Leadership

As far back as 1959, Peter Drucker insisted on the need to pay more attention to knowledge work and the people doing such work. More than 40 years later, the subject still lacks its Frederick Taylor or Henry Ford; at best, it has been explored by approximations of William Morris and the Italian Futurists & #8212; artists who expressed an understanding of industrial developments in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In the spirit of the artists concerned with industrialism a century ago, but with an eye toward more scientific advances, the authors spent more than a year investigating the mysteries of knowledge-worker performance. In the process, they realized that organizations can’t begin to increase their understanding of what makes knowledge workers effective until they recognize the importance of such workers as a whole and how to differentiate among them as individuals. In this article, the authors explore five key issues that companies are struggling with and then develop a framework to help organizations think more clearly about how to improve the performance of their knowledge workers.

How some companies are responding to recent corporate scandals.

Hiring CEOs from outside the industry is a higher-risk, higher-reward proposition.

Storytelling has emerged as the preferred approach for teaching leadership effectiveness in many companies.

In 1996, the Web-browser "wars"

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.