個案總覽

Internal consumption in the direct selling industry has been at the heart of many debates over the past couple of decades. In this article, we contend that internal consumption is a widespread practice at all levels of the distribution channel and not something limited to the direct selling or the multilevel marketing (MLM) retail arena. While government regulators in some countries attempt to use this practice in MLM as prima facie evidence of illegal pyramiding, the results presented here provide evidence of the widespread use of internal consumption in all aspects of retailing. Thus, to attribute internal consumption as a negative aspect solely within the direct selling marketplace shows a misplaced understanding with regard to personal use, discounts, and company recruiting efforts. At the same time, however, our research shows that discounted purchasing of product for personal use likely brings little value to the company since it does not appear to result in increased job satisfaction or organizational loyalty from either the affected employees or the customer base.

The Internet of Things (IoT), also called the Internet of Everything or the Industrial Internet, is a new technology paradigm envisioned as a global network of machines and devices capable of interacting with each other. The IoT is recognized as one of the most important areas of future technology and is gaining vast attention from a wide range of industries. This article presents five IoT technologies that are essential in the deployment of successful IoT-based products and services and discusses three IoT categories for enterprise applications used to enhance customer value. In addition, it examines the net present value method and the real option approach widely used in the justification of technology projects and illustrates how the real option approach can be applied for IoT investment. Finally, this article discusses five technical and managerial challenges.

Firms, especially those with high profit margins, are often scrutinized by regulatory authorities that suspect them of anticompetitive practices such as cartel formation. In this article I introduce a behavioral approach of competing that suggests firms with even the highest of margins are actually competing aggressively against each other, rather than colluding as the regulatory authorities might suggest. Firms using the behavioral approach can signal to antitrust authorities that their intent is not to restrain competition. Four mechanisms show this competitive orientation: (1) competitive intensity, (2) competitive complexity, (3) attack imitation, and (4) competitive action speed.

Collaborative work environments and team-based structures are commonly used across different types of organizations. Leaders increasingly need models for leading in complex intense teaming situations. To understand the team leader's role, it is important to appreciate and know the dynamics of teamwork, including how teams develop over time and the teaming elements that are important for success. By understanding the stages of team development and the dynamics occurring within a team setting, leaders can focus initiatives that are directed at certain critical moments for the team and build positive team dynamics. Team leaders should leverage the natural timelines that are part of running a project to effectively manage team dynamics to achieve high performance. Two crucial moments for the team leader are building and launching the team for a new project initiative. Following the project launch, teams start to collaborate and begin the performing and evaluating cycle toward goal accomplishment. In this article, we discuss our work with team leaders across industries to define and describe the role of a team leader, report on research focused on team dynamics and development, identify initiatives for team leaders to significantly improve the performance of intense teams, and specify strategies team leaders can use to turn around underperforming teams. We offer a new model for understanding the stages of team development and build this model to integrate important leadership tasks at each stage.

Service leaders have learned that it is not enough to attract customers who are ready and willing to experience what their organizations have to offer; they must also attract customers who are able to perform important roles in co-producing a successful service experience. This recognition has led to increasing interest regarding how organizations should manage these quasi-employees to ensure everything that must be done actually is done. Leading service organizations embrace this responsibility and have developed strategies to identify and accommodate variations in their targeted customers' capabilities. They know that client satisfaction depends upon the organization making up for deficiencies between what the customer must do to have a great service experience and what the customer actually can do. Surprisingly, there has been little systematic investigation into how organizations create and execute strategies to ensure that these deficiency gaps are filled. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that organizations that have developed systems and procedures to fill these gaps are likelier to satisfy their customers and achieve higher levels of repeat business than firms that have not. This article offers strategies for organizations that commit to bridging the customer can-do/must-do gap and thereby ensuring their customers have a successful service experience.

In today's interconnected world, a web of entities rather than predominantly a single firm coordinates a set of activities that deliver utility to mutually connected consumers, thus creating ecosystems. In this article, we suggest that in the current, ecosystem-based production and consumption environment it is important to identify a new set of factors that determines business success. We then propose that in order to develop a network-centric strategic mindset it is important to make a transition from the notion of firm-based competitive advantage to ecosystem-based nodal advantage by which products, services, or processes held by a single firm and affecting one or more ecosystems are exploited individually to improve business. To this end, we offer a new set of five forces that are likely to affect not only a node's financial profitability but also its vulnerability within its ecosystem and the survival of the ecosystem itself. Based on these forces, we recommend strategic triangulation and the formulation of policies to prevent infra-nodal substitution, increase nodal stranglehold, and improve nimbleness to accommodate ecosystemic transitions.

It is widely accepted that the role of any organizational leader involves defining and implementing winning strategies, optimizing resources, developing talent and creating enablers for higher growth and performance, while delivering results. However, it is also commonly believed that sales managers are merely in charge of driving orders and meeting quotas. This needs to change. Today’s competitive market demands that sales force leaders possess market, customer and buying behaviour knowledge, as well as process optimization expertise, internal political skills (to argue for infrastructure resources), coaching and development skills, and the ability to gain commitment from team members. Leaders must know when special incentives are required and in what mix, as well as how to optimize resource allocation. Firms should consider the following questions: Is their sales force leadership comprised of people who excel at working with others? Do their hiring practices identify the knowledge and skill sets that best allow the sales team to sync with customer interface touch points and allow the firm to attract the skills and knowledge that are the most difficult and expensive to develop? Do they proactively seek commitment on behavioural improvements from sales team members, including ones who work from home or alone in the field? Lastly, do they seek the optimal customer relationship and loyalty level?

Following Greece’s failure to repay its loan to the International Monetary Fund, it is easy to claim that the Greeks should simply pay back borrowed money. But there is never a clear answer when asking who should be responsible for a nation’s unmanageable debt, and the question is far more complex when it involves a member of the eurozone. Greece lacks its own currency to devalue to gain economic relief, and the nation’s debt problem cannot be solved by issuing more debt with conditions that kill economic growth. Arguably there has never been a bailout designed to bail out the Greeks. The aid issued to date has been more about buying time to play “musical bondholders.” <br><br> When it comes to sovereign debt, few countries ever pay back principal in the international financial system today. Yet if the Greeks manage to set a precedent that other troubled E.U. countries try to follow, then the fallout could sink the euro and send the global economy into turmoil. Nevertheless, the risks to the global financial sector have been reduced following the bailout deal with the European Union. Investors need to understand that nobody knows what is going to happen, and yet market buying opportunities could arise. Ultimately, when thinking of Greece, it helps to take note of the fact that spending money you don’t have eventually comes back to haunt you.

Negotiation skills benefit everyone in a management position — not just sales and procurement executives. While a lot of training is indeed dedicated to these functions, negotiation happens in the daily lives of all people. Some employees possess a natural talent for deal making, but training can still make them better at leadership, collaboration and big-picture thinking. Being an effective negotiator is not about shouting demands and putting on a good poker face. It requires an understanding of negotiation techniques, developed interpersonal skills and a commitment to developing a knowledge-driven negotiation strategy. To reach agreements that can be implemented successfully, negotiators must be prepared. Long before anyone comes to the negotiating table, they should know their goals, their alternatives, and what they may be willing to give up to meet their objectives. They must also understand the other side’s position and objectives and anticipate ways in which these can be met. In the corporate world, negotiation is typically about creating value by aligning resources, and non-monetary issues often prove to be key in negotiating acceptable outcomes. Negotiation training seeks to make professionals better at their jobs by helping them develop the ability to lead a collaborative process that aims to achieve the best outcome for everyone while developing high-quality relationships.

Culture has long been considered marginal to the functional areas of business, but in the digital age culture is the new corporate interface. This article addresses common misconceptions about culture and suggests that we view it as information, while assuming that information makes and destroys communities. Firms must devise cultural strategies that allow them to deal with the communities that make up their ecosystem and take advantage of the digital age. Culture and trade have always gone hand in hand, and firms like Google, Facebook and Amazon have anticipated and capitalized on changes that have turned culture — information that affects our behaviour — into the most decisive asset for business. Nowadays many human activities occur almost entirely in digital format. Google, Facebook and Amazon all share the capacity to create communities where people make payments within a closed, secure environment. To successfully transition into a culture-oriented company, firms should remember that culture is a company’s interface with stakeholders that must be dealt with in terms of information and behaviours. Firms must focus both on individuals that produce and consume information, and also community members who share information and respond to a flock dynamic. Converting relevant business data into meta-information about the behaviour of individuals and groups is fundamental to aligning the organization with its objectives and processes.

For years "risk management" has been characterized chiefly by caution--preventing the business from doing things that would create exposure. Although this has undoubtedly saved dollars and headaches, it's also led to slower growth, lower margins, and less innovation. New research from CEB shows that the best companies are rethinking their approach. Instead of simply trying to eliminate or reduce risk, managers are implementing three best practices: striking a balance between risk and reward; focusing on decisions, not process; and making employees the first line of defense. This reprint contains three additional Idea Watch articles. "First, the Pain" shows that for many companies that refocus their structures on customer segments rather than products, gains materialize only after two or three years of turmoil and losses. "For Founders, Preparation Trumps Passion" describes a series of studies revealing that although entrepreneurs see their enthusiasm as key to success, results depend much more on how well they have developed their ideas. "Strong Brands, Weak Pay" discusses new research showing that companies with well-known brands pay their top executives significantly less, suggesting that HR departments could leverage brand strength as they do other benefits when recruiting employees and negotiating pay.

The ability to look things up on the internet is giving us a false impression about what we actually know.

Hand signals from a 16th-century mathematics textbook and exchange-rate "currents" from 18th-century Italian ports were just two of the innovations that lubricated the gears of preindustrial European commerce.

When the author became involved with Tommy Hilfiger, as a partner in the company that had the license to sell Hilfiger products in Europe, the brand was one of fashion's hottest. Overall sales had more than doubled from 1997 to 2000. But that came at a price, the author writes. The brand was too hot, too hyped, and grew too fast. Hilfiger products began to sell at a discount in the United States--and the company's designers started creating stuff that felt like discount clothing. Soon U.S. sales were falling every year. Meanwhile, the European division had chosen not to sell the lower-quality versions, had created its own design center and supply chain, and was increasing sales by roughly 50% a year. Gehring proposed a strategy for turning the company around--and the board countered that he should find a buyer. So he did. As the winning bidder, Apax Partners, a European private equity firm, allowed Gehring to do a dramatic restructuring and scale back the U.S. business in the short term, laying the groundwork for the brand's turnaround in less than four years.

To tame its soaring health care costs, Intel tried many popular approaches: "consumer-driven health care" offerings such as high-deductible/low-premium plans, on-site clinics, and employee wellness programs. But by 2009 Intel realized that those programs alone would not enable the company to solve the problem, because they didn't affect its root cause: the steadily rising cost of the care employees and their families were receiving. Intel projected that its health care expenditures would hit a whopping $1 billion by 2012. So the company decided to try a novel approach. As a large purchaser of health services and with expertise in quality improvement and supplier management, Intel was uniquely positioned to drive transformation in its local health care market. The company decided that it would manage the quality and cost of its health care suppliers with the same rigor it applied to its equipment suppliers, by monitoring quality and cost. It spearheaded a collaborative effort in Portland, Oregon, that included two health systems, a plan administrator, and a major government employer. So far the Portland collaborative has reduced treatment costs for certain medical conditions by 24% to 49%, improved patient satisfaction, and eliminated over 10,000 hours' worth of waste in the two health systems' business processes.

Complaints against HR, which are nothing new, have a cyclical quality. They're driven largely by the business context. When companies are struggling with labor issues, HR is seen as a valued leadership partner. When things are smoother all around, managers wonder what the function is doing for them. This is a moment of enormous opportunity for HR leaders to separate the valuable from the worthless and secure huge payoffs for their organizations. The author outlines some basic but powerful steps they can take: (1) Set the agenda. CEOs are rarely experts on workplace issues, so the HR team can show them what they should care about and why, such as layoffs, recruiting, flexible work arrangements, and performance management. (2) Focus on the here and now. This means continually identifying new challenges and designing tools to meet them. (3) Acquire business knowledge. HR needs first-rate analytic minds to help companies make sense of all their employee data. (4) Highlight financial benefits. HR departments don't usually calculate ROI for their programs, but quantifying costs and benefits turns talent decisions into business decisions. (5) Walk away from time wasters. Often programs lack impact unless top executives lead them, transforming the culture. Otherwise HR is just a booster for initiatives it can neither enforce nor measure.

Although people drive every organization's success, research shows that most CEOs undervalue their HR function and their chief human resources officer (CHRO). No wonder, then, that managing human capital is a top challenge for companies. To address it, say the authors, CEOs must redefine and elevate the CHRO role. They should spell out their expectations in a new written contract, focusing on three contributions that the CHRO, as an expert on talent (both in-house and at the competition), should be making: predicting the outcomes of strategically deploying human resources, diagnosing people-related problems that are hurting the company's performance, and prescribing actions on the people side that will create value. Administrative tasks, such as managing benefits, might be delegated to others. And the CHRO should be assessed by actions that deliver revenue, margin, brand recognition, or market share. With a new mandate from the CEO, and with appropriate business training, the CHRO can contribute to the organization just as powerfully as the CFO can. Indeed, the CEO should partner with the CHRO and the CFO in what the authors call a G3--a triumvirate to steer the company. Although reshaping the HR function could take three years or more, the authors' experience with companies such as GE and BlackRock suggests that it's well worth the effort.

This article relates how the HR team at Juniper Networks answered top management's call for a renewed focus on values and culture as a differentiator. Early on it launched a program of "trio tours" in which senior executives met with local talent at various company locations to discuss Juniper's culture. One young engineer in Bangalore pointed out that the company's forced performance rankings were demoralizing and clashed with Juniper's espoused values of authenticity and trust. Neuroscience research soon echoed that view, and in 2011 Juniper became one of the first global companies to abolish forced rankings. Developing a reputation as an innovative HR organization requires walking a fine line, the authors write. Big new ideas often arise from popular talks and articles; if you embrace too many of those, or apply them too superficially, you'll develop a reputation for fad surfing. Dig beneath the surface to the fundamental scientific research and insights, and you can set the stage for profound effect. Juniper's approach--getting the big picture, seizing on insights, applying them wisely, and ensuring their impact--has enabled this company to move from one-off programs and unconnected experiments to a system that is always evolving in exciting and consistently business-aligned ways.

Multinationals are starting to catch on to the logic of reverse innovation, in which products are designed first for consumers in low-income countries and then adapted into disruptive offerings for developed economies. But only a handful of companies have managed to do it successfully until now. In this article an MIT engineering professor and a Tuck professor of management explain why. After conducting a three-year study of reverse innovation projects, they've concluded that the main hurdle facing product developers is a mindset. Western designers, who usually create products by following time-tested methods, struggle to overcome the constraints and leverage the freedoms of emerging markets. They tend to fall into common mental traps that prevent the development of reverse innovations: matching segments to existing products, lowering price by removing features, failing to think through all the technical requirements, neglecting stakeholders, and refusing to believe products created for low-income markets could have global appeal. But companies can avoid these traps, the authors found, by adhering to five design principles. The success of several new products illustrates how. One is the Leveraged Freedom Chair, a low-cost wheelchair that can navigate rugged terrain in places with poor infrastructure; a modified version is taking Western markets by storm.

In many industries the balance of power has shifted from buyers to suppliers. Companies that have gotten into a weak position need to tackle the problem strategically, the authors argue. They should consider the following actions and implement the least risky one that is feasible for their organization: (1) Bring new value to the supplier. This is the easiest approach. Companies can provide new value in several ways--for example, by serving as a gateway to new markets or reducing the supplier's risks. (2) Change how they buy. Companies can consolidate their purchase orders, rethink purchase bundles, or decrease purchase volume. (3) Create a new supplier. This is a high-risk option, but it can transform a company's prospects. Firms have essentially two paths: They can bring in a supplier from an adjacent market or vertically integrate to become their own supplier. (4) Play hardball. As a last resort, companies can cancel current orders and future business or threaten litigation. Whatever option firms choose, they need to clearly understand the problem, work on it across functions, and think analytically and outside the box.