Search Results

A simplified model for work design helps managers make changes that can reduce burnout.

The conventional models of organizational change present an unrealistic image of change as an episodic phenomenon in which corporate leaders develop and implement elaborate change programs on an occasional basis in response to specific, isolated environmental shocks. This type of change does occur, but more often the corporate environment is characterized by change that is open-ended, fluid and less closely tied to specific shocks. In fact, continuous change is a cycle with four phases, each with its own dynamics and specific type of champion. "Evangelists" promote the value of innovation and creativity, influencing those around them so that new ideas spread and take root. "Autocrats" choose which ideas are translated into practice, using their authority to alter behaviors. "Architects" design and implement systems that embed change into the organizational infrastructure. Finally, "educators" create work experiences that increase employees' expertise and sense of mastery, leading to the generation of new ideas that extend and potentially transform the organization's direction, thereby keeping the cycle going around. An understanding of these four phases can help managers transform their companies into organizations that experience change, not as a tumultuous, anxiety-inducing event, but as part of an everyday routine.

To optimize a portfolio of brands, companies can use a five-step approach. First, managers decide on the brands to review. Second, they analyze all of the brands on the resulting short list with respect to each one's contribution to the company. Third, they assess the brands according to current market performance (traction) and future prospects (momentum). Fourth, the brands are classified along those three dimensions (contribution, traction and momentum), allowing managers to identify both challenges and opportunities. The process enables companies to sort their brands into different categories: power (a brand that needs to be defended ferociously and deployed judiciously), sleeper (a brand that with a little fast tracking can build into a power brand), slider (a valuable brand that has lost momentum, is slipping backwards and needs immediate intervention to prevent meltdown), soldier (a solid brand that contributes quietly without the need for much management attention), black hole (a brand that sucks up resources and may or may not ever pay out), rocket (a brand that is on its way to power-brand status), wallflower (a small, underappreciated brand with very loyal customers, often underpriced and undermarketed) and discard (a brand that should have been mothballed years ago). Lastly, the objectives for each individual brand are tied together into an overall plan, which will include any changes to the roster, brand architecture and resource allocation.

People often talk about business competition as if it’s a short race: Get to market first and you are bound to win. Indeed, the importance of first-mover advantage has been drummed into the heads of many business executives, and some have almost been brainwashed to think that speed is everything. But when a new technology like the Internet threatens to transform an industry, the companies that are quickest to respond aren’t necessarily the ones that reap the greatest benefits. In fact, choosing a fast strategy can lock them into a set of decisions that actually hurt them in the long run. Instead, organizations that choose the right strategy for the entire race & #8212; both for the early and late stages & #8212; will come out ahead. Specifically, we have found that companies that respond quickly by launching a spinoff usually have difficulty achieving true staying power in the market. For enduring success, incumbent companies are better off creating a group that is & #8212; or will eventually be & #8212; integrated within their organizations. Only then will they be able to tap fully into their numerous strengths and assets, leveraging their incumbent’s advantage.

How consumer desire for sustainability is powering the first demand-driven, transformative megatrend—and how business leaders can make the most of this important moment.

Learn three research-backed ways leaders can help teams handle stress better and build their resilience.

A collective corporate memory can permeate processes, products, services and even distributed digital networks.

Organizations tend to downplay or ignore how hard it is to be a good manager. Here are the skills that can turn the tide.

Edward R. Tufte, author of The Visual Display of Quantitative Information and other classics of information visualization, says that businesses would think better, make better decisions and present themselves more powerfully if they would only learn to talk--both among themselves and externally--in facts. To present themselves and their products better and more honestly, Tufte recommends that companies concentrate on delivering facts (rather than pitches), deliver as many of those facts as they can, not count on the marketing department to make it happen, and look to news sites and scientific publications for models of success. In particular, he argues that Google Inc. is where most companies should turn for design inspiration, and Tufte continues his examination of the corrosive influence that he says presentation software has on thought. Following his big ideas about information presentation, he says, will help companies differentiate themselves.

For many years, multinational corporations could compete successfully by exploiting scale and scope economies or by taking advantage of imperfections in the world's goods, labor and capital markets. But these ways of competing are no longer as profitable as they once were. In most industries, multinationals no longer compete primarily with companies whose boundaries are confined to a single nation. Rather, they go head-to- head with a handful of other giants. Against such global competitors, it is hard to sustain an advantage based on traditional economies of scale and scope. MNCs must seek new sources of competitive advantage. While multinationals in the past realized economies of scope principally by utilizing physical assets and exploiting a companywide brand, the new economies of scope are based on the ability of business units, subsidiaries and functional departments within the company to collaborate successfully by sharing knowledge and jointly developing new products and services. Collaboration can be an MNC's source of competitive advantage because it does not occur automatically -- far from it. Indeed, several barriers impede collaboration within complex multiunit organizations. And in order to overcome those barriers, companies will have to develop distinct organizing capabilities that cannot be easily imitated. The authors develop a framework that links managerial action, barriers to interunit collaboration and value creation in MNCs to help managers understand how collaborative advantage can work. The framework conceptualizes collaboration as a set of management levers that reduce four specific barriers to collaboration, leading in turn to several types of value creation. They draw on BP's experience to illustrate the effectiveness of a collaborative approach.