Articles

Many corporate boards adopt a one-size-fits-all approach to governance. Instead, they should consider that their primary role must shift depending on various conditions, both internal and external. Boards have four main functions -- auditing, supervising, coaching and steering -- each with a different perspective and behavior. The roles reflect two main differences in board culture. The first type of board concerns itself mainly with shareholder interests or shareholder plus other stakeholder interests. The focus is on externalities. The second type of board either monitors executives' activities or gets actively involved in the conduct of the organization. Here the focus is on handling ineffective management. The basic role types are not mutually exclusive; instead they reflect different board cultures that result from different emphases on decision making and resource allocation. During any time period, a board must determine what its dominant role should be, given the current conditions.

For decades, companies relied on push marketing to sell their products and services. Then, in the 1990s, the emphasis shifted to relationship marketing, as slogans such as "delight your customers" became the mantra of many marketers. But those tactics have been losing their effectiveness, particularly as the power of customers continues to grow. Thanks to digital technologies like the Internet, today's increasingly educated consumers expect companies to do more than just delight them. In response, innovative companies are now trying a different approach: They are providing customers with open, honest and complete information, and then finding the best products for them -- even if those offerings are from competitors. In short, they are truly representing their customers' best interests, essentially becoming advocates for them. The strategy is this: If a company advocates for its customers, they will reciprocate with their trust, loyalty and purchases -- either now or in the future. The firm might then command higher prices for its products and services, as many customers will be willing to pay for the extra value. And when people trust a company, they will often tell others about it, helping to reduce the organization's costs for acquiring new customers.

Popular wisdom holds that blue-chip companies can somehow grow continuously. According to the authors, however, the struggle of corporate icons like Kodak, Digital and Xerox demonstrate that natural limitations, managerial complexity, a lack of stakeholder harmony and antitrust concerns make continuous growth increasingly difficult. Rather than seeking growth at any cost, they suggest that companies seek alternative ways of moving beyond natural growth limits. The authors draw on a host of examples -- from Microsoft, J.P. Morgan, IBM and others -- suggesting that companies finding themselves confronting this scenario can either break up their company, create new corporate forms or make a graceful growth-to-value transition. In evaluating their options, say the authors, the corporate executives must consider their company's position in its life cycle -- growth, stall or post-stall. Stalls can be anticipated by assessing the natural limits of the company's dominant growth strategy and its pattern of financial performance. Executives must also realistically assess their company's capacity for both innovation and new-business creation in order to decide whether their capital and talent would be better spent on core business development than on the reckless pursuit of high growth. Choosing alternate options is not easy, suggest the authors, given the pervasive culture of continuous growth. The first step toward making constructive decisions for a company's future, however, is to acknowledge that unbounded growth may indeed be a myth.

Sellers know things about their customers' businesses that the customers don't know and can't find out on their own yet value immensely. Because they come into contact with many and varied buyers, sellers have a bird's-eye view of the forest -- the industry's competitive landscape -- in contrast to customers, who often see only the trees. And they can use their wide range of experience to teach customers about their own businesses. This isn't a matter of divulging confidential aspects of clients' businesses to their competitors. The challenge is to translate an industrywide perspective into knowledge that customers can use. Companies that can do that successfully reduce their customers' costs or operating risks and are rewarded in turn with customer loyalty, pricing flexibility or both. The authors lay out three strategies that companies can adopt to turn a view of the forest into value for customers and competitive advantage for the business. They also explain the steps companies should take to collect, aggregate, adapt and share customer experiences.

When executives began outsourcing substantial portions of their operations more than a decade ago, they did it to offload activities they declared to be noncore in order to cut costs and improve strategic focus. Today, however, companies are looking outside for help for more fundamental reasons -- to facilitate rapid organizational change, to launch new strategies and to reshape company boundaries. In doing so, they are engaging in transformational outsourcing: partnering with another company to achieve a rapid, substantial and sustainable improvement in enterprise-level performance. On the basis of research on 20 companies that have attempted the practice, the author has identified four broad organizational categories that can benefit from transformational outsourcing. Startups such as TiVo, for example, need partners to scale up rapidly. "Crouching tigers" such as Family Christian Stores are being stymied by a deficiency in some key capability from meeting their strategic aspirations. "Fallen angels" -- such as BP in the mid-1990s -- settle into the wrong performance trajectory and need strong action to change their tack. And organizations on the edge of survival -- as Britain's National Savings and Investments was several years ago -- need transformational outsourcing to become "born again."

Brands may be less vulnerable to the vagaries of extension than is commonly feared.

Data from a decade-long research project puts advice to managers in context, country by country.