evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Leadership 4 Growth — Enterprise Ireland's CEO Scale-Up Programme

Ireland · Dublin · See the Ireland profile · See the Dublin profile

Evidence: Quasi-experimental Top 42% 71/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Enterprise Ireland's CEO programme paired 141 scale-up leaders with Stanford, Duke and IMD faculty. A matched control-group evaluation found cohorts out-grew peers on exports and sales-per-employee, but several cohorts also cut jobs faster than the control group.

141
CEOs evaluated across first five cohorts (2006–2010)
8–25 percentage points
Turnover growth advantage vs control (software cohorts)
79–160 percentage points
Export growth advantage vs control (construction cohorts)
77 %
CEOs reporting positive business impact

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
Enterprise Ireland, with Stanford Graduate School of Business, Duke University and IMD Business School
Period
2006–2010 (evaluated cohorts; programme continues)
Region (NUTS)
IE06
Keywords
SME support, leadership development, export promotion, scale-up finance

Context

Leadership 4 Growth is a leadership-development programme for CEOs of high-potential, internationally trading Irish companies, run by the state agency Enterprise Ireland; it launched in 2006 with the Irish Software Association and Stanford Graduate School of Business, with a construction-sector edition added in 2008 and 2010 with Duke University in response to the domestic downturn.

Objectives

The programme combines classroom modules on strategy and leadership, one-to-one executive coaching and a peer network of fellow CEOs, aiming to accelerate growth, exports and productivity among participating firms.

Activities

An ex-post evaluation for the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation covered the first five cohorts (2006–2010, 141 CEOs from 135 firms), building matched control groups from Enterprise Ireland's wider client portfolio and comparing five-year compound annual growth rates using Forfás administrative business data, supplemented by a CEO survey.

Results

L4G software-sector cohorts grew turnover 8 to 25 percentage points faster than their matched control group, and every cohort increased sales-per-employee 3 to 30 percentage points more than controls; exports outperformed controls by 3–29 points for software cohorts and 79–160 points for the two construction cohorts, which pivoted overseas as the domestic market collapsed. Employment fell relative to the control group in three of the five cohorts, by 6, 20 and 5 percentage points, and 77% of surveyed CEOs said the programme had a positive impact on their business.

Conclusions

The evaluators present this as one of few leadership programmes assessed against a genuine matched control group using tax/administrative data, showing measurable export and productivity gains alongside an honest counterpoint that some gains coincided with relative headcount reductions.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Medium (€50k–€500k)
Time to results
Long (> 3 years)
Staffing & skills
Enterprise Ireland (state agency, programme owner), Stanford Graduate School of Business and Irish Software Association (original software-sector edition), Duke University (construction-sector edition), IMD Business School and Irish Management Institute (current edition)

Conditions for success

  • Combining classroom strategy/leadership modules with 1:1 executive coaching and a peer CEO network
  • Targeting high-potential, internationally trading firms specifically
  • Adding sector-specific editions (construction) in response to a domestic downturn, encouraging export pivots

Common failure modes

  • Employment fell relative to the control group in three of five cohorts, suggesting some productivity gains came from headcount reductions rather than pure expansion

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Replication kit

Reusable artefacts from this practice — as published by their sources.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Similar practices you may find useful