Articles

The place of multinational corporations in China has rapidly changed since the 1970s. No longer expected to bring cash and management expertise to China, the authors argue that MNCs have taken on a new role as teachers and role models. However, recent high-profile mistakes including a McDonald's Corp. (of Oak Brook, Illinois) ad that over 80% of Chinese surveyed found offensive, show that MNCs are not entirely up to this task. They illustrate the consequences of this inability to cope and suggest eight strategies for improving MNC's success in China: Think local-act global, don't apply double standards, don't bend the rules, avoid making "symbolic" acquisitions, avoid employing aggressive tactics over intellectual property rights, guard against management insensitivity, don't "strip mine" profits and don't use China as a lab. The authors then go on to show how these strategies can be executed to increase MNC's profits and standing in China.

Why publicly praised executives tend to underperform.

In the past, companies have tried to manage risks by focusing on potential threats outside the organization: competitors, shifts in the strategic landscape, natural disasters or geopolitical events. They are generally less adept at detecting internal vulnerabilities that creep into organizations and other human-designed systems. Indeed, as companies increase the complexity of their systems -- products, processes, technologies, organizational structures, legal contracts and so on -- they often fail to pay sufficient attention to the introduction and proliferation of loopholes and flaws. Ericsson, Barings Bank and Comair are but a few examples of companies that have suffered disastrous breakdowns in their complex internal systems. A crucial thing to remember is that the possibility of random failure rises as the number of combinations of things that can go wrong increases, and the opportunity for acts of malicious intent also goes up. Build new applications on top of legacy systems, and errors creep in between the lines of code. Merge two companies, and weaknesses sprout between the organizational boundaries. Build Byzantine corporate structures and processes, and obscure pockets are created where bad behavior can hide. Furthermore, the enormous complexity of large systems like communications networks means that even tiny glitches can cascade into catastrophic events. In fact, catastrophic events are almost guaranteed to occur in many complex systems, much like big earthquakes are bound to happen. So, without the benefit of perfect foresight, how can businesses uncover and forestall the fatal flaws lurking within their organizations? There are three complementary strategies: (1) Assess the risk to make better-informed decisions, such as purchasing an insurance policy to cover the risk; (2) spot vulnerabilities and fix them before catastrophic events occur; and (3) design out weaknesses through resilience. These ideas have been around for years, but researchers have recently had to reinvent them in the context of extremely complex, interconnected cascade-prone systems.

How environmental cues influence consumer behavior.

Managing returns, structuring the physical distribution network and deploying product inventories are all key.

Leadership mandates tend to fall into one of three major categories: continuity (we should continue business as usual), good to great (we’ve been doing fine, but we need to do even better) and turnaround (we need to make dramatic changes to survive). Myriad problems can arise when an executive is given one leadership mandate while others are operating under a different, conflicting set of directives. Such stealth mandates are no-win situations, leading to the executive constantly butting heads with his or her boss, colleagues and others in the organization. To identify the true leadership mandate for a position, executives need to ask three crucial questions about the business unit they lead: (1) What needs to be changed within the next 12 months? (2) What needs to be honored or maintained during the next 12 months? (3) What must be avoided at all costs? Different constituencies should be queried, including key customers, and each of the questions should elicit a discussion about technology, business processes, culture and people. When executives discover that a stealth mandate is in play, they need to renegotiate mandates. One important goal is to establish realistic frameworks that will then become the basis for their future performance evaluation. Of course this is much easier said than done. But when an executive continues to operate in the shadow of a stealth mandate, he or she is setting himself or herself up to fail.

Over the last decade, the Internet has transformed many aspects of the way business is conducted -- from how goods are bought and sold to where work is done. To explore what might constitute the next generation of Web technologies and what effect they will have on the nature, purpose and management of organizations, MIT Sloan Management Review contributing editor Martha E. Mangelsdorf talked with two leading experts: Erik Brynjolfsson, director of the MIT Center for Digital Business and the George and Sandra Schussel Professor of Management at the MIT Sloan School of Management, and Andrew P. McAfee, associate professor of business administration in the Technology and Operations Management Unit at Harvard Business School. Brynjolffsson and McAfee are confident that the future emphasis of some businesses will be on the use of Web 2.0 technologies to support innovation, creativity and information sharing rather than just to achieve cost cutting. They discussed the complementary relationship between traditional managerial tools, such as ERP and CRM, and the evolving modes of collaboration and communication, such as wikis. McAfee pointed out that one set of tools allows good ideas to percolate upward, after which the very structured process-management technologies can be used to replicate the innovation -- with brutal efficiency in some cases. Companies in very turbulent, information-intensive industries tend to be the ones that have gone the furthest with deploying the new Enterprise 2.0 infrastructure and the mindset that goes along with it, said McAfee. There are "softer cultural things" that companies can do to promote creativity among employees, Brynjolfsson said, which gives them the freedom to work laterally or diagonally within their organizations. The cultural shift away from the classic notions of productivity and output, such as billable hours, is more difficult for some companies to manage, and neither Brynjolfsson nor McAfee sees any technology that by itself will resolve this dilemma. According to Brynjolfsson and McAfee, technology innovation is engendering a whole set of complementary innovations in organizations that actually heighten the role of managers and executives. In fact, they said, it will be managers who will have to increase the ambient level of participation in and contribution to these Enterprise 2.0 environments. Companies cited in the discussion that are integrating the new technologies and cultivating the complementary cultural changes include Google, retail pharmacy chain CVS, Spanish fashion retailer Zara and Canadian software developer Cambrian House.

A company’s policies provide insight into its culture.

Societal consequences give power to formal sanctions.

Most companies segment their markets by customer demographics or product characteristics and differentiate their offerings by adding features and functions. But the consumer has a different view of the marketplace. He simply has a job to be done and is seeking to & #x201C;hire” the best product or service to do it. Marketers must adopt that perspective.