Marks & Spencer initiated a comprehensive approach to sustainability (reduction of waste, carbon emissions, fair trade) called Plan A. Does it offer a competitive advantage?

The case discusses the story of Nissan's miraculous turnaround after Renault decided to invest in the company. The automobile industry had just begun another wave of consolidation, and many industry leaders believed that size was crucial for survival. This conclusion led to several mergers and acquisitions that produced varying results. The deal concluded between Renault and Nissan was remarkable because it was not billed or designed as an acquisition or even a joint venture. It was structured as an alliance, emphasizing the fact that both companies would have their own separate identities in the marketplace and separate executive committees that would run their strategy. However, the benefits were expected to originate in cross-company synergies, ranging from design to manufacturing and logistics to R&D. The case offers a rich description of the critical competitive elements that characterized the industry at the time the deal was signed. It also provides a good background on the strengths and weaknesses associated with each of the two companies before getting into the details associated with creating the turnaround plan and its implementation. The study paints a very good picture of the internal challenges that Carlos Ghosn, the incoming leader from Renault, faced in implementing the significant changes that were called for. It particularly emphasizes people-related issues such as performance management, creating change in a tradition-bound culture, the weight of administrative heritage and its impact on performance management, and other related issues. Given the global nature of the setting, the cross-cultural angles provide additional insights into the challenges leaders face when given a mandate for change. The case ends with a description of Renault and Nissan, both of which reported poor performance in late 2007. Ghosn had been at the helm of both firms for some time already, and was finding it difficult to sustain the momentum behind the change.

If the participation of labour in management decisions leads to a more responsive, better-run GM and Chrysler, then this economic recession will have yielded a proud legacy, proof that management-labour cooperation really does work. This author believes that the time has come for such cooperation to roll down the assembly line. He also suggests tried and true work practices that will create efficiencies, and in the end, build an enduring trust.

Large-scale IT projects are highly uncertain and vulnerable to the laws of unintended consequences. But the risks can be contained and the opportunities still realized, as long as uncertainty is respected and taken into account. As this author writes, there are practical, proven approaches that allow you to accept uncertainty but maintain good project discipline.

Not all that long ago, the acronym KISS was so popular that many executives displayed it on their desks, either embedded in Lucite or sculpted in bronze. Keep It Simple Stupid was the preferred strategy of the time. That strategy - and the acronym -- is enjoying a limited revival in these difficult times, especially in the research-obsessed, insight-seeking marketing domain. These days, the tome-like marketing plan is out and the pithy pocket version is in. Or, it better be.

The "vision thing" is still with us, but while leaders insist in having a compelling vision, the fact is that many - both the leaders and the visions - leave people standing still, unmoved. A leader who engages stakeholders when developing a vision will, in the end, articulate one that resonates strongly and impels people to act.

Though more women are being invited to become directors, they are still under-represented on boards. This leading governance author and academic discusses why this is so and suggests a series of steps that would-be women directors can take to enhance their chances of being asked to sit on boards.

Managers want to have their instincts validated before they act, such as waiting until all the data have been gathered before they launch a product. But relying on the tried and true doesn't always serve managers well, especially when it comes to organic growth. The question of "Will it fly?" can be answered only by letting it fly - by launching the particular product and listening to the market respond. Growth leaders don't do traditional research. As these authors explain, growth leaders win by placing small bets fast.

The efficacy - and appropriateness - of monetizing the poor may be questionable for some. Reality and research, however, suggest that enabling the poor to make the economic and psychic step up from merely subsisting has transformative benefits. These authors have conducted extensive research on how helping the poor make the move up ought to be done and how the benefits of such a move underpin change that lasts.

"Going into business for yourself, becoming an entrepreneur, is the modern-day equivalent of pioneering on the old frontier," according to entrepreneur and author Paula Nelson. I agree. It takes courage, know-how and perseverance to launch a business and make it succeed. Fortunately for our economy, Canada is home to more than 850,000 women entrepreneurs. Their numbers have increased more than 200 percent over the past 20 years. Today, they annually contribute more than $18 billion to our economy, employ more than 570,000 people, and continue to represent one of the fastest growing sectors. And even in these difficult economic times, they are discovering new markets, charting new territory and building new companies.

Robert D. Walter built Cardinal Health into the most valuable company in the U.S. health care services industry and the world's largest distributor of healthcare products. With revenues of $81 billion in 2006, was ranked Number 19 on the Fortune 500 list, and owned a third of the drug distribution business. Walter began this evolution with Cardinal Foods, but realized that this company would never be a big player in the food business given the presence of large, powerful incumbents. Through a series of acquisitions, Walter repositioned the company into the pharmaceutical distribution industry. Cardinal Health was one of a handful of large U.S. companies that had achieved earnings-per-share growth in excess of 20 percent for 15 years straight. Nevertheless, Wall Street was questioning whether Cardinal Health could continue to grow at this remarkable rate through acquisitions. This general doubt, coupled with questionable "stock crushing" accounting practices among wholesalers, including one of their own suppliers, was weighing down Cardinal's stock price despite their continued earnings growth. Cardinal Health, the merger and acquisition juggernaut, had hit an earnings speed bump. In October 2003, Cardinal Health disclosed that the SEC had launched an inquiry into questionable accounting practices in 2000 and 2001 in which Cardinal Health allegedly recognized $22 million in gains from litigation settlements before they were finalized. In May 2004, the SEC inquiry was converted into a formal investigation. It was July 2004 before Cardinal announced that their 2004 earnings, which had been predicted by the company to reach the "mid-teens or better," would only be 11 percent higher than the previous year. In July 2007, Cardinal announced that it had reached a final settlement with the SEC of $35 million, concluding an investigation into the company's historical financial reporting and disclosures from 2000 to 2004.

In 2009, Gazprom was widely believed to be among the most influential companies in the global oil and gas business. It had grown from its early days as an experiment in privatization of oil and gas following the rapid breakup of the Soviet Union. The case documents the growth strategies that the company has followed, its global aspirations, and the impact of its political lineage. The case offers a rich mix of insights into the contextual forces at work in shaping the destiny of Gazprom, the political pressures it faces as Russia's largest company, and its stutter-step approach to globalization. The material in the case allows for a comprehensive analysis and discussion on central themes such as the origin of competitive advantage for NOCs (National Oil Companies), the unique governance conflicts that they have to navigate in setting strategic direction, and the viability of their globalization strategies.

Microsoft's Office team was developing the marketing communication plan for its new product, Office 2007. Office was a very mature product and several versions of the product had been introduced over more than 20 years. As such, the new version had to overcome the consumer perception that the versions of Microsoft Office that they already have are "good enough" for them. The Office 2007 marketing team has come up with a two-step campaign strategy that sought to first create awareness and intrigue using traditional media, followed by the heavy use of digital media to get consumer to experience the product through different types of "digital experiences." The team needs to decide how much of its advertising spending it should shift from traditional media to digital media, how to design the most effective digital experiences and how to measure the effectiveness of digital experiences. The case is set at a time when digital media were emerging as a promising way to engage consumers more deeply with brands and products, but marketers were uncertain about the relative effectiveness of different digital marketing tactics and the optimal mix of traditional versus digital marketing channels for different product, market and campaign contexts.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Historically, neither the creators nor the distributors of cultural products such as books or movies have used analytics -- data, statistics, predictive modeling -- to determine the likely success of their offerings. Instead, companies relied on the brilliance of tastemakers to predict and shape what people would buy. Creative judgment and expertise will always play a vital role in the creation, shaping and marketing of cultural products. But the balance between art and science is shifting. Today companies have unprecedented access to data and sophisticated technology that allows even the best-known experts to weigh factors and consider evidence that was unobtainable just a few years ago. And with increased cost and risk associated with the creation of cultural products, it has never been more important to get these decisions right. In this article, the authors describe the results of a study of prediction and recommendation efforts for a variety of cultural products. They discuss different approaches used to make predictions, the contexts in which these predictions are applied and the barriers to more extensive use, including the problem of decision making pre-creation. They then discuss two aspects of the prediction market. First, the need for better prediction for distributors of cultural products, and second, the potential for business models around prediction techniques.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. When picking assessment tools to inform better decisions about future paths, executives are faced with a wide variety of options--some of which are well established, while others are in early stages of development. The authors provide an insider's guide to prediction and recommendation techniques and technologies. They cover prediction tools including attributized Bayesian analysis, biological responses analysis, cluster analysis, collaborative filtering, content-based filtering/decision trees, neural network analysis, prediction (or opinion) markets, regression analysis, social network-based recommendations and textual analytics. With each potential tool, they briefly describe the technique, who uses it and for what purpose, its strengths and weaknesses, and its future prospects as a prediction tool. Finally, the authors offer up an indication of the best time in the decision process to begin using the tool.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. One could argue that "what business are we really in" is the most important question a leader can ask about his company. But perhaps right up there with the classic Peter Drucker interrogatory is this one: What is your business model? So argue the authors, who correctly point out that firms searching for forms of competitive advantage -- sources of distinctiveness that are enduring, hard to copy and valuable in the marketplace -- should take a look at their management model. That is, they should examine the choices made by the top executives in how they define objectives, motivate efforts, coordinate activities and allocate resources. How they define the work of management, in other words. Not only do the authors provide a framework for this discussion -- dividing companies' business models into four possible choices -- but they supply a list of questions leaders can ask to determine which management model may be right for their company. Clearly, when it comes to management models, one size does not fit all. And it is equally obvious that even similar-size companies in the same industry may choose differing models, depending on their own particular circumstances. While the model they choose is of extreme importance, so, too, is the process they follow -- and the thinking they use -- to select it.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Companies have long used teams to solve problems: focus groups to explore customer needs, consumer surveys to understand the market and annual meetings to listen to shareholders. But the words "solve," "explore," "understand" and "listen" have now taken on a whole new meaning. Thanks to recent technologies, including many Web 2.0 applications, companies can now tap into "the collective" on a greater scale than ever before. Indeed, the increasing use of information markets, wikis, crowdsourcing, "the wisdom of crowds" concepts, social networks, collaborative software and other Web-based tools constitutes a paradigm shift in the way that many companies make decisions. Call it the emerging era of "Decisions 2.0." But the proliferation of such technologies necessitates a framework for understanding what type of collective intelligence is possible (or not), desirable (or not) and affordable (or not) -- and under what conditions. At a minimum, managers need to consider the following key issues: loss of control, diversity versus expertise, engagement, policing, intellectual property and mechanism design. By understanding such important issues, companies like Affinnova, Google, InnoCentive, Marketocracy and Threadless have successfully implemented Decisions 2.0 applications for a variety of purposes, including research and development, market research, customer service and knowledge management. The bottom line is this: For many problems that a company faces, there could well be a solution out there somewhere, far outside of the traditional places that managers might search, within or outside the organization. The trick, though, is to develop the right tool for locating that source and then tap into it.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Dan Ariely is one of the world's foremost experts in behavioral economics, the study of how people behave when making business and financial decisions. Ariely's insights should make executives think twice about the wisdom of the decisions they regularly make -- as well as the inner processes they rely on to make those decisions. Why, for example, will managers veto a 10% cost increase for a $1 million project while thinking nothing of a 1% overrun on a $10 million budget -- even though the actual amount is the same? Why will they often agonize trying to choose between two close alternatives when they're frequently better off just flipping a coin? In this wide-ranging interview, Ariely talks about how Apple Inc.'s initial decision to price the iPhone at $600 only to drop it to $400 soon after might not have been a mistake but instead a very shrewd marketing maneuver. He also explains why a product monopoly might not necessarily be desirable because it can lead to consumer confusion, resulting in slow sales. With regards to hiring practices, Ariely strongly questions the interviewing processes routinely used and asserts that some companies might be better off hiring graduates from reputable colleges at random. Toward the end of the interview, he describes his research that has investigated ways in which teams might be better able to make group decisions. Lastly, Ariely explains one of his most valuable managerial insights -- that adding even just a little meaning to employees' work will often increase their motivation enormously.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. That is a question that has long puzzled marketers who have heard from customers that they want to do business with ethically based firms -- defined as companies that produce products under conditions of progressive stakeholder relations, advanced environmental practices and respect for human rights. Marketers had no reason to doubt that sentiment, but they have always wondered if consumers would be willing to pay a higher price for ethically produced goods (since they tend to be more expensive to create.) It turns out that a series of controlled experiments proves that consumers will, in fact, pay a premium for ethically produced goods. But perhaps of equal interest is the fact that they will punish (by demanding a lower price) companies that are not seen as ethical. That relationship is not symmetrical. The punishment exacted is greater than the premium customers are willing to pay. How ethical do you have to be? Perhaps not as much as you might think. The research shows that a small degree of ethicalness "pays off" It is not necessary for a company's product to be "100% pure" in order to receive a price premium. This research is the first to find that consumers use price to punish unethical companies more than they use price to reward ethical companies, and that the ethicality of a company's behavior is, indeed, an important consideration for consumers (as demonstrated in their willingness-to-pay decisions).