Two companies, Myriad Genetics and OncorMed, competed to develop a genetic test for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility. Although the two companies had offered genetic testing only to women who participated in their research studies, in 1995, both were considering selling their testing services to physicians generally. Despite the promising market for this testing service, some scientists and patient activist groups believed that it was premature to provide testing outside a carefully controlled research environment, where data could be collected on an ongoing basis to answer significant questions about the health consequences of genetic mutations and the potential benefits and risks of testing. Specifically, they argued that commercialization should wait because knowledge about an inherited predisposition to breast cancer was still emerging, and medical care options for mutation carriers were limited and not proven to be of benefit. In addition, data on the psychological and social effects on women who were tested were still evolving. Those in favor of restricting such testing to the research setting wanted laws in place to protect individuals from irresponsible testing practices, loss of privacy, and genetic discrimination. Details the decisions that Myriad and OncorMed made regarding their testing services and how the two companies addressed the concerns of those outside the company.
Genzyme Tissue Repair (GTR) had just received favorable Phase I clinical trial results, an important first step in gaining approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for its NeuroCell-PD. The groundbreaking technology behind NeuroCell-PD (developed by Diacrin, Inc.) used fetal pig cell neural transplants to treat Parkinson's disease. GTR was eager to get NeuroCell-PD to market as quickly as possible but knew that the path to obtaining FDA approval would be difficult. Genzyme, an innovative biotechnology company, had often entered uncharted territories in the past and had set precedents in medical research. Controversy would likely center on whether GTR would use what some were calling "sham" surgery as a placebo control in its Phase II trials of NeuroCell-PD in Parkinson's patients--trials intended to demonstrate both the efficacy and safety of the procedure. In sham surgery, a segment of patients in a study undergo the same aspects of the surgery experience as those receiving the experimental treatment, except that it does not involve fetal pig cells. Details the process for testing NeuroCell-PD and discusses the issues concerning sham surgery. Asks students to make a recommendation on whether to conduct sham surgery.
The tech industry has a really good grasp of what works and how its products will be used--and that's killing innovation, says the Berkman Center's Jonathan Zittrain.
Managers with different jobs in the same company are more likely to have similar leadership styles than managers with similar jobs in different companies, report Thomas Kell and Gregory T. Carrott of Heidrick & Struggles.
Harvard Business School's Regina M. Abrami and Texas A&M's Leonard Bierman argue that companies hurt only themselves when they block legislation that would put labor standards into trade agreements.
Software that "understands" psychology is helping fast-food restaurants capture customers' spare change, explains GE edgelab's Terri C. Albert and marketing professor Russell S. Winer.
Employees are the backbone of every organization, and as you might expect, research shows that happy employees are more motivated, productive and committed. While considerable research has explored the link between an organization's long-term success and motivated employees, much less has been said about what actually makes employees happy. The author sets out to do this, arguing that three key drivers affect employee happiness: i) being a valued member of a community, ii) that is valued by you, iii) and that others outside the community value. Business leaders who want to benefit from the productive power of happy employees must think systematically these three drivers of happiness. Only once all three are functioning smoothly will they have harnessed the full power of happiness.
What do exhilaration, stereotyping and poor table manners have in common? What do embarrassment, the advantage younger siblings enjoy over older ones in understanding others' mental states, and the complexity of Supreme Court justices' decisions have in common? The answer is simple: power. Power is a basic force in social relationships and the dynamics and structure of personality. But as central as it is to social life and to theoretical inquiries in the Social Sciences, it has received only sporadic attention from psychologists. The authors show that we are beginning to understand how power influences cognitive processes such as stereotyping, complex social reasoning, moral judgment, and inferences about non-verbal behavior. They also look at how power influences social behavior, including emotional display, behavioral confirmation, familial aggression, hate crimes, sexual aggression, and teasing. Our understanding of how power shapes situations, groups, and cultures, they argue, ultimately rests on a formulation of how power - and powerlessness - shape the psychology of the individual.
Sid Shawn is a 10-year veteran of NMO Financial Services and a mainstay of the pensions marketing group. He's been a good, consistent worker and an invaluable resource for the salespeople and consultant relations managers. Sid also weighs 400 pounds. So when he is the only internal candidate for the customer-facing position of consultant relations manager, sales and marketing VP Bill Houglan feels that he has a tough hiring decision to make. Sid knows the company's products backward and forward, but to succeed in the new job, he would have to impress the polished professionals at major benefits consultancies. What kind of image would Sid present in face-to-face sales situations? Could he keep up with the job's physical demands and fast pace? Does Sid's weight matter? Bill wonders. With obesity reaching epidemic proportions in the United States, companies are feeling its impact on their insurance costs and their employees' health. They are increasingly compelled to adopt policies concerning overweight workers. Offering expert advice on this fictional case study in R0505A and R0505Z are Howard Weyers, CEO of Weyco, which has fired employees for smoking and is now targeting the issue of obesity at work; Sondra Solovay, a California attorney focusing on weight-related issues and the author of Tipping the Scales of Justice: Fighting Weight-Based Discrimination; Mark V. Roehling, a Michigan State University professor whose research has focused on issues of obesity in the workplace; and Amy Wilensky, author of The Weight of It: A Story of Two Sisters.
If you were the CEO of Pitney Bowes, the postage meter maker, how would you envision the future of the business? The company has an undeniable core competence in the solutions it provides to high-volume postal service users. But with snail mail on the decline, some would say that core has about as much future as the buggy whip. In this article, Pitney Bowes Chairman and CEO Michael Critelli gives us a glimpse of how he leads his company's strategy development--and how that development has supported a counterintuitive return to the company's core after decades of diversification. He and others in the company begin the process by tapping into deeply knowledgeable people and organizations to understand key trends in the business and the rate at which change is occurring. Then, it's a question of the firm reshaping the environment in which it does business, whether through R&D investments or work with regulators and policy makers who influence market forces; this is especially important in emerging markets. Focusing on a core business area enables a company to find adjacent high-margin opportunities and to offer comprehensive solutions to customers. What stands out most sharply in this account, however, is the importance of having a strategist's mind-set. Whether Critelli is reading the day's news, visiting a key account, or spending an hour with his own people working in the context of a customer mail room, he is constantly extrapolating possible long-term competitive implications from the immediate facts. Often inspired by strategic thinkers, Critelli believes that the greatest thing he can do for his organization is to shift the terms of the debate. "Rarely am I credited with sterling words or bold, symbolic actions," he writes. "Instead, I help people to see the business we are in differently and to reach a shared vision as to where we want to end up. And, little by little, things move in the right direction."
Many companies assume that once they've launched a major innovation, growth will soon follow. It's not that simple. High-potential new businesses within established companies face stiff headwinds well after their inception. That's why a company's emphasis must shift: from ideas to execution and from leadership excellence to organizational excellence. The authors spent five years chronicling new businesses at the New York Times Co., Analog Devices, Corning, Hasbro, and other organizations. They found that a breakthrough new business (referred to as NewCo) rarely coexists gracefully with the established business in the company (called CoreCo). The unnatural combination creates three specific challenges--forgetting, borrowing, and learning--that NewCo must meet to survive and grow. NewCo must first forget some of what made CoreCo successful. NewCo must also borrow some of CoreCo's assets--usually in one or two key areas that will give NewCo a crucial competitive advantage. Incremental cost reductions, for example, are never a sufficient justification for borrowing. Finally, NewCo must be prepared to learn some things from scratch. Because strategic experiments are highly uncertain endeavors, NewCo will face several critical unknowns. The more rapidly it can resolve those unknowns--that is, the faster it can learn--the sooner it will zero in on a winning business model or exit a hopeless situation. Managers can accelerate this learning by planning more simply and more often and by comparing predicted and actual trends.
Organizational change has traditionally come about through top-down initiatives such as hiring experts or importing best-of-breed practices. Such methods usually result in companywide rollouts of templates that do little to get people excited. But within every organization, there are a few individuals who find unique ways to look at problems that seem impossible to solve. Although these change agents start out with the same tools and access to resources as their peers, they are able to see solutions where others do not. These positive deviants are the key, the authors believe, to a better way of creating organizational change. Your company can make the most of their methods by following six steps: Make the group the guru--the members of the community are engaged in the process of their own evolution. Reframe through facts, which entails restating the problem in a way that opens minds to new possibilities. Make it safe to learn, creating an environment that supports innovative ideas. Make the problem concrete; the community combats abstraction by stating uncomfortable truths. Leverage social proof; here the community looks to the larger society for examples of solutions that have worked in parallel situations. Finally, confound the immune defense response; solutions are introduced organically from within the group in a way that promotes acceptance. Throughout the steps, the leader must adopt a facilitatory role. The positive-deviance approach has unearthed solutions to such complicated and diverse problems as malnutrition in Mali and human trafficking in East Java. This methodology can help solve even the most extreme dilemmas.
Most firms build their marketing strategies around the concept of the product life cycle--the idea that after introduction, products inevitably follow a course of growth, maturity, and decline. It doesn't have to be that way, says Harvard Business School marketing professor Youngme Moon. By positioning their products in unexpected ways, companies can change how customers mentally categorize them. In doing so, they can shift products lodged in the maturity phase back--and catapult new products forward--into the growth phase. The author describes three positioning strategies that marketers use to shift consumers' thinking. Reverse positioning strips away "sacred" product attributes while adding new ones (JetBlue, for example, withheld the expected first-class seating and in-flight meals on its planes while offering surprising perks like leather seats and extra legroom). Breakaway positioning associates the product with a radically different category (Swatch chose not to associate itself with fine jewelry and instead entered the fashion accessory category). And stealth positioning acclimates leery consumers to a new offering by cloaking the product's true nature (Sony positioned its less-than-perfect household robot as a quirky pet). Clayton Christensen described how new, simple technologies can upend a market. In an analogous way, these positioning strategies can exploit the vulnerability of established categories to new positioning. A company can use these techniques to go on the offensive and transform a category by demolishing its traditional boundaries. Companies that disrupt a category through positioning create a lucrative place to ply their wares--and can leave category incumbents scrambling.
Business schools are facing intense criticism for failing to impart useful skills, prepare leaders, instill norms of ethical behavior, and even lead graduates to good corporate jobs. These criticisms come not just from students, employers, and the media but also from deans of some of America's most prestigious B schools. The root cause of today's crisis in management education, assert Warren G. Bennis and James O'Toole, is that business schools have adopted an inappropriate--and ultimately self-defeating--model of academic excellence. Instead of measuring themselves in terms of the competence of their graduates, or by how well their faculty members understand important drivers of business performance, they assess themselves almost solely by the rigor of their scientific research. This scientific model is predicated on the faulty assumption that business is an academic discipline like chemistry or geology when, in fact, business is a profession and business schools are professional schools--or should be. Business school deans may claim that their schools remain focused on practice, but they nevertheless hire and promote research-oriented professors who haven't spent time working in companies and are more comfortable teaching methodology than messy, multidisciplinary issues--the very stuff of management. To regain relevancy, the authors say, business schools must rediscover the practice of business and find a way to balance the dual mission of educating practitioners and creating knowledge through research.