Leadership

More than 15 years ago, Peter Drucker heralded the beginning of the knowledge era. Since then, companies have made many attempts to leverage what they know and to increase their workers' productivity. To bring together vast amounts of explicit knowledge, they have invested large sums in content repositories; to help people track down others with tacit expertise, they have experimented with open offices, mobile technologies and online directories. Much of this has been a waste of resources. In fact, five years ago Drucker likened our current understanding of knowledge- worker productivity to our understanding of manual-labor productivity in 1900. Translation: We've got a long way to go. To reorient managers more fruitfully, SMR asked three leading management thinkers to explain what we've learned and how we can do better in the future. For Hammer, the focus should be not on the worker but on work processes and eliminating non-value-adding work. Leonard contends that companies should foster master-apprentice relationships to get the most out of their knowledge. And Davenport urges companies not just to experiment with ways of improving knowledge-worker productivity (as many already do), but to carefully measure the results of their experiments in order to learn what works and what doesn't.

Today's managers acknowledge the importance of customer focus. Yet the costly customer efforts they usually implement rarely bring the promised gains. The reason? A superficial understanding of what customer focus really means. True customer focus involves comprehensive organizational change. As Baxter Healthcare, LexisNexis, IBM and BP are learning, the kind of customer focus that creates an advantage competitors have great difficulty copying calls for companywide transformation. The author's in-depth research over many years shows how 10 breakthroughs in thinking, remarkably consistent across industries, improve growth and profitability more effectively than customer-relationship-management software, loyalty programs or satisfaction surveys. She describes how, for example, the manager of Baxter Healthcare Corp. Germany got employees thinking of themselves as doing postoperative "home-recovery enhancement" instead of merely providing postoperative nutritional products to hospitals--and how that ultimately led to Baxter becoming indispensable to customers. When deep customer focus gets rooted in employee behavior, people at all levels become innovators.

In recent years, a "postcompany" school of business experts has argued that leaps in information technology have made possible a new world of seamless collaboration among businesses, one that will bring enormous gains in efficiency and flexibility. Indeed, the experts counsel, executives should look for opportunities to tear down the "walls" around their organizations, merging their companies into amorphous "enterprise networks" or "business webs." The author concedes that the universal IT infrastructure that has been developed over the past decade does create pressures to homogenize business processes and organizations. But he warns that it is dangerous for companies to assume that the "death of distance" brought about by new communications technologies will mean the death of the company. New technologies will never conquer cutthroat competition, and managers need to be wary of alliances, outsourcing contracts and specialization initiatives that foreclose opportunities for advantage and put long-term profitability at risk. Companies will always need the walls they have so carefully erected over the years to protect their advantages.

For the past couple of decades, companies have focused on creating strong leaders of business units and influential heads of functions & #8212; men and women responsible for achieving results in one corner of an organization. But they have not paid as much attention to a more important challenge: developing leaders who see the enterprise as a whole and act for its greater good. And that perspective has become increasingly necessary as companies seek to provide not just products but broad-based customer solutions. The author explores the three key questions that companies must answer in order to link strategy to leadership development: What are the key elements of the enterprise leader’s job? Why is learning to lead at the enterprise level such a difficult challenge? And what can companies do to identify and develop enterprise leaders? He illustrates his points with examples from PricewaterhouseCoopers, Canada’s RBC Financial Group, IBM and others.

Companies deploying dishonest tactics toward customers, suppliers, distributors and others typically do so to increase short-term profits, and in that regard they might succeed. But the misconduct is likely to fuel social psychological processes within the organization that have the potential for ruinous fiscal outcomes, outweighing short-term gains. There are three types of consequences to organizational dishonesty: reputation degradation, (mis)matches between values of employees and the organization, and increased surveillance. These outcomes can lead to decreases in repeat business and job satisfaction -- and increases in worker turnover, employee theft and other hidden costs. These consequences will, like tumors, spread and eat progressively at the organization's health and vigor. They will also be difficult to identify through typical accounting methods and might lead to corrective efforts that overshoot the true causes of poor productivity and profitability. Without a thorough understanding of the three types of consequences, an organization could try to control one financial hemorrhage (for example, losses from employee theft) by creating another (namely, investments in increasingly expensive security systems).

Charismatic and controversial former CEOs like General Electric Co.’s Jack Welch and Tyco’s Dennis Kozlowski are giving way to a new breed of leader dedicated to reviving the forward-thinking legacies of Old Economy titans, such as GE’s ingenious Thomas Edison and IBM’s visionary Tom Watson Jr. After years of focusing on the art of the deal, says the author, this renewed emphasis on innovation encourages corporate giants to again ground their organizations in what they do best. Many of today’s emergent corporate leaders, like MCI’s Michael Cappellas, IBM’s Sam Palmisano and GE’s Jeff Immelt, emulate the legendary standard bearers of invention by emphasizing technological engineering over financial engineering, product over marketing and real science over junk science. Critical to their leadership is an unrelenting drive for self-improvement, a strong interest in learning, an appreciation of a motivated work community and longer time frames than those dictated by a preoccupation with the daily stock price. For example, MCI is emerging from the years of WorldCom scandal by consciously drawing upon its legacy of telecommunications innovation. IBM actively seeks to again become the epitome of prestige, employee loyalty and innovation. GE creates a hothouse of R&;D while sharpening its innovative capability in the media and medical sectors through advantageous acquisitions. In addition, executives at 3M, DuPont and Pfizer, who increasingly emphasize research and innovation over promotion and hype, have helped their companies reassert their leadership roles in their respective fields.

If retaining employees is the goal, the answer is yes — and no.

Fear is a four-letter word in companies today, but CEOs” rhetoric of & ldquo;love”

Companies often focus on creating organizational processes and structures that allow them to learn quickly. But recent research shows that organizations must also effectively manage how they forget. The authors present a new construct for companies to determine how best to remember the knowledge they should and forget the knowledge they shouldn't. According to them, forgetting can be categorized along two dimensions. The first differentiates between accidental and intentional forgetting. The former is most often associated with the loss of valuable knowledge, which thus reduces a company's competitiveness. Intentional forgetting, on the other hand, can benefit an organization by helping to rid it of knowledge that has been producing dysfunctional outcomes. The other dimension highlights the difference between knowledge that is entrenched versus new. The two dimensions form a matrix that categorizes the four types of organizational forgetting: 1. memory decay, 2. failure to capture, 3. unlearning and 4. avoiding bad habits. Each form is associated with a distinct set of processes and contexts that result in a specific set of challenges. As such, each of the four processes must be managed differently.

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