個案總覽

The founder and CEO of Viking Range recalls the eventful words of an early adviser: "You should run this from day one like it's a public company. Treat it like it's going to be big." He did, and it was.

The CEO of the British Library explains how the United Kingdom's exclusive repository for rare books, manuscripts, and scientific papers has loosened up the design of its Business & IP Centre to encourage entrepreneurship and innovation.

In his interviews and data analysis, Harvard Business School professor Bower found that companies performed better when they appointed insiders to the job of CEO. Other researchers, including Jim Collins in "Good to Great," have come to similar conclusions working from different data sets. Yet Bower finds far too many companies are managed without leadership development as an objective; as a result, when the time comes to name a new chief executive, those firms turn to outsiders. Both insider and outsider CEOs have strengths and weaknesses at the start. Insiders know the company and its people but are often blind to the need for radical change. Outsiders see the need for a new approach but can't make the necessary changes because they don't know the organization or industry sector well enough. What companies must do, then, is find a way to nurture what Bower calls inside-outsiders--internal candidates who have outside perspective. Often such executives have spent much of their time away from the mainstream of the organization, and away from headquarters, living with new opportunities and threats. Before becoming CEO, Procter & Gamble's A.G. Lafley, for instance, worked for years building P&G's Chinese operation rather than the core detergent business. IBM's Sam Palmisano was a champion of software and open systems at a time when Big Blue was essentially a closed-system, hardware-oriented company. To groom potential leaders, a development process for inside-outsiders needs to be in place. Ideally by the time they are 30 a talented manager can be given the opportunity to manage a whole business, so that they become good insiders. But they also need to be mentored with an eye toward preserving their outsider perspective, so they learn how to turn their new ideas into great businesses and are protected from senior managers who believe out-of-the-box thinkers need a lesson.

Corporate alliances are growing in number--by about 25% a year--and account for up to a third of revenues and value at many companies. Yet some 60% to 70% of them fail. What is going wrong? Because alliances involve interdependence between companies that may be competitors and may also have vastly different operating styles and cultures, they demand more care and handling than other business arrangements, say Hughes and Weiss, management consultants at Vantage Partners. The authors have developed five principles--based on their two decades of work with alliances--to complement the conventional advice on alliance management: (1) Focus less on defining the business plan and more on how you and your partner will work together; (2) Develop metrics pegged not only to alliance goals but also to performance in working toward them; (3) Instead of trying to eliminate differences, leverage them to create value; (4) Go beyond formal systems and structures to enable and encourage collaborative behavior; and (5) Be as diligent in managing your internal stakeholders as you are in managing the relationship with your partner. Companies that have adopted these principles have radically improved their alliance success rate. Schering-Plough, for example, engages in a systematic "alliance relationship launch": four to six weeks of meetings at which the partners explore potential challenges, examine key differences and develop shared protocols for managing them, and establish mechanisms for day-to-day decision making. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida measures the quality of alliance progress through regular surveys of both its own staff and its partners'. These companies have learned that the conventional advice is not so much wrong as incomplete. The five simple rules can help fill in the blanks.

Recent neuroscientific research shows that the health of your brain isn't, as experts once thought, just the product of childhood experiences and genetics; it reflects your adult choices and experiences as well. Professors Gilkey and Kilts of Emory University's medical and business schools explain how you can strengthen your brain's anatomy, neural networks, and cognitive abilities, and prevent functions such as memory from deteriorating as you age. The brain's alertness is the result of what the authors call cognitive fitness--a state of optimized ability to reason, remember, learn, plan, and adapt. Certain attitudes, lifestyle choices, and exercises enhance cognitive fitness. Mental workouts are the key. Brain-imaging studies indicate that acquiring expertise in areas as diverse as playing a cello, juggling, speaking a foreign language, and driving a taxicab expands your neural systems and makes them more communicative. In other words, you can alter the physical makeup of your brain by learning new skills. The more cognitively fit you are, the better equipped you are to make decisions, solve problems, and deal with stress and change. Cognitive fitness will help you be more open to new ideas and alternative perspectives. It will give you the capacity to change your behavior and realize your goals. You can delay senescence for years and even enjoy a second career. Drawing from the rapidly expanding body of neuroscientific research as well as from well-established research in psychology and other mental health fields, the authors have identified four steps you can take to become cognitively fit: understand how experience makes the brain grow, work hard at play, search for patterns, and seek novelty and innovation. Together these steps capture some of the key opportunities for maintaining an engaged, creative brain.

Snowden and Boone have formed a new perspective on leadership and decision making that's based on complexity science. The result is the Cynefin framework, which helps executives sort issues into five contexts. Simple contexts are characterized by stability and cause-and-effect relationships that are clear to everyone. Often, the right answer is self-evident. In this realm of "known knowns," leaders must first assess the facts of a situation--that is, "sense" it--then categorize and respond to it. Complicated contexts may contain multiple right answers, and though there is a clear relationship between cause and effect, not everyone can see it. This is the realm of "known unknowns." Here, leaders must sense, analyze, and respond. In a complex context, right answers can't be ferreted out at all; rather, instructive patterns emerge if the leader conducts experiments that can safely fail. This is the realm of "unknown unknowns," where much of contemporary business operates. Leaders in this context need to probe first, then sense, and then respond. In a chaotic context, searching for right answers is pointless. The relationships between cause and effect are impossible to determine because they shift constantly and no manageable patterns exist. This is the realm of unknowables (the events of September 11, 2001, fall into this category). In this domain, a leader must first act to establish order, sense where stability is present, and then work to transform the situation from chaos to complexity. The fifth context, disorder, applies when it is unclear which of the other four contexts is predominant. The way out is to break the situation into its constituent parts and assign each to one of the other four realms. Leaders can then make decisions and intervene in contextually appropriate ways.

Terminating employees is one of the most unpleasant, yet necessary, responsibilities managers have to carry out. The Wall Street Journal has reported that firing someone is one of three situations that make company presidents most uneasy. Due to a number of factors including anxiety, lack of preparation and ingrained social norms, terminations are often botched, putting companies at risk for low employee morale, negative PR, and lawsuits, among other undesirable outcomes. The ideal course of action is to prevent a termination in the first place through a combination of effective hiring, communication, coaching and management. Yet, after all other reasonable options have been exhausted, retaining a "problem employee" may be the only action worse than firing him. Keeping such an individual on staff allows substandard results or harmful behavior to continue and simultaneously sends the message to the rest of the organization that the company tolerates under-performance. As a result, the best course of action in these situations is to carefully prepare for a termination and then conduct it swiftly and respectfully. After an employee has been fired, proactively informing those with a need to know and filling the vacant position as soon as possible minimizes disruption to the organization. When a termination is properly handled, companies often resume normal business operations with very little tumult.

In 2007, there were three prominent corporate governance ratings firms-The Corporate Library (TCL), Governance Metrics International (GMI), and Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS). These firms assessed the effectiveness and deficiency of the governance systems of thousands of publicly traded companies. Although members of the investing public agreed that sound policies were important to protect the interest of shareholders from potentially self-interested managers, there were many questions around the usefulness of published governance ratings themselves. Questions ranged from whether a system of governance could be adequately summarized in a single, numerical score to what a high or low rating was supposed to indicate. Furthermore, allegations that ISS engaged in a conflict of interest by selling consulting services to companies on how to improve their ratings led some to question the objectivity of the ratings process.

Designed for use in the first year of an MBA program, can be included within a core course on leadership or used more broadly to orient students to their upcoming experience while in school. Offers a series of robust conceptual models to help students frame their leader(ship) development experiences while in a business school. How we frame our experiences has a significant impact on how we ultimately "have" our experiences, as well as what we make of them. Drawing broadly from educational, human development, and leadership training literature, as well as a recent longitudinal study of MBA students, speaks directly to business school students in their own language in an attempt to help them make the most out of their experiences while in school. For faculty, can be used as a background resource for understanding how MBA students experience their time in school and for grasping a broad review of the leadership development literature as it applies to MBA programs. Commonly asked questions explored include: Are leaders born or made? When we talk about "leader(ship) development," exactly what is it that is developing? How do leaders develop? To address these fundamental questions, integrates colorful student quotes with primary source insights from the major thought leaders in the field of leadership development. Also offers a series of "developmental propositions" to increase the likelihood that students will get the most out of their developmental journeys.

Josef Felder, CEO of Zurich Airport, faces several crises as he tries to transform the Airport from a slow-moving, conflict-ridden, government-owned entity into a privatized, world-class airport.

An abstract is not available for this product.

What are the differences between being a good tactical leader and being a good strategic leader? As he nears retirement, Robert Lincoln muses about his successor at Lincoln Industries. The case describes the backgrounds of four potential successors, all of whom are tactically astute and very competent general managers. Lincoln realizes that the company is at a crossroads and wonders what it would take for his potential successors to graduate from being good tactical leaders to effective strategic leaders.

As the demands of the workplace keep rising, many people respond by putting in ever longer hours, which inevitably leads to burnout that costs both the organization and the employee. Meanwhile, people take for granted what fuels their capacity to work--their energy. Increasing that capacity is the best way to get more done faster and better. Time is a finite resource, but energy is different. It has four wellsprings--the body, emotions, mind, and spirit--and in each, it can be systematically expanded and renewed. In this article, Schwartz and McCarthy of the Energy Project describe how to establish rituals that will build energy in the four key dimensions. For instance, harnessing the body's ultradian rhythms by taking intermittent breaks restores physical energy. Rejecting the role of a victim and instead viewing events through three hopeful lenses defuses energy-draining negative emotions. Avoiding the constant distractions that technology has introduced increases mental energy. And participating in activities that give you a sense of meaning and purpose boosts the energy of the spirit. The new workday rituals succeed only if leaders support their adoption, but when that happens, the results can be powerful. A group of Wachovia Bank employees who went through an energy management program outperformed a control group on important financial metrics like loans generated, and they reported substantially improved customer relationships, productivity, and personal satisfaction. These findings corroborated anecdotal evidence gathered about the effectiveness of this approach at other companies, including Ernst & Young, Sony, and Deutsche Bank. When organizations invest in all dimensions of their employees' lives, individuals respond by bringing all their energy wholeheartedly to work--and both companies and their people grow in value.

Since its founding, in 1995, Amazon.com's bold moves have often left observers scratching their heads, if not predicting the company's demise. Why open up an effective proprietary retail platform to competition from third-party sellers? Why make tools that Amazon developed for its own use available to other website developers? (Why, for that matter, post negative reviews of your products?) Two HBR editors interviewed Bezos, the founder and CEO, to learn what's different about strategy formulation at Amazon. They came away with the sense that the company's strategy and culture are rooted in a sturdy entrepreneurial optimism and rest on the single question of what's better for the customer. Bezos describes himself as "congenitally customer focused." He knows that the buyers in Amazon's consumer-facing business want selection, low prices, and fast delivery--and he's confident that won't change. "I can't imagine," he says, "that 10 years from now [our customers] are going to say, 'I love Amazon, but if only they could deliver my products a little more slowly.'" Competitor-focused companies risk complacency when they become industry leaders, he maintains, but customer-focused companies must always keep improving. "Years from now," Bezos says, "when people look back at Amazon, I want them to say that we uplifted customer-centricity across the entire business world." If Amazon has made strategic mistakes, he says, they have been errors of omission. So when something seems like an opportunity, Bezos asks the question, "Why not?" which leads to maximizing the number of experiments companywide: "People say, 'We're going to do this. We're going to figure out a way.'" That's the institutional yes.

They're nominally and ultimately responsible for strategy, but today's CEOs have less and less time to devote to it. As a result, CEOs are appointing "chief strategy officers" (CSOs)--executives specifically tasked with creating, communicating, executing, and sustaining a company's strategic initiatives. In this article, three authors from Accenture share the results of their research on this emerging organizational role. The typical CSO or top strategy executive is not a pure strategist, conducting long-range planning in relative isolation. Most CSOs consider themselves doers first, with the mandate, credentials, and desire to act as well as advise. They are seasoned executives with a strong strategy orientation who have usually worn many operations hats before taking on the role. Strategy executives are charged with three critical jobs that together form the very definition of strategy execution. First, they must clarify the company's strategy for themselves and for every business unit and function, ensuring that all employees understand the details of the strategic plan and how their work connects to corporate goals. Second, CSOs must drive immediate change. The focus of the job almost always quickly evolves from creating shared alignment around a vision to riding herd on the ensuing change effort. Finally, a CSO must drive decision making that sustains organizational change. He or she must be that person who, in the CEO's stead, can walk into any office and test whether the decisions being made are aligned with the strategy and are creating the desired results. When decisions below the executive suite aren't being made in accordance with strategy, much of the CSO's job involves learning why and quickly determining whether to stay the course or change tack.

According to the traditional view, judgment is an event: You make a decision and then move on. Yet Tichy, of the University of Michigan's Ross School of Business, and Bennis, of the University of Southern California's Marshall School of Business, found that good leadership judgment occurs not in a single moment but throughout a process. From their research into the complex phenomenon of leadership judgment, the authors also found that most important judgment calls reside in one of three domains: people, strategy, and crisis. Understanding the essence of leadership judgment is crucial. A leader's calls determine an organization's success or failure and deliver the verdict on his or her career. The first phase of the judgment process is preparation--identifying and framing the issue that demands a decision and aligning and mobilizing key stakeholders. Second is the call itself. And third is acting on the call, learning and adjusting along the way. Good leaders use a "story line"--an articulation of a company's identity, direction, and values--to inform their actions throughout the judgment process. Boeing CEO Jim McNerney, for instance, focused on a story line of Boeing as a world-class competitor and ethical leader to make a judgment call that launched the company's recovery from a string of ethical crises. Good leaders also take advantage of "redo loops" throughout the process, reconsidering the parameters of the decision, relabeling the problem, and redefining the goal in a way that more and more people can accept. Procter & Gamble's A.G. Lafley and Best Buy's Brad Anderson have both used redo loops--in preparation and execution, respectively--to strengthen not only support for their calls but also the outcomes.

Rory Stewart, a Scot in his 30s, left his career in the British Foreign Office to walk 6,000 miles across central Asia and then spent a year with the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), which temporarily ran Iraq after the U.S.-led invasion. In this edited conversation with HBR senior editor Lew McCreary, Stewart describes his stint as deputy governor of the Maysan and Dhi Qar provinces and other experiences that taught him to balance principled commitment with canny pragmatism. Without much direction from Baghdad, Stewart and the other CPA delegates tried to create conditions of relative stability, prepare the way for democratic institutions, and orchestrate a modicum of cooperation among tribal and ethnic factions. But Iraqi distrust, compounded by security conditions that went from bad to worse, made progress extremely difficult. As he faced these challenges, Stewart drew heavily on lessons from his trek, particularly from his time in Afghanistan. The nature of that journey had sharpened his senses. He'd learned to quickly size up people and situations, so when he joined the CPA, he showed ingenuity, flexibility, and uncommon insight into Arab cultures. Now back in Kabul, Stewart is the CEO of the Turquoise Mountain Foundation, a nongovernmental organization devoted to preserving the city's old commercial district, teaching vanishing artisan skills to young Afghans, and developing markets for Afghan crafts. Stewart's foundation aims to reclaim some of the glory of Kabul's heritage while giving purpose to lives that might otherwise drift toward anarchy or nihilism.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. The largely erroneous perception that breakthroughs are impossible to predict arises from the tendency to focus on just the breakthroughs while ignoring the iterative process of invention and its distribution of outcomes. When all inventions are considered, they demonstrate a highly skewed distribution in which almost all inventions are useless, a few are of moderate value, and only a very, very few are breakthroughs. Those breakthroughs constitute the "long tail" of innovation. If managers wish to understand how those breakthroughs arise, they cannot ignore the process that generates the entire distribution. In particular, they need to keep in mind the following three measures of inventive success: shots on goal (the total number of inventions a company generates), average score (the mean value of those inventions), and maximum scores (the breakthrough inventions). Various factors can affect a company's inventive output, including the presence of inventors who work alone, the type of collaboration among those inventors who work in teams, the amount of team diversity, and the degree to which inventors apply science in the innovation process. Greater team diversity, for instance, will help generate more shots on goal although, on average, those shots will be less successful. But diversity also will increase the variance of the outcome, so that failures as well as breakthroughs are more likely. Thus companies first need to identify how they want to improve their innovation process and then take the appropriate measures to address any deficiencies. Only then can they improve their capacity to innovate in ways that make the best sense for the organization as a whole.

Anupam Majumdar, relationship manager, and Aditya Mehta, regional head of Hindustan Neon General Insurance Limited, India, were meeting an important client. Mehta asked Majumdar to serve them tea. This really embarrassed and infuriated Majumdar. It was not the first time that Mehta, Majumdar's boss, had treated him like a peon. Majumdar was about to take a three-week leave of absence to attend his brother's wedding in New York so he was not sure if this was the right time, if ever, to do anything about the situation.

In 2007, Best Buy was the leading electronics retailer in the United States with more than 941 stores, revenue totaling $31 billion, and a market cap of $21 billion. In 2005, Best Buy had adopted a new business model, culture, and customer-segmentation template called Customer Centricity. This move created volatility in the price of Best Buy stock because of the higher-than-expected employee costs that went with this new way of doing business and the difficulty of executing the old and the new business models simultaneously while the new model was rolled out. Best Buy responded to Wall Street's short-term focus in a myriad of ways. It first asked for investor patience, and stressed the strong operating results achieved in Best Buy stores operating under the new model. But in June 2007, after the stock dropped again, the CEO knew he had to decide whether to open more Best Buy stores, increase the company's dividend, or increase the stock-repurchase program.