This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. It is impossible to block negative emotions from the workplace. Whether provoked by bad decisions, misfortune, or employees' personal problems, no organization is immune from trouble, and trouble agitates bad feelings. In many organizations, negative emotions are brushed aside or are altogether taboo. However, discounting or brushing aside negative emotions can be costly to organizations -leading to lost productivity and employee disengagement. For more than two decades, the author has studied workplace circumstances that evoke negative emotions, from exceptional organizational crises to everyday incivility. One fundamental finding is that few executives handle employees' negative feelings well. Many managers report that they do not know how to deal with negative emotions in the workplace. To address this condition, the author details how to improve competence and confidence in responding to negative emotions. She recommends specific actions to prepare for and step up to negative emotions at work -including anger, fear, and sadness, in particular. Promptly stepping up to negative emotions, the author points out, can stem interpersonal turbulence and keep satisfaction, engagement, and productivity intact. What's more, when negative emotions are acknowledged openly, the author argues, employees can learn to anticipate and interpret their colleagues' reactions to difficult circumstances more astutely. They grow to understand their own reactions better, too. With these improvements, appropriate responses to challenging situations can be made earlier, when adjustments are generally easier, more effective, and less expensive.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review Article. Many projects are launched with great promise but lose traction and momentum during project delivery, when the real work of the initiative is underway. Shifting organizational priorities, changes in leadership, and distrust of information about the project's progress can scuttle a project's reputation and, ultimately, its chance for success. This self-perpetuating downward spiral can cause contributors to distance themselves from an effort that is losing support, cannot overcome inertia, or worse, is derailed. Even the most technically sound and strategically important projects can fall into this "cycle of doubt"and fail to meet their objectives. Building on previous work on project branding, the authors conducted a multisource, practice-based field investigation to seek insights on how to help organizations and project leaders understand, avoid, and recover from the cycle of doubt. Analyses revealed practical insight on three related issues: how to recognize when a project is vulnerable to the cycle of doubt; how to ensure that a project does not fall into a downward spiral of skepticism; and how to reverse negative momentum if a project begins to stall. The research found four main categories of doubt triggers that can sap support and lead a project into a negative tailspin. These warning signs are when strategic priorities change, sponsors appear equivocal, delivery hiccups occur, or communication missteps raise doubts. The authors offer eight action steps providing possible avenues by which vulnerable projects can successfully overcome or avoid a momentum slide. An additional checklist helps project leaders get a sense of how well (or poorly) their projects are positioned to forestall or recover from escalating doubts.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Companies can monetize their data by improving internal business processes and decisions, wrapping information around core products and services, and selling information offerings to new and existing markets. Adopting any of these approaches, however, requires management commitment to specific organizational changes and targeted technology and data management upgrades.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. To understand how advances in artificial intelligence are likely to change the workplace - and the work of managers - in coming years, you need to know where AI delivers the most value.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. In the past several years, the list of companies whose internal systems have been hacked has grown rapidly. It now includes such high-profile businesses as Target, JPMorgan Chase, Home Depot, Sony Pictures, Ashley Madison, and Yahoo. No industry appears to be safe from attacks. Unfortunately, the authors say, investment in security measures is only part of the answer; traditional methodologies can only do so much. To be effective, managers in charge of cybersecurity need to adjust their mindsets and become as open and adaptive as possible. In this article, the authors present a framework drawn from the knowledge and opinions of experts, including interviews with more than 20 experienced hackers. As the authors explain, hackers have two different mindsets depending on the stage of the attack: explorative and exploitative. An exploration mindset used in the early stages of an attack combines deliberate and intuitive thinking and relies on intensive experimentation. Once access to a system is gained, hackers adopt an exploitation mindset. An attack typically involves four steps: Step 1: Identifying Vulnerabilities If hackers think your company is worth attacking, they will examine it thoroughly for weaknesses, surveying the network information, organizational information, and security policies. Companies can protect themselves by adopting an iterative and adaptive process and making a point of conducting a high-level "footprint"of their systems on a regular basis. They should also make sure that employees are well informed on policies regarding sharing of information. Step 2: Scanning and Testing After a hacker has broken into your network, weaknesses in the applications running on those systems could become avenues for further unauthorized access. To protect your company, examine your network and identify potential weaknesses.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. For Volvo Cars, pursuing digital innovation required fundamentally rethinking the organization, while also keeping the core business functioning efficiently. The company did so by balancing four interrelated competing concerns: (1) new and established innovation capabilities; (2) process and product focus; (3) external and internal collaboration; and (4) flexibility and control in relationships with external partners.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. If you want to lead your organization's technology transition, the first step is grasping the realities of digital transformation -rather than getting seduced by the hype.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Although additive manufacturing -also known as 3-D printing -was developed back in the 1980s, lately it has become increasingly talked about as managers look for ways to improve efficiency and reduce production costs. The appeal of additive manufacturing is its potential to reduce the need for expensive materials and energy, cut lead times, and make supply chains more efficient. Despite the promise of additive manufacturing, the authors argue, near-term expectations are overblown. Based on dozens of interviews, study of the literature on the history of materials and process technologies, industry meetings, and factory visits, they have identified three myths that need to be dispelled. The first myth is that additive manufacturing will allow producers to make parts of any complexity as easily and economically as parts that are manufactured in traditional ways (in other words, that it will make complexity "free"). The second myth is that additive manufacturing will prod manufacturing to become local. And the third myth is that additive manufacturing will allow producers to replace mass manufacturing with mass customization. In the authors'view, none of these expectations is likely to be realized in the next few decades. Although the authors say that additive manufacturing will make it easier to design lighter parts with complex geometries and internal cavities, they point to important drawbacks and restrictions. Knowing the parameters of what's possible to produce requires skills that are currently scarce. There are also safety and technical issues. Some of the safety concerns stem from the fact that the technology is new. Although many people are looking for additive manufacturing to bring manufacturing closer to markets and consumers, the authors believe that this scenario has been exaggerated, largely due to economies of scale.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. According to the authors, there are few questions in business more powerful than "What problem are you trying to solve?" The authors argue that leaders who can formulate clear problem statements get more done with less effort and move more rapidly than their less-focused counterparts. Clear problem statements can unlock the energy and innovation that lies within those who do the core work of an organization, whether it be manufacturing, product development, or service. As valuable as good problem formulation can be, it is rarely practiced. Psychologists and cognitive scientists have suggested that the brain is prone to leaping straight from a situation to a solution without pausing to define the problem clearly. Such "jumping to conclusions"can be effective, particularly when done by experts facing extreme time pressure, like fighting a fire or performing emergency surgery. But, when making change in an organization, neglecting to formulate a clear problem statement often prevents innovation and leads to wasted time and money. A good problem statement has five basic elements: It references something the organization cares about and connects that element to a clear and specific goal; it contains a clear articulation of the gap between the current state and the goal; the key variables -the target, the current state, and the gap -are generally quantifiable, even if they cannot be measured objectively; it is as neutral as possible concerning possible diagnoses or solutions; and it is sufficiently small in scope that it can be tackled quickly. To tackle complex problems, executives need to complement good problem formulation with a structured approach to problem-solving. The authors recommend an approach using a modified version of the A3 form, which was originally developed by Toyota Motor Corp. to support knowledge sharing in its factories by summarizing a structured problem-solving effort in a single page.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. What is the value of data? Many businesses don't yet know the answer to that question. But going forward, companies will need to develop greater expertise at valuing their data assets.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. The 2017 Data & Analytics Report by MIT Sloan Management Review finds that the percentage of companies deriving competitive advantage from analytics increased for the first time in four years. Incorporating survey results and interviews with practitioners and scholars, the report finds that companies'increasing ability to innovate with analytics is driving a resurgence of strategic benefits from analytics across industries. The report is based, in part, on MIT SMR's seventh annual data and analytics global survey, which includes responses from 2,602 business executives, managers, and analytics professionals from organizations located around the world.

By 2017, pervasive mobile connectivity and the rise of the on-demand economy resulted in an explosion of businesses attempting to fulfill immediate consumer demand in the food delivery market. A broad, secular shift was occurring: Online or mobile orders were rapidly replacing the traditional method of picking up the phone to call in takeout and delivery orders. Still, concerns began to arise as market participants struggled to raise funding amid an uncertain investing climate in 2016. Meanwhile, despite rapid consolidation amongst industry players, the market remained highly competitive with up to a half-dozen players vying for customer attention in some locations. In addition, the arrival of logistics platforms, Uber and Amazon, into the food delivery space posed a serious competitive threat, while companies in segments not in direct competition, such as local delivery platform Postmates, continued to chip away at market share. As a result, questions arose regarding the long-term profitability of food delivery businesses. Specifically, observers wondered whether the businesses could make money, who was best positioned in the marketplace, and what aspects of each business model would prove to be an essential competitive edge. This case examines the challenges facing the on-demand food delivery market. It provides a brief history of food delivery, an industry overview, a summary of predominant food delivery models and predominant U.S. food delivery companies, an in-depth look at industry trends, and a brief view toward the future of online food delivery.

In early 2017, camera manufacturer GoPro stunned investors by reporting its first recorded annual profit loss and a revenue forecast that sharply missed analyst estimates. What had once been widely heralded as one of the biggest initial public offerings of 2014, tripling in price in just over three months following the June IPO, the stock had tumbled 90.7 percent by the end of 2016. A series of camera pricing mistakes, altered product release schedules, and lower marketing spend, set against a backdrop of relative market saturation, negatively impacted demand for GoPro cameras. In fiscal year 2016 alone, units shipped and revenues both declined by nearly 30 percent, a remarkable reversal from the early days, when revenues more than doubled each year following the company's 2004 launch. While sales of GoPro cameras declined, its brand remained one of the most revered in the world. As a result, Tony Bates, director and former president of GoPro, mulled over ideas for leveraging the brand beyond the camera. For Bates, this meant potentially launching a new product using the existing GoPro brand in a different category. While it seemed easy enough, GoPro had to consider where to extend the business in a way that made sense for the company's core demographic. GoPro also had to determine whether to license the brand to others or partner with another company. Given the consumer-centric roots of the company and the evolution of the brand, there was a lot to consider. This case examines the challenges facing GoPro in the face of falling sales, and how best to leverage its increasingly popular brand. It provides a brief background of the company, the evolution of the brand, a description of early attempts to grow the brand, models for licensing the brand, how best to implement a licensing model, the need to protect the brand, as well as two case studies using Red Bull and Virgin Group as examples of successful brand extensions.

From Canada to Australia, Denmark to Singapore, governments are embracing insights from Behavioural Economics to improve the lives of their citizens. The authors describe the basics of 'Choice Architecture' and show that testing different 'nudges' with users provides an outlet to review the status quo and improve interactions with the public.

Behavioral Economics pioneer Richard Thaler, the co-author of the best-seller Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness, talks about the origins of the field, his key findings over a 40-year career and the importance of 'nudging for good.'

Every organization is in the same business: changing peoples' behavior. Do you want your customers to do something specific? Make it easy! The author, who heads up the UK's Behavioural Insights Unit-widely recognized as the world's most advanced practitioner in this arena-shows why governments are slowly embracing this proven principle; and other organizations should, too.

When looking to assess the impact of radical technological change, the key is to ask yourself, What is this reducing the cost of? Only then can you determine what might really change. The authors-key players in the University of Toronto's Creative Destruction Lab-argue that in the case of Artificial Intelligence, the answer is prediction. They show how this is posing a slew of new challenges for managers and employees alike.

The standard economic view suggests that people will commit to an action if the expected benefits outweigh the costs. But the authors show that this model is incomplete in an important way: It overlooks how actions come to mind. Before you weigh the costs and benefits of an action, what cognitive processes lead you to think of it in the first place? They show that, if we can understand what leads people to consider a particular action, we can design interventions that lead them to think of different possibilities.

In our daily lives we frequently face a tension between what we want to do (i.e. what we desire) and what we believe we should do. The authors summarize the key findings on 'want/should conflict' and discuss a series of interventions that policymakers, organizations, and individuals can use to promote more future-oriented, should choices. In the end, they show that the better we understand want/should conflict, the more successful we will be at designing effective interventions that shift behaviors in societally-beneficial directions.

Eric Kirzner interviews two of North America's leading value investors-Charles Brandes and Kim Shannon-about the current value investing environment, market efficiency, and how some things-like human behavior-never change.