OK, for this first question, give yourself some marks if you asked any or all of the following to be able to answer this question:

• How big are the organizations (from various perspectives, including employee quantity)? 
• How long have they been in business? [Note: The GC Index focuses on current and future impact rather than past performance]
• How can we compare organizations that appear to be in separate sectors? [Note: If we weren't talking about CEOs and their Exec Boards, this might not necessarily have been the case]
• Doesn't it depend on what the definition of "success" is and, more importantly, what that definition is for each of the organizations? [Yes, yes it does]
• What challenge were they trying to overcome? [I.e. Why was The GC Index engaged?]
• Can you give us more context?

Well, we shall answer the original question easily and simply: they are both very successful.

As to the other questions, the key one is "Can you give us more context?". Understanding the context is crucial when evaluating an individual, a team, or applying The GC Index to organizations. It allows us to provide validation, explanation, and insights that align with the specific context.

OK, let's address the second question and provide further context in the following sections.

Background:

• The GC Index was engaged by a Private Equity (PE) firm during the due diligence phase as they considered investing in this business.
• The company operates as a SaaS application business in the legal space. [Hence the strong inclination towards Polisher energy due to the nature of the industry.]
• The business has one highly successful product and has been experiencing growth.
• The application is a disruptor. [Hence the high Game Changer energy.]
• The company is of a reasonable size and has been operating for over five years.

Findings:

• The Board – Polisher-Game Changer: The Board demonstrates a strong focus on new ideas, innovation, and continuous improvement. They strive to be the best in their field.
• Low Strategist-Implementer energies: Was the Board faces challenges in evaluating and transforming ideas into coherent strategies and delivering on them effectively? Some of the need for strong Polishing energy may stem from this difficulty in implementation (i.e the need for more rework).
• The CEO appears to have a tendency to recruit a Board of individuals which resembles himself.

Outcomes:

The PE firm was provided with pertinent questions to ask the CEO and Board:

• What is their 5-year strategy?
• Do they plan to introduce new products to the market?
• How do they plan to execute their strategy? Do they have a partner strategy in place?

The PE firm decided to invest in the business. To complement the Board, a Strategist-Implementer with strong operational expertise was added as an Operational CEO.

Note: It is common for growing companies to outgrow their CEOs and bring in new members to the Board.

Even without the provided context, valuable insights can still be derived. Did you arrive at any of the following observations yourself?

• Polisher – Considering the nature of product is legal, it comes as no surprise that the quality of the product and the drive for quality are of utmost importance. The CEO personally brings this natural energy to the Board.
• Game Changer – The CEO displays an aptitude for identifying opportunities, which likely led to the inception of this legal product and the establishment of the organization around it. The CEO also possesses a high energy for generating new ideas to maintain a competitive edge.
• Strategist & Implementer – The lower scores for the CEO and Board in this area could indicate that the legal product has already been designed, built, and delivered. However, it is not crucial as long as there are capable teams under their guidance to transform Board ideas into actionable plans and execution.
• Play Maker – There is some energy for coordinating and orchestrating others within the Executive Board, and maybe among the teams under them. However, without someone with a natural inclination for this role, there is a risk of the Board becoming detached from or overly authoritative towards their teams. This may be a deliberate choice, depending on the organization's size.

Note: There is a potential risk of recruitment bias, as the overall profile of the Board closely aligns with that of the CEO.

Background:

• The company is a leading-edge manufacturing business that is projected to maintain its position for another three years with the status quo. 
• A new CEO joined the company and made it a focal point to address the situation. This prompted a significant debate within the organization. 
• The new CEO engaged The GC Index to gain an understanding of the team of nine individuals that they would be inheriting.

Findings:

• With the exception of the Finance and Operations directors, the team exhibited siloed behavior, lacking effective collaboration.
• The team struggled to generate new ideas.

Outcomes:

Given the composition of the team, the following crucial questions would need to be addressed by the CEO and Board: 

• Are there any ongoing market developments? 
• Is there potential competition that could disrupt the company's business line? 

Based on the answers to those questions, potential additional questions arise: 

• Do we need to bring new individuals into the team? 
• How can we engage in game-changing activities?

Even without the provided context, valuable insights can still be derived. Did you arrive at any of the following observations yourself?

• Implementer – It is not surprising that in a manufacturing company, emphasis is placed on efficient production. The team's natural energies are aligned with this objective.
• Polisher – Similarly to the Implementer, maintaining and enhancing product quality is essential to avoid waste and rejections. There is a natural inclination to sustain existing quality while striving for further improvements.
• Strategist – There is a reasonable level of energy in this area, likely focused on evaluating and selecting improvement ideas put forth by the Polishers. Determining the most effective implementation methods is crucial.
• Game Changer & Play Maker – The low scores for these energies within the Board indicate that the company may have become stagnant with its existing products. There is a risk of potential disruptors in the market or losing market share. The new CEO's role is to identify innovative ideas for new or unconventional products and reinvigorate the Board, fostering coordination, motivation, and optimal performance.

Note: This CEO has been specifically chosen to address these gaps and drive transformative change within the organization.

• Q1 – Strategists and Game Changers are key to identify and explore opportunities.
• Q2 – Once agreed, the wider deliver team needs to start to be mobilised (hence the Implementer) and all stakeholders be taken on the same journey (hence Play Maker and continued Strategist). Game Changing capabilities are no longer required.
• Q3 – During the delivery (execution) of the plan, the Implementer is delivering, the Polisher checks the output, the Play Maker is coordinating the team and stakeholders, while the Strategist keeps a watching brief for any in-flight changes or modifications required.
• Q4 – Once delivered, there is a Lessons Learned phase (large Polisher and Play Maker involvement, with medium Strategist to structure it all), and the new processes are embedded.

This provides a good example of why every type of change does not follow the same profile as in the Cost Reduction Programme above. Here, the differences are:

• Q1 – As compliance and risk are already quite structured, there isn’t so much a need for Game Changer ideas. However, there is more need up-front to manage the stakeholders (Play Maker) and much more from Polishers to do what they do best: scrutinize and find improvement opportunities (aided and abetted with the Strategists).
• Q2 – The Play Maker is already in BAU (Business-As-Usual) mode with all existing stakeholders, but there is much more need for the Polisher requirement to continue, backed up by the Strategist while the Implementer implements.
• Q3 – Very similar to the Cost Reduction Programme above but with the continued high engagement from the Polisher.
• Q4 – Very similar to the Cost Reduction Programme above but they are still delivering improvements (continued high Implementer) while also looking in parallel for the next set of capability/maturity changes (hence more Game Changer and continued high Polisher and Strategist).

Again, this is similar to the Cost Reduction Programme but with the following nuanced differences:

• Q1 – The Polishers will have some key ideas of where the existing Customer Portal could be improved, which would be combined with those from the Game Changer and all evaluated for viability etc. by the Strategists.
• Q2 – More Implementer required here because, rather than just planning etc. in the Cost Reduction Programme, prototyping and workshops for the MVP (Minimum Viable Product).
• Q3 – Due to the previous workshops for the MVP and the stakeholders have already been taken on the journey and will know the expected outcomes, the Play Maker is not required as much (there will be far fewer surprises).
• Q4 – Once the MVP is delivered, is it meeting the desired outcome, or do they need to pivot or rethink it all? Hence why all proclivities are required, even the Game Changer to introduce any new potential options; however, it will be the Polisher and Strategist that do most of the crunching.