個案總覽

A survey by biologist Christoph Randler reveals that morning people are more proactive than evening people. That makes them more likely to succeed, especially since corporate schedules are geared to their peak performance hours. Though evening people may be more intelligent and more creative, when it comes to the business world, morning people hold the important cards.

Powerlessness damages organizations-especially in the middle ranks, says HBR columnist Rosabeth Moss Kanter. Hemmed in by rules and treated as unimportant, people get even with management by overcontrolling their own turf. Kanter urges leaders to give employees opportunities to make meaningful contributions, because small wins along those lines can propel big changes.

Warren Bennis, the pioneering management professor, looks back on his career-and at the events that turned a 19-year-old army lieutenant from a blue-collar background into a university president and a leadership scholar.

The realization of a strategy depends on countless employees. So it's no surprise that when a strategy fails, the reason cited is usually poor execution. But this view of strategy and execution relies on a false metaphor in which senior management is a choosing brain while those in the rest of the company are choiceless arms and legs that merely carry out the brain's bidding. The approach does damage to the corporation because it alienates the people working for it. A better metaphor for strategy is a white-water river, in which choices cascade from its source in the mountains (the corporation) to its mouth (the rest of the organization). Executives at the top make the broader choices involving longterm investments while empowering employees toward the bottom to make more concrete, day-to-day decisions that directly influence customer service and satisfaction. For the cascade to flow properly, a choice maker upstream can set the context for those downstream by doing four things: explaining what the choice is and why it's been made, clearly identifying the next downstream choice, offering help with making choices as needed, and committing to revisit and adjust the choice based on feedback. When downstream choices are valued and feedback is encouraged, employees send information upward, improving the knowledge base of decision makers higher up and helping everyone in the organization make better choices.

If you want to get anything done in a large corporation, you need power. And it won't just fall into your lap: You have to go after it and learn how to use it. Many highly competent people get stuck because they're uncomfortable with that reality. Stanford University professor Pfeffer offers a primer on why power matters, how to get it, and how to use it to advance your organization's agenda-thus, not incidentally, furthering your career. When push comes to shove, the author explains, there are several things powerful people do to prevail. They mete out resources; deploy rewards and punishments to shape others' behavior; advance on multiple fronts; make the first move; co-opt antagonists; remove rivals (nicely, if possible); avoid drawing unnecessary fire; use a personal touch; persist; attend to important relationships; and make their vision compelling. Throughout, Pfeffer draws on real-world examples of people who exercised power skillfully to implement their plans-people ranging from the director of UCSF's breast cancer center to a successful software executive to an Indian cricket mogul. And Pfeffer identifies three big barriers that can make you your own worst enemy unless you learn how to get over them and embrace the power you need.

After his guitar was broken on a United Air Lines flight and the airline rejected his damage claim, musician Dave Carroll made the YouTube video "United Breaks Guitars," which more than 8 million people have viewed. Carroll is far from alone in having employed social media to lambaste a company for poor customer service. For example, one popular blogger advised her million-plus followers on Twitter not to buy Maytag appliances. But the very technologies that empower customers can also empower employees, write Bernoff and Schadler, of Forrester Research. Companies can build a strategy around freeing employees to experiment with new technologies, make high-profile decisions on the fly, and effectively speak for the organization in public. Companies that feel hesitant to give their employees such freedom can benefit from what the authors call the HERO Compact-whereby management, IT, and HEROes (for "highly empowered and resourceful operatives") agree to work together to manage technological innovations. Management contracts to encourage innovation and manage risk, IT to support and scale employees' projects, and HEROes to innovate within a safe framework. Best Buy, Black & Decker, Vail Resorts, and Aflac are among the companies that have empowered their employees to take full advantage of social media. But it takes a while for corporate cultures to embrace this sort of innovation. In the meantime, managers can move forward on their own-building internal communities, looking outside the company for creative strategies, reviewing their hiring practices, and reaching out to customer-facing departments.

Two years ago Starbucks ran into trouble, and Schultz was called on to serve a second time as its CEO. In this edited interview, he talks about the effects of the financial crisis on Starbucks's sales, the surge of competition, the blogosphere, and retaining authenticity in spite of growth. Schultz calls values, culture, and Starbucks's reservoir of trust with its employees "the only assets we have as a company." He saw preserving and enhancing the integrity of those assets as his primary challenge. That meant declining to franchise the system or compromise on quality or change the company's generous health care coverage. One bold move was to take 10,000 store managers to New Orleans for a conference that began with more than 50,000 hours of community service and an investment in local projects of $1 million. The purpose of the conference was to galvanize the entire leadership of the company and to stress personal accountability and responsibility. Schultz believes that without that experience, he couldn't have turned things around for Starbucks.

Executives stay with an organization for only 3.3 years, on average. But does switching employers offer a fast-track to the top jobs? Research suggests the answer is no. In fact, that's one of four career fallacies identified in a study examining how managers get ahead. Fallacy 1: Job hoppers prosper. An analysis of the career histories of 1,001 CEOs and 14,000 non-CEOs in top corporations shows that the more years executives stay with the company, the faster they make it to the top. Lesson: Build a resume that demonstrates a balance between external and internal moves. Fallacy 2: A move should be a move up. Among the executives studied, about 40% of job changes were promotions, 40% were lateral, and 25% were demotions. Lesson: While a downward move will detract from your CV, a lateral move can often lead to a promotion or enhance your CV when the new company conveys brand value. Fallacy 3: Big fish swim in big ponds. When making a move, 64% of executives trade down to smaller, less-recognized firms. They gain better titles or positions, cashing in on the brand value of their former employer. Lesson: Join top companies as early in your career as you can, and transfer to a lesser company only if the job is very attractive. Fallacy 4: Career and industry switchers are penalized. It's not always a bad move to change industries, or even careers, as is often assumed. Firms hire employees from different businesses for many reasons: For example, another industry might simply offer superior human capital. Lesson: Look for industries where your skills represent a genuine asset. Every career is unique; what's important is to look at each move with a critical eye.

The inventor of the bagless vacuum cleaner talks about what innovation means to him and why experience is overrated.

Stephen Engelberg, ProPublica's managing editor, entered the organization's newsroom located in lower Manhattan on September 16, 2008. He knew a historical financial debacle was happening at his doorstep yet that none of his journalists were covering that beat. It would take much effort to get up to speed on the story. Uncovering what caused the recent turmoil in financial markets and Lehman's failure would require skills, knowledge of financial services, and connections within the industry. ProPublica had been created only a year earlier as an independent, non-profit newsroom focused on investigative journalism. It was now fully staffed with close to 30 members, including journalists who had joined partly because of the promise of editorial latitude they were offered. As Engelberg weighed his various options, he knew all the major U.S. newsrooms were heading full speed to allocate resources covering the developing debacle. ProPublica needed to live up to the public's expectations. Should he assign the story to one of his journalists and, if so, whom? Alternatively should he hire new talent? In that case who would be a good fit? Moreover, how might this impact ProPublica's model and culture?

In October 2009, State Grid, the largest utility company in the world, and a pioneer and leader in CSR practices in China, was planning its 2009 CSR Report and long-term CSR implementation. Some of the specific challenges faced at the time include: How could the company balance the different stakeholder expectations and respond to their concerns in a clear and concise way? To what extent should the company reference international standards in its CSR reporting? How could it change the mindsets of 1.5 million employees across diverse geographies to help them abide by CSR principles and management policies on a daily basis? Finally, how could State Grid improve its stakeholder management to establish mutual trust with stakeholders so that they would see State Grid as a responsible company?

In early 2010, cleantech investment pioneer Tsing Capital was planning for the China Environment Fund IV and considering how to maintain its commitment to social and environmental practices. Tsing Capital embraced its philosophy of "Doing Well by Doing Good" and developed a proprietary system to manage social & environmental functions throughout the investment process. Some of the specific questions examined in the case are: with a more diversified investor base, how could the firm balance the different expectations of investors and continue to achieve "Doing Well by Doing Good"? Despite the increasing importance of social & environmental practices, they also had a cost for the firm and its portfolio companies. How could the firm most effectively motivate its portfolio companies to actively integrate social & environmental practices with their strategies?

Analyzes the link between corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities and employee engagement, including CSR effects on employee commitment and motivation, new skills and training, and motivation. Also discusses best practices in employee engagement through CSR.

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.

Companies are experiencing a crisis in employee engagement. One of the problems is all the pressure companies are putting on employees to produce. Workers are trying to get more done in less time-and are burning out. But while time is finite, energy is not; people can increase their reserves of personal energy. The key is to establish rituals-such as shutting down your e-mail for a couple of hours a day so you can focus on priorities, or taking a daily 3 p.m. walk to get a breather-that renew your physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual energy. These behavioral changes are sustainable, though, only if leaders at the most senior levels of an organization are willing to set a context for them, both by creating their own rituals and by setting a tone where people feel safe taking time out of the day on a regular basis. This is just what the leaders of Sony Pictures Entertainment did. Working with Tony Schwartz of the Energy Project, they implemented energy management training that has reached nearly half the company so far. To date, the reaction to the program has been overwhelmingly positive. Eighty-eight percent of participants say it has made them more focused and productive. More than 90% say it has helped them bring more energy to work every day. Eighty-four percent say they feel better able to manage their jobs' demands and are more engaged at work. Sony's leaders believe that these changes have helped boost the company's performance. Despite the recession, Sony Pictures had its most profitable year ever in 2008 and one of its highest revenue years in 2009.

No one disputes that firms have to make organizational changes when the business environment demands them. But the idea that a firm might want change for its own sake often provokes skepticism. Why inflict all that pain if you don't have to? That is a dangerous attitude. A company periodically needs to shake itself up, regardless of the competitive landscape. Even if the external environment is not changing in ways that demand a response, the internal environment probably is. The human dynamics within an organization are constantly shifting--and require the organization to change along with them. Over time, informal networks mirror the formal structure, which is how silos develop; restructuring gets people to start forming new networks, making the organization as a whole more creative. It also disrupts all the routines in an organization that collectively stifle innovation and adaptability. Finally, restructuring breaks up the outdated power structures that may be quietly misdirecting a company's resource allocation. All these processes--silo formation, the accretion of deadening routines, and the emergence of corporate baronies--take place all the time. But when everything is going well, you tend not to notice them, just as many seemingly fit people don't realize that their arteries may be dangerously clogged. A simple questionnaire can serve as a kind of cholesterol test for your company, enabling you to see if your regimen needs minor or major adjustments.

Some employees are more talented than others, and nearly every company has its method for identifying their high-potential managers. So how can you get on your company's high-potential list? Douglas A. Ready, of the talent-management research center ICEDR; Jay A. Conger, of Claremont McKenna College; and Harvard Business School's Linda A. Hill have studied programs for high-potential leaders for 15 years. They have found that the rising stars who make the grade are remarkably similar in their core characteristics, the most intangible of which they call "X factors": a drive to excel, a catalytic learning capability, an enterprising spirit, and dynamic sensors that detect opportunities and obstacles. The authors' in-depth interviews with high potentials, their managers, and their HR departments reveal how you can develop your four X factors and, if you manage to get on your company's high-potential list, how to avoid falling off. The article also discusses the pros and cons companies face as they decide whether to make their high-potential lists transparent.

India's HCL Technologies has, according to Fortune, the world's most modern management. BusinessWeek says that HCL is one of the top five emerging companies in the world to watch. That's mainly because of a transformation effort that the author, who took over leadership of the $5 billion IT services company in 2005, launched. Nayar learned from talking with customers that what they valued most-above products, services, and technologies-was HCL's employees. So he came up with a radical idea, Employees First, Customers Second, to bring about organizational change. In this article, he explains how he got stakeholders-HCL's founder and chairman, the board of directors, senior executives, managers, and employees-to back his campaign for radical change.