CEOs tend to believe that company structure is closely tied to performance, so it makes sense that nearly half of all CEOs reorganize their companies during their first two years on the job. But Marcia W. Blenko, Michael C. Mankins, and Paul Rogers of Bain & Company report that of 57 reorganizations they studied between 2000 and 2006, less than one-third saw significant performance improvement. This failure, they believe, is rooted in a misunderstanding about the link between structure and outcome. In truth, a company's structure only results in improved performance if it allows the firm to make key decisions better and faster than the competition. Making sure this is the case requires a shift in the way we manage organizational change. We must start with an audit of assets, capabilities, risks, and weaknesses and move toward a decision audit, in which the goal is to understand which set of decisions are key to the success of the company's strategy and at what organizational level they should be made. If there is alignment between structure and decisions, then the organization will work better and performance will improve. To reorganize around decisions, leaders should follow six steps: Identify their firm's key decisions, figure out where in the company those decisions should happen, organize the macrostructure based on sources of value, determine how much authority decision makers need, align the rest of the organizational system with that related to decision making, and help managers acquire the skills they need to make decisions quickly and well.

Most corporations are not as skilled at selling off assets as they are at buying them, often divesting at the wrong time or in the wrong way. Either is a very expensive mistake. A Bain & Company study has found that over the last 20 years, corporations that took a disciplined approach to divestiture created nearly twice as much value for shareholders as the average firm. In this article, Bain partners Mankins, Harding, and Weddigen set out the four straightforward rules those effective divestors follow. First: Just as they have acquisition teams, smart divestors have full-time divestiture groups, which continually screen their companies' portfolios for likely businesses to sell off and think through the timing and implementation steps needed to maximize value in each particular case. Second: They choose their divestiture candidates objectively. Too many firms rush to sell in economic downturns, when prices are low. Thoughtful divestors will sell only those businesses that do not fit with the corporation's core and are not worth more to themselves than they are to any other company. Third: Successful divestors consider how to structure a deal and to whom they will sell as carefully as they consider what units to sell and when. And they are as meticulous about planning the implementation of a deal as savvy acquirers are about postmerger integration. Fourth: They make a compelling case for how, and how quickly, the deal will benefit the buyer, and they make sure the selling unit's employees will be motivated to stay on and realize that value. Using these four rules, companies as diverse as Textron, Weyerhaeuser, Ford, Groupe Danone, and Roche have become "divestiture ready": consistently able to sell at the right time and in the right way to create the most value for their shareholders.

Our annual survey of ideas and trends that will make an impact on business: Duncan J. Watts contends that ordinary people, not "influentials," drive social epidemics. Yoshito Hori predicts that Japan's young entrepreneurs could outshine those in China and India. Frederic Dalsace, Coralie Damay, and David Dubois propose brands that--like Harry Potter--mature with their customers. Michael Schrage reveals the hidden value in long-forgotten equations. Harry Hutson and Barbara Perry put hope back in the executive repertoire. Eric von Hippel spotlights Denmark, where "user-centered innovation" is a national priority. Linda Stone detects a backlash against cell-phone and BlackBerry addiction. Michael C. Mankins suggests where to put all that excess cash. Ap Dijksterhuis reaffirms the value of sleeping on a decision. Robert G. Eccles, Liv Watson, and Mike Willis report on a new software standard that will make business and financial information dramatically easier to generate, aggregate, and analyze. Geoffrey B. West challenges the conventional wisdom that smaller innovation functions are more inventive. Karen Fraser warns of apparently loyal customers who are poised to bolt for ethical reasons. Phillip Longman predicts the return of large patriarchal families and their effects on marketing strategy. Rashi Glazer illustrates the sociocultural and business implications of nanotechnology. Yoko Ishikura urges global firms to "think locally." Klaus Kleinfeld and Erich Reinhardt explore the convergence of imaging technology and biotech and its enormous benefits for medical care. Christopher Meyer advises focusing on what you want from your network before you build the platform. Charles R. Morris asserts that health care costs are falling; it's spending that's on the rise. Clay Shirky shows why open source projects succeed by failing. David Weinberger claims that accountability has morphed into superstitious "accountabalism."

Many executives have grown skeptical of strategic planning. Is it any wonder? Despite all the time and energy that go into it, strategic planning most often acts as a barrier to good decision making and does little to influence strategy. Strategic planning fails because of two factors: It typically occurs annually, and it focuses on individual business units. As such, the process is completely at odds with the way executives actually make important strategy decisions, which are neither constrained by the calendar nor defined by unit boundaries. Thus, according to a survey of 156 large companies, senior executives often make strategic decisions outside the planning process, in an ad hoc fashion and without rigorous analysis or productive debate. But companies can fix the process if they attack its root problems. A few forward-looking firms have thrown out their calendar-driven, business-unit-focused planning procedures and replaced them with continuous, issues-focused decision making. In doing so, they rely on several basic principles: They separate, but integrate, decision making and plan making. They focus on a few key themes. And they structure strategy reviews to produce real decisions. When companies change the timing and focus of strategic planning, they also change the nature of senior management's discussions about strategy--from "review and approve" to "debate and decide," in which top executives actively think through every major decision and its implications for the company's performance and value. The authors have found that these companies make more than twice as many important strategic decisions per year as companies that follow the traditional planning model.

Despite the enormous time and energy that goes into strategy development, many companies have little to show for their efforts. Indeed, research by the consultancy Marakon Associates suggests that companies on average deliver only 63% of the financial performance their strategies promise. In this article, Michael Mankins and Richard Steele of Marakon present the findings of this research. They draw on their experience with high-performing companies like Barclays, Cisco, Dow Chemical, 3M, and Roche to establish some basic rules for setting and delivering strategy: Keep it simple, make it concrete. Avoid long, drawn-out descriptions of lofty goals and instead stick to clear language describing what your company will and won't do. Debate assumptions, not forecasts. Create cross-functional teams drawn from strategy, marketing, and finance to ensure the assumptions underlying your long-term plans reflect both the real economics of your company's markets and its actual performance relative to competitors. Use a rigorous analytic framework. Ensure that the dialogue between the corporate center and the business units about market trends and assumptions is conducted within a rigorous framework, such as that of "profit pools." Discuss resource deployments early. Create more realistic forecasts and more executable plans by discussing up-front the level and timing of critical deployments. Clearly identify priorities. Prioritize tactics so that employees have a clear sense of where to direct their efforts. Continuously monitor performance. Track resource deployment and results against plan, using continuous feedback to reset assumptions and reallocate resources. Reward and develop execution capabilities. Motivate and develop staff. Following these rules strictly can help narrow the strategy-to-performance gap.

Companies routinely squander their most precious resource--the time of their top executives. In the typical company, senior executives meet to discuss strategy for only three hours a month. And that time is poorly spent in diffuse discussions never even meant to result in any decision. The price of misused executive time is high. Delayed strategic decisions lead to overlooked waste and high costs, harmful cost reductions, missed new product and business development opportunities, and poor long-term investments. But a few deceptively simple changes in the way top management teams set agendas and structure team meetings can make an enormous difference in their effectiveness. Efficient companies use seven techniques to make the most of the time their top executives spend together. They keep strategy meetings separate from meetings focused on operations. They explore issues through written communications before they meet, so that meeting time is used solely for reaching decisions. In setting agendas, they rank the importance of each item according to its potential to create value for the company. They seek to get issues not only on, but also off, the agenda quickly, keeping to a clear implementation timetable. They make sure they have considered all viable alternatives before deciding a course of action. They use a common language and methodology for reaching decisions. And they insist that once a decision is made, they stick to it.