個案總覽

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.

On 17 March 2006, Japanese Internet company Softbank Corp announced that it had reached a final agreement with British cellular phone giant Vodafone Group Plc to buy its Japanese unit, Vodafone K.K. for ¥1.75 trillion. To finance the largest business acquisition ever by a Japanese firm, Softbank intended to raise between ¥1.1 trillion and ¥1.2 trillion through leveraged-buyout ("LBO") financing, using Vodafone K.K.'s assets as collateral . With the acquisition of Vodafone K.K., Softbank aimed to build a multilateral communications business, integrating news, video and other online content with Vodafone's cellular and fixed-line services. But first Softbank had to borrow between ¥1.1 trillion and ¥1.2 trillion to finance its purchase. The sum was the largest ever to be raised for a buyout by a single Japanese company.

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.

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.

Design contains the skills to identify possible futures, build bridges to customers and crack 'wicked problems'. For businesses to bottle the kind of experiences that rivet minds and run away with hearts, they need to do more than hire designers: they need to be designers -- to think like designers and work like designers. The narrow-gauge mindset of the past is insufficient for today's wicked problems. We can no longer play the music as written. Instead, we have to invent a whole new scale.

Make no mistake, the end of oil is on the horizon, and with it come significant implications for business and opportunities for the redesign of industry. The forthcoming end of petroleum-derived oil will fundamentally change the course of business on the scale of the Internet, the credit crisis, and perhaps even climate change. Three sets of ideas, explored here, play an important role: finding substitutes for oil; collaborative innovation between industries and sectors; and facing the fundamental socio-political implications of moving away from petroleum.

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.

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.