Boston Scientific founder John Abele has been party to his share of groundbreaking innovations over the years. But the revolutionary advances in medical science that these breakthroughs brought about were not the efforts of one firm alone, let alone one inventor. Abele tells two fascinating stories of collaboration-one about Jack Whitehead's upending of hospitals' blood and urine testing procedures and the other about Andreas Gruentzig's success in bringing balloon catheterization into the cardiology mainstream. Both Whitehead and Gruentzig spearheaded the emergence of entirely new fields, bringing together scientist-customers to voluntarily develop standards, training programs, new business models, and even a specialized language to describe their new field. The process of collaboration, Abele says, is fraught with contradictions and subtlety. It takes consummate leadership skills to persuade others to spend countless hours solving important problems in partnership with people they don't necessarily like. Moreover, managing egos so that each person's commitment, energy, and creativity is unleashed in a way that doesn't disadvantage others requires an impresario personality. Finally, true authenticity-something that few people can project-is critical for earning customers' trust and convincing them that their valuable contributions won't be used for anything other than moving the technology forward.

Can large companies be both innovative and efficient? Yes, argue Adler, of the University of Southern California; Heckscher, of Rutgers; and Prusak, an independent consultant. But they must develop new organizational capabilities that will create the atmosphere of trust that knowledge work requires-and the coordinating mechanisms to make it scalable. Specifically, such organizations must learn to: Define a shared purpose that guides what people at all levels of the organization are trying to achieve together; Cultivate an ethic of contribution in which the highest value is accorded to people who look beyond their specific roles and advance the common purpose; Develop scalable procedures for coordinating people's efforts so that process-management activities become truly interdependent; and Create an infrastructure in which individuals' spheres of influence overlap and collaboration is both valued and rewarded. These four goals may sound idealized, but the imperative to achieve them is practical, say the authors. Only the truly collaborative enterprises that can tap into everyone's ideas-in an organized way-will compete imaginatively, quickly, and cost-effectively enough to become the household names of this century.

Managers once discouraged casual interaction among employees, viewing it as a distraction from "real work." Today we know that chance encounters on the job promote cooperation and innovation, and companies craft their floor plans and cultures with this in mind. So why do their careful, well-intentioned efforts often go awry? Common sense, it turns out, is a poor guide when it comes to designing for interaction. Work spaces inspire informal encounters only if they properly balance three factors that have both physical and social aspects: (1) Proximity: Spaces should naturally bring people together; (2) Privacy: People must be able to control access to their conversations and themselves; (3) Permission: The social purpose of the space needs to be evident, and the organizational culture should signal that nonwork interactions are not just sanctioned but encouraged. Creating the right conditions is challenging enough in the physical world; doing it in a virtual environment is even harder. But asking employees to set Skype, IM, and other applications to indicate their availability can replicate a sense of proximity online. Setting clear policies governing access to electronic communications helps convey reassurance that privacy is protected. And leaving video links and virtual offices open promotes the feeling that geographically disparate groups are welcome to engage with one another casually, just as they might in a real-world common space. There's no simple formula for balancing proximity, privacy, and permission in either the physical or virtual spheres. Managers who grasp the fundamentals and design spaces with balance in mind, however, will be better equipped to understand and predict the effects of different spaces on interactions, and to learn from their successes and inevitable mistakes.

Bob Iger became Disney's CEO in 2005, following a rough five years for the company that included a hostile takeover attempt, a shareholder revolt, and a battle with two prominent board members. High on his agenda was ending the internal warfare and winning back employees' enthusiasm and admiration. He also needed to help the company see technology as an opportunity rather than a threat and to strike the right balance between tradition and innovation. It was time, for example, to move on to computer-generated animation-and even to update the bland Mickey Mouse, who was originally meant to be impish and irreverent. (Donald Duck filled that role after Mickey became a corporate symbol and a role model for kids.) Iger is a strong believer in taking big risks, in being accessible, and in paying attention to one's instincts. He's driven by challenges-as an early experience shows: At the age of 23 he was told by his boss that he wasn't promotable. He believes that a CEO's role involves determining strategy; establishing ethics for the company, its employees, and its products; and hiring and motivating great people. In this edited interview with HBR's editor in chief, Iger talks about executive compensation, the changing nature of stock ownership, Disney's use of social media, and the company's new theme park in Shanghai.

Firms in an industry typically cluster around a few strategic positions, and the intense competition on those occupied "mountaintops" makes it hard for firms to gain attractive returns. Superior opportunities lie on unoccupied mountaintops. Yet because those opportunities are "cognitively distant"-far from the status quo-strategists have trouble recognizing and acting on them. Competition, therefore, is weak. Most managers are trained to analyze economic forces when they want to identify new opportunities. But that approach usually won't uncover the kinds of ideas that overturn the status quo. Recent research on human cognition suggests that leaders would do better to use associative thinking to spot, act on, and legitimize distant opportunities. They should learn to make analogies with businesses in other industries. For example, Charles Merrill launched an extraordinarily successful business when he reimagined banking as a "financial supermarket." This article explores ways to jump-start associative thinking-and to bring stakeholders along on the journey.

During a merger, senior managers may be tempted to dictate strict assignments or hire consultants to do the heavy lifting. But that approach denies top leaders the chance to let their managers grow and develop. What's more, sticking with leaders already in place is the best way to build a team that can make the most of the new organization that will emerge. Companies can maximize the growth opportunities inherent in a merger by developing three specific leadership areas. The first, getting everyone on the same page, is best accomplished by drawing up what the authors call a "merger intent" document to clearly outline what's expected of everyone on both sides of the deal. The second, executing with discipline, involves putting people with high potential into critical short-term roles and letting them strengthen their abilities. It also involves setting immediate, challenging goals for teams in an attempt to boost achievement. The third leadership area, building an A-team, directs top managers to conduct an overall assessment of the talent available on both sides of the deal and create a team that reflects the best of the best. The integration process can be emotional and difficult. Giving up-and-coming leaders the chance to perform under pressure, however, will yield leadership dividends sure to benefit firms for years to come.

Traditional approaches to strategy assume that the world is relatively stable and predictable. But globalization, new technologies, and greater transparency have combined to upend the business environment. In this period of risk and uncertainty, more and more managers are finding competitive advantage in organizational capabilities that foster rapid adaptation. Instead of being really good at doing some particular thing, companies must be really good at learning how to do new things. Those that thrive are quick to read and act on weak signals of change. They have worked out how to experiment rapidly and frequently not only with products and services but also with business models, processes, and strategies. They have acquired the skills to manage complex multi-stakeholder systems in an increasingly interconnected world. And, perhaps most important, they have learned to unlock their greatest resource: the people who work for them. The authors, senior partners at the Boston Consulting Group, review these four types of organizational capabilities, showing what companies at the leading edge are doing to create them. They also discuss the particular implications of this fundamental strategic shift for large corporations, many of which have built their operations around scale and efficiency-sources of advantage predicated on an essentially stable environment.

Twenty years ago, few people would have predicted that Samsung could become a world leader in R&D, marketing, and design. Fewer still would have predicted success given the path it has taken: grafting Western business practices onto its essentially Japanese model. Like today's emerging giants, Samsung faced a paradox: The tightly integrated business system that worked in its home market could not secure its future in global markets. So into an organization focused on continuous process improvement, Samsung introduced a focus on innovation. Into a homogeneous workforce, it introduced outsiders who could not speak the language and were unfamiliar with the company's culture. Into a Confucian tradition of reverence for elders, it introduced merit pay and promotion, putting some young people in positions of authority over their elders. Chairman Lee Kun-Hee recognized at the outset the challenges of opening up Samsung's culture to new ideas. He changed only what needed to be changed, ensured that people understood the new practices, and never flagged in his commitment to the effort.

The adage "It's not what you know, it's who you know" is true. The right social network can have a huge impact on your success. But many people have misguided ideas about what makes a network strong: They believe the key is having a large circle filled with high-powered contacts. That's not the right approach, say Cross, of UVA's McIntire School of Commerce, and Thomas, of the Accenture Institute for High Performance. The authors, who have spent years researching how organizations can capitalize on employees' social networks, have seen that the happiest, highest-performing executives have a different kind of network: select but diverse, made up of high-quality relationships with people who come from varying spheres and from up and down the corporate ladder. Effective networks typically range in size from 12 to 18 people. They help managers learn, make decisions with less bias, and grow personally. Cross and Thomas have found that they include six critical kinds of connections: people who provide information, ideas, or expertise; formally and informally powerful people, who offer mentoring and political support; people who give developmental feedback; people who lend personal support; people who increase your sense of purpose or worth; and people who promote work/life balance. Moreover, the best kind of connections are "energizers"-positive, trustworthy individuals who enjoy other people and always see opportunities, even in challenging situations. If your network doesn't look like this, you can follow a four-step process to improve it. You'll need to identify who your connections are and what they offer you, back away from redundant and energy-draining connections, fill holes in your network with the right kind of people, and work to make the most of your contacts. Do this, and in due course, you'll have a network that steers the best opportunities, ideas, and talent your way.

In 2008 Merritt Paulson announced plans to bid for the right to convert the minor-league Portland Timbers into an expansion franchise in Major League Soccer starting in 2011. Since the deal required him to renovate the existing stadium for soccer, he proposed converting a beloved neighborhood park into a stadium for his baseball team, the Portland Beavers-and he wanted more than half of the $85 million project to be paid for by public funds. Perhaps not surprisingly, the plan caused an uproar, and Paulson found himself unprepared for the intense public scrutiny and criticism that followed. Another person might have buckled under the pressure and abandoned the effort. But Paulson developed a thick skin, learned how to negotiate in the spotlight, and saw his vision become a successful reality.

How do you reduce headcount when almost everyone gets the same scores on performance reviews? HR vice president Nils Ekdahl confronts that question at Circale Corporation, a fictional electronic-components distributor that has just completed a series of acquisitions. Ekdahl wants to make the personnel cuts objectively, but the company's new performance-review system yields disappointing results: On a five-point scale, virtually every employee gets a 4 or 5 on each dimension. So Ekdahl instructs managers to redo the evaluations, tells them they're not allowed to give just 4s and 5s, and requires an average score of 3 across each manager's direct reports. This time the scores indeed average 3, but they are nearly all 3s. Grade compression at the top of the scale has merely shifted to the middle. Should Ekdahl initiate yet another round of performance reviews or make do with the data he has? The authors of this fictionalized case are Brian J. Hall and Andrew Wasynczuk, both of Harvard Business School. Expert commentary comes from John Berisford, currently of The McGraw-Hill Companies and formerly of Pepsi Beverages, and from Stephen P. Kaufman, currently of Harvard Business School and formerly of Arrow Electronics (the company whose performance-review system was the seed for this case). HBR's readers also weigh in.

The South African archbishop, civil rights leader, and Nobel Peace Prize winner talks about finding the patience to overcome apartheid and how he has benefited from the prayers of others.

How do you reduce headcount when almost everyone gets the same scores on performance reviews? HR vice president Nils Ekdahl confronts that question at Circale Corporation, a fictional electronic-components distributor that has just completed a series of acquisitions. Ekdahl wants to make the personnel cuts objectively, but the company's new performance-review system yields disappointing results: On a five-point scale, virtually every employee gets a 4 or 5 on each dimension. So Ekdahl instructs managers to redo the evaluations, tells them they're not allowed to give just 4s and 5s, and requires an average score of 3 across each manager's direct reports. This time the scores indeed average 3, but they are nearly all 3s. Grade compression at the top of the scale has merely shifted to the middle. Should Ekdahl initiate yet another round of performance reviews or make do with the data he has? The authors of this fictionalized case are Brian J. Hall and Andrew Wasynczuk, both of Harvard Business School. Expert commentary comes from John Berisford, currently of The McGraw-Hill Companies and formerly of Pepsi Beverages, and from Stephen P. Kaufman, currently of Harvard Business School and formerly of Arrow Electronics (the company whose performance-review system was the seed for this case). HBR's readers also weigh in.

How do you reduce headcount when almost everyone gets the same scores on performance reviews? HR vice president Nils Ekdahl confronts that question at Circale Corporation, a fictional electronic-components distributor that has just completed a series of acquisitions. Ekdahl wants to make the personnel cuts objectively, but the company's new performance-review system yields disappointing results: On a five-point scale, virtually every employee gets a 4 or 5 on each dimension. So Ekdahl instructs managers to redo the evaluations, tells them they're not allowed to give just 4s and 5s, and requires an average score of 3 across each manager's direct reports. This time the scores indeed average 3, but they are nearly all 3s. Grade compression at the top of the scale has merely shifted to the middle. Should Ekdahl initiate yet another round of performance reviews or make do with the data he has? The authors of this fictionalized case are Brian J. Hall and Andrew Wasynczuk, both of Harvard Business School. Expert commentary comes from John Berisford, currently of The McGraw-Hill Companies and formerly of Pepsi Beverages, and from Stephen P. Kaufman, currently of Harvard Business School and formerly of Arrow Electronics (the company whose performance-review system was the seed for this case). HBR's readers also weigh in.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. There is no dearth of advice or resources on how to turn corporations into fountains of creative ideas. However, as veteran leaders of innovation campaigns know, the problem for most large organizations usually isn't a shortage of ideas -it's figuring out how to ferret out the good ones. As experienced executives know, delegating critical decisions comes with risks. The corporation may end up promoting ideas senior management does not deem worthy; alternatively, it may not pursue projects top management would have promoted had they known about them. Therefore, it's essential for senior managers to understand the mechanisms at work when their staff evaluates one another's ideas, so that executives can design an efficient idea selection process to hone in on the ideas that will make a real difference to the organization as they move through the innovation funnel. This article, based on research on more than 10,000 innovation proposals from within a large multinational corporation, examines what happens when ideas are screened through a large organization. Senior managers need to design systems, or funnels, where the ideas they are likely to favor are either (a) selected by subordinate managers for further evaluation at their level or (b) if the ideas are of sufficient importance or promise, flagged to the attention of top management for further evaluation. In a sense, the real challenge in selecting good ideas is optimizing the trade-off between the direct selection costs on the one hand and the costs of both missing out on good ideas and implementing the wrong ideas on the other. The author describes seven "setscrews"that senior managers can adjust to their particular context to ensure that the most promising innovation proposals -and only those -stand a good chance of being implemented.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Talking about "green technology"gets people excited. It's thrilling to think that a new wave of inventions and discoveries will revolutionize the way we live, halt the degradation of our planet, and conserve resources for future generations. And it's more than just talk: investors are committing real dollars. As the level of activity increases, however, discussions about green technology raise as many questions as they answer. Addressing the key questions is complicated by the fundamental uncertainties that are at the heart of the green technology market. The evolution of this market space depends on forces that are beyond the control of any individual entrepreneur or investor: government policies; availability of capital; and wild cards such as oil price volatility, geopolitical conflicts, the rate of economic growth, and public attitudes toward warnings of global climate change. History shows that the road to technological innovation is a long and winding one. Between 2005 and 2007, runaway enthusiasm led to the proliferation of hundreds of new green technology ventures, many of which ran into trouble during the great recession. Green technology companies need to develop staying power. In addition to understanding the opportunities, they need to get ahead-and stay ahead-of competitors.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Sometimes products and markets that seemingly have nothing in common 'taxonomically' can have 'thematic similarity,' which may open up important business opportunities.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. It seems that for most companies, no matter how much they invest in customer relationship management, neither the quality of their customer relationships nor the profitability of their business has increased commensurately. Of course, it was not supposed to turn out this way; relationship marketing was a "new paradigm" that would herald a golden age of marketing-more loyal and satisfied customers and much more profit for companies. The authors' evidence indicates that it is neither the quality of the CRM solutions nor their implementation that is to blame. Simply, companies have failed to prepare the ground adequately in advance of major CRM investments. Without development of the right capabilities, new technology fails to improve marketing practice. As a consequence, customer relationships are neither better nor more profitable. The authors' research reveals how operational managers can develop relationship marketing capabilities commensurate with the implementation of CRM to help make better investment decisions and exploit the opportunities profitably.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Charges of labor rights abuses and environmental harm are common for major brands that source from global supply chains. However, brand attempts to police supply chains to enforce company standards seldom serve as an effective long-term solution. Frustrated with the limitations of a typical compliance-oriented approach and after committing significant human and financial resources with senior management buy-in, apparel retailer Gap Inc. undertook a strategy of stakeholder engagement. Stakeholder theory suggests that such an approach should be more effective in fulfilling corporate social responsibility and other business goals than focusing on compliance, but many companies continue to focus on policing supply chain labor and environmental standards. Gap's successful experiment with stakeholder engagement confirmed academic intuition about the value of stakeholder engagement. For Gap, the transition to a strategy of stakeholder engagement helped build its image as a caring company and improve outcomes for subcontractor employees after labor violations were discovered. After just a few years of this practice, Gap succeeded in both further improving the working conditions of its contractors' employees and reducing the company's status as a target for anti-globalization protesters and other activists. Gap's long supply chain is not uncommon, nor is the challenge of monitoring the social performance of thousands of subcontractors. Proactive stakeholder engagement can help avert problems in the supply chain (and elsewhere); solve problems sooner when they do appear; and enhance the company's credibility and effectiveness through partnerships with labor, environmental activists, and the broader public.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. As the competitive landscape grows tougher, project leaders must sequence, time and articulate core messaging about their projects in much the same way a marketing manager would organize an external customer-facing branding effort to promote a company's products and services. And therein lies an opportunity; brand your projects in order to gain an edge in obtaining funds and the best staff. Just as product branding creates awareness and sustains value in the minds of an organization's external customers, shareholders, and constituents, a brand mindset can empower a project leader to develop strategically-timed messages to create visibility and engagement among key targets. Depending on the stage of the project, different project brand audiences may include senior business leaders, project sponsors, and team members with primary allegiances to vertical functions, as well as network partners external to the home organization. The savvy project leader will ensure that all parties up, down, across, and outside the organization understand, internalize, and embrace the promise of the project brand, agree on goals, and employ steadfast support for the initiative through its completion.