個案總覽

Most leadership development programs aren't working. Only 24% of senior executives at firms that have them consider them to be a success. Companies must take a more scientific approach to turning their raw talent into leaders, say three authors from Egon Zehnder, which has been measuring executive potential for 30 years. Begin by identifying which of seven key leadership competencies (results orientation, strategic orientation, collaboration and influence, team leadership, developing organizational capabilities, change leadership, and market understanding) are critical to your top roles. Next, assess employees' potential by looking at five predictors of strong competencies (motivation, curiosity, insight, engagement, and determination) and then map people's potential to role requirements to see how far they can go. Last, to help them get there, provide the right coaching and development opportunities.

Silicon Valley venture capitalists used to routinely oust start-up founders--who were viewed as green and unskilled--as part of the process leading to an IPO. The author, an adjunct professor at Stanford and a well-known entrepreneurship thinker, describes how VCs gradually came to see founders not as a problem that needed to be solved but as a valuable asset that needed to be retained. In July 2009, when Mark Andreessen cofounded the VC firm Andreessen Horowitz with Ben Horowitz, it was with a key philosophical difference from rival firms: a "founder friendly" focus. Blank argues that this trend has gone too far, and the situation at Uber is just the most obvious example of that. He offers prescriptions for how to begin correcting this power imbalance.

As firms scramble for competitive advantage, boards--once the cautious voices urging management to mitigate risk--are now calling for breakthrough innovation. Indeed, avoiding risk is now seen as the riskiest proposition of all. In speaking with CEOs and board members from a range of industries, the authors identified four common obstacles most boards face in governing innovation: an outdated risk agenda, insufficient time, lack of expertise, and a relationship with management that needs retuning. Embracing innovation and its inherent risks requires that boards and senior management develop new ways of working together. To bolster out-of-the-box thinking at their companies, boards should promote diversity among members. They should foster "creative abrasion" to keep ideas flowing and rethink traditional methods of governing. And they must learn to embrace and encourage risk.

People have a tendency to stick to an existing course of action, no matter how irrational. In the management literature, this is known as an escalation of commitment, and in nearly every academic case study on the demise of a former industry leader, it played a major role. The story of the British music company HMV--whose managing director dismissed downloadable music as "just a fad"--is a classic example. Escalation of commitment is explained by a number of mutually reinforcing biases, among them: the sunk cost fallacy, loss aversion, the illusion of control, the preference for completion, pluralistic ignorance, and personal identification. The authors describe six practices that can help counteract these biases: (1) Set decision rules. (2) Pay attention to voting rules. (3) Protect dissenters. (4) Expressly consider alternatives. (5) Separate advocacy and decision making. (6) Reinforce the anticipation of regret. Overcommitted executives, they write, are prone to ignore signs of their company's imminent collapse. These practices will encourage managers at all levels to make decisions more objectively.

To identify the value that social tools can bring to companies, the authors split employees at a large financial services firm into two groups, only one of which used an internal social platform, and observed them for six months. Those who had used the tool became 31% more likely to find coworkers with relevant expertise and 88% more likely to discover who had useful connections. Internal social tools can help employees make faster decisions, develop more innovative ideas for products and services, and become more engaged in their work and their companies. But companies that try to "go social" often fall into four traps: They (1) assume that Millennials will embrace social tools at work; (2) struggle to foster personal interaction that builds trust and promotes knowledge sharing; (3) fail to recognize how learning occurs on social tools; and (4) focus on the wrong data. The authors offer advice on how to avoid these traps.

In recent years, health care organizations have made sizable investments in information technology. They've used their IT systems to replace paper records with electronic ones and to improve billing processes, thereby boosting revenue. But so far, IT has been of little value in making medical care delivery more effective or less expensive. How can health care organizations change this? One key is to prioritize quality improvement over cost cutting. By harnessing IT to help design better clinical practices, it's possible to achieve better patient outcomes and better financial performance. It is also vital to gather good information--by using simpler, more-organic collection methods--and to make it actionable by applying analytics. Finally, many organizations will need to forge new business and operating models, expanding their IT staffs, revamping how their clinical staffs work, and creating new payment structures. The authors provide numerous examples of health care organizations that are taking these steps--and seeing impressive results.

Though executives tend to think--and want to believe--they're hiring and promoting fairly, bias still creeps into their decisions. They often use ambiguous criteria to filter out people who aren't like them or deem people from minority groups to be "not the right cultural fit," leaving those employees with the uneasy feeling that their identity might be the real issue. Companies need to acknowledge that it's fair for employees from underrepresented groups to be suspicious about bias, says Williams, Facebook's global director of diversity. They also must find ways to give those workers more support. To that end, many organizations are turning to people analytics, which aspires to replace gut decisions with data-driven ones. Unfortunately, firms often say that they don't have enough people from marginalized groups in their data sets to produce reliable insights. But there are things employers can do to supplement small n's: draw on industry or sector data; learn from what's happening in other companies; and deeply examine the experiences of individuals who work for them, talking with them to gather critical qualitative information. If firms are systematic and comprehensive in these efforts, they'll have a better chance of improving diversity and inclusion.

Relative to established organizations, start-ups can be hard to figure out. What are the jobs to be done? The best entry points? How can you tell whether a company has potential for success and is the right fit for you? The author advises that you first assess whether you're suited for a young, entrepreneurial organization. Start-up joiners need to do three things well: manage uncertainty, push the limits, and think like an owner. He then outlines four steps for choosing the right company: Pick a domain (find a field you're passionate about); pick a city (preferably in an entrepreneurial hub); pick a stage ("jungle," "dirt road," or "highway"); and pick a winner (do due diligence on the founding team, the market, and the business model). Once you've made those choices, you'll need to sell yourself, and Bussgang suggests how: Identify key players at the companies you're interested in and find ways to connect with them. When you meet, articulate how you can contribute, engage your interviewers about their work, and offer expertise, advice, or contacts with no expectation of reciprocity. Suddenly you'll be perceived as someone who is already adding value.

The astronaut talks about how his style of leadership has changed, how he got along with Russian cosmonauts in space, how he handles stress, and more.

As crowdsourcing evolves, new research finds a pitfall companies should be alert to: Consumer voting on the ideas submitted on open innovation platforms is often skewed by social bias, or people's tendency to like and vote for ideas whose progenitors have liked and voted for their own. A study of 87 crowdsourced projects suggests that when evaluating the ideas that are generated through open innovation, companies should rely less on consumer preference and more on their own evaluative criteria. And the right answer may come from tapping a small number of the right people--ones whose specialized expertise makes their views more relevant--rather than from polling a crowd of random idea generators.

In high-stakes games in professional tennis, women choke less than men do, new research shows. Does that mean that women come through in the clutch more often in business, too?

New and existing companies are looking for ways to thrive in a competitive environment with innovative business models while respecting society and avoiding actions that harm the planet. Trends such as the circular economy, fair trade, lowsumerism, and the sharing economy are some of the many emerging entrepreneurial approaches that address this issue, but there is still a gap between what theory argues and the levels of environmental and social sustainability realized when theory is put into practice. In fact, most research on the topic of sustainable business models is still exploratory and does not fully acknowledge these emerging approaches, whose definitions, boundaries, and defining characteristics are still somewhat vague. This study seeks to contribute to the understanding of the inner entrepreneurial dynamics of innovative sustainable business models. In particular, we focus on the fashion business, a resource-intensive industry in which opportunities to reduce environmental impacts and to innovate business models abound. The aim of our research is to investigate innovative business models in the fashion industry that have sustainability as their defining characteristic, especially in terms of value proposition. In order to do that, we combine a systematic review of the literature with empirical research comprised of six interviews with specialists in sustainability, business model innovation, and the fashion industry, along with eight case studies on innovative fashion startups we define as 'born sustainable.' As a result, we propose a synthesizing framework that discloses trends and drivers of innovative and sustainable business models in the fashion industry. We also highlight opportunities and challenges for researchers and entrepreneurs interested in this topic.

The sharing economy is growing globally in terms of user numbers, service providers, and novel concepts. Peer-to-peer (P2P) asset sharing, or asset rental between private individuals, has attracted the attention of entrepreneurs and researchers alike. P2P asset-sharing networks need to focus on two distinct customer groups: (1) asset owners willing to rent out their assets, and (2) renters interested in renting others assets. Despite consumers' high interest in P2P asset sharing, participation rates lag projections, which is mainly attributable to lack of participating asset owners. This could be problematic for P2P networks as they do not own assets; instead, they rely on a sufficient number of asset owners to participate. Detailed indications on the participation motives of users are required to distinctly position P2P asset sharing and enhance communication of consumer-relevant benefits. To this end, we have engaged in a detailed investigation of participation motives in the P2P car-sharing context. We have conducted in-depth interviews with car owners and renters to derive usage types that represent consumer decision profiles that participate in P2P car-sharing services. Based on our findings, we provide extensive recommendations to entrepreneurs in the P2P asset-sharing market.

Maker technologies, including collaborative digital fabrication tools like 3-D printers, enable entrepreneurial opportunities and new business models. To date, relatively few highly successful maker startups have emerged, possibly due to the dominant mindset of the makers being one of cooperation and sharing. However, makers also strive for financial stability and many have profit motives. We use a multiple case study approach to explore makers' experiences regarding the tension between sharing and commercialization and their ways of dealing with it. We conducted interviews with maker initiatives across Europe including Fab Labs, a maker R&D center, and other networks of makers. We unpack and contextualize the concepts of sharing and commercialization. Our cross-case analysis leads to a new framework for understanding these entrepreneurs' position with respect to common-good versus commercial offerings. Using the framework, we describe archetypal trajectories that maker initiatives go through in the dynamic transition from makers to social enterprises and social entrepreneurs.

New business models harnessing the power of individuals have already revolutionized service industries and digital content production. In this study, we investigate whether a similar phenomenon is taking place in manufacturing industries. We start by conceptually defining two distinct forms of firm-individual collaboration in manufacturing industries: (1) social cloud manufacturing, in which firms outsource manufacturing to individuals, and (2) social platform manufacturing, in which firms provide manufacturing services to individuals. We then empirically investigate the nature of firm-individual collaboration within these forms, focusing on the role of individuals. We find that the individuals are often makers who view their participation primarily as a hobby and are driven mainly by nonmonetary benefits, that the design process often involves both parties, and that the two forms of collaboration exploit different enabling technologies. Our findings suggest that firms working with individuals can potentially reap multiple benefits, including fresh ideas, broader design support, and quick delivery times. This article contributes to an improved understanding of how firms can build potentially disruptive business models in manufacturing industries by leveraging individuals, thereby adding to the emerging stream of literature on social manufacturing.

The business models of digital maker-entrepreneurs in open design are inextricably linked to the broader open design community. Digital makers share designs on online platforms such as Thingiverse and use digital manufacturing technology such as 3-D printing as a generative mechanism for their entrepreneurial activities. There is a general understanding of how sharing works in that community and the basic design parameters that determine the business models of these digital maker-entrepreneurs, which are based on a portfolio of activities. This study is based on in-depth interviews with 11 digital maker-entrepreneurs from the open design community. We investigate the activities that constitute their business models using activity theory as a lens with which better to understand them. This study provides a perspective on the complexity of the relationships in which these activities are embedded and analyzes the activities related to the production, distribution, and consumption of value. Finally, we examine the exchanges between digital maker-entrepreneurs in the community, shedding light on how digital maker-entrepreneurs share and exchange goods, services, and knowledge as peers.

As the Internet of Things (IoT) begins to dominate the technology landscape, there will be new products and services that will become technically and financially feasible. Internet technologies and advancements in social interaction tools have led to an increase in the use of the crowd as a provider of business solutions. Yet we have just seen a fraction of the possibilities of crowdsourcing technologies. This is because most of the development, discussion, and research around crowdsourcing has focused on active-input crowdsourcing. However, the real transformative pressure will come from passive sources of data generated primarily by developing and growing sensor technologies. This next generation of crowdsourcing will be a game changer for entrepreneurial opportunities. As crowdsourcing systems proliferate, more input will be acquired from sensors, artificial intelligence, bots, and other devices. As a result of this explosion, the variety of product and service opportunities will swell as entrepreneurs become more aware of technologies merging, such as the combination of crowdsourcing, sensors, and big data into a new type of entrepreneurship-sensor-based entrepreneurship. The purpose of this research is to contribute by, first, clarifying the next generation of crowdsourcing and, second, developing and presenting a framework to help sensor-based entrepreneurs plan, develop, and map their new products and services.

Since the Internet of Things (IoT) is an emerging phenomenon, there is a lack of holistic understanding of what IoT is and what business opportunities it can offer for entrepreneurs and existing companies. This article has three main parts. First, it introduces IoT as a broad, socio-technical phenomenon. As a part of this goal, the article covers various elements within the technological, physical, and socioeconomic environment that comprise IoT. Second, this article proposes two approaches for creating new business models using IoT: a sustaining approach and a disruptive approach. The article concludes with a brief reflection on the extent to which the future of IoT can be predicted. This discussion brings up the limitations of the approach for creating new business models outlined in this article and provides guidelines on how this approach should be used. The ultimate goal of this article is to stimulate thinking, creativity, and entrepreneurship in relation to the IoT.

Embedded between the broader fields of social and digital entrepreneurship, the concept of 'smart cities' can be conceptualized as a domain that is currently pre-paradigmatic-that is, one in which multiple yet unaligned models exist, marked by the absence of a single dominant one. Despite such shortcomings, there is a reflective similarity across ecosystems as the various players attempt to converge on a common understanding of the term smart city. The common objective of smart city implementation is to spark economic growth and social development, facilitated by collaborative dialogue and innovations in technology. We integrate theoretical lenses to explore the roles played by ecosystem actors, stakeholders, and socioeconomic and political agents in creating economic value and solving societal problems-particularly highlighting opportunities and challenges to bottom-up innovation from local entrepreneurs.

The automotive industry is experiencing a moment of innovation. With electronics gaining importance, the need to find sustainable solutions and the rampant availability of sharing platforms, the dynamics of this sector is witnessing a paradigm shift. A host of startups is colonizing every niche of what seems to be the new architecture: shared and self-driven electric vehicles. Old incumbents and emerging startups are interacting to control key technologies and the user interfaces of the future. The mechanical machine is being converted into a computer. The connected car is creating a new ecosystem for entrepreneurial opportunities. This study analyzes a set of 156 venture-backed startups: the nature of the firms, their founders' profiles, their origins, their technological capabilities, and their investors. Our findings and conclusions are: (1) a phase of instability and vibrancy is beginning wherein multiple emerging firms compete to impose their standards, (2) the competitive battle is conducted in the digital arena, (3) disruption is led by outsiders with entrepreneurial experience and deep knowledge of digital technologies, and (4) a final winning dominant design may emerge. Entrepreneurial outsiders and outsiders coming from consumer electronics, electrical companies, and/or digital platforms have a window of opportunity to enter this new market.