個案總覽

Mention "human resources" and most line and operating managers groan. Simply put, HR has a reputation for inefficiency and incompetence. But a new and transforming era for HR has arrived, asserts Dave Ulrich, a professor at University of Michigan's school of business. The challenges of today's competitive environment mean that HR must refocus its work away from activities that sap value from the organization and instead focus its efforts on achieving outcomes that improve company performance. Ulrich says HR's radical reinvention must be led by senior managers.

While many contemporary American corporations continue to exemplify high levels of corporate social responsibility, virtually all publicly held firms are finding themselves under growing pressure from the investment community to maximize shareholder value. As a result, the interests of the firm's non-shareholder constituencies are being neglected. The government must step in and function as arbiter, enacting rules and regulations that define what we expect of corporations in the way of such things as working conditions, environmental protection, and job training. But since the political process constitutes the only remaining vehicle for the expression of non-shareholder stakeholders, if corporate managers wish to be free to maximize shareholder value, it is inappropriate for them to also participate in shaping public policy.

Advocates of the World Wide Web claim it is a great leveler and that participants have a more equal voice. This flatness of the Web creates a major challenge for many businesses: How do you attract visitors and prospective customers to the firm's Web site? The Web site that can attract more visitors, all other things being equal, is more likely to communicate its message to a wider audience or sell its product to more people. Organizations want to build mountains--or "attractors"--in the otherwise flat landscape of Web-based marketing and advertising. This article classifies existing approaches to creating attractors, identifies four basic types of attractors, and predicts that there will be a move toward creating highly interactive attractors as a device for mass customization. The article also addresses the notion of sustainable attractiveness and presents recommendations for designing an attractor.

This study of 453 supplier-automaker relationships in the United States, Japan, and Korea examines the extent to which automakers manage their "arm's-length" and "partner" suppliers differently. The findings indicate that U.S. automakers have historically managed the majority of their suppliers using an arm's-length model, Korean automakers have managed suppliers primarily as partners, and Japanese automakers have somewhat different relationships with suppliers depending on the nature (i.e., degree of asset specificity and value) of the component. Only Japanese automakers have strategically segmented suppliers in such a way as to realize many of the benefits of both the arm's-length as well as the partner models. Firms should think strategically about supplier management and should not have a "one-size fits-all" strategy for supplier management.

Why is it that successful strategies are rarely developed as a result of formal planning processes? What is wrong with strategy or the way most companies go about developing it? Andrew Campbell and Marcus Alexander, seasoned practitioners of the art of strategy, who consult, teach and do research at the Ashridge Strategic Management Centre, offer a "common sense" piece on why the planning frameworks managers use so often yield disappointing results. Strategy, they explain, is not about plans but insights. Strategy development is the process of discovering and understanding insights and should not be confused with planning, which is about turning insights into action. The answer is not new planning processes, better designed plans, or more effort. The answer is for managers to understand two fundamentals--the benefit of having a well-articulated and stable purpose and the importance of discovering, understanding, documenting, and exploiting insights about how to create value.

Companies find it difficult to change strategy for many reasons, but one stands out: Strategic thinking is not a core managerial competence at most companies. Managers are unable to develop competence in strategic thinking because they do it so rarely. Harvard Business School Professor Clayton Christensen helps managers develop a creative strategy and a proficiency in strategic decision making. This article presents a three-stage method executives can use to conceive and implement a creative and coherent strategy themselves. The three-step process forces managers to dig deep in order to understand the forces affecting their business. This method is a useful tool for managers because it helps them link strategic thinking with operational planning: two processes that are often separate but are more effective when connected.

What makes for a good strategy in highly uncertain business environments? How do executives choose a clear strategic direction when no amount of sophisticated analysis will allow them to predict the future? The authors, consultants at McKinsey & Co., outline a new approach for dealing with the high levels of uncertainty that regularly confront managers today. This article explains how to make crucial distinctions among the levels of uncertainty managers face, and then how to choose a strategic posture appropriate for that level. This strategy framework helps managers to tailor a portfolio of actions--comprising big bets, options, and no-regrets moves--to the uncertainty at hand. An important and timely addition to the strategy arsenal, this article offers a discipline for thinking rigorously and systematically about uncertainty.

Companies all across the economic spectrum are making use of teams, but many senior executives and CEOs have become frustrated in their efforts to create teams at the top. Too often, they see few gains in performance from their efforts to be more teamlike. And they recognize that the rest of the organization knows that the senior group doesn't really work together as a team. Nevertheless, a team effort at the top can be essential to capturing the highest performance results possible--when the conditions are right. Good leadership requires differentiating between team and non-team opportunities, and then acting accordingly. Jon R. Katzenbach, a partner at McKinsey & Co. in New York City and the author of Teams at the Top: Unleashing the Potential of Both Teams and Individual Leaders (Harvard Business School Press, in 1997) explains why teams at the top are often ineffective--and when they can be essential to capturing the highest performance results for their organization.

Almost all companies today compete to some degree on the basis of continuous innovation. And many turn to customers for information to guide that innovation. The problem is that customers' ability to guide new product and service development is limited by their experience and by their ability to imagine and describe possible innovations. How can companies identify needs that customers themselves may not recognize? A set of techniques Harvard Business School Professors Dorothy Leonard and Jeffrey Rayport call empathic design can help resolve those dilemmas. Its basic principle is observation--watching customers use products or services. But the critical twist is that such observation is conducted in the customer's own environment--in the context of normal, everyday routines. In such a context, the company is privy to a host of information that is not accessible through other observation--oriented research methods such as focus groups or usability laboratories. This article explores a new way for companies to spark innovation--a new way for them to identify consumer needs, and thus design successful new products to meet those needs. The techniques of empathic design--effectively gathering, analyzing, and applying information gleaned from observation-are familiar to top engineering/design firms and a few forward-thinking manufacturers, but are not common practice.

Lean production, which has succeeded in both improving quality and lowering costs, has become the competitive standard for automakers worldwide. But a debate continues over how that system treats workers--a debate that concerns not only economics and engineering but also values and ideology. In this article, Michael Maccoby, a consultant based in Washington D.C. who specializes in organizational culture and leadership, reviews two books on General Motors' factories: Farewell to the Factory: Autoworkers in the Late Twentieth Century, by Ruth Milkman; and Just Another Car Factory? Lean Production and Its Discontents, By James Rinehart, Christopher Huxley, and David Robertson. Maccoby argues that companies can raise worker morale and productivity by showing workers true respect and by educating them in business perspective. General Motors may have failed to accomplish this at its Linden, New Jersey and Ingersoll, Ontario plants, but lean production has succeeded at Saturn and NUMMI. As more industries switch to lean production, workers will come under more pressure but companies will also have new opportunities to win their commitment to business goals. Car factories perform much better when workers understand the business and join in the effort to improve it.

One of the most challenging decisions a company can confront is whether to diversify. The rewards and risks are extraordinary. Success stories such as General Electric, Disney, and 3M abound, but so do stories of failure--consider Quaker Oats' entry into the fruit juice business with Snapple. There has been much talk about the importance of strategic focus for companies in recent years, so much so that diversification as a corporate strategy has gone out of vogue. In this article, London Business School Professor Costas Markides argues that companies may be overlooking significant growth opportunities by abandoning diversification moves. In order for diversification to work, though, he proposes that companies consider a number of essential questions before they leap into new business: What business am I in? Do I have all of the critical success factors? Can I break up my core competencies? The answers to these and other questions may make the difference between success and failure in the new business. Much has been written about "focusing on core competencies," while diversification has been largely ignored. And yet, diversification can be a powerful way to grow a business.

Companies achieve real agility only when every function and process--when every person--is able and eager to rise to every challenge. This type and degree of fundamental change, commonly called revitalization or transformation, is what many companies seek but rarely achieve because they have never before identified the factors that produce sustained transformational change. The authors identify three interventions that will restore companies to vital agility and then keep them in good health: incorporating employees fully into the principal business challenges facing the company; leading the organization in a different way in order to sharpen and maintain incorporation and constructive stress; and instilling mental disciplines that will make people behave differently and then help them sustain their new behavior. The authors discovered these basic sources of revitalization by tracking the change efforts of Sears, Roebuck and Co., Royal Dutch Shell, and the United States Army. This article is one of the first practical revitalization guides to appear anywhere, and it is based not on theory but on actual experience.

The continued success of technology-based companies depends on their proficiency in creating next-generation products and their derivatives. So getting such products out the door on schedule must be routine for such companies, right? Not quite. Behnam Tabrizi, a Consulting Professor of Engineering Management in the Department of Industrial Engineering & Engineering Management at Stanford University, and Rick Walleigh, a partner at Ernst & Young LLP, recently engaged in a detailed study--in which they had access to sensitive internal information and to candid interviews with people at every level--of 28 next-generation product-development projects in 14 leading high-tech companies. They found that most of the companies were unable to complete such projects on schedule. And the companies also had difficulty developing the derivative products needed to fill the gaps in the market that their next-generation products would create. The problem in every case, the authors discovered, was rooted in the product definition phase. And not coincidentally, the successful companies in the study had all learned how to handle the technical and marketplace uncertainties in their product definition processes. The authors have discerned from the actions of those companies a set of best practices that can measurably improve the definition phase of any company's product-development process.

In this HBR Classic, originally published in January-February 1989, Abraham Zaleznik, a psychoanalyst and the Konosuke Matsushita Professor of Leadership, Emeritus at the Harvard Business School, observes that many senior executives are substituting the rituals of "psychopolitics"--the balancing of social expectations in the workplace--for the real work of thinking about and acting on ideas relating to products, markets, and customers. In his retrospective commentary, Zaleznik writes that senior executives seem to have established a healthier balance in the 1990s between their real work and psychopolitics. Executives are now leading their companies to deal with external, competitive conditions that require them to cut costs, create products, please customers, and develop markets. What worries Zaleznik today, however, is that under the guise of employee empowerment, senior executives are beginning again to indulge in ritualized actions. For instance, they establish task forces to seek answers to questions they themselves should be addressing. The real work of the executive, says Zaleznik, should always include the thinking that informs and directs action. Zaleznik consults to business and government, and his most recent book, Learning Leadership, was published in 1993. In addition to "Real Work," he has authored five previous HBR articles.

Today, the most urgent challenge for most companies is to develop the managers who must operate in the new delayered, horizontal, networked organizations to deliver on their complex, multidimensional strategic priorities. It is here that most companies are facing the greatest difficulties. The reason lies in the historic "Russian-doll model of management," in which managers at each level are expected to play similar roles and have similar responsibilities, only for a different size and scope of activities. The underlying premise that there is a generic management role is being further reinforced by many companies currently engaged in the new fad of identifying a set of desired personal competencies as the anchor for their management development initiatives. This article challenges this Russian-doll model of management to argue that managers at different levels of the organization play distinctly different roles and add value in fundamentally different ways. Based on field research in twenty major corporations, the authors identify the roles of front-line, senior, and top-level managers in the new organizational form, and how companies can develop these new managerial competencies.

An analysis of many highly successful and "visionary" companies reveals the existence of corporate cultures that emphasize adherence to company goals and cohesiveness within the group. While such cultures can improve effort, morale, and productivity, they also tend to thwart innovation--limiting not only the expression of "original" ideas, but even their production. Research in social psychology suggests that flexibility to changing circumstances and innovation is better served by a "culture" that not only tolerates, but welcomes dissent and minority views. Such dissent--even when wrong--stimulates better decision making and innovation. Thus, the proper harnessing of dissent may provide a mechanism for creating unity without uniformity and for igniting the "spark" of innovation.

Creativity in all fields, including business, flourishes under intrinsic motivation--the drive to do something because it is interesting, involving, exciting, satisfying, or personally challenging. This article presents the Componential Theory of Organizational Creativity and Innovation, which defines the factors--including intrinsic motivation--that determine a person's creativity. This article also shows how the work environment can influence individual creativity.

When markets turn hostile, it's no surprise that managers are tempted to extend their brands vertically--that is, to take their brands into a seemingly attractive market above or below their current positions. And for companies chasing growth, the urge to move into booming premium or value segments also can be hard to resist. The draw is indeed strong; and in some instances, a vertical move is not merely justified but actually essential to survival--even for top brands, which have the advantages of economies of scale, brand equity, and retail clout. But beware: leveraging a brand to access upscale or downscale markets is more dangerous than it first appears. Before making a move, then, managers should ascertain whether the rewards will be worth the risks. In general, David Aaker recommends that managers avoid vertical extensions whenever possible. There is an inherent contradiction in the very concept because brand equity is built in large part on image and perceived worth, and a vertical move can easily distort those qualities. Still, certain situations demand vertical extensions, and Aaker examines both the winners and the losers in the game.

Modularity is a familiar principle in the computer industry. Different companies can independently design and produce components, such as disk drives or operating software, and those modules will fit together into a complex and smoothly functioning product because makers obey a given set of design rules. As businesses as diverse as auto manufacturing and financial services move toward modular designs, the authors say, competitive dynamics will change enormously. Leaders in a modular industry will control less, so they will have to watch the competitive environment closely for opportunities to link up with other module makers. They will also need to know more: engineering details that seemed trivial at the corporate level may now play a large part in strategic decisions. Leaders will also become knowledge managers internally because they will need to coordinate the efforts of development groups in order to keep them focused on the modular strategies the company is pursuing.

On its 75th anniversary, HBR asked five of the business world's most insightful thinkers to comment on the challenges taking shape for executives as they move into the next century. 1) In "The Future That Has Already Happened," Peter Drucker examines the effects of the increasing underpopulation of the world's developed countries. 2) Esther Dyson's article "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall" reveals the mind shift executives will need to make in a networked world, where companies will be known for what they do rather than for what they say. 3) The old language of property and ownership no longer serves executives, writes Charles Handy in "The Citizen Corporation." 4) Technology has given executives more information than today's machines can help them understand, explains Paul Saffo in "Are You Machine Wise?" 5) Peter Senge's article "Communities of Leaders and Learners" urges executives to reject the myth of leaders as isolated heroes and instead to build a community of leaders.