Articles

Most companies invest a significant amount of time and effort in a formal, annual strategic-planning process & #8212; but many executives see little benefit from the investment. In the course of the authors’ research, one manager compared his company’s process with a “primitive tribal ritual,” and another likened it to the Soviet system: “We pretend to make strategy and they pretend to follow it.” The authors found that, although few truly strategic decisions are made in the context of a formal process, formal planning can be a real source of competitive advantage when it is approached with the right goal in mind: as a learning tool to help companies create within their management teams “prepared minds” (to borrow from Louis Pasteur). The key is getting right a host of seemingly mundane but actually critical details concerning the annual meetings that are at the heart of all formal processes & #8212; including who should attend the meetings, where they should be held and what kind of preparation is necessary to make them effective. Following an analysis of those details, the authors offer several examples showing prepared minds in action, in which formal planning helped managers make solidly grounded, real-time strategic decisions in a world of turbulence and uncertainty.

Brands have become increasingly difficult to manage. As many brands become more global, for instance, they are expanding beyond relationships just between manufacturers and customers to relationships that include employees, the investment community, the media, suppliers, governments & #8212; even competitors. Thus, the meaning of a brand is not merely the result of a dialogue between buyer and seller; it instead arises from a multilogue. Indeed, brand management has become a complex undertaking, requiring new approaches and models. To that end, the authors have developed a theoretical framework that companies can use to manage their brands more effectively. Specifically, the authors propose the concept of a brand space, which is based on two dimensions: the degree of abstraction (whether the brand has become independent from its associated product) and the degree of enactment (whether the brand focuses more on the meaning of a product or its functionality). By understanding the various dynamics of the brand space, companies can make wiser branding decisions, particularly as they confront escalating competition and rapidly changing markets.

A framework for gaining a clearer understanding of customer preferences.

In recent years, large companies have invested a great deal of money & #8212; and faith & #8212; in process-enabling information technology, IT that facilitates the execution of entire business processes rather than individual tasks. But all too often, such investments fail to pay off: The new systems fail to live up to expectations, register a measurable financial impact, improve work processes or bring about organizational change. Technical snafus, a scarcity of good advice for managers and failure to follow such guidance are not the problems. The fundamental issue is that managers usually follow what amounts to a universal checklist, one that assumes that all implementations are basically alike. Taken as a whole, the list is merely a collection of undifferentiated findings and conclusions rather than a synthesis that would help with the particular implementation effort at hand. The executive in charge of the effort is left to discern which findings apply, under what circumstances and why. Instead of a longer or different list, this article offers a synthesis that highlights how big IT implementations differ from one another and how managers should handle the differences in order to realize the full promise of technological change.

In an article written well before Enron became a euphemism for corporate irresponsibility, the authors make the case that such misdeeds, so prevalent in recent months, are symptoms of a syndrome of selfishness that has taken hold of our business institutions, our societies and our minds. Drawing on history, literature, philosophy and management thinking, they argue that the syndrome is built on a series of half-truths & #8212; or fabrications & #8212; each of which has driven a debilitating wedge into society. Our narrow view of ourselves as “economic man” has driven a wedge of distrust between our individual wants and our social needs. A distorted view of shareholder value has driven a wedge of disengagement between those who create economic performance and those who harvest it. Our obsession with heroic leadership has created a wedge of disconnection between leaders and everyone else. The glorification of the “lean and mean” organization has driven a wedge of discontinuity between short-term and long-term goals. And the convenient, widely held notion that “a rising tide lifts all boats” has ratified a wedge of disparity between the prime beneficiaries of stock-price increases and the large numbers of people disadvantaged by the corresponding actions. The authors challenge and deconstruct each of these flawed premises and offer an alternative. Real prosperity, they say, combines economic development with social generosity & #8212; and that requires a new philosophy of social and managerial engagement.