個案總覽

Supply chain management is all about software and systems, right? Put in the best technology, sit back, and watch as your processes run smoothly and the savings roll in? Apparently not. When HBR convened a panel of leading thinkers in the field of supply chain management, technology was not top of mind. People and relationships were the dominant issues of the day. The opportunities and problems created by globalization, for example, are requiring companies to establish relationships with new types of suppliers. The ever-present pressure for speed and cost containment is making it even more important to break down stubbornly high internal barriers and establish more effective cross-functional relationships. The costs of failure have never been higher. The leading supply chain performers are applying new technology, new innovations, and process thinking to far greater advantage than the laggards, reaping tremendous gains in all the variables that affect shareholder value: cost, customer service, asset productivity, and revenue generation. And the gap between the leaders and the losers is growing in almost every industry. This roundtable gathered many of the leading thinkers and doers in the field of supply chain management, including practitioners Scott Beth of Intuit, Sandra Morris of Intel, and Chris Gopal of Unisys. David Burt of the University of San Diego and Stanford's Hau Lee bring the latest research from academia. Accenture's William Copacino and the Warren Co.'s Robert Porter Lynch offer the consultant's perspectives.

Just a few years ago, the U.S. stock market was the envy of the world. Thanks to new technology, friendly regulation, and the innovativeness of the financial services industries, it was open to anyone, anywhere, anytime. Americans poured into the market by the millions, and the more they invested, the more liquid, accessible, and attractive the markets became. The world is much less jealous today. Belatedly, investors have come to recognize that the vaunted business models of the new economy were more effective at consuming capital than generating it. The recent stock market and corporate governance failures, the authors argue, are rooted in regulatory and market changes introduced 20 years ago. These were intended to reduce the cost of financial information and increase liquidity--enhancements that the regulators believed would improve both investor access to the market and efficiency in pricing. The goal of liquidity was achieved, but the changes also triggered a race for the bottom in the auditing profession, destroyed the economics of investment analysis, and discouraged professional investors from relying on their own rational judgment. In this article, the authors explore what went wrong and outline their ideas for radical reform. They propose putting the country's stock exchanges in charge of the audit process; creating a new Investors Union modeled on the highly successful Consumers Union; and introducing a graduated tax on trading in pension savings.

At the core of your company, there is a group of people who seem to call the shots--or, rather, all the shots seem to be called for their benefit. This core group can't be found on any organization chart. It exists in people's hearts and minds. It comprises the people whose perceived interests and needs are taken into account as decisions are made throughout the organization. In the best organizations, the core group can be a resource: Members represent the unique values and knowledge that distinguish their companies. When core groups display independence, creativity, and power, the rest of the company follows. Such behavior on the part of the company, in turn, creates value for shareholders, especially over the long term. But because of the core group's enormous power, members need to make themselves aware of the signals they send, both intended and unintended. For better and for worse, the core group reinforces whatever it pays attention to. If you do not know who constitutes the core group in your organization, or what the members stand for, you may find that leading will be extremely difficult--even if you are ostensibly the person in charge.

Most companies make charitable donations, but few approach their contributions with an eye toward enhancing their brands. Those that do take such an approach commit talent and know-how, not just dollars, to a pressing but carefully chosen social need and then tell the world about the cause and their service to it. Through the association, both the business and the cause benefit in ways they could not otherwise. Organizations such as Avon, ConAgra Foods, and Chevrolet have recognized that a sustained cause-branding program can improve their reputations, boost their employees' morale, strengthen relations with business partners, and drive sales. And the targeted causes receive far more money than they could have from direct corporate gifts alone. The authors examine these best practices and offer four principles for building successful cause-branding programs. First, they say, a company should select a cause that advances its corporate goals. Second, a business should commit to a cause before picking its charitable partners. Third, a company should put all its assets to work, especially its employees. And fourth, a company should promote its philanthropic initiatives through every possible channel.

Stress is rampant, stress is growing, and stress hurts the bottom line. A 1999 study of 46,000 workers revealed that health care costs are 147% higher for those who are stressed or depressed, independent of other health issues. But what exactly is stress? It usually refers to our internal reaction to negative, threatening, or worrisome situations--a looming performance report, say, or interactions with a dismissive colleague. Accumulated over time, negative stress can depress you, burn you out, make you sick, or even kill you--because it's both an emotional and a physiological habit. Of course, many companies understand the negative impact of cumulative stress and offer programs to help employees counteract it. The problem is that employees in the greatest need of help often don't seek it. Since 1991, the authors have studied the physiological impact of stress on performance, at both the individual and organizational levels. Their goal largely has been to decode the underlying mechanics of stress. After working with more than 50,000 workers and managers in more than 100 organizations, the authors have found that learning to manage stress is easier than most people think. They have devised a scientifically based system of tools, techniques, and technologies that organizations can use to reduce employee stress and boost overall health and performance.

Lynne Tabor, an IT manager at manufacturing giant MMI, has a great team. Everyone works hard and gets along, except Max Dyer, a talented programmer who is terrible in the interpersonal skills department. Three years ago Tabor reworked his job after employees complained that he was unengaged and even belligerent. Since then, he's been a solid worker, putting in extra hours and meriting good performance evaluations. But recently, Dyer's coworkers have noticed a change for the worse in him. Everyone at MMI is on edge after a round of layoffs. Reports of a workplace shooting in Seattle are all over the news. One coworker finds Max pinning up a certificate from a shooting range in his cubicle, and another worries that they will all end up as statistics of office violence. They want to know how Tabor plans to ensure their safety. Dyer thinks his coworkers are out to get him. They believe he fits the profile of a man on the edge. But what can Tabor do about an employee who has never made so much as a veiled threat to anyone? In R0307A and R0307Z, commentators James Alan Fox, a professor of criminal justice at Northeastern University; Steve Kaufer, a cofounder of the Workplace Violence Research Institute; Christine Pearson, a management professor at Thunderbird; Christine Porath, a professor of management and organizational behavior at the University of Southern California's Marshall School of Business; and Ronald Schouten, the director of the Law and Psychiatry Service at Massachusetts General Hospital, offer advice on this fictional case study.

Lynne Tabor, an IT manager at manufacturing giant MMI, has a great team. Everyone works hard and gets along, except Max Dyer, a talented programmer who is terrible in the interpersonal skills department. Three years ago Tabor reworked his job after employees complained that he was unengaged and even belligerent. Since then, he's been a solid worker, putting in extra hours and meriting good performance evaluations. But recently, Dyer's coworkers have noticed a change for the worse in him. Everyone at MMI is on edge after a round of layoffs. Reports of a workplace shooting in Seattle are all over the news. One coworker finds Max pinning up a certificate from a shooting range in his cubicle, and another worries that they will all end up as statistics of office violence. They want to know how Tabor plans to ensure their safety. Dyer thinks his coworkers are out to get him. They believe he fits the profile of a man on the edge. But what can Tabor do about an employee who has never made so much as a veiled threat to anyone? In R0307A and R0307Z, commentators James Alan Fox, a professor of criminal justice at Northeastern University; Steve Kaufer, a cofounder of the Workplace Violence Research Institute; Christine Pearson, a management professor at Thunderbird; Christine Porath, a professor of management and organizational behavior at the University of Southern California's Marshall School of Business; and Ronald Schouten, the director of the Law and Psychiatry Service at Massachusetts General Hospital, offer advice on this fictional case study.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. As competition intensifies and profit margins shrink, managers are under overwhelming pressure to create value. Traditional prescriptions such as cost reduction, reengineering, and outsourcing, although critically important, cannot solve the problem. The need to innovate is greater than ever, but the focus of innovation must change, say the authors. By synthesizing societal trends and early experimentation in companies such as General Motors, LEGO, and Medtronic, the authors paint a picture of the "next practices" of innovation in which the locus of value creation will inevitably shift from products and services to "experience environments." The intent of experience innovation is not to improve a product or service, per se, but to enable the co-creation of an environment in which personalized, evolvable experiences are the goal, and products and services are a means to that end. Profitable company growth results from individual consumers co-creating their own unique value, supported by a network of companies and consumer communities. From that perspective, say the authors, managers must learn to view existing and emerging technologies not as enhancers of products, features, and functions, but as facilitators of experiences. They offer examples of how technological capabilities such as miniaturization, networked communication, and adaptive learning are fostering experience innovation at companies such as Sony, Apple, Microsoft, and TiVo, illustrating their contention that technology will be the key facilitator of the nascent trend toward experience innovation.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Established businesses usually consider innovation as an attack to be met with defensive measures. And, indeed, disruptive technologies and business models have toppled many established industry leaders and will likely continue to do so. The real story behind disruptive innovation, however, is not one of destruction, but its opposite: In every industry changed by disruption, the net effect has been total market growth. Moreover, disruption can be a powerful avenue for growth through new market discovery for incumbents as well as for upstarts. There are several keys to the successful navigation of this growth path: to recognize that disruption is not an immediate phenomenon--it can take years and even decades before the upstart business encroaches heavily on the established market; to find new customers who are eager to be served by the disruption; and to build an organization that is capable of serving the new customers. The author explains each aspect in detail, drawing on extensive research involving online newspapers, minicomputers, cardiology, and semiconductors.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Modern models of leadership generally acknowledge that effective leaders must possess a number of seemingly contradictory qualities and skill sets. However, say the authors, inadequate performance is usually defined as displaying a lack of those qualities and skills; the idea that performance problems can just as easily spring from taking a given behavior to an extreme has received far less attention. Therefore, those models miss the chance to identify imbalance, which in the authors' view is the most common impediment to developing effective leadership. The authors view versatility, the absence of imbalance, as the key to high performance levels. Versatile leaders are able to continually adjust their behavior, deftly applying the right approach or blend of approaches to the right degree for the circumstances at hand. The authors' research, comprising comprehensive assessments of scores of senior managers, indicates that most managers, when presented with two opposing approaches, such as forceful vs. enabling leadership, will lean strongly toward one and be biased against the other. Employing a 360-degree survey they designed to measure such imbalance, called the Leadership Versatility Index, the authors then demonstrate clearly that high performance levels are correlated with balance and versatility. The challenge for the versatile leader is, thus, to meet what F. Scott Fitzgerald called "the test of a first-rate intelligence": to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. The authors conclude with a discussion of how leaders can begin to improve themselves and those they manage. They identify a number of root causes of imbalance and suggest ways to moderate these factors.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. People in organizations commonly talk about the energy associated with a project, team, or individual. But is energy related to performance or learning in organizations? And how is it created and transferred in groups? To answer those questions, the authors assessed energy within seven large groups in different organizations. They collected data that allowed them to map social networks and, more specifically, determine who the "energizers" and "de-energizers" were in those groups. Their analyses, supplemented by interviews with network members, also reveal why energy is important for performance and learning and how it is created (or destroyed) in organizations. And they gave rise to a set of questions that can help managers and the people they oversee increase the energy they generate in their interactions with colleagues. By mapping relationships, managers can see where energy is being created and where it is being depleted. They can then take action, encouraging simple changes in behavior to increase energy in places where its absence hinders the progress of important organizational initiatives.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. People often talk about business competition as if it's a short race: Get to market first and you are bound to win. Indeed, the importance of first-mover advantage has been drummed into the heads of many business executives, and some have almost been brainwashed to think that speed is everything. But when a new technology like the Internet threatens to transform an industry, the companies that are quickest to respond aren't necessarily the ones that reap the greatest benefits. In fact, choosing a fast strategy can lock them into a set of decisions that actually hurt them in the long run. Instead, organizations that choose the right strategy for the entire race--both for the early and late stages--will come out ahead. The authors have found that companies that respond quickly by launching a spin-off usually have difficulty achieving true staying power in the market. For enduring success, incumbent companies are better off creating a group that is--or will eventually be--integrated within their organizations. Only then will they be able to tap fully into their numerous strengths and assets, leveraging their incumbent's advantage.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Having received a great deal of attention for decades now, customer satisfaction practices have become one of the core prescriptions for managers and organizations. Indeed, for many companies, customer satisfaction has become the guiding principle, as they increasingly initiate all manner of strategies and processes under its banner. But more and more, says Fredrik Dahlsten, these practices are losing their effectiveness for companies and their customers alike. Using qualitative research at Volvo Cars, the author illustrates how the interpretation of customer satisfaction can become skewed, employing rigorous and extensive customer satisfaction measurements, but measuring the wrong variables and using the information in mainly reactive ways. Many companies have only an intrinsic customer satisfaction focus--a product orientation based on attribute quality and a short-term internal perspective triggered by surveys and aimed at cost control. With an intrinsic focus, customer satisfaction is seen mostly as the absence of dissatisfaction. In contrast, an extrinsic customer satisfaction focus emphasizes finding new ways to increase the positive, emotional aspects of the customer experience over time. The author argues that managers who wish to climb out of their customer satisfaction rut must move beyond the mere measurement of quality, refocus their practices on the customer's actual experience, and formulate a comprehensive strategy for using that knowledge throughout the organization.

Harvard professor Henry Chesbrough takes a look at leading-edge companies' latest moves to harvest ideas from outside and to benefit from sharing their own R&D with others--even with competitors.

In his book and TV series Commanding Heights, Daniel Yergin traces the arc of globalization, illuminating the vitality of market capitalism and the unpredictability and fragility of markets. In this conversation, he considers where the growth will be in the next 20 years, what oil companies know about managing through uncertain times, and the unexpected course that globalization is currently taking.

The same question posed on the web and in print can yield very different answers, dramatically distorting survey results and misleading management. But, as psychologist Palmer Morrel-Samuels demonstrates, the problems are readily fixed.

New research from McKinsey suggests what the inevitable shakeout in the venture capital industry heralds for the broader business community.

Sherron Watkins, who was selected as one of Time magazine's "Person of the Year" for her role as the whistleblower in the Enron scandal, presents her personal opinions on what went wrong at Enron as well as what is wrong with the whole system that this country's equity market relies on to function properly. Not only did Enron's management and consultants fail the company's shareholders and employees, but the market and watchdog agencies also failed to protect shareholder interests as well. The successful functioning of the capitalist system requires the exercise of moral as well as economic and political responsibility.

Organizational culture can be a powerful force that clarifies what's important and coordinates the work of employees without the costs and inefficiencies of close supervision. Culture also identifies an organization's distinctive competence to external constituencies. To employ culture effectively as a leadership tool, managers must recruit and select employees who fit the firm's culture, socialize and train employees to share the firm's values, and reward employees whose efforts reflect and reinforce the firm's culture. In addition, managers must both act and be perceived as acting in ways that are consistent with the values they want employees to share.

Value is often viewed in either economic or social terms. The Blended Value Proposition asserts that true value is nondivisible, consisting of a blend of economic, social, and environmental components. This perspective requires us to re-examine our understanding of the nature of capital, the methodology for calculating rates of real return to investors, and the role of for-profit and nonprofit organizations in the value creation process.