Articles

Assessment tools for better-informing decisions have proliferated. Which ones work?

Despite research showing that mergers and acquisitions rarely provide significant shareholder value, there is no sign of any slowing in the trend toward M&;A. One of the major reasons why M&;A tend, to fail, argue the authors, is that the process often puts extreme stress on senior management teams. By nature, the process is an adversarial one, with management on both sides advocating for their stakeholders. When the dust clears at the end of the process, management is left, as the authors say, "to navigate the challenging segue from 'tough negotiator' to 'trusted colleague.' " The authors draw on the experience of Hewlett-Packard, Cisco, General Electric and Adobe to propose six guidelines for improving relations between the senior management teams of both sides of the M&;A equation. The first three guidelines should be undertaken as soon as possible in the integration process. The authors advise that you can reduce the defection of talented personnel by reducing role ambiguity as quickly as possible. They also urge due diligence about the talent you are acquiring as early in the process as possible, and preferably before the deal is finished. Third, they recommend allowing some "habits to die hard." Employees often rely on habits and long-standing procedures to remain comfortable, and many of them are what made the company successful in the first place. As the integration process continues, there are three more important guidelines to follow. First, acquirers should not tolerate "bad behavior" that can sabotage the integration process. Second, it is important to have patience with the new management team, as many of them will be in unfamiliar roles. Finally, the authors suggest that it is important to remember to celebrate the value of the deal for all involved. By trumpeting the value of the new team, you can increase communication and trust. Ultimately, this trust may lead to increased shareholder value for all involved.

The IBM Innovation Jam was the largest-ever event to promote networked idea generation. More than 150,000 IBM employees, stakeholders and vendors participated in two three-day online events to foster innovation and help IBM bring products to market faster. Using Web sites, wikis, forums and other online tools, Jam participants generated literally hundreds of thousands of new business ideas. From those ideas, IBM focused on several major topics for the second part of the Jam and invited its employees to build on the ideas within those topics. As a result of this process, 10 distinct businesses were funded. However, it wasn’t these successes that make the Jam interesting, argue the authors; it was the difficulties that IBM faced in implementing the Jam. Given unique access to the Jam, the authors discuss the complications inherent in collaborating with so many people. In particular, it was hard to sustain individual “conversations” in the collaborative process. Rather than building on each other’s ideas, many participants & #8212; because of excitement about their own ideas & #8212; would “hijack” a thread or take it in an unintended direction. Some great ideas were left to wither on the vine. The authors discuss other attempts at large-scale collaboration, including some by Dell and Starbucks. These include the use of promotion tools to ensure that “good” ideas are seen and captured by as many eyes as possible. The pros and cons of these methods are discussed as well, and the authors provide a framework for thinking about how an organization can collaborate with its stakeholders.

At top companies, where the inspired use of metrics helps to identify potential leaders and develop their skills, the answer is yes.

R&;D alliances with suppliers or universities are more likely to be fruitful.

In buyer-supplier relationships in which companies depend on one another, performance may improve.

Service companies shouldn’t worry about teaching their customers too much.

In business and in personal life, people look for easy solutions to solve complex problems. Unfortunately, most quick fixes don't work because the problem is rarely fed by a single cause. If you want to confront persistent problems, the authors argue, you need to apply several different kinds of influence strategies simultaneously. Their approach is based on three separate studies -- two examining organizational issues within companies and a third exploring destructive individual behaviors such as smoking, overeating and excessive alcohol use. The authors document the success of this multipronged approach across different problem domains (from entrenched cultural issues in companies to leader-led change initiatives to stubborn personal challenges). They found that those who employed only one influence strategy (for example, managers offered training, redesigned the organization or held a high-visibility retreat) were far less likely to achieve significant results than those who used four or more sources of influence in combination. The same went for those tackling personal challenges. Many had attempted to alter their behavior by using a single approach (joining a gym, following prescriptions in a book or attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings) -- but nearly all had failed. Using examples from such companies as AT&;T, Lockheed Martin, OGE Energy and Spectrum Health Systems, the authors describe six influence strategies. The first two, personal motivation and ability, relate to sources of influence within individuals that determine their behavioral choices. The next two, social motivation and ability, relate to how other people affect an individual's choices. And the final two, structural motivation and ability, encompass the role of nonhuman factors, such as compensation systems, the role of physical proximity on behavior, and technology. "Too often," the authors argue, "[leaders] bet on a single source of influence rather than tapping a diverse arsenal of strategies. We have learned that the main variable in success or failure is not which sources of influence leaders choose. By far the more important factor is how many."

Providing support, training and opportunities from day one is critical.

The way we think about strategy is woefully incomplete, the authors contend. The traditional idea of focusing on the positioning of products (or services) underplays much of what most would agree makes a company truly competitive. Not only does it give short shrift to what a company knows, it ignores completely the fact that in today’s dynamic economy, organizations have to continually reinvent who they are and what they do in large and small ways. And one important means of doing so is through innovation. An effective strategy, then, is comprised of three key components: product/market, knowledge and innovation positions. But even if a company masters the three strategic positions of product/market, knowledge and innovation independently, it is still at risk. Only when all three positions are aligned and mutually reinforcing can a strategy succeed. In adopting the notion of alignment, organizations need to view each position & #8212; product/market, knowledge and innovation & #8212; as aspects of an organization’s overall strategy. Creating an integrated strategy thus requires focusing not on each position separately, but rather on all three positions simultaneously. The authors introduce the notion of competing based not only on what an organization makes or the service it provides, but on what it knows and how it innovates. Each aspect represents a competitive position that must be evaluated relative to the capabilities of the organization and to others in the marketplace battling for the same space. And each component must not only be aligned with the other two, but it needs to be adjusted as circumstances warrant. When done correctly, organizations & #8212; such as Buckman Laboratories, which is profiled here & #8212; thrive. When done badly, the company can suffer, and perhaps fatally so, as the history of Polaroid points out.