個案總覽

DayTwo is a young Israeli startup that applies research on the gut microbiome and machine learning algorithms to deliver personalized nutritional recommendations to its users in order to minimize blood sugar spikes after meals. After a first year of trial rollout in Israel, CEO Lihi Segal and her team are devising a global go-to-market plan for the firm. The team is considering several target markets, ranging from people with diabetes to professional athletes, and distribution strategies including selling direct to consumers or through partnerships with healthcare professionals or insurance companies. Their choices are important because they will affect DayTwo's costs, pricing, positioning, distribution channels, marketing efforts, and product development.

This case reveals to readers what has transpired at Kids & Company in the year following the decision point presented in Kids & Company: Entering the U.S. (case 418-011).

In October 2014 the author arrived at work to find one of his company's big-rig trucks aflame in the parking lot, obviously a victim of arson. This was an extreme manifestation of a corrosive problem: Traeger's culture had become poisonous, characterized by lack of trust, negative attitudes, and a stubborn refusal to collaborate. Very early in his tenure, employees would ignore Andrus when he asked for data, or simply refuse to work together on a project. Once, when he was visiting headquarters, the CFO said he couldn't find any time in his schedule to meet with the new CEO. Although the majority owner had no operating role, he talked daily to people at all levels of the company and was aggressive and abusive. People were afraid of him, but they acted as if he were in charge. After the truck fire, Andrus resolved to start from scratch. He bought out the majority owner, moved the headquarters from Oregon to Utah, carefully winnowed the employees, worked to create a physical environment that feels true to the brand, and built a community of fans and influencers on social media. The company's strategy, marketing, and product line were all overhauled. In just five years, sales grew from $70 million to nearly $400 million.

When business school students are taught strategy, they dutifully study mapping the five forces, for example, and drawing a value net, but they know that game-changing strategies come from somewhere more creative. To generate groundbreaking strategies, executives need tools explicitly designed to foster creativity. A number of such tools already exist, often in practitioner-friendly forms. They take their inspiration more from how our thought processes work than from how industries or business models are structured. Thus they can help strategists invent a genuinely new way of doing business. The author explores four approaches to a breakthrough strategy: (1) Contrast. Identify--and challenge--the assumptions undergirding the status quo. (2) Combination. Connect products or services that seem independent from or even in tension with one another. (3) Constraint. Look at limitations in an organization and turn them into strengths. (4) Context. Consider how a similar problem was solved in an entirely different context--surprising insights may emerge.

Leaders are well aware of the central role that cross-group collaboration plays in business today. So in planning for collaborative initiatives, they think carefully about logistics and processes, incentives and outcomes. And that makes perfect sense. But in doing so they forget to consider how the groups they're asking to work together might experience the request--especially when they are being told to break down walls, divulge information, sacrifice autonomy, share resources, or even cede responsibilities. All too often, groups feel threatened by such demands: What if the collaboration is a sign that they've become less important to the company? What if they give up important resources and responsibilities and never get them back? This is the "collaboration blind spot." To make sure collaborative initiatives are successful, leaders must first identify threats to group security and take steps to minimize them and discourage defensive behaviors. Only then should they focus on process and outcomes.

As start-ups grow into larger, more bureaucratic companies, they're more likely to favor safe, incremental innovation over riskier, potentially breakthrough work. In addressing this problem, leaders often point to their culture as the key to driving radical innovation. But structural levers can also help growing companies avoid the shift from truly innovative to incrementally so. These include the extent to which compensation reflects the outcome of projects as opposed to rank within the organization; ratio of project-skill fit (how suited employees are to the tasks they're assigned) to return on politics (the benefits accrued by networking and politicking); management span (the number of direct reports per leader); and salary step-up (the financial benefits of rising in the hierarchy).

The authors studied almost two dozen major design-thinking projects within large private- and public-sector organizations in five countries and found that effective leadership is critical to their success. They focused not on how individual design teams did their work but on how the senior executives who commissioned the work interacted with and enabled it. To employees accustomed to being told to be rational and objective, design-thinking methods can seem uncomfortably emotive. Being asked not to quickly converge on an answer can be difficult for people accustomed to valuing a clear direction, cost savings, and finishing sooner rather than later. Iterative prototyping and testing call on employees to repeatedly experience something they've historically tried to avoid: failure. Consequently, those who are unfamiliar with design thinking need guidance and support from leaders to navigate the landscape and productively channel their reactions to the approach. The authors have identified practices that executives can use to stay on top of such innovation projects and lead them to success.

For years managers have been encouraged to candidly praise and criticize just about everything workers do. But it turns out that feedback does not help employees thrive. First, research shows that people can't reliably rate the performance of others: More than 50% of your rating of someone reflects your characteristics, not hers. Second, neuroscience reveals that criticism provokes the brain's "fight or flight" response and inhibits learning. Last, excellence looks different for each individual, so it can't be defined in advance and transferred from one person to another. It's also not the opposite of failure. Managers will never produce great performance by identifying what they think is failure and telling people how to correct it. Instead, when managers see a great outcome, they should turn to the person who created it, say, "Yes! That!," and share their impression of why it was a success. Neuroscience shows that we grow most when people focus on our strengths. Learning rests on our grasp of what we're doing well, not what we're doing poorly, and certainly not on someone else's sense of what we're doing poorly.

Conventional wisdom holds that the more contact an operation has with its customers, the less efficiently it will run. But when customers are partitioned away from the operation, they are less likely to fully understand and appreciate the work going on behind the scenes, causing them to place a lower value on the product or service being offered. To address this problem, managers should experiment with operational transparency--the deliberate design of windows into and out of the organization's operations to help customers understand and appreciate the value being added. Witnessing the hidden work performed on their behalf makes customers more satisfied, more willing to pay, and more loyal. It can also make employees more satisfied by demonstrating to them that they are serving their customers well. However, managers should be aware of certain conditions in which transparency can backfire.

In most corporate settings, leaders are expected to inspire and direct employees--leading is something they do to followers. But in professional service firms, the situation is different. These firms tend to be full of powerful, opinionated experts who prize their autonomy. They don't easily accept the role of follower--and may be just as unwilling to act as leaders. A leader's authority is contingent upon their consent, which can be quickly withdrawn. In this context, leadership has to be a collective, not an individual, endeavor. It requires a grasp of three key dynamics: (1) Establishing legitimacy. To be accepted by their peers, leaders have to keep demonstrating an ability to generate revenue. (2) Maneuvering politically. Achieving consensus requires social astuteness and networking skill, and peers must believe the leader is acting in their interests, and (3) Negotiating perpetually. To strike a balance between asserting control and giving peers autonomy, leaders must always negotiate. These dynamics are both in flux and interconnected, and leaders have to constantly manage them.

Corporations are being pushed to dial down their single-minded pursuit of financial gain and pay closer attention to their impact on employees, customers, communities, and the environment. But changing an organization's DNA may require upending the existing business model and lowering profitability, at least in the short term. The authors' research suggests that successful dual-purpose companies build a commitment to creating both economic and social value into their core activities. This approach, which they call hybrid organizing, includes setting and monitoring social goals alongside financial ones; structuring the organization to support both; hiring and mobilizing employees to embrace them; and practicing dual-minded leadership.

Research shows that many people--even those with seemingly enviable careers--grow dissatisfied in their jobs in their mid-40s. They may regret past choices or feel stuck in a rut. But Kieran Setiya thinks the tools of his trade--philosophy--can help. He says sadness about the road not taken can be mitigated by attending to the people and pursuits that we cherish and wouldn't have without our careers. He notes that we spend much of our work time solving problems and meeting needs, so we should engage in some feel-good activities (inside or outside the office). And he suggests focusing less on projects and more on process, to replace a "What's next?" mindset with an appreciation for the present.

For a company that's trying to reach more customers, selling on Amazon might seem to be a no-brainer. But there are plenty of risks: A firm might get dragged into a price war with low-cost competitors, and Amazon, not the firm, will own the data on customers--and could use it to create its own competing products. In this fictional case study, the head of marketing at a young e-bike maker thinks through the pros and cons of selling on Amazon and of sticking with a direct-to-consumer strategy, and considers the long-term implications of each for his brand.

The All-Star shortstop and third baseman for the Baltimore Orioles talks about his two-decade career, mentoring teammates, having his father as a coach, and more.

For a company that's trying to reach more customers, selling on Amazon might seem to be a no-brainer. But there are plenty of risks: A firm might get dragged into a price war with low-cost competitors, and Amazon, not the firm, will own the data on customers--and could use it to create its own competing products. In this fictional case study, the head of marketing at a young e-bike maker thinks through the pros and cons of selling on Amazon and of sticking with a direct-to-consumer strategy, and considers the long-term implications of each for his brand.

For a company that's trying to reach more customers, selling on Amazon might seem to be a no-brainer. But there are plenty of risks: A firm might get dragged into a price war with low-cost competitors, and Amazon, not the firm, will own the data on customers--and could use it to create its own competing products. In this fictional case study, the head of marketing at a young e-bike maker thinks through the pros and cons of selling on Amazon and of sticking with a direct-to-consumer strategy, and considers the long-term implications of each for his brand.

In this 2019 case, Ed Rapp, retired group president and CFO of Caterpillar, recounts the positive impact that using a type of "self-talk" called an affirmation has had on his life and career. Affirmations are simple, positive, carefully crafted statements declaring specific goals in their completed state. A foundational belief behind an affirmation is that self-image is shaped by self-talk and daily performance reality. Affirmations should be personal, positive, accurate and balanced, allowing a person to assess who they are now and who they want to be in the future. The gaps that emerge between "now" and "the future" lead to making goals for change, supporting the goals with affirmations, and then creating the positive change. Affirmations are powerful because they create self-awareness, which is critical for leaders. Rapp credits affirmations with helping him succeed in his career; balance his personal and professional life; and become more of the person he wanted to be. In 2015, Rapp was diagnosed with ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), otherwise known as Lou Gehrig's disease. He was diagnosed on November 5th and rewrote his affirmations on November 7th to reflect his new reality, while maintaining the goal of affirmations: continually making positive change.

The case is set in early 2019. Edouard Neviaski is CEO of the Global Energy Markets (GEM) division of Engie, a very large French energy company. He has been pushing a major programme of change over the previous three years and is considering the next steps: how to maintain momentum, what additional initiatives to pursue and whether to encourage other parts of Engie to apply a similar approach in their divisions. The case provides a lot of detail on the internal organisational changes in GEM from 2016-2019. In particular, it focuses on how some parts of GEM adopted 'holacracy' - a self-organising system in which individual teams take full responsibility for defining their own work and how it fits with others. The case also provides a lot of detail on the broader cultural change and the high levels of investment in professional training around new techniques and concepts.

In 2018, the chief executive officer (CEO) of Zashita Inc. (Zashita) was contemplating the future strategic direction of his security and electrical contracting firm based in Irkutsk, Russia. The company had experienced outstanding sales growth since its founding in 2013, and this trend was expected to continue into 2019 with the existing business. Despite this, the CEO had identified a new, untapped opportunity in Irkutsk-smart home technology installations-and was trying to determine whether he should risk expansion into this expensive but potentially highly profitable market. Alternatively, he could focus on spending his resources on Zashita's existing business or look elsewhere for new opportunities. The CEO needed to decide on the future strategic direction of Zashita and determine the best course of action for allocating the company's resources to ensure future profitability for the company and its workers.

In 2017, Cathay Pacific Airways Limited (Cathay Pacific) began its largest transformation program in 20 years in response to business hardships the airline had been experiencing since 2016. The program used digital enablement and insight orientation to realign the company's newly defined business focuses and to establish supporting pillars for further development. Information technology (IT) not only played a lead role in this corporate transformation, but it also became increasingly vital to Cathay Pacific's future growth. In 2018, this transformation seemed successful, but important questions remained regarding the development of Cathay Pacific's IT strategy over the previous decade, the company's focus for its IT investments, and the factors that led the company into hardship. As it moved forward, how far could Cathay Pacific go with its digital transformation? How could IT influence the company's future business strategy: could it help Cathay Pacific avoid further turbulence?