Search Results

Leadership consists of opposing strengths, but most leaders overdevelop one strength.

Between 1991 and 2001, the average number of joint-venture deals announced each year increased from 1,000 to 7,000. Executives are clearly setting great store by these temporary partnerships as a way of achieving both short-term and longer-term goals. As with any type of alliance, however, success can be elusive, and a poor relationship between the partners is often at the root of difficulties within a venture. A negative cycle frequently develops in which poor partner relations lead to poor performance, which in turn puts the partner relations under greater pressure. In the course of her work with executives from joint ventures and their parent companies, the author identified five minefields that can explode and damage the relationships in an otherwise fruitful operation. Since joint ventures are here to stay -- they are still sometimes the only way for a company to enter a new market or to gain access to key technology or people -- managers must learn to avoid the minefields if they are to realize the full potential of these strategic partnerships.

Intellectual property assets now account for 50% to 70% of the market value of all public companies, and corporate America is intensifying efforts to maximize the return on those assets. That explains why a small but growing number of Fortune 500 enterprises are moving away from a strict reliance on the “exclusivity value” of their patents and other intellectual property & #8212; that is, their power to exclude or hinder competitors & #8212; and are instead seeking to tap the often enormous financial and strategic value of their core technology assets by licensing them to other companies, including competitors. The practitioners of this strategic licensing, as it is called, are betting that any loss of market exclusivity that may result from making available their “crown jewel” technologies will be more than offset by the financial and strategic benefits gained. For this article, the author interviewed some of the pioneer practitioners of this emerging approach and got them to explain the nature and degree of the benefits their companies are now reaping. Although patent rights should always remain an important weapon in a company’s competitive arsenal, strategic & #8212; licensing initiatives are encouraging managers to rethink what it means to create and sustain competitive advantage in business.

Companies are increasingly rethinking the fundamental ways in which they generate ideas and bring them to market — harnessing external ideas while leveraging their in-house R&;D outside their current operations.

Over the last decade, supply-chain-management concepts have sparked a boom in internal cross-business coordination. But although definitions have broadened and shifted, many executives believe that the field is mainly about installing IT systems for streamlined processes. Wrong, say two researchers from Dartmouth’s Tuck School of Business. Their data on companies that lead in supply-chain management illuminate six ways it spurs more-creative thinking on growing a business. The researchers predict that current trends toward restructured supply networks and improved coordination will continue, with more supplier integration and a proliferation of product customization, business complexity and uniquely defined customer relationships. But supply-chain management also will affect industry structure in new ways. Companies in the middle of the supply chain & #8212; contract manufacturers, logistics-service providers and distributors & #8212; will redefine themselves. Also, rebranding and repositioning will occur. Companies across the chain will vie for control of the customer relationship and will find that when value propositions derive from supply-chain capabilities, new cobranding and copositioning strategies are critical. When executives look back after another decade, they’ll understand that supply-chain management, having shifted business focus in its first 10 years, created an opportunity for the second 10 years to redefine the competitive landscape.

Executives make few moves more critical than their decisions about which technology-infrastructure investments will promote future strategic agility. To pinpoint best practices, three IT experts marshaled 10 years of data from 89 leading enterprises. One finding was that when companies describe their IT-infrastructure capabilities as services instead of equipment (say, the provision of a fully maintained laptop computer with access to all company systems and the Internet), they do a better job of putting a value on what they are buying. Understanding the 70 IT-infrastructure services that emerge consistently from the research can help executives identify which investments will make sense for which strategic business initiative. And understanding whether the contemplated initiative is supply-side, internally focused or demand-side can help managers decide whether to make the infrastructure investment on a business-unit level or enterprisewide. The authors find that leading companies are making regular, systematic, modular and targeted IT-infrastructure investments on the basis of overall strategic direction. If other companies can learn to recognize which IT-infrastructure capabilities are needed for which kinds of initiatives, they can have some assurance that the investments they make today will serve the strategies of tomorrow.

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.

Why do your customers choose to buy from you rather than from your competition? For the past three years, marketing professors Mark Vandenbosch and Niraj Dawar have posed that question to more than 1,500 senior executives in interviews and group discussions. And despite the vast range of industries represented by the executives they probed, the responses they got were remarkably similar. The executives agreed almost universally that offering great products, technologies or services is merely the entry stake into the competitive arena. Most spoke of the need to maintain an edge in the way their companies interact with customers; that is, they recognized that customers often value how they interact with their suppliers as much or more than what they actually buy. As the main drivers of customer choice, the executives cited cost-oriented factors such as convenience, ease of doing business, product support and risk-oriented factors such as trust, confidence and the strength of relationships. Strategies built around reducing customers’ interaction costs and risk are strategies that offer a systematic way to tap into new sources of customer value while avoiding the often futile attempt to compete on product innovation. The authors illustrate five different strategies that some companies are using to build a sustainable advantage through their approach to customers. These strategies are not easy to devise or implement; they require creativity, imagination, hard work and a willingness to take risks. But as the examples in this article demonstrate, the rewards are more than worth the effort.

Some business builders in the Internet era have blindly focused on “getting big fast” in the mistaken belief that Metcalfe’s Law applies ad infinitum. The value of a network, in fact, does not increase forever, but there are ways to counteract the forces that put the brakes on network effects.” Around 1980 Robert Metcalfe, the inventor of the Ethernet standard and founder of 3Com, observed that the value of a network increases in proportion to the square of the number of people using it. This observation came to be known as Metcalfe’s Law. It was similar to an idea developed by economists about network effects” & #8212; meaning that some resources become more valuable to a person using them according to the number of other people also using them. At the dawn of the Internet era, network effects became the Holy Grail for many business builders, who wanted to “get big fast” in order to exploit them before the competition did. But Metcalfe’s Law doesn’t always hold, say Harvard Business School professor Andrew McAfee and consultant Fran ois-Xavier Oliveau. As networks become very large, they can fall prey to saturation, cacophony, contamination, clustering and high search costs. Those phenomena mean that larger networks can, in some cases, have less value than smaller ones. The authors have identified several strategies that network builders can employ to maintain network effects or limit their decline. When followed properly, these strategies are more effective than a blind, bigger-is-better approach in which network builders rush to sign up as many users as quickly as possible.

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