He led a peace movement. The quarterback led the left end. You lead and we'll follow. That path leads directly to the house. The band will lead and the troops will follow. The incident led to his resignation. One remark often leads to another. The contender led with a right to the body. A properly trained horse will lead easily. He took the lead in the race.
He had a lead of four lengths. I got a lead on a new job. The phone list provided some great sales leads. They followed the lead of the capital in their fashions.
The horse is cantering on the left lead. They forced the lead runner at third base on an attempted sacrifice. He led her out and they began a rumba. I could tell by her allusions that she was leading up to something.
Related Words dominant preeminent outstanding top well-known famous popular prominent main noted best principal initial champion premier primary governing inaugural ruling arch. Contemporary Examples Groups like CAIR and leading intellectuals and imams have been denouncing acts like these for years. Historical Examples I followed after his tracks, leading the two poor done-up horses.
Explorations in Australia John Forrest. Weighed and Wanting George MacDonald. The Conquest of Fear Basil King. See also lead off , lead on , lead up to. Old English; related to Dutch lood, German Lot.
A soft, ductile, heavy, bluish-gray metallic element that is extracted chiefly from galena. It is very durable and resistant to corrosion and is a poor conductor of electricity. Lead is used to make radiation shielding and containers for corrosive substances. The meat of the book is a series of case studies and conversations that lay out the very practical steps taken by some leading CEOs to resist short-term pressures and set their organizations on a path to long-term success.
You can find newspaper articles from the s, and even earlier, talking about the perils of short-termism, the rise of short-termism, and so on.
Eighty-seven percent of executives and directors in our surveys feel the most performance pressure over a two-year time horizon rather than a longer time horizon. Certainly more companies, more directors, and more investors are feeling the pressure for short-termism than they have in the recent past.
But the idea that you would give all your current cash back to shareholders rather than investing in the long term obviously creates some doubts. To what extent is this about public markets? David Rubenstein points out in the introduction to the book that the number of US—listed companies has halved, I think he says, over the last 20 years.
There are certainly more companies appear to be retreating from public markets. Is this a public-market phenomenon? The reality is if you use a discounted-cash-flow method, 70 to 90 percent of the value of most companies is beyond a three-year time horizon. Most investors realize that. The other reality is that if you look at who owns stocks in the US , 75 percent is still owned by what we would classify as long-term investors exhibit.
That is why we wrote the book, Go Long. One of the things that jumps out at me in the case studies in the book is that the CEOs had to buy themselves the strategic flexibility to invest for the long term by sometimes doing some quite painful things in the short term. For example, Ford [in ] was a turnaround situation.
But he did it with growth in mind. There was a long-term objective behind it. To pick up on that, our method of thinking about how to transcend this seeming problem—of a lot of pressures for short term but companies want to build for the long term—is to go to people who have managed to get the short and the long. Remember, this is even before the financial crisis took everybody down.
So, he set forward a strategy to solve the immediate challenge: In the short term, the company did take some significant losses, but all wrapped around a strategy for recovering and getting through whatever might lie ahead. What I think is interesting when you compare and contrast the different stories that we covered in the book is there were some dramatic turnaround stories. The Ford story may be the most dramatic.
But he also had to find cash to make it happen. He made some very tough decisions. He sold off a big pharmaceutical arm, took costs out of other operations. It was very painful in the short run, but vital for the long term. The executives profiled in the book did some pretty tough things to create flexibility and generate cash to give themselves the room to maneuver. This is not about being soft, and this is not a book on corporate social responsibility.
There are other very good books on that topic. When he and his team made the decision to stop selling cigarettes, not only was that decision extremely well syndicated, extremely well thought through, extremely well managed from all the operational details. But also, they did it at a time when the company was performing well.
Maybe in a similar vein, Paul Polman at Unilever , when they came under pressure from 3G, he was able to defend the company by making the case that his focus on a sustainable company was not a soft decision that was about prioritizing social responsibility ahead of the successful and profitable growth of the company, but actually making the case that it was both, and that it was not a trade-off. They have to think strategically.
They had to look four or five years out. How is the industry changing? Equally, they had to convince their own people and the board of directors. One of the things that jumped out at me is that many of the CEOs in the book are great storytellers. That ability to construct a narrative—in many cases reaching back into the history of the company.
The company had a great tradition of looking after its workforce and thinking about a multi-stakeholder approach to its business. Meaning-making as a leadership trait really comes out here. That notion of storytelling is interesting. Obviously it has to be a nonfiction story, not a fiction story. By the way, I think there are two pieces to that storytelling so it does make meaning. The technical features of the argument are important.
The second half of the story is the noncognitive elements. Or taking your board to the place where the company was created. Or, in the case of Medtronic, the equipment maker, they often bring in patients who are alive today because they use a pacemaker used by Medtronic. The storytelling is both cognitive and emotional. You have to go for the head and the heart. We interviewed a number of board directors, as well as chief executives.
There was a common message from them around wishing they had more metrics for the long-term strategy. The other storytelling element that a lot of the CEOs deployed was a metric. It was a meaningful metric.
It encapsulated what they were trying to do, and they stuck to it. All of these executives have many metrics. Performance would be the typical near-term financial and operating metrics.
Health might be things that give you an indication of whether you are on track against the strategy. This topic of metrics is one we heard from board members as well. We interviewed a number of board directors, as well as chief executives, for the book. There was a common message from them around wishing they had, and valuing when they had them, more metrics for the long-term strategy.
Maybe they are momentum metrics. You have to deliver on the earnings per share, in the current quarter, or the current year. Or Sir George Buckley, with the new product vitality index, I think he called it. How much of our revenue is coming from products that are less than five years old? Simon, this issue of momentum is really important in looking at the long run, say, three to five years out.
This is particularly true when making the right long-term move might make you go backward in some areas in the short term.
Leading Term The term in a polynomial which contains the highest power of the variable. For example, 5 x 4 is the leading term of 5 x 4 – 6 x 3 + 4 x –
Math Central is supported by the University of Regina and The Pacific Institute for the Mathematical Sciences.
The leading term in a polynomial is the highest degree term. In this case, the leading term in is the first term, which is. The leading coefficient of a polynomial is the coefficient of the leading term. The leading-order terms (or corrections) within a mathematical equation, expression or model are the terms with the largest order of magnitude.   The sizes of the different terms in the equation(s) will change as the variables change, and hence, which terms are leading-order may also change.
Mar 31, · leading term is 4x^3. leading term is the term with the highest coeficient. leading coeficient is 4. leading coeficient is the constant of the term with the higest goalsoftdown5.tk: Resolved. Get in-depth knowledge about common factors including how to make the leading term positive, the rule of signs, and how to factor by grouping with TheMathPage.