個案總覽

Even in an age of relentless self-promotion, some extremely capable professionals prefer to avoid the spotlight. "Invisibles" work in fields ranging from engineering to interpreting to perfumery, but they have three things in common: They are ambivalent about recognition, seeing any time spent courting fame as time taken away from the work at hand. They are meticulous. And they savor responsibility, viewing even high pressure as an honor and a source of fascination. Something else unites Invisibles: They represent a management challenge. The usual carrots don't motivate them; however, managers can take several steps to ensure their satisfaction. Leaders should recognize who their Invisibles are; decide if they want more Invisibles on the team; reward them fairly, soliciting reports on their accomplishments; make the work more intrinsically interesting; and talk to the Invisibles about what works best for them. These actions are well worth taking, as Invisibles not only bring exceptional levels of achievement to an organization but quietly improve the work of those around them, elevating performance and tone across the board.

Over the past five years, there's been an explosion of interest in purpose-driven leadership. Academics, business experts, and even doctors make the case that purpose is a key to exceptional leadership and the pathway to greater well-being. Despite this growing understanding, however, a big challenge remains. Few leaders have a strong sense of their own individual purpose, the authors' research and experience show, and even fewer can distill their purpose into a concrete statement or have a clear plan for translating purpose into action. As a result, they limit their aspirations and often fail to achieve their most ambitious professional and personal goals. In this article, the authors present a step-by-step framework that leaders can use to identify their purpose and develop an impact plan to achieve concrete results. Effective purpose-to-impact plans use language that is uniquely meaningful to the individual, rather than business jargon. They focus on future, big-picture aspirations and work backward with increasing specificity. And they emphasize the individual's strengths and encourage a holistic view on work and family.

Small and midsize companies that want to expand abroad often face a daunting task: finding the sweet spot between multinationals, with their extensive resources and economies of scale, and the smaller players in the foreign markets, which have an intimate understanding of local conditions. The more than 75 Israeli companies that have transformed themselves into global players in the past four decades prove that it can be done. Their approach: Focus on countries and regions that offer an opportunity that multinationals don't find attractive and local companies can't adequately address, and then penetrate this middle ground in ways that won't immediately trigger a response. Given the size of their home market and their limited opportunities in the Middle East, Israeli companies have not had many other options for pursuing growth. The stories of three Israeli companies--Netafim, Teva Pharmaceutical, and Amdocs--illustrate tactics for seizing the middle ground: Evade the giants, disguise yourself as a local, and focus on weak spots.

As we increasingly work with colleagues and clients who come from all parts of the world, it is vital to understand how cultural differences affect business. Yet too often we rely on cliches and stereotypes that lead us to false assumptions. To help managers negotiate the complexity of an international work team, INSEAD professor Erin Meyer has developed a tool called the Culture Map, which plots the positions of numerous nationalities along eight behavior scales: Communicating, Evaluating, Persuading, Leading, Deciding, Trusting, Disagreeing, and Scheduling. Meyer suggests that comparing the relative positions of different nationalities along these scales can help us decode how culture influences workplace dynamics. She adds four important rules: (1) Don't underestimate the challenge. Management and work styles stem from lifelong habits that can be hard to change. (2) Apply multiple perspectives. Be aware of your own expectations and behaviors, but also consider how members of other cultures perceive you and fellow teammates. (3) Find the positive in other approaches. The differences that people of varied backgrounds bring to a work group can be great assets. (4) Continually adjust your position. Be prepared to keep adapting your behavior to meld with the styles of your colleagues.

The eminent restaurateur, who has won 19 Michelin stars, talks about how he supervises his chefs and develops his staff.

Mullenweg founded Automattic, the company behind WordPress, in 2005, and began hiring in the traditional way: using resume screening, reference checks, and interviews. He focused on the experience candidates had and paid special attention to what other start-ups they'd worked for. He and his colleagues invested a lot of energy in the process and believed that they were being as rigorous as they could. But when some hires didn't work out, they began to examine their approach in light of Automattic's unconventional philosophy: Work where you want and when you want; you'll be measured by outputs, not by time spent at a desk in an office. They realized that being well-spoken or charming in an interview often had little bearing on how a candidate would perform the job in question. So they introduced tryouts. After an initial screening, promising candidates are required to work with the company for three to eight weeks (with pay), performing real tasks that are closely related to the jobs they're applying for, and working alongside the people who will be their colleagues if they're hired. They can size up the company as it evaluates and provides feedback to them, benefiting all concerned.

Most people expend a lot of energy at work attempting to hide their inadequacies from colleagues. The authors believe that this is the single biggest cause of wasted resources in nearly every company today. When they went in search of firms where people see their mistakes not as vulnerabilities but as prime opportunities for growth, they found only a handful. Two stood out: Bridgewater Associates, an East Coast investment firm, and the Decurion Corporation, a West Coast real estate manager, cinema operator, and senior living center owner. Both are committed to developing every one of their people by weaving personal growth into daily work--and both are highly successful businesses. The authors spent hundreds of hours observing their practices and interviewing employees at all levels. What they saw was people working together, in meetings, in one-on-one sessions, and in the course of their everyday work to get at the root causes of problems and devise more-productive ways of doing things. Many companies conduct root cause analysis but stop short of crossing into an employee's interior world, where so many problems begin--in, for example, a tendency to avoid confrontation, to act before thinking things through, to be overly aggressive if one's ideas are criticized, and other counterproductive thinking and behavior. At Decurion and Bridgewater, everyone from the CEOs on down to the teenaged ushers work on identifying and overcoming these patterns as part of doing their jobs well.

As the planet warms, storms and floods are becoming wilder--killing thousands, disrupting supply chains and power grids, and causing billions of dollars in damage. Meanwhile, supplies of all kinds of resources are dwindling, and demand is rising. These two megachallenges--extreme weather and resource scarcity--could have an unprecedented impact on corporate profits and global prosperity, warns Winston. To manage these threats, companies must do what he calls "the big pivot." The big pivot represents a radical change in strategy, operations, and mind-set. Instead of focusing first on short-term earnings and treating environmental challenges as niche issues, firms must prioritize tackling the world's big problems and use the tools of capitalism to do so profitably. That means taking new approaches to vision, valuation, and collaboration: Companies must set long-term goals based on science and pursue innovations that seem heretical (dyes that don't need water, say, or services that replace products). They'll need new ROI tools that factor in unpriced costs and benefits. And they'll have to work with other organizations, including competitors, to reduce resource dependency (for instance, sharing methods for reducing energy use). By making these moves, firms will increase their resilience to volatile resource prices, electrical outages, and shifts in customer needs. They will improve business performance while advancing the common good.

As the CFO of UPS--and a founding member of its sustainability steering committee--Kuehn wrestled with the question of where and how to most effectively direct the company's resources. The approach he developed is rooted in two beliefs: Companies have a responsibility to contribute to society and the environment, and every investment a company makes should return value to the business. These beliefs don't have to be at odds, he writes, although they often mean that sustainability programs must be subjected to alternative financial evaluation models. In fact, the programs with the most impact not only align with companies' strategies but move in tandem with those companies' activities. UPS's breakthrough came when it recognized that efficiency would be greatest in any initiative where momentum existed and where the company was positioned to make a pivotal or tipping-point difference. To guide its sustainability choices and investments, UPS has implemented a clear process of (1) assessing its strengths; (2) choosing its spots; (3) finding momentum; (4) building productive partnerships; and (5) convening other sources of strength. This approach avoids missteps such as executive pet projects and directing the volunteerism of employees to tasks at which they are not actually good. Kuehn draws lessons from UPS's own experience and from that of others, including Campbell Soup, Pfizer, and Marks and Spencer.

Addressing global sustainability challenges--including climate change, resource depletion, and ecosystem loss--is beyond the individual capabilities of even the largest companies. To tackle these threats, and unleash new value, companies and other stakeholders must collaborate in new ways that treat fragile and complex ecosystems as a whole. In this article, the authors draw on cases including the Latin American Water Funds Partnership, the Sustainable Apparel Coalition (led by Nike, Patagonia, and Walmart), and Action to Accelerate Recycling (a partnership between Alcoa, consumer packaged goods companies, and local governments, among others) to describe four new collaboration models that create shared value and address environmental protection across the value stream. Optimal collaborations focus on improving either business processes or outcomes. They start with a small group of key organizations, bring in project management expertise, link self-interest to shared interest, encourage productive competition, create quick wins, and, above all, build and maintain trust.

Climate change presents clear and pressing threats to business--materials and product shortages, price volatility, legal bans or consumer backlash, and damaged transportation infrastructure, to name just a few. But there are opportunities as well. Lowitt, a consultant in the sustainability field, has developed a series of detailed checklists that will help smart managers reduce operational, regulatory, and reputational risk while finding new ways to cut costs, improve performance, enhance customer relationships, and otherwise increase competitiveness. The checklist recommendations, tested and refined through Lowitt's research into and work with firms including Coca-Cola, GE, and Owens Corning, cover four broad areas in the product life cycle: sourcing, manufacturing, distribution, and consumption. Actions range from educating and incentivizing employees to use climate change-conscious behavior to measuring and reporting key metrics to deter- mining when alternative materials, methods, sites, or contract partners may be called for. Like any such tool, the checklists don't provide a one-size-fits-all plan. Rather, they equip executives to customize their strategies according to factors such as their goods and services, risk tolerance, customer needs, and reliance on third parties throughout the value chain.

The value of many products and services rises or falls with the number of customers using them; the fewer fax machines in use, the less important it is to have one. These network effects influence consumer decisions and affect companies' ability to compete. Strategists have developed some well-known rules for navigating business environments with network effects. "Move first" is one, and "get big fast" is another. In a study of dozens of companies, however, the authors found that quite often the conventional wisdom was dead wrong. And when the rules failed, the reason was always the same: Companies trip up when they try to attract large volumes of customers without understanding (1) the strength of mutual attraction among various customer groups and (2) the extent of asymmetric attraction among them. Looking at examples such as TripAdvisor, Wikipedia, and the New York Times, the authors offer strategies for competing in markets with network effects. New entrants should focus on customer groups that they are uniquely positioned to serve or appeal to the most attractive customers in a market. Incumbents pursuing growth strategies in adjacent markets or new geographies should consider how similar the needs of new customers are to those of existing customers. Offering complements also allows incumbents to reach additional customer groups.

In his work as an executive coach, psychotherapist Kets de Vries sometimes comes across bosses with mental demons. The four kinds he encounters most frequently are pathological narcissists, who are selfish and entitled, have grandiose fantasies, and pursue power at all costs; manic-depressives, who can leave a trail of emotional blazes behind them; passive-aggressives, who shy away from confrontation but are obstructive and under-handed; and the emotionally disconnected--literal-minded people who cannot describe or even recognize their feelings. Left unchecked, these personalities can warp the interactions, plans, and systems of entire organizations. But with appropriate coaching, toxic bosses can learn to manage their conditions and become effective mentors and leaders. This article describes how to recognize each pathology and, step by step, guide people who suffer from it toward healthier and more-productive interactions.

Manufacturers in developed countries can no longer rely on lean management practices to stay profitable. They face increasing competition from plants in large emerging economies that are able to produce on a large scale at a lower cost, while still providing high quality. The way forward, the authors suggest, can be glimpsed from analyzing past winners of Europe's annual Industrial Excellence Award. Those companies have succeeded by using one or more of these strategies: (1) Leveraging data flows to integrate closely with supply chain partners. Germany's Schmitz Cargobull, for example, has become a leading trailer manufacturer by using sophisticated information technology to help customers monitor their vehicles. (2) Creating value downstream in other parts of the supply chain. One example is Markem-Imaje, a maker of industrial printers for coding products; the company adds value for customers by offering a variety of ancillary services. (3) Collaboratively designing manufacturing processes that can rapidly evolve to meet customers' needs. A prime example is ASML, which works closely with customers and suppliers to make innovations in production technology for the semiconductor industry. (4) Specializing in customized products. Focusing on small runs of custom-designed products has been an effective strategy for companies like BuS Elektronik and the Daimler Group's Smart car division.

In some industries, a weak labor market has left candidates with fewer options and less leverage, and employers better positioned to dictate terms. Those who are unemployed, or whose current job seems shaky, have seen their bargaining power further reduced. But the complexity of the job market creates opportunities for people to negotiate the terms and conditions of employment. Negotiation matters most when there is a broad range of potential outcomes. There are 15 rules for negotiating a job offer. One is "don't underestimate the importance of likeability," which means managing inevitable tensions in negotiation, being persistent without being a nuisance, and understanding how other people perceive your approach. Another rule is "make it clear they can get you." Indicate that you're serious about working for a potential employer, and don't discourage them from trying to win you by suggesting you have too many better options. You should also "be prepared for tough questions," like Are we your top choice? Don't lie or try too hard to please, lest you lose your leverage. And "consider the whole deal," including the job's perks, location, opportunities for growth, and flexibility in work hours-not just the salary. These and other guidelines can help you attain the terms and conditions of employment you want.

The 73-year-old Zandra Rhodes became famous in the 1970s, had to close up shop in the 1990s, and is now enjoying a renaissance. In this interview with senior editor Alison Beard, she talks about working while she travels, how she faces setbacks, and her opinion of the fashion industry today.

Since the 1970s, the authors have conducted six customer satisfaction surveys patterned after a baseline survey by the U.S. Office of Consumer Affairs. Their latest survey found that: •The explosion of online social networking and other communication tools has raised the stakes in the area of customer satisfaction. •The intensity of negative reactions seems to be increasing. •In addressing complaints, companies are failing in their efforts to create one-stop services with technology and people dedicated to resolving customer problems. So, what can companies do to improve the level of customer satisfaction? The authors identify five areas of focus. 1. Encourage unhappy customers to complain, but be prepared to resolve the complaints. Today'unhappy customers expect businesses to handle customer service flawlessly (even if it is outsourced to a third party). 2. Understand what results your investments in customer service will produce. Since the 1970s, companies have invested billions of dollars in upgraded corporate complaint-handling practices. Only 20% of recent complainants were "completely satisfied"with the results of their complaint (compared to 23% in 1976). 3. Recognize that technology has limits -and that some customers want to interact directly with a person. Only 6% of today's complainants consider the Internet their primary channel for complaining. The authors say that online communication channels might be utilized more effectively to steer customers to live complaint handlers rather than pursuing totally automated solutions. 4. Be aware that customers may be even more influenced by positive online word of mouth than by negative word of mouth. By a margin of 46% to 19%, prospective buyers cited positive posts more often than negative comments as being most influential on their future purchases.

Is customer satisfaction worth the cost? To find out, the authors investigated the relationship between customer satisfaction and business outcomes, gathering data from more than 100,000 consumers covering more than 300 brands. Although high customer satisfaction ratings are typically treated by managers as being universally good for business, the authors'findings indicate that the benefits are not nearly so clear-cut. There is a downside to continuously devoting resources to raise customer satisfaction levels. Managers are rarely able to accurately quantify the cost associated with increasing customer satisfaction scores (for example, from 8.7 to 9.1 on a 10-point scale), nor are they able to determine precisely what such an increase is actually worth. It turns out the return on these investments is often trivial or even negative. Knowing a customer's satisfaction level tells you little about how he or she will divide his or her spending among the different brands used. As a result, changes in customer satisfaction levels are unlikely to have a meaningful impact on the share of category spending customers allocate with your brand. Why? Single-brand loyalty, which was common in our parents'and grandparents'generations, has been replaced with loyalty to multiple brands in a category in many sectors. Because of this divided loyalty, more customers partially defect (in other words, they give more of their business to a competitor) than completely defect from a business or brand. As a result, improving customers'share of spending with your brand tends to represent a far greater opportunity than efforts to improve customer retention. kThe measure that really matters, according to the authors, isn't your percentage of delighted customers or promoters. What matters is the relative "rank"that your brand's satisfaction level represents vis-àvis your competitors.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Executives typically think about productivity as something to be maximized. In service businesses, that means that companies often devote a lot of attention to designing automated processes that reduce their need for people -typically their most expensive resource. But in service businesses, increased productivity does not always lead to increased profitability. The authors analyzed data from more than 700 U.S. companies in service industries in 2002 and 2007. Their analysis suggested that, for a given level of technology, there is an inverted U relationship between productivity and profitability in service companies. In other words, service companies become less profitable if they are either too productive or not productive enough. However, because technology advances over time, the optimal productivity level increases over time. The authors found that several factors cause the optimal productivity level to be higher or lower. The optimal productivity level is not set in stone. As technology advances, the optimal productivity level increases. Online travel reservation systems offer an example. Advances in online technology enabled online travel service Expedia Inc. to increase its productivity by 15% from 2005 to 2010, with no damage to customer satisfaction. The authors argue that productivity in a service business should be treated as a strategic decision variable that depends on the business and the technology in question. One key question is the relative importance of customer satisfaction to the business model. When circumstances encourage the provision of better service quality (comparatively high profit margin, high price, low market concentration and low wages), companies should emphasize customer satisfaction more; when the opposite factors are present (high market concentration, high wages, low margin and low price), they can stress service productivity.

The authors' research suggests that understanding the underlying dynamics of project status reporting can help limit the chances of nasty surprises. In particular, they identify five "inconvenient truths" about project status reporting: 1. Executives can't rely on project staff and other employees to accurately report project status information and to speak up when they see problems. Many employees have a tendency to put a positive spin on anything they report to senior management. When the organizational climate is not receptive to bad news, truthful reporting can be inhibited 2. A variety of reasons can cause people to misreport about project status. Executives tend to attribute misreporting to poor ethical behavior on the employee's part. In fact, employees misreport for a variety of reasons; individual traits, work climate and cultural norms all can play a role. 3. An aggressive audit team can't counter the effects of project status misreporting and withholding of information by project staff. Executives may conclude that the best way to address the problem of misreporting is to rely on auditors to make sure that project status reports are accurate. However, once auditors are added to the mix, negative organizational dynamics can lead to a dysfunctional cycle that results in even less openness. 4. Putting a senior executive in charge of a project may increase misreporting. Although having a senior executive as a project sponsor often proves wise politically and can help in securing resources for a project, the involvement of senior leaders does not make it any easier to track project status.