An exodus of nurses from the profession is leaving health care leaders with a staffing shortage that can’t be ignored. To understand the factors behind the burnout and dissatisfaction driving nurses’ exit, the authors analyzed the free-text employer reviews nurses shared on Glassdoor. The results revealed what actions leaders can take to reverse the trend and resulted in an interactive tool that can be used to compare how 200 large health care systems stack up against one another.

Which elements of corporate culture are most critical to women? And what are the most important cultural shortcomings causing women head for the exits? To address these questions, the authors analyzed the language that 3 million U.S. employees used in Glassdoor reviews to describe their employer. What they found is that toxic culture disproportionately affects women, with the widest gender gaps in perceptions of inclusivity and disrespect.

The signs say the global economy is headed for a recession, but downturns are not destiny. Companies that bolster their resilience, local agility, and portfolio agility now can improve their competitive position and enhance their future performance during the next recession. This article describes practical, evidence-based steps that leaders can take to help their companies capture the upside of the next downturn.

Many leaders recognize that their organization's corporate culture needs improvement but don't know where to start. Research on unhealthy corporate cultures points to toxic leadership, toxic social norms, and work design as the three most powerful predictors of toxic workplace behavior. The authors explore evidence-based interventions, organized around these key drivers of toxic culture, that leaders and companies can use to retain employees and create a more positive workplace culture.

New research based on MIT SMR's Culture 500 and employees' Glassdoor ratings of their employers identifies the five most common elements of toxic workplace cultures as disrespectful, noninclusive, unethical, cutthroat, and abusive. The authors discuss how unhealthy work environments negatively affect both employees and their employers and how organizations stand to benefit when they identify and address toxic elements in their cultures.

A shift to widespread remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic has created new challenges, but the good news is that organizations around the world are experimenting with creative solutions to meet workers' needs. Analysis from a recent survey of HR leaders and other employees on the most meaningful actions their organizations have taken to support remote work uncovered five principles that can help leaders more effectively manage a distributed workforce.

The conventional wisdom of goal setting is so deeply ingrained that managers rarely stop to ask if it works. The traditional approach to goals -the annual cycle, privately set and reviewed goals, and a strong linkage to incentives -can actually undermine the alignment, coordination, and agility that's needed for a company to execute its strategy.

Two-thirds to three-quarters of large organizations struggle with execution. And it's no wonder: Research reveals that several common beliefs about implementing strategy are just plain wrong. This article debunks five of the most pernicious myths. (1) Execution equals alignment. Processes to align activities with strategy up and down the hierarchy are generally sound. The real problem is coordination: People in other units can't be counted on. (2) Execution means sticking to the plan. Changing market conditions demand agility. (3) Communication equals understanding. E-mails and meetings about strategy are relentless--but executives change and dilute their messages. Only half of middle managers can name any of their company's top five priorities. (4) A performance culture drives execution. Companies need to reward other things too, including agility, teamwork, and ambition. (5) Execution should be driven from the top. It lives and dies with managers in the middle--but they are hamstrung by the poor communication from above. Redefining execution as the ability to seize opportunities aligned with strategy while coordinating with other parts of the organization can help managers pinpoint why execution is stalling and focus on the factors that matter most for translating strategy into results.

How do successful companies shape their high-level strategies? A decade ago, London Business School's Sull and Stanford's Eisenhardt looked for the answer by studying the era's leading high-tech firms. They discovered that such firms relied not on complicated frameworks but on simple rules of thumb. Managers translated corporate objectives into a few straightforward guidelines that helped employees make on-the-spot decisions and adapt to constantly shifting environments, while keeping the big picture in mind. This article describes the authors' subsequent research into why simple rules work and how firms develop them. Typically, after setting its priorities, a company will identify a bottleneck preventing it from making progress toward them and then create rules for managing that bottleneck. At America Latina Logistica, for instance, the problem was capital spending: The railway had only a tenth of the funds it needed to invest in growth and infrastructure. So a cross-functional team came up with rules to guide spending: Any proposal had to remove obstacles to growth, minimize up-front costs, provide immediate benefits, and reuse existing resources. The rules allowed employees across departments to make difficult trade-offs and quickly innovate solutions that put the firm on the fast track. Effective rules, the authors say, are specific, not broad; draw from historical experience; and are made by their users, not the CEO. Moreover, as a company evolves, they evolve with it.

As companies recover from recession, their ability to execute is more important than ever: Recovering markets do produce opportunities, after all. Regulations are changing, as are your competitors' structures and your consumers' preferences. Will your company be ready to seize these chances for growth? Seven questions can help you gauge your execution agility: (1) Do you miss opportunities that others spot? (2) Are your hydraulics broken? (3) Do you reward mediocrity and call it teamwork? (4) Are your core values a joke? (5) Are you talking about the wrong things? (6) Have your Vikings become farmers? (7) Do you rely on heroic leadership?

Competing in volatile markets feels a lot like boxing: Punches come from all directions; strategies change constantly; and one powerful blow could knock out your company at any moment. As firms fight their way through tumultuous times, they can learn much from boxing champions. London Business School professor Donald Sull outlines two fundamental approaches to mastering uncertainty - agility and absorption - using the classic "Rumble in the Jungle" between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman to illustrate them. Both capabilities can help companies survive turmoil. Agility, exemplified by Ali, is the ability to quickly spot and exploit opportunities. It comes in one of three forms: operational agility, the capacity to seize opportunities to improve operations and processes within a focused business model; portfolio agility, the ability to shift resources out of less-promising units and into attractive ones; and strategic agility, the ability to jump on game-changing opportunities. Each kind of agility is enhanced by a distinct set of assets and leadership priorities. Absorption, exemplified by Foreman, is the strength to withstand punishment and weather sudden shifts. Sull describes 10 ways that companies can build absorption, including capitalizing on size, diversifying assets, and stockpiling a war chest of cash. Balancing agility and absorption is critical. Apple's iPod is an excellent example of agility, but it was absorption - in the form of a small core of fanatical customers - that kept the company going during the 1990s, when its market share shrank dramatically. Those customers kept Apple alive until changes in context created its golden opportunity. Ali won the Rumble by maintaining his agility while enhancing his absorption. Companies that follow his lead and cultivate both capabilities increase their chances of emerging from turbulence as new market leaders.

The case is set in June 1999 as Marcel Telles, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Companhia Cervejaria Brahma (Brahma) - the largest brewer in Brazil - considers a possible merger with the Antarctica Group (Antarctica), the second-largest Brazilian brewer. If the merger were to be completed, the combined firm would control 75% of Brazil's beer market and forecast pro forma revenues of over $US2.8 billion. The case provides a concise overview of the Brazilian beer market and Brazil's volatile macroeconomic and regulatory context, and summarises the century-long rivalry between Brahma and Antarctica. For a century after their founding, Antarctica led Brahma in terms of market share, profitability, new product introductions and management innovations, although the two brewers were roughly comparable in size. Under Telles' leadership, however, Brahma pulled ahead of its rival in the span of a decade. The case explores the reasons for this dramatic reversal of fortune and describes in detail the actions Telles and his top management team took to change Brahma's culture, set and execute operational improvements, and create real options for future revenue streams