The myth of secure computing

Few senior executives pay a whole lot of attention to computer security. They either hand off responsibility to their technical people or bring in consultants. But given the stakes involved, an arm's-length approach is extremely unwise. According to industry estimates, security breaches affect 90% of all businesses every year and cost some $17 billion. Fortunately, the authors say, senior executives don't need to learn about the more arcane aspects of their company's IT systems in order to take a hands-on approach. Instead, they should focus on the familiar task of managing risk. Their role should be to assess the business value of their information assets, determine the likelihood that those assets will be compromised, and then tailor a set of risk abatement processes to their company's particular vulnerabilities. This approach, which views computer security as an operational rather than a technical challenge, is akin to a classic quality assurance program in that it attempts to avoid problems rather than fix them and involves all employees, not just IT staffers. The goal is not to make computer systems completely secure--that's impossible--but to reduce the business risk to an acceptable level. This article looks at the types of threats a company is apt to face. It also examines the processes a general manager should spearhead to lessen the likelihood of a successful attack. The authors recommend eight processes in all, ranging from deciding how much protection each digital asset deserves to insisting on secure software to rehearsing a response to a security breach. The important thing to realize, they emphasize, is that decisions about digital security are not much different from other cost-benefit decisions. The tools general managers bring to bear on other areas of the business are good models for what they need to do in this technical space.     

Transforming corner-office strategy into frontline action

When CEOs push decision making out to the far reaches of an organization, good things happen: fleeting business opportunities are seized quickly and workers are motivated to innovate and take risks. But it's tricky to achieve both decentralized decision making and coherent strategic action at a company. If everyone is a decision maker, things can spin out of control. In this article, Bain consultants Orit Gadiesh and James Gilbert explore the concept of the strategic principle--a memorable and actionable phrase that distills a company's corporate strategy into its unique essence and communicates it across an organization. If it's devised and disseminated properly, a strategic principle can empower employees to seize business opportunities but also focus everyone in an organization--executives and line managers alike--on the same strategic objectives. The authors outline the three defining characteristics of a good strategic principle--it should force trade-offs between competing resource demands, it should serve as a test for the strategic soundness of a particular action, and it should set clear boundaries for employees to operate within even as it grants them freedom to experiment. They explain how managers can create a strategic principle, how they should test it, and when they should revisit it. The authors present real-world examples of how companies use their strategic principles. For instance, they describe how South-west Airlines stopped flying to Denver after it measured the high costs of providing flight service in that part of the country against its strategic principle of offering customers short-haul air travel at fares competitive with the cost of automobile travel. This tool is increasingly useful in today's rapidly changing business environment, the authors conclude, and it is likely to become even more crucial to corporate success.     

完善公司治理与管理会计创新

本文认为 ,会计信息系统在公司治理中的作用还有待进一步全面认识。财务会计信息由于受多种因素的限制 ,不能完全满足公司治理的要求 ;而管理会计也需要重新构造其目标和方法体系 ,才能有助于公司治理。管理会计与财务会计都是为公司的内外部服务 ,两者的差异从根本上说源自信息披露是否具有强制性。为推进管理会计的改革和发展 ,应重视会计系统的环境因素、管理制度创新与规范的结合和会计信息的内在性质。     

关于电子商务及员工管理一席谈

最近CA公司董事长兼首席执行官王嘉廉先生在清华大学就电子商务的发展及CA公司的人力资源管理等问题向清华师生发表了演讲,其中不乏较新颖的观点本刊整理如下,以供读者品评。     

The fine art of friendly acquisition

It's no secret that the track record of corporate acquirers has been dismal. But there is a group that's had consistent success. A recent study on M&A reveals that between 1984 and 1994, fund investors at some 80% of LBO firms enjoyed returns equal to or greater than their cost of capital on their M&A investments. And this was true even though in many cases the prices paid for the companies were pushed up by competing bidders. Why are financial acquirers so much more successful than their corporate counterparts? It's because they approach the negotiation process differently. Most corporate managers treat acquisitions as a direct-march-up-the-hill kind of exercise: "I want to buy this company. Let's find out what it's worth, offer less, and see if we get it." The actual deal management is delegated to outside experts--investment bankers and lawyers. But fund investors treat deal management as a core part of their business conducted by a permanent group of experienced executives, and they have well-established processes that they stick to. The authors examine how the best acquirers approach all five stages of deal negotiations--screening potential deals, reaching initial agreement, conducting due diligence, setting final terms, and reaching closure--comparing good practice with bad, to reveal the secrets of their success.     

The high cost of accurate knowledge

Many business thinkers believe it's the role of senior managers to scan the external environment to monitor contingencies and constraints, and to use that precise knowledge to modify the company's strategy and design. As these thinkers see it, managers need accurate and abundant information to carry out that role. According to that logic, it makes sense to invest heavily in systems for collecting and organizing competitive information. Another school of pundits contends that, since today's complex information often isn't precise anyway, it's not worth going overboard with such investments. In other words, it's not the accuracy and abundance of information that should matter most to top executives--rather, it's how that information is interpreted. After all, the role of senior managers isn't just to make decisions; it's to set direction and motivate others in the face of ambiguities and conflicting demands. Top executives must interpret information and communicate those interpretations--they must manage meaning more than they must manage information. So which of these competing views is the right one? Research conducted by academics Sutcliffe and Weber found that how accurate senior executives are about their competitive environments is indeed less important for strategy and corresponding organizational changes than the way in which they interpret information about their environments. Investments in shaping those interpretations, therefore, may create a more durable competitive advantage than investments in obtaining and organizing more information. And what kinds of interpretations are most closely linked with high performance? Their research suggests that high performers respond positively to opportunities, yet they aren't overconfident in their abilities to take advantage of those opportunities.     

Relative Target Setting and Cooperation

A large stream of work on relative performance evaluation highlights the benefits of using information about peer performance in contracting. In contrast, the potential costs of discouraging cooperation among peers have received much less attention. The purpose of our study is to examine how the importance of cooperation affects the use of information about peer performance in target setting, also known as relative target setting. Specifically, we use data from an industrial services company where business unit managers need to share specialized equipment and staff with their peers to manage bottlenecks in their capacity. We construct several empirical proxies for the costs and benefits of information about peer performance and examine their effects on target setting. We find robust evidence that the sensitivity of target revisions to past peer performance is higher when peer group performance has greater capacity to filter out noise but lower when the importance of cooperation among peers is greater.     

The new deal at the top

What makes a company strategically agile--able to alter its strategies and business models rapidly in response to major changes in its market space, and to do so repeatedly without major trauma? Three years of in-depth case research on a dozen large companies worldwide showed the authors that one key factor is a new leadership model at the top. Senior executives at agile companies assume collective rather than individual responsibility for results. They build interdependencies among units and divisions, motivating themselves to engage with one another, and carefully manage their dealings to promote collaboration that is frequent, intense, informal, open, and focused on shared issues and the long term. Challenges to conventional thinking are encouraged. This is the new deal, and it's not easy to strike, because it requires executives to act in ways that are far from comfortable. After all, the corporate ladder at most firms favors independent types with a deep need for power and autonomy. At executive meetings, disagreement is suppressed or expressed passive-aggressively, eroding any real sense of belonging to a team. Switching to the new deal almost always requires a huge shift in the company's culture, values, and norms of interaction. The authors describe three approaches to making the shift: Executives can be given formal responsibility not for a business unit but for different stages in the company's value chain. This worked well for SAP, which has a relatively focused business portfolio. When a company's portfolio is less uniform, like Nokia's, business and functional units can be organized to crisscross on a matrix. And when a company is widely diverse, like easyGroup, it can emphasize the learning opportunities that units with common business models may share.     

CEO incentives-its not how much you pay, but how

The arrival of spring means yet another round in the national debate over executive compensation. But the critics have it wrong. The relentless attention on how much CEOs are paid diverts public attention from the real problem-how CEOs are paid. The authors present an in-depth statistical analysis of executive compensation. The study incorporates data on thousands of CEOs spanning five decades. Their surprising conclusions are at odds with the prevailing wisdom on CEO pay: Despite the headlines, top executives are not receiving record salaries and bonuses. Cash compensation has increased over the past 15 years, but CEO pay levels are just now catching up to where they were 50 years ago. Annual changes in executive compensation do not reflect changes in corporate performance. For the median CEO in the 250 largest public companies, a $1,000 change in shareholder value corresponds to a change of just 6.7 cents in salary and bonus over a two-year period. With respect to pay for performance, CEO compensation is getting worse rather than better. CEO stock ownership-the best link between shareholder wealth and executive well-being-was ten times greater in the 1930s than in the 1980s. Compensation policy is one of the most important factors in an organization's success. Not only does it shape how top executives behave but it also helps determine what kind of executives an organization attracts. That's why it's so urgent that boards of directors reform their compensation practices and adopt systems that reward outstanding performance and penalize poor performance.     

The ethical mind. A conversation with psychologist Howard Gardner

Business leadership has become synonymous in the public eye with unethical behavior. Widespread scandals, massive layoffs, and inflated executive pay packages have led many to believe that corporate wrongdoing is the status quo. That's why it's more important than ever that those at the top mend relationships with customers, employees, and other stakeholders. Professor Gardner has spent many years studying the relationship between psychology and ethics at Harvard's Graduate School of Education. In this interview with HBR senior editor Bronwyn Fryer, Gardner talks about what he calls the ethical mind, which helps individuals aspire to do good work that matters to their colleagues, companies, and society in general. In an era when workers are overwhelmed by too much information and feel pressured to win at all costs, Gardner believes, it's easy to lose one's way. What's more, employees look to leaders for cues as to what's appropriate and what's not. So if you're a leader, what's the best way to stand up to ethical pressures and set a good example? First and foremost, says Gardner, you must believe that retaining an ethical compass is essential to the health of your organization. Then you must state your ethical beliefs and stick to them. You should also test yourself rigorously to make sure you're adhering to your values, take time to reflect on your beliefs, find multiple mentors who aren't afraid to speak truth to your power, and confront others' egregious behavior as soon as it arises. In the end, Gardner believes, the world hangs in the balance between right and wrong, good and bad, success and disaster. "You need to decide which side you're on:" he concludes, "and do the right thing."     

Employee responsibility in benefit change

If employers want to move employees beyond superficial acceptance of benefit changes, organizations need to increase the focus on how they manage the change process and support employee decision making. This article describes how employers can help workers understand changes and, through effective change management and communication, successfully navigate in an evolving benefits world. Using recent survey research about large employer and employee attitudes, the authors demonstrate tangible proof that these efforts pay off, both in financial and cultural terms.     

Make your company a talent factory

Despite the great sums of money companies dedicate to talent management systems, many still struggle to fill key positions - limiting their potential for growth in the process. Virtually all the human resource executives in the authors' 2005 survey of 40 companies around the world said that their pipeline of high-potential employees was insufficient to fill strategic management roles. The survey revealed two primary reasons for this. First, the formal procedures for identifying and developing next-generation leaders have fallen out of sync with what companies need to grow or expand into new markets. To save money, for example, some firms have eliminated positions that would expose high-potential employees to a broad range of problems, thus sacrificing future development opportunities that would far outweigh any initial savings from the job cuts. Second, HR executives often have trouble keeping top leaders' attention on talent issues, despite those leaders' vigorous assertions that obtaining and keeping the best people is a major priority. If passion for that objective doesn't start at the top and infuse the culture, say the authors, talent management can easily deteriorate into the management of bureaucratic routines. Yet there are companies that can face the future with confidence. These firms don't just manage talent, they build talent factories. The authors describe the experiences of two such corporations - consumer products icon Procter & Gamble and financial services giant HSBC Group -that figured out how to develop and retain key employees and fill positions quickly to meet evolving business needs. Though each company approached talent management from a different direction, they both maintained a twin focus on functionality (rigorous talent processes that support strategic and cultural objectives) and vitality (management's emotional commitment, which is reflected in daily actions).     

Reawakening your passion for work

All of us struggle from time to time with the question of personal meaning: "Am I living the way I want to live?" For millions of people, the attacks of September 11 put the issue front and center, but most of us periodically take stock of our lives under far less dramatic circumstances. This type of questioning is healthy; business leaders need to go through it every few years to replenish their energy, creativity, and commitment--and their passion for work. In this article, the authors describe the signals that it's time to reevaluate your choices and illuminate strategies for responding to those signals. Such wake-up calls come in various forms. Some people feel trapped or bored and may realize that they have adjusted to the frustrations of their work to such an extent that they barely recognize themselves. For others, the signal comes when they are faced with an ethical challenge or suddenly discover their true calling. Once you have realized that it's time to take stock of your life, there are strategies to help you consider where you are, where you're headed, and where you want to be. Many people find that calling a time-out--either in the form of an intense, soul-searching exercise or a break from corporate life--is the best way to reconnect with their dreams. Other strategies include working with a coach, participating in an executive development program, scheduling regular time for self-reflection, and making small changes so that your work better reflects your values. People no longer expect their leaders to have all the answers, but they do expect them to try to keep their own passion alive and to support employees through that process.     

They're not employees, they're people

In this essay, business thinker Peter Drucker examines the changing dynamics of the workforce--in particular, the need for organizations to take just as much care and responsibility when managing temporary and contract workers as they do with their traditional employees. Two fast-growing trends are demanding that business leaders pay more attention to employee relations, Drucker says. First is the rise of the temporary, or contract, workers; 8 million to 10 million temp workers are placed each day worldwide. And they're not just filling in at reception desks. Today, there are temp suppliers for every kind of job, all the way up to CEO. Second, a growing number of businesses are outsourcing their employee relations to professional employee organizations (PEOs)--third-party groups that handle the ever mounting administrative tasks associated with managing a company's employees. (Managers can easily spend up to one-quarter of their time on employee-related rules, regulations, and paperwork.) Driving these trends, Drucker observes, is the shift from a dependency on manual labor to create wealth and jobs to a dependency on specialization and knowledge. Leaders are increasingly trying to keep up with the needs of many small groups of product or service experts within their companies. Temps and PEOs free up leaders to focus on the business rather than on HR files and paperwork. But if organizations outsource those functions, they need to be careful not to damage relationship with their people in the process, Drucker concludes. After all, developing talent is business's most important task--the sine qua non of competition in a knowledge economy.     

Measuring corporate environmental performance

As shareholders, government regulators, consumers, employees, and the general public pay more attention to companies' environmental performance, measurement issues are becoming increasingly important and demand is growing for relevant information to assist stakeholders in making key decisions. Despite the enhanced interest in and attention to companies' environmental activities, the accounting profession has been slow to take on the role of defining, measuring, and controlling this broad corporate domain. Thus, measures of environmental performance have proliferated in the absence of clear, generally accepted guidelines as to what constitutes good and bad environmental performance. As a result, the public is becoming increasingly confused and cynical about interpretation of such data. In this paper, we use theoretical and empirical approaches to define corporate environmental performance and consider how well existing measures operationalize the construct. Interestingly, some popular environmental rating schemes seem to rely more heavily on public reaction to environmental events than on more precise and measurable outcome or process dimensions. Our findings suggest a need for explicit environmental performance metrics in order to provide stakeholders with more reliable, consistent, and accurate information for comparing companies and making key strategic decisions. We argue that the accounting profession is an obvious candidate for establishing such metrics since the domain of accounting typically includes measuring, communicating, and regulating information about company performance. Expanding accountants' domain to include environmental performance can greatly contribute to the usefulness of environmental performance metrics.     

Who should set CEO pay? The press? Congress? Shareholders?

Populist fervor in an election year has transformed executive compensation from a business issue into a political one. Critics, led by Graef Crystal, author of In Search of Excess: The Overcompensation of American Executives, charge that CEOs are ripping off shareholders with their outrageous salaries while running U.S. corporations into the ground. Politicians claim overpaid CEOs are the root cause of the U.S. competitiveness problem. Add a recessionary business climate to the fact that some CEOs earn 130 times more than their lowest paid employees, and you have the makings of a populist rebellion. In a bid to appease voters, Congress is considering several bills that would limit the deductibility of "excessive executive salaries," the SEC has opened the issue to shareholder comment, and the Financial Accounting Standards Board is looking at new accounting standards for granting stock options to executives as part of company compensation schemes. Andrew R. Brownstein and Morris J. Panner say it's time to put the debate back where it belongs--in a business context. The real question is not are executives paid too much, but are shareholders getting their money's worth. Most U.S. corporations use stock compensation to link company long-term performance to executive salaries. And because of the staggering market performance of U.S. corporations in the 1980s, an overwhelming majority of CEOs are actually paid in line with their performance. Rather than cut executive pay, Brownstein and Panner suggest that corporations extend incentive-based compensation plans to all employees, thus narrowing the salary gap and establishing pay for performance at every level of the organization.     

Reappearing Dividends

During the last two decades of the 20th century, the propensity of U.S. companies to pay cash dividends declined significantly. The trend away from dividends accelerated during the late 1990s, leading some economists to conclude that dividend policy was shifting in a very fundamental way. But there was a sharp reversal in this trend starting in 2000.
This article investigates five possible explanations why dividends are reappearing. Given the explosion of new companies during the 1990s, the authors find that part of this rebound can be explained by the "maturity hypothesis"– by the need for such companies to pay out their excess "free cash fiow" to reassure investors that it will not be wasted on value-destroying investments. The authors also report evidence that some companies have chosen to use dividends in part to restore investor confidence about the "quality" of corporate earnings in the wake of concerns over corporate governance. Third, the authors' findings suggest that U.S. companies have responded to the recent dividend tax cut, as one might expect, although the rebound in dividends started well before tax reform became a widely discussed possibility. Finally, the study finds little support for behavioralist explanations in which managers "cater" to irrational investor preferences for dividends. Although the authors hesitate to read too much into the recent rebound, their evidence is consistent with the idea that corporate payout policy has shifted back in favor of conventional cash dividends.     

THE CEO: A VISIBLE HAND IN WEALTH CREATION?

Commensurate with the growth of their pay packages and public visibility, the role of the CEO in the corporate value creation process has increased significantly in recent years. This article argues that sustained wealth creation in a corporation has three distinct elements. The first and most basic is the selection of the lines of business in which to operate; this element is probably the most visible manifestation of CEO action in large corporations today. The second element is the value creation model, which answers the question: How is this particular set of businesses expected to add value over and above the sum of the values of each business or asset category standing alone? The third element is the internal governance system, which establishes the corporate structure and administrative processes of the firm and, perhaps even more important, defines the corporate values that drive the strategic and operational priorities of the different business units. The authors suggest that the essence of the work of the CEO is to develop and maintain a balanced relationship among these three elements of wealth creation and to ensure that the relationship evolves in the face of changing circumstances. CEOs are inevitably faced with dilemmas in managing this process—in particular, the need to balance continuity and change and to maintain the integrity of short‐term performance disciplines while encouraging not only investment in growth opportunities (which can hurt near term performance), but also experimentation and collaboration among business units (which are difficult to measure and reward with most performance measurement and incentive schemes). Adding to the difficulties of managing such dilemmas, visibility and a strong public image are often thrust upon (if not sought by) CEOs, who must then determine how they can use that image to strengthen the commitment of their employees and investors.     

The hospital capital crisis: issues for trustees

The erosion of the capital position in the hospital industry--one of the most complex and overregulated industries in the United States--is a major challenge to trustees. Hospital trustees have often neglected to examine their hospitals' capital needs on more than a project-by-project basis. In dealing with their hospitals' capital needs, trustees, most of whom are successful business people, too often take off their "business" hats and put on their "social worker" hats. In doing so they not only neglect to subject their hospitals' capital and operating programs to searching cost-benefit review, but they also overlook much useful knowledge about how to use corporate organization to shelter new ventures and strengthen their hospitals' market position and solvency. In this article, the authors discuss how hospitals can adopt successful corporate restructurings and strategies to respond to the adverse financial developments they will have to face in the coming years.     

Creativity and the role of the leader

In today's innovation-driven economy, understanding how to generate great ideas has become an urgent managerial priority. Suddenly, the spotlight has turned on the academics who've studied creativity for decades. How relevant is their research to the practical challenges leaders face? To connect theory and practice, Harvard Business School professors Amabile and Khaire convened a two-day colloquium of leading creativity scholars and executives from companies such as Google, IDEO, Novartis, Intuit, and E Ink. In this article, the authors present highlights of the research presented and the discussion of its implications. At the event, a new leadership agenda began to take shape, one rooted in the awareness that you can't manage creativity--you can only manage for creativity. A number of themes emerged: The leader's job is not to be the source of ideas but to encourage and champion ideas. Leaders must tap the imagination of employees at all ranks and ask inspiring questions. They also need to help their organizations incorporate diverse perspectives, which spur creative insights, and facilitate creative collaboration by, for instance, harnessing new technologies. The participants shared tactics for enabling discoveries, as well as thoughts on how to bring process to bear on creativity without straitjacketing it. They pointed out that process management isn't appropriate in all stages of creative work; leaders should apply it thoughtfully and manage the handoff from idea generators to commercializers deftly. The discussion also examined the need to clear paths through bureaucracy, weed out weak ideas, and maximize the organization's learning from failure. Though points of view varied, the theories and frameworks explored advance the understanding of creativity in business and offer executives a playbook for increasing innovation.