Research shows that companies devote too little effort to examining problems before trying to solve them. By jumping immediately into problem-solving, teams limit their ability to design innovative solutions. The authors recommend that companies spend more time up front on problem-framing, a process for understanding and defining a problem. Exploring different frames is like looking at a scene through various camera lenses while adjusting your angle, aperture, and focus. A wide-angle lens gives you a very different photo from that taken with a telephoto lens, and shifting your angle and depth of focus yields distinct images. Effective problem-framing is similar: Looking at a problem from a variety of perspectives helps you uncover new insights and generate fresh ideas. This article introduces a five-phase approach to problem-framing: In the expand phase, the team identifies all aspects of a problem; in examine, it dives into root causes; in empathize, it considers key stakeholders' perspectives; in elevate, it puts the problem into a broader context; and in envision, it creates a road map toward the desired outcome.

CEOs who are hired from outside the company tend to get far more attention, not to mention support with the transition to their new role, than CEOs promoted from the inside do. Leaders who come from within the firm, it's assumed, already know the organization, its strategy, and its management, so they should adjust easily to their new roles. But in reality, they face hurdles that are just as big, albeit different, from the ones outsider CEOs face. In their research and consulting work, the authors have identified insiders' five key challenges: operating in the shadow of their own past; making early decisions that surprise and disappoint supporters; overseeing former peers; pacing change; and managing the outgoing CEO. In this article, they draw on interviews with dozens of internally promoted executives to provide advice for navigating each of those issues. The result is a primer for leaders who step into the top job from within; the management teams, boards, and HR and communication departments that want to offer support; and even leaders lower down in the hierarchy who are dealing with succession issues.

The case charts the evolution of NVIDIA, the market leading producer of graphics processing units (GPU), from its beginnings to becoming a leader at the forefront of artificial intelligence (AI) development. Founded in 1993, the company designed processors for gaming, professional visualization, data centers and automotive markets. In 2019, NVIDIA's vision was to be at the forefront of the virtual reality (VR), artificial intelligence and deep learning arenas. Though the company had an impressive growth rate, there were increasing competitive threats against NVIDIA's dominance in deep learning. The case ends by asking whether NVIDIA can retain its leading position and what it has to do to sustain it.

If "the essence of strategy is choosing what not to do," as Michael Porter famously wrote, then the essence of execution is truly not doing it. That may sound simple, but most organizations struggle to kill initiatives, even those that no longer support their strategy. Unaware of the cumulative impact or unwilling to part with pet projects or both, senior leaders pile on more and more, expecting teams to absorb it all. Productivity, engagement, performance, and retention tend to suffer as a result. In their consulting work the authors have observed several root causes of initiative overload, including impact blindness, multiplier effects, political logrolling, unfunded mandates, cost myopia, and inertia. Understanding those causes can help leaders diagnose the risks in their organizations and make smarter decisions about what to keep and what to kill. A step-by-step process can guide them. Leaders should: 1. Get a true count of the current initiatives across the enterprise; 2. Assess each one, identifying the business need, the required budget, the head count allocation, and the business impact; 3. Get senior leaders working together to establish priorities, in a discussion driven by the top leadership team and informed by candid feedback from below; 4. Establish a "sunset" clause for each initiative; 5. In yearly planning, require each initiative to reapply for funding and other resources; 6. Strongly communicate that stopping an initiative isn't a sign of failure. Organizations that learn how to wisely cut back can accomplish more in the areas that really matter.

"Onboarding" is an apt term for the way many companies support new leaders' transitions, because not much more is involved than bringing the executive safely on deck. After that, he or she is expected to sort things out with little or no guidance. "Integration" suggests a more aspirational goal--doing what it takes to make the new person a fully functioning member of the team as quickly and smoothly as possible. That's not common practice, unfortunately. The authors' studies show that well-integrated executives can build momentum early on and reduce the average amount of time to full performance by a third, from six months to four. New leaders need the greatest integration support in five major tasks: assuming operational leadership; taking charge of the team; aligning with stakeholders; engaging with the culture; and defining strategic intent.

Most leaders don't have the luxury of building their teams from scratch. Instead they're put in charge of an existing group, and they need guidance on the best way to take over and improve performance. Watkins, an expert on transitions, suggests a three-step approach: Assess. Act quickly to size up the personnel you've inherited, systematically gathering data from one-on-one chats, team meetings, and other sources. Reflect, too, on the business challenges you face, the kinds of people you want in various roles, and the degree to which they need to collaborate. Reshape. Adjust the makeup of the team by moving people to new positions, shifting their responsibilities, or replacing them. Make sure that everyone is aligned on goals and how to achieve them-you may need to change the team's stated direction. Consider also making changes in the way the team operates (reducing the frequency of meetings, for example, or creating new subteams). Then establish ground rules and processes to sustain desired behaviors, and revisit those periodically. Accelerate team development. Set your people up for some early wins. Initial successes will boost everyone's confidence and reinforce the value of your new operating model, thus paving the way for ongoing growth.

Leaders find transitions into new roles the most challenging times in their professional lives, when they either build credibility and create momentum or stumble and sow doubts about their effectiveness. Much attention has therefore been given to how they should take charge in their early days--but far too little to how the organization should set them up for success from the start. Failure to announce appointments in the right way can undo all the work that went into the selection and and hobble even the strongest leader from the start. When someone unexpected is chosen, the transition can set off an emotional storm. To avoid a bad start, the leader who made the selection, his or her HR partner, and the communications, investor relations, and legal professionals who advise them must provide good answers to four fundamental questions: (1) What message is this appointment meant to convey? (2) Why is this person the right one for the job? (3) Which members of the organization need to be informed? (4) What should they be told and when? In the critical days following an appointment, senior leaders must continue to communicate the rationale for the appointment and signal consistent and enthusiastic support in words and deeds.

Few managerial transitions are more difficult than making the move from leading a function to leading an entire enterprise for the first time. The scope and complexity of the job increase dramatically, in ways that can leave executives feeling overwhelmed and uncertain. It truly is different at the top. But how, exactly? Career transition expert Michael Watkins set out to explore that question in an extensive series of interviews with leadership mentors, HR professionals, and newly minted unit heads. What he found was that at this turning point, executives must navigate a tricky set of changes in their leadership focus and skills. Watkins calls these the seven seismic shifts. New enterprise leaders must move from being a specialist to a generalist; from analyzing data to integrating knowledge from multiple sources; and from implementing tactics to developing strategies. They also need to transform themselves from bricklayers into organizational architects; from problem solvers into agenda setters; and from warriors intent on beating the competition into diplomats who engage with a full range of stakeholders. Finally, leaders must move out from the wings and get used to living on center stage in the full spotlight. To make the transition, managers have to acquire new capabilities quickly. And though what got them to the top may no longer be enough, there are steps that they and their organizations can take to prepare them to succeed.

An international assignment can be among the most exciting and challenging transitions that an aspiring leader can undertake. With the right planning and attitudes, taking on that kind of leadership role can stretch capabilities, challenge assumptions, and steer both people and profits in a positive direction. But an expat assignment can also be a harrowing journey. Indeed, if they've never made an international move before, emerging leaders can fall into common traps that can severely stress their family bonds, negatively affect their performance at work, damage their businesses, and even lead to outright career derailment. In this article, Clouse, the managing director of Kraft Foods Brazil, and Watkins, the author of The First 90 Days: Critical Success Strategies for New Leaders at All Levels, offer three best practices for handling the personal-change challenges that go along with an overseas assignment. Settling the family in, adapting your communication style, and ensuring that you understand the new regulatory environment you're operating in are all critical for a successful transition, they advise.

In this article, the author of The First 90 Days assesses Barack Obama's attempts to build momentum for change. Creating substantive early wins is critical for transitioning leaders, and Obama's moves to close the U.S. military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and reverse longstanding policies on stem-cell research have won him broad support. Laying the foundation for longer-term changes is also important, and Obama scores well here in part because of the strong team he has appointed. Surprisingly, however, Obama's efforts to articulate an inspiring vision so far haven't been compelling enough to reach a public frightened by the financial collapse.

Leaders in transition reflexively rely on the skills and strategies that worked for them in the past. That's a mistake, says Watkins, whose research shows that executives moving into new roles must gain a deep understanding of the situation at hand and adapt to it. To help them accurately assess their organizations and tailor their strategies and styles accordingly, he developed the STARS framework. "STARS" is an acronym for the five common situations leaders move into: start-up, turnaround, accelerated growth, realignment, and sustaining success. Thus, the model outlines the challenges of launching a venture or project; saving a business or initiative that's in serious trouble; dealing with rapid expansion; reenergizing a once-leading company that's now facing problems; and following in the footsteps of a highly regarded leader with a strong legacy of success. Executives can accelerate their immersion in new roles by following certain fundamental principles: Organize to learn about the business, establish A-item priorities, define strategic intent, quickly build the leadership team, secure early wins, and create supportive alliances across the company. But the way those principles should be applied depends very much on the business situation, which the STARS framework can help leaders analyze. Turnarounds and realignments present especially distinct leadership challenges that call for particular transition strategies. Regardless of the business situation, leaders must figure out which things need to happen - perhaps a jump in market share or an expansion into different markets - for their business to achieve its goals. And they must determine which leadership style best fits the new culture they're joining. Armed with such clarity, executives can design effective plans to manage their organizations and themselves.

This is an abridged version of case NR15-04-1736.0. The Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property (TRIPS) at the World Trade Organization (WTO) was the most comprehensive and far-reaching international agreement on intellectual property rights ever made. Perhaps the most widely discussed TRIPS-related issue was the debate over the impact of the agreement on efforts to improve public health in the developing world. Some developing countries held that TRIPS patent rules prevented them from having access to essential medicines, concerns that were intensified by the dramatic rise in the incidence of HIV/AIDS. Nonprofits such as Doctors without Borders accused drug companies of putting "patents over people." Negotiations ensued at the WTO to address these concerns. HKS Case Number 1736.3

This is a shortened version of The Coca-Cola Company (A): The Rise and Fall of M. Douglas Ivester, HBS case #9-800-355. It eliminates some background detail and the financial data and exhibits. As with the original case, it chronicles the appointment of Douglas Ivester as CEO of Coca-Cola and the missteps that led to his dismissal.

Often, executives who are hired from outside a firm fail because they can't fit in with its culture. Here's how to help them avoid missteps.

Senior leadership teams whose members play complementary roles have been chronicled as far back as Homer's account of the Trojan War: Although King Agamemnon commanded the Greek army, Achilles, Odysseus, and Nestor each played a distinct role in defeating Troy. Today, complementary leadership structures are common and, in some cases, even institutionalized. Think of a CEO concerned mainly with external issues and a COO who focuses internally. The authors describe four kinds of complementarity: task, expertise, cognitive, and role. The two top executives at the software company Adobe Systems, for example, represent the second kind. As CEO, Bruce Chizen draws on his sales and marketing knowledge, while COO Shantanu Narayen adds his engineering and product development expertise. Roberto Goizueta, formerly the CEO of Coca-Cola, and Douglas Ivester, his COO (who later became CEO), were famous examples of the fourth type: Goizueta, the diplomat, maintained good relations with external stakeholders; Ivester, the warrior, drove the company to defeat the competition. Bringing together two or more people with complementary strengths can compensate for the natural limitations of each. But with the benefits comes the risk of confusion, disagreement about priorities, and turf battles. Leadership succession also presents substantial challenges, especially when a COO or president who has worked in a complementary fashion with the CEO moves into the top role. An organization's board of directors and CEO can manage the risks by fostering a shared vision, common incentives, communication, and trust. They can also ensure smooth succession processes in various ways, such as brokering a gradual transfer of responsibilities or allowing the CEO and the COO to share duties as long as they maintain the logic of complementarity.

In a five-year effort, the Health Industry Manufacturers Association (HIMA) tried to influence government health policy in Japan. In 1993, HIMA mobilized in response to fears the Japanese government was planning to target the U.S. medical devices industry. The case describes how HIMA leveraged outside pressure from the U.S. government to secure exemptions from new regulations, to push for improvements in the Japanese product-approvals process, and to avoid deep cuts in reimbursement prices for medical devices in Japan in 1994 and 1996. HIMA confronts new price-cutting pressures and realizes that its external pressure strategy was proving to be increasingly inadequate. A rewritten version of an earlier case.

Supplements the (A) case. A rewritten version of an earlier piece.

The Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property (TRIPS) at the World Trade Organization (WTO) was the most comprehensive and far-reaching international agreement on intellectual property rights ever made. Perhaps the most widely discussed TRIPS-related issue was the debate over the impact of the agreement on efforts to improve public health in the developing world. Some developing countries held that TRIPS patent rules prevented them from having access to essential medicines, concerns that were intensified by the dramatic rise in the incidence of HIV/AIDS. Nonprofits such as Doctors without Borders accused drug companies of putting "patents over people." Negotiations ensued at the WTO to address these concerns. HKS Case Number 1736.0

Provides a framework for influencing key outside players--businesses, governments, and NGOs--in support of business strategy. This could mean negotiating contracts with major customers and suppliers, concluding acquisitions and alliances, and securing financing from investors and banks. It could also mean building coalitions to influence government rule-makers, working with institutional shareholders, and influencing key opinion-makers in the media and analyst communities. Illustrates how effective corporate diplomats skillfully employ the tools of diplomacy--negotiation, coalition building, and public relations--to shape the business environment favorably.

Develops a framework linking structural diagnosis and strategy design in complicated (complex and ambiguous) negotiations. To develop good strategies, negotiators must rigorously diagnose the structure of their negotiating situations. Equivalently, strategy follows structure. At the same time, they must work to shape the structure in favorable ways, both before and while they are playing it. So strategy shapes structure too. Superior negotiation strategies, therefore, consist of a mix of moves to bargain within the existing structure of the game and moves to shape that structure in favorable ways.