Articles

When one company acquires another, executives have 10 distinct options for the corporate rebranding.

INTELLIGENCE: New developments, research and ideas in management

A company must have a three-dimensional view of its brand.

You must tell your strategy story to reach four different audiences.

When employees leave an organization, they depart with more than what they know; they also leave with critical knowledge about who they know. Thus, the departure of key people can significantly affect the relationship structure and consequent functioning of an organization. In particular, companies should be aware of the unique knowledge held by three important types of employees: "central connectors" (those who are regularly asked for help, typically because they have a high level of expertise in one or more areas), "brokers" (those who act as bridges across subgroups) and "peripheral players" (those who reside on the boundaries of a network but could still possess valuable niche expertise and outside knowledge). Departure of an employee who filled any one of these roles presents knowledge-loss risks that need to be addressed. The departure of a handful of key brokers, for example, could fracture the social network of an organization into isolated subgroups. Thus companies need to take various measures to (1) identify key knowledge vulnerabilities by virtue of both what a person knows and how that individual's departure will affect a network and (2) address specific knowledge-loss issues based on the different roles that employees play in the network.

Checks and balances, competitive elections and term limits could improve corporate oversight.

With real wages stagnating and job security elusive for many U.S. workers, the American dream of an improved standard of living for each generation is in jeopardy. The author argues that, although many companies seek to become competitive primarily by reducing costs such as labor, there is another option. A substantial body of research, he reports, indicates that companies that invest in their workforces to build knowledge-based organizations can achieve a return on their investment through higher productivity and profitability. The author cites the example of Continental Airlines Inc., which after an era under Frank Lorenzo that was marked by wage cuts and bankruptcy, experienced improved performance and reputation under a new leadership team with a more collaborative management approach. Southwest Airlines Co. and JetBlue Airways Corp. are also examples of airlines that pursue a high-trust, knowledge-based strategy, while Toyota Motor Corp. and Kaiser Permanente are examples from other industries. Executives interested in building knowledge-based organizations can create momentum for their initiatives in several ways: by carefully documenting the gains from knowledge-based strategies, by encouraging employee representation in corporate governance matters, and by working with other leaders to approach problems that no single company can solve alone.

Many manufacturers already have established product development activities in different countries around the world. As a rule, the current approach includes colocation of cross-functional teams to foster close collaboration among engineering, marketing, manufacturing and supply-chain functions. The results to date -- better product designs, faster time to market and lower-cost production -- have been satisfactory. However, growth and innovation can now be much more effective if manufacturers tie their decentralized development organizations into a cohesive, unified global product development operation. In this article, the authors introduce new empirical frameworks to guide managers toward such practices. Citing exemplars such as Hewlett-Packard, Eastman Kodak, Hyundai Motors, Haier, Alcatel and Cummins, the authors explain why GPD has come of age and demonstrate a three-stage approach that puts product development in the context of a company's relationships with outside partners. The article draws from extensive interviews with engineering managers at more than 100 companies in 15 countries in North America, Europe and Asia. Additional data are from a recently completed study on GPD that PTC has conducted with BusinessWeek Research Services, interviewing and surveying more than 1,100 engineering managers worldwide.

Successful companies recognize that information technology can fundamentally alter the very nature of work. Such a transformation, however, often requires that an organization rethink its corporate strategy and remake its basic structure and processes. The authors, drawing on interviews with Schneider International as part of MIT's Management in the 1990s Research Program, show that the benefits to organizations are related to the extent that organizations adapt their internal structures, processes and culture to extract the greatest value from technology. Although IT has enabled the growth of new companies and even entire industries, these technologies have also transformed the opportunities and challenges facing established manufacturing and service firms. This article examines Schneider's implementation of technologies such as GPS and satellite tracking not only to improve dispatch but also to provide value to customer service such as pinpointing delivery times, driver availability and the ability to alter delivery pickup and drop-off locations. The authors demonstrate that if organizations invest in complementary assets (people skills, new organizational structures and new work processes) to support their IT, they can transform services into products that will evolve into yet more new services, creating a virtual spiral with enormous competitive advantages.

The conventional models of organizational change present an unrealistic image of change as an episodic phenomenon in which corporate leaders develop and implement elaborate change programs on an occasional basis in response to specific, isolated environmental shocks. This type of change does occur, but more often the corporate environment is characterized by change that is open-ended, fluid and less closely tied to specific shocks. In fact, continuous change is a cycle with four phases, each with its own dynamics and specific type of champion. "Evangelists" promote the value of innovation and creativity, influencing those around them so that new ideas spread and take root. "Autocrats" choose which ideas are translated into practice, using their authority to alter behaviors. "Architects" design and implement systems that embed change into the organizational infrastructure. Finally, "educators" create work experiences that increase employees' expertise and sense of mastery, leading to the generation of new ideas that extend and potentially transform the organization's direction, thereby keeping the cycle going around. An understanding of these four phases can help managers transform their companies into organizations that experience change, not as a tumultuous, anxiety-inducing event, but as part of an everyday routine.