Search Results

An implicit assumption of the "war for talent" perspective is that departing workers are lost to competitors. Yet employees also leave to join "cooperators," such as customer companies, suppliers and partners, and such movement can facilitate the creation and strengthening of business relationships with those organizations. Another important factor is whether the departing employees possess generic or valuable company-specific knowledge. Managers should consider these two criteria -- the destination and knowledge of departing employees -- when determining how best to handle worker turnover. There are four different scenarios. In the first, employees with knowledge that is generic or of low strategic importance leave to join competitors. This type of turnover can hamper the productive capacity of an organization while increasing that of its competitors. Here the authors recommend the use of defensive maneuvers (such as improving employee benefits), which are designed to retain existing workers. In the second scenario, employees possessing knowledge that has low strategic importance depart to join cooperators. This type of turnover leads to administrative and human-capital costs that must be weighed against the possible social-capital benefits -- the new business opportunities that can be generated by ex-employees in their new jobs. The recommendation is for companies to adopt relational actions, in which they take active steps to maintain positive relationships with former employees, such as through the formation of alumni programs. The third scenario -- employees with strategically important, company-specific knowledge resign to take jobs with competitors -- is potentially the most damaging form of turnover. Consequently, companies might best be served by emphasizing retaliatory actions (such as the threat of lawsuits to enforce noncompete clauses in employment contracts) in addition to defensive maneuvers targeted toward the retention of specific employees who are crucial contributors. In the fourth and final scenario, employees with strategically important, company-specific knowledge leave to work for cooperators. This type of turnover presents interesting challenges. Because the loss of key employees incurs high administrative and human-capital costs, companies have a strong incentive to adopt defensive strategies to reduce such turnover. But the movement of key employees to cooperators can also lead to substantial opportunities for businesses to expand their social capital with important clients and suppliers. Therefore, when defensive maneuvers fail, a company should consider adopting a relational approach, maintaining positive relationships with departing key employees as they make the transition into their new jobs at cooperators.

In global supply chains, managers have consistently struggled with sharing valuable knowledge with buyers and suppliers across borders. Increasingly, talk of the "dark side" of collaborative relationships has left managers wondering who benefits most from knowledge-sharing activities: their companies or their partners. In order to find the answers to these questions, the authors conducted an in-depth study of more than 100 cross-national supply chain partnerships in the industrial chemicals, consumer durables, industrial packaging, toy and apparel industries in multiple locations in 19 countries. Knowledge sharing encompasses the sharing of information, but it doesn't stop there. Much of the information that companies share -- data on inventory levels, sales, production schedules and prices -- is easy to codify and transmit. But other types of knowledge are more difficult to codify: know-how, managerial and communication skills, and organizational memory. Intercompany knowledge sharing is a joint activity between supply-chain partners; the parties share knowledge and then jointly interpret and integrate it into a relationship-domain-specific memory that influences relationship-specific behavior. The authors found three types of knowledge sharing within the supply chain, each offering distinct benefits to buyers and suppliers: information sharing, joint sense making and knowledge integration. They also found that no matter how "diverse" the home cultures of the buyer and supplier companies, these differences had no impact on the propensity to share knowledge. Drawing on examples from the auto (Toyota), aerospace (Boeing, Lockheed Martin and United Technologies) and toy industries, they examine how different types of knowledge sharing can benefit buyers or sellers individually, but more importantly, how it can enhance the performance of the partnership as a whole. They conclude that, while suppliers generally benefit more from knowledge-sharing activities, both buyers and suppliers profit; understanding the benefits of absolute versus relative gains is critical when building world-class global supply chains. Sharing knowledge effectively means understanding that a disparity in benefits is part of what it takes to build partnerships that last.

Companies with connections to a nation’s government may be less productive.

When technology changes rapidly, outsourcing looks more attractive.

What's behind every industry-shaking innovation? Countless, but crucial, "mini-innovations," as Joe Fox calls them. Along with his brother, Avi, Fox has founded two companies -- in entirely different industries -- that aimed to challenge the traditional business models. But in an interview with MIT Sloan Management Review, Fox explains that these large-scale innovations don't dawn on him all at once. Instead they arrive in fragments, some of which are conceived by his management team of original thinkers. The Fox brothers set the group to work after they've spotted a broader opportunity, which happens when they aren't looking for one. Their first business, an online brokerage called Web Street, grew out of their own experience trading equities. And they constructed the framework for BuySide Realty, an online real estate brokerage -- which they currently operate, along with a subsidiary called Iggys House -- when prowling around for a vacation home. After the initial inkling, Fox's market research consists not only of asking potential customers, but also of actually paying attention to their answers. What he's looking for is not their opinion of whether an idea can possibly be executed; he just wants to know if they would pay for such a service, assuming he could bring it into existence. Not that he's had an easy time bringing a notion to fruition. He's never been able to strike a deal with any institutional investors, although Web Street did successfully go public during the dot-com boom in 1999. He had hoped to repeat that feat with his current venture last year, but opted to wait for Wall Street's appetite to improve. In the meantime, Fox is counting on a steady supply of "mini-innovations" to keep the business ahead -- by a half-step, at least -- of its megacompetitors. Can he do it? Clearly, he thinks he knows how.

Group brainstorming excels at generating both very good and very bad ideas.

Researchers hope a new Web-based platform will enable better deliberation on complex problems.

Despite the general understanding that leaders learn from experience, only a few organizations, such as Toyota, Boeing and General Electric, have truly taken it to heart by putting programs into place specifically to take advantage of experiential learning. Most companies stay within a narrow comfort zone. They certainly encourage aspiring and emerging leaders to "get experience," to take on "stretch" assignments and to take risks. But they provide precious little guidance on how to learn from experience -- how to mine it for insight about leading and adapting to change over the course of one's life. Organizations generally don't look outside their industry, or business itself, for new approaches. Instead, a banking model of learning predominates -- a semi-industrial process in which cost per unit is the key performance measure and knowledge is something deposited in aspiring leaders' heads for later use. That is unfortunate, because organizations are missing the opportunity to develop leaders by integrating their life and work experiences, especially those experiences the authors call "crucibles." Crucible experiences can be thought of as a kind of superconcentrated form of leadership development. Surprisingly, the best examples of organizations that deliberately employ such alchemy do not come from the business world. The authors draw on lessons from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, better known as the Mormons, and the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club to develop four lessons for helping to develop managers. First, both the Mormons and the Hells Angels demonstrate how it is possible to craft or convert core activities to serve as practice fields for leaders. Second, they engage in elaborate preparation before sending would-be leaders out into the field. Third, they provide a supporting infrastructure while members are in the midst of a crucible. Finally, they recognize the need for renewal in individuals and the organization.

Thanks to a variety of online social applications -- including blogs, social networking sites like MySpace, user-generated content sites like YouTube and countless communities across the Web -- people are increasingly connecting with and drawing power from one other. In fact, customers are now beginning to define their own perspective on companies and brands, a view that's often at odds with the image a business wants to project. But organizations need not be on the defensive. Indeed, some savvy executives have already been turning this groundswell of customer power to their advantage. To investigate how, the authors interviewed managers and employees at more than 100 companies that were rolling out social applications. From this research, they developed a strategic framework that businesses can use to implement social applications in a number of departments, including research and development, marketing, sales, customer support and operations. The potential benefits are numerous: Social applications can generate research insights, extend the reach of marketing, energize sales efforts, cut support costs and stoke the innovation process. (And for companies that tap into employee groundswells, the result can be increased opportunities for collaboration across departments and geographical locations, as well as greater productivity and decreased inefficiencies.) But the greatest benefit might be cultural, because social applications help weave two-way customer communications into the fabric of an organization. But anything that changes culture tends to face resistance, and this is especially true of social applications, because they require managers to embrace an unknown communications channel, one that responds poorly to attempts to control it. Based on an analysis of companies that succeeded or failed in deploying social applications, the authors have derived a number of key managerial recommendations for any organization attempting to harness the power of the groundswell.