Articles

Some observers see outsourcing as a key trend (perhaps even the key trend) shaping the future of human resources (HR). They envision HR departments focused entirely on strategic activities, leaving all the transactional and administrative activities to vendors. But, the author cautions that outsourcing any business activity creates potential risks as well as benefits: Companies can find themselves overly dependent on suppliers, and they can lose strength in strategically core competencies. Given the importance of the outsourcing decision and the amount of academic and practitioner literature on it, there is surprisingly little consensus about the topic, says the author, probably because of the multiplicity and complexity of the factors involved. The author synthesizes the strongest of the available research and identifies the six key factors that companies should consider when making important outsourcing decisions. The framework, which helps assess the pros and cons of outsourcing, can be applied specifically to HR functions. In particular, it can help explicate the managerial issues of outsourcing agreements such as the recent landmark deal between BP and Exult Inc. That $600 million, seven-year arrangement provides a window into the many opportunities -- and complexities -- of HR outsourcing.

Researchers are beginning to explore the complex effects of employee identity on the workplace.

Much of the recent research on mergers and acquisitions (M&;A) seeks to link the market valuations of individual companies, as well as overall stock market levels, with merger activity and performance. In their review of work conducted in this field, the authors present a primer on ways to measure whether M&;A actually creates value and then offer an overview of the "winners" and "losers." But the long-held observation that stock prices affect merger activity was confirmed in 2001, they say, by work that revealed a correlation between high merger activity and high market valuations. Several other studies have shown that acquirers who pay with stock underperform their peers in the long run, whereas acquirers who pay cash outperform their peers. Another line of inquiry, according to the authors, finds that the level of the stock market when an acquisition is announced affects short-term and long-term merger performance. The short-term effects are positive for acquisitions announced in high-valuation markets and negative for those undertaken in low-valuation markets. Supporting evidence is provided in other recent work too: Acquisitions that take place during periods of below-average economic growth create more shareholder value than strong-economy acquisitions. The strong performance of low-valuation acquirers and weak-economy acquirers suggests that they are not distracted by short-run market reactions, but instead focus on business fundamentals and true potential synergies. Two articles published in 2002, suggesting that the root cause of such links between valuation and performance may be incorrect valuation by the market, are empirically supported by current work that Bouwman et al. also describe. The conclusion of these various research streams is that stock prices matter, say the authors. The key implication for managers: Be wary of acquisitions made when market or firm valuations are high, and be optimistic about acquisitions when valuations are low. This review includes a comprehensive sidebar of all referenced and relevant research.

Over the past decade, companies have become increasingly aware of the social and environmental pressures facing business. Many management scholars and consultants have argued that these new demands offer terrific opportunities for progressive organizations, and innovation is one of the primary means by which companies can achieve sustainable growth. But, say the authors, the reality is that managers have had considerable difficulty dealing with sustainable-development pressures. Specifically, their innovation strategies are often inadequate to accommodate the highly complex and uncertain nature of these new demands. In response, the authors propose the concept of sustainable-development innovation, or SDI. In contrast to conventional, market-driven innovation, SDI considers the added constraints of social and environmental pressures. SDI is therefore usually more complex, because there is typically a wider range of stakeholders, and more ambiguous, as many of the parties have contradictory demands. Furthermore, sustainable-development pressures can be driven by science that has yet to be accepted fully by the scientific, political and managerial communities. Organizations that fail to understand such issues could well find themselves making costly mistakes in bringing new technologies to market.

Overreacting to corporate scandal will hobble risk taking, innovation and growth

Wireless networks and microcharging will change the Internet as we know it.

During the late 1990s stock market boom, many large companies established corporate-venturing units, seeking to develop innovative new businesses and spur growth. However, with the downturn of the economy, many of these units ceased operations -- while others managed to survive and a few even thrived. What went wrong with failing companies, and how do those that still have corporate-venturing units manage to succeed? The authors studied nearly 100 venturing units, proposing that failures often occurred because such groups lacked clarity -- both in their objectives and in their business models. Using the example of successful venturing units, such as Intel Capital, Mustang Ventures at Siemens, Lucent New Venture Group and GE Equity, the authors outline four common types of venturing scenarios that, by using a careful, steady approach, companies can execute well: ecosystem venturing, innovation venturing, harvest venturing and private-equity venturing. They discuss the characteristics and benefits of each and how successful companies avoid the pitfalls that snare others. In the end, the authors conclude, there are many ways to do corporate venturing. But to succeed, companies must define their goals clearly and narrowly, understand the differences among the various types, and use the appropriate type for the appropriate activity. The ultimate key to accomplishing that, say the authors, lies in effectively employing the differences to their advantage.

Corporate America has spent the last few years in restructuring mode, drastically reorganizing processes in order to wring profits from a battered economy. However beneficial these efforts may be to the bottom line, say the authors, a reliance on restructuring has had unintended negative side effects, as hierarchies that once controlled the direction of many companies become less relevant, and loyal employees become increasingly disheartened by disruptive -- and often short-sighted -- strategies. In response, companies resort to even more restructuring, frequently with less than optimal results.The authors recommend that companies shift away from knee-jerk responses such as restructuring and hierarchy building toward a transformation of established corporate structures, a wider distribution of knowledge, and the use of modern performance-measurement systems and technologies. Citing examples at BP, North Carolina's Duke Power and W.L. Gore, the authors claim that only companies developing their advantage upon the agility and flexibility of their processes, people and technologies can build lasting value for their company, customers and employees.

Performance variability frustrates managers everywhere. According to the authors, it takes a variety of forms: vastly different sales figures for similar retail stores in similar neighborhoods; significantly varying productivity rates at factories producing the same products; major differences in insurance payments for similar auto accidents. In their quest to reduce performance variability, however, managers often go too far, say the authors. By forcing workers to "copy exactly" or "follow instructions exactly" in every situation, they make it far more difficult for people to use their own judgment and knowledge to solve problems that would benefit from a new approach. Having studied this issue in depth, the authors found that the appropriate intervention to reduce differences in performance depends on individual work practices -- their frequency and predictability. Practices that are more frequent and predictable tend to be more conducive to rigid duplication, whereas those that are rare and unpredictable have greater need for flexibility and innovation. The authors contend that it's not enough to have a balance between uniformity and discretion at the company level: Each group of practitioners within an organization must also have it.

If a brand fails to develop or maintain differentiation, consumers have no basis for choosing it over others. The product's price will then be the determining factor in a decision to purchase. Absent differentiation, says the author, the core of any brand and its associated business -- a loyal customer base -- cannot be created or sustained. In a time when the competitive terrain for most brands is difficult to brutal, the author describes a new tool that can help companies maintain an advantage: the branded differentiator. A branded differentiator can be a feature, service, program or ingredient. To be worthy of the term "differentiator" -- to be more than just a name slapped on a feature -- it must be meaningful to customers; that is, it must be both pertinent and substantial enough to matter when people are purchasing or using the product or service. It must also be actively managed (and thus be able to justify the investment of management time) over an extended period -- years or even decades -- so that it does not become stagnant. This article explores the different types of branded differentiators, the pros and cons of developing them internally versus looking outside for them, and questions about managing these brands-within-brands.