Today's digital innovations are doing for brainpower what the steam engine, and related, technologies did for muscle power during the Industrial Revolution. They're allowing us to rapidly overcome limitations and open up new frontiers, say Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee, who have studied the impact of technologies on economies for years. The two MIT professors believe this transformation will create abundance. But they warn that there may be a dark side: Though the pie will get bigger, not everyone will benefit equally. As computers get more powerful, companies have less need for some kinds of workers. That shift is contributing to a phenomenon the two academics call the Great Decoupling: For decades, per capita GDP, productivity, private employment, and median family income rose in almost perfect lockstep. But in the 1980s, growth in income began to sputter and then began to drop. Adjusting for inflation, the median U.S. household today earns less than the median in 1998 did. Job growth has also slowed. Similar trends are emerging in most developed countries. In this interview, Brynjolfsson and McAfee explore the implications: who will win (workers with tech and creative skills), who will lose (the middle class), and how business should respond to the coming tech surge (develop ways to race with machines, not against them).

He may not appear to be one, but Murthy is quite the contrarian. At a time when few Indians felt they could become entrepreneurs, he founded Infosys with just $1,000. When no one believed that India could compete in the high tech arena, he dared to develop software services for export. In an era when hardly anyone in India conducted business ethically, he set out to create a values-based corporation. Over his 30-year tenure, Murthy has largely succeeded. He helped create a $6 billion technology firm with over 134,000 employees, pioneered an innovative way of delivering software services globally, and strove to make Infosys the epitome of a "good" company. That's a reputation that is hard won and easily lost, especially in India today, where companies are notorious for their lack of transparency. In fact, public outrage against corruption reached a flashpoint in August 2011, with millions taking to the streets in protest. As businesses gird for change in India, Infosys faces its own turning point. In August, Murthy stepped down as chairman, according to plan. In this interview, Murthy explains that building a values-based firm is a never-ending process. Leaders must demonstrate that values matter every day, at every turn.

China's economic progress has been so dazzling that people often forget that China, Inc. has seen its share of failures too. Just look at the first cross-border acquisitions that Chinese companies made. Many of those high-profile deals-including TCL's acquisition of France's Thomson, SAIC's takeover of South Korea's Ssangyong Motor Company, and the D'Long Group's purchase of America's Murray, Inc.-ended badly. But for the Chinese, failure is not about falling down; it's about refusing to get up. They quietly changed course, altering the kinds of targets they pursued and their rationale for M&A. Chinese acquirers have learned to steer clear of deals that involve costly turnarounds or tricky integration. Instead of buying brands, sales networks, and goodwill, they now look for hard assets, like mineral deposits and oil reserves, or state-of-the-art technology and R&D. And where they once tried to buy market share abroad, today they focus on acquisitions that will help them strengthen their share in China. Most telling of all, they're more willing to walk away-perhaps one of the surest signs of M&A sophistication.

In this conversation with HBR senior editor Anand P. Raman, McAfee, a principal research scientist at the MIT Sloan School of Management's Center for Digital Business, explains why Enterprise 2.0 tools - wikis, tags, Twitter, Google searches, and the like - are transforming companies' innovation processes. Procter & Gamble, for instance, uses its Connect + Develop website not only to publicize what it knows and what it can do but to highlight what it needs. That's radical, says McAfee. And the communities that form around innovation challenges can help sift the ideas, so the best ones quickly rise to the top.

A takeover usually signals the demise of one of the two corporations involved in the tussle - no prizes for guessing which one. Breaking with this practice, some companies from emerging markets are preserving the identity of companies they've taken over and giving them near-total autonomy. The acquirers (the AV Birla Group, the Mahindra group, and the Tata group in India; the Ulker Group in Turkey; and AmBev in Brazil, among others) have also retained the incumbent management teams, including the CEOs, of the corporations they bought. The new parents lay down new values and create a fresh sense of purpose, but they leave it to the acquisitions to carry them out. Some companies are better suited to adopt the partnering approach than others. Organizations with collaborative, inclusive cultures will have an easier time than companies with a hierarchical, command-and-control style. Senior executives in acquiring companies must be comfortable achieving goals through influence rather than control. They must also have a higher-than-average tolerance for ambiguity. Respect for new ideas is critical because executives must recognize the strengths of the acquired company and resist the urge to impose their way of doing things. These traits are encoded in some organizations' DNA, but others will have to develop them. These are early days yet, but the authors' research shows that the partnering approach to takeovers seems to work better than traditional postmerger integration practices, and it has created value for shareholders.

The emerging markets have cooled off lately, but they're still growing, even as the rest of the world shrinks. That's one reason why developing countries - and the companies based there - will become more formidable players in the future. A second is that companies on the frontiers saw the downturn coming from developed countries and revised their strategies. They're innovating and improving operations aggressively, while their governments implement policies that will change the game of business. Multinationals need to recognize that and prepare for several tectonic shifts: Developing economies will become less dependent on developed ones, evolve a different model of business leadership, set off countertrends in M&A, and demand unprecedented levels of environmental sustainability. And Africa is poised to become the next hot spot of growth.

The Mahindra & Mahindra Group, one of India's best-known business houses, is trying to become bigger, more global, and more innovative-all at the same time. In India's post-economic-reforms gold rush, the group, whose 2007 sales were $6.6 billion, has invested in a slew of unrelated businesses, from aircraft manufacture to film production. The flagship tractor and SUV businesses are readying to make big bets in, respectively, the Chinese and U.S. markets. Anand G. Mahindra, the group's chief executive, warns that M&M will survive only by creating a culture of innovation. "Indian companies have almost caught up with the productivity frontier," he says. "What's going to distinguish us in the future is our ability to make products and services that capture the customer's imagination." He says that in emerging markets, businesses structured as groups of companies have an edge over rivals. "I believe that business families should behave like aggressive private equity companies. They must allocate capital, demand performance, create synergies, sustain value systems, and implement good governance practices, but they should let professional managers run the companies." That's why he won't mandate change, globalization, or innovation; he believes in giving the CEOs of the group's divisions tremendous autonomy. In this interview, conducted by two HBR editors, Harvard Business School graduate Mahindra discusses the advantages of creating a federation of companies rather than a conglomerate; the real role of the corporate center in today's world; and his personal formula for organizational transformation.

Last December the Toyota Motor Corporation officially forecast that it would sell 9.34 million cars in 2007--which could make it the world's largest automaker. However, rapid growth and globalization have created many pressures for the company, and the strain of success is already beginning to show. Two HBR editors interviewed Toyota's president, Katsuaki Watanabe, and several top executives to learn about the strategies they're developing to cope in the future. For well over a decade, J.D. Power and other research firms have consistently rated Toyotas among the top automobiles for quality, reliability, and durability. But in 2006 a series of problems with its cars threatened to sully the company's reputation. What's more, speedy expansion to meet demand and the struggle to keep pace with technological change have combined to challenge Toyota's grand ambitions and its famed "Toyota Way." For Watanabe, being number one means "being the best in the world in terms of quality." If Toyota's quality continues to improve, he says, volume and revenues will follow. If problems arise from overstretching, he wants them made visible, because then his people will "rack their brains" to solve them--and if that means postponing growth, so be it. Toyota's long-term strategy involves developing both global and regional car models in order to compete worldwide with a full line of products. Watanabe aims to achieve his goals through a combination of kaizen ("continuous improvement") and kakushin ("radical innovation"). One of his visions for the future is a "dream car": a vehicle that cleans the air, prevents accidents, promotes health, evokes excitement, and can drive around the world on a single tank of gas.

Espoir Cosmetics has received a tantalizing offer: sponsorship of the sequel to the Hollywood hit Diana's She Devils. For Natasha Singh, the U.S.-based company's global marketing officer, the movie is an ideal vehicle for global brand building. As the film is released in each country, Espoir can launch tie-in lipsticks and nail polishes. But some of Espoir's regional executives don't see it that way. One of them--Vasylko Mazur, the head of Eastern European operations and Tasha's old friend--is particularly upset. "Tasha," he says, "you don't realize how different Eastern Europe is from the rest of the world. Movie-based promotions won't do anything for my sales." Tasha understands his point of view. When she was Espoir's marketing head in India, she had to fight for her unconventional local initiatives. But she has come to believe that tastes are changing rapidly all over the world. From Eastern Europe to the smallest towns in India, customers want the products they see on TV, in the movies, and in international magazines. Should Espoir take its new branding initiative global? In R0306A and R0306Z, offering their perspectives on this fictional case study are Peter M. Thompson, president and CEO of PepsiCo Beverages International; Jennifer L. Aaker, associate professor of marketing at Stanford Business School; Harish Manwani and Simon Clift, executives of Unilever; and Masaaki Kotabe, professor of international business at Temple University.

Espoir Cosmetics has received a tantalizing offer: sponsorship of the sequel to the Hollywood hit Diana's She Devils. For Natasha Singh, the U.S.-based company's global marketing officer, the movie is an ideal vehicle for global brand building. As the film is released in each country, Espoir can launch tie-in lipsticks and nail polishes. But some of Espoir's regional executives don't see it that way. One of them--Vasylko Mazur, the head of Eastern European operations and Tasha's old friend--is particularly upset. "Tasha," he says, "you don't realize how different Eastern Europe is from the rest of the world. Movie-based promotions won't do anything for my sales." Tasha understands his point of view. When she was Espoir's marketing head in India, she had to fight for her unconventional local initiatives. But she has come to believe that tastes are changing rapidly all over the world. From Eastern Europe to the smallest towns in India, customers want the products they see on TV, in the movies, and in international magazines. Should Espoir take its new branding initiative global? In R0306A and R0306Z, Peter M. Thompson, president and CEO of PepsiCo Beverages International; Jennifer L. Aaker, associate professor of marketing at Stanford Business School; Harish Manwani and Simon Clift, executives of Unilever; and Masaaki Kotabe, professor of international business at Temple University offer their perspectives on this fictional case study.

Espoir Cosmetics has received a tantalizing offer: sponsorship of the sequel to the Hollywood hit Diana's She Devils. For Natasha Singh, the U.S.-based company's global marketing officer, the movie is an ideal vehicle for global brand building. As the film is released in each country, Espoir can launch tie-in lipsticks and nail polishes. But some of Espoir's regional executives don't see it that way. One of them--Vasylko Mazur, the head of Eastern European operations and Tasha's old friend--is particularly upset. "Tasha," he says, "you don't realize how different Eastern Europe is from the rest of the world. Movie-based promotions won't do anything for my sales." Tasha understands his point of view. When she was Espoir's marketing head in India, she had to fight for her unconventional local initiatives. But she has come to believe that tastes are changing rapidly all over the world. From Eastern Europe to the smallest towns in India, customers want the products they see on TV, in the movies, and in international magazines. Should Espoir take its new branding initiative global? In R0306A and R0306Z, offering their perspectives on this fictional case study are Peter M. Thompson, president and CEO of PepsiCo Beverages International; Jennifer L. Aaker, associate professor of marketing at Stanford Business School; Harish Manwani and Simon Clift, executives of Unilever; and Masaaki Kotabe, professor of international business at Temple University.