Although most managers believe that they give each of their team members equal attention, respect, and consideration, four decades' worth of empirical research says otherwise. Studies show that nearly all bosses have-or are seen to have-in-groups and out-groups. Employees on the wrong side of these divides experience a reduction in engagement, satisfaction, commitment, citizenship, innovation, and performance. Bosses usually argue that any differentiation is unintended and that their reports are reading too much into minor disparities. Both claims might be true. However, it is the view from below that counts. Perceived unfairness is real in its consequences. Managers should first acknowledge these issues and then work hard to head off or repair conflict. Those who don't may lose key contributors they'd prefer to retain, exacerbate the challenges presented by underperformers, ruin team performance and morale, and hurt their own reputations. Start by regularly reviewing your treatment of team members. Ask yourself: Did I seek everyone's company? Did I acknowledge their capabilities? Did I assist their growth? If you are routinely answering no for certain subordinates, they need more attention from you. When a relationship has already gone off the rails, it's important to rectify the problem: Prepare for a direct conversation, engage empathetically, and then make a plan for how you'll interact with one another in the future.

With organizations of all sorts facing increased urgency and unpredictability, being able to ask smart questions has become key. But unlike lawyers, doctors, and psychologists, business professionals are not formally trained on what kinds of questions to ask when approaching a problem. They must learn as they go. In their research and consulting, the authors have seen that certain kinds of questions have gained resonance across the business world. In a three-year project they asked executives to brainstorm about the decisions they've faced and the kinds of inquiry they've pursued. In this article they share what they've learned and offer a practical framework for the five types of questions to ask during strategic decision-making: investigative, speculative, productive, interpretive, and subjective. By attending to each, leaders and teams can become more likely to cover all the areas that need to be explored, and they'll surface information and options they might otherwise have missed.

Teams under pressure often fall back on dysfunctional coping mechanisms that are deeply rooted in human evolutionary psychology. The group works like a pack, instinctively looking for ways to alleviate its members' collective anxiety. It might unconsciously ascribe an unwanted role, such as scapegoat or savior, to one or more members and lapse into skewed interactions-for example, directing its energy toward fighting a common enemy, whether real or perceived, rather than advancing its actual mission. The authors discuss how to spot these harmful patterns and break their hold. They describe a powerful tool deployed in their work with top teams: sociograms, or pictorial representations of team members, their connections, and their interactions. By understanding the unconscious forces that influence them in times of stress, teams can become less captive to such forces and more engaged with improving performance.

Innovation is all about finding and filling people's unmet needs. But even innovators and organizations renowned for their scanning capabilities often have trouble perceiving and correctly interpreting those needs. Drawing on their work as researchers, teachers, and consultants, the authors outline a four-part framework to help innovators diversify how and where they look. It involves two main strategies: improving your vision (seeing in greater detail) and challenging your vision (looking at people other than mainstream users). Within each you can adopt a narrow focus or take a wider view. You can zoom in on individual mainstream users and their everyday experiences (what the authors call a microscope strategy) or pull back to discover patterns in their aggregate behavior (a panorama strategy). Likewise, you can take a look at users outside your core (a telescope strategy) or seek a broader view of the patterns they exhibit as a group (a kaleidoscope strategy). For each of the framework's four parts, the authors describe how digital technologies can augment more-traditional ways of looking. Used together, the approaches they present will enable entrepreneurs to look further afield and on a larger scale than ever before.

Innovators can be their own worst enemies, derailed by personal traits, such as confidence and optimism, that are essential to creativity but can be toxic when taken to an extreme, and by emotions such as fear, doubt, regret, and frustration, which are typical when trying something new but can too easily stall or destroy entrepreneurial efforts. And although practical advice abounds on how to innovate, in-depth guidance on conquering these mental challenges is harder to find. The authors draw on published interviews, videos, and speeches to describe the obstacles encountered by some high-profile entrepreneurs and illuminate the paths by which they moved forward. They explore practical tactics for overcoming the fear of getting started, the frustration of setbacks, an excess of creativity, and a tendency to go into hyperdrive. Innovators must become mindful of their habitual ways of thinking and behaving, the authors argue. Thus armed, they can reach out for feedback or mentoring--for help in becoming a more skillful version of themselves.

Innovators who experiment solely to validate their idea are making a dangerous mistake, and the authors point to the inventor of the Segway as a prime example. The purpose of experimentation should always be twofold, they say: to test an assumption and learn from the testing, so you can decide whether to persevere, pivot-or pull out. They show how 'radical innovators' use experiments to validate and investigate. Their investigation is a more open-ended form of experimentation, designed to illuminate overlooked factors or preferences. Most importantly, it leaves room for unexpected insights to emerge along the journey to product launch.

As the Age of Disruption heats up, corporate boards can expect to face ever-increasing pressure to become more strategic. The problem remains that boards have neither a template nor a common vocabulary for assessing a proposed transformation strategy. The authors’ research—based on a four-year study of 62 corporate transformations—provides boards with a tool to diagnose gaps or misalignments in strategy. The authors identified a three-layered architecture that characterizes winning transformation efforts, consisting of two imperatives and a choice. Using a sandwich as a metaphor, the choice is like the sandwich filling that provides the special flavour or focus of the transformation effort. The two imperatives are the outer layers of the sandwich. The first imperative states that the pursuit of value is the trigger for any transformation, while the second imperative states that the pursuit of leadership development is what makes the change stick. The choice dictates that the compelling journey is at the heart of any corporate transformation. Ongoing transformation efforts are either derivatives or combinations of quests for the following five qualities: global presence, customer focus, nimbleness, co-innovation, and sustainability. Board members can verify that the executive team has properly debated its priorities by asking three questions: 1) Which of the five themes are you pursuing? 2) Can you explain what drives value? 3) How are you retooling people to support the transformation?

Digital advances in the past two decades have enabled more people than ever before to express creative intelligence. Yet apart from the transformation of services powered by mobile apps and the internet, few sectors have seen spectacular surges of innovation--and only 43% of companies have what experts consider a well-defined process for it. In this article the authors present a five-part framework to guide the development and ensure the survival of breakthrough ideas: Focus attention closely and with fresh eyes, step back to gain perspective, imagine unorthodox combinations, experiment quickly and smartly, and navigate potentially hostile environments outside and within the organization. The elements of this framework are not unique, but collectively they capture the critical role of reflection in conceiving opportunities, the ways in which digital tools can advance them, and the level of organizational reinvention needed in the final push to market.

Corporate transformations still have a miserable success rate: About three-quarters of change efforts either fail to deliver the anticipated benefits or are abandoned entirely. And because flawed implementation is most often blamed for such failures, organizations have focused on improving execution. But poor execution is only part of the problem; the authors' four-year study of 62 corporate transformations suggests that misdiagnosis is equally to blame. Before worrying about how to change, they write, executive teams need to figure out what to change--in particular, what to change first. They can do this by fully understanding three things: the catalyst for transformation, the organization's underlying quest (is it global presence, customer focus, nimbleness, innovation, or sustainability?), and the leadership capabilities needed to see it through. J.C. Penney, Norske Skog, Acer, and other classic cases illustrate the authors' points, and the article includes a "quest audit" to help companies identify their transformation priorities.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Many western multinationals have a tough time finding local talent in East Asia -a problem that global companies originating in East Asia don't seem to face. One problem: The cultural values and expectations of those doing the hiring and those seeking the jobs are at odds.

Unfortunately, when decisions are framed this way, the authors contend, the outcome is frequently suboptimal. An effective way to work against this, they say, is to make better use of the classic decision matrix, which allows for the comparison of different options using the same set of predefined criteria. The authors argue that the decision matrix isn't just an evaluation tool but also a process tool that can help executives extend their decision frame beyond the obvious options and criteria and help them think "out of the box." According to the authors, the decision matrix can be useful at key stages in the decision-making process to (1) frame decisions, (2) make concrete choices, and (3) communicate solutions. It allows leaders to identify potential gaps and logical flaws in their reasoning, facilitate dialogue in the executive team, and build support and buy-in in the wider organization. To expand the decision frame in a systematic way, the authors note, executives should understand two concepts: mental buckets and golden cuts. Mental buckets are vehicles for clustering similar ideas into related yet distinct categories. While brainstorming is a common way for teams to generate lots of ideas, ideas need to be organized at some point. Categorizing them into mental buckets helps people spot gaps and overlaps -in terms of both options and criteria. The cognitive act of creating new mental buckets serves to stimulate creativity.

Too often, teams struggle to collaborate effectively because of destructive conflict within the group. While respectful differences of opinion can yield positive change, a perceived incompatibility between how different people think or act can have a serious impact on productivity and work culture. Based on team dynamics research as well as their personal experience working with executive teams, the authors propose a new approach for leaders to proactively address conflict in the workplace and lay the foundation for effective collaboration. Before tackling any specific work issue, they suggest that team leaders facilitate conversations about how people look, act, speak, think, and feel, in order to build a shared understanding of the process - rather than the content - of the team's work.

Narrow-mindedness holds back many organizations in their efforts to turn global presence into a real source of competitive advantage. In this article, the authors explore the manifestations and costs associated with what they call the "headquarters knows best"syndrome, as well as ways companies can address the problem. Many of the things companies have done are fairly predictable, such as decentralizing global responsibilities, changing the reporting relationships, internationalizing senior management, and creating cross-national teams. At Irdeto B.V., a Dutch developer of security software for digital media, the remedy was more extreme: It elected to create two headquarters, one in the Netherlands and the other in China. While this was expensive -and something the CEO's successor ultimately did away with in 2015 -the decision to operate out of dual headquarters helped the company realign its focus, and it had significant positive effects on Irdeto's performance. The authors argue that many corporate executives aren't aware that the "headquarters knows best"syndrome exists. Typically, top executives interact with executives from the subsidiaries that are closest to headquarters (in terms of geography, economic development, and culture); the executives'frame of reference is based on subsidiary managers who benefit from ample attention, autonomy, or influence. Executives from peripheral subsidiaries are the ones who are most likely to be affected and least likely to be heard. In addition, the value of missed opportunities and lost talent is hard to assess, and headquarters executives can easily invoke contextual factors (such as competition for labor) to explain problems. They can also try to pin blame on the local entities. After establishing its dual headquarters in 2007, the authors note, Irdeto saw measurable improvements on four fronts: increased top management attention, greater subsidiary contributions, richer lateral exchanges,

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. At some point in their careers, most executives -even the most talented -will face a power deficit. Regardless of their titles and nominal responsibilities, they will confront situations in which they have insufficient influence and authority to get their job done effectively. Fortunately, two strategies can almost always help the sidelined executive capture more clout and build an enduring power base. A variety of situations can lead a manager into a power deficit. Demographics (race, ethnicity, gender or age) can contribute to the power-deficient executive's predicament, as can inexperience, poor reputation, personality, background, training or outlook. It can happen to people with high potential. It can even happen to executives who are already high performers. Typically, an executive winds up with a power deficit because he or she lacks one or more of the following power sources: legitimacy, critical resources or networks. The high level of interaction between these three sources of power means that a shortage in one can easily produce shortages in the other two. The authors argue that, generally, executives who have a power deficit can solve the problem in one of two ways: they must either play the game more effectively or change the game by, for instance, reshaping their role in the organization. The authors offer examples and recommendations and provide a short questionnaire to help managers identify potential power deficits. The good news is that the odds of success are good. The authors report that in their coaching work with 179 executives who wrestled with power deficits, only four failed to improve the situation.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Traits that benefit an executive in one position often do not work well in another position. Moving into new roles or environments, executives may need to play up or rein in different facets of their personalities. Strengths can become weaknesses. Psychologists have identified countless traits distinguishing us from one another. But recent research has converged toward five broad dimensions, each comprising a cluster of traits that account for the majority of the differences among individual personalities. These dimensions have been dubbed the Big Five: need for stability, extraversion, openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness. Drawing on their extensive coaching work with senior executives, the authors identify common leadership pitfalls associated with high and low scores on each of the Big Five personality dimensions, as well as potential solutions. For example, executives who tend to dominate group settings -demonstrating high levels of extraversion -can practice the "four-sentence"rule: limiting whatever they have to say to four sentences. Executives who are too blunt or aggressive -demonstrating low levels of agreeableness -can practice the art of cushioning their criticisms with phrases such as "let me play devil's advocate for a moment"or "if I put on my critic's hat." Self-awareness, the authors conclude, is the inevitable starting point for managing one's psychological preferences. Without it, executives will struggle to evolve or find coping strategies. With it, leaders can learn where their natural inclinations lie -and they can boost or compensate for those inclinations, depending on the circumstances. The idea is not to undergo a personality change. It is to be yourself, with more skill.

It was also in debt and out of fashion. It had acquired a reputation as "one of the least user-friendly museums in the world." One senior figure from the museum was even quoted as saying that he didn't want children in there. Compared to rival venues, visiting the BM was like a "trip back in time" - but not in a favorable sense. In the space of nine years, MacGregor reversed its fortunes and restored its sense of pride and purpose. He raised its profile through engaging exhibitions, television shows and the Internet - but most surprisingly of all through the use of radio. He presided over a startling transformation in the image and fortunes of the BM, with net income quadrupling in nine years and donations and legacies growing eight-fold under his watch. Visitor numbers reached record highs and the BM has become a template for other museums. A cultural institution that was once in danger of becoming an embarrassing monument to British imperialism is now viewed with pride. As one commentator put it: "As an exercise in rebranding, it is surely up there with the best." The case considers the methods used by MacGregor to achieve these results and some of the key turning points, as well as the lessons for other organizations, including in the private sector. It also explores the possible complications of following a charismatic leader. Learning objectives: The case covers six key issues to do with leadership and organizational change: 1) The difficulties of changing an entrenched public sector culture, shaped by curatorial divisions and the weight of the BM's heritage. 2) The challenge of managing multiple stakeholders. 3) The various roles adopted by a leader - and changing the scope of the job. 4) The importance of finding a purpose that resonates with employees and visitors alike. 5) The process of institutional transformation and the challenge of building on MacGregor's legacy. 6) The benefits and drawbacks of charismatic leadership.

Having spent the past five years working with the boards of some of the world's leading organizations, the authors reached a conclusion: boards need to become much more diverse -- not just demographically, but also in terms of the backgrounds, competencies and interests of their members. However, they warn that putting fresh faces onto boards provides no guarantee that benefits will ensue: diversity can also lead to gridlock. The fact is, people often feel threatened or annoyed by colleagues who are very different from themselves and have difficulty accepting, much less appreciating, those colleagues. In this article they describe the costs and benefits of diversity and provide seven recommendations for effectively diversifying boards - or senior teams -- in any industry.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Historically, most managers equated innovation primarily with the development of new products and new technologies. But increasingly, innovation is seen as applying to the development of new service offerings, business models, pricing plans and routes to market, as well as new management practices. There is now a greater recognition that novel ideas can transform any part of the value chain -and that products and services represent just the tip of the innovation iceberg. This shift of focus has implications for who "owns"innovation. It used to be the preserve of a select band of employees -be they designers, engineers or scientists -whose responsibility it was to generate and pursue new ideas, often in a separate location. But increasingly, innovation has come to be seen as the responsibility of the entire organization. For many large companies, in fact, the new imperative is to view innovation as an "all the time, everywhere"capability that harnesses the skills and imagination of employees at all levels. Making innovation everyone's job is intuitively appealing but very hard to achieve, but many companies have tried -and nearly all believe that's it's critical to continue trying. To understand these challenges, and to identify the innovation practices that work, the authors spent three years studying the process of innovation in 13 global companies. Many of the standard arguments for how to encourage innovation in large organizations were confirmed, but some surprises were uncovered as well. In this article the authors focus on the key insights that emerged from their research, organized around five persistent "myths"that continue to haunt the innovation efforts of many companies. The five myths are: (1) The Eureka Moment; (2) Built It and They Will Come; (3) Open Innovation Is the Future; (4) Pay Is Paramount; and, (5) Bottom Up Innovation Is Best.

Having diagnosed the situation, he made overdue investments in systems and brought in new blood from outside, instilling new discipline, capabilities and operational efficiencies. Over five years, he managed to transform this seat-of-the-pants operation into a much more robust company, while at the same time continuing to deliver solid financial results. He also repositioned the company for growth in markets where there was little serious competition. These were considerable accomplishments for which he gained belated recognition. Yet, there were nagging concerns throughout his tenure: doubts from analysts about where he was taking the company; criticism from former executives that he was killing the entrepreneurial culture; question marks over the morale of store employees; complaints about customer service; and public disapproval for his expanding remuneration package. These issues came to a head in his sixth year in the job and specifically at a badly misjudged annual meeting with shareholders. Ultimately, he stopped listening to dissenting voices, and made a dreadful blunder - from which his reputation never quite recovered. Learning objectives: The case covers four key leadership issues: 1) The complexity of leading a large company - and the 3 critical roles required of leaders - as strategists, architects and mobilizers. 2) The difficulty of transforming a successful organization - and how to make the case for change in such a company. 3) The need to manage one's own competencies - and the dangers of carrying certain strengths too far: e.g. when does demanding become intimidating and when does self-confidence become stubbornness? 4) The need to manage oneself over time - particularly in terms of maintaining one's ability to listen, as well as coping with disappointment and coping with criticism.