When most of the world's financial services giants were stumbling and retrenching in the aftermath of the 2008 recession, the asset management firm BlackRock was busy charting a course for growth. Its revenues, profits, and stock price all performed consistently through this tumultuous period. The authors looked at BlackRock and other game-changing companies-the Mumbai-based global conglomerate Tata Group, and Envision, an entrepreneurial alternative energy company based in China-and found significant commonalities. These three companies demonstrate the essential attributes of a game-changing organization: They are driven by purpose, oriented toward performance, and guided by principles. In the process of conducting interviews with these companies, the authors discovered a fourth thread that weaves them even more tightly together: Each is supported by a game-changing talent strategy. But, they write, the path to such a strategy seems rife with complexity and ambiguity. How can both strategy and execution be consistently superior? How can they support a collective culture yet enable high potentials to thrive as individuals? How can the strategy be global and local at the same time? And how can its policies endure yet be agile and constantly open to revitalization? BlackRock's approach provides the answers.

With the leaders of global organizations increasingly unable to individually grasp the full complexity of firms’ worldwide operations, the task more than ever falls to groups of leaders at the top. These groups of leaders must be diverse in expertise and experiences and yet also synchronized in directing global organizations. These two imperatives often lead to conflict, but leaders can overcome difficulties by forming “leadership ensembles.” Effective leadership ensembles are characterized by foresight and preemptive change, agility rather than fixed governance roles, and the application of synthetic intelligence. Research on top executives has yielded four blueprints for decision making that successful ensembles follow. “Incubators” value a cohesive corporate culture and emphasize cultural fit with any new addition. “Diplomats” allow flexibility between local businesses and headquarters. “Engineers” try to optimize organizational structures and processes and tie their firms together, as well as foster a single culture. “Directors” want decisions to be made by those closest to the operations. Global leadership ensembles can improve their decision making significantly by understanding which blueprint leaders prefer; continually assessing how their preferred blueprint helps or hinders the organization’s goals for global expansion; and understanding the connection between the blueprint and how the ensemble operates.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Leaders and human resources professionals are searching for ways to generate more value from their employees. Recent studies show that companies perform at a higher level when they have integrated talent management programs that are aligned with business strategy and operations. Organizations can get more from their investments in talent management, the authors argue, by focusing on collaboration.<BR> <BR>Job design and performance management are typically based on individual accountability despite the fact that most work today is collaborative. Talent management practices tend to focus on individual competencies and experiences, while overlooking the importance of employee networks. By examining individual performance data together with the results of organizational network analysis, the authors say, senior managers can look at talent along two important dimensions. In addition to looking at individual employee performance for the purpose of succession or work force planning, they can take a network view to assess the same employees in terms of their broader collaborative contributions to the organization.<BR> <BR>The authors show how applying a network lens reveals a significant number of key players (including marginalized talent, hidden talent and underutilized talent) that traditional performance management systems miss. They identify best practices for nurturing networks through talent management initiatives, illustrating them with examples from organizations including IDEO, Nokia, Dow Chemical, Best Buy, Gallo and the U.S. Army.<BR>

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. As information technology becomes increasingly critical within large, global organizations, chief information officers are being held to higher standards. In addition to streamlining business processes, reducing enterprise costs and improving work force effectiveness, top management also wants the IT department to be a strategic business partner -to forecast the business impact of emerging technologies, lead the development of new IT-enabled products and services, and drive adoption of innovative technologies that differentiate the organization from competitors. Although organizational charts and standardized processes can be helpful, the authors find that these traditional tools are not flexible enough to support the types of internal and external collaborations and partnerships that large, global IT organizations need to maximize value. The key to delivering both operational excellence and innovation, they argue, is to allow innovative solutions to emerge unexpectedly through informal and unplanned interactions between individuals who see problems from different perspectives. Based on their research at Monsanto and 11 other large companies, the authors argue that CIOs who learn to balance formal and informal structures can create global IT organizations that are more efficient and innovative than organizations that rely primarily on formal mechanisms. The authors found that organizational network analysis provides a useful methodology for helping executives assess broader patterns of informal networks between individuals, teams, functions and organizations, and for identifying targeted steps to align networks with strategic imperatives.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. One could argue that "what business are we really in" is the most important question a leader can ask about his company. But perhaps right up there with the classic Peter Drucker interrogatory is this one: What is your business model? So argue the authors, who correctly point out that firms searching for forms of competitive advantage -- sources of distinctiveness that are enduring, hard to copy and valuable in the marketplace -- should take a look at their management model. That is, they should examine the choices made by the top executives in how they define objectives, motivate efforts, coordinate activities and allocate resources. How they define the work of management, in other words. Not only do the authors provide a framework for this discussion -- dividing companies' business models into four possible choices -- but they supply a list of questions leaders can ask to determine which management model may be right for their company. Clearly, when it comes to management models, one size does not fit all. And it is equally obvious that even similar-size companies in the same industry may choose differing models, depending on their own particular circumstances. While the model they choose is of extreme importance, so, too, is the process they follow -- and the thinking they use -- to select it.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Managers and directors alike face tough choices as they decide on the quality and quantity of information that the board receives and uses in its governance and fiduciary roles. As the fallout from recent crises such as the subprime mortgage debacle illustrates, both sides must address the problem of "information asymmetry" -- the gap between the information available to management and to the board. The authors' research suggests that tomorrow's boardroom will be reshaped by three related forces: First, they face a thorough rethinking, brought on by concerned stakeholders, of directors' information needs. In responding to these pressures, boards and management must overcome several impediments: caution about altering the dynamics of the present manager-director relationship; directors' lack of needed skills for interpreting the new information; and the inertia of cultural norms. Second, they face dramatic improvements in the performance assessment approaches used to guide boards' decision making. The core of a healthy information relationship between managers and directors is their agreement on the most useful performance metrics to track and assess. This selection enables the building of trust and an eased and more pertinent workload for the board (having been freed from the need to decode reams of data while also gaining some independence from management's sometimes self-serving evaluations). Finally, boards and managers face the adoption of technologies that support critical board functions. Once access to such information is granted, new technologies can help directors obtain and use it. Board members may apply tools that, for example, enable improved visualizations and helpful alerts. And directors may engage in electronic "what-if" analyses, using company data as well as outside information -- related, say, to competing firms -- which is becoming increasingly available online.

Product recalls can destroy brands and even companies. But according to the authors, if a company handles recalls strategically, it can decrease the negative impact and maybe even reap some benefits. The authors maintain that a strategic approach to recalls should address the implications of a recall for all relevant business functions and should deal with all stages of a recall, from readiness before the fact to product reintroduction after a recall has ended. The authors offer step-by-step guidelines on handling recalls effectively. With forethought and planning, the authors assert, unavoidable recalls can have long-term favorable outcomes.