Problem customers can cost your business lots of money, but quickly ejecting them may not be the best way to relieve the burden. Mittal, of Rice University, Sarkees, of Penn State, and Murshed, of Towson University, explore the ins and outs of customer divestment. Using real-world examples, the authors show how deciding to end a relationship with a customer segment or individual can increase profitability, improve employee morale, address capacity constraints, and bolster a business strategy. However, divestment also comes with potential downsides for various constituencies, including employees and remaining customers, both of whom may wonder whether they're next. In addition, ethical and legal consequences - and the risk of bad publicity - always loom. Before you rush to action, say the authors, walk through their five-part customer divestment framework. First, reassess the context of present customer relationships, looking beyond simple profitability. You may find that the most productive option is to educate customers rather than drop them. In some cases, if you renegotiate the value proposition with them, both of you will win. In other instances, you'll want to migrate customers to other subsidiaries or providers, as long as the move is undertaken - and perceived to be conducted - in good faith. If it becomes necessary to terminate a customer relationship, use a direct, interpersonal approach. No business can afford to squander its customer base, so divestment should not be boiled down to determining merely who is profitable and who is not - the strategic consequences are too weighty. In the end, the decision about whether to divest might prove to be the toughest customer of all.

A firm that simultaneously engages in a high degree of both innovation and efficiency follows an approach that is often referred to as an ambidextrous strategy. Surprisingly, relatively few firms are able to balance these two emphases. Internal battles for resources often tip the scales in favor of efficiency over innovation, or vice versa. Management gurus frequently warn that simultaneously pursuing both can set the firm up for mediocre performance, yet the turbulent nature of today's markets and cut-throat competition create a renewed need for firms to reconsider this dual approach for longer-term success. Unfortunately, practical insights from empirical studies regarding performance benefits and implementation issues are still scant. Perhaps this is one reason why few firms are successful in both efficiency and innovation. In this article, we provide evidence-using a cross-industry survey of senior marketing managers in publicly-traded U.S. firms-that firms which successfully employ an ambidextrous strategy outperform those which overemphasize either efficiency or innovation. Furthermore, we highlight marketing's role as an example of the often overlooked need for successful functional implementation. Finally, we provide useful methods for managers to answer three key questions: (1) Is my firm ambidextrous?; (2) Should my firm be ambidextrous?; and, if so (3) How can my firm become ambidextrous?