個案總覽

Baby busters won't get the jobs the boomers leave behind, warns demographer Phillip Longman.

The likelihood that an industry leader will lose its top position within five years has doubled since 1972, say McKinsey consultants S. Patrick Viguerie and Caroline Thompson.

Marketing is becoming more analytic and less creative. That's why, HBS professors Gail McGovern and John Quelch assert, more companies are finding it makes sense to outsource many marketing functions.

JetBlue's David Neeleman talks about how his unexpected lessons from working with the poor have informed his company's egalitarian culture.

Most professional women step off the career fast track at some point. With children to raise, elderly parents to care for, and other pulls on their time, these women are confronted with one off-ramp after another. When they feel pushed at the same time by long hours and unsatisfying work, the decision to leave becomes even easier. But woe to the woman who intends for that exit to be temporary. The on-ramps for professional women to get back on track are few and far between, the authors confirm. Their new survey research reveals for the first time the extent of the problem--what percentage of highly qualified women leave work and for how long, what obstacles they face coming back, and what price they pay for their time-outs. And what are the implications for corporate America? One thing at least seems clear: As market and economic factors align in ways guaranteed to make talent constraints and skill shortages huge issues again, employers must learn to reverse this brain drain. Like it or not, large numbers of highly qualified, committed women need to take time out of the workplace. The trick is to help them maintain connections that will allow them to reenter the workforce without being marginalized for the rest of their lives. Strategies for building such connections include creating reduced-hour jobs, providing flexibility in the workday and in the arc of a career, removing the stigma of taking time off, refusing to burn bridges, offering outlets for altruism, and nurturing women's ambition. An HBR Special Report, available online at www.womenscareersreport.hbr.org, presents detailed findings of the survey.

During the past 20 years, the real price of most consumer goods has fallen worldwide, the variety of goods and the range of sales channels offering them have continued to grow, and product quality has steadily improved. So why is consumption often so frustrating? It doesn't have to be--and shouldn't be--the authors say. They argue that it's time to apply lean thinking to the processes of consumption--to give consumers the full value they want from goods and services with the greatest efficiency and the least pain. Companies may think they save time and money by off-loading work to the consumer but, in fact, the opposite is true. By streamlining their systems for providing goods and services, and by making it easier for customers to buy and use those products and services, a growing number of companies are actually lowering costs while saving everyone time. In the process, these businesses are learning more about their customers, strengthening consumer loyalty, and attracting new customers who are defecting from less user-friendly competitors. The challenge lies with the retailers, service providers, manufacturers, and suppliers that are not used to looking at total cost from the standpoint of the consumer and even less accustomed to working with customers to optimize the consumption process. Lean consumption requires a fundamental shift in the way companies think about the relationship between provision and consumption and the role their customers play in these processes. It also requires consumers to change the nature of their relationships with the companies they patronize. Lean production has clearly triumphed over similar obstacles in recent years to become the dominant global manufacturing model. Lean consumption, its logical companion, can't be far behind.

Much has been written about the qualities that make a great manager, but most of the literature overlooks a fundamental question: What does a great manager actually do? While there are countless management styles, one thing underpins the behavior of all great managers. Above all, an exceptional manager comes to know and value the particular quirks and abilities of her employees. She figures out how to capitalize on her staffers' strengths and tweaks her environment to meet her larger goals. Such a specialized approach may seem like a lot of work. But in fact, capitalizing on each person's uniqueness can save time. Rather than encourage employees to conform to strict job descriptions that may include tasks they don't enjoy and aren't good at, a manager who develops positions for his staff members based on their unique abilities will be rewarded with behaviors that are far more efficient and effective than they would be otherwise. This focus on individuals also makes employees more accountable. Because staffers are evaluated on their particular strengths and weaknesses, they are challenged to take responsibility for their abilities and to hone them. Capitalizing on a person's uniqueness also builds a stronger sense of team. By taking the time to understand what makes each employee tick, a great manager shows that he sees his people for who they are. This personal investment not only motivates individuals but also galvanizes the entire team. Finally, this approach shakes up existing hierarchies, which leads to more creative thinking. To take great managing from theory to practice, the author says, you must know three things about a person: her strengths, the triggers that activate those strengths, and how she learns. By asking the right questions, squeezing the right triggers, and becoming aware of your employees' learning styles, you will discover what motivates each person to excel.

If company leaders were granted a single wish, it would surely be for a reliable way to create new growth businesses. Business practitioners' overwhelming interest in this subject prompted the authors to conduct a three-year study of organizational growth--specifically, to find out which growth strategies were most successful. They discovered, somewhat to their surprise, that even companies in mature industries found rich new sources of growth when they reconfigured their unit of business (what they bill customers for) or their key metrics (how they measure success). In this article, the authors outline these and other moves companies can make to redefine their profit drivers and realize low-risk growth. They offer plenty of real-world examples. For instance, once a conventional printing house, Madden Communications not only prints promotional materials for customers but also manages the distribution and installation of those materials on-site. Its revenues grew from $10 million in 1990 to $133 million in 2004, in an industry that many had come to regard as hopelessly mature. The authors also suggest ways to identify your unit of business and associated key metrics and recognize the obstacles to changing them; review the key customer segments you serve; assess the need for new capabilities and the potential for internal resistance to change; and communicate to internal and external constituencies the changes you wish to make in your unit of business or key metrics.

Companies try all kinds of ways to improve collaboration among different parts of the organization: cross-unit incentive systems, organizational restructuring, teamwork training. Although these initiatives produce occasional success stories, most have only a limited impact on dismantling organizational silos and fostering collaboration. The problem? Most companies focus on the symptoms ("Sales and delivery do not work together as closely as they should") rather than on the root cause of failures in cooperation: conflict. The fact is, you can't improve collaboration until you've addressed the issue of conflict. The authors offer six strategies for effectively managing conflict: Devise and implement a common method for resolving conflict; provide people with criteria for making trade-offs; use the escalation of conflict as an opportunity for coaching; establish and enforce a requirement of joint escalation; ensure that managers resolve escalated conflicts directly with their counterparts; and make the process for escalated conflict-resolution transparent. The first three strategies focus on the point of conflict; the second three focus on escalation of conflict up the management chain. Together they constitute a framework for effectively managing discord, one that integrates conflict resolution into day-to-day decision-making processes, thereby removing a barrier to cross-organizational collaboration.

The success of Dell--it provides extraordinary rewards to shareholders, it can turn on a dime, and it has demonstrated impeccable timing in entering new markets--is based on more than its famous business model. High expectations and disciplined, consistent execution are embedded in the company's DNA. "We don't tolerate businesses that don't make money," founder Michael Dell tells HBR. "We used to hear all sorts of excuses for why a business didn't make money, but to us they all sounded like 'The dog ate my homework.' We just don't accept that." To double its revenues in a five-year period, the company had to adapt its execution-obsessed culture to new demands. In fact, Michael Dell and CEO Kevin Rollins realized they had a crisis on their hands. "We had a very visible group of employees who'd gotten rich from stock options," Rollins says. "You can't build a great company on employees who say, 'If you pay me enough, I'll stay.'" Dell and Rollins knew they had to reignite the spirit of the company. They implemented an employee survey, whose results led to the creation of the Winning Culture initiative, now a top operating priority at Dell. They also defined the Soul of Dell: Focus on the customer, be open and direct in communications, be a good global citizen, have fun in winning. It turned out to be a huge motivator. And they increased the focus on developing people within the company. "We've changed as individuals and as an organization," Rollins says. "We want the world to see not just a great financial record and operational performance but a great company. We want to have leaders that other companies covet. We want a culture that makes people stick around for reasons other than money."

Saying that networks are important is stating the obvious. But harnessing the power of these seemingly invisible groups to achieve organizational goals is an elusive undertaking. Most efforts to promote collaboration are haphazard and built on the implicit philosophy that more connectivity is better. In truth, networks create relational demands that sap people's time and energy and can bog down entire organizations. It's crucial for executives to learn how to promote connectivity only where it benefits an organization or individual and to decrease unnecessary connections. In this article, the authors introduce three types of social networks, each of which delivers unique value. The customized response network excels at framing the ambiguous problems involved in innovation. Strategy consulting firms and new-product development groups rely on this format. By contrast, surgical teams and law firms rely mostly on the modular response network, which works best when components of the problem are known but the sequence of those components in the solution is unknown. And the routine response network is best suited for organizations like call centers, where the problems and solutions are fairly predictable but collaboration is still needed. Executives shouldn't simply hope that collaboration will spontaneously occur in the right places at the right times in their organizations. They need to develop a strategic, nuanced view of collaboration, and they must take steps to ensure that their companies support the types of social networks that best fit their goals. Drawing on examples from Novartis, the FAA, and Sallie Mae, the authors offer managers the tools they need to determine which network delivers the best results for their organizations and which strategic investments nurture the right degree of connectivity.

In the 1990s, Hewlett-Packard's PC business was struggling to turn a dollar, despite the company's success in winning market share. By 1997, margins on its PCs were thin, and some product lines had not turned a profit since 1993. The problem had to do with the PC industry's notoriously short product cycles and brutal product and component price deflation. A common rule of thumb was that the value of a fully assembled PC decreased 1% a week. In such an environment, inventory costs become critical. But the standard "holding cost of inventory" accounted for only about 10% of HP's inventory costs. The greater risks, it turned out, resided in four other, essentially hidden costs, which all stemmed from mismatches between demand and supply leading to excess inventory: component devaluation costs for components still held in production; price protection costs incurred when product prices drop on goods distributors still have on their shelves; product return costs that have to be absorbed when distributors return and receive refunds on overstock items; and obsolescence costs for products still unsold when new models are introduced. By developing metrics to track those costs in a consistent way throughout the PC division, HP has found it can manage its supply chains with much more sophistication. Now, each product group chooses the supply chain configuration that best suits its needs.

The List is HBR's annual attempt to capture ideas in the state of becoming--when they're teetering between what one person suspects and what everyone accepts. Roderick M. Kramer says it isn't bad when leaders flip-flop. Julia Kirby describes new efforts to redefine the problem of organizational performance. Joseph L. Bower praises the "Velcro organization," where managerial responsibilities can be rearranged. Jeffrey F. Rayport argues that companies must refocus innovation on the "demand side." Eric Bonabeau describes a future in which computer-generated sound can be used to transmit vast amounts of data. Roger L. Martin says highly reliable corporate systems such as CRM tend to have little validity. Kirthi Kalyanam and Monte Zweben report that marketers are learning to contact customers at just the right moment. Robert C. Merton explains how equity swaps could help developing countries avoid some of the risk of boom and bust. Thomas A. Stewart says companies need champions of the status quo. Mohanbir Sawhney suggests marketing strategies for the blogosphere. Denise Caruso shows how to deal with risks that lack owners. Thomas H. Davenport says personal information management--how well we use our PDAs and PCs--is the next productivity frontier. Leigh Buchanan explores workplace taboos. Henry W. Chesbrough argues that the time is ripe for services science to become an academic field. Kenneth Lieberthal says China may change everyone's approach to intellectual property. Jochen Wirtz and Loizos Heracleous describe customer service apps for biometrics. Mary Catherine Bateson envisions a midlife sabbatical for workers. Jeffrey Rosen explains why one privacy policy won't fit everyone. Tihamer von Ghyczy and Janis Antonovics say firms should embrace parasites. And Jeffrey Pfeffer warns business-book buyers to beware. Additionally, HBR offers a list of intriguing business titles due out in 2005.

The CEO succession process is broken. Many companies have no meaningful succession plans, and few of the ones that do are happy with them. CEO tenure is shrinking; in fact, two out of five CEOs fail in their first 18 months. It isn't just that more CEOs are being replaced; it's that they're being replaced badly. The problems extend to every aspect of CEO succession: internal development programs, board supervision, and outside recruitment. While many organizations do a decent job of nurturing middle managers, few have set up the comprehensive programs needed to find the half-dozen true CEO candidates out of the thousands of leaders in their midst. Even more damaging is the failure of boards to devote enough attention to succession. Search committee members often have no experience hiring CEOs; lacking guidance, they supply either the narrowest or the most general of requirements and then fail to vet either the candidates or the recruiters. The result is that too often new CEOs are plucked from the well-worn Rolodexes of a remarkably small number of recruiters. These candidates may be strong in charisma but may lack critical skills or otherwise be a bad fit with the company. The resulting high turnover is particularly damaging, given that outside CEOs often bring in their own teams, can cause the company to lose focus, and are especially costly to be rid of. Drawing on over 35 years of experience with CEO succession, the author explains how companies can create a deep pool of internal candidates, how boards can consistently align strategy and leadership development, and how directors can get their money's worth from recruiters. Choosing a CEO should be not one decision but an amalgam of thousands of decisions made by many people every day over years.

Companies are becoming more dependent on business partners, but coordinating with outsiders takes its toll. Negotiating terms, monitoring performance, and, if needs are not being met, switching from one partner to another require time and money. Such transaction costs, Ronald Coase explained in his 1937 essay "The Nature of the Firm," drove many organizations to bring their activities in-house. But what if Coase placed too much emphasis on these costs? What if friction between companies can be productive? Indeed, as John Hagel and John Seely Brown point out, interactions between organizations can yield benefits beyond the goods or services contracted for. Companies get better at what they do--and improve faster than their competitors--by working with outsiders whose specialized capabilities complement their own. Different enterprises bring different perspectives and competencies. When these enterprises tackle a problem together, they dramatically increase the chances for innovative solutions. Of course, misunderstandings often arise when people with different backgrounds and skill sets try to collaborate. Opposing sides may focus on the distance that separates them rather than the common challenges they face. How can companies harness friction so that it builds capabilities? Start by articulating performance goals that everyone buys into. Then make sure people are using tangible prototypes to wrangle over. Finally, assemble teams with committed people who bring different perspectives to the table. As individual problems are being addressed, take care that the underpinnings of shared meaning and trust are also being woven between the companies. Neither can be dictated--but they can be cultivated. Without them, the performance fabric quickly unravels, and business partnerships disintegrate into rivalrous competition.

Twenty years ago, it would have been shocking for a children's choir to sell singing telegrams or for an organization serving the homeless to dabble in property management. Today, it seems routine. Nonprofits increasingly feel compelled to launch earned income ventures--not only to appear more disciplined and businesslike to stakeholders but also to reduce their reliance on fundraising. There's plenty of hype about the value of earned income ventures in the nonprofit world, but such projects account for only a small share of funding in most nonprofit domains, and few of the ventures make money. Moreover, when the authors examined how nonprofits evaluate potential enterprises, they discovered a pattern of unwarranted optimism. The potential financial returns are often exaggerated, and the challenges of running a successful business are routinely discounted. But the biggest downside of such ventures is that they can distract nonprofits' managers from their core social missions and, in some cases, even subvert those missions. There are several reasons for the gap between the hype and the reality. One is that an organization's nonfinancial concerns--such as a desire to hire the disadvantaged--can hamper it in the commercial marketplace. Another is that nonprofits' executives tend to overlook the distinction between revenue and profit. For example, a youth services organization that had received funding to launch a food products enterprise hired young people and began making salad dressing. The nonprofit believed it spent $3.15 to produce each bottle of dressing that was sold for $3.50. But when expenses such as unused ingredients and managers' salaries were factored in, the cost per bottle reached a staggering $90. Earned income ventures do have a role in the nonprofit sector, the authors say, but unrealistic expectations are distorting managers' decisions, wasting precious resources, and leaving important social needs unmet.

In his 12 years at the helm of Siemens, CEO Heinrich von Pierer designed and directed a major transformation. Taking this German icon from a technically superb but slow-moving industrial giant to a disciplined yet nimble multinational has posed enormous challenges. Since 1992, Siemens has revamped its portfolio of businesses, expanded its reach into 192 countries, and created a more local-market-driven culture, gaining recognition as one of the best-managed and most competitive companies in the world. In this edited interview with HBR editor Thomas A. Stewart and consulting editor Louise O'Brien, von Pierer describes the requirements for transformation and culture change and how he broke down historical barriers at Siemens. He shares his insights about portfolio restructuring, his lessons from competing with GE, and the pros and cons of being based in Europe vs. America. He reflects on the true start of globalization after the fall of the Berlin wall and on how dramatically the company needed to change to counter the resulting pricing pressures across all of its businesses. He talks, too, about the biggest challenge on his successor's desk--"the particular challenge of China," he says. Amid all these topics, von Pierer reiterates the importance of people: "We all talk about people as our most important resource, but as a matter of fact, who's really taking care of people?...We need [their] backing. We can't afford to run into a situation where people no longer accept what we do."

For six years, Cynthia Cunningham and Shelley Murray shared an executive job at Fleet Bank: one desk, one chair, one computer, one telephone, and one voice-mail account. To their clients and colleagues, they were effectively one person, though one person with the strengths and ideas of two, seamlessly handing projects back and forth. Although their department was dissolved after the bank merged with Bank of America, the two continue to consider themselves a package--they have one resume, and they are seeking their next opportunity together. Their choice to share a job was not only a quality-of-life decision but one intended to keep their careers on course: "Taking two separate part-time jobs would have thrown us completely off track," they write in this first-person account. "We're both ambitious people, and neither of us wanted just a job. We wanted careers." In this article, the two highly motivated women reveal their determination to manage the demands of both family and career. Flextime, telecommuting, and compressed workweeks are just some of the options open to executives seeking greater work/life balance; the job share, as described by Cunningham and Murray, could well be the next solution for those wishing to avoid major trade-offs between their personal and professional lives. Cunningham and Murray describe in vivid detail how they structured their unusual arrangement, how they sold themselves to management, and the hurdles they faced along the way. Theirs is a win-win story, for the company and for them.

As globalization changes the basis of competition, sourcing is moving from the periphery of corporate functions to the core. Always important in terms of costs, sourcing is becoming a strategic opportunity. But few companies are ready for this shift. Outsourcing has grown so sophisticated that even critical functions like engineering, R&D, manufacturing, and marketing can--and often should--be moved outside. And that, in turn, is changing the way companies think about their organizations, their value chains, and their competitive positions. Already, a handful of vanguard companies are transforming what used to be purely internal corporate functions into entirely new industries. Companies like UPS, Solectron, and Hewitt have created new business models by concentrating scale and skill within a single function. As these and other function-based companies grow, so does the potential value of outsourcing to all companies. Migrating from a vertically integrated company to a specialized provider of a single function is not a winning strategy for everyone. But all companies need to reassess rigorously each of their functions as possible outsourcing candidates. This article presents a simple three-step process to identify which functions your company needs to own and protect, which can be best performed by what kinds of partners, and which could be turned into new business opportunities. The result of such an analysis is a comprehensive capabilities-sourcing strategy. As a detailed examination of 7-Eleven's experience shows, the success of the strategy often hinges on the creativity with which partnerships are organized and managed. But only by first taking a broad, strategic view of capabilities sourcing can your company gain the greatest benefit from all of its sourcing choices.

In industries characterized by very large capital investment and fast-moving technological dynamics, cyclical behavior emerges as the setting in which firms have to strategize. The barriers to entry in such settings are extremely high, but they can be breached--as shown in the flat panel display industry, which has seen successive entries by Japanese, then Korean, then Taiwanese firms during the past decade. In its short history, this industry has already exhibited four cycles (the "crystal cycle") and a fifth downturn is now looming. However, the striking feature of the industry is that firms have successfully entered only during industry downturns, engaging in counter-cyclical investment; not a single firm has entered during an upturn. This provides the starting point for a strategic analysis of this fast-growing industry, conducted through a dynamic framework that complements the "competitive forces" framework introduced in a static setting by Michael Porter over two decades ago. It is critical to draw on both dynamic and static frameworks to comprehend fully the strategic options open to firms.