The power motive, defined as the desire to impact the behavior and emotions of another person, has long been controversial. On one side, the exercise of power has been put forth as a fundamental human need greater in strength than the need to survive. On the other, it has been vilified for its potentially devastating consequences. We argue the latter view is distorted, and, by relying too heavily on it, we have come to misunderstand the essential nature of power and its use by leaders charged with driving performance. It is not the power motive that leads to corruption and tyranny, but rather how the power motive is channeled into behavior by other personality factors. Consequently, those charged with leader selection should place greater emphasis on how individuals with strong power motives differ in how they channel power. Doing so will support the selection of executives best equipped to deliver organizational performance.

Demographic realities and the passage of time leave no doubt that in roughly 10 years, the millennial generation will begin its takeover of the C-suite across industries and around the world. This eventuality is troubling to those who accept the popular view of the generation as narcissistic and impatient. In this installment of Organizational Performance, I report on a study involving detailed conversations with members of the baby boomer, Gen X, and millennial generations. From these conversations, I offer two contributions to a healthier understanding of the millennial generation and, in doing so, provide a way to better frame efforts to prepare millennials for their ascent to the C-suite. First, I distinguish between generational characteristics due to time-varying age effects and those associated with immutable period and cohort effects. This distinction makes clear the generational attributes that will pass with time and those that will continue to influence attitudes and behaviors. Then I discuss how period and cohort effects affect leader emergence. These efforts will help those charged with preparing talented millennial executives for the C-suite and ensuring they focus on the right things. After all, understanding today how to address the relevant gaps in millennial leaders' preparation is critical to future organizational performance.

Our increasing capacity to collect, store, and analyze large volumes of data has changed the way in which organizational decision makers approach their work. The ability to accurately quantify variables that previously had been assigned to the gut instinct of grizzled veterans or subject to the wisdom of sages for interpretation can now be more objectively understood. The implications for organizational performance are clear: better data and better decisions yield better performance. In many functions, like marketing, this capability has resulted in a true revolution in how companies come to understand and most profitably serve customers. Other areas, such as talent management, have lagged behind in this regard. This is largely due to the fact that many of the relevant variables (e.g., personality) are difficult to measure. It is also because the relationship between these variables and organizational performance is not entirely understood. Recent developments regarding how we understand and then link individual characteristics and performance are enabling a data revolution in the area of talent management. Herein, we offer three examples that illustrate how data can now be used to improve talent management decisions and, ultimately, organizational performance.

VUCA is an acronym that has recently found its way into the business lexicon. The components it refers to--volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity--are words that have been variously used to describe an environment which defies confident diagnosis and befuddles executives. In a 'VUCA world,' both pundits and executives have said, core activities essential to driving organizational performance--like strategic planning--are viewed as mere exercises in futility. VUCA conditions render useless any efforts to understand the future and to plan responses. When leaders are left with little to do other than wring their hands, organizational performance quickly falls at risk. In this installment of Organizational Performance, we demonstrate that by overlooking important differences in the conditions that volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity describe, we have disempowered leaders. We show how leaders can appreciate the differences among each of these challenging situations in order to properly allocate scarce resources to preserve and enhance organizational performance.

To meet the challenges of a complex world, strategic planners need to understand the differences between the four elements of VUCA--volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity. A guide to identifying, getting ready for, and responding to events in each category.

Despite research showing that mergers and acquisitions rarely provide significant shareholder value, there is no sign of any slowing in the trend toward M&A. One of the major reasons why M&A tend, to fail, argue the authors, is that the process often puts extreme stress on senior management teams. By nature, the process is an adversarial one, with management on both sides advocating for their stakeholders. When the dust clears at the end of the process, management is left, as the authors say, "to navigate the challenging segue from ' 'tough negotiator' to ' 'trusted colleague.'" The authors draw on the experience of Hewlett-Packard, Cisco, General Electric and Adobe to propose six guidelines for improving relations between the senior management teams of both sides of the M&A equation. The first three guidelines should be undertaken as soon as possible in the integration process. The authors advise that you can reduce the defection of talented personnel by reducing role ambiguity as quickly as possible. They also urge due diligence about the talent you are acquiring as early in the process as possible, and preferably before the deal is finished. Third, they recommend allowing some "habits to die hard."Employees often rely on habits and long-standing procedures to remain comfortable, and many of them are what made the company successful in the first place. As the integration process continues, there are three more important guidelines to follow. First, acquirers should not tolerate "bad behavior" that can sabotage the integration process. Second, it is important to have patience with the new management team, as many of them will be in unfamiliar roles. Finally, the authors suggest that it is important to remember to celebrate the value of the deal for all involved. By trumpeting the value of the new team, you can increase communication and trust. Ultimately, this trust may lead to increased shareholder value for all involved.

Someone suffering from Munchausen by proxy, a psychological disorder, fabricates or induces illness in another to win attention and praise as a caregiver. A similar pathology in the workplace leads employees to create or exaggerate problems in order to get credit for solving them. Here are some questions to help managers recognize such behavior.

Most managers would admit that the COO plays a critical role in an organization and is highly visible within it. These coauthors have identified four conditions or rights that boards and organizations must satisfy to make the COO's role work and add value. They describe these rights in this article and what to do and not to do to make them work.

Asking the question, "What makes a great COO?" is akin to asking "What makes a great candidate for U.S. vice president?" It all depends on the first name on the ticket-the CEO. New research sheds light on this most contingent, and most mysterious, of C-suite jobs. After in-depth conversations with dozens of executives who have held the position and with CEOs who have worked with COOs, the authors have concluded that different views of the COO role arise from the different motives behind creating the position in the first place. There are seven basic reasons why companies decide to hire a COO: to implement the CEO's strategy; to lead a particular initiative, such as a turnaround; to mentor a young, inexperienced CEO; to complement the strengths or make up for the weaknesses of the CEO; to provide a partner to the CEO; to test out a possible successor; or to stave off the defection of a highly valuable executive, particularly to a rival. This tremendous variation implies that there is no standard set of great COO attributes, which makes finding suitable candidates difficult for companies and recruiters alike. Still, certain common success factors came up consistently in the interviews, the most important being building a high level of trust between CEO and COO. Trust comes from meeting obligations on both sides: The COO must truly support the CEO's vision; keep ego in check; and exhibit strong execution, coaching, and coordination skills. The CEO must communicate faithfully, grant real authority and decision rights, and not stymie the COO's career. It's surprising that COOs are not more common. They would be, the authors contend, if there were less confusion surrounding the role. As we continue to demystify that role, more companies will benefit from more effective leadership.