Capital versus talent. The battle that's reshaping business

For much of the twentieth century, labor and capital fought bitterly for control of the industrialized economy. The titans of industry ultimately won a resounding victory over the unions, but the story doesn't end there. In today's economy, value is largely the product of knowledge and information. Companies cannot generate profits without the ideas, skills, and leadership capabilities of knowledge workers. It's these factors--not technologies, not factories, and certainly not capital--that give the most successful companies their unique advantages. As knowledge workers come to realize this, and see that the demand for their talent outstrips the supply, they are steadily wresting more and more of the profits from shareholders. This time the battle is between the sources of capital and the producers of value, and how it will end is far from clear. The roots of the current conflict lie in the twentieth-century shift from industrial to managerial capitalism and the creation of a new class of professional talent, the authors explain. Since the arrival of the information-based economy in the past decade, tensions have escalated. The dramatic rise of CEO pay--and the public fire it has drawn--is a telling symptom. With this new battle, we're also witnessing a fundamental change in the political alignment of capital. The Left is now siding with "the common shareholder" against the well-compensated top tier of the labor pool. Shareholders seeing an unprecedented proportion of the return on their investments siphoned off to employees may well ask, is there no end to it? Increasingly, it's human capital that is the basis of value, and financial capital has become far more generic than shareholders would like to believe. The growing tensions between shareholders and managers cannot be ignored, and capitalism is at a crossroads--again.     

Mentoring and the tolerance of complexity

This paper explores mentoring in the light of complexity theory and the premium placed upon knowledge in organisational viability. A key question is “what is the role of mentoring, as a developmental and knowledge creating process, in a complex environment?” There are two parts to the discussion. First, we explore complexity at work, and what it means for the individual. We link the central ideas of complexity theory with the notion of a ‘corporate curriculum’, an inclusive concept intended to capture the complex nature of learning at work, in all its variants. Secondly, we speculate on the contribution mentoring can make in complex organisations where employees are part of a knowledge economy by virtue of being knowledge producers and being engaged in learning at work. The environments in which we work are becoming more complex and mentoring is also complex. There is a synergy here. For people living in complexity where there are few rules, no right answers and no predictable outcomes, we suggest that mentoring can play a distinctive role in helping people to ‘tolerate’ complexity and remain effective.     

The new society of organizations

Managers in every organization from the largest publicly owned company to the smallest not-for-profit face the same unsettling imperative: to build change into their organization's very structure. On the one hand, this means being prepared to abandon everything that the organization does. On the other, it means constantly creating the new. Unless this process of abandonment and creation goes on without ceasing, the organization will very soon find itself obsolescent--losing performance and with it the ability to attract and hold the people on whom its performance depends. What drives this imperative is the nature of the organization itself. Every organization exists to put knowledge to work, but knowledge changes fast, with today's certainties becoming tomorrow's absurdities. That is why any knowledgeable individual must likewise acquire new knowledge every several years or also become obsolete. Familiar as the term "organization" is, we have only begun to reckon with the implications of living in a world in which the fundamental unit of society is--and must be--destabilizing. That is why questions of social responsibility now arise so often and from so many quarters. We need new ways to understand the relationship between organizations and their employees, who may in fact be unpaid volunteers, independent professionals whose organization is a network, or knowledgeable specialists who can--and often do--move on at any moment. For more than 600 years, no society has had as many competing centers of power as the one in which we now live. Drucker explains why change is--and must be--the only constant in an organization's life and explores the consequences for managers, individuals, and society overall.     

Robust monetary policy with imperfect knowledge

We examine the performance and robustness properties of monetary policy rules in an estimated macroeconomic model in which the economy undergoes structural change and where private agents and the central bank possess imperfect knowledge about the true structure of the economy. Policymakers follow an interest rate rule aiming to maintain price stability and to minimize fluctuations of unemployment around its natural rate but are uncertain about the economy's natural rates of interest and unemployment and how private agents form expectations. In particular, we consider two models of expectations formation: rational expectations (RE) and learning. We show that in this environment the ability to stabilize the real side of the economy is significantly reduced relative to an economy under RE with perfect knowledge. Furthermore, policies that would be optimal under perfect knowledge can perform very poorly if knowledge is imperfect. Efficient policies that take account of private learning and misperceptions of natural rates call for greater policy inertia, a more aggressive response to inflation, and a smaller response to the perceived unemployment gap than would be optimal if everyone had perfect knowledge of the economy. We show that such policies are quite robust to potential misspecification of private sector learning and the magnitude of variation in natural rates.     

The growing role of informal controls: does organization learning empower or subjugate workers?

Several management theorists have called for organizations to incorporate organization learning, empowerment, open-book management, and similar initiatives to generate better value from an important strategic resource: employees. What does this mean for the controlled? Do extensions of the management control system’s ability to implement the strategy of the firm offer workers a more central role in creating their future? Or is this “progress" just another means to extract extra effort from workers for the benefit of owners? This paper is developed in two parts. The first argues that seeking better value from workers is here to stay, and that the implications for management control system bear consideration. In particular, the five disciplines of Senge’s (1990) Organization Learning are introduced to illustrate growing ways informal controls enhance workers’ knowledge contributions. The second half of the paper examines implications of this increasing control. Some argue that it is naive to expect organization learning will lead managers to willingly realign existing lopsided rewards. However, as a natural response to change, these controls are themselves dynamic and evolutionary. This paper suggests that the growing dependence on employee’s superior knowledge recalibrates power arrangements. Further there is a growing awareness that many managers’ self-interest is mitigated by their sense of fairness. Consequently, an increasingly shared authority combined with the self-reflection and transparency of organization learning raises the possibility of an environment where those who perform the work share more equally in its rewards.     

Business marketing: understand what customers value

How do you define the value of your market offering? Can you measure it? Few suppliers in business markets are able to answer those questions, and yet the ability to pinpoint the value of a product or service for one's customers has never been more important. By creating and using what the authors call customer value models, suppliers are able to figure out exactly what their offerings are worth to customers. Field value assessments--the most commonly used method for building customer value models--call for suppliers to gather data about their customers firsthand whenever possible. Through these assessments, a supplier can build a value model for an individual customer or for a market segment, drawing on data gathered form several customers in that segment. Suppliers can use customer value models to create competitive advantage in several ways. First, they can capitalize on the inevitable variation in customers' requirements by providing flexible market offerings. Second, they can use value models to demonstrate how a new product or service they are offering will provide greater value. Third, they can use their knowledge of how their market offerings specifically deliver value to craft persuasive value propositions. And fourth, they can use value models to provide evidence to customers of their accomplishments. Doing business based on value delivered gives companies the means to get an equitable return for their efforts. Once suppliers truly understand value, they will be able to realize the benefits of measuring and monitoring it for their customers.     

Toward a 21st Century Social Contract

This article makes the case for a new contract between business and government that will help us address the critical challenge of our time: the globalization of commerce, and its disruptive effects on labor, local communities, and the environment. The authors begin by showing how globalization has created a new playing field for government and business in which our current governance models and a social contract that proved remarkably effective during the 20th century can no longer ensure economic stability and social progress. While the private sector has for the most part demonstrated its ability to adapt and flourish in a global economy, governments have struggled, thanks in large part to complex decision‐making processes and centralized bureaucracies that were created in response to 20th‐century realities. The result has been ever more indebted nations and governments that have been unable to maintain the core foundation and social investments on which their economic competitiveness and the social well‐being of their citizens depend. Our challenge now is to create a new social contract between business and government that is equal to the challenges of a global economy. The authors identify a number of key issues that must be addressed in creating this new framework, and explore recent and emerging business leadership initiatives that are working to address them. These range from initiatives that encourage greater self‐regulation by business of its impact on society and the environment to those that explore ways for the private sector to help governments deliver services more cost effectively. As part of the fallout from the recent financial crisis, business, broadly speaking, no longer enjoys the level of public trust it once did, which has added significantly to the challenges it now faces in taking on greater social responsibility. To direct its considerable resources to the greater public good while continuing to produce a competitive return to shareholders will require a degree of innovation and leadership that many companies will find difficult. But without this increased participation of business and its leaders, it is hard to see how we will prosper in the increasingly uncertain future we now face.     

基于知识的企业性质与收益分配模式

本文从知识视角重新审视了新经济下的企业性质及由此决定的收益分配模式.分析认为,新经济下企业是财务资本所有者与人力资本所有者订立的特别契约,企业拥有或控制的财务资本和技术性、管理性等知识以及聚合财务资本与各种知识的能力决定着企业的效率边界;股票期权制不仅仅是一种激励制度,而是企业所有权范式基于知识的转换,进而导致收益分配制度变迁的必然结果.文章最后对以净利润为基础的收益分配模式进行了澄清,提出新经济下的企业收益分配应以EVA为基础,以真正体现人力资本价值的大小及其创值能力的高低.     

A longitudinal examination of intellectual capital reporting in Marks & Spencer annual reports, 1978–2008

This paper examines the intellectual capital content of Marks & Spencer annual reports over a 31 year period from 1978 to 2008 using a content analysis instrument. Motivated by the gap among prior studies in respect of longitudinal samples, the paper also sets out to note the ways in which the annual report has changed over the three decades in response to the supposed change from the assumption that fixed assets and operations were the key driver of value creation to a belief that knowledge and the stock of intellectual assets had become a more powerful explanation of value-added. The paper finds an overall increase in intellectual capital reporting over the 31 years but notes a particular increase in relational capital reporting and a re-ordering of sub-categories over time. Narrative (as opposed to quantitative) reporting has increased and ‘factual’ (as opposed to opinion and judgement) reporting has decreased. The paper concludes that annual report narratives have reflected a wider change in the market for information among investors and other stakeholders. Whilst the exact nature of these market changes was beyond the scope of this paper, it is concluded that changing patterns of ICR reflect the increased complexity of the messages being conveyed in voluntary reporting. The increased reliance on IC in value creation has, we argue, created a need for narrative of less factual certainty and with more ambiguity and circumspection in describing increasingly complex knowledge assets.     

Corporate stakeholders,corporate valuation and ESG

In addition to explicit contracts, corporations issue their stakeholders implicit claims, including fair treatment of employees and the promise of continuing service to customers. Corporate value is created by selling these implicit claims for more than it costs to honour them. Recently, a new class of non-investor stakeholders, related to environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues, has arisen. Although many ESG advocates stress their role in creating shareholder value, they do not explain how this value creation occurs. This paper shows that implicit claims provide a critical link that ties non-investor stakeholders and ESG to shareholder value, both its creation and its possible destruction.     

Economic growth potential creating a real put and the resulting valuation of the firm

What do innovative new firms in our dynamic economy do to the value of existing firms? Using Schumpeter’s creative destruction idea, we expand the valuation model to incorporate these dynamics. Our model shows that these dynamics should have a greater effect on smaller firms, those in closer to perfect product market competition and those with less financial market following, as they get less market feedback for warning of new competition. This additional consideration in valuation is named the “real put” as it is an optionagainst value. Simply stated, it is an amount subtracted from a firm’s market value of capitalized earnings, plus any growth potential (that might create destructive competition against other producers) to get its net value. Following Schumpeter, new entrepreneurs and larger firms that mimic existing entrepreneurs are the innovators of new products and services. They create the real put against value in their potential competitors. We empirically test this using Morningstar’s “moat” classification of firms. We find firms with “wider moats” meaning greater product market power have much lower delisting rates that indicate smaller puts against value being exercised. While we are not the first in finance to view Schumpeter’s ideas, this is the first paper to consider its direct effect on valuation.     

Strategy as stretch and leverage

Global competition is not just product versus product or company versus company. It is mind-set versus mind-set. Driven to understand the dynamics of competition, we have learned a lot about what makes one company more successful than another. But to find the root of competitiveness--to understand why some companies create new forms of competitive advantage while others watch and follow--we must look at strategic mind-sets. For many managers, "being strategic" means pursuing opportunities that fit the company's resources. This approach is not wrong, Gary Hamel and C.K. Prahalad contend, but it obscures an approach in which "stretch" supplements fit and being strategic means creating a chasm between ambition and resources. Toyota, CNN, British Airways, Sony, and others all displaced competitors with stronger reputations and deeper pockets. Their secret? In each case, the winner had greater ambition than its well-endowed rivals. Winners also find less resource-intensive ways of achieving their ambitious goals. This is where leverage complements the strategic allocation of resources. Managers at competitive companies can get a bigger bang for their buck in five basic ways: by concentrating resources around strategic goals; by accumulating resources more efficiently; by complementing one kind of resource with another; by conserving resources whenever they can; and by recovering resources from the market-place as quickly as possible. As recent competitive battles have demonstrated, abundant resources can't guarantee continued industry leadership.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Private equity and Covid-19

We survey more than 200 private equity (PE) managers from firms with $1.9 trillion of assets under management (AUM) about their portfolio performance, decision-making and activities during the Covid-19 pandemic. Given that PE managers have significant incentives to maximize value, their actions during the pandemic should indicate what they perceive as being important for both the preservation and creation of value. PE managers believe that 40% of their portfolio companies are moderately negatively affected and 10% are very negatively affected by the pandemic. The private equity managers—both investment and operating partners—are actively engaged in the operations, governance, and financing in all of their current portfolio companies. These activities are more intensively pursued in those companies that have been more severely affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. As a result of the pandemic, they expect the performance of their existing funds to decline. They are more pessimistic about that decline than the venture capitalists (VCs) surveyed in Gompers et al. (2021). Despite the pandemic, private equity managers are seeking new investments. Rather than focusing on cost cutting, PE investors place a much greater weight on revenue growth for value creation. Relative to the 2012 survey results reported in Gompers, Kaplan, and Mukharlyamov (2016), they appear to give a larger equity stake to management teams and target somewhat lower returns.     

The split capital investment trust saga: Lessons for financial services marketing

The split capital investment trust boom at the end of the 1990s demonstrated that product innovation and financial engineering can lead to the creation of dangerous products whose risks are not understood by investors. It also emphasised the need for careful marketing of investment products. This involves identifying the needs of investors, creating products to meet those needs, promoting and selling those products, and managing client relationships after the sale. Particular issues that should be addressed include the need to educate clients and adequate stress testing of new products.     

Divestiture: strategy's missing link

Although most companies dedicate considerable time and attention to acquiring and creating businesses, few devote much effort to divestitures. But regularly divesting businesses--even good, healthy ones--ensures that remaining units reach their potential and that the overall company grows stronger. Drawing on extensive research into corporate performance over the last decade, McKinsey consultants Lee Dranikoff, Tim Koller, and Antoon Schneider show that an active divestiture strategy is essential to a corporation's long-term health and profitability. In particular, they say that companies that actively manage their businesses through acquisitions and divestitures create substantially more shareholder value than those that passively hold on to their businesses. Therefore, companies should avoid making divestitures only in response to pressure and instead make them part of a well-thought-out strategy. This article presents a five-step process for doing just that: prepare the organization, identify the best candidates for divestiture, execute the best deal, communicate the decision, and create new businesses. As the fifth step suggests, divestiture is not an end in itself. Rather, it is a means to a larger end: building a company that can grow and prosper over the long haul. Wise executives divest so that they can create new businesses and expand existing ones. All of the funds, management time, and support-function capacity that a divestiture frees up should therefore be reinvested in creating shareholder value. In some cases, this will mean returning money to shareholders. But more likely than not, it will mean investing in attractive growth opportunities. In companies as in the marketplace, creation and destruction go hand in hand; neither flourishes without the other.     

New cross-proposal entrepreneurship and innovation in educational programs in third level (tertiary) education

Capitalism has promoted and requires the growing knowledge of entrepreneurs, creative people who have the ability to solve problems in the form of innovation. The types of enterprises they create can be social, public and private. By creating an enterprising company new products and new production methods can be introduced, new markets are open, new sources of raw materials and inputs are developed and new market structures in an industry are created. Entrepreneurship can be taught, the question is how to do it. Teaching entrepreneurship should go beyond the business plan. It proposes a form that overcomes the mistakes found by the author in two research studies in 2008 and 2014 in the programs of management in Bogotá.     

智力资本与财务资本:谁对企业价值创造更有效——来自于江浙地区企业的实证研究

财务资本对于企业价值创造的作用是毋庸置疑的,而在知识经济时代,智力资本对于企业价值创造也发挥越来越重要的作用。研究以江苏、浙江等地的企业为分析样本,在智力资本三分法的基础上,通过结构化方程构建了四个嵌套模型。研究结果表明:(1)财务资本对于企业绩效具有重要意义,相对于人力资本更处于核心地位;(2)人力资本不能直接对企业绩效发挥作用,需要通过关系资本和结构资本作为中介;(3)智力资本对于企业绩效的可持续增长具有重要意义,企业要获得长期战略绩效,需要更关注于智力资本的积累与培育。     

The Value of Crowdfunding: An Explanation Based on Demand Uncertainty and Comparison with Venture Capital

This article notes that an advantage of crowdfunding is in its ability to help start-up firms acquire more accurate market demand information regarding new products when compared with venture capital (VC). The whole market of a given product can be conceptualized as being segmented into several, small local markets. VC has a comprehensive knowledge of local markets in general but is prone to noisy aggregate demand information as a result. While crowdfunding investors have intimate knowledge regarding local demand information in their respective locales, they lack knowledge in other local markets. We show that under certain conditions, crowdfunding can provide more accurate demand information and therefore can generate better incentives to entrepreneurs while improving product quality and helping entrepreneurs make correct decisions on whether or not to launch a new product. Therefore, the wisdom of the crowd can be more valuable than the wisdom of the expert.     

全球私募基金的发展趋势及在中国的前景

私募基金发展已经对全球经济运行和金融市场发展产生了重要影响.本文通过对全球私募基金发展历程、发展特点以及发展趋势的分析,以及对中国私募基金市场发展历史与现状的评价,提出以下观点:在私募基金的演化与国际化扩张进程中,私募基金经营范围的综合化趋势愈加明显;中国私募基金市场仍是一个不对称的畸形市场,市场上尚缺乏真正意义的本土私募股权投资基金.本文同时得出以下结论:由于社会信用环境、法律环境已经趋好,证券市场日趋理性规范发展,中国私募基金市场的"不对称"和"不规范"的色彩将逐步减轻;私募股权投资基金将逐渐成为中国私募基金存在的重要方式.     

Multimedia: Forecasts of employment growth in the media and communications sector often exaggerated

Summary In the light of the probable market development of new multimedia products and services, domestic demand for media and communications goods in the year 2010 will be around three times its level at the start of the 1990s. The increase in private sector demand will be somewhat higher than general economic expansion, the rise in private household demand will be slightly higher than the growth of private consumption. This is, however, contingent on solutions being found by 1998 for the technical and regulatory questions that are as yet still unresolved. What is decisive for the pace at which the telecommunications infrastructure will develop is the degree of competitive and innovative pressure. German policy makers can contribute to this by ensuring that the (still publicly owned) Telekom AG sells off its cable TV networks. It would also seem important to restrict the time-consuming licensing procedure for broadcasting companies to programmes with a bearing on public opinion and to render the regulatory procedure more efficient by setting up a national body to perform this task.The number of employees in firms producing and distributing M&C technology will expand to a far lesser extent than domestic demand to the year 2010, largely due to productivity growth. Model calculations point to an increase of the order of 10% to around 2.1 million jobs. This means that the significant positive employment effects frequently forecast for the new M&C technologies can only come about if the potential for rationalisation inherent in these technologies is utilised throughout the economy in a rigorous fashion to raise efficiency and international competitiveness. Such competitive advantages can only be generated, however, if a broad-based application of the new multimedia is realised earlier than in Germany's leading competitors.