Articles

In leading international cities, companies gain access to knowledge and networks.

In recent years, researchers and consultants have advanced a number of customer metrics to explain the connections between customer behavior and growth. But these efforts have generated more smoke than heat. Despite claims to the contrary, the authors argue that the most popular metrics have shown only modest correlations to growth. None of them have shown themselves to be universally effective across all competitive environments. Early customer metrics tried to explain why people buy. To many companies, it came down to marketing. Yet, as the authors explain, the issues that affect customer loyalty are complex and go beyond standard marketing. This gave rise to a new category of metrics aimed at understanding the customer experience. Although managers have learned a lot about the components of service quality (including reliability, responsiveness and empathy), the approach doesn't point managers to specific actions they can take. Beginning in the 1990s, many managers began paying closer attention to customer retention -- in particular, understanding what makes for dissatisfaction and satisfaction. But as the authors note, the linkages among satisfaction, customer behavior and positive financial outcomes have been modest. Today's most popular metric, the Net Promoter Score, focuses on how customer word of mouth -- both negative and positive -- can advance growth. Developed by Bain & Company Inc. consultant Fred Reichheld, it claims the ability to predict future growth from customer replies to one question: "How likely is it that you would recommend this company to a friend or colleague?" The authors found that the linkage between the Net Promoter Score and subsequent customer behavior was modest at best; models based on multiple variables consistently outperformed models based on Net Performer. The authors are skeptical that there can be a single metric that reduces complex, multifaceted constructs to one or two dimensions; if there is, they write, "there's a good chance it will ignore one or more important aspects of the equation."

An implicit assumption of the "war for talent" perspective is that departing workers are lost to competitors. Yet employees also leave to join "cooperators," such as customer companies, suppliers and partners, and such movement can facilitate the creation and strengthening of business relationships with those organizations. Another important factor is whether the departing employees possess generic or valuable company-specific knowledge. Managers should consider these two criteria -- the destination and knowledge of departing employees -- when determining how best to handle worker turnover. There are four different scenarios. In the first, employees with knowledge that is generic or of low strategic importance leave to join competitors. This type of turnover can hamper the productive capacity of an organization while increasing that of its competitors. Here the authors recommend the use of defensive maneuvers (such as improving employee benefits), which are designed to retain existing workers. In the second scenario, employees possessing knowledge that has low strategic importance depart to join cooperators. This type of turnover leads to administrative and human-capital costs that must be weighed against the possible social-capital benefits -- the new business opportunities that can be generated by ex-employees in their new jobs. The recommendation is for companies to adopt relational actions, in which they take active steps to maintain positive relationships with former employees, such as through the formation of alumni programs. The third scenario -- employees with strategically important, company-specific knowledge resign to take jobs with competitors -- is potentially the most damaging form of turnover. Consequently, companies might best be served by emphasizing retaliatory actions (such as the threat of lawsuits to enforce noncompete clauses in employment contracts) in addition to defensive maneuvers targeted toward the retention of specific employees who are crucial contributors. In the fourth and final scenario, employees with strategically important, company-specific knowledge leave to work for cooperators. This type of turnover presents interesting challenges. Because the loss of key employees incurs high administrative and human-capital costs, companies have a strong incentive to adopt defensive strategies to reduce such turnover. But the movement of key employees to cooperators can also lead to substantial opportunities for businesses to expand their social capital with important clients and suppliers. Therefore, when defensive maneuvers fail, a company should consider adopting a relational approach, maintaining positive relationships with departing key employees as they make the transition into their new jobs at cooperators.

In global supply chains, managers have consistently struggled with sharing valuable knowledge with buyers and suppliers across borders. Increasingly, talk of the "dark side" of collaborative relationships has left managers wondering who benefits most from knowledge-sharing activities: their companies or their partners. In order to find the answers to these questions, the authors conducted an in-depth study of more than 100 cross-national supply chain partnerships in the industrial chemicals, consumer durables, industrial packaging, toy and apparel industries in multiple locations in 19 countries. Knowledge sharing encompasses the sharing of information, but it doesn't stop there. Much of the information that companies share -- data on inventory levels, sales, production schedules and prices -- is easy to codify and transmit. But other types of knowledge are more difficult to codify: know-how, managerial and communication skills, and organizational memory. Intercompany knowledge sharing is a joint activity between supply-chain partners; the parties share knowledge and then jointly interpret and integrate it into a relationship-domain-specific memory that influences relationship-specific behavior. The authors found three types of knowledge sharing within the supply chain, each offering distinct benefits to buyers and suppliers: information sharing, joint sense making and knowledge integration. They also found that no matter how "diverse" the home cultures of the buyer and supplier companies, these differences had no impact on the propensity to share knowledge. Drawing on examples from the auto (Toyota), aerospace (Boeing, Lockheed Martin and United Technologies) and toy industries, they examine how different types of knowledge sharing can benefit buyers or sellers individually, but more importantly, how it can enhance the performance of the partnership as a whole. They conclude that, while suppliers generally benefit more from knowledge-sharing activities, both buyers and suppliers profit; understanding the benefits of absolute versus relative gains is critical when building world-class global supply chains. Sharing knowledge effectively means understanding that a disparity in benefits is part of what it takes to build partnerships that last.

Companies with connections to a nation’s government may be less productive.

When technology changes rapidly, outsourcing looks more attractive.

What's behind every industry-shaking innovation? Countless, but crucial, "mini-innovations," as Joe Fox calls them. Along with his brother, Avi, Fox has founded two companies -- in entirely different industries -- that aimed to challenge the traditional business models. But in an interview with MIT Sloan Management Review, Fox explains that these large-scale innovations don't dawn on him all at once. Instead they arrive in fragments, some of which are conceived by his management team of original thinkers. The Fox brothers set the group to work after they've spotted a broader opportunity, which happens when they aren't looking for one. Their first business, an online brokerage called Web Street, grew out of their own experience trading equities. And they constructed the framework for BuySide Realty, an online real estate brokerage -- which they currently operate, along with a subsidiary called Iggys House -- when prowling around for a vacation home. After the initial inkling, Fox's market research consists not only of asking potential customers, but also of actually paying attention to their answers. What he's looking for is not their opinion of whether an idea can possibly be executed; he just wants to know if they would pay for such a service, assuming he could bring it into existence. Not that he's had an easy time bringing a notion to fruition. He's never been able to strike a deal with any institutional investors, although Web Street did successfully go public during the dot-com boom in 1999. He had hoped to repeat that feat with his current venture last year, but opted to wait for Wall Street's appetite to improve. In the meantime, Fox is counting on a steady supply of "mini-innovations" to keep the business ahead -- by a half-step, at least -- of its megacompetitors. Can he do it? Clearly, he thinks he knows how.

Initiatives to build and maintain trust with various stakeholders, including customers, employees, suppliers and investors, have risen to the top of the executive agenda at many organizations. But the problem is that most companies don't really understand how to manage stakeholder trust effectively. In fact, the authors' research suggests that many of the trust-building initiatives and approaches that organizations invest in may be of questionable value. Others might actually be counterproductive. One of the reasons managing stakeholder trust is difficult is because there are many different stakeholder groups, each with its own particular needs and perspective. That is, trust is multidimensional, and it's not obvious which dimension executives need to focus on when dealing with any particular constituency. What, for example, is more important for building trust with employees and customers: a reputation for kind-hearted benevolence or for fair-minded integrity? To answer such questions, the authors conducted a study of stakeholder trust in four different organizations. The research analyzed the relevance (if any) of various factors: benevolence, integrity, managerial competence, technical competence, transparency and value congruence. In essence, the study asked what matters -- and to whom. Some of the results were unexpected, and a few were even counterintuitive, leading to the following key insights: Transparency is overrated; integrity is not enough; the right kind of competence matters; building trust with one group can destroy it with another; and value congruence matters across the board. The new framework challenges some existing beliefs and sheds light on a number of areas that companies would be wise not to ignore. Indeed, as the authors illustrate, fundamental misunderstandings about stakeholder trust have tripped up a number of corporations, including Coca-Cola, Google, Apple, Delta Air Lines, Mattel and Sprint. In the future, a deeper knowledge of stakeholder trust will help businesses become more adept at managing stakeholder trust so that they can reap the numerous benefits, including improved cooperation with suppliers, increased motivation and productivity among employees, enhanced loyalty from customers and higher levels of support from investors.

Group brainstorming excels at generating both very good and very bad ideas.

Researchers hope a new Web-based platform will enable better deliberation on complex problems.