New research from Duke University reveals that gender bias distorts our assessments of creative work--and that can have a negative impact on both individuals and their organizations.
During the first decade of the 21st Century Crandall University, a private Christian liberal arts university in Moncton, NB, Canada experienced significant growth in terms of enrolment and governance structure. If We Build It They Will Come: The Role of Governance in Expansion Decisions at Crandall University examines the dilemma faced by one member of the University's Board of Governors as he seeks to determine how to deal with decisions made by the Board that he believes are not in keeping with the requirements of sound policy governance. The narrative traces the history of the adoption of the Carver model at the University, and examines the role played by the Board in a critical capital expansion decision in 2010. The reader is invited to consider the roles and responsibilities of board members both corporately and individually, and to evaluate the difference between fulfilling the mandate to govern and meddling in the affairs of management.
Konica Minolta Business Solutions (KMBS) was a leader in advanced document management technologies. Its business solutions were grouped under office systems, print production, and printers. Its business solutions were grouped under office systems, print production, and printers. Peter Daniel, Branch Manager for northern New Jersey at KMBS, recently assigned Bill Swanson to be the sales rep responsible for Bergen and Passaic counties in New Jersey. Swanson was assigned the responsibility of winning an important account away from competitors, namely, NYCG, a large global accounting and consulting firm in Wayne, New Jersey. Swanson had to draft a plan to gather information from the prospect. The sales process can be classified into three key phases: prospecting, needs identification, and proposing a solution and closing the deal. The KMBS cases (A), (B), and (C) primarily focus on needs identification. In KMBS(A), Swanson had to develop the plan of action for planning, preparing, and approaching NYCG. In KMBS(B), Swanson met with the Global Procurement Director at NYCG, Bob Benedict, to understand NYCG's needs. He also met with Peter Daniel to discuss how they should continue to identify NYCG's needs. Finally, in KMBS(C), Swanson met with the heads of the Distributed Print Services and Central Print Services divisions, as well as other users at NYCG, to understand their needs. These efforts should help KMBS create a custom solution for NYCG. Swanson and Daniel thus must decide which solutions to present to NYCG.
Supplement to case NA0405. Konica Minolta Business Solutions (KMBS) was a leader in advanced document management technologies. Its business solutions were grouped under office systems, print production, and printers. Its business solutions were grouped under office systems, print production, and printers. Peter Daniel, Branch Manager for northern New Jersey at KMBS, recently assigned Bill Swanson to be the sales rep responsible for Bergen and Passaic counties in New Jersey. Swanson was assigned the responsibility of winning an important account away from competitors, namely, NYCG, a large global accounting and consulting firm in Wayne, New Jersey. Swanson had to draft a plan to gather information from the prospect. The sales process can be classified into three key phases: prospecting, needs identification, and proposing a solution and closing the deal. The KMBS cases (A), (B), and (C) primarily focus on needs identification. In KMBS(A), Swanson had to develop the plan of action for planning, preparing, and approaching NYCG. In KMBS(B), Swanson met with the Global Procurement Director at NYCG, Bob Benedict, to understand NYCG's needs. He also met with Peter Daniel to discuss how they should continue to identify NYCG's needs. Finally, in KMBS(C), Swanson met with the heads of the Distributed Print Services and Central Print Services divisions, as well as other users at NYCG, to understand their needs. These efforts should help KMBS create a custom solution for NYCG. Swanson and Daniel thus must decide which solutions to present to NYCG.
Supplement to case NA0405. Konica Minolta Business Solutions (KMBS) was a leader in advanced document management technologies. Its business solutions were grouped under office systems, print production, and printers. Its business solutions were grouped under office systems, print production, and printers. Peter Daniel, Branch Manager for northern New Jersey at KMBS, recently assigned Bill Swanson to be the sales rep responsible for Bergen and Passaic counties in New Jersey. Swanson was assigned the responsibility of winning an important account away from competitors, namely, NYCG, a large global accounting and consulting firm in Wayne, New Jersey. Swanson had to draft a plan to gather information from the prospect. The sales process can be classified into three key phases: prospecting, needs identification, and proposing a solution and closing the deal. The KMBS cases (A), (B), and (C) primarily focus on needs identification. In KMBS(A), Swanson had to develop the plan of action for planning, preparing, and approaching NYCG. In KMBS(B), Swanson met with the Global Procurement Director at NYCG, Bob Benedict, to understand NYCG's needs. He also met with Peter Daniel to discuss how they should continue to identify NYCG's needs. Finally, in KMBS(C), Swanson met with the heads of the Distributed Print Services and Central Print Services divisions, as well as other users at NYCG, to understand their needs. These efforts should help KMBS create a custom solution for NYCG. Swanson and Daniel thus must decide which solutions to present to NYCG.
This case series provides a platform to discuss a broad range of interconnected issues relating to corporate governance, ethical reasoning and giving voice to values in a real-world decision-making context. An independent director (Neil Shah) on the board of directors of National Petroleum Corporation (NPC) is approached by a bidder, Western India Ports Limited (WIPL). Through an unwarranted last minute change in the bidding process, WIPL's bid for handling of Naphtha for NPC's upcoming refinery has been rejected. Neil learns from WIPL that its competitor, Bharat Ports Limited (BPL), may have bribed an NPC official to create a situation that would disqualify WIPL's bid. As a result, only one bidder (BPL) is left in the fray. Neil questions the process followed by NPC, without disclosing that an executive from WIPL had met him about the change in the process. Neil's questioning corrects the situation. WIPL is not only able to participate in the bid, but even wins the NPC contract. However, Neil's joy of righting the wrong is short-lived. A few months after the episode, and after stepping down from the board, Neil learns that the NPC official who had attempted to disqualify WIPL had been recruited by WIPL after his retirement from NPC. Soon after discovering this, Neil himself is approached by WIPL with a proposal to transfer 5000 shares from their holding to Neil, without any payment, as a mark of their gratitude to him. Should Neil accept the gift? Would that be akin to accepting bribe? Should Neil be disturbed by the knowledge that the concerned NPC executive had joined WIPL after retirement from NPC?
Supplement to case NA0409. This case series provides a platform to discuss a broad range of interconnected issues relating to corporate governance, ethical reasoning and giving voice to values in a real-world decision-making context. An independent director (Neil Shah) on the board of directors of National Petroleum Corporation (NPC) is approached by a bidder, Western India Ports Limited (WIPL). Through an unwarranted last minute change in the bidding process, WIPL's bid for handling of Naphtha for NPC's upcoming refinery has been rejected. Neil learns from WIPL that its competitor, Bharat Ports Limited (BPL), may have bribed an NPC official to create a situation that would disqualify WIPL's bid. As a result, only one bidder (BPL) is left in the fray. Neil questions the process followed by NPC, without disclosing that an executive from WIPL had met him about the change in the process. Neil's questioning corrects the situation. WIPL is not only able to participate in the bid, but even wins the NPC contract. However, Neil's joy of righting the wrong is short-lived. A few months after the episode, and after stepping down from the board, Neil learns that the NPC official who had attempted to disqualify WIPL had been recruited by WIPL after his retirement from NPC. Soon after discovering this, Neil himself is approached by WIPL with a proposal to transfer 5000 shares from their holding to Neil, without any payment, as a mark of their gratitude to him. Should Neil accept the gift? Would that be akin to accepting bribe? Should Neil be disturbed by the knowledge that the concerned NPC executive had joined WIPL after retirement from NPC?
Supplement to case NA0409. This case series provides a platform to discuss a broad range of interconnected issues relating to corporate governance, ethical reasoning and giving voice to values in a real-world decision-making context. An independent director (Neil Shah) on the board of directors of National Petroleum Corporation (NPC) is approached by a bidder, Western India Ports Limited (WIPL). Through an unwarranted last minute change in the bidding process, WIPL's bid for handling of Naphtha for NPC's upcoming refinery has been rejected. Neil learns from WIPL that its competitor, Bharat Ports Limited (BPL), may have bribed an NPC official to create a situation that would disqualify WIPL's bid. As a result, only one bidder (BPL) is left in the fray. Neil questions the process followed by NPC, without disclosing that an executive from WIPL had met him about the change in the process. Neil's questioning corrects the situation. WIPL is not only able to participate in the bid, but even wins the NPC contract. However, Neil's joy of righting the wrong is short-lived. A few months after the episode, and after stepping down from the board, Neil learns that the NPC official who had attempted to disqualify WIPL had been recruited by WIPL after his retirement from NPC. Soon after discovering this, Neil himself is approached by WIPL with a proposal to transfer 5000 shares from their holding to Neil, without any payment, as a mark of their gratitude to him. Should Neil accept the gift? Would that be akin to accepting bribe? Should Neil be disturbed by the knowledge that the concerned NPC executive had joined WIPL after retirement from NPC?
Physician Moka Lantum was ready to try his hand as a social entrepreneur, aiming to improve healthcare for an underserved population in rural Kenya, where access to clinics was difficult, curable diseases flourished, maternal and child mortality rates were high, and dangerous counterfeit drugs flooded the market. Lantum began to develop a technological solution that could address multiple public sector healthcare problems through a single IT tool, ZiDi, a cloud-based system that could process a wide array of information, from individual patients and their symptoms to drug supplies, the utilization rate of individual clinics, or staff absenteeism. Lantum and a Kenyan partner incorporated MicroClinic Technologies Inc. (MCT), launching ZiDi in August 2012. Lantum's goal for MCT was to demonstrate that ZiDi could improve maternal and child health in rural clinics and dispensaries, and persuade the government to buy it. Over the next two years, ZiDi proved useful, and MCT won endorsements and awards-but no government contract, not even a request for proposal (RFP). By August 2014, the slow pace of government decision-making was threatening MCT's existence. Lantum had to decide: stay the public sector course or diversify into an uncharted market segment with its own unknowns?
In mid-September 2014, the Executive Director of the Health Policy Commission (HPC), an independent state agency in Massachusetts, assessed the proposals submitted by 27 hospitals for projects to be funded from $60m available under Phase 2 of the Community Hospital Acceleration, Revitalization, and Transformation (CHART) Investment Program. The HPC needed to fund projects that would meet the requirements of the CHART program: "to support the Commonwealth's goals to improve the health of its residents, improve the access and quality of care, including patient experience, and reduce the health care cost growth." The HPC had tried to help the eligible community hospitals develop strong, clearly defined projects for Phase 2, building on what they had learned during Phase 1 of the program. The RFP itself contained more detailed requirements than the earlier RFP, and the agency had tried to provide additional guidance by developing FAQs and holding information sessions during the RFP preparation period. Had it worked? What options did the HPC have at this point in the granting cycle to tighten up these projects and ensure that the funds would be used effectively and well?
As a boy, Bush watched "Emergency!" on television and was captivated by the romance and seeming magic of saving lives. As an adult, he found the reality of medicine to be very different: There wasn't much humanity in the way health care was actually delivered. Believing that he'd be daunted by the coursework required for a medical degree, he decided to take an entrepreneurial route to improving the system. His first sense of the opportunity came while he was driving an ambulance in New Orleans one summer during college. Some patients with chronic disease who couldn't afford their medicines would repeatedly call the ambulance to take them to a hospital where they could be stabilized. What if the ambulance itself were outfitted with treatments for the five most common chronic diseases and carried EMTs who were trained to use them? Those patients could be treated in place, at a radically lower cost than what the hospital would charge. That idea didn't work out, and Bush moved on to think about a network of maternity clinics. He and Todd Park drew up a business plan at Harvard Business School--one that was "unbelievably complicated to execute and very risky." But in the process of pursuing it, they created websites for the paperwork with rules that prevented mistakes. That was the seed for athenahealth, which today supports electronic medical records and a suite of services of practice management and care coordination, leaving doctors free to spend more time with their patients.
For the past 20 years, the theory of disruptive innovation has been enormously influential in business circles and a powerful tool for predicting which industry entrants will succeed. Unfortunately, the theory has also been widely misunderstood, and the "disruptive" label has been applied too carelessly anytime a market newcomer shakes up well-established incumbents. In this article, the architect of disruption theory, Clayton M. Christensen, and his coauthors correct some of the misinformation, describe how the thinking on the subject has evolved, and discuss the utility of the theory. They start by clarifying what classic disruption entails-a small enterprise targeting overlooked customers with a novel but modest offering and gradually moving upmarket to challenge the industry leaders. They point out that Uber, commonly hailed as a disrupter, doesn't actually fit the mold, and they explain that if managers don't understand the nuances of disruption theory or apply its tenets correctly, they may not make the right strategic choices. Common mistakes, the authors say, include failing to view disruption as a gradual process (which may lead incumbents to ignore significant threats) and blindly accepting the "Disrupt or be disrupted" mantra (which may lead incumbents to jeopardize their core business as they try to defend against disruptive competitors). The authors acknowledge that disruption theory has certain limitations. But they are confident that as research continues, the theory's explanatory and predictive powers will only improve.
Negotiations can be fraught with emotion, but it's only recently that researchers have examined how particular feelings influence what happens during deal making. Here the author shares some key findings and advice. (1) Anxiety leads to poor outcomes. You will be less nervous about negotiating, however, if you repeatedly practice and rehearse. You can also avoid anxiety by asking an outside expert to represent you at the bargaining table. (2) Anger is a double-edged sword. In some cases it intimidates the other parties and helps you strike a better deal, but in other situations, particularly those involving long-term relationships, it damages trust and goodwill and makes an impasse more likely. To avoid or defuse anger, take a break to cool off, or try expressing sadness and a desire to compromise. (3) Disappointment can be channeled to reach a more satisfactory outcome. Before disappointment becomes regret, ask plenty of questions to assure yourself that you've explored all options. And don't close the deal too early; you might find ways to sweeten it if you keep talking. (4) Excitement isn't always a good thing. Getting excited too early can lead you to act rashly, and gloating about the final terms can alienate your counterparts. But if feelings of excitement, like other emotions, are well managed, everyone can feel like a winner.
Countless books and articles offer advice on avoiding missteps at the bargaining table. But some of the costliest mistakes take place before negotiators sit down to discuss the substance of the deal. That's because they often take for granted that if they bring a lot of value to the table and have sufficient leverage, they'll be able to strike a great deal. While negotiating from a position of strength is certainly important, many other factors influence where each party ends up. This article presents four factors that can have a tremendous impact on negotiation outcomes and provides guidance on what negotiators should be doing before either side starts worrying about offers, counteroffers, and bargaining tactics. Harvard Business School professor Deepak Malhotra advises negotiators to resolve process before substance, set expectations, map out the negotiation space, and control the frame. By following those steps, managers position themselves for success at the bargaining table.
To be effective, a negotiator must take stock of the subtle messages being passed around the table. In international negotiations, however, you may not know how to interpret your counterpart's communication accurately, especially when it takes the form of unspoken signals. The author identifies five rules of thumb for negotiating in other cultures: (1) Adapt the way you express disagreement. In some cultures it's OK to say "I totally disagree." In others that would provoke anger and possibly an irreconcilable breakdown of the relationship. (2) Know when to bottle it up or let it all pour out. Raising your voice when excited, laughing passionately, even putting a friendly arm around your counterpart, are common behaviors in some cultures but may signal a lack of professionalism in others. (3) Learn how the other culture builds trust. Negotiators in some countries build trust according to the confidence they feel in someone's accomplishments, skills, and reliability. For others, trust arises from emotional closeness, empathy, or friendship. (4) Avoid yes-or-no questions. Instead of asking "Will you do this?" try "How long would it take you to get this done?" (5) Be careful about putting it in writing. Americans rely heavily on written contracts, but in countries where human relationships carry more weight in business, contracts are less detailed and may not be legally binding.
When the "Titanic" collided with an iceberg and sunk, only 705 of its 2,200 passengers and crew, floating in 16 lifeboats, were saved. Imagine how many more might have lived if crew members had thought of the iceberg as not just the cause of the disaster but a lifesaving solution. The iceberg rose high above the water and stretched nearly 400 feet in length. The lifeboats, or the "Titanic" itself, might have been able to pull close enough to the iceberg for people to scramble on. Regardless of whether this could actually have worked, it's an intriguing idea--yet surprisingly difficult to envision. That's because a cognitive bias called "functional fixedness" limits people to seeing objects only in the way in which they're traditionally used. In a nautical context, an iceberg is a hazard to be avoided; it's very hard to see it any other way. When it comes to innovation, businesses are constantly hampered by functional fixedness and other cognitive biases that cause people to overlook elegant solutions hidden in plain sight. We can overcome this bias--and similar biases about an object's design and purpose--by changing how we describe the object and how we think about its component parts. This article also presents techniques and tools to help managers think in innovative ways--a process the authors call "brainswarming"--about common business problems, whether it be conceiving new products, finding novel applications for existing products, or anticipating competitive threats.
No business survives over the long term without reinventing itself. But knowing when to undertake strategic transformation-when to change a company's core products or business model because of impending industry disruption-may be the hardest decision a leader faces. Five interrelated "fault lines" can indicate that the ground beneath a company is unstable and that it's time for radical change. The authors' fault line framework addresses basic issues: whether the business serves the right customers, uses the right performance metrics, is positioned properly in its industry, deploys the correct business model, and has employees and partners who possess the capabilities required for future success. The framework can help executives build a case for change and persuade stakeholders to support the decision. And by identifying gaps between an organization's current state and where it needs to be to continue to thrive, it can inform the vision of how the company must transform. Diagnostic questions and an in-depth look at the health care company Aetna-an organization in the midst of an ambitious transformation effort, where one of the authors (Mark Bertolini) is CEO-illuminate how to detect the fault lines while there's still ample time to respond.
In 2007, Chuck Prince, then the CEO of Citigroup, made a notorious comment about the subprime mortgage market: "As long as the music's playing, you've got to get up and dance. We're still dancing." Soon after, the financial system crashed, and that remark came to be seen as a cavalier justification for excessive risk taking by the bank. But authors Martin and Kemper raise another possibility: Prince may have been painted into a corner, because Citigroup's stock was indefensibly overvalued. The only way the bank could earn the unrealistically high returns shareholders expected was through ever more dangerous activities. The overvaluation trap was first identified by Michael Jensen in a 2005 article examining the dot-com bubble. He noted that it often affects entire sectors and that in response to it executives tend to adopt two strategies: investing in hot, hyped technologies (as Global Crossing did with fiber-optic cable) and glamorous acquisitions (Nortel's downfall). And when investment opportunities start to dry up, firms may turn to financial manipulation (think WorldCom) to prop up their overpriced equity. Martin and Kemper point out that today companies in the pharmaceutical and oil sectors are caught in this same trap. Their market caps are spectacularly high. But massive spending on R&D is not producing more new drugs, and ever greater investment in oil reserve exploration is only exacerbating the glut of supply. The dance may be ending for both industries, and their executives need to figure out new and more-realistic narratives for value creation.
You can't get very far in your career without taking new jobs, joining new organizations, transferring to new locations, and meeting and building relationships with new contacts. But surprisingly, many professionals stumble in these situations because they haven't mastered three basic yet critical getting-to-know-you skills: introducing themselves, remembering names, and asking questions. Fortunately, it's fairly easy to get better at them. In this article, a Babson professor who has spent 20 years counseling executives and MBAs offers tactics that will help you navigate new situations more confidently. For instance, introductions tend to go more smoothly if you've practiced your opening lines--and you know how to make the other person feel valued. Names are easier to remember if you repeat and rehearse them and link them to vivid mental images. And you're more likely to get the answers you need if you figure out the right person to approach--and the right time--and ask short, to-the-point questions. By paying attention and applying simple but practical strategies like these, you can set yourself up for success with new challenges.