學門類別
政大
哈佛
- General Management
- Marketing
- Entrepreneurship
- International Business
- Accounting
- Finance
- Operations Management
- Strategy
- Human Resource Management
- Social Enterprise
- Business Ethics
- Organizational Behavior
- Information Technology
- Negotiation
- Business & Government Relations
- Service Management
- Sales
- Economics
- Teaching & the Case Method
最新個案
- Leadership Imperatives in an AI World
- Vodafone Idea Merger - Unpacking IS Integration Strategies
- Predicting the Future Impacts of AI: McLuhan’s Tetrad Framework
- Snapchat’s Dilemma: Growth or Financial Sustainability
- V21 Landmarks Pvt. Ltd: Scaling Newer Heights in Real Estate Entrepreneurship
- Did I Just Cross the Line and Harass a Colleague?
- Winsol: An Opportunity For Solar Expansion
- Porsche Drive (B): Vehicle Subscription Strategy
- Porsche Drive (A) and (B): Student Spreadsheet
- TNT Assignment: Financial Ratio Code Cracker
-
Your Company Is Too Risk-Averse
In theory, companies create value for stakeholders by making risky investments. In practice, however, managers in large corporations routinely quash risky ideas in favor of marginal improvements, cost-cutting, and "safe" investments. Why are managers in large, hierarchical organizations so risk-averse? Corporate incentives and control processes actively discourage managers from taking risks. Whereas CEOs consider each investment in the context of a greater portfolio, managers essentially bet their careers on every investment they make--even if outcomes are negligible to the corporation as a whole. This article explains how loss aversion works, presents an analysis of just how much value manager attitudes toward investment risk leave on the table, and offers suggestions for changes in practices and systems. -
Deals Without Delusions
Pursuing a merger or acquisition is inherently difficult. Things get even harder when executives are blind to their own faulty assumptions, say Lovallo--a professor at the University of Western Australia Business School and a senior adviser to McKinsey--and three of his McKinsey colleagues. The authors identify biases that can surface at each step of the M&A process and provide practical tips for rising above them--an approach they call targeted debiasing. During the preliminary due-diligence stage, biases abound. To overcome the confirmation bias, aggressively seek evidence that challenges your initial hypothesis about a deal. The best medicine for overconfidence in identifying revenue and cost synergies is to learn from precedents at your firm and others. Avoiding underestimation of cultural differences between your company and the target requires understanding the differences in the ways people interact at each organization. Misjudging the time and resources you need is at the core of the planning fallacy, which you can elude by formally identifying best practices and continually revisiting them. Finally, dilute conflict of interest by soliciting dispassionate external expertise. The bidding phase is vulnerable to the winner's curse, a phenomenon common in auctions. To avoid paying too much for a target, actively generate alternatives to the deal under consideration and develop a set of bidding cutoff rules. After offering an initial bid, deal makers are susceptible to anchoring, whereby they remain attached to their original price estimate, and to the sunk cost fallacy that they've invested too much to stop now. The secret to overcoming both: Use your newly available access to the target's books to better assess the investment case--and change your tune accordingly.