Search Results

The rules of nature can help you succeed in adversity, but they can also steer you wrong.

As the shadow of corporate scandals looms ever larger, government’s role in regulating and influencing core business practices also has grown more prominent. As a result, businesses are struggling to reconcile the spotlight of increased regulation with the goals of corporate strategy. To navigate these difficult straits, businesses need to understand how governments can help or hinder their business objectives while they develop hybrid strategies that focus on shaping the rules. It becomes essential that companies better understand the games business and government play and the roles of each in making and enforcing the rules. Michael D. Watkins, associate professor of business administration at Harvard Business School, identifies two major types of games: value-net games, which relate to cooperation and competition among businesses, and public-interest games, in which coalitions of businesses and industry associations are pitted against nonbusiness organizations, such as unions, consumer groups and environmental entities. Watkins believes that the most effective businesses craft their strategies by combining different approaches from each game, which in turn helps to shape how governments regulate future corporate activity.

Some successful innovations, such as the microwave oven and the dishwasher, were initially slow to achieve consumer acceptance. When consumers resist adopting an innovation because it requires them to alter established habits, the innovation is called a resistant innovation. The authors use a case study involving the diffusion of screwcap wine closures in three countries -- Australia, New Zealand and the United States -- to analyze strategies for marketing a resistant innovation. For winemakers, screwcap closures represent a solution to "cork taint," a quality problem that can be caused by poor-quality corks and that can affect wine flavor. But consumers have shown resistance to screwcap closures, associating them with cheap wines or preferring the tradition associated with cork. However, among wine consumers in Australia and New Zealand, screwcaps have now achieved widespread acceptance. But 2005 wine industry statistics showed that less than 5% of U.S. wineries used screwcaps on fine wines. What is the reason for this difference? Earlier research in 2004 had found few differences between U.S. wine consumers and those in Australia and New Zealand -- except in their attitudes toward screwcaps. Garcia, Bardhi and Friedrich interviewed decision makers at more than two dozen wineries in the three countries. The authors concluded that winemakers in Australia and New Zealand had generally taken a different approach to marketing screwcap wine closures than United States wineries did. United States winemakers tended to employ vertical cooperation strategies that involved working with distribution channels to market screwcaps. New Zealand and Australian winemakers, on the other hand, used coopetition strategies involving cooperation among wineries, such as a New Zealand wine industry group called the New Zealand Wine Seal Initiative. The authors conclude that, under certain circumstances, coopetition strategies, which involve some cooperation among competitive firms, can be an effective strategy for marketing a resistant innovation. To determine whether or not coopetition is an appropriate strategy, the authors suggest that managers should analyze the marketing problem the new innovation faces and the resources available to address it; consider the kind of specific resources and knowledge that might be exchanged during coopetition; and evaluate the industry climate, including the role of trade associations and industry experts.

Most agree that innovation ensures superior performance, but there is less agreement on which innovation strategy or strategies best sustain that performance over time -- that is, which lead to resilience. The authors seek to answer that question by analyzing a set of global companies that have successfully adapted to diverse and turbulent changes over a period of two decades, as evidenced by their book value per share, return on assets and sales growth. Among those that sustained superior performance are multinationals such as pharmaceutical, coating and chemical manufacturer Akzo Nobel, electronics company Philips, energy and petrochemical company Shell, consumer goods manufacturer Unilever, life-science products and chemicals manufacturer DSM, multimedia publisher Wolters Kluwers, information and media provider VNU, investment and fund management group Robeco and brewing company Heineken. The research shows that resilient companies continually orchestrate a dynamic balance of four innovation strategies: knowledge management, exploration (internal research and development), cooperation (acquisitions, alliances and other relationships) and entrepreneurship. The authors conclude that focusing on one innovation strategy to the exclusion of others may produce innovation, but it will not lead to resilience. Pursuing several different innovation strategies simultaneously maximizes a company's chances of successful adaptation. Investments in innovation, they say, should not be driven by costs or short-term returns but rather should flow naturally to the most effective strategy for the changing context. The timing of increasing or decreasing the emphasis on innovation strategies is important to maintain the dynamic balance, and that timing, they argue, is primarily the responsibility of leadership.

Non-profits have the know-how to tackle global malnutrition, says Valid Nutrition CEO Paul Murphy.

Many firms know about their customers, but few know the customers themselves or how to get new ones. Leaders in customer-knowledge management go beyond transaction data, using a mix of techniques, and they aren't afraid to tackle difficult problems. Davenport, director of the Institute for Strategic Change, Accenture (formerly Andersen Consulting) and coauthors Harris, also from Accenture, and Kohli, professor of marketing at Emory University, report results from interviews with 24 leading firms and describe seven practices that the leaders share. The companies interviewed -- including Harley-Davidson, Procter & ; Gamble, and Wachovia Bank -- have undertaken specific and successful initiatives centered around the management of customer knowledge. Within the seven practices, two results stand out: First, firms are beginning to rely more on data from actual interactions, such as sales and service. They are learning that customers are more than transactions, and they are seeking creative ways to turn data from these interactions -- human data -- into knowledge. Second, even the most ambitious firms are keeping data from different approaches separate. They are not accepting the notion of an integrated data repository. Focus on the most valued customers. Know which customers are worth the organization's resources. Prioritize objectives. Successful firms begin all customer-knowledge management initiatives by prioritizing business strategies and customer-relationship objectives. They know which customers to focus on and what new behaviors the customers should exhibit. Aim for the optimal knowledge mix. There's no single solution to knowledge management. Use a variety of approaches. Don't use one repository for all data. The fully integrated customer-knowledge environment seems more an intriguing idea than a practical reality. Diverse forms of information are difficult to combine in one set of database records, and firms risk having a departing employee walk away with highly developed knowledge. Consequently, customer data is fragmented across multiple systems and locations. No one has been able to combine hard (transaction-based) and soft knowledge in one customer database. Think creatively about human knowledge. This is the main practice that separates the leaders from the laggards. We saw many creative solutions to managing both explicit (documented and accessible) and tacit (understood but undocumented and not accessible) knowledge. Look at the broader context. Customer-knowledge initiatives do not exist in a vacuum. Their success depends on the organization's roles and responsibilities, the workplace culture, and the organizational structure. Establish a process and tools. Many firms seem to stop working when they've selected a management strategy -- avoiding the planning that is critical to implementation. The leading firms work hard to deliberately manage customer knowledge, using a defined process and creating tools as needed.

When a crisis strikes, brands can avert backlash from consumers -- and even strengthen the brand -- with well-considered and thoughtfully deployed communication. Based on scientific research on persuasion, the authors present a comprehensive crisis communication framework to help restore consumer trust, illustrating these recommendations using cases of both successful and unsuccessful recovery from brand crises. The authors draw heavily on Toyota's recent experience in responding to the unintended acceleration of some of its vehicles. Toyota's responses provide examples both of what to do, and what not to do, when a company is accused of wrongdoing. The authors contend that there is no one best communications path to follow when a company is in crisis. Rather, they say, the best approach will depend on the answers to three central questions: Is the accusation prompting the crisis true? Is the crisis severe? Has the company established its brand as something that customers closely identify with? Taking these factors into account, a company might best be served by some combination of seven communications strategies. These strategies range from admitting error and apologizing on the one extreme to defiantly denying and wrongdoing and even attacking the accuser on the other. In addition to describing these seven communications strategies, the authors also lay out four lessons on corporate crisis communications that emerge from the Toyota debacle. One, in the Internet age, speed of response is imperative. Second (and a corollary to the need for speed), companies need to be ready for a crisis at all times, and have at hand a step-by-step protocol to follow when bad things happen. Third, it is essential that in a time of crisis, the CEO him or herself -- not lower level management--needs to step forward and publicly articulate the company's responses. And fourth, companies must not delude themselves that they can skate by while ignoring a crisis. Response is essential.

A computer simulation of high-frequency trading behavior yields new insights into market volatility.

How business leaders can grow profits and competitive advantage by doing the right thing.

In 1994, when Interface Inc.’s founder and CEO Ray Anderson began to think about his legacy, it made him uneasy. Deep down, Anderson realized that the business model of the commercial carpet manufacturing company he had founded 20 years before was based on “digging up the earth and turning petroleum and other materials into polluting products that ended up in landfills” — not something he wanted his grandchildren and great-grandchildren to remember him by. So at age 60 Anderson broke with the old model and began anew. Standing up to naysayers (whose ranks included associates, suppliers and Wall Street analysts), he set out to transform Interface from a traditional business built on consumption and waste to one whose focus — that is, beyond profitable growth — would be zero waste and restoring the earth. Since the start of the journey, Anderson and his associates have confronted technical barriers that no one could have anticipated. But inch by inch, kilowatt-hour by kilowatt-hour, recycled pound of carpet by recycled pound of carpet, Anderson’s vision has moved closer to reality. In addition to becoming increasingly efficient in its energy and materials usage — for example, 89% of Interface’s global electricity and 28% of its total energy come from renewable sources — Interface prides itself on its ability to turn an increasingly large percentage of its carpet into new product. It is also proud of the influence its sustainability efforts are having on other companies. This article presents a timeline showing how Anderson’s “mental model” changed and how he and his company moved along the road to sustainability.