Leadership

Big strategic shifts are risky, but the constantly changing business environment periodically forces corporate leaders to reposition their businesses in fundamental ways. With case studies from the telecom equipment, auto, computer and beverage industries, the authors examine why some companies have been successful in making smart big moves while others have failed. Some of their findings were, by their own admission, predictable: for example, companies that initiated successful big moves exploited and in some instances enhanced their distinctiveness relative to their competitors. However, the authors identified a more surprising factor, which they refer to as "complementarity." The more successful companies followed a consistent learning logic both internally and externally, and they made big moves that were complementary over time. Complementarity plays out in three ways: (1) It builds on a successful business model; (2) it relies on periodic shifts in the balance between innovation, efficiency and customer intimacy when the business model is not working; and (3) it promotes a sequenced development of capabilities when the balance shifts.

Achieving a state of clarity is a necessary but not sufficient condition for making good decisions.

For boards dealing with an embattled CEO, doing nothing may pay off in the long run.

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

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.

To succeed, executives must manage a myriad of relationships.

There are three reasons why companies have trouble finding and hiring top-notch executives. First, even organizations that are adept at selecting winners will have considerable difficulty because of the way in which managerial talent is distributed across a population. Second, assessing people for senior positions is inherently tricky for a number of reasons. For one thing, the differentiating competencies for top leaders are usually in “soft” areas & #8212; such as the ability to develop people or manage change efforts & #8212; each of which is very difficult to measure in any reliable way. Finally, powerful psychological biases impair the quality of the hiring decision. Nevertheless, organizations can overcome those obstacles by deploying a set of basic practices: Define before looking, cast a wide net, compare apples with apples, evaluate thoroughly, filter biases, limit the number of people involved, close the deal and facilitate the integration. Although some of those practices might seem obvious, many companies fail to follow them. All too often, for instance, organizations make the mistake of commencing an executive search before they know what they’re really looking for. Or they unnecessarily restrict the search to certain markets, industries or geographic regions. Because of such mistakes, contends the author, the problem of poor appointments for top positions is serious and pervasive at many companies, even blue-chip corporations.

A new report reveals that companies with significant levels of employee control systematically underperform.

All executives have two basic drives: to add value to products or services, and to deploy resources with a certain amount of efficiency. The first drive can be inferred by a business's gross margin and the second by its relative indirect expenses. Together, the two numbers constitute an executive's "financial signature." There are four extreme categories of signatures: (1) gross margin and expenses are both high, (2) high gross margin and low expenses, (3) low gross margin and high expenses, and (4) gross margin and expenses are both low. The categories are labeled "venture capitalist," "buccaneer," "mercantilist" and "discounter," respectively, and each has a characteristic set of financial behaviors. Certain financial signatures are best suited for particular industries. Mercantilists, for example, are ideal for commodity markets with high fixed costs. Moreover, companies might need executives with different financial signatures at various stages in their life cycle. A startup, for instance, might be better off with a venture capitalist at the helm. Later, that same firm might need to fill its executive suites with discounters. No matter how capable the leader, a mismatch between an organization's requirements and the actual financial signature of its CEO can lead to management problems, possibly even to company failure.

How do managers and companies quickly transform new hires into productive employees, a process called "rapid on-boarding"? The authors contend that companies that are more successful at rapid on-boarding tend to use a relational approach, helping newcomers to rapidly establish a broad network of relationships with coworkers that they can tap to obtain the information they need to become productive. Most organizations realize the importance of integrating new employees, but many fail in this regard, often because of five pervasive myths about the process: (1) the best newcomers can fend for themselves, (2) a massive information dump allows newcomers to obtain what they need, (3) cursory introductions are all that's needed, (4) first assignments should be small, compact and quickly achievable, and (5) mentors are best for getting newcomers integrated. Because of those misconceptions, managers will frequently rely on certain taken-for-granted practices that can actually hinder new employees from becoming productive.