This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Managers and directors alike face tough choices as they decide on the quality and quantity of information that the board receives and uses in its governance and fiduciary roles. As the fallout from recent crises such as the subprime mortgage debacle illustrates, both sides must address the problem of "information asymmetry" -- the gap between the information available to management and to the board. The authors' research suggests that tomorrow's boardroom will be reshaped by three related forces: First, they face a thorough rethinking, brought on by concerned stakeholders, of directors' information needs. In responding to these pressures, boards and management must overcome several impediments: caution about altering the dynamics of the present manager-director relationship; directors' lack of needed skills for interpreting the new information; and the inertia of cultural norms. Second, they face dramatic improvements in the performance assessment approaches used to guide boards' decision making. The core of a healthy information relationship between managers and directors is their agreement on the most useful performance metrics to track and assess. This selection enables the building of trust and an eased and more pertinent workload for the board (having been freed from the need to decode reams of data while also gaining some independence from management's sometimes self-serving evaluations). Finally, boards and managers face the adoption of technologies that support critical board functions. Once access to such information is granted, new technologies can help directors obtain and use it. Board members may apply tools that, for example, enable improved visualizations and helpful alerts. And directors may engage in electronic "what-if" analyses, using company data as well as outside information -- related, say, to competing firms -- which is becoming increasingly available online.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Although top managers must project an image of professionalism and strength, they still require networks of individuals they can trust. The development of trust depends on the degree to which the executives perceive the presence of three critical attributes -- ability, benevolence and integrity -- within their support networks, and on their ability to match these qualities with the type of support they are seeking in any particular situation. We model the support being sought as having high or low informational complexity and high or low emotional demand. The combinations correspond to four types of support requested: raw information (low, low), actionable advice (high, low), emotional support (low, high), and strategic or political help (high, high). Meanwhile, the three critical attributes (each with either a high or low rating) translate into eight kinds of support providers: Trustworthy Partner, Harsh Truthteller, Moral Compass, Loyal Supporter, Star Player, Average Joe, Dealmaker and Cheerleader. Executives in need of actionable advice will most often turn to Trustworthy Partners or Harsh Truthtellers, given their high levels of ability and integrity. For strategic or political help, Trustworthy Partners will be sought because of their high levels of ability, benevolence and integrity. Seekers of emotional support will look to Loyal Supporters and Trustworthy Partners because they offer high levels of benevolence and integrity. And when the three facets of trust are less critical, executives will be willing to go to virtually any of their contacts for raw information, though most often they seek out Average Joes. These and other matches were observed, useful data was gathered and valuable insights were obtained when we tested our model on vice presidents, directors, general managers and other executives at a Fortune 50 technology firm.

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.

Yang Jianguo was recently promoted from country manager for China to global head of product development at a staid French perfume maker. He was chosen for his technical smarts and his knowledge of emerging markets - a critical avenue for growth, given that sales in the company's core markets have stalled. Eager to succeed in his new role in Paris, Jianguo has lots of fresh ideas, but they seem to be falling on deaf ears. Members of the executive team, for their part, find Jianguo to be largely indifferent to their input. Can Jianguo adjust to this new culture? And can he succeed without sacrificing his identity? Three experts comment on this fictional case study in R0901A and R0901Z. Katherine Tsang, the CEO of Standard Chartered Bank in Shanghai, explains the cultural differences between China and France and recommends that Jianguo push his thinking beyond the Chinese market. She also suggests that the company give all its executive team members multicultural training so they have the tools to understand one another and work together effectively. Mansour Javidan, the dean of research and a professor at Thunderbird School of Global Management, acknowledges that Jianguo's transition would be easier if he had the full support of the CEO, Alain Deronde. But since that isn't forthcoming, he advises Jianguo to work with Alain to develop targets for growth in emerging and traditional markets and a plan for building an infrastructure to achieve those goals. James Champy, the chairman of consulting for Perot Systems, is surprised that a family business would choose an "outsider" for this important post, but he recognizes it as a wise strategic move. He says that Jianguo needs a coach and should focus on learning the home market first, before trying to make inroads further afield.

It's hard to imagine a leadership image more iconic than the ringmaster. Merely say the word, and a picture springs to mind of a tall, dashing captain presiding over, well, a circus - a world full of both chaos and opportunity for delight. It's the ringmaster's job to make sense of that environment, anticipate the unexpected, and direct the attention of an audience with as many as 20,000 people - a massive community of stakeholders - to make sure they get their money's worth. The circus has evolved over the decades to keep pace with market realities, and the right talents for its front man have changed as well. In P.T. Barnum's day, he was master of three rings, a structure designed to keep visitors from seeing the whole show in one sitting so they'd come back another day. If he wasn't outright owner of the circus, he was head trainer of its equestrian team, a graduate of the stable and, in earlier times, the cavalry. But Chuck Wagner, of Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey's 138th Edition, is none of those things. He's part of a new breed of ringmaster - a musical-theater star who brings Broadway-style entertainment to the show. Now, the circus has only one ring, and the goal is to make sure audience members leave thoroughly wowed. In a world saturated with entertainment options, they won't come back the next day - but they will tell their friends to. In this conversation with Special Issues Editor Julia Kirby, Wagner talks about the challenges of being the man in the middle of the twenty-first-century circus - his relationship with the cast and the crew, his responsibilities to the modern audience, and how he balances tradition with progress to help Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey's circus remain "the greatest show on earth."

Leaders in transition reflexively rely on the skills and strategies that worked for them in the past. That's a mistake, says Watkins, whose research shows that executives moving into new roles must gain a deep understanding of the situation at hand and adapt to it. To help them accurately assess their organizations and tailor their strategies and styles accordingly, he developed the STARS framework. "STARS" is an acronym for the five common situations leaders move into: start-up, turnaround, accelerated growth, realignment, and sustaining success. Thus, the model outlines the challenges of launching a venture or project; saving a business or initiative that's in serious trouble; dealing with rapid expansion; reenergizing a once-leading company that's now facing problems; and following in the footsteps of a highly regarded leader with a strong legacy of success. Executives can accelerate their immersion in new roles by following certain fundamental principles: Organize to learn about the business, establish A-item priorities, define strategic intent, quickly build the leadership team, secure early wins, and create supportive alliances across the company. But the way those principles should be applied depends very much on the business situation, which the STARS framework can help leaders analyze. Turnarounds and realignments present especially distinct leadership challenges that call for particular transition strategies. Regardless of the business situation, leaders must figure out which things need to happen - perhaps a jump in market share or an expansion into different markets - for their business to achieve its goals. And they must determine which leadership style best fits the new culture they're joining. Armed with such clarity, executives can design effective plans to manage their organizations and themselves.

Many leaders taking on new roles try to prove themselves early on by going after quick wins - fresh, visible contributions to the business. But in the pursuit of early results, those leaders often fall into traps that prevent them from benefiting from their achievements. To succeed in their new positions, leaders must realize that the teams they have inherited are also experiencing change. Instead of focusing on an individual accomplishment, leaders need to work with team members on a collective quick win. In a study of more than 5,400 new leaders, the authors found that those who were struggling tended to exhibit five behaviors characteristic of people overly intent on securing a quick win. They focused too much on details, reacted negatively to criticism, intimidated others, jumped to conclusions, and micromanaged their direct reports. Some managed to eke out a win anyway, but the fallout was often toxic. The leaders who were thriving in their new roles, by contrast, shared not only a strong focus on results - necessary for early successes - but also excellent change-management skills. They communicated a clear vision, developed constructive relationships, and built team capabilities. They seemed to realize that the lasting value of their accomplishment would be the way they managed their teams through the transition. Collective quick wins established credibility and prepared them to lead their teams to harder-won victories. The authors provide a diagnostic tool for identifying opportunities for collective quick wins, and they share some advice for organizations: When grooming new leaders, don't just shore up their domain knowledge and technical skills; help them develop the change-management skills they will need as they settle in with their new teams.

Are women rated lower than men in evaluations of their leadership capabilities because of lingering gender bias? No, according to an analysis of thousands of 360-degree assessments collected by Insead's executive education program. That analysis showed that women tend to outshine men in all areas but one: vision. Unfortunately, that exception is a big one. At the top tiers of management, the ability to see opportunities, craft strategy based on a broad view of the business, and inspire others is a must-have. To explore the nature of the deficit, and whether it is a perception or reality, Insead professor Ibarra and doctoral candidate Obodaru interviewed female executives and studied the evaluation data. They developed three possible explanations. First, women may do just as much as men to shape the future but go about it in a different way; a leader who is less directive, includes more people, and shares credit might not fit people's mental model of a visionary. Second, women may believe they have less license to go out on a limb. Those who have built careers on detail-focused, shoulder-to-the-wheel execution may hesitate to stray from facts into unprovable assertions about the future. Third, women may choose not to cultivate reputations as big visionaries. Having seen bluster passed off as vision, they may dismiss the importance of selling visions. The top two candidates for the Democratic nomination for U.S. president in 2008 offer an instructive parallel. The runner-up, Hillary Clinton, was viewed as a get-it-done type with an impressive, if uninspiring, grasp of policy detail. The winner, Barack Obama, was seen as a charismatic visionary offering a hopeful, if undetailed, future. The good news is that every dimension of leadership is learned, not inborn. As more women become skilled at, and known for, envisioning the future, nothing will hold them back.

If you're on the way to becoming CEO, take care. Many anointed successors find their path to the corner office unexpectedly blocked. The obstacle is usually a mismanaged relationship with any of six kinds of stakeholders: the current chief executive, the successor's peers, his or her direct reports, customers, analysts and shareholders, and the board of directors. Succession isn't an entirely rational process, explains veteran executive coach Goldsmith. Personal issues, egos, and emotions influence succession decisions just as much as business logic. Look at what happened in 1978 to Lee Iacocca, considered by many the obvious candidate to become head of Ford. Iacocca didn't just fail to get the job - he was fired. In explaining why, Henry Ford II famously remarked, "Sometimes you just don't like somebody." To secure their promotion, prospective heirs must strengthen relationships with the stakeholders whose commitment they'll need to succeed as CEO. That involves striking a delicate balance in a number of areas. For instance, candidates must project readiness to lead while supporting the current CEO, showing respect for peers, and demonstrating that they can make tough decisions without alienating their reports. It's also critical for them to determine if they've made past missteps that call for a change in personal style or relationship-building approach. The current CEO can provide invaluable guidance on areas ripe for improvement, as well as many other issues, such as which customers aspiring successors need to get to know or what the concerns of individual board members might be. Building better relationships with stakeholders takes time and effort, and treading so carefully may be wearying. But executives who do it before they become CEO stand a much better chance of making it across the finish line, and in the end will become much more effective leaders.

No one is in a better position to get an incoming CEO up to speed than his or her predecessor, whose insights and accumulated wisdom are uniquely valuable during the transition and even beyond. The outgoing leader can provide infor-mation about the expectations of high-ranking employees; short-term opportunities ripe for harvesting; how the board and others perceive the newcomer's reputation or personal brand; the strengths and foibles of internal allies and external partners; organizational bench strength; and the wisdom that comes from experience well-reflected upon. Organizations and their shareholders don't want intellectual capital like this to simply evaporate, which is why nearly every multinational corporation makes ongoing consultation a requirement in severance contracts and pays handsomely for it. Nevertheless, candid, in-depth discussions between outgoing and incoming CEOs rarely take place. Friel, formerly the chairman and CEO of Heidrick & Struggles, and Duboff, the CEO and a cofounder of HawkPartners, conducted numerous interviews with people who had been through at least one CEO transition to find out why those discussions don't happen as a matter of course and how best to draw on the knowledge of a departing leader. They clearly outline the steps that organizations can take, such as making golden parachutes contingent on debriefing conversations, having HR arrange the meetings to dispel any awkwardness, and creating a thorough agenda. And they advise the two executives to meet as equals, share the "first 90 days plan," and speak consistently about the past and future - to the media as well as to stakeholders. Much of an outgoing CEO's knowledge will be lost unless a conscious effort is made to capture it. As the average tenure of chief executives shrinks, it becomes increasingly imperative that they get off to a strong start.

Today's business leaders increasingly rely on coaches for help in understanding how to act in a demanding and volatile world. These confidants and advisers can earn up to $2,000 per hour. To understand what they do to merit that money, HBR conducted a survey of 140 leading coaches and invited five experts to comment on the findings. Commentators and coaches agreed that the reasons for engaging coaches have evolved over the past decade. Ten years ago, most companies hired a coach to help fix toxic behavior at the top. Today, most coaching is about developing the capabilities of high-potential performers or acting as a sounding board. As a result of this broader mission, there's a lot more fuzziness around coaching engagements, whether it be with regard to how coaches define the scope of engagements, how they measure and report on progress, and what credentials a company should look for when selecting a coach. Do companies and executives get value from their coaches? When we asked coaches to explain the healthy growth of their industry, they said that clients keep coming back because "coaching works." Yet the survey results also suggest that the industry is fraught with conflicts of interest, blurry lines between what is best handled by coaches and what should be left to mental health professionals, and sketchy mechanisms for monitoring the effectiveness of a coaching engagement. The bottom line: Coaching as a business tool continues to gain legitimacy, but the fundamentals of the industry are still very much in flux. In this market, as in so many others today, we have to conclude that the old saw still applies: Buyer beware!

In 2006, General Electric launched its Leadership, Innovation, and Growth (LIG) program to support CEO Jeffrey Immelt's priority of achieving corporate growth primarily by expanding businesses and creating new ones. LIG represented a radical approach for GE's famed management development center in Crotonville, New York, because it was the first effort to train all the senior members of a GE business's management team as a group. Prokesch went through LIG with 19 senior managers of GE Power Generation, one of the company's oldest businesses, in October 2007. About a year later he revisited the "turbine heads," as Immelt affectionately calls them, to see how much impact the program had made. The answer was a lot. Team training accelerated the pace of change by giving managers an opportunity to reach consensus on the barriers they faced and how to overcome them. LIG participants were encouraged to consider both hard (organizational) and soft (behavioral) barriers. The training explicitly addressed how to balance the short term and the long term. The program created a common vocabulary of change - actual words that are used daily inside and across GE's businesses. And LIG was not an academic exercise: It was structured so that a team would emerge with the first draft of an action plan for instituting change. The author's firsthand experience in the four-day program, together with his follow-up interviews with GE executives, illuminates the effectiveness of this training approach. Power Generation's managers created a now ubiquitous vision statement, beefed up the leadership in their core business, expanded regulatory staff and project teams in emerging markets, revamped product development, put up a website where any employee can submit ideas for growth, and created a growth board to consider proposals and track their progress.

Yang Jianguo was recently promoted from country manager for China to global head of product development at a staid French perfume maker. He was chosen for his technical smarts and his knowledge of emerging markets - a critical avenue for growth, given that sales in the company's core markets have stalled. Eager to succeed in his new role in Paris, Jianguo has lots of fresh ideas, but they seem to be falling on deaf ears. Members of the executive team, for their part, find Jianguo to be largely indifferent to their input. Can Jianguo adjust to this new culture? And can he succeed without sacrificing his identity? Three experts comment on this fictional case study in R0901A and R0901Z. Katherine Tsang, the CEO of Standard Chartered Bank in Shanghai, explains the cultural differences between China and France and recommends that Jianguo push his thinking beyond the Chinese market. She also suggests that the company give all its executive team members multicultural training so they have the tools to understand one another and work together effectively. Mansour Javidan, the dean of research and a professor at Thunderbird School of Global Management, acknowledges that Jianguo's transition would be easier if he had the full support of the CEO, Alain Deronde. But since that isn't forthcoming, he advises Jianguo to work with Alain to develop targets for growth in emerging and traditional markets and a plan for building an infrastructure to achieve those goals. James Champy, the chairman of consulting for Perot Systems, is surprised that a family business would choose an "outsider" for this important post, but he recognizes it as a wise strategic move. He says that Jianguo needs a coach and should focus on learning the home market first, before trying to make inroads further afield.

Yang Jianguo was recently promoted from country manager for China to global head of product development at a staid French perfume maker. He was chosen for his technical smarts and his knowledge of emerging markets - a critical avenue for growth, given that sales in the company's core markets have stalled. Eager to succeed in his new role in Paris, Jianguo has lots of fresh ideas, but they seem to be falling on deaf ears. Members of the executive team, for their part, find Jianguo to be largely indifferent to their input. Can Jianguo adjust to this new culture? And can he succeed without sacrificing his identity? Three experts comment on this fictional case study in R0901A and R0901Z. Katherine Tsang, the CEO of Standard Chartered Bank in Shanghai, explains the cultural differences between China and France and recommends that Jianguo push his thinking beyond the Chinese market. She also suggests that the company give all its executive team members multicultural training so they have the tools to understand one another and work together effectively. Mansour Javidan, the dean of research and a professor at Thunderbird School of Global Management, acknowledges that Jianguo's transition would be easier if he had the full support of the CEO, Alain Deronde. But since that isn't forthcoming, he advises Jianguo to work with Alain to develop targets for growth in emerging and traditional markets and a plan for building an infrastructure to achieve those goals. James Champy, the chairman of consulting for Perot Systems, is surprised that a family business would choose an "outsider" for this important post, but he recognizes it as a wise strategic move. He says that Jianguo needs a coach and should focus on learning the home market first, before trying to make inroads further afield.

For competitive advantage in the 21st century, firms must be able to access and balance both the science of business and the art of business. Knowledge advances along four categories: from mystery to heuristic to algorithm to code, described here. Today's businesses can create value in two fundamental ways: first, by operating a business within a single knowledge category; i.e. either by running a heuristic, an algorithm, or code; and second, by instigating a progression along the sequence of knowledge from mystery to heuristic, heuristic to algorithm or algorithm to code. Doing both concurrently is critical to a modern organization's success.

Nobel Laureate in Economic Sciences (2001) Michael Spence discusses his latest initiative, the Commission on Growth and Development, which has set out to tackle some of the world's 'wicked problems' by focusing on growth in developing nations. The Commission was brought together by a belief that the world's challenges - poverty, the environment, misunderstandings between nations, vast differences in living standards across countries - are best met in conditions of rising prosperity and expanding economic opportunities. He explains why the Commission is focusing on growth -- not because it is the final goal, but because it enables so many things that people care about: poverty reduction, productive employment, education, health and the opportunity to be creative.

We expect to find artistry in the fine arts, but artistry is possible in a wide variety of fields, from sports to management. Artistry can occur whenever both the end result and the means of getting there are open to shaping by the practitioner. For example, like an artist, a corporate strategist has the opportunity to define both where he or she wants to go and how best to get there. The successful results of artistic efforts are the memorable performances, breakthrough products and revolutionary advancements in thinking that display the captivating and special qualities that we associate with artistry. The author defines three elements of a personal knowledge system and how they can lead to artistry. In the end, she argues, if the situations you face are filled with uncertainty, surprises and complexity, working towards artistry is a choice limited only by your appetite for the implications of this choice.

In this interview with CogNexus Institute founder Jeff Conklin, he explains how our education and experience have prepared us to see and solve 'tame' problems, and why as a result, 'wicked problems' sneak up on us and create chaos. Conklin describes how organizations must embrace the fact that there are two distinct aspects of strategic projects - problem understanding and solution formulation. In each phase, different kinds of conversations must be woven together from beginning to end. He explains the concept of 'shared understanding' and why it is so critical to solving complex problems. At the heart of this new understanding of organizational life is the recognition that project work is fundamentally social, and that communication among stakeholders must be managed and nurtured in order for a social network to cohere into a functioning entity.

As the 21st century unfolds, lone creators of new ideas are increasingly rare, as teams and larger groups within organizations become the dominant mode through which progress is made in much of the world. Appropriately, management scholars have been turning their attention to organizational creativity. One such form of creativity, 'improvisational creativity' involves simultaneously identifying new challenges and generating responses with little or no time to prepare. To facilitate improvisational creativity, one must acquire the expertise to operate fluently in a domain without also acquiring the lack of novelty that often accompanies increased expertise.

The forces around any endeavor result in its ultimate design. When attempting to solve 'wicked problems', creative thinkers must design systems that influence people's behavior on a mass scale. 'Systems at scale' comprise a series of methods for directing behavioral change on a large scale by inspiring people to embrace a system as a stakeholder. In a world increasingly plagued by wicked problems, this is one approach to tackling seemingly-unsolvable problems.