個案總覽

Unless we challenge long-held assumptions about how business leaders are supposed to act and where they're supposed to come from, many people who could become effective global leaders will remain invisible, warns Harvard Business School professor Hill. Instead of assuming that leaders must exhibit take-charge behavior, broaden the definition of leadership to include creating a context in which other people are willing and able to guide the organization. And instead of looking for the next generation of global leaders in huge Western corporations and elite business schools, expand the search to developing countries. In this conversation with HBR senior editor Paul Hemp, Hill describes the changing nature of leadership and what we can learn from parts of the world where people have not, until recently, had opportunities to become globally savvy executives. In South Africa, for instance, the African National Congress has provided rigorous leadership preparation for many black executives. Hill has also observed two approaches - in developed and developing economies alike - that she believes will be necessary in an increasingly complex business environment. The first, leading from behind, involves letting people hand off the reins to one another, depending on their strengths, as situations change. The second, leadership as collective genius, calls for both unleashing and harnessing individuals' collective talents, particularly to spur innovation. Through her descriptions of these approaches in such companies as Sekunjalo Investments, HCL Technologies, and IBM, Hill highlights the challenges of finding and preparing people who can lead by stepping back and letting others come forward to make their own judgments and take risks.

Unless you're a hermit, you can't avoid relationships. And your professional career certainly won't go anywhere if you don't know how to build strong, positive connections. Leaders need to connect deeply with followers if they hope to engage and inspire them. Despite the importance of interpersonal dynamics in the workplace, solid research on the topic is only now beginning to emerge--and psychologist John M. Gottman, executive director of the Relationship Research Institute, is leading the way. His research shows that how we behave at work is closely related to how we behave at home. Few people understand personal relationships better than Gottman, who has studied thousands of married couples for the past 35 years. He and his colleagues use video cameras, heart monitors, and other biofeedback equipment to measure what goes on when couples experience moments of either conflict or closeness. By mathematically analyzing the data, Gottman has provided hard scientific evidence for what makes good relationships. In this interview with HBR senior editor Diane Coutu, Gottman emphasizes that successful couples look for ways to accentuate the positive: They try to say yes as often as possible. Even thriving relationships, however, still have room for conflict. Individuals embrace it as a way to work through essential personality differences. Gottman also points out that good relationships aren't about clear communication--they're about small moments of attachment and intimacy. Still, he warns, too much of a good thing can be a menace in the workplace, where simple friendships can spill over into emotional affairs.

A well told story's power to captivate and inspire people has been recognized for thousands of years. Peter Guber is in the business of creating compelling stories: He has headed several entertainment companies--including Sony Pictures, PolyGram, and Columbia Pictures--and produced Rain Man, Batman, and The Color Purple, among many other movies. In this article, he offers a method for effectively exercising that power. For a story to enrapture its listeners, says Guber, it must be true to the teller, embodying his or her deepest values and conveying them with candor; true to the audience, delivering on the promise that it will be worth people's time by acknowledging listeners' needs and involving them in the narrative; true to the moment, appropriately matching the context--whether it's an address to 2,000 customers or a chat with a colleague over drinks--yet flexible enough to allow for improvisation; and true to the mission, conveying the teller's passion for the worthy endeavor that the story illustrates and enlisting support for it. In this article, Guber's advice--distilled not only from his years in the entertainment industry but also from an intense discussion over dinner one evening with storytelling experts from various walks of life--is illustrated with numerous examples of effective storytelling from business and elsewhere. Perhaps the most startling is a colorful anecdote about how Guber's own impromptu use of storytelling, while standing on the deck of a ship in Havana harbor, won Fidel Castro's grudging support for a film project.

China and India are burying the hatchet after four-plus decades of hostility. A few companies from both nations have been quick to gain competitive advantages by viewing the two as symbiotic. If Western corporations fail to do the same, they will lose their competitive edge--and not just in China and India but globally. The trouble is, most companies and consultants refuse to believe that the planet's most populous nations can mend fences. Not only do the neighbors annoy each other with their foreign policies, but they're also vying to dominate Asia. Moreover, the world's fastest-growing economies are archrivals for raw materials, technologies, capital, and overseas markets. Still, China and India are learning to cooperate, for three reasons. First, these ancient civilizations may have been at odds since 1962, but for 2,000 years before that, they enjoyed close economic, cultural, and religious ties. Second, neighbors trade more than non-neighbors do, research suggests. Third, China and India have evolved in very different ways since their economies opened up, reducing the competitiveness between them and enhancing the complementarities. Some companies have already developed strategies that make use of both countries' capabilities. India's Mahindra & Mahindra developed a tractor domestically but manufactures it in China. China's Huawei has recruited 1,500 engineers in India to develop software for its telecommunications products. Even the countries' state-owned oil companies, including Sinopec and ONGC, have teamed up to hunt for oil together. Multinational companies usually find that tapping synergies across countries is difficult. At least two American corporations, GE and Microsoft, have effectively combined their China and India strategies, allowing them to stay ahead of global rivals.

Companies often begin their search for great ideas either by encouraging wild, outside-the-box thinking or by conducting quantitative analysis of existing market and financial data and customer opinions. Those approaches can produce middling ideas at best, say Coyne, founder of an executive-counseling firm in Atlanta, and Clifford and Dye, strategy experts at McKinsey. The problem with the first method is that few people are very good at unstructured, abstract brainstorming. The problems with the second are that databases are usually compiled to describe current--not future--offerings, and customers rarely can tell you whether they need or want a product if they've never seen it. The secret to getting your organization to regularly generate lots of good ideas, and occasionally some great ones, is deceptively simple: First, create new boxes for people to think within so that they don't get lost in the cosmos and they have a basis for offering ideas and knowing whether they're making progress in the brainstorming session. Second, redesign ideation processes to remove obstacles that interfere with the flow of ideas--such as most people's aversion to speaking in groups larger than ten. This article offers a tested approach that poses concrete questions. For example, what do Rollerblades, Haagen-Dazs ice cream, and Spider-Man movies have in common? The answer: Each is something that adults loved as children and that was reproduced in an expensive form for grown-ups. Asking brainstorming participants to ponder how their childhood passions could be recast as adult offerings might generate some fabulous ideas for new products or services.

Countless studies, workshops, and books have focused on leaders--the charismatic ones, the retiring ones, even the crooked ones. Virtually no literature exists about followers, however, and the little that can be found tends to depict subordinates as an amorphous group or explain their behavior in the context of leaders' development. Some works even fail to sufficiently distinguish among varying types of followers--barely registering the fact that those who tag along mindlessly are a breed apart from those who are deeply devoted and consciously, actively involved. These distinctions have critical implications for the way leaders should lead and managers should manage, according to Kellerman, a professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. Additionally, today's followers are influenced by a range of cultural and technological changes that have affected what they want and how they view and communicate with their ostensible leaders. In this article, Kellerman explores the evolving dynamic between leaders and subordinates and offers a typology that managers can use to determine and appreciate how their followers are different from one another. Using the level of engagement with a leader or group as a defining factor, the author segments followers into five types: Isolates are completely detached, they passively support the status quo with their inaction. Bystanders are free riders who are somewhat detached, depending on their self-interests. Participants are engaged enough to invest some of their own time and money to make an impact. Activists are very much engaged, heavily invested in people and process, and eager to demonstrate their support or opposition. And diehards are so engaged they're willing to go down with the ship--or throw the captain overboard.

Pursuing a merger or acquisition is inherently difficult. Things get even harder when executives are blind to their own faulty assumptions, say Lovallo--a professor at the University of Western Australia Business School and a senior adviser to McKinsey--and three of his McKinsey colleagues. The authors identify biases that can surface at each step of the M&A process and provide practical tips for rising above them--an approach they call targeted debiasing. During the preliminary due-diligence stage, biases abound. To overcome the confirmation bias, aggressively seek evidence that challenges your initial hypothesis about a deal. The best medicine for overconfidence in identifying revenue and cost synergies is to learn from precedents at your firm and others. Avoiding underestimation of cultural differences between your company and the target requires understanding the differences in the ways people interact at each organization. Misjudging the time and resources you need is at the core of the planning fallacy, which you can elude by formally identifying best practices and continually revisiting them. Finally, dilute conflict of interest by soliciting dispassionate external expertise. The bidding phase is vulnerable to the winner's curse, a phenomenon common in auctions. To avoid paying too much for a target, actively generate alternatives to the deal under consideration and develop a set of bidding cutoff rules. After offering an initial bid, deal makers are susceptible to anchoring, whereby they remain attached to their original price estimate, and to the sunk cost fallacy that they've invested too much to stop now. The secret to overcoming both: Use your newly available access to the target's books to better assess the investment case--and change your tune accordingly.

Large organizations are by nature complex, but over the years new business challenges--globalization, innovative technologies, and regulations, to name a few--have conspired to add layer upon layer of complexity to corporate structure and management. Organizations have become increasingly ungovernable and unwieldy: Performance is declining; accountability is unclear; decision rights are muddy; and data are crunched repeatedly, often with no clear purpose in mind. To avoid frustration and inefficiency, executives need to systematically attack the causes of complexity in their companies. Ashkenas and his partners at Robert H. Schaffer & Associates have worked with dozens of firms to help them develop strategies for simplification. In this article, the author details the elements of a simplicity-minded strategy: Streamline the structure; prune products, services, and features; build disciplined processes; and improve managerial habits. ConAgra Foods' experience illustrates how one company turned itself around through careful execution of a simplicity strategy. The packaged-food supplier had become enormously successful by acquiring well known brands and then allowing them to operate autonomously, evolving into a $14 billion organization with more than 100 brands, a food services business, and a commodity trading operation. ConAgra, however, had no common method for reporting, tracking, or analyzing results. Over time, therefore, it became a highly unwieldy enterprise, riddled with inefficiencies and unable to communicate adequately with investors and other stakeholders. When CEO Gary Rodkin came on board in 2005, he invested in a series of initiatives to combat complexity. The tactic not only made life easier for customers and employees but also saved millions of dollars in costs. This article has an online interactive questionnaire that can help you assess your own company's level of complexity.

Minor innovations make up most of a company's development portfolio on average, but they never generate the growth companies seek. The solution, says Day--the Geoffrey T. Boisi Professor of Marketing and a co-director of the Mack Center for Technological Innovation at Wharton--is for companies to undertake a systematic, disciplined review of their innovation portfolios and increase the number of major innovations at an acceptable level of risk. Two tools can help them do this. The first, called the risk matrix, graphically reveals the distribution of risk across a company's entire innovation portfolio. The matrix allows companies to estimate each project's probability of success or failure, based on how big a stretch it is for the firm to undertake. The less familiar the product or technology and the intended market, the higher the risk. The second tool, dubbed the R-W-W (real-win-worth it) screen, allows companies to evaluate the risks and potential of individual projects by answering six fundamental questions about each one: Is the market real? explores customers' needs, their willingness to buy, and the size of the potential market. Is the product real? looks at the feasibility of producing the innovation. Can the product be competitive? and Can our company be competitive? investigate how well suited the company's resources and management are to compete in the marketplace with the product. Will the product be profitable at an acceptable risk? explores the financial analysis needed to assess an innovation's commercial viability. Last, Does launching the product make strategic sense? examines the project's fit with company strategy and whether management supports it.

Consumers of health care constitute a highly diverse market, but the idea that companies might segment customers and profit by addressing their varied needs seems almost foreign to the health industry. You can tap hidden value by making use of patterns in the demand for health products and services, especially if you segment consumers according to health and wealth at the same time.

A company's ability to function during a flu pandemic is only as good as the weakest link in its supply chain. Hoffman-La Roche, the maker of a frontline antiviral drug, works closely with its suppliers to ensure that their preparedness plans are as robust as its own.

Executives of multinationals partnering with Chinese firms should be alert to Mao Zedong's lingering influence on some of the country's most successful executives--and, in particular, watch for a leadership tactic that can undermine a joint venture.

Private equity fund performance is most often reported in a way that exaggerates the truth. A modified calculation gives a more accurate read of performance and can change a fund's relative rank.

With so many management tools out there, from benchmarking to outsourcing, it's hard to decide which ones to try. To help executives make informed choices, the authors compare levels of use and satisfaction for the most popular tools, and chart the evolution of a select few.

By watching a colleague assemble diverse, high-performing teams, the CEO of the Boston Consulting Group learned the art of nurturing individual strengths and steering team members away from tasks that would expose their weaknesses.

A detached and impassive executive may seem like the corporate decision-making ideal, but people make better choices when they're experiencing intense emotions, according to new research.

Ed Zore is the CEO of Northwestern Mutual, a highly admired 150-year-old insurer. Relevance, not innovation, matters most to customers, he says, and should matter most to companies as well.

Marketers commonly estimate customer lifetime value in order to decide which customers are worth continued investment. But the way companies typically calculate that value is flawed because it overlooks the real option of abandoning unprofitable customers.

All executives would like to see their organizations perform better, and most search for tools that can help make this happen. For decades, human resource managers have believed that their function enhances performance. This contention has been met with skepticism on the part of executives, however, who wonder whether funds allocated to the human resource function are good investments. Dozens of studies have examined this issue, but their inconsistent results have provided no conclusions. To resolve a long-standing and controversial question - does human resource management matter for organizational performance? - we take stock of the available evidence. Based on data from over 19,000 organizations, we conclude that human resource management adds significant value for organizations. In addition, the value added is strongest when human resource systems are emphasized rather than individual practices, when human resource management decisions are tied to strategy, and among manufacturing firms.

After three straight years of decline, movie theaters in the US may have recently ended a period of crisis with an increase in annual admissions (+3%) in 2006. This articles argues, however, that major problems are not over for the industry. Most movie theaters in the multiplex era have adopted a remarkable similar strategy, one which is also very vulnerable to recent trends such as the explosion of home cinema, pay TV, video-on-demand (VOD), discounting by Mass merchandisers of DVDs, computer games, and the collapse of video windows. Just as technological convergence has created a challenge for movie theaters, as it has in the past, so too can new technologies and creative use of assets (combined with multiple target marketing) offer a counter measure for at least some movie theaters; at least so many multiplexes offer the same format as their competitors, appear to adopt a narrow definition of what business they are in, and manifest a 'one-size-should-fit-all' approach to customers, The industry has employed differentiation and niche marketing much less than other industries. As the extensive variety of necessary strategies cannot comprehensively be explored herein, this article focuses on two new technologies from the IMAX corporation, DMX and MPX, as an example of how a theater operator might counter audience declines.