個案總覽

Back when the author was the CEO of Virgin Mobile, he accepted a challenge to live like a homeless person for 24 hours in New York City--with no money or credit card, no cell phone, just the clothes on his back. A few years later, when he was head of a division at American Express, he joined his leadership team in a variation on that experiment: They would spend an entire day trying to pay bills and transfer money the way people without bank accounts or credit cards have to. Those experiences increased his empathy for less-affluent people and his awareness of how difficult it is for them to manage and move money--and energized PayPal's new strategy after Schulman joined the company as CEO, in 2014. That strategy was to be a "customer champion" company and reorganize into just two groups: merchants and consumers. For merchants, PayPal would evolve its technology platform to enable more-intimate relationships with customers using mobile and software. For consumers, it would empower underserved citizens throughout the world to make more-secure, faster, easier, and less-expensive financial transactions. Within those two segments, the company has created or acquired a suite of products that target different markets, including Venmo for Millennials, Xoom for international digital payments, and PayPal Working Capital, which lends money to small businesses.

Global players in search of double-digit growth are running out of opportunities. Emerging-market giants such as Brazil, Russia, and China are experiencing an economic slowdown. They are increasingly expensive as a base for operations, and it's harder to export to and import from these countries than it used to be. As a result, multinationals are paying more attention to low-income, high-risk countries both as new markets for selling goods and services and as platforms from which to export them elsewhere. Even in industries where competition is skewed by government manipulation, foreign players that target the right sectors with the right strategies can prosper. The first step in identifying opportunities in a frontier economy is to assess the competitive environment of its industries along two dimensions: (1) the degree to which profitability is determined by competition between firms and not by government policies and actions and (2) whether the industry is focused primarily on domestic sales or on exports. Industries will fall into one of four categories. Each category is associated with a distinct strategy, ranging from the conventional (leverage existing capabilities, adapt to local tastes) to the unfamiliar (make yourself indispensable to powerful local players). In this article, the authors offer companies a framework to help figure out whether and where to play and how to win in the spaces in which they choose to compete.

When it comes to selecting a new CEO, judgment really matters. The choice may devastate a company or create enormous value. In his work advising companies, Charan has observed that some board members are especially great at succession decisions. In this article he describes how they go about picking the right candidate. Directors who excel at selection zero in on the two or three distinct capabilities that a CEO will need to thrive at the firm in question. (Charan calls this the "pivot" because the succession decision turns on it.) For example, when IBM was conducting a CEO search in 1993, many thought it should hire a technologist, but two directors saw that what the company really needed was an executive with business acumen, a customer orientation, and execution skills. At their urging, the board brought in Lou Gerstner, who quickly turned IBM's $8 billion loss into a $3 billion profit. Astute directors also keep an open mind about where the best candidate will come from; they shed assumptions about insiders and outsiders and may even consider a leader a few levels below the CEO. They go deep to understand which person is the best fit with the pivot, doing their own due diligence. Finally, they allow for the imperfections in the chosen candidate, figuring out which gaps can be filled by other executives or corrected with coaching.

A startling percentage of new CEOs fail within their first 18 months, according to many estimates--whether they come from outside or are promoted from within. Sometimes the new leader makes poor strategic moves, and sometimes the board makes an imperfect choice, overestimating a candidate's abilities or hiring someone whose skill set doesn't fit the context. But when succession fails, the responsibility is almost always shared. New leaders may be unable to read the political situation clearly or achieve the cultural changes their strategic and operational agendas require. Boards and key executives may not grasp the complex nature of CEO succession or consider the likely political and cultural challenges the new leader will face. A CEO transition is not the same as onboarding, which is a formal, short-term, agenda-driven orientation program of briefings and meetings. It is a longer process of interactions both formal and informal, planned and impromptu; it should begin when the board's choice accepts the position and last for months after he or she arrives. The outgoing CEO, the chief human resources officer, and the board all have key roles to play in the process, writes the author, who describes best practices for each. The article includes an interview with Mark Thompson, CEO of The New York Times Company, about his own succession process in 2012.

While every organization inevitably must replace its CEO, most firms are ill-prepared for succession. In this article, HBR senior editor Eben Harrell reviews the most salient studies of succession planning and offers context from the experts. Some key takeaways: (1) Though turnover among CEOs is rising, only 54% of boards are grooming a specific successor, and 39% have no viable internal candidate. The consequences of poor planning are serious: Companies that scramble to find replacements forgo an average of $1.8 billion in shareholder value. (2) Grooming leaders takes years but pays off: Chief executives who have gone through executive development at "CEO factories" like GE deliver superior operating performance. But directors need to get more involved. The majority don't understand the capabilities of the executives below the CEO, and only about a quarter participate in their evaluations. (3) The trend toward external hires is growing, and outsiders command higher median pay. But studies suggest that on the whole, insider CEOs deliver better returns. (4) More researchers are studying the traits of the ideal CEO. So far they're finding that younger CEOs outperform their older counterparts, that execution matters more than interpersonal strengths, and that a military background makes leaders more honest, but this line of inquiry is in its early days, and the jury is still out.

The U.S. health care system is inefficient, unreliable, and crushingly expensive. There is no shortage of proposed solutions, but central to the best of them is the idea that health care needs more competition. In other sectors, competition improves quality and efficiency, spurs innovation, and drives down costs. Health care should be no exception. Yet providers and payers continue to try to stymie competition. Many are actively pursuing consolidation, buying up market share and increasing their bargaining power. In this article, the authors argue that health care payers and providers must stop fighting the emergence of a competitive health care marketplace and make competing on value central to their strategy. All stakeholders in the health care industry--regulators, providers, insurers, employers, and patients themselves--have roles to play in creating real competition and positive change. In particular, five catalysts will accelerate progress: Put patients at the center of care, create choice, stop rewarding volume, standardize value-based methods of payment, and make data on outcomes transparent.

Online marketplaces such as eBay, Uber, and Airbnb have the potential to reduce racial, gender, and other forms of bias that affect the off-line world. And in the early days of internet commerce, the relative anonymity of transactions did make it harder for participants to discriminate. But as listings began to include photos, names, and other means of identification, bias emerged in areas ranging from labor markets to credit applications to housing--sometimes made worse by a lack of regulation, the absence of in-person interactions, and the use of automation and big data. How can companies reverse the tide? The key lies in more-intentional platform design, say the authors, who offer a framework for creating a thriving marketplace while minimizing the risk of discrimination. For starters, they say, companies must track and report on potential problems and carefully test choices that may influence the extent of discrimination. And they should thoroughly examine four design decisions, asking themselves: (1) Are we providing too much information? In many cases, the simplest, most effective change a platform can make is to withhold information such as race and gender until after a transaction has been agreed to. (2) Could we further automate the process? Features such as "instant book," allowing a buyer to sign up for a rental, say, without the seller's prior approval, can reduce discrimination while increasing convenience. (3) Can we make discrimination policies more top-of-mind? Presenting them during the actual transaction process, rather than burying them in fine print, makes them less likely to be broken. (4) Should we make our algorithms discrimination-aware? To ensure fairness, designers need to track how race or gender affects the user experience and set explicit objectives.

At least half of all employees have quit a job at some point because of their supervisor. People complain of bosses who bully them, micromanage, steal credit, hoard information, and otherwise make them unhappy--which threatens their productivity and the organization's success. But don't despair if you don't get along with your boss. This article lays out steps you can take to improve the situation: (1) Practice empathy. Behavioral research and neuroscience suggest that being mindful of the pressures on your boss and responding empathetically can trigger reciprocal support. (2) Examine your role. Consider how you might be contributing to a negative dynamic, and seek training or advice to help you change your behavior. (3) Talk to your boss. Start by asking how you can improve your performance and the relationship. If that isn't fruitful, launch a frank conversation about the dysfunction in your interactions. (4) Go to HR. As a last resort--and only if you have evidence to show that your boss is unfit--file a formal complaint. (5) Leave. If you see no potential for change, it's probably time to start job hunting.

One of the founding members of the Beach Boys discusses innovation, collaboration, and overcoming obstacles ranging from stage fright to mental illness.

In the 1980s and 90s, funds that attacked publicly-traded companies were known as 'corporate raiders', and their attacks were brutish. Fearing reputational risk, most asset managers steared clear of such nasty attacks. Today, these funds are called 'activists', and they have gained respectability, as their campaigns are often based on an alternative view of corporate strategy-developed with significant investments of time, talent and money. As a result, fund managers are now willing to listen, and senior executives need to accept the reality of this 'golden age of activism', where trillions of dollars-yes, trillions-are being mobilized to improve the performance of publicly-traded companies. The author presents three new realities that every director and executive must embrace to thrive in the 'new normal'.

Few people would argue that we live in a time of growing inequality and uncertainty. Societies are being challenged in ways we have not seen for decades-with nationalistic rhetoric and agendas from the far right and a deep distrust of business, globalization and technology from the far left. Many worry that such a polarization of public opinion and policy making could introduce new risks that deter investment-which is already far too low, judging by current interest rates-and undermine future prosperity. The authors, from The Boston Consulting Group, present a 'leadership agenda for shaping the future', consisting of six principles.

As evidence mounts that sustainability-related initiatives are key to a company's success over time, a growing number of investors are now paying close attention to environmental, social and governance ('ESG') metrics. That according to the authors, whose 2016 Global Executive Study showed that for a decisive majority of investors -more than 70 per cent of those surveyed- sustainability has become central to their investment decisions. With wide ranging examples from GE to Volkswagen to Mitsubishi, they show how leading companies are rising to the challenge.

Just because your workplace appears civil and quiet doesn't mean it is devoid of conflict. Across industries, teams composed of high-performing individuals are naturally subject to tensions and rivalry. The author, a contributing editor at Harvard Business Review, provides evidence that most workplace disagreements stem from one of three sources: different agendas, different perceptions and different personal styles. She explains these sources in detail and provides tools for working through them.

Renowned New York University Finance Professor Baruch Lev's book, The End of Accounting, makes some very bold statements about the current state-and future-of financial reporting. Rotman School of Management Professor Partha Mohanram responds to some of Lev's more provocative statements, covering topics including: cash flow vs. earnings; the role of intangibles; accounting complexity; and the way forward.

Most leaders recognize that in today's innovation-obsessed economy, they need to look beyond their own walls and collaborate externally with other organizations in their ecosystem to create new products and solutions. While the need for collaboration has been well-documented in the business-to-consumer (B2C) context, it is less so in the business-to-business (B2B) space. The authors show that, when done right, B2B collaborative innovation can generate benefits in four distinct areas, including decreased risk and increased trust. Based on their work with leading companies like BASF, Daimler and VentureMed, they describe the four 'traps' that collaborators face, and how to surmount them.

Every solution you come up with-no matter how perfect it first appears-carries with it assumptions, leaps of faith and implicit conditions for success. If these are not recognized and attended to, they can turn out to be the Achilles heel in your great idea. So says the former creative advisor to Toyota, in a wide-ranging interview about his latest book, Winning the Brain Game. He presents and describes what he calls 'the seven fatal flaws of thinking': leaping, fixation, over-thinking, satisficing, downgrading, not-invented-here and self-censoring. Using a wide range of real-life examples-from Procter & Gamble to Xerox to Apple-he also shows how to avoid these common thinking flaws.

Increasingly, it is possible to generate financial returns alongside positive social and environmental impact. This is the promise of an emerging investment approach called 'impact investing' that is gaining the attention of pioneering investors: big institutions, foundations and high net-worth individuals are moving quickly into this new market. However, in order to succeed, the authors say, impact investing must grow beyond these pioneers and reach a broader set of investors. They show what needs to happen by walking through Everett M. Rogers' five attributes of successful innovations: relative advantage over alternatives; compatibility with the values, experiences and needs of adopters; simplicity; trialability; and visibility. If impact investing can address its barriers-to-adoption, they conclude, it will be one of the breakthrough innovations of our time.

The most critical function of every executive team is to make decisions that benefit an organization in the long term. Most of us would imagine that the more domain experts there are in a particular group, the better: their collective knowledge of risks and opportunities in a particular industry will surely lead to effective long-term decision making. The authors show that this reasoning is flawed. They describe their research, which indicates that in certain circumstances, groups that are dominated by domain experts may exhibit three harmful tendencies that actually detract from effective decision making, including over-confidence and 'cognitive entrenchment'.

Thanks to the Internet, like-minded people can now organize with ease, and as a result, more groups and organizations are demanding a voice in issues of governance. The traditional, top-down model of governance-in which a few render judgments and the masses fall in line-is increasingly being rejected, and we are seeing an exertion of influence by people who feel excluded from traditional governance structures. Exhibits A and B: the Brexit vote and the unlikely triumph of Donald Trump. The authors describe a new approach to governance called 'Catalytic Governance'. By following its five steps, leaders can better engage stakeholders, find common ground, build trust, and frame and re- frame issues-ending up with a common plan from which to take collaborative action.

New research shows that companies really are failing faster than they used to: In particular, digital companies are far more vulnerable to quick imitation than are companies that own factories, products, and supply chains. Vijay Govindarajan and Anup Srivastava, of Dartmouth's Tuck School, offer three strategies for firms looking to boost their longevity: First, companies could incorporate both technology and physical products into their business models. Second, they could strive for models that include strong network effects (think of Facebook's 1 billion users and the hassle that jumping to a rival platform would create for them, because of all the "reconnecting" they'd have to do). Third, they could increase their focus on continuous innovation--attending to the long term so that they'll still be around after the short term.