In the wake of the corporate missteps of recent years, we've heard plenty about how boards of directors should act as more responsible stewards. But one voice has been notably missing from the chorus of advice--the voice of the CEO. The authors, who include the founder of the Yale Chief Executive Leadership Institute, have tapped their networks to ask dozens of well-regarded chief executives: What keeps boards from being as effective as they could be? Are they really the cartooned millstone around the CEO's neck, or do they help shape the enterprise in positive ways? What can they do to become a greater strategic asset? The answers--surprisingly candid and highly revelatory--can be distilled into five prescriptions. Boards should be careful not to rein in boldness too tightly. They should do their homework on the company and the industry at large. They should recognize that character and credentials, not celebrity, are what's needed for a high-functioning board. Directors should also overcome any conflict aversion and bring energetic, constructive debate to the boardroom--contrary to conventional wisdom, CEOs don't want rubber-stamp approval of their plans. And they should work to make the inherently fraught succession process less awkward, taking care not to overlook talent in the internal pipeline. As the debates over governance continue, those seeking to improve board performance should listen to every informed perspective, including the constituency that knows boards and their failings best.
This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Even the most seasoned executives may have strongly opposing views about the wisest course of action for an organization, particularly given their diverse personal backgrounds or previous immersion in other corporate cultures. But such differences in approach don't necessarily lead to conflicts that are unproductive and damaging to an organization. To investigate such issues, the authors conducted a study of the organizational values (objectives that an individual or group believes are important in running a business, such as industry leadership, employee welfare, and profit maximization) of the top management teams in 31 companies. The authors investigated two specific types of team conflict: task and relationship. Task conflict is characterized by substantive, issue-related differences in opinion. This type of disagreement can be beneficial when it ensures that a greater number of possible solutions are explored. In contrast, relationship conflict--characterized by disagreements over personalized, individually oriented matters--is generally detrimental. It corrodes trust, hinders communication, slows the acceptance of ideas, and leads to isolation and politicization among group members. The study results showed that behavior is driven by perception rather than reality. Specifically, the greater the perceived difference in organizational values among members of a top management team and their CEO the greater the conflict. Interestingly, any actual dissimilarity was not a factor. Thus, the bottom line is that many top management teams are unnecessarily encountering difficulties because of members' faulty assumptions. To lessen this tendency, the authors advise companies to consider the following: establish an appropriate atmosphere for the team; because perceptions become reality, understand and manage them; investigate the gaps between perceptions and reality; and act decisively to correct gross misperceptions.
Among the tests of a leader, few are more challenging--and more painful--than recovering from a career catastrophe. Most fallen leaders, in fact, don't recover. Still, two decades of consulting experience, scholarly research, and their own personal experiences have convinced the authors that leaders can triumph over tragedy--if they do so deliberately. Great business leaders have much in common with the great heroes of universal myth, and they can learn to overcome profound setbacks by thinking in heroic terms. First, they must decide whether or not to fight back. Either way, they must recruit others into their battle. They must then take steps to recover their heroic status, in the process proving, both to others and to themselves, that they have the mettle necessary to recover their heroic mission. Bernie Marcus exemplifies this process. Devastated after Sandy Sigoloff fired him from Handy Dan, Marcus decided to forgo the distraction of litigation and instead make the marketplace his battleground. Drawing from his network of carefully nurtured relationships with both close and more distant acquaintances, Marcus was able to get funding for a new venture. He proved that he had the mettle, and recovered his heroic status, by building Home Depot, whose entrepreneurial spirit embodied his heroic mission. As Bank One's Jamie Dimon, J.Crew's Mickey Drexler, and even Jimmy Carter, Martha Stewart, and Michael Milken have shown, stunning comebacks are possible in all industries and walks of life. Whatever the cause of your predicament, it makes sense to get your story out. The alternative is likely to be long-lasting unemployment. If the facts of your dismissal cannot be made public because they are damning, then show authentic remorse. The public is often enormously forgiving when it sees genuine contrition and atonement.
In the wake of meltdowns at WorldCom, Tyco, and Enron, enormous attention has been focused on the companies' boards. It seems inconceivable that business disasters of such magnitude could happen without gross or even criminal negligence on the part of board members. And, yet, a close examination of those boards reveals no broad pattern of incompetence or corruption. In fact, they followed most of the accepted standards for board operations: Members showed up for meetings; they had money invested in the company; audit committees, compensation committees, and codes of ethics were in place; and the boards weren't too small or too big, nor were they dominated by insiders. Corporate governance expert Jeffrey Sonnenfeld suggests that it's time for some new thinking about how corporate boards operate and are evaluated. He proposes thinking not only about how to structure the board's work but also about how to manage it as a social system. Good boards are, very simply, high-functioning work groups. They're distinguished by a climate of respect, trust, and candor among board members and between the board and management. Information is shared openly and on time; emergent political factions are quickly eliminated. Members feel free to challenge one another's assumptions and conclusions, and management encourages lively discussion of strategic issues. Directors feel a responsibility to contribute meaningfully to the board's performance. In addition, good boards assess their own performance, both collectively and individually.
Every morning, Paul Marsh, the chairman, president, and CEO of Kansas-based Coltrane Farm Equipment & Manufacturing, climbs the six flights of stairs to his office as part of his stress management plan. But recently the stress has intensified. In just five months, Marsh is retiring, and critics charge that there is no one suitably prepared to step into his job. Coltrane has prospered mightily under Marsh's leadership, and in recent years he has pushed the company to grow overseas. At the same time, Marsh also has a history of conflict with his closest subordinates. Coltrane's former president and COO left eight months ago and has not been replaced, and the head of international operations was fired in 1992 after just 21 months on the job. With the clock ticking, can Coltrane develop a plan to find a replacement for Marsh who can successfully lead the company into the next century? In 95509 and 95509Z, John Pound, Philip A. Lichtenfels, Alonzo McDonald, and Jeffrey Sonnenfeld offer advice on this fictional case study.
Every morning, Paul Marsh, the chairman, president, and CEO of Kansas-based Coltrane Farm Equipment & Manufacturing, climbs the six flights of stairs to his office as part of his stress management plan. But recently the stress has intensified. In just five months, Marsh is retiring, and critics charge that there is no one suitably prepared to step into his job. Coltrane has prospered mightily under Marsh's leadership, and in recent years he has pushed the company to grow overseas. At the same time, Marsh also has a history of conflict with his closest subordinates. Coltrane's former president and COO left eight months ago and has not been replaced, and the head of international operations was fired in 1992 after just 21 months on the job. With the clock ticking, can Coltrane develop a plan to find a replacement for Marsh who can successfully lead the company into the next century? In 95509 and 95509Z, John Pound, Philip A. Lichtenfels, Alonzo McDonald, and Jeffrey Sonnenfeld offer advice on this fictional case study.
The new general manager of Warner Cable's Medford, Massachusetts complex faces a number of turnaround challenges in 1985, including service deficiencies, customer complaints, high turnover, and low employee morale. By 1988 he has turned the situation around, but some employees and superiors question his turnaround style. Their concerns have broad implications for career systems at Warner. Teaching objectives include the understanding of human resource management tradeoffs in a turnaround situation, and the appropriateness of individual management styles over time as a company improves its productivity and communications.
The new general manager of Warner Cable's Medford, Massachusetts complex faces a number of turnaround challenges in 1985, including service deficiencies, customer complaints, high turnover, and low employee morale. By 1988 he has turned the situation around, but some employees and superiors question his turnaround style. Their concerns have broad implications for career systems at Warner. Teaching objectives include the understanding of human resource management tradeoffs in a turnaround situation, and the appropriateness of individual management styles over time as a company improves its productivity and communications.
United Parcel Service (UPS) in 1987 faced serious challenges to its long-standing policies of on-the-job training and promotion from within. Increased competition in its traditional business of ground transport found UPS lagging in computerization and in need of technical expertise it could not simply cull from within its ranks. Whether, when, and how the new people were to be hired and assimilated, and to what extent the UPS culture and/or the new people would have to adapt, were the key questions.
With expansion into other countries (Germany), new areas of service (air express), and new ventures (two small acquisitions), UPS had to decide how to adjust its human resource policies to businesses and people which were substantially different from its traditional ones. The objective is to examine the tradeoffs in changing strong cultures and well established hiring, promotion, and reward practices to meet business needs.
A recent MBA without a stable work history in the private sector feels that he is being forced to compromise his personal convictions and professional integrity through a violation of the Robinson-Patman Act. This person is in his mid-thirties, married, and carries substantial financial and family responsibilities. He has been forced to do other unsavory business practices but wants to call a halt to such compliance before he lets himself get involved in a larger spiral of illegal activity.
In order to maintain commitment to ethical standards, companies must foster professional pride and honest business practices in their employees. Examination of the paper industry price-fixing conspiracy in 1976 indicates that a crowded and mature market, declining demand, and absence of product differentiation can create a ripe climate for price collusion. To avoid this, top managers must recognize these dangerous conditions, clearly communicate their intentions, and by their conduct set a good example for their subordinates.