Articles

Organizations must return to cultivating strategic thinking, not just functional achievements.

In a recent survey, 72% of board directors indicated that their performance ought to be evaluated. Yet only 21% of the boards of public companies actually conduct such assessments. Part of the problem is that organizations often don't know how best to implement a board self-evaluation procedure, so many simply avoid the practice. Others have implemented the process only to become frustrated because it took so much time and produced so few results. To investigate the different self-evaluation practices used, the authors studied eight boards that have engaged in the process for at least two annual cycles. They found two high-level variables in the protocol for self-evaluations: the structure of the data-collection methodology (low versus high) and the confidentiality of data (unimportant versus important). These dimensions define quadrants of four different approaches to self-evaluation: informal, legalistic, trusting and systematic. Each approach has important implications for a company's board rating, directors and officers insurance and various other issues.

The practice of pushing product by building inventory in anticipation of demand has fallen out of favor in recent years. Many companies prefer to build product only in response to actual demand. This permits firms to avoid costly supply and demand mismatches. Given how successful product-based firms have been with this approach, it is only natural to wonder how it would apply to service firms. Some argue that services cannot be inventoried. Yet this view relies on an extremely narrow definition of inventory as finished product waiting for customers. In practice, the authors say, inventory also serves as a way to store work that functions as "service inventory." As with physical inventories, service inventories allow firms to buffer their resources from the variability of demand and reap benefits from economies of scale while benefiting customers. By using the correct form of service inventory, companies have the opportunity to offer better quality, faster response times and more competitive pricing. Using examples from the travel, hospitality and insurance industries, the authors discuss how service firms can use inventory as a strategic lever in designing and managing service offerings.

The growing popularity of mobile hand-held devices is opening up intriguing new possibilities for what the authors refer to as "brand in the hand" marketing. Because individuals can be, and often are, connected anytime and anyplace, mobile marketing can be used to collect data through the wireless Internet to determine not only the exact location of a consumer at a given time, but also why that individual might be there. With that information, more meaningful or relevant advertising messages or promotions can be delivered to the consumer on a mobile device. Before companies rush into this new marketing arena, though, they need to understand some fundamental issues. How does mobile marketing differ from traditional approaches? When should a company pursue a "brand in the hand" initiative? Does mobile marketing have to be integrated within an overall marketing strategy and, if so, how? Moreover, how should companies address privacy issues? These are of particular concern, in part because of the personal nature of mobile devices.

Asking customers about their wants increases the probability that they will be dissatisfied.

Effective philanthropy must be run as professionally as the core business.

Too much familiarity with customers can backfire, but engaging in multisided conversations can manage the risks.

Most managers see strategy development as serious business. It is ironic, then, that some of the most remarkable strategic breakthroughs in organizations emerge not from well-ordered processes but from messy, ambiguous and sometimes irrational activities -- pursuits that can best be described as play. Referring to research in the fields of developmental psychology and anthropology, the authors argue that play can stimulate the development of cognitive, interpretive skills and engender an emotional sense of fulfillment. It can help establish a safe environment for introducing new ideas about market opportunities, generating debate about important strategic issues, challenging old assumptions and building a sense of common purpose. The authors draw on their own experiences working with managers at the Imagination Lab Foundation and Templeton College, Oxford University, and they make sure to point out that play is no substitute for rational, conventional strategy development. Indeed, after the creative sessions are over, plenty of hard work remains to translate the ideas and insights into processes and actions. However, the authors argue that organizations seeking to differentiate themselves from competitors and overcome strategic obstacles can benefit by making time for managers to interact creatively with follow-up on the insights that emerge.

A company’s installed business processes are typically designed to execute routine activities. As such, they can have great difficulty handling novel initiatives, particularly when important work needs to be coordinated across different business units. Such cases are often better handled by a new framework that views the organization as a nexus of personal promises that employees make to each other. As defined by the authors, a “commitment” is a promise made by a performer to satisfy the concerns of a customer within the organization. “Customer” and “performer” refer simply to roles: An individual acts as a customer when making a request, and a performer when fulfilling a request. In committing to a customer, a performer promises to fulfill the customer’s “conditions of satisfaction,” that is, the specific terms (such as cost, timing and quality) required to meet the customer’s needs. In general, the most powerful commitments are public, active, voluntary, explicit and motivated. Moreover, effective commitments tend to arise out of ongoing discussions between the customer and performer that proceed through four basic steps & #8212; preparation, negotiation, execution and acknowledgment.

The principle that financial markets accurately reflect the underlying value of traded stocks has been widely accepted in the investment world since the 1960s. It is predicated on the assumption that investors make buy or sell decisions based on a rational view of a company's future cash flow, after considering all the relevant information. The role of the markets is to allocate capital to companies efficiently. Recently, however, this rational view has been under attack from adherents of behavioral finance, who argue that stock markets do not reflect economic fundamentals as well as people think they do. The authors maintain that there are instances when stock market valuations can and do make significant and lasting deviations from a company's intrinsic value. However, according to the authors' analysis, the significant discrepancies between market value and intrinsic value are both rare and short-lived. The article cites several examples, including the late 1970s, when inflation-conscious investors pushed stock valuations too low, and the "Internet bubble" of the late 1990s. On the whole, the authors argue, financial markets value investments efficiently -- even if some people invest irrationally some of the time. Although managers may occasionally find ways to take advantage of short-term discrepancies, the authors say the only way they will be able to do so is by understanding the real underlying values.