Articles

Over the past couple of decades, management innovations have pushed companies toward the ideal of the “boundaryless” organization. As a result of these changes, formal reporting structures and detailed work processes have a much diminished role in the way important work is accomplished. Instead, informal networks of employees are increasingly at the forefront, and the general health and “connectivity” of these groups can have a significant impact on strategy execution and organizational effectiveness. Many corporate leaders intuitively understand this, but few spend any real time assessing or supporting informal networks. And because they do not receive adequate resources or executive attention, these groups are often fragmented, and their efforts are often disrupted by management practices or organizational design principles that are biased in favor of task specialization and individual rather than collaborative endeavors. The authors initiated a research program two years ago to determine how organizations can better support work occurring in and through informal networks of employees; they assessed more than 40 networks in 23 organizations. They discovered in all cases that the networks provided strategic and operational benefits by enabling members to collaborate effectively; they also found that managers, if they truly wanted to assist these groups, had to overcome six myths about how networks operate. In this article, the authors explain the six myths and why they are harmful; in place of these assumptions, they offer reality checks that can be implemented to help networks become more effective. Senior managers who can separate myth from reality, and act accordingly, stand a much better chance of fostering the growth and success of these increasingly important organizational structures.

Traditional teams are not faring well in today’s rapidly changing business environment. Even when they establish clear roles and responsibilities, build trust among members and define goals according to the book, their projects often fail or get axed. Three MIT Sloan School researchers think they have found the reason: Traditional teams are too inwardly focused and lack flexibility. Traditional team-building activities are still important, they contend, but only when combined with a greater awareness of external stakeholders and information sources. Fortunately, a new, externally focused team has arisen: the X-team. The authors detail the high levels of performance that X-teams are seeing. And they explain how managers in a wide variety of industries and functions can establish the organizational structures that support such teams. The researchers outline the five components of X-teams they have studied: external activity, extensive ties both inside the larger organization and outside the company, expandable tiers or kinds of responsibility, flexible membership (switching roles, moving in and out of the team as needed) and execution mechanisms that facilitate getting the job done. The results are impressive. One observed X-team greatly improved the dispersal of innovation throughout its organization. X-teams in sales were seen to bring in more revenue. Drug-development teams were more adept at drawing in external technology. Product-development teams were more innovative than traditional teams & #8212; and more often on time and on budget. Managers that recognize their own company in the new, flatter organizational structures, the increasing interdependence of tasks and teams, the constant updating of information and the overall complexity of work should consider creating an environment for successful X-teams.

Platform leadership is the ability of a company to drive innovation around a particular platform technology at the broad industry level.

Strategy is increasingly a moving target. And despite strategists’ and technologists’ recognition that developing a productive relationship is critical, it’s been hard to build a technology platform to support visions based on capabilities that may or may not exist. Fortunately, say researchers from the University of Oxford and the Warwick University Business School in England, a few enterprises are showing how to successfully bridge the great divide. Chris Sauer and Leslie Willcocks surveyed CEOs and CIOs at 97 companies that had moved or were moving to e-business. As the companies shrank their development and planning cycles, the gap between strategists and technologists grew. But in a few enterprises, the authors spotted inspired players they call “organizational architects.” These leaders were generally technology-smart CEOs or business-savvy CIOs who developed mechanisms to force communication between strategists and technologists. The success stories point to the value of companywide transformation, with organizational architects guiding the translation of strategy to a flexible, integrated platform. Dialogue between strategists and technologists makes it possible to define and design structures, processes, capabilities and technologies that have a greater chance of being responsive to organizational goals. In true synergy, the platform is shaped by the vision, and the vision is reshaped by the characteristics of the platform that enable the vision. How do organizational architects keep business and technology concerns united? They view technology and organization as equal influences; they standardize and centralize; they manage change intelligently; and they match capability and ambition. Companies such as Oracle, IBM, the utility Citipower and the investment bank Macquarie (the latter two in Australia) have already strengthened their business-technology alignment by applying one or more of these principles.

Farsighted investors can check wayward founder-CEOs by creating strong and independent boards.

New research from MIT’s Center for Information Systems Research and others reveals that successful companies are revolutionizing the way IT investments get decided. Investments are no longer justified merely on the basis of making a functional silo more profitable. Today the strategic needs of the whole company come first. In the last 15 years, write professors Jeanne Ross of MIT’s Sloan School of Management and Cynthia Beath of the University of Texas, a tidal wave of IT-enabled initiatives has elevated the importance of investing strategically. The Internet alone has created numerous opportunities: to reengineer processes, introduce online products and services, approach new customer segments and redo business models. The opportunities seem limitless, but the resources required & #8212; capital, IT expertise, management focus and capacity for change & #8212; are not. How to choose? Traditionally, companies justified a given project by presenting a strong business case. But with IT’s growing strategic importance, companies must now weigh individual ROIs against demands for organizationwide capabilities & #8212; and must assess opportunities to leverage and improve existing systems and infrastructures, create new capabilities and test new business models. The authors recommend a new investment approach based on a framework they developed after studying the e-business initiatives and supporting IT investments of 30 enterprises. The framework encourages simultaneous investment in four kinds of IT initiative. Transformation investments are necessary if a company’s core infrastructure limits its ability to develop applications critical to long-term success. Renewal investments maintain the infrastructure’s functionality and cost-effectiveness. Process improvements allow business applications to leverage infrastructure by delivering short-term profitability. Experiments enable learning about opportunities and testing the capabilities of new technologies. The new tools are helping managers grapple with an increasingly complex world.

Forget capital; it’s relatively easy to obtain nowadays. Today’s scarce, sought-after strategic resource is expertise, which comes in the form of employees. Although organizations have changed mightily from the days of hierarchical, top-down management, they still have a long way to go. In addition to issues of company structure and who should be involved in strategic decision making, there are questions of how the value that companies create should be distributed, now that employees, as well as shareholders, control a scarce resource. And then there are the intangible yet crucial changes that must occur in senior managers’ ways of thinking & #8212; and in the atmosphere and culture of the company. Reorienting old-school senior managers away from capital and toward knowledgeable employees will be difficult, but Christopher Bartlett of Harvard Business School and Sumantra Ghoshal of London Business School have several recommendations for human-resource professionals, who, Bartlett and Ghoshal maintain, will be key players in the design, development and delivery of strategy. Their task is threefold. First, they must build up the company by acquiring and retaining highly skilled employees. Second, they must find a way to embed individual-based knowledge in the company, making it accessible and useful not just to one unit or one function, but to the entire organization. That is the linking task. Finally, there is the bonding task: HR managers must create an engaging, motivating and bonding culture that will attract and keep talented employees. With people in ascendancy over capital, say the authors, it is time to recall what a company actually is: a social institution designed to engage people in the achievement of a valuable and meaningful purpose.

In theory, trade promotions should benefit everyone involved. In practice, however, manufacturers and retailers often use trade promotions as weapons in a zero-sum game, and consumers are sometimes left out altogether. It need not be that way. Over the past three years, David Bell, an associate professor of marketing at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, and Xavier Dr_ze, a visiting assistant professor of marketing at UCLA’s Anderson School, have examined the theoretical and practical problems associated with trade promotions, and they explain how the right kind of deal can be created & #8212; a transparent system that generates mutual trust and provides benefits to both manufacturers and retailers. The key is proper implementation of what is thus far a little understood tool: the pay-for-performance trade promotion, in which retailers get rewarded according to how much they sell, not how much they buy. The authors explain how the most accepted way of doing promotions today & #8212; which rewards retailers for effective buying rather than effective marketing & #8212; creates a variety of inefficiencies that drain resources from their intended purpose. Using a hypothetical case involving much-simplified mathematics, they go on to demonstrate how manufacturers can design pay-for-performance options that retailers can embrace. They also illustrate how one national beverage company made pay-for-performance deals work in practice. Finally, they offer practical advice to help senior managers rethink the elements of organizational culture that stand in the way of a more effective approach to trade promotions & #8212; and, by extension, block better, more profitable relationships all along the channel.