Leadership

Leadership has become the hottest topic in business. Companies see this hard-to-pin-down ability as essential to organizational success, and they want their executives to learn how to exercise it. As a result, they are investing heavily in leadership-development programs and honing eloquent statements about the importance of developing next-generation leaders at every organizational level. And yet these speeches and investments have often failed the companies seeking to create a pipeline of leaders. The authors have identified three pathologies at the root of many leadership-development failures. They cite outdated thinking about ownership of the efforts, a product-focused, quick-fix mentality, and make-believe metrics that measure activity rather than capability. The danger is that these pathologies will sour companies on leadership development, leading them to cut investment and go back to waiting passively for leaders to emerge. But that approach has failed in the past and will continue to do so. Companies that make leadership development a core business process can overcome the pathologies and prepare the individuals and teams they will need to take their organizations to greater heights.

In an article written well before Enron became a euphemism for corporate irresponsibility, the authors make the case that such misdeeds, so prevalent in recent months, are symptoms of a syndrome of selfishness that has taken hold of our business institutions, our societies and our minds. Drawing on history, literature, philosophy and management thinking, they argue that the syndrome is built on a series of half-truths & #8212; or fabrications & #8212; each of which has driven a debilitating wedge into society. Our narrow view of ourselves as “economic man” has driven a wedge of distrust between our individual wants and our social needs. A distorted view of shareholder value has driven a wedge of disengagement between those who create economic performance and those who harvest it. Our obsession with heroic leadership has created a wedge of disconnection between leaders and everyone else. The glorification of the “lean and mean” organization has driven a wedge of discontinuity between short-term and long-term goals. And the convenient, widely held notion that “a rising tide lifts all boats” has ratified a wedge of disparity between the prime beneficiaries of stock-price increases and the large numbers of people disadvantaged by the corresponding actions. The authors challenge and deconstruct each of these flawed premises and offer an alternative. Real prosperity, they say, combines economic development with social generosity & #8212; and that requires a new philosophy of social and managerial engagement.

The idiosyncratic aspects of electronic mail can obviate resolution.

Vertical command and control” sabotages organizations that need bottom-up innovation to be competitive. Yet organizational integration is increasingly essential. New research shows how technology is helping cutting-edge companies meet the challenge by integrating horizontally.” A fundamental management challenge, particularly in large, diversified global enterprises, is the tension between subunit autonomy and companywide cohesion. New research uncovers several ways top companies balance that tension.In the last decade, performance criteria often ignored how managers of subunits contributed to companywide performance. Empowerment efforts improved unit competitiveness but left knowledge sharing behind. Today (because customers’ needs span internal boundaries and because technology has changed the way innovation gets managed) managers are recognizing the need to address the integration side of the tension. At one company, BP, CEO John Browne created a peer-assist process to help his business-unit leaders integrate horizontally. Managers who ran similar businesses were assigned to help one another improve both individual and collective performance. As the culture evolved and managers successfully handled ever tougher endeavors, both entrepreneurship and mutual trust were strengthened. Executives who want to build horizontal integration without disrupting entrepreneurship must allow time for persistent action and reinforcement to take hold. Although they have to be relentless in driving the process, they must be patient about results. Such leaders will reap enhanced organizational capability and sustainable improvement of business performance.

Most executives today recognize that their organizations’ ability to manage knowledge effectively is a strategic imperative. Just how they should go about developing that ability is the challenge. As in most other areas of management advice, there is no shortage of useful frameworks, models and checklists to choose from. Unfortunately, these solutions are generally presented as applicable in any and all situations, and managers are left to make their own mistakes as they use one tool or another to limited effect. Executives can begin to take a more effective approach if they realize that knowledge has a life cycle. Over the course of a five-year study, the authors have devised a model to help explain the life of an idea in commercial settings. The model shows that new knowledge is born as something fairly nebulous and that it takes shape as it is tested, matures through application in a few settings, is diffused to a growing audience and eventually becomes widely understood and recognized as common practice. In this article, the authors develop the concept of the knowledge life cycle in detail and then describe the appropriate strategies for managing ideas at each stage of the cycle.

Adapting to rapid structural change requires exploration, not contraction.

The image of the CEO as Alexander the Great has faded; comparisons today are more likely to be made with Charles Ponzi. It may seem like odd timing, then, for an important thinker on corporate leadership and public policy to be issuing a call for CEOs to undertake a serious, committed engagement with a whole range of social, economic and environmental issues & #8212; topics that for years have been at the bottom of most top-executive agendas. But that is precisely what Jeffrey Garten, dean of the Yale School of Management, envisions in his latest book. Garten seeks a new kind of leadership from chief executives, yet one that hearkens back to a period in our history that also required people from all walks of life to come together in the pursuit of common goals.In this interview with SMR senior editor David A. Light, Garten speaks of the need to balance regulation and free markets, the historical precedents for business leadership on public-policy questions, and the urgent need for institutions that can manage the progress of globalization. He also discusses the important first step that CEOs must take before they can exert leadership on a bigger stage: restoring their reputations.