個案總覽

In search of lessons to apply in our own careers, we often try to emulate what effective leaders do. Roger Martin says this focus is misplaced, because moves that work in one context may make little sense in another. A more productive, though more difficult, approach is to look at how such leaders think. After extensive interviews with more than 50 of them, the author discovered that most are integrative thinkers--that is, they can hold in their heads two opposing ideas at once and then come up with a new idea that contains elements of each but is superior to both. Martin argues that this process of consideration and synthesis (rather than superior strategy or faultless execution) is the hallmark of exceptional businesses and the people who run them. To support his point, he examines how integrative thinkers approach the four stages of decision making to craft superior solutions. First, when determining which features of a problem are salient, they go beyond those that are obviously relevant. Second, they consider multidirectional and nonlinear relationships, not just linear ones. Third, they see the whole problem and how the parts fit together. Fourth, they creatively resolve the tensions between opposing ideas and generate new alternatives. According to the author, integrative thinking is an ability everyone can hone. He points to several examples of business leaders who have done so, such as Bob Young, co-founder and former CEO of Red Hat, the dominant distributor of Linux open-source software. Young recognized from the beginning that he didn't have to choose between the two prevailing software business models. Inspired by both, he forged an innovative third way, creating a service offering for corporate customers that placed Red Hat on a path to tremendous success.

What makes a company strategically agile--able to alter its strategies and business models rapidly in response to major changes in its market space, and to do so repeatedly without major trauma? Three years of in-depth case research on a dozen large companies worldwide showed the authors that one key factor is a new leadership model at the top. Senior executives at agile companies assume collective rather than individual responsibility for results. They build interdependencies among units and divisions, motivating themselves to engage with one another, and carefully manage their dealings to promote collaboration that is frequent, intense, informal, open, and focused on shared issues and the long term. Challenges to conventional thinking are encouraged. This is the new deal, and it's not easy to strike, because it requires executives to act in ways that are far from comfortable. After all, the corporate ladder at most firms favors independent types with a deep need for power and autonomy. At executive meetings, disagreement is suppressed or expressed passive-aggressively, eroding any real sense of belonging to a team. Switching to the new deal almost always requires a huge shift in the company's culture, values, and norms of interaction. The authors describe three approaches to making the shift: Executives can be given formal responsibility not for a business unit but for different stages in the company's value chain. This worked well for SAP, which has a relatively focused business portfolio. When a company's portfolio is less uniform, like Nokia's, business and functional units can be organized to crisscross on a matrix. And when a company is widely diverse, like easyGroup, it can emphasize the learning opportunities that units with common business models may share.

Not all groups are teams. That statement certainly applies to the learning team in this case study. Tony Marshall, a second-year learning team mentor, witnessed an interaction with the team last night confirmed what he suspected. Only three weeks into the first year of a MBA program at a big name school, the learning team (LT) was in trouble. From his own experience the year before, Marshall knew that a first-rate learning team made a huge positive difference in a student's first year. The corollary was also true; a bad or difficult LT experience could taint the entire FY and school experience. Although Marshall wanted to help, he just was not at all sure how. In the case, Marshall thinks about how to describe the situation to his fellow peer mentors in his second year elective class on managing teams in an effort to draw out some good ideas.

Set in 2007, examines the role of the Area Instruction Officer (AIO) in Chicago Public Schools (CPS). Focuses on the leadership skills and behavior needed to successfully manage a portfolio of schools with varying capacities, needs, and challenges. Also describes the role of the district and what its current development and support systems include for AIOs. Several schools and principals are profiled in order to delve deeply into "a day in the life" of an AIO.

During a discussion, a physician once pointed to the name on his lab jacket and said, "MD-makes decisions!" One of the greatest challenges we face in cultivating leadership competence is being centered and skillful in the midst of difficult and upsetting situations, or during times of crisis. Each of the three vignettes in this case offers an opportunity to practice decision-making in challenging situations. The material helps students focus on decision-making. What guides effective decision-making? The vignettes present situations that can be used to describe common approaches to decision-making and explore problems or challenges with traditional decision-making.

"Hey that was my idea!" How often have your students had that exact thought? Were they on a team when they felt most able to identify with that statement? This case is about a recent MBA graduate who faces challenges within her consulting team on her first post-graduation job. She is frustrated with one teammate in particular who she believes practices self-interest politics-he takes her ideas. The case allows for a healthy discussion on team dynamics and strategies to help students when the team mix is wrong. The case may also be used to discuss issues regarding women in business.

Back in 1998, Marks & Spencer (M&S) was the first British retailer to reach a profit of 1 billion pounds. Just a few years later, profits were down to 145 million pounds, and the company's share price stood at two-thirds of its previous high. The problem, says CEO Stuart Rose, was that M&S lost sight of what had made it great for more than a century. In this first-person account, Rose explains that he was hired in the spring of 2004 to turn the company around--just in time to stave off retail investor Philip Green's hostile takeover attempt. He spent his first six weeks convincing reporters, analysts, and investors that he was the one to lead Marks & Spencer back to prosperity. Then, after Green withdrew his bid, Rose put his plans for M&S to work. He knew that three things needed to be done right away: improve the product, improve the stores, and improve the service. One of his first and most important changes was to tighten the reins on inventory. When Rose arrived at M&S, assistant buyers were spending more than 300 million pounds of the company's money without oversight. Management now gets weekly inventory updates. With a keen eye on fundamentals like stock control, Rose has tried to return Marks & Spencer to the levels of profitability it achieved before its sharp decline. Although there is more to do, the company is back on track. In November 2006, M&S posted half-year profits of 405.1 million pounds--up 32.2% from the previous fiscal year. Rose attributes the turnaround almost entirely to a renewed focus on core values. Now, with signs of health in the business, he is thinking about where to take it over the next four or five years, so M&S doesn't get stuck as the largest of the small retailers and the smallest of the large retailers in the United Kingdom.

Almost 50% of the largest American firms will have a new CEO within the next four years; your company could very well be next. Senior executives know that a CEO transition means they're in for a round of firings, organizational reshuffles, and other unwelcome career changes. When your career suddenly depends on the views of a person you may not know, how worried should you be? According to the authors--very. They investigated the 2002-2004 CEO turnover rates of the top 1,000 U.S. companies and interviewed more than a dozen CEOs, each of whom had taken over at least one very large organization. Their study reveals that when a new CEO takes charge, remaining top managers are more likely than not to be shown the door. Those who leave often land in a lower position at a new company, work in a much smaller firm, or retire altogether. The news is not all grim, however. The interviewees offer some pointers on how to create a good impression and maximize your chances of survival and success under the new regime. Some of that advice may surprise you. One CEO pointed out, for instance, that "managers do not realize how much the CEO is looking for teammates on day one. I am amazed at how few people come through the door and say, 'I want to help. I may not be perfect, but I buy into your vision.'" Other recommendations are more intuitive, such as learning the new CEO's working style, understanding his or her agenda, and helping him or her look good in the new position by achieving positive operating results--and soon. Along with the inevitable stresses, the authors point out, CEO transitions can provide opportunities. Whether you reinvigorate your career within your company or find fulfillment elsewhere, the key lies in deciding what you want to do--and then doing it right.

Anyone in management knows that employees have their good days and their bad days--and that, for the most part, the reasons for their ups and downs are unknown. Most managers simply shrug their shoulders at this fact of work life. But does it matter, in terms of performance, if people have more good days than bad days? Teresa Amabile and Steven Kramer's new stream of research, based on more than 12,000 diary entries logged by knowledge workers over three years, reveals the dramatic impact of employees' inner work lives--their perceptions, emotions, and motivation levels--on several dimensions of performance. People perform better when their workday experiences include more positive emotions, stronger intrinsic motivation (passion for the work), and more favorable perceptions of their work, their team, their leaders, and their organization. What the authors also found was that managers' behavior dramatically affects the tenor of employees' inner work lives. So what makes a difference to inner work life? When the authors compared the study participants' best days to their worst days, they found that the single most important differentiator was their sense of being able to make progress in their work. The authors also observed interpersonal events working in tandem with progress events. Praise without real work progress, or at least solid efforts toward progress, had little positive impact on people's inner work lives and could even arouse cynicism. On the other hand, good work progress without any recognition--or, worse, with criticism about trivial issues--could engender anger and sadness. Far and away, the best boosts to inner work life were episodes in which people knew they had done good work and their managers appropriately recognized that work.

In the business world, "creativity" has become the latest buzzword. How to attract, nurture, and direct the extraordinarily talented people who will come up with the next Lipitor, Sony Walkman, or iPod is an enduring topic among businesspeople. As the director of the MacArthur Fellows Program, Daniel J. Socolow has considerable experience with the process of rooting out creativity. In this conversation with HBR senior editor Diane Coutu, he describes how recipients of the "genius grant"--half a million dollars with no strings attached--are chosen. As significant as the money is, the recognition that comes with a fellowship may be more so. MacArthur grants provide powerful validation of the fellows' work, Socolow says, and that validation opens doors for people, whatever the field. Although the program keeps a lookout for entrepreneurs who are on the brink of major new advances, he believes that the market does a good job of rewarding the best ideas in the business. Replicating the MacArthur model in a company would entail giving some employees unlimited time and lots of money to follow their own inclinations--not very feasible in most contexts. Nevertheless, the program has learned a lesson that may be valuable for business: The kind of creativity that leads to important breakthroughs is extremely hard to find. And, says Socolow, exceptionally creative people aren't always the obvious suspects, who may simply be good at promoting themselves: "Listen to others and look in the least likely places ...Extend your networks and try to get information from as many people as possible, just as we do."

Starbucks Corporation was the world's largest specialty coffee retailer, with 2005 annual revenue of $6.4 billion. Despite gigantic growth in specialty coffee in the 1990s, a worldwide oversupply of lower-grade coffee had depressed market prices in the previous few years, making it difficult for coffee farmers to earn enough revenue to cover the cost of production. By the end of 2005, Starbucks was at a challenging point in its history. It boasted more than 10,000 stores--up from 676 a decade before--and roasted 2.3% of the world's coffee. Each day it opened an average of four stores and hired 200 employees. To support such a high growth rate, the company's future success depended on a secure supply of high-quality coffee beans to meet increased demand--Starbucks had to ensure a sustainable supply of this key commodity. The company decided to partner with Conservation International, an environmental nonprofit organization, to develop C.A.F.E. Practices (Coffee and Farmer Equity Practices). The goal was to contribute to the livelihood of coffee farmers and to ensure high-quality coffee for the long term. If Starbucks were able to overcome the issues it faced with a widespread implementation of C.A.F.E., the initiative could go a long way towards improving the sustainability of its coffee supply chain while at the same time improving Starbucks' image as a socially responsible corporation.

Executives today must implement large-scale organizational change initiatives in ever-tighter time frames with fewer resources. Yet, anticipated performance outcomes often do not materialize as internal resistance slows or derails their change initiatives. A combined assessment of culture and informal structure can help identify barriers to change and facilitate change initiatives. Based on work with 10 organizations, demonstrates how this approach can help drive change through people and values in certain network positions; diagnose cultural drivers of network fragmentation; identify dominant beliefs or paradigms impeding cultural change; and intervene with a balanced emphasis on instrumental and expressive relationships.

In a word--self-preservation. And they're just as afraid to share innovative ideas as to blow the whistle.

David Whyte talks about how poetry begets courageous conversation and, in turn, better leadership.

In the summer of 2006, Nike announced a major corporate reorganization that would shift the company's focus to a category-driven approach. The six major business categories were running, men's training, basketball, soccer, women's fitness, and sportswear. For years, Nike had organized its business around footwear, apparel, and equipment. Integration between these three business units was inconsistent at best. The goal of the reorganization was to take a more consumer-oriented approach to the market to give customers holistic collections of everything they want and need in a particular sports category. This would require the organization to break down its product-oriented silos and collaborate on a more formal, ongoing basis. The reorganization also reflected a change in Nike's corporate strategy. The elevation of women's fitness to a major focus for the company was a substantial victory for the team that had been fighting for the increased prominence of this market segment for years. Darcy Winslow, general manager of Nike's global women's fitness business, and a team of individuals across the company working across traditional boundaries within Nike's complex, matrixed organization to achieve the required level of cross-business integration to deliver cohesive collections of footwear, apparel, and equipment to the women's market. Focuses on Winslow and her team as they tackled challenges related to product development, operations management, organization structure, reporting relationships, change management, and stakeholder buy-in.

In October 2005, in an auditorium filled to capacity in Bentonville, Arkansas, Lee Scott, Wal-Mart's president and CEO, made the first speech in the history of Wal-Mart to be broadcast to the company's 1.6 million associates (employees) in all of its 6,000+ stores worldwide and shared with its 60,000+ suppliers. Scott announced that Wal-Mart was launching a sweeping business sustainability strategy to dramatically reduce the company's impact on the global environment and thus become "the most competitive and innovative company in the world." He argued that, "Being a good steward of the environment and being profitable are not mutually exclusive. They are one and the same." He also committed Wal-Mart to three aspirational goals: "To be supplied 100 percent by renewable energy; to create zero waste; and to sell products that sustain our resources and the environment." Against this backdrop, the case introduces Andrew Ruben, vice president of corporate strategy and business sustainability, and Tyler Elm, senior director of the same group. Ruben and Elm, who were chosen by Scott to lead the sustainability strategy, recognized that they needed to keep environmental improvement tightly coupled with business value and profitability for the strategy to succeed. The case describes Wal-Mart's efforts to accomplish this, focusing on three of the company's primary focus areas (seafood, electronics, and textiles) and their effect on the company's operations, supplier relationships, and results. It also explores how Wal-Mart is measuring and communicating its ideas about sustainability to its suppliers, associates, customers, and the public.

Describes the economic and cultural models that have led to the success of Keller Williams Realty. By 2006, Keller Williams was one of the most profitable real estate companies in the United States (if not the most profitable); in addition, it was on its way to becoming one of the largest in terms of number of agents (over 70,000). Describes the factors that led to this company's success--including its operational model, compensation model, profit sharing model, and culture. Readers are asked to evaluate how these factors contribute to the company's success and whether they will continue to enhance the company's growth going forward. In addition, explores the critical role that culture and organizational practices can have on a company's operating performance.

In 2005, Relational Investors, a registered investment advisor, launched a proxy contest to gain two seats on the board of directors of Sovereign Bancorp. Relational accused Sovereign of operational mismanagement and poor corporate governance, representing a breach in fiduciary responsibility by the company's board of directors. Relational claimed that a board reconstitution was in the best interest of investors. Subsequently, Sovereign entered into a controversial three-way deal with Banco Santander Central Hispano of Spain, which thwarted Relational's efforts by diluting its ownership position and by giving Santander board seats and veto power over the removal of Sovereign's CEO. Discusses the tactics used by Relational Investors to attempt to derail the Santander deal and the tactics used by Sovereign Bancorp to defend it.

An abstract is not available for this product.

An abstract is not available for this product.