《麦肯锡：2025独树一帜的力量：杰出企业赋能国家生产力提升研究报告（英文版）（94页）.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《麦肯锡：2025独树一帜的力量：杰出企业赋能国家生产力提升研究报告（英文版）（94页）.pdf（94页珍藏版）》请在三个皮匠报告上搜索。

1、Authors Jan MischkeChris BradleyOlivia WhiteGuillaume DagorretSven SmitDymfke KuijpersCharles AtkinsIshaa SandhuEditorJanet BushData visualizationJuan M.VelascoMay 2025The power of one:How standout firms grow national productivityCopyright 2025 McKinsey&Company.All rights reserved.Cover image:LuisPo

2、rtugal/Getty ImagesConfidential and proprietary.Any use of this material without specific permission of McKinsey&Company is strictly prohibited.iThe power of one:How standout firms drive national productivityMcKinsey Global InstituteThe McKinsey Global Institute was established in 1990.Our mission i

3、s to provide a fact base to aid decision making on the economic and business issues most critical to the worlds companies and policy leaders.We benefit from the full range of McKinseys regional,sectoral,and functional knowledge,skills,and expertise,but editorial direction and decisions are solely th

4、e responsibility of MGI directors and partners.Our research is currently grouped into five major themes:Productivity and prosperity:Creating and harnessing the worlds assets most productively Resources of the world:Building,powering,and feeding the world sustainably Human potential:Maximizing and ac

5、hieving the potential of human talent Global connections:Exploring how flows of goods,services,people,capital,and ideas shape economies Technologies and markets of the future:Discussing the next big arenas of value and competitionWe aim for independent and fact-based research.None of our work is com

6、missioned or funded 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 MG

7、Is alone,and any errors are our own.You can find out more about MGI and our research at Directors Sven Smit(chair)Chris BradleyKweilin EllingrudSylvain JohanssonNick LeungOlivia WhiteLareina YeeMGI Partners Mekala KrishnanAnu MadgavkarJan MischkeJeongmin SeongiiThe power of one:How standout firms dr

8、ive national productivityContentsAt a glance 2Executive summary 4Chapter one.An 8,300-firm lens on productivity growth 20Chapter two.Advancing productivity one firm at a time 29Chapter three.Standouts trigger productivity bursts through bold strategy 45Chapter four.The power of leading firms and dyn

9、amic reallocation 60Chapter five.A new productivity growth playbook 71Acknowledgments 81Endnotes 82 When firms become more productive,so do economies.Increasing the value each worker creates also promotes rising wages for workers and profits for firms.These facts are well known to economists.Our oth

10、er findings are not.A small number of firms contribute the lions share of productivity growth.Fewer than 100 productivity“Standouts”account for two-thirds of growth in our sample of 8,300 large firms in Germany,the United Kingdom,and the United States.Many others also play a role:the majority of fir

11、ms contribute positively.Productivity grows in powerful bursts as firms find new ways to create and scale new value.Think Apple expanding into services,easyJet shaping the discount airline trend,and Zalando pioneering apparel e-commerce.This is not the efficiency transformation nor the gradual diffu

12、sion described by conventional wisdom.In the United States,the most productive firms expanded and unproductive firms restructured or exited.This contributed half of US sample productivity growth while sticky underperformers dragged down growth in Germany and the United Kingdom.This fresh view of pro

13、ductivity growth calls for a new playbook.It suggests focus on the power of the few more than the broad swath,on value creation more than efficiency,and on reallocation of resources to leading businesses.A few“Standout”frms shape the majority of productivity growth.Share of national samples producti

14、vity growth,%FirmsEmploymentPositive productivity growthStandouts2%of frms63%of national positive productivity growthNegativecontributors share,%Positive contributors share,%45405560100025Note:Simple average fgures of the 3 countries studied(US,Germany and the UK).Source:2025 Moodys Investors Servic

15、e,Inc.and/or its afliates and licensors;EU KLEMS;US Bureau of Labor Statistics;Capital IQ;McKinsey Global Institute analysis 533537632McKinsey&Company2The power of one:How standout firms drive national productivityAt a glanceThe world needs robust productivity growth more than ever to address pressi

16、ng global issues:inflated balance sheets,financing the transition to net zero,bridging empowerment gaps,and funding a demographic transition with more retirees and fewer workers.1 And a fundamental unit of productivity growth is firms.If firms do not increase their productivity,economies dont,either

17、.Firms themselves benefit from productivity growth,or growth in value added per worker.In view of long-term demographic shifts and the tight labor markets of today,labor productivity is a strategic imperative.2 And productivity growth is the only way for businesses to serve all their stakeholders,de

18、livering rising wages for their workers,increased customer surplus,and profit.Customers and employees are typically the biggest and most immediate beneficiaries of productivity growth.Productivity growth is a win-win for all.This research finds that a relatively small number of firms making bold str

19、ategic moves generated the majority of productivity growth in the period we studied,in powerful bursts rather than in a smooth trickle of gradual change,and through strategic moves,top-line growth,and portfolio shifts more than efficiency gains.This was a more concentrated,dynamic,and sporadic patte

20、rn than existing literature tends to highlight,with progress on productivity being defined by a few firms moving a mile rather than many firms moving an inch.Single firms can move the productivity needle for entire economiesthe“power of one.”This latest offering in decades of McKinsey Global Institu

21、te(MGI)research on productivity carves out new ground from typical treatments of the topic.Those have focused on broad economic factors,such as labor-market dynamics,technological advances,capital investments,and fiscal and monetary policy,rather than firm-level features.Or they have focused on prod

22、uctivity dispersion and diffusion patterns across millions of often-anonymous firms.This research zooms in on those firms that are most relevant for driving growth and enriches quantitative analysis with sector-and firm-specific case studies in line with MGIs tradition of analyzing the“micro-to-macr

23、o”roots of productivity.In the 1990s,for instance,MGI coined the term“the Walmart effect”to show the disproportionate impact of the US retailers growth not only on its own sector but on the entire US economy.3 This work also builds on MGIs long-standing tradition of understanding how companies and t

24、heir contributions advance global economic and social progress.4 We apply the economic definition of labor productivity as real gross value added(GVA)per worker,which is very different from profitability or efficiency and includes the impact of employees moving across firms.Our methodology comes wit

25、h strengths and weaknesses(see sidebar“A new firm-by-firm lens on productivity growth”).First,we look at 8,300 large firms covering two-thirds of GVA in four sectorsretail,automotive and aerospace,travel and logistics,and computers and electronicsin three countries:Germany,the United Kingdom,and the

26、 United States.5 These are not complete samples of each countrys economy and also include multinationals.Second,we look at 201119,a period that may miss more recent market trends but that helps us identify productivity patterns that may hold over time.We have,if you like,constructed a“lab economy”fo

27、r this research in a bid to discern what drives productivity and economic growth.Our findings prove robust under a gamut of tests.4The power of one:How standout firms drive national productivityExecutive summarySIDEBARA new firm-by-firm lens on productivity growthIt is important to appreciate the de

28、cisions made regarding scope and approach for this report when viewing the results.They include the following:Analyzing productivity as firm-level real GVA per worker rather than profitability or efficiency.In line with economic convention,this research divides GVA by the number of employees to comp

29、ute productivity and adjusts for changes in input and output quality and prices at the sector level.GVA is revenue minus external cost,or labor compensation plus earnings before interest,taxes,depreciation,and amortization(EBITDA).1 We apply so-called double-sided deflators to adjust for changes in

30、output and input prices at the sector level to compute real value added.2 This definition of productivity is different from the one commonly used by business executives as shorthand for efficiency or profitability.In fact,growing real value per employee 1 For firm-level value added,we use the Orbis

31、database from 2025 Moodys Investors Service,Inc.and/or its affiliates and licensors,making adjustments where necessary.For US firms whose disclosure requirements are lower,we estimate employee costs by taking sector-level average wages.We make manual adjustments using firm financial statements for t

32、he most relevant firms.Gross value added(GVA)is adjusted to constant 2019 values in local currency with EU KLEMS two-sided deflators that adjust for changes in input and output prices at the country and sector levels but not at the firm level.2 GVA is adjusted to constant 2019 values in local curren

33、cy with EU KLEMS two-sided deflators that adjust for changes in input and output prices at the country and sector levels but not at the firm level.Double-sided deflators account for both quality-adjusted price changes that firms in a particular subsector make vis-vis their customers and those they e

34、xperience from their suppliers.3 For more on productivity growth through reallocation,see,for instance,Rasmus Lentz and Dale T.Mortensen,“Productivity growth and worker reallocation,”International Economic Review,volume 46,number 3,2005.Also see J.David Brown and John S.Earle,Understanding the contr

35、ibutions of reallocation to productivity growth:Lessons from a comparative firm-level analysis,IZA Institute of Labor Economics discussion paper number 3683,September 2008;and Lucia Foster,Cheryl Grim,and John Haltiwanger,“Reallocation in the Great Recession:Cleansing or not?”Journal of Labor Econom

36、ics,volume 34,number S1,part 2,January 2016.4 National statistics authorities define MSMEs as firms with fewer than 500 employees in the United States and fewer than 250 employees in Germany and the UnitedKingdom.5 In 2011,there were challenges to certain subsectors,but our tests show that inclusion

37、 of this time frame does not skew our core findings.However,the aggregate productivity growth rate during this period was lower than in other significant historical eras,suggesting further research on periods of rapid growth could yield additional insights on productivity drivers.Potential limitatio

38、ns introduced by this period include insufficient time for transformative technological change and for entering firms to achieve mature productivity levels;the significant growth of Big Tech firms in these years;a starting year that posed challenges to certain subsectors;and the fact that the period

39、 chosen began shortly after the global financial crisis.Firms that performed well on productivity during this period may have experienced different outcomes later,and vice versa.more often comes from improving customer value than from efficiency,and it can also reflect changes in business portfolio,

40、value chains,or capital intensity.Moreover,since total wages are often twice as large as profits,they weigh more heavily in this formulation,too.Including employment reallocation to more productive firms.This research includes employment weighting of productivity advances from individual firms as we

41、ll as employment reallocation effects as the most productive firms gain employment share while less productive ones shrink or exit.3 Looking at four sectors in three countries.We look at large firms in Germany,the United Kingdom,and the United States operating in four sectorsretail,automotive and ae

42、rospace,travel and logistics,and computers and electronicsand,within them,12subsectors.Looking through a window of 8,300 large firms into the economy.We look at a sample of about 8,300 large firms(all with more than 50 employees,and most with more than 500)that cover the two-thirds of value added ge

43、nerated by large firms in our focus sectors.We do not include micro-,small,and medium-size enterprises(MSMEs)or startups,which account for less than 30 percent of the productivity growth in the four sectors in the three countries in our scope.4 We include the international operations of these firms

44、with the aim of providing an accurate analysis of this lab economy rather than twisting ourselves into knots reconciling data with national statistics.Nonetheless,productivity growth in our sample is reasonably in sync with those.Looking at 201119 to find patterns that may hold over time.This is a r

45、easonably stable periodalbeit one with low productivity growthbetween the global financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic.The patterns observed in this period may hold outside of it,although the cast of characters will change.However,given limited data availability and quality,we do not focus in a

46、ny detailed way on understanding firms outside this period.5 5The power of one:How standout firms drive national productivityA few firms shape the lions share of an economys productivity growth The prevailing view is that productivity growth emerges gradually through the incremental improvements of

47、many firms,trickling down as best practices diffuse from leaders to the rest.6 In our lab economy,a very limited number of firms drove the lions share of productivity growth in powerful bursts.Approaching this topic from a distinct analytical angle led us to develop a specific terminology for certai

48、n firms in our sample.To help readers navigate what follows,we begin with a brief overview of these definitions(see sidebar“Glossary of firm descriptions”).Productivity advances one firm at a timeFewer than 100 firms in our sample of 8,300a group that we have dubbed Standoutsaccounted for about two-

49、thirds of the positive productivity gains in each of the three country samples we analyzed.Standouts are defined as firms that added at least one basis point to their national samples productivity growth.To give a sense of how important a single firm can be,just another dozen or so of the largest St

50、andouts could have doubled productivity growth in their entire country.The number of firms that were responsible for the largest drags(negative contributions of at least one basis point)on productivity growthwe call them Stragglerswas even smaller.Only 55Stragglers accounted for 50 to 65 percent of

51、the firm-level productivity drag in the three country samples(Exhibit 1).In our lab economy,a very limited number of firms drove the lions share of productivity growth in powerful bursts.6The power of one:How standout firms drive national productivityBOX 2Glossary of firm descriptions Standouts.Prod

52、uctivity Standouts are firms that added at least one basis point to their national samples productivity growth in 201119.Standouts fall into fourcategories,depending on how they have impact:Improvers.Large firmsin the top 10percent by the number of employeeasthat contributed mostly by increasing the

53、ir productivity levels.Disruptors.Smaller firms,typically with less than 1 percent of the employment share in their sector,that contributed mainly by increasing productivity rapidly.Scalers.Firms contributing mostly by increasing employment share throughout the period from a position of above-averag

54、e productivity,often in the top quintile of employment-weighted productivity levels.Restructurers.Firms contributing by lowering their employee share throughout the period(or exiting)while having below-average productivity.Stragglers.Productivity Stragglers are firms that made negative contributions

55、 of at least one basis point to the productivity growth of their respective national samples in 201119.Frontier firms.The most productive companies in each sector,specifically those in the top 20 percent(top quintile)by productivity,weighted by employment,in both 2011 and 2019.Note that a Standout f

56、irm is not necessarily a frontier firm.In fact,two-thirds of Standouts in our sample were not in this top quintile.In the United States,for instance,44 Standouts5 percent of sample firms,accounting for 23 percent of employment sharegenerated 78 percent of positive productivity growth.And 14 Straggle

57、rs2 percent of sample firms,accounting for 10 percent of employmentwere responsible for 57 percent of negative growth(Exhibit 2).US Standouts included household names like Apple,Amazon,The Home Depot,and United Airlines.Exhibit 1Exhibit of A handful of frmsthe Standouts and Stragglersaccounted for t

58、wo-thirds of our samples productivity growth and degrowth.Firm count,employment share,and growth contribution,%of total520.40.50.70.6520.40.50.70.6Note:Figures may not sum to 100%,because of rounding.From a sample of 8,300 frms(900 US frms,3,000 German frms,and 4,400 UK frms).Source:2025 Moodys Inve

59、stors Service,Inc.and/or its afliates and licensors;EU KLEMS;US Bureau of Labor Statistics;Capital IQ;McKinsey Global Institute analysis McKinsey&CompanyPositive contributors share,%Negative contributors share,%StandoutsRest of positiveStragglersRest of negativeEmploymentContribution to positive gro

60、wthNumber of frmsNumber of frmsEmploymentContribution to negative growthUnited KingdomUnited States100=60681004032100100=56521004448100100=49601005140100Germany2378105755452238234320653466553235441434314512484829555028527The power of one:How standout firms drive national productivityStandouts shape

61、sector dynamics,and vice versa The same patterns appear when we look at subsectors.The ratio of Standouts(and their contribution)to Stragglers(and their drag)was the clearest factor in driving fast productivity growth.In almost all subsectors experiencing rapid productivity growth(defined as 2 perce

62、nt per year or more),Standouts drove the bulk of that growth,and there was less drag from Stragglers(Exhibit 3).The relationship between Standouts and sector growth is,of course,a symbiotic one.Standouts drive the growth of sectors,but some sectors also have the market dynamics,technology,regulation

63、,and competitive setting that provide fertile ground for Standouts.There were more Standouts in sectors where firms could create new customer value and scale new business models than in sectors that were mostly about efficiency.For instance,the US computer and electronics sector came with many scale

64、rs and disruptors.Often when demand is faltering,other sectors are relative deserts,tending to produce more Stragglers or firms that restructure.78The power of one:How standout firms drive national productivityExhibit 2Peak14 Stragglers:2%of frms157%of negative growth10%of employment share507 rest o

65、f positive:55%of frms22%of positive growth45%of employment share349 rest of negative:38%of frms43%of negative growth23%of employment shareFirm contribution to US sample productivity growth,201119,ppNote:US country sample of 900 frms 201119(productivity growth snapshot not representative of years bef

66、ore and after).1Positive and negative contributors are frms that add+/-basis points to country sample productivity growth.2Sum of frms contributions to country sample productivity growth,in a sector.Source:2025 Moodys Investors Service,Inc.and/or its afliates and licensors;EU KLEMS;US Bureau of Labo

67、r Statistics;Capital IQ;McKinsey Global Institute analysis In the United States,44 frms(5 percent)accounted for nearly 80 percent of the samples positive productivity growth.McKinsey&Company02040Employment share in 2011,%60801002.50.501.01.53.02.0Country sample productivity growth2 +2.1 pp Firms pos

68、itive contribution to productivity growthFirms negative contribution to productivity growthFirms 2011 employment share44 Standouts:5%of frms178%of positive growth23%of employment share9The power of one:How standout firms drive national productivityExhibit 3Note:UK logistics is an edge case of Stando

69、ut that contributes positively to sector but negatively to subsector,which is possible since Standouts are identifed by sector-based contribution calculations.In this case,the frm gains employment share relative to sector sample but loses share relative to subsector sample,which turns its employment

70、 efect negative.See technical appendix for more detail on cases like this.1Grocers and nonspecialized retailers.Source:2025 Moodys Investors Service,Inc.and/or its afliates and licensors;EU KLEMS;US Bureau of Labor Statistics;McKinsey Global Institute analysis Subsector productivity growth and contr

71、ibution by Standouts and Stragglers,201119High-growth sectors have more Standouts making bigger contributionslow-growth ones have more Stragglers dragging harder.SubsectorLowNegative CountryMcKinsey&CompanyContribution to subsector of:Numberof frmsNumberof frmsStandoutStraggler ratioProductivity gro

72、wth,%HighStandouts,ppStragglers,ppOther trans mfgTravelOther retailAutomotiveAerospaceOther transportation mfgPostalLogisticsAerospacePostalOther transportation mfgLogisticsPostalOther retailAutomotiveApparelLogisticsApparelApparelAutomotiveGrocers and nonspecTravelSemiconductorsElectronic equipment

73、Grocers and nonspecOther retailGrocers and nonspec1Electronic equipmentComputersTravelSemiconductorsComputersAerospaceElectronic equipmentSemiconductorsComputers8.14.03.84.402.61.801.71.51.61.31.11.11.01.51.50.800.60.10.90.40000.20.60.1000.500.200.10.30.300.500.900000.50.20.50.70.5000.60.50.50.70.80

74、.61.0002.31.11.102.72.21.72.34.21101020000211221410234211003520351225.010.0n/a2.0n/a1.5n/an/an/an/a1.02.02.01.04.57.00.51.0n/a0.50.31.01.00.00.0n/an/a0.30.20.0n/a0.30.20.00.50.051014203404422229721011420001110011010USUSUSGermanyGermanyUKUSUKUKUSUSGermanyGermanyGermanyUKUKGermanyGermanyUSGermanyUKUSU

75、KGermanyUSUSUKUSUKUSGermanyUKUKGermanyGermanyUK855433222211111110000000111122222235The thousands of firms that are neither Standouts nor Stragglers also matter collectivelyAbout 10 percent of firms accounted for 90 percent of productivity growth in the period studied.Looking at all firms,about 50 pe

76、rcent increased productivity faster than the sector average.Indeed,20 percent of all firms increased productivity 1.5 times faster than the sector average while also increasing their employment share.The millions of MSMEs outside our sample collectively contributed up to 30 percent of productivity g

77、rowth in the four sectors in the national statistics.8 Indeed,a handful of them may emerge as the Standouts of tomorrow.9Standouts are sufficiently large,and make meaningful enough advances in productivity or scale,to shape national growthStandouts tend to have sufficient size and either rapid produ

78、ctivity gains or sizable increases in employment share from an above-average position,which makes them able to drive economy-wide growth.However,it is notable that,in general,Standouts are neither the most productive firms nor the firms that are growing productivity the fastest.10 In both cases,firm

79、s tend to be smaller and more niche and do not contribute an oversize amount to sector-level growth.These firms are also hard to replicate.In retail,for instance,firms with the top productivity levels are online game distribution platforms and distributors of manufacturers captive brands.11Let us no

80、w look at the four types of Standouts,which we describe here ranked by size of contribution.Improverslarge firms that mainly contribute by advancing their productivity levelsmade the largest contribution to productivity growth.Disruptors,or small firms that grew productivity and share very rapidly,a

81、ctually made the smallest contribution.Scalers,which were already far above the sectors average productivity and grew their share of employment,and therefore drove productivity growth mostly via employment reallocation,made the second-largest contribution.12 Restructurers are less productive firms t

82、hat made a positive contribution by losing market share and employment to more productive firms or exited altogether.Being large helps,but size alone is not sufficient to be a Standout.Large firms did not make an outsize contribution for their employment share.For example,in the United States,the to

83、p 10percent of firms by size that made positive contributions had 54 percent of the employment share but accounted for only 68 percent of positive productivity growth.Meanwhile,US Standouts had a 23 percent share of employment but accounted for 78 percent of positive growth.In fact,large firms are a

84、s likely to be Stragglers as Standouts,which explains this pattern.Including MSMEs would not have changed the disproportionate impact or identity of Standouts in our sample,partly because each individual MSME is too small.In the national statistics for the sectors in our scope,MSMEs collectively acc

85、ounted for less than one-third of productivity growth.In short,in our sample,a handful of Standouts out of a million firms would account for more than half of productivity growth.This is a much more extreme concentration than commonly appreciated.Some Standouts remain Standouts over long periods,but

86、 many change over time.With a limited sample,we find that about two-thirds of Standouts in 201119 remained Standouts in 201923.13 The other one-third fell back,while new firms emerged as Standoutsincluding former Stragglers turning around.14 So,at any point in time,a few firms disproportionately mat

87、ter,but these firms evolve.The story of productivity is highly dynamic.Standouts trigger productivity bursts with top-line growth and business shifts more than efficiency Standouts share few common characteristics.They come from all sectors and all parts of the productivity curve,have vastly differe

88、nt starting points on common business metrics and past performance,and contribute to productivity growth in different ways.What they have in common is“doing things differently”more than“doing things more efficiently.”1510The power of one:How standout firms drive national productivityWe conducted det

89、ailed case studies of all the Standouts in our sample sectors(retail,automotive and aerospace,travel and logistics,and computers and electronics).What emerges from these case studies is that Standouts used a combination of five types of moves,often in combination.Four of these relate to scaling prod

90、uctive businesses or finding new ways to create value.Only one is primarily about efficiency and cost.16 To help illustrate these strategies and how they are used,we offer the following examples:1.Scaling more productive business models or technologies.Examples include Apple shaping the mobile inter

91、net wave,Amazon shaping e-commerce,Zalando successfully scaling e-commerce in apparel,and easyJet helping to set the low-cost carrier trend.2.Shifting regional and product portfolios toward the most productive businesses or adjacencies.Examples include doubling down on product lines that have higher

92、 customer value relative to the hours needed,such as Nissan expanding electric vehicle(EV)offerings in automotive,and other players doing likewise for SUVs;Apple and Broadcom shifting their product portfolios to higher-margin services;General Motors exiting unprofitable geographies;and Amazon ventur

93、ing into cloud computing through Amazon Web Services(AWS).3.Reshaping customer value propositions to grow revenue and value added.This strategy can be effective in both high-end niche segments and mass markets,and it often comes in response to trends or competitive attack.Examples in mass markets in

94、clude US retailer The Home Depot improving customer experience both in-store,with a wider assortment and denser network,and online,integrating buying online and picking up in-store;and UK supermarket chain Tesco responding to pressure from hard discounters in addition to cost reduction,portfolio adj

95、ustments,and price reductions by improving the premium assortment offering and fully leveraging its convenient locations.US airlines including Delta and American Airlines provided distinct value propositions and value-added services to loyalty customers.In niche segments,examples include Nvidia buil

96、ding a winning value proposition for graphics processing units(GPUs)and scaling it up;Zeiss providing cutting-edge tech in extreme ultraviolet(EUV)lithography;and Danaher in high-tech life sciences.4.Building scale and network effects.Examples of firms offering more for less include Amazon scaling i

97、ts fulfillment capabilities to make them available to more shoppers and partner retailers;logistics conglomerate Hapag-Lloyd driving growth through acquisitions and geographic expansion;and US airlines improving route networks and aircraft capacity utilization,including through mergers.5.Transformin

98、g operations to raise labor efficiency and reduce external cost at scale.Examples include Tescos multibillion-pound cost-reduction program(in addition to competing on price and quality with discounters)and easyJets fleet modernization to reduce operating cost(alongside shaping a winning customer val

99、ue proposition).While this is the lever most commonly associated with productivity growthat least among businessesit was very rarely the most important one in our case studies.11The power of one:How standout firms drive national productivityThese moves often trigger chain reactions that lead to burs

100、ts of productivity over specific periods and sectors in a pattern of“action and response”more than through the diffusion of practices.For instance,the entrance of digital players and discounters in the UK retail sector not only directly boosted productivity in that economy but also prompted response

101、s from other firms,one instance being Tesco enhancing its own offering with a stronger online channel and deeper customer relationships through loyalty and personalized offers.Firms in different parts of the productivity curve made bold strategic moves,which help to explain their movements along tha

102、t curve.Take the retail sector as an illustration(Exhibit 4).In US retail,firms such as Amazon,Costco,and The Home Depot were Standouts in the productivity frontier.In German retail,Standouts carried out bold strategic moves and transitioned to the frontier.Examples include Zalando,which scaled up i

103、ts e-commerce business from negative productivity levels and traveled all the way to the frontier,and REWE,which launched and scaled digital offerings even while expanding its brick-and-mortar business.In UK retail,contributions also came from Standouts outside the frontier,one instance being Tesco.

104、Bold strategic moves often trigger chain reactions that lead to bursts of productivity over specific periods and sectors in a pattern of“action and response”more than through the diffusion of practices.12The power of one:How standout firms drive national productivity13The power of one:How standout f

105、irms drive national productivityExhibit 4Productivity,1 real value added per employee,thousand Productivity,1 real value added per employee,thousand StandoutsStragglersStandoutsStragglersStandoutsStragglers201120112011Productivity,1 real value added per employee,thousand$McKinsey&CompanyUnited Kingd

106、omUK retail experienced traditional grocers and retailers contributing from outside the frontier.GermanyGerman retail benefted from a notable increase in productivity levels among traditional grocers and e-commerce leaders.United StatesUS retail was led by a vibrant frontier of e-commerce and tradit

107、ional retailers.Note:Productivity snapshot not representative of years before and after.1Productivity measured as real value added,in local currency,per number of employees.For more detail on calculation methods,see chapter 1 and technical appendix.Source:2025 Moodys Investors Service,Inc.and/or its

108、 afliates and licensors;EU KLEMS;Capital IQ;McKinsey Global Institute analysis Employment share,%Employment share,%Employment share,%US sector sample of 200 frms,201119 German sector sample of 800 frms,201119 UK sector sample of 1,700 frms,201119 200FRONTIERCostcoAmazonThe Home Depot8040206010008040

109、20601000Sectors average productivity per employee3944FRONTIER1001000100100200 CostcoAmazonThe HomeDepotFRONTIER80402060100080402060100FRONTIER1005050150200010015050502000Zalando0-100REWEREWEZalandoSectors average productivity per employee404301001002000TescoTesco3432FRONTIER80402060100804020601000FR

110、ONTIER10010020001001002000TescoTescoSectors average productivity per employee32201920192019Leading firms and the dynamic reallocation of employees toward them matter for growthBeyond the presence of Standouts and absence of Stragglers,the following patterns characterized subsectors and countries tha

111、t posted rapid productivity growth:Frontier firms contributed disproportionately.In the highest-growth subsectors,the primary pathway to productivity growth was firms contributing from the frontier,followed by firms transitioning to it.17 Leaders pulling ahead drove rapid subsector growth as often a

112、s laggards catching up.A common view is that productivity growth is particularly strong when the broad swath of middling or lagging firms catches up or converges with innovative leaders as best practices and technologies cascade down.Such convergence appeared in four out of nine subsectors with fast

113、 growth.In the other five,rapid growth came from frontier firms pulling further aheaddivergence.18 Employment reallocation from lagging to leading firms mattered nearly as much as productivity advances within firms and more than new entries or exits.In almost all subsectors,both productivity advance

114、s and employment reallocation played a role.In eight of 21 subsectors with positive productivity growth,reallocation of employees from less to more productive firms dominated.In the others,productivity increases by individual firms mattered more.19 Firms leaving or entering the markettraditional cre

115、ative destructionmattered less.It is notable that,in virtually all positive-growth subsectors,exits added to growth,sometimes substantially,while in almost half of these subsectors,entries detracted from growth.New entrants proved too small or unproductive to leave a mark during the 201119 snapshot

116、period.20 Over a longer period,every Standout will have been a new entrant at some point,but the youngest firm in our eight-year sample was 11 years old,and the average was 58.US sample firms led on productivity growth with more Standouts,fewer Stragglers,and more reallocationUS productivity growth

117、from 2011 to 2019 was faster than that of the other countries in our sample at 2.1 percent,compared with 0.2 percent in Germany and close to zero in the United Kingdom.Two patterns help explain this difference,as follows:The US sample had three times more Standouts than Stragglers,while the German a

118、nd UK samples had almost even numbers.This was largely due to the strong US computer and electronics sector,which accounted for about half the Standouts in the United States and most of the difference in the total number compared with Germany and the United Kingdom.This could reflect the more vibran

119、t US innovation ecosystemthe market is less fragmented,regulation is more innovation-and investment-friendly,and the risk-capital system is well developed.But even beyond this special sector,the same pattern is present.21 Firms in the US sample had more reallocation of employees from less productive

120、 to more productive firms.Leaders grew faster,and underperforming firms more swiftly restructured or exited.In the United States,Standouts include scalers(firms far above average sector productivity that contribute by gaining employees)and restructurers(firms with below-average sector productivity t

121、hat contribute by losing employees).In Germany and the United Kingdom,this was not the case.Rather,these countries preserved underperforming firms as Stragglers.Frontier firms scaling and gaining share added 0.6 percentage point to productivity growth in the United States,and unproductive firms exit

122、ing contributed an additional 0.5 percentage point.Overall,dynamic reallocation,including reallocation across subsector boundaries,added 0.9 of 2.1 percentage pointsslightly less than halfto productivity growth in the US sample.22 In contrast,the contribution of reallocation was negligible in German

123、y and the United Kingdom(Exhibit 5).This may be explained by the fact that the United States has highly dynamic factor markets,allowing for quick entry and exit as well as fast scale-up and restructuring.14The power of one:How standout firms drive national productivityA new productivity growth playb

124、ook emerges Business leaders and policymakers should focus on productivity growth because it is a win-win for all,and achieving it requires a micro-to-macro,firm-level approach.This research both builds on and diverges from the large body of work on productivity in important ways.Firms boosting prod

125、uctivity deliver a win-win for employees,customers,shareholders,and economies Firms rightfully focus on revenue,economic profit,and shareholder value,but they should also care about productivity growth for the following three reasons:For long-term success,firms need to serve customers,pay workers,an

126、d reward shareholders well,and productivity growth is one of the only ways to achieve that in combination.Indeed,this research shows that firms with the highest productivity growth can not only affordand awardthe fastest wage growth and have the largest profits upside(Exhibit 6).23 Sectors with the

127、fastest productivity growth also generate the highest consumer surplus.Economic growth is a key ingredient in business expansion and success,This research shows that just a handful of Standouts can create that growth rather than just react to it.Exhibit 5Contribute from frontierTransition from front

128、ierEntryExitTransition to frontierContribute from outside frontierNote:Figures may not sum to 100%,due to rounding.Source:2025 Moodys Investors Service,Inc.and/or its afliates and licensors;EU KLEMS;US Bureau of Labor Statistics;Capital IQ;McKinsey Global Institute analysisContribution to national s

129、ample productivity growth,201119,ppUnited StatesGermanyUnited KingdomMcKinsey&Company0.41.30.20.200.50.91.20.3 0.10.20.29140.10.30.90.20.100.22,97000.40.20.60.10.1 04,408Firm productivity efectReallocation efect%frms in sample by pathwayNumber of frms in country sampleTotal productivity growthTotal

130、reallocation efectTotal frm productivity efectReallocation from exiting frms to the frontier played a big role in the US.5172742961156765611469822.1 15The power of one:How standout firms drive national productivity Given long-term demographic shifts and todays tight labor markets,growing labor produ

131、ctivity is a strategic imperative.Doing so can create more value from a scarce workforce and enable the higher wages needed to attract the best talent,thus underpinning growth and gains in market share.24Our findings prompt new ways of thinking on how to unlock productivity growth Six shifts in the

132、conventional wisdom on productivity growth emerge from our findings(Exhibit7).Some of them challenge prevailing viewsfor example,the shift from seeing productivity generated through improvements within the broad swath of companies through the diffusion of practices to seeing productivity arising fro

133、m the bursts of just a few firms.Others add renewed emphasis or nuance,such as the importance of dynamic reallocation mostly toward well-established leading firms as well as entries and exits.Exhibit 61US frms not included in this analysis since personnel costs data for US companies is estimated bas

134、ed on sector-level average wages(manually adjusted for most relevant frms)due to lower disclosure requirements.Also excludes extreme casesexits,entries,frms with higher than 100%CAGR,frms with lower than 100%CAGR,and negative starting points.2Proft is measured as EBITDA per employee growth.Source:20

135、25 Moodys Investors Service,Inc.and/or its afliates and licensors;EU KLEMS;US Bureau of Labor Statistics;Capital IQ;McKinsey Global Institute analysis Productivity,nominal wages,and profts per employee,201119,by type of frm in Germany and the UK only,1%,n=5,500Firms with the highest productivity gro

136、wth also had the strongest wage and proft growth.McKinsey&CompanyWeb and PDF 8.83.50.62.86.37.84.42.80.90.815.77.42.33.97.8All positive contributorsSample averageAll negativecontributorsTop-quintile productivity growth in countryBottom-quintile productivity growth in countryProductivityCAGR 201119:N

137、ominal wages/employeeNominal profts/employee216The power of one:How standout firms drive national productivityEach of the shifts in thinking raises the following critical questions for business and policy leaders:1.A few firms driving productivity growth instead of the broad swath.Policies designed

138、to boost productivity growth have tended to focus on a mix of foundational enablers,rooted in the view that a wide range of firms gradually enhance productivity.They also tend to include specific policies supporting smaller firms in the adoption of better practices.But the significant role of Stando

139、uts may call for an asymmetric approach that matches the asymmetric contributions of firms.25 In what sectors are there too few Standouts or too many Stragglers,and what can be done?What tailored approaches could help firms remain or become Standouts,and which barriers could be removed?2.Incumbent i

140、mprovers as much as superstars and disruptors.Our analysis suggests that there is a diversity of ways to become a Standout,and all are needed for national(or sector)productivity growth.The majority of Standouts are large incumbents achieving productivity gains over time(improvers)like Tesco and Unit

141、ed Airlines.Only about 20 percent are scalers that lead from the front(these scalers could be most similar to superstars,which are often defined as firms with the greatest share of economic profit)like Amazon and Apple.26 An 17The power of one:How standout firms drive national productivityExhibit 7S

142、ource:McKinsey Global Institute analysisSix shifts in thinking on productivity growth emerge.McKinsey&Company123A few frms driving productivity growth instead of the broad swathWhat could help frms remain or become Standouts,especially in underperforming sectors?How can large incumbents remain agile

143、 and innovative enough to remain or become Standouts?What strategies can nurture the technology,innovation,and managerial leaders to make these moves?Incumbent improvers as much as superstars and disruptorsBold action and response more than imitation456Strategy,portfolio shifts,and value creation mo

144、re than efciencyHow can frms reinvent business models and customer value,including with AI?How can leaders grow nascent and innovative businesses and strengthen the ecosystems that can unlock scale?How to ensure dynamic reallocation of employees and capital to the most productive business units and

145、leading frms?Scaling innovation more than creating new entrantsReallocation to leading businesses as much as internal improvementsadditional 10 percent of Standouts are smaller disruptors(which are still far larger than any MSME)like Zalando.How can large incumbents remain agile and innovative enoug

146、h to remain or become Standouts?3.Bold action and response more than imitation.Some imitation and diffusion of best practices from leaders to laggards occur,but the real engine of productivity growth is bold,idiosyncratic strategic moves to which competitors then respond.To better shape or respond t

147、o newly emerging technologies and business models,what can firms do,and what is the role of policy?What talent strategies and educational policies can nurture technology and innovation capabilities as well as managerial leaders who can make bold strategic moves?4.Strategy,portfolio shifts and value

148、creation more than efficiency.Operational efficiency matters,but firm-level productivity growth largely comes from strategic moves that unlock more productive business models and portfolios,customer value,or innovation at scale.How can firms reinvent business models and customer value as they seek p

149、roductivity advances from new technology,including artificial intelligence?Where and how can M&A play a role?5.Scaling innovation more than creating new entrants.Innovation by young companies that then grow fills the funnel of future Standouts,but it is Standouts scaling innovations that power produ

150、ctivity growth in the medium term.Businesses need to have the right strategy and deploy at scale.What is the right policy balance between preventing excessive market concentration and encouraging leading firms that can move the needle for their home economies?Could there be more proactive approaches

151、 to support innovative MSMEs or startups that could scale and contribute to growth while triggering consolidation of others?How can businesses strengthen the capabilities and ecosystems needed to deploy innovation at scale?6.Dynamic reallocation toward leading firms and business units as much as int

152、ernal improvements.Firms increasing their productivity level matters for growth,but an equally important channel is the exit of unproductive firms and moves of employees(and capital as well as customers)from less productive to more productive enterprises.Within firms,too,shifting resources to higher

153、-value activities is key.Can business leaders rethink their governance to allow decisive resource reallocation?What policies can support dynamic shifts in jobs to the most productive firms and help less productive ones turn around or restructure?By looking through a firm-level lens with detailed cas

154、e studies on the perennial issue of productivity,new insights and fresh ways of thinking about productivity growth have emerged.We hope that this research helps to advance understanding of productivity growth and suggests ways forwardand,certainly,areas for further debate and research.18The power of

155、 one:How standout firms drive national productivityThis research measures growth in real value per worker or labor productivity,focusing on the actions and contributions of individual firms.For this firm-centered lens,we have constructed a lab economy.This chapter may be particularly helpful for bus

156、iness readers to understand how this productivity metric varies from profitability and efficiency,and for academic and policy readers to note the ways our sample is different from,but relevant to,national economic statistics.Measuring labor productivity and firms contributions to its growthWe define

157、 labor productivity at the firm levelas real value added per workerin a way that is consistent with adding up to economy-wide productivity(and growth).Growing real value added per worker drives prosperity for economies and enables firms to thrive,especially when labor markets are tight.This is very

158、different from the profitability and efficiency metrics on which executives commonly focus.Firm-level labor productivity is real value added per worker rather than efficiency or profitabilityValue added is the value of goods and services provided to customers minus what has been purchased from suppl

159、iers.At the firm level,this can be measured as revenue minus external cost or,equivalentlyand used in this researchas EBITDA plus labor compensation.27Real value added per worker,and its growth,differ from the way business leaders may think of productivity growth in the following three ways:First,it

160、 is a per-employee measure rather than representing the total value or profits of afirm.28 Second,value added includes benefits accrued by all stakeholders(shareholders,customers,workers,creditors,and tax authorities).This is a very different metric from profitability or labor efficiency,such as,for

161、 instance,the number of vehicles produced by each worker in a factory.Raising production efficiency matters,but typically a much larger share of labor productivity growth stems from top-line growth,including shifts in the business portfolio mix(see the next section for more on the relationship of va

162、lue added per worker to profitability and wages).Third,we measure the growth in value added per worker in real terms,adjusting nominal figures for changes in output and input prices at the sector level by using so-called double-sided deflators.These deflators account for both quality-adjusted price

163、changes that firms in a particular subsector make vis-vis their customers and those they experience from their suppliers.29 We use granular sector-level deflators,acknowledging that there are likely firm-specific price effects and input costs that we are unable to measure(please see more on double-s

164、ided deflators in the technical appendix).30An 8,300-firm lens on productivity growthCHAPTER ONE20The power of one:How standout firms drive national productivityLet us illustrate the growth in real value per worker using the example of a very well-known firm:Apple.Apples nominal EBITDA more than dou

165、bled in the 201119 snapshot period of our lab economy,while nominal personnel costs nearly tripled.However,after applying the double-sided deflator specific to the computer and electronics sector,real GVA increased by 12.3 percent per year.This outstripped annual growth in the employee headcount of

166、10.8 percent.Apple therefore achieved a productivity increase of 1.4 percent per year(Exhibit 8).Exhibit 8McKinsey&CompanyPDF Exhibit of 1EU KLEMS country sector defator;double-sided defator.Source:2025 Moodys Investors Service,Inc.and/or its afliates and licensors;EU KLEMS;US Bureau of Labor Statis

167、tics;Capital IQ;McKinsey Global Institute analysis Illustration:Apples growth in productivity per employee,201119.Real gross value added,constant 2019$billion Defator,1%Number of employees,thousand,Nominal gross value added,$billion Nominal personnel costs,$billionNominal EBITDA,$billion 20195936632

168、011201911310020112019601372011201941912011201936762011+10.0%annual+10.6%annual20195142011+14.0%annual201936912011+12.3%annual+1.4%annual+10.8%annual1.5%annualAppleFirm productivity per employee,constant 2019$thousand+Growth in value added per worker typically comes with growth in wages and profitsBu

169、sinesses often look at the return on invested capital(ROIC,or r in the formula below).Raising productivity or real value added per worker does link to growth in ROIC,but there are many other contributing factors.They include capital deepening(or equipping workers with more capital),raising their wag

170、es more strongly than prices,and increasing consumer surplus by producing higher-quality or lower-priced goods and services(this is reflected in the sectors double-sided deflator).31 A simple formula ties them together:P=dk(r+s)+wWhere P=productivity or value added per worker in real terms,d=deflato

171、r for price/quality adjustments,k=invested capital per worker,r=pretax return on invested capital,s=depreciation rate,and w=average wage.At an aggregate level,it has long been acknowledged that a higher share of productivity growth tends to accrue to workers than to profits.32 The labor share of inc

172、ome tends to be about two-thirds(with variations over time and among economies).33 Our sample shows that firms with the 21The power of one:How standout firms drive national productivityhighest productivity growth consistently increased wages more than their peers.In fact,this relationship was strong

173、er than the link between productivity growth and profits per employee,because profits swing more quickly and widely,while wages tend to be sticky(Exhibit 9).34Exhibit 91US frms not included in this analysis since personnel costs data for US companies are estimated based on sector-level average wages

174、(manually adjusted for most relevant frms)due to lower disclosure requirements.Also excludes extreme casesexits,entries,frms with higher than 100%CAGR,frms with lower than-100%CAGR,and negative starting points.2Proft is measured as EBITDA per employee growth.Source:2025 Moodys Investors Service,Inc.

175、and/or its afliates and licensors;EU KLEMS;US Bureau of Labor Statistics;Capital IQ;McKinsey Global Institute analysis Productivity,nominal wages,and profts per employee,201119,by type of frm in Germany and the UK only,1%,n=5,500Firms with the highest productivity growth also had the strongest wage

176、and proft growth.McKinsey&CompanyWeb and PDF 8.83.50.62.86.37.84.42.80.90.815.77.42.33.97.8All positive contributorsSample averageAll negativecontributorsTop-quintile productivity growth in countryBottom-quintile productivity growth in countryProductivityCAGR 201119:Nominal wages/employeeNominal pro

177、fts/employee2The reallocation of workers across firms is a key component in productivity growthProductivity growth can come from firms creating more value per worker(the“firm productivity effect”)but also from the most productive firms gaining market and employment shareor the least productive ones

178、losing share or exiting(the“reallocation effect”).The latter occurs through the movement of employees across firms.The firm productivity effect includes all gains that individual firms make to the value they generate per worker.These result from,for instance,innovating or making operational improvem

179、ents,but also from major shifts in strategy to capture new markets and increase customer value.The reallocation effect measures the impact of more productive firms gaining market share and employment relative to less productive ones.Some of the latter even go out of business,releasing workers to be

180、redeployed more productively.A single firm can contribute through both effects.For detail on how we calculate this effect,see sidebar“Illustrative productivity contribution calculation”and the technical appendix).3522The power of one:How standout firms drive national productivitySIDEBARIllustrative

181、productivity contribution calculationLet us illustrate a firms contribution to sector-and economy-level productivity growth using Apple as an example.In Exhibit 10 in the previous section,we illustrated the companys growth in productivity per employee of 1.4 percent per year.Now,let us understand ho

182、w this 1.4 percent increase(in absolute terms,about$70,000)leads to a contribution of 43 basis points(exhibit).Apples total productivity contribution is calculated by summing its firm productivity effect and reallocation effect.For the firm productivity effect,we multiply:(A)How much the firm improv

183、ed its own productivity level from 2011 to 2019(for Apple,by$69,800 per employee in constant 2019 prices)with(B)How large the firm is relative to the sector,measured by its average employment share across 2011 and 2019(for Apple,4.1 percent of employment).For the reallocation effect,we multiply:(C)H

184、ow much more productive the firm is relative to its sector,on average over the period(for Apple,it was$456,000 per employee more productive on average between 2011 and 2019,in ExhibitMcKinsey&CompanySource:2025 Moodys Investors Service,Inc.and/or its afliates and licensors;EU KLEMS;US Bureau of Labo

185、r Statistics;Capital IQ;McKinsey Global Institute analysis Illustration:Apples contribution to country sample productivity growth.Contribution of Apple to country sample productivity growth,sector-based calculation,basis points43(2,800 divided by country sample productivity growth$13,000 per country

186、 sample employeex country sample productivity,CAGR 2.0%)Absolute contribution of Apple to sector sample productivity change,$thousand per sector employee,201119 17.2Employment share of US computers and electronics within national sample,%16.4%Absolute contribution of Apple to country sample producti

187、vity growth from sector-based calculation,$thousand per country sample employee,201119 2.8Firm productivity efect,$thousand per sector employee,2011192.8Change in Apples productivity level,$thousand per sector employee,201119 69.8(from 592,900 to 662,700)Average employment share of Apple in sector s

188、ample,%,201119 4.1%Reallocation efect,$thousand per sector employee,201119 14.4Delta between Apple and sector average productivity,$thousand per frm employee,201119 455.7(628,000 minus 172,000)Change in employment share of Apple in sector sample,percentage points,201119 3.2%(from 2.47%to 5.63%)x+xxA

189、BCEFGD23The power of one:How standout firms drive national productivityThe 201119 period is undistorted by the global financial crisis or the pandemic,and displays patterns that may hold over timeThis research does not provide an up-to-date benchmarking of the performance of countries,sectors,or fir

190、ms,but it attempts to find patterns that may stand the test of time.We chose a discrete snapshot in time from 2011 to 2019,a reasonably stable period between the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic.36 The choice of period matters.In this period,aggregate productivity growth in Europe and

191、 the United States was exceptionally slow due to a collapse in investment following the global financial crisis,together with the end of an offshoring wave and a normalization in productivity growth of the computer and electronics sector following exceptionally rapid previous advances that were link

192、ed to Moores law.37When we tested our 201119 findings for a smaller sample in a more recent period,from 2019 to 2023,we found that the cast of characters changes but the plot lines are remarkably similar.The broad patterns identified in this report appear to continue to hold true.38Building a sample

193、 of 8,300 large firms as a representative lab economy Our sample comprises about 8,300 large domestic and multinational firms headquartered in Germany,the United Kingdom,and the United States operating in four sectors and their 12subsectors.These sectors are a good mix of different types and dynamic

194、s,and cover 10 to 15percent of total private GVA in the three countries:Retail including apparel,grocers and nonspecialized retailers,and other retail Automotive and aerospace including automotive manufacturing,aerospace manufacturing,and other transportation manufacturing Travel and logistics inclu

195、ding travel,logistics,and postal Computers and electronics including computer,semiconductor,and electronic equipment manufacturingOur sample covers the bulk of the productivity growth generated in these sectors and is relevant for national economies.We chose to look at our sample firms;we opted not

196、to segment domestic operations or add the long tail of MSMEs.constant 2019 prices,than the average firm in the US computer and electronics sector sample)with(D)How much the firm grew its employment share(for Apple,by 3.2percentage points).Several more steps are needed to compute the productivity imp

197、act of a firm at the level of the entire sample in a country:(E)Sector contributionadding the productivity and reallocation effects gives us the total contribution of Apple to productivity growth in its sector sample,which is$17,200 per employee in computers and electronics.(F)Country contributionwe

198、ighting by the employment share of the sector in the country yields a$2,800 contribution to productivity growth across the country sample;for Apple,the computer and electronics sector made up 16.4percent of US sample employment share on average between 2011 and 2019.(G)Annual growth rate contributio

199、nsannualizing this contribution into compound annual growth rate terms,Apple contributed 43 basis points of the 2.0 percent annual growth rate of the US sample.Illustrative productivity contribution calculation (continued)24The power of one:How standout firms drive national productivityThe sample co

200、vers the two-thirds of value generated by large firms that are the source of the bulk of productivity growth Our sample firms are representative of more than their fair share of productivity growth of the sectors in their respective countries.In the national statistics for the sectors in our scope,l

201、arge firms accounted for two-thirds of total GVA.Our sample covers the bulk of that value plus additional international exposure,but not that of MSMEs and startups(Exhibit 10).Large firms accounted for at least 70 percent of productivity growth.At the country level,they generated 70percent of US and

202、 UK productivity growth(positive in the United States,negative in the United Kingdom),and nearly 100 percent in Germany.In most sectors,MSMEs usually accounted for higher shares of the productivity dragwith exceptions.39Exhibit 10McKinsey&CompanyGVA shares by frm size,1%,2019Large frmsInternational

203、operations from local companiesSample coverage2MSMEsSample frms account for more than two-thirds of the value added in national statistics;their international exposure adds more.Four in-scope sectorsRetailAutomotive and aerospaceTravel and logisticsComputers and electronicsUnited StatesGermanyUnited

204、 Kingdom1GVA shares by frm size calculated using revenue as proxy for the US and nominal GVA as proxy for Germany and the UK due to data split by sector and frm size constraints.When using revenue for Germany to test for consistency,shares by frm size were held similar.For the US,the cutof for large

205、 companies is 500 or more employees;for Germany and the UK,it is 250 or more employees.2Might amount to more than 100%since our sample considers international operations of local companies.Source:2025 Moodys Investors Service,Inc.and/or its afliates and licensors;Capital IQ;US Census Bureau,OECD,EU

206、KLEMS,McKinsey Global Institute analysis 3622419436478595991573248446687452965429512913327149718768132625The power of one:How standout firms drive national productivityMSMEs have a crucial role in productivity growth.A few of them,together with startups,will become the large firms of the future and

207、fill the funnel of future Standouts.Previous research has found that these enterprises have a more dramatic“up or out”dynamic than large firms;although exits are more likely,surviving firms can often grow faster than mature ones.40 Research in the United States,for example,shows that most startups e

208、ither exit or fail to achieve growth,but those that survive become high-growth firms.They contribute disproportionately to job creation,productivity,and experimentation that then becomes productivity-enhancing innovation by large,well-established firms.41However,national statistics show that MSMEs a

209、verage contribution to aggregate productivity growth is not as significant as that of large firms.This holds true for productivity levels.In the sectors we cover in the United States,the productivity level of large firms was 40 percent higher than that of their MSME counterparts.Previous MGI researc

210、h found that large firms also often act as anchors for broader ecosystems in which MSMEs thrive,helping them to close productivity gaps.42The sample includes firms global footprintsLarge,multinational corporations are increasingly important to local and global economies,and we chose to look at their

211、 entire operations rather than segmenting domestic operations.43 For this reason,the coverage of some sectors GVA can exceed 100 percent.In the US computer and electronics sector,for example,large companies account for about 80 percent of GVA,but our sample includes the global footprints of those la

212、rge companies,which almost doubles domestic sector GVA.Our sample includes many multinational firms.Indeed,we estimate that,in aggregate,10 to 30percent of sample revenue is likely to be international.44 Shares of international value added are likely to be significantly lower than these foreign reve

213、nue shares,because many of the highest-value activities tend to happen near firm headquarters.Standouts and Stragglers had a greater share of international revenue than other firms in the sample but still retained much of the value added in terms of both high-value employment and profits domesticall

214、y.For example,about 50 percent of Apples revenue came from foreign activities in 2019,but almost 70 percent of its direct employees were based in the United States.In our snapshot period,Apple doubled the number of US employees,contributing to US domestic productivity growth.45Sample productivity gr

215、owth maps relatively well to that of national economies The productivity growth of our sample matches that of national economies relatively closely despite different parameters(Exhibit 11).46 Exceptions include the German and UK retail sectors,where MSMEs have relatively higher shares of value added

216、 and there are missing global effects.47 26The power of one:How standout firms drive national productivity In order to understand how productivity growth is generated,our analysis focuses on firms,the vital creators and conduits of productivity performance.In the next chapter,we look at our main fin

217、dings,which we believe are relevant for broader economies in whatever period is considered.Exhibit 1100McKinsey&CompanyProductivity growth,1 CAGR,%,201119Productivity growth in our sample was in line with macroeconomic data of large and total frms for some sectors in our scope.RetailAutomotive and a

218、erospaceTravel and logisticsComputers and electronicsUnited StatesGermanyUnited KingdomFour in-scope sectorsSample productivity CAGR2Productivity CAGR delta from our sample to macroeconomic dataLarge frmsOECD macro economy productivity CAGR by frm size:All frmsMSME1GVA shares by frm size calculated

219、using revenue as proxy for the US and nominal GVA as proxy for Germany and the UK due to data split by sector and frm size constraints.When using revenue for Germany to test for consistency,shares by frm size were held similar.For the US,the cutof for large companies is set at having 500 or more emp

220、loyees;for Germany and the UK,it is set as having 250 or more employees.Note that productivity growth rates calculated for the four in-scope sectors in this analysis may difer from the ones calculated using a bottom-up frm by frm approach.This is because our bottom-up approach accounts for contribut

221、ion to productivity growth does not account for reallocation impact of the movement of workers across sectors.2Does not include delta to MSME macro economy productivity CAGR due to low MSME representativeness in sample.Source:2025 Moodys Investors Service,Inc.and/or its afliates and licensors;Capita

222、l IQ;US Census Bureau;OECD;EU KLEMS;McKinsey Global Institute analysis 1.10.50.70.31.11.6001.14.95.21.21.31.45.81.21.00.40.91.10.81.91.60.31.73.10.41.31.22.01.40.81.71.10.84.21.91.70.90.30.82.73.13.00.41.21.927The power of one:How standout firms drive national productivityJust a handful of firms in

223、our sample accounted for the lions share of productivity growth both by enhancing productivity within their organizations and by reallocating employees from the less to the more productive.These Standouts can have a substantial impact on the productivity growth of entire sectors and economies.A few

224、firms shape the majority of productivity growth Productivity contributionsboth positive and negativeare highly skewed.48 A small number of firms in our sample were responsible for the productivity growth(and drag on that growth)of entire countries.About 1 percent of our sample,or 87 productivity Sta

225、ndouts,added more than one basis point each to productivity growth in their countrys sample.49 These Standouts together employed 25 to 30 percent of the workforce but accounted for 45 to 80 percent of positive productivity growth,depending on the country(Exhibit 12).In the United States,44 firms or

226、5 percent of the sample accounted for almost 80 percent of positive sample productivity growth and about 25 percent of sample employment(Exhibit 13).In Germany,13 firms,or less than 1 percent of the sample,accounted for 65 percent of positive productivity growth and for only 20 percent of sample emp

227、loyment(Exhibit 14).In the United Kingdom,30 firmsagain less than 1 percent of sample firmsaccounted for 45 percent of positive productivity growth and for about 30 percent of sample employment(Exhibit 15).At the opposite end of the spectrum,a handful of Stragglers(making negative contributions of a

228、t least one basis point to the productivity growth of their national samples in 201119)accounted for the majority of negative productivity growth.In the United States,14 firms or about 2 percent of the sample accounted for nearly 60percent of productivity drag and only 10 percent of national sample

229、employment.In Germany,16 firms or less than 1 percent of the sample accounted for more than 65 percent of productivity reduction in the sample and nearly 35 percent of national sample employment.In the United Kingdom,25 firmsagain,less than 1 percent of the sampleaccounted for almost 50 percent of t

230、he productivity reduction and just over 10 percent of national sample employment.Advancing productivity one firm at a timeCHAPTER TWO29The power of one:How standout firms drive national productivityExhibit 12Note:Figures may not sum to 100%,because of rounding.From a sample of 8,300 frms(900 US frms

231、,3,000 German frms,and 4,400 UK frms).Source:2025 Moodys Investors Service,Inc.and/or its afliates and licensors;EU KLEMS;US Bureau of Labor Statistics;Capital IQ;McKinsey Global Institute analysis PDF Exhibit of A handful of frmsthe Standouts and Stragglersaccounted for two-thirds of our samples pr

232、oductivity growth and degrowth.Firm count,employment share,and growth contribution,%of total520.40.50.70.6520.40.50.70.6McKinsey&CompanyPositive contributors share,%Negative contributors share,%StandoutsRest of positiveStragglersRest of negativeEmploymentContribution to positive growthNumber of frms

233、Number of frmsEmploymentContribution to negative growthUnited KingdomUnited States100=60681004032100100=56521004448100100=49601005140100Germany23781057554522382343206534665532354414343145124848295550285230The power of one:How standout firms drive national productivityExhibit 13Firm contribution to U

234、S sample productivity growth,201119,ppNote:US country sample of 900 frms 201119(productivity growth snapshot not representative of years before and after).1Positive and negative contributors are frms that add+/-bps to country sample productivity growth.2Sum of frms contributions to country sample pr

235、oductivity growth,in a sector.Source:2025 Moodys Investors Service,Inc.and/or its afliates and licensors;EU KLEMS;US Bureau of Labor Statistics;Capital IQ;McKinsey Global Institute analysis In the United States,44 frms(5 percent)accounted for nearly 80 percent of the samples positive productivity gr

236、owth.McKinsey&CompanyPeak14 Stragglers:2%of frms157%of negative growth10%of employment share507 rest of positive:55%of frms22%of positive growth45%of employment share349 rest of negative:38%of frms43%of negative growth23%of employment share02040Employment share in 2011,%60801002.50.501.01.53.02.0Cou

237、ntry sample productivity growth2 +2.1 pp Firms positive contribution to productivity growthFirms negative contribution to productivity growthFirms 2011 employment share44 Standouts:5%of frms178%of positive growth23%of employment share31The power of one:How standout firms drive national productivityE

238、xhibit 1420%of employment shareCountry sample productivity growth2 +0.2 pp 16 Stragglers:Less than 1%of frms166%of negative growth34%of employment share1,300 rest of negative:44%of frmsFirms positive contribution to productivity growthFirms negative contribution to productivity growthFirms 2011 empl

239、oyment share34%of negative growth14%of employment shareFirm contribution to German sample productivity growth,201119,ppNote:Germany country sample of 3,000 frms 201119(productivity growth snapshot not representative of years before and after).1Positive and negative contributors are frms that add+/-b

240、asis points to country sample productivity growth.2Sum of frms contributions to country sample productivity growth,in a sector.Source:2025 Moodys Investors Service,Inc.and/or its afliates and licensors;EU KLEMS;US Bureau of Labor Statistics;Capital IQ;McKinsey Global Institute analysis In Germany,13

241、 frms(1 percent)accounted for 65 percent of the samples positive productivity growth.McKinsey&Company02040Employment share in 2011,%60801001.001.50.51,641 rest of positive:55%of frms35%of positive growth32%of employment share65%of positive growth13 Standouts:Less than 1%of frms1PeakPeak32The power o

242、f one:How standout firms drive national productivityFast productivity growth comes from more powerful Standouts and less influence from StragglersHigh productivity growth comes with more powerful Standouts and limited influence of Stragglers across countries,sectors,and subsectors.The United States

243、sample led on productivity,with more Standouts and fewer Stragglers From 2011 to 2019,the United States achieved annual productivity growth of 2.1 percent,which significantly outpaced Germanys 0.2 percent and the United Kingdoms near-zero growth.A key differentiator was the Standout-to-Straggler rat

244、io.In the United States,Standouts outnumbered Stragglers by a factor of three,44 to 14.By contrast,Germany had 13 to 16 and the United Kingdom 30 to 25a near-even balance.Only in Germany did Stragglers outnumber Standouts(Exhibit 16).Exhibit 1525 Stragglers:Less than 1%of frms148%of negative growth1

245、2%of employment share2,132 rest of positive:55%of frms48%of positive growth29%of employment share2,221 rest of negative:50%of frms52%of negative growth28%of employment share30 Standouts:Less than 1%of frms1Firm contribution to UK sample productivity growth,201119,ppNote:UK country sample of 4,400 fr

246、ms 201119(productivity growth snapshot not representative of years before and after).1Positive and negative contributors are frms that add+/-basis points to country sample productivity growth.2Sum of frms contributions to country sample productivity growth,in a sector.Source:2025 Moodys Investors Se

247、rvice,Inc.and/or its afliates and licensors;EU KLEMS;US Bureau of Labor Statistics;Capital IQ;McKinsey Global Institute analysis In the United Kingdom,30 frms(1 percent)accounted for 45 percent of the samples positive productivity growth.McKinsey&Company02040Employment share in 2011,%608010002.01.01

248、.50.5PeakCountry sample productivity growth2 0 pp Firms positive contribution to productivity growthFirms negative contribution to productivity growthFirms 2011 employment share31%of employment share45%of positive growth33The power of one:How standout firms drive national productivityHowever,it was

249、not only the relative numbers that mattered,but also their collective contribution.The contributions of UK Standouts were markedly weak,averaging just 2.8 basis points to productivity growth,compared with 5.3 basis points in the United States and 7.2 basis points in Germany.Meanwhile,German Straggle

250、rs imposed a particularly heavy drag,reducing growth by 5.1 basis points.This was far greater than the reduction of 3.7 basis points in the United States and 3.6 basis points in the United Kingdom.Much of the US productivity growth advantage came from the computer and electronics sector.Of the 44 St

251、andouts identified in the United States,29 were in this sector.Between 2011 and 2019,computers and electronics accounted for just over 15 percent of sample employment but more than 70 percent of sample productivity growth.By comparison,the German sample had only four Standouts in computers and elect

252、ronics out of a total of 13,and the United Kingdom just seven out of 30.Fast sector and subsector growth also hinges on more Standouts and fewer StragglersSector and subsector productivity growth shows a similar dynamic.We classify sectors as high growth if they achieved an annual productivity growt

253、h rate of 2 percent or more.50 At the most granular subsector level,this relationship remains evidenthigh-growth sectors have more Standouts,and these Standouts make larger contributions(Exhibit 17).This feature is the one common element in fast-growing sectors and subsectors;in our exploration of w

254、hat drives rapid productivity growth,we otherwise found a high degree of heterogeneity,as we discuss in chapter4.Exhibit 164413302.30.90.81416250.50.80.9Source:2025 Moodys Investors Service,Inc.and/or its afliates and licensors;EU KLEMS;US Bureau of Labor Statistics;Capital IQ;McKinsey Global Instit

255、ute analysisCountry productivity growth and contribution by Standouts and StragglersThe United States generated more Standouts and fewer Stragglers than Germany and the United Kingdom.LowCountryMcKinsey&CompanyStandouts,ppContribution to country of:Numberof frmsStragglers,ppNumberof frmsStandoutsStr

256、agglers ratioProductivity growth,%3.10.81.2United StatesGermanyUnited KingdomHigh02.10.234The power of one:How standout firms drive national productivityExhibit 17Note:UK logistics is an edge case of Standout that contributes positively to sector but negatively to subsector,which is possible since S

257、tandouts are identifed by sector-based contribution calculations.In this case,the frm gains employment share relative to sector sample but loses share relative to subsector sample,which turns its employment efect negative.See technical appendix for more detail on cases like this.1Grocers and nonspec

258、ialized retailers.Source:2025 Moodys Investors Service,Inc.and/or its afliates and licensors;EU KLEMS;US Bureau of Labor Statistics;McKinsey Global Institute analysis Subsector productivity growth and contribution by Standouts and Stragglers,201119High-growth sectors have more Standouts making bigge

259、r contributionslow-growth ones have more Stragglers dragging harder.McKinsey&CompanySubsectorLowNegative CountryContribution to subsector of:Numberof frmsNumberof frmsStandoutStraggler ratioProductivity growth,%HighStandouts,ppStragglers,ppOther trans mfgTravelOther retailAutomotiveAerospaceOther tr

260、ansportation mfgPostalLogisticsAerospacePostalOther transportation mfgLogisticsPostalOther retailAutomotiveApparelLogisticsApparelApparelAutomotiveGrocers and nonspecTravelSemiconductorsElectronic equipmentGrocers and nonspecOther retailGrocers and nonspec1Electronic equipmentComputersTravelSemicond

261、uctorsComputersAerospaceElectronic equipmentSemiconductorsComputers8.14.03.84.402.61.801.71.51.61.31.11.11.01.51.50.800.60.10.90.40000.20.60.1000.500.200.10.30.300.500.900000.50.20.50.70.5000.60.50.50.70.80.61.0002.31.11.102.72.21.72.34.21101020000211221410234211003520351225.010.0n/a2.0n/a1.5n/an/an

262、/an/a1.02.02.01.04.57.00.51.0n/a0.50.31.01.00.00.0n/an/a0.30.20.0n/a0.30.20.00.50.051014203404422229721011420001110011010USUSUSGermanyGermanyUKUSUKUKUSUSGermanyGermanyGermanyUKUKGermanyGermanyUSGermanyUKUSUKGermanyUSUSUKUSUKUSGermanyUKUKGermanyGermanyUK85543322221111111000000011112222223535The power

263、 of one:How standout firms drive national productivityStandouts shape sectors,and sector dynamics can provide fertile ground for Standouts to emergeDo thriving sectors give rise to Standouts,or do Standouts forge the conditions for their success?While our research does not settle this debate,one thi

264、ng is clear:firmsStandouts,Stragglers,and othersdo not operate in a vacuum.They are shaped by both sector dynamics and the broader economic environment.Academic research outlines the importance of external drivers for differences in aggregate sector productivity,including pressures from threatened o

265、r actual competitors,trade competition,and effective regulation.51 In our sample,some subsectors had the market dynamics,technology,regulation,and competitive setting that provided fertile ground for Standouts to emerge and to drive value creation.Others were relative deserts,which did not encourage

266、 Standouts to grow and tended to produce more Stragglers.52 Fertile ground:Dynamic sectors with rapid innovation and improved customer value.Sectors such as computers and electronics have tended to be conducive to Standouts.Firms in this sector achieved quick productivity growth by creating or signi

267、ficantly augmenting customer value,as was the case with Nvidia,or were able to grow share in a rapidly growing market,Apple being an example.Some of these Standouts also acted as anchors that lifted the performance of partners and suppliers in a vibrant corporate ecosystem.53 Sectors characterized b

268、y these high levels of innovation and dynamism tended to have few Stragglers.Widespread innovation and market growth lift many boats.Relative deserts:Static sectors with less innovation.In some sectors,the balance between Standouts and Stragglers tended to be more equal,and strategies focusing on op

269、erational efficiency,consolidation,or portfolio reallocation were more common than new value creation.In the automotive sector,for instance,some players increased productivity by restructuring,General Motors being an example.Others,like Ford Germany,focused on raising efficiency.In postal services,s

270、everal Standouts mostly improved efficiency or were restructurers.In addition,many Stragglers added volume in parcel delivery but not productivity.But these relative deserts did not determine the destiny of firms.In travel,for instance,which had below-average productivity growth in our snapshot peri

271、od,many Standouts emerged.Examples include airlines that created scale economies through consolidation,and low-cost carriers that opened up new high-growth pockets.Deserts can become fertile ground,and vice versa.Thousands of firms that are neither Standouts nor Stragglers matter collectively,tooAlt

272、hough a small number of firms in our sample in the period analyzed made an outsize contribution to productivity growth(positive and negative),the majority of firms played an important role in their economies.Non-Standout positive contributors together can account for more than one-third of positive

273、productivity growth.54 More than 70 percent of other positive contributors increased productivity faster than the sector average.In fact,20 percent of them increased productivity 1.5 times faster than the sector average while also increasing employment share.But even when we looked at non-Standout p

274、ositive contributors,there was a high skew.In each of the three economies,about 10 percent of firms accounted for 90 percent of sample productivity growth.This holds for firms and subsamples of different sizes.For instance,we split the country samples into cohorts by number of employeesthe 100 large

275、st firms by size and the next 900.Even then,10 percent of firms accounted for 65 to 85 percent of the positive productivity contribution in each cohort(although the second cohort contributed less in aggregate)(Exhibit 18).Therefore,adding a long tail of smaller firms to our sample would not have cha

276、nged aggregate growth or this pattern much.Even looking at the millions of firms in an economy,only hundreds would account for the majority of productivity growth.36The power of one:How standout firms drive national productivityOf the four types of Standouts,advancing large incumbents were the most

277、commonThere are four ways to become a Standout:grow productivity a little while being large(becoming an“improver”)or a lot while being small(“disruptor”),change scale by growing employment share as a productivity leader(“scaler”),and cede employment share as a laggard(“restructurer”).Exhibit 18Firm

278、contribution to German sample productivity growth,201119,ppNote:Productivity growth snapshot not representative of years before and after 201119.1Shares calculated based on sample subsets total contribution and total sample size.In the German sample,the subset of 100 largest frms accounted for 72%of

279、 country samples positive productivity growth,whereas the 900-frm subset accounted for only 17%.2Sample subset considers only the 100 biggest frms in country sample based on 2011 employment shares in country sample.The subset with 900 frms includes the next 900 biggest frms based on the same metric.

280、Source:2025 Moodys Investors Service,Inc.and/or its afliates and licensors;EU KLEMS;US Bureau of Labor Statistics;Capital IQ;McKinsey Global Institute analysis Asymmetrical contributions are a scale-free phenomenon.McKinsey&CompanyGermancountrysample100 largest frms in sampleNext 900 frms in sample0

281、204060801001.00.80.60.40.201.41.2of positive contribution accounted for by frst 10%of frms10%of frms92%0204060801001.00.80.60.40.2010%of frms85%10%of frms02040Employment share in 2011,%60801000.2065%Firms 2011 employment shareFirms contribution to productivity growthPositiveNegative37The power of on

282、e:How standout firms drive national productivityImproverslarge firms with decent but not rapid productivity advanceswere the most common(Exhibit 19).More than a half of Standouts were improvers.Improvers are firms in the top 10 percent by number of employees that contributed largely by raising their

283、 productivity levels.On average,these large incumbents increased productivity by 5 percent a year.In the United States,improvers accounted for 35 percent of sample productivity growth.They included computer and electronics companies,such as Danaher,and airlines,such as American,Delta,Southwest Airli

284、nes,and United.In Germany,improvers accounted for about 60 percent of sample productivity growth.They included logistics companies,such as Hapag-Lloyd,as well as manufacturers,such as MTU Aero Engines,and retailer REWE.In the United Kingdom,improvers accounted for about 30 percent of sample producti

285、vity growth.They included retailers,such as Tesco,and automotive and aerospace firms,such as Airbus and Nissan.Ten percent of Standouts were disruptors.Disruptors are small by number of employees,typically representing less than 1 percent of the employment share in their sector.Similar to improvers,

286、they contributed mainly by increasing their productivity levels,but at such a rapid rate15 percent per year on averagethat they were able to become Standouts.In the United States,disruptors accounted for just over 5 percent of sample productivity growth.They included semiconductor companies such as

287、Nvidia,which increased its EBITDA tenfold from 2011 to 2019.In the United Kingdom and Germany,disruptors accounted for 2 percent or less of sample productivity growth.They included,for example,the German retailer Zalando,which shaped the online apparel retail wave.Just over 10 percent of Standouts w

288、ere scalers.Scalers contributed mostly by increasing employment share from a position of above-average productivity and were often in the top quintile of employment-weighted productivity.As employees moved into these highly productive firms,overall sector productivity grew.In the United States,scale

289、rs accounted for about 25 percent of sample productivity growth.They included Apple,which was already more productive in 2011 than other firms in the sector and doubled its employee headcount by 2019,as well as Amazon,Broadcom,and Qualcomm.In the United Kingdom,scalers accounted for about 5 percent

290、of sample productivity growth.There were no scalers inGermany.Just over 20 percent of Standouts were restructurers.Restructurers also contributed by reallocating employees,but by lowering their employee headcount while having below-average productivity.In the US sample,restructurers accounted for ju

291、st over 10 percent of sample productivity growth.One US restructurer was the retailer Sears,which exited the market.Some restructurers left the highly dynamic computer and electronics sector,and two companies reduced their employment share by decreasing their employee headcount.In the German and UK

292、samples,restructurers accounted for about 5 percent or less of sample productivity growth,and that was largely by exiting the market.Stragglers constitute the flip side of these types of Standouts.Two-thirds of them were large firms that decreased productivity per employee,or“anti-improvers.”“Anti-s

293、calers”large firms increasing their employment share despite below-average productivityaccounted for 30percent of Stragglers.Less than 5 percent of Stragglers were“anti-disruptors,”which were small by number of employees but still reduced productivity per employee substantially.One Straggler was an“

294、anti-restructurer,”decreasing its employment share despite above-average productivity levels.38The power of one:How standout firms drive national productivityStandouts are diversein some ways confirming expectations,but in others defying themThe four types of Standouts highlight the diversity of way

295、s in which a firm may make a significant contribution to productivity growth.In some ways,the anatomy of Standouts confirms what readers might expect about what it takes to be a Standout,but in others,it may be surprising.Standouts(and Stragglers)were mostly large,but not the largest,and outperforme

296、d for their size.55 In addition,Standouts generally had strong productivity levels and growth rates,but they were not in the top 5 percent on either.In fact,Standouts sometimes contributed from below-average positions as restructurers.Standouts were mostly large,but most large firms were not Standou

297、tsStandouts were predominantly large.In 2011,the average Standout had about 65,000 employees and the smallest just under 500.But most large firms are not Standouts,and some are even Stragglers.56 By definition,size is a driver of a firms contribution to an economys productivity growth.Those in the t

298、op decile for employment in 2011 were eight times more likely than all firms to be Standouts(typically they were improvers),but they were also eight times more Exhibit 19Source:2025 Moodys Investors Service,Inc.and/or its afliates and licensors;EU KLEMS;US Bureau of Labor Statistics;Capital IQ;McKin

299、sey Global Institute analysis Contribution to national sample productivity growth,201119,ppIncumbents improving productivity were the most common type of Standout.McKinsey&CompanyImprover Gradual productivity gains as large incumbent Restructurer Employment share reduction from below-average product

300、ivityOther positiveStandoutsStragglersScaler Employment share increases from above-average productivity Disruptor Rapid productivity gains as small frmAnti-improver Gradual productivity loss as large incumbent Anti-restructurer Employment share reduction from above-average productivityAnti-scaler Em

301、ployment share increase from below-average productivity Anti-disruptor Rapid productivity loss as small frmUnited StatesNumber of frms1.10.20.70.40.70.40.1000000.101964155078150349Germany0.90.00.00.00.50.70.1102011,641110411,300United Kingdom0.60.00.10.11.00.70.8Other negativeTotal productivity grow

302、th0.42.10.40.21.00.0181742,132171702,22139The power of one:How standout firms drive national productivitylikely to be Stragglers.Almost 20 percent of Standouts had less than 0.1 percent of employment share each in their national sample in 2011,but they achieved very rapid productivity growth.Standou

303、ts contributed disproportionately to productivity,while large firms did not.For comparison,in the United States,the top 10 percent of firms by size that made positive contributions had 54 percent of the employment share but accounted for only 68 percent of positive productivity growth,while the Stan

304、douts had 23 percent share of employment but accounted for 78 percent of positive growth(Exhibit 20).In the United Kingdom,employment and productivity contributions from the largest firms were more similar,but,on average,Standouts still increased productivity levels by more than 6 percent per year i

305、n comparison with 4 percent per year for the rest of positive contributors.This apparent discrepancy reflects the fact that firms can both contribute to and drag productivity through employment reallocation.Exhibit 20Firm count,employment share,and growth contribution,%of totalPDF Exhibit of The lar

306、gest frms did not contribute disproportionately in relation to their employment share.Positive contributors share,%Negative contributors share,%Top 10%Next 10%Bottom 80%EmploymentContribution to positive growthNumber of frmsNumber of frmsEmploymentContribution to negative growthFirm size1.United Kin

307、gdomUnited States100=60681004032100100=56521004448100100=49601005144100Germany115468144718255948333345822644124376273617526631138223464311422546763464435554746763466 6444 4355 5555 547McKinsey&CompanyNote:Figures may not sum to 100%,because of rounding.1Firm size percentile calculated using frms 201

308、1 employment share in country sample.Source:2025 Moodys Investors Service,Inc.and/or its afliates and licensors;EU KLEMS;US Bureau of Labor Statistics;Capital IQ;McKinsey Global Institute analysis 40The power of one:How standout firms drive national productivityStandouts came from all parts of the p

309、roductivity curve and were rarely in the top 5 percent Although Standouts appear disproportionately in the top quintile of the productivity curve(the frontier),many of them were outside it.More than one-third of Standouts,many of them scalers,were frontier firms in 2011,but the same holds true for S

310、tragglersabout 40 percent were frontier firms in 2011.57However,Standouts were rarely the most productive firms commonly studied in the dispersion literature.58 Lets take the top 5 percent.In our US sample,for example,only three firms were in the top 5 percent in their sector in 2011 and were also S

311、tandouts.In the United Kingdom,only five firms in the top 5 percent were Standouts.Some firms in the top 5 percent were actually Stragglers(Exhibit 21).The dispersion literature often attributes the dispersion of productivity levels to market friction that makes it difficult for laggards to catch up

312、 or for employment shares to shift to the most productive firms.We did not see this at the top end of the productivity curve in our sample.Exhibit 21Source:2025 Moodys Investors Service,Inc.and/or its afliates and licensors;EU KLEMS;US Bureau of Labor Statistics;Capital IQ;McKinsey Global Institute

313、analysis PDF Productivity growth rate and productivity level in US country sampleStandouts were predominantly large and had notable productivity levels and growthbut rarely led on either.McKinsey&Company155501001502002503003500StandoutRest of positiveRest of negativeStragglerTop 5 percentProductivit

314、y growth rate,%,201119Productivity level,$thousand/employee,20115100Circle size=Employment share of frm in country sample,%,2011Average 78Average 195th percentile2 US Standouts are in the top 5%of productivity growthOnly 1 US Standout is in the top 5%of productivity level and growth3 US Standouts ar

315、e in the top 5%of productivity level95th percentileTop productivity growth Standout(productivity growth rate=15.5%)Top productivity level Standout(productivity level=593)41The power of one:How standout firms drive national productivityThe most productive(the top 5 percent)tended to be relatively sma

316、ll businesses with very specific business models in hard-to-replicate niches.Examples include online game platforms and captive distributors in retail.Moreover,when we look at our Standouts,we see some considerable differences in productivity without obvious signs of market friction.There is no need

317、 for an offline food retailer to have the same productivity as an online store or a luxury goods chain,or for an automotive supplier to converge with an original equipment manufacturer,or even for an airline with outsourced ground staff to have the same productivity attributes as one that keeps thos

318、e activities in-house.Standouts tended to generate above-average productivity growth but did not match thefastest growers Standouts across countries increased productivity at an average of 5 percent a year,but this was well short of the 20 percent per year that firms with top 5 percent productivity

319、growth rates averaged.Only six Standouts were also in the top 5 percent in their country sample.59Reasons for this are that the firms with the fastest productivity growth are often too small to move the needle,and that firms can make substantial contributions by reallocating employees rather than in

320、creasing productivity levels.Collectively,firms with the fastest productivity growth can also make notable contributions to aggregate productivity regardless of size and employment reallocation.One study finds that about 10 percent of firms with the fastest growth account for about half of productiv

321、ity growth output.60 Yet in a sector like US retail in the early 2010s,this would mean about 250,000 of roughly 2.5 million enterprises.61However,the contribution of Standouts and the skew of their contributions are orders of magnitude greater than this.In our US retail sample,just six Standouts,or

322、about 3 percent of firms in our US retail sample of large firms,accounted for about 70 percent of positive productivity growth.If we added the long tail of MSMEs from the national statistics,the six Standouts would still account for about half of the sectors productivity growthand a negligible perce

323、ntage of firms in the sample.Some Standouts were well-known superstars in tech and other sectors,but many werenot Some Standouts had the characteristics of superstar firms,but many were not.Superstar firms are often defined as firms that have the largest revenue market share and that achieve outsize

324、 gains in employment share or productivity,or as giant firms that use their size to drive productivity growth(often observed in firms with digital platforms).In previous MGI research,superstars have been defined as firms that generate the greatest share of economic profit.62We find that only 10 perc

325、ent of Standouts were“scalers”that are akin to superstars,and that about 30 percent of Standouts overlapped with firms that outperformed on economic profit.63 The Standouts also come from a diversity of sectors.The computer and electronicsor techsector accounted for 29 of 44 US Standouts,but this wa

326、s not the case in the other economies in our sample.In Germany and the United Kingdom,computer and electronics firms accounted for 30 and 20 percent of Standouts,respectively.In all three economies,Standouts included many firms outside the tech sector,such as auto manufacturers,airlines,and brick-an

327、d-mortar retailers.Why?Superstar firms tend to be the ones with a unique selling proposition or business model that enables them to charge their customers considerably more than what they need for labor and typical capital compensationand thus generate economic profit.64 Standouts excel in growing r

328、eal value added per worker,which includes labor compensation and capital costs,after adjusting for changes in input and output prices and quality over time(at the subsector level).42The power of one:How standout firms drive national productivityStandouts change over time,but two-thirds of those in 2

329、01119 remained Standouts in 201923To test whether the findings in our lab economy period hold over time,we looked at a small sample of Standouts and Stragglers from the 201119 snapshot period in a more recent period,from 2019 to 2023(Exhibit 22).65We found that around 65 percent of the Standouts rem

330、ained Standouts,suggesting that their contributions are more likely than not to be sustained over time by virtue of the leading innovations or superior value propositions they offer.However,about 20 percent of firms that were Standouts in 201119 became Stragglers in 201923,and 60 percent of Straggle

331、rs in 201119 became Standouts in 201923.The Stragglers of today may be a reservoir of future Standouts,and vice versa.The cast of characters may change,but the plot line remains consistent.The finding that a small number of firms contribute most to productivity growth or drags is a new take.In the n

332、ext chapter,we investigate what sets Standouts apart,exploring the key role of bold strategy that results in bursts of productivity growth rather than trickle-down diffusion.Exhibit 22Change in frms status,201119 to 2019231Where frm data is available for 201923;N=114.Source:McKinsey Value Intelligen

333、ce;IHS Markit;ILO;OECD;2025 Moodys Investors Service,Inc.and/or its afliates and licensors;EU KLEMS;Capital IQ;German Federal Statistics Ofce;US Bureau of Economic Analysis;UK Ofce for National Statistics;McKinsey Global Institute analysisIn 201923,two-thirds of Standouts remained Standouts,but about 20 percent became Stragglers.McKinsey&Company201119201923Standouts6138Standouts22StragglersRest of