especially
aggravated when there is a shortage of talent.
In the past, a more transactional relationship with employees may have been shaped by
a belief that it is easy to access the labor market. Performance-Driven Companies have
historically filled and refilled certain types of jobs externally, and they are willing to outsource
certain types of specialized functions. It may require a massive, difficult cultural change to
focus more deeply on developing and nurturing people if that approach is not baked into
their DNA.
But now, in the wake of the pandemic, building resilience is the need of the hour. Companies
everywhere have struggled with attrition and hiring; in some cases, vacancies have hampered
operations and customer service. This may be a moment for leaders of Performance-Driven
Companies to reassess their organizational fabric. Even with inflation and the possibility
of a slowdown clouding the picture, some tightness in the labor market may be structural
rather than cyclical. In light of higher worker expectations and ongoing labor shortages,
companies may need to prioritize employee retention and cultivate the skills they need—
particularly if they are going to need more digital, interpersonal, and critical thinking skills to
achieve business objectives in the future. Even high-performing companies can benefit from
periodically examining whether their organizational practices give employees the balance of
support and challenge that will empower them to work more productively. P+P Winners show
that it is possible to support employees’ aspirations without undercutting performance.
Other companies can change specific systems and behaviors to

move toward the P+P Winner style of organizational capital
As described earlier in this research, P+P Winners are characterized by reward-
based performance management, bottom-up innovation and collaboration, consultative and
challenging leadership, and a creative, competitive, and inclusive work environment that tends
to attract and retain talent even in challenging times. But how can other types of companies
emulate this in practice?
In some cases, positive change in these areas could be spurred by changes to company-
wide policies and systems. In others, it will take behavior change from leaders. While C-suite
executives can articulate the vision and set the example, frontline and middle managers
are key actors since they set the tone for individual teams, have greater visibility into what’s
working, and can be the biggest influence on the employee experience.
Company-wide systems and policies

Transparent performance expectations and incentives. Companies can benefit from
periodically reassessing how expectations are outlined for employees and how their
performance is evaluated. In companies where these areas are muddy, a solid first step could
be better articulating the key performance indicators associated with various roles. For
some types of sales or manufacturing jobs, for instance, targets can be carefully calibrated
with financial goals and perhaps formalized in performance contracts. However, it is also
important to consider whether a performance evaluation system is geared to all of the roles in
the company or whether it forces an ill-fitting process onto staff in creative or support roles.
Different types of jobs may need entirely different evaluation metrics.
Taking performance management from good to great, however, requires something more
than establishing top-down targets and leaving employees to hit them on their own, with
fear of failure as the prime motivator. P+P Winners clarify both expectations and incentives
and take a more dynamic approach to achieving them. Ongoing coaching and continuous
feedback are key to helping employees resolve challenges and adapt the way they work as
needed. The best results come from managers staying engaged and giving feedback in the
moment, always with an eye toward goals—and encouraging employees to achieve more than
they thought possible.
While companies have to be able to address underperformance, they also need mechanisms
for recognition. To promote healthy competition across teams or geographies, financial
incentives could be powerful motivators; it may be worth reassessing whether bonus
structures could be more effective or whether they should be expanded. In addition
to financial rewards, a multitude of gestures can make people feel appreciated. Some
involve public recognition, such as calling out a job well done in group meetings or internal
newsletters or handing out company awards. Others can be more personal, such as a
direct thank-you email or a one-on-one lunch. One leading global technology corporation
introduced peer bonuses and outstanding management awards while rolling out a review
process with specific, transparent metrics for performance. Another software company
abolished annual performance reviews and ranking employees on a bell curve in favor of
a continuous performance evaluation system with regular check-ins for employees and
managers to discuss professional aspirations.
Internal talent growth and development. Companies that do not emphasize human capital
development often hire people into the openings they have at any given moment—and once
people are slotted into those roles, there is not often a clear way for them to stretch beyond
them. When these companies need a different type of expertise or skill set, their impulse is
to go outside to find it, whether through new hires or outsourcing. In a sense, they think of
human capital as an asset that flows in and out of the company. But they are leaving some
latent potential untapped by not recognizing that the value of each individual’s human capital
can be enhanced over time. Many people who are already within the company have the
capabilities to do more and to master different things.
Developing people is not always easy, and it may not come naturally to companies that have
not historically emphasized training and growth. But creating room for trusted employees
who already know the company’s practices to grow and add new skills can have an immense
upside. Approaches can involve sending people to external classes or establishing formal
training programs. One global consumer company offers its employees vocational courses,
with some receiving more than 10,000 applicants annually. It is equally important to ensure
that people stepping into new roles have engaged on-the-job coaching.
Each role within the organization should have clear—and clearly communicated—paths
toward future roles, defined by the skills required to be qualified. Employees should be able
to identify their next opportunities early in their tenure and co-create development plans with
their leaders.29 One way to do this in a large organization is to create an internal talent platform
where employees can access learning modules, establish new proficiencies, and find their
next internal role. Some top companies have mentorship programs for employees in different
career stages, and some host talks and connectivity events to provide career development
and networking opportunities.
Mobility is about experience, not only promotions. Lateral moves can also enable people
to recharge, expand their skills, or find a position that is a better fit. Yet most organizations
undervalue lateral movement or make it difficult. Rotational programs are often geared to
recent graduates who are management trainees, but companies can design internal mobility
options for a broader pool of employees. Stints in different departments or geographies can
keep midcareer workers learning and feeling energized.
An inclusive work environment. It is well established that diverse teams produce better
business results, in part by bringing in a broader range of ideas and helping organizations
break out of groupthink. 30 For many companies that are lagging on measures of diversity,
improvement starts with a more expansive approach to hiring, casting a wider net in
recruitment and giving greater consideration to candidates who may not fit the mold of the
past. As it becomes the norm for large companies to report on diversity metrics and pay gaps,
the imperative to make hiring reflect the broader community is becoming more urgent.
29
“A call to action: Provide employees with room to grow,” McKinsey Organization Blog, February 14, 2022.
30
See, for example, Diversity wins: How inclusion matters, McKinsey & Company, May 2020; Paul Gompers and Silpa
Kovvali, “The other diversity dividend,” Harvard Business Review, July–August 2018; and Women matter: Gender
diversity, a corporate performance driver, McKinsey & Company, 2007.
But hiring is only a preliminary step. Many companies now have diversity targets for hiring
in their general workforces and their leadership ranks. What sets the P+P Winners apart is
not just their commitment to diversity but also their commitment to making their workplaces
more inclusive. It is not enough to bring more diverse hires on board; it is important to deliver a
positive workplace experience and put measures in place to retain and advance diverse talent
over time. Affinity groups, for example, can help people connect with a supportive community.
Offering targeted mentorship, ensuring that project teams are diverse, being thoughtful
about workplace accommodations for disabilities, and recognizing a wider set of holidays
are other ways to make the workplace inclusive. Companies can also reduce pay gaps across
different groups of employees. A global tech firm began publishing regular gender pay
gap reports measuring current status of the pay gap, historic progress, future targets, and
initiatives for reaching these goals.
If retention is an issue for a certain demographic, the underlying causes should be explored
and addressed. To ensure that women are not derailed as they move from the early to the
middle stages of their careers, for example, companies can offer generous paid parental leave
and childcare benefits. Some P+P Winners go even further, with daycare facilities on site and
dependent-care assistance programs. During the pandemic, a global consumer company
offered a range of virtual childcare services for all age groups of children, summer and skill
camps, coaches for new parents, and one-on-one child minders.
Shifts in leadership behavior

P+P Winners focus on developing outstanding leaders. Bosses and supervisors play an
outsize role in determining employees’ job satisfaction, which in turn affects their well-being. 31
Sadly, three-quarters of respondents in one recent survey said that the most stressful aspect
of their job was their immediate boss. 32 Frontline and mid-level managers are a particularly
important level—and people often need training to step into these roles. One way to ensure
effective leadership and stop a leader’s bad tendencies from harming morale or effectiveness
is creating a system of 360-degree feedback.
Employee involvement. Leadership matters for driving results. All leadership styles are not
created equal, however. A top-down style can be effective, but employees should not feel
that major directives are dropped on them from above, with a disconnect between the vision
and the realities they face on the ground. P+P Winners ensure that employees feel involved in
bringing the specifics of a company’s vision to life—an approach that can give them more of a
sense of ownership, increasing the likelihood of creating loyalty and value.
This does not necessarily imply an overreliance on crowdsourcing or the total absence of
top-down decision making. But it is a more engaged style of leadership that makes room for
employees to have a voice. The most effective leaders listen as much as they talk, recognizing
that good ideas (and the next generation of leadership) often come from those on the front
lines. They consciously follow an approach that enables employees to speak up, not only to
involve them in establishing the companies’ vision and offer ideas but also to state frankly
when things are not working.
Autonomy. Operational discipline is important, and companies where it is lacking may be

able to harvest low-hanging fruit by tightening up processes and accountability. But there is
a balance to be struck. Focusing solely on how employees can become more efficient at what
they did yesterday may close off avenues for growth and improvement. Some companies that
have taken lean principles to extremes have found themselves less able to respond when
market conditions change.
P+P Winners insist on efficiency, but they allow some room for trying new things. They take a
more expansive approach, aiming to empower a workforce that is trained to think and capable
of adapting.
31
“The boss factor: Making the world a better place through workplace relationship,” McKinsey Quarterly, September 2020.
32
Mary Abbajay, “What to do when you have a bad boss,” Harvard Business Review, September 2018.
Leaders in P+P Winners give team members the autonomy to make and execute decisions
without excess bureaucracy or micromanaging. A consumer electronics giant, for example,
undertook a massive transformation of its organizational structure, adopting a flat structure
with only three management layers that gave its employees more leeway in decision making.
Its focus on team targets and accountability, with tight and fast feedback loops through
digital systems, enabled speedy execution, with product iterations often released in less than
a week.
Bottom-up innovation and collaboration. Innovation is one of the key differentiators that
sets P+P Winners apart. They promote a culture of “intrapreneurship” that makes it possible
for people to collaborate and share expertise and ideas across functions. This is not a simple
matter of putting out a suggestion box. Beyond creating forums for new ideas, leaders
allocate resources to pilots and full-fledged execution. A dedicated innovation unit, for
example, with a rotating group of cross-functional experts and an agile, test-and-learn launch
model, could bring new products to test markets and commercialization. All of this should
happen within the broader context of the company’s identity and vision for the future.
How can companies embark on a transformation

and manage the process?
Changing entrenched systems and long-established ways of doing things is never easy.
One way to think about approaching this task is to follow a five-step road map: aspire,
assess, architect, act, and advance. Research has shown that the odds of managing change
effectively are greatly increased if an organization starts by setting an aspiration—in
this case, articulating how much more employees could achieve and how much more the
organization could deliver to them in return. 33
With a larger vision in mind, companies then need to clarify their true starting points by
diagnosing the current state of the organization’s health. This assessment can happen
through surveys, interviews, and focus groups. Asking employees about issues that may have
gone unquestioned for years, such as the mix of benefits or meeting and communication
norms, could reveal areas that are ripe for change. Even if it’s painful, it is important to dig
deeper on areas of employee discontent and to focus intently on whether frontline managers
are actually equipped to lead and coach people.
With hard data and unvarnished opinions in hand, companies can then create a blueprint
to build greater employee empowerment, a culture of innovation, and a more engaging
workplace. It should feature sequenced milestones, with real thought about how to set up
and drive priority initiatives, keeping in mind that traditional hierarchies may not be the best
drivers of change. It’s important to be prepared for a long-term, continuous process, however.
Cultures can be stubborn things, and they may improve in incremental and nonlinear ways.
Consistency matters, and certain business units or geographies may need deeper changes
than others.
Transformation is never easy—but it is possible. Many companies have taken on the challenge
of reshaping their organizational cultures and have ultimately made themselves more resilient
and consistent over time (see Box 4, “Organizational transformation in action”).
Meaningful organizational change is not about

one-and-done pronouncements. It requires
energy and commitment over the long term.
33
Scott Keller and Bill Schaninger, Beyond Performance 2.0: A proven approach to leading large-scale change,
John Wiley, 2019.
Box 4
Organizational transformation in action

Our data set contains examples of companies these companies showed continued and significant
that invested in strengthening their organizational growth in economic profitability and ROIC over the last 12
fabric and went on to improve their resilience and to 15 years after implementing these cultural shifts.
consistency—and, in some cases, achieve better overall
New practices and cultural changes need to be continually
financial performance.
reinforced over time. If leaders approach a transformation
A large consumer goods company, for example, cleared as a series of one-off interventions rather than new
away barriers to innovation by setting up formal, habits that have to be sustained, they can flounder. One
recurring, and adaptable processes. It moved away from vehicle manufacturer rolled out a clear and specific
departments working in silos to cross-functional teams, vision, consulting employees at every level. This laid the
speeding the best ideas through to prototyping and groundwork for an engaged and empowered workforce—
launch. An unusually high rate of internal promotions and it did yield results for several years. But as the initial
and transfers gives employees the mobility they need to commitment faded, the company’s financial performance
grow and advance. Similarly, a multinational electronics fell off over the last few years of the prepandemic decade.
maker set out to make its slow-moving leadership style
Companies that stay the course over the long term
more entrepreneurial. Leaders were given both live and
and take a continuous improvement approach to their
simulated projects with the specific goal of designing new
organizational practices performed consistently over
approaches and enabling collaboration and innovation
longer periods of time—in some cases, more than two
within teams. The company also emphasizes ongoing
decades. One large pharmaceutical firm that viewed
training so that employees are always learning. Both of
cultural change as an ongoing journey set up formal
these companies became more consistent after these
processes to frame issues candidly, enlisted employees
efforts, remaining in the top two quintiles of economic
to help create the company’s vision and culture, and
profitability and ROIC in the consumer sector over the
challenged its leaders to model change rather than
latter years of the 2010s (after not being in the top two
mandating it. The firm also offers almost three times more
quintiles in many of the previous seven to eight years).
training hours than the average company. Similarly, a
They also withstood the COVID-19 pandemic better than
multinational technology giant discarded a ranking system
the global financial crisis, with higher revenue growth and
for employee rewards. It began to encourage greater
increases in ROIC rather than drops.
experimentation and create a work environment built on
A few companies in our sample saw significant empathy while ensuring that employees have access to
increases in economic profitability and ROIC after internal mobility opportunities.
their organizational transformations. A computer
In all of these cases, it is impossible draw a straight
hardware manufacturer established a “fail fast” culture,
causal line from new organizational practices to financial
empowering employees to challenge the status quo and
performance. Many external market and macroeconomic
be more creative. Similarly, a multinational automotive
forces were also in play during the periods we examined.
manufacturer began to encourage constructive criticism
But the correlations are intriguing—and increasingly
and challenge employees to solve problems with fresh
so as employers place greater value on attracting and
ideas rather than compromises by committee. Both of
retaining talent.
It may be tempting to throw multiple initiatives against the wall to see what sticks, but there
is value in taking a more disciplined approach to organizational capital. Companies can give
it the same rigorous, sustained attention as other balance sheet assets by measuring and
monitoring hard financial, operational, and experience-based metrics (Exhibit 10). On the
financial side, they can measure organizational overhead, spending efficacy, and gender pay
gaps, for example. Training spend per employee can serve as a proxy for investment in human
capital. Operationally, companies can monitor voluntary and involuntary attrition, diversity,
rates of internal promotion, and PTO utilization rates. Training programs can be measured
by looking at completion rates and post-course assessments. Additionally, periodically
surveying employees can help management take the pulse of the workforce and monitor
organizational health; predictive analytics can link indicators to potential future impact.
Exhibit 10
Companies can use financial, operational, and experience-based metrics to assess their
organizational capital.
Illustrative Publicly declared Partly available/can be Not publicly declared
estimated from public sources
R&D expenditure
Revenue per employee
Training spend per employee, by program (eg, functional training, leadership training)
Financial
metrics Gender pay gap by level and business unit
Financial rewards as percentage of salary
Investment efficacy: compensation per employee, revenue growth per $ increase in capital
investment (spending on organizational systems and processes1 and compensation)
Human capital value added ((revenue – expenses + pay and benefits)/full-time employees)
Human capital ROI ((revenue – expenses + pay and benefits)/pay and benefits)
Organizational capital: capitalized value of expenditure on organizational systems and processes1
Internal mobility rate (internal moves as % of total employees or total moves), share of internal
promotions, share of lateral moves in total internal moves, share of positions filled internally
Voluntary and involuntary turnover rate
Operational Share of diverse employees, retention and promotion rates of diverse employees, share of employees
metrics involved in affinity groups
Number of patents (or patent applications)/year
Training hours and spend per employee
Learning engagement (course enrollment and completion rates, assessment scores)
Employee satisfaction with:

— culture
Experience- — work-life balance
based metrics — compensation and benefits
— job security and advancement
— diversity levels and inclusion policies
— CEO and management approval
Training experience satisfaction
Innovation quotient/culture
1Aproxy of selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenditure, excluding compensation, sales and marketing expense, and R&D expense,
where included, could be used.
Source: Jac Fitz-enz, The ROI of human capital, 2009; CIPD, Human capital metrics and analytics, 2017; McKinsey Global Institute analysis
Great organizations shape the lives of the people who work for them and lead the market
by example. P+P Winners design their organizational systems in a manner that not only
enhances productivity in the present but also establishes fundamental elements that enable
future success. Companies may be inclined to stick with the way they have always done
things, believing that consistency is key to riding the tide. However, the world is changing,
employee expectations are shifting, and companies need to adapt. As the adage goes,
“Culture isn’t just one aspect of the game. It is the game.”
Acknowledgments
Part of the McKinsey Global Institute’s ongoing exploration of human potential, this report
builds on our June 2022 publication Human capital at work: The value of experience. It is a
collaborative effort by MGI and McKinsey’s People & Organizational Performance Practice.
The research was led by Anu Madgavkar, an MGI partner in New Jersey; Bill Schaninger, a
McKinsey senior partner in Philadelphia; Dana Maor, a McKinsey senior partner in Tel Aviv;
Olivia White, an MGI director in San Francisco; Sven Smit, MGI’s chair, based in Amsterdam;
Hamid Samandari, a McKinsey senior partner in New York; Jonathan Woetzel, an MGI
director based in Shanghai; and Davis Carlin, a McKinsey partner in New York. Kanmani
Chockalingam, an MGI fellow in Bengaluru, led the working team, which comprised Gabriela
Campos, Nina Chen, Ana Carolina Leonardi, and Tiyasha Mitra.
We are grateful to the academic advisers who challenged our thinking and added new
insights: Christopher Pissarides, Nobel laureate and Regius Professor of Economics at the
London School of Economics and Political Science; and Matthew Slaughter, Paul Danos Dean
and Earl C. Daum 1924 Professor of International Business at the Tuck School of Business,
Dartmouth College. We also thank Nicholas Bloom, William D. Eberle Professor of Economics
at Stanford University; Suresh Radhakrishnan, Constantine Konstans Distinguished
Professor of Accounting and Corporate Governance at the University of Texas at Dallas; and
Ori Heffetz, Associate Professor of Economics at Cornell University, S.C. Johnson Graduate
School of Management, for kindly sharing their insights.
This project benefited immensely from the expertise and perspectives of many McKinsey
colleagues. Thanks go to Lee Baz-Sanchez, Donatela Bellone, Alex Camp, Gemma D’Auria,
Drew Goldstein, Bryan Hancock, Ruth Imose, Jan Mischke, Bazzie Owe, Thomas Poloniato,
Pawel Poplawski, Angelika Reich, Jeongmin Seong, Krzysztof Siuda, and Soyoko Umeno.
This report was edited and produced by MGI executive editor Lisa Renaud, together with
senior data visualization editor Chuck Burke, editorial operations manager Vasudha Gupta,
and senior graphic designer Anand Sundar Raman. We also thank our colleagues Gitanjali
Bakshi, David Batcheck, Tim Beacom, Nienke Beuwer, Amanda Covington, Nura Funda,
Ashley Grant, Cathy Gui, Christen Hammersley, Jacquie Hudson, Karen P. Jones, and Rebeca
Robboy for their support.
This research contributes to our mission to help business and policy leaders understand
the forces transforming the global economy. As with all MGI research, it is independent
and has not been commissioned or sponsored in any way by any business, government, or
other institution.
McKinsey Global Institute
February 2023
Copyright © McKinsey & Company
Designed by the McKinsey Global Institute
www.mckinsey.com/mgi
@McKinsey_MGI
@McKinseyGlobalInstitute
@McKinseyGlobalInstitute

Performance Through People 1688810297

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Performance Through People 1688810297

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Performance Through People 1688810297

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People & Organizational Performance Practice

MGI Directors MGI Partners

About McKinsey’s People &

1. The companies that make people development pay off 2

2. How organizational capital activates human capital 14

3. A blueprint for leaders: How to transform organizational capital 24

Performance through people: Transforming

P+P Winners excel across a range of business outcomes

28% 28% 4.2× 8% 7.9% $1.1B

Greater likelihood High attrition Economic loss

Other firms can transform to emulate the “P+P Way”

Data sources and methodology

— Performance-Driven Companies. Twenty-one percent of all companies post financial

— People-Focused Companies. Fifteen percent of all companies emphasize human capital

P+P Winners manage to create

Others Typical Performers People-Focused Companies

Others Top performers

Human capital development inputs, by sector2

Companies that emphasize human capital development are more consistent

Performance-Driven Companies People + Performance Winners

Return on Peak Return on Peak

Typical Performers People-Focused Companies

invested capital invested capital

profit/revenue COVID-19 profit/revenue COVID-19 IEN

Return on Peak Return on Peak

P+P Winners generate greater payoffs for employees,

P+P Winners deliver a better

Employees of People + Performance Winners are more likely to

P+P Performance-Driven People-Focused Typical

Total attrition Voluntary attrition Involuntary attrition

While an enormous payroll is a clear advantage, it is notoriously difficult to simply buy a

Many components go into organizational capital. It encompasses everything from training

These systems constitute the interpersonal fabric of a company, determining whether it is

Early childhood Education

Organizational capital can be measured through widely varying approaches. By our

Measuring organizational capital

By contrast, Performance-Driven Companies, which roughly match the financial returns of

. . . human capital (compensation) . . . physical capital . . . other intangible capital

3.4 1.9 8.0

In addition to business processes, institutional knowledge is an important element of

Developing and executing a distinctive

P+P Winners possess a distinctive organizational signature.

Clear top-down vision

Defined performance goals and focus on efficiency

Performance-Driven People + Performance

Empowering and challenging leadership style

Company-wide innovation and collaboration

No clear patterns “Caring, Transparent performance expectations and incentives

Effective on-the-job coaching and training

P+P Winners focus on inclusivity.

Average of Typical Performers and Performance-Driven Companies

1.1x 1.8x 1.9x

People-Focused 94 361 311

Typical Performers 921 291 191

People-Focused Companies emphasize many of the same “feel-good” practices as P+P

Corporate leaders need a deeper focus on the nuances of organizational capital.

Companies can implement more

Blueprint: How can you transform your organizational capital?

How to track progress?

Source: McKinsey Global Institute analysis

Employee satisfaction with: