Leadership

Monitoring employee behavior may not always have the desired effect.

When an activity turns into a buzzword, the odds are high that managers will stop thinking consciously about the behavior they’re trying to elicit and the best way to set expectations clearly. That’s why it’s important to pay attention when buzzwords take over management’s most important responsibilities. Business writer Joan Magretta explains, for example, how thinking outside the box,” a phrase that makes many people cringe, is a useful metaphor when properly understood. The vital work of innovation in companies is sparked precisely because there is a box & #8212; a puzzle with rules that limit and define good solutions. Managers must clearly understand the constraints & #8212; the shape of the box & #8212; if they are to help their employees think sensibly about innovation. She also takes on “resource allocation,” a dry-as-dust technocratic phrase that actually refers to one of management’s most difficult and emotionally charged responsibilities. The crux of the matter is that providing resources for one project means not giving them to another. In other words, it means that managers often have to say no when it is easier to say yes. Last, she focuses on “respect for the individual,” a phrase that, even when used sincerely (and often it’s said insincerely), implies a kind of everyone-gets-treated-the-same ideal. In an organizational context, this phrase really refers to management’s need to match the right individual to the job & #8212; and harsh as it may sound, to fire those who are in jobs they can’t perform. Buzzwords and catchphrases can speed communication. But when it comes to the messy, human realities of management, a dose of straight talk & #8212; and clear thinking & #8212; can go a long way.

Are companies that purchase ancillary services from their auditors more likely to manage earnings?

A down economy is not the time to “slash-and-burn,” but rather to ensure growth potential during the ensuing rebound. This requires a focus on strengthening key relationships, capitalizing on underutilized staff, clarifying strategic roles and forging stronger links between compensation and results.” More than 20,000 times last year, midsize and large U.S. companies responded to adversity by slashing on average 100 staffers at a time. It’s a safe assumption, says compensation consultant Jeffrey Oxman, that many of those organizations destroyed value by cutting capacity they soon had to replace, by making poor choices as to who should go and who should stay, by failing to communicate the rationale for change so as to keep surviving employees motivated, and by missing the opportunity to rethink their business model to optimize their positioning for the recovery ahead. Such issues, says Oxman, go beyond the question of layoffs; they go to the heart of how companies can avoid lasting damage and build long-term value. The conventional wisdom is suspect. Recessionary economies may not require re-engineering or moving noncore competencies outside the organization for greater efficiency. Oxman suggests four critical ways to prepare for economic recovery: strengthening key relationships across customers, employees and shareholders; leveraging downtime by capitalizing on underutilized staff for innovation initiatives; refocusing staff on what’s important by prioritizing strategic roles and clarifying individual goals; and building return on compensation by forging stronger links between pay and results.

Walking the fine edge between efficiency and consensus.

IT professionals may be uniquely positioned to see and affect a company's "big picture."

Forget capital; it’s relatively easy to obtain nowadays. Today’s scarce, sought-after strategic resource is expertise, which comes in the form of employees. Although organizations have changed mightily from the days of hierarchical, top-down management, they still have a long way to go. In addition to issues of company structure and who should be involved in strategic decision making, there are questions of how the value that companies create should be distributed, now that employees, as well as shareholders, control a scarce resource. And then there are the intangible yet crucial changes that must occur in senior managers’ ways of thinking & #8212; and in the atmosphere and culture of the company. Reorienting old-school senior managers away from capital and toward knowledgeable employees will be difficult, but Christopher Bartlett of Harvard Business School and Sumantra Ghoshal of London Business School have several recommendations for human-resource professionals, who, Bartlett and Ghoshal maintain, will be key players in the design, development and delivery of strategy. Their task is threefold. First, they must build up the company by acquiring and retaining highly skilled employees. Second, they must find a way to embed individual-based knowledge in the company, making it accessible and useful not just to one unit or one function, but to the entire organization. That is the linking task. Finally, there is the bonding task: HR managers must create an engaging, motivating and bonding culture that will attract and keep talented employees. With people in ascendancy over capital, say the authors, it is time to recall what a company actually is: a social institution designed to engage people in the achievement of a valuable and meaningful purpose.