Do your commitments match your convictions?

How many of us keep pace day to day, up-holding our obligations to our bosses, families, and the community, even as our overall satisfaction with work and quality of life decline? And yet, our common response to the situation is: "I'm too busy to do anything about it now." Unfortunately, unless a personal or professional crisis strikes, very few of us step back, take stock of our day-to-day actions, and make a change. In this article, London Business School strategy professors Donald Sull and Dominic Houlder examine the reasons why a gap often exists between the things we value most and the ways we actually spend our time, money, and attention. They also suggest a practical approach to managing the gap. The framework they propose is based on their study of organizational commitments--the investments, promises, and contracts made today that bind companies to a future course of action. Such commitments can prevent organizations from responding effectively to change. A similar logic applies to personal commitments--the day-to-day decisions we make about how we allocate our precious resources. These decisions are individually small and, therefore, easy to lose sight of. When we do, a gap can develop between our commitments and our convictions. Sull and Houlder make no value judgments about the content of personal commitments; they've devised a somewhat dispassionate tool to help you take a thorough inventory of what matters to you most. It involves listing your most important values and assigning to each a percentage of your annual salary, the hours out of your week, and the amount of energy you devote. Using this exercise, you should be able to identify big gaps--stated values that receive little or none of your scarce resources or a single value that sucks a disproportionate share of resources--and change your allocations accordingly.     

What's your story?

When you're in the midst of a major career change, telling stories about your professional self can inspire others' belief in your character and in your capacity to take a leap and land on your feet. It also can help you believe in yourself. A narrative thread will give meaning to your career history; it will assure you that, in moving on to something new, you are not discarding everything you've worked so hard to accomplish. Unfortunately, the authors explain in this article, most of us fail to use the power of storytelling in pursuit of our professional goals, or we do it badly. Tales of transition are especially challenging. Not knowing how to reconcile the built-in discontinuities in our work lives, we often relay just the facts. We present ourselves as safe--and dull and unremarkable. That's not a necessary compromise. A transition story has inherent dramatic appeal. The protagonist is you, of course, and what's at stake is your career. Perhaps you've come to an event or insight that represents a point of no return. It's this kind of break with the past that will force you to discover and reveal who you really are. Discontinuity and tension are part of the experience. If these elements are missing from your career story, the tale will fall flat. With all these twists and turns, how do you demonstrate stability and earn listeners' trust? By emphasizing continuity and causality--in other words, by showing that your past is related to the present and, from that trajectory, conveying that a solid future is in sight. If you can make your story of transition cohere, you will have gone far in convincing the listener--and reassuring yourself--that the change makes sense for you and is likely to bring success.     

‘Putting your money where your mouth is’ A profile of ethical investors

This research sought to determine why people chose to invest in Earth Sanctuaries Limited (ESL), which conserves ecosystems and breeds endangered species as its corporate mission, an unequivocally ethical objective. Investors were surveyed to assess the relative importance of financial versus ecological considerations. Demographic and investor behavior attributes of ESL shareholders were compared with those of Australian shareholders as reported by an Australian Stock Exchange survey. The results showed that the environmental mission of ESL took pre-eminence over financial considerations for these investors. Comparison of the two groups revealed significant differences in most variables.     

Is silence killing your company?

Many times, often with the best of intentions, people at work decide it's more productive to remain silent about their differences than to air them. There's no time, they think, or no point in going against what the boss says. But as new research by the authors shows, silencing doesn't smooth things over or make people more productive. It merely pushes differences beneath the surface and can set in motion powerfully destructive forces. When people stay silent about important disagreements, they can begin to fill with anxiety, anger, and resentment. As long as the conflict is unresolved, their repressed feelings remain potent, making them increasingly distrustful, self-protective, and all the more fearful that if they speak up they will be embarrassed or rejected. Their sense of insecurity grows, leading to further acts of silence, more defensiveness, and more distrust, thereby setting into motion a destructive "spiral of silence." Sooner or later, they mentally opt out--sometimes merely doing what they're told but contributing nothing of their own, sometimes spreading discontent and frustration throughout the workplace that can lead them, and others, to leave without thinking it through. These vicious spirals of silence can be replaced with virtuous spirals of communication, but that requires individuals to find the courage to act differently and executives to create the conditions in which people will value the expression of differences. All too often, behind failed products, broken processes, and mistaken career decisions are people who chose to hold their tongues. Breaking the silence can bring an outpouring of fresh ideas from all levels of an organization--ideas that might just raise the organization's performance to a whole new level.     

What's your personal social media strategy?

Social media are changing the way we do business and how leaders are perceived, from the shop floor to the CEO suite. But whereas the best businesses are creating comprehensive strategies in thi area, research suggests that few corporate Leaders have a social media presence--say, a Facebook or Linked in of page--and that those do don't use it strategically. Today's leaders must embrace social media for three reasons, First, they provide a low-cost, highly accessible platform on which to build your personal brand, communicating who you are both within and outside your company. Second, they allow you to engage rapidly and simultaneously with peers, employees, customers, and the broader public--in order to leverage relationships, show commitment to a cause, and demonstrate a capacity for reflection. Third, they give you an opportunity to learn from instant information and unvarnished feedback. To formulate your personal social media strategy, it helps to clarify your goals (personal, professional, or both), desired audience (private or public), and resources (can you justify using your company's?). You must also consider the risks of maintaining a large number of connections and of sharing content online. Active participation in social media can be a powerful tool--the difference between leading effectively and ineffectively, and between advancing and faltering in the pursuit of your goals.     

What's your real cost of capital?

In valuing any investment project or corporate acquisition, executives must decide what discount rate to use in their estimates of future cash flows. The traditional approach is to apply the capital asset pricing model (CAPM), which has remained fundamentally unchanged for 40 years. But the formula--in particular, its beta element--has long been a source of frustration. In fact, corporate executives and investment bankers routinely fudge their CAPM estimates, say the authors, because experience and intuition tell them the model produces inappropriate discount rates. CAPM has three main problems: First, beta is a measure of both a stock's correlation and its volatility; second, beta is based on historical data; and third, CAPM rates don't take into account the term of the investment. These factors together result in discount rates that defy common sense. As an alternative to CAPM and its beta element, the authors developed a forward-looking approach to calculating a company's cost of capital, the market-derived capital pricing model (MCPM). It does not incorporate any measure of historical stock-to-market correlation, relying instead on estimates of future volatility derived from the options market. This is helpful since investor expectations from the options market are built into a company's current stock price. Using GE as an example, the authors give step-by-step instructions for how to calculate discount rates with MCPM. They also offer evidence from a range of industries to show that MCPM's discount rates are more realistic--especially from the corporate investor's perspective--than are CAPM's.     

How much cash does your company need?

In late 2001, the directors of Pfizer asked that very question. And with good reason. After its 2000 merger with rival Warner-Lambert, the New York-based pharmaceutical giant found itself sitting on a net cash position of $8 billion, which seemed extraordinarily conservative for a company whose products generated $30 billion in revenues. Most large companies with revenues that healthy would increase leverage, thereby unlocking tremendous value for shareholders. But knowledge-intensive companies like Pfizer, this author argues, are in a class apart. Because their largely intangible assets (like R&D) are highly volatile and cannot easily be valued, they are more vulnerable to financial distress than are firms with a preponderance of tangible assets. To insure against that risk, they need to maintain large positive cash balances. These companies' decisions to run large cash balances is one of the key reasons their shares sustain consistent premiums. Only by investing in their intangible assets can knowledge-based companies hope to preserve the value of those assets. A company that finds itself unable to do so because unfavorable market conditions reduce its operating cash flows will see its share price suffer almost as much as if it were to default on its debts. By the same token, with the right balance sheet, knowledge companies can profitably insure against the risk of failing to sustain value-added investments in difficult times. An optimal capital structure that calls for significant cash balances is certainly at odds with the results of a traditional capital structure analysis, the author demonstrates, but it explains the financial policies of many well-run companies, from Pfizer to Intel to ChevronTexaco.     

Is your company ready for one-to-one marketing?

One-to-one marketing, also known as relationship marketing, promises to increase the value of your customer base by establishing a learning relationship with each customer. The customer tells you of some need, and you customize your product or service to meet it. Every interaction and modification improves your ability to fit your product to the particular customer. Eventually, even if a competitor offers the same type of service, your customer won't be able to enjoy the same level of convenience without taking the time to teach your competitor the lessons your company has already learned. Although the theory behind one-to-one marketing is simple, implementation is complex. Too many companies have jumped on the one-to-one band-wagon without proper preparation--mistakenly understanding it as an excuse to badger customers with excessive telemarketing and direct mail campaigns. The authors offer practical advice for implementing a one-to-one marketing program correctly. They describe four key steps: identifying your customers, differentiating among them, interacting with them, and customizing your product or service to meet each customer's needs. And they provide activities and exercises, to be administered to employees and customers, that will help you identify your company's readiness to launch a one-to-one initiative. Although some managers dismiss the possibility of one-to-one marketing as an unattainable goal, even a modest program can produce substantial benefits. This tool kit will help you determine what type of program your company can implement now, what you need to do to position your company for a large-scale initiative, and how to set priorities.     

Is a share buyback right for your company?

Contrary to popular wisdom, buybacks don't create value by raising earnings per share. But they do indeed create value, and in two very different ways. First, a buyback sends signals about the company's prospects to the market--hopefully, that prospects are so good that the best investment managers can make right now is in their own company. But investors won't see it that way if other, negative, signals are coming from the company, and it's rarely a good idea for companies in high-growth industries, where investors expect that money to be spent pursuing new opportunities. Second, when financed as a debt issue, a buyback is essentially an exchange of equity for debt, conferring the traditional benefits of leverage--a tax shield and a discipline for managers. For such a buyback to make sense, a company would need to have taxable profits in need of shielding, of course, and be able to predict its future cash flows fairly accurately. Justin Pettit has found that managers routinely underestimate how many shares they need to buy to send a credible signal to the markets, and he offers a way to calculate that number. He also goes through the iterative steps involved in working out how many shares must be purchased to reach a target level of debt. Then he takes a look at the advantages and disadvantages of the three most common ways that companies make the actual purchases--open-market purchases, fixed-price tender offers, and auction-based tender offers. When a company's performance is lagging, a share buyback can look attractive. Unfortunately, a buyback can backfire--unless executives understand why, when, and how to use this powerful and risky tool.     

Does being your bank’s neighbor matter?

This paper provides new evidence on the role of distance between banks and borrowers in bank lending. We argue that delegated monitors face higher costs of collecting information about nonlocal borrowers due to the difficulty of obtaining and verifying soft information over distances. Further, the higher information collection and monitoring costs associated with distance should be reflected in loan terms. Empirically, loan spreads are increasing in the distance between borrowers and lenders. Finally, banks are more likely to include covenant provisions or require collateral when lending to borrowers located far away.     

Having trouble with your strategy? Then map it

If you were a military general on the march, you'd want your troops to have plenty of maps--detailed information about the mission they were on, the roads they would travel, the campaigns they would undertake, and the weapons at their disposal. The same holds true in business: a workforce needs clear and detailed information to execute a business strategy successfully. Until now, there haven't been many tools that can communicate both an organization's strategy and the processes and systems needed to implement that strategy. But authors Robert Kaplan and David Norton, cocreators of the balanced scorecard, have adapted that seminal tool to create strategy maps. Strategy maps let an organization describe and illustrate--in clear and general language--its objectives, initiatives, targets markets, performance measures, and the links between all the pieces of its strategy. Employees get a visual representation of how their jobs are tied to the company's overall goals, while managers get a clearer understanding of their strategies and a means to detect and correct any flaws in those plans. Using Mobil North American Marketing and Refining Company as an example, Kaplan and Norton walk through the creation of a strategy map and its four distinct regions--financial, customer, internal process, and learning and growth--which correspond to the four perspectives of the balanced scorecard. The authors show step by step how the Mobil division used the map to transform itself from a centrally controlled manufacturer of commodity products to a decentralized, customer-driven organization.     

How fast can your company afford to grow?

Everyone knows that starting a business requires cash, and growing a business requires even more. But few people understand that a profitable company that tries to grow too fast can run out of cash even if its products are great successes. So a big challenge for managers of any growing concern is to strike the proper balance between consuming cash and generating it. Authors Neil Churchill and John Mullins offer a framework to help identify and manage the level of growth that a company's cash flow can support. They present a formula to calculate an organization's self-financeable growth (SFG) rate, taking into account three critical factors: a company's operating cash cycle--the amount of time the company's money is tied up in inventory and other current assets before customers pay for goods and services; the amount of cash needed to finance each dollar of sales; and the amount of cash generated by each dollar of sales. The authors offer a detailed hypothetical example that carefully considers these three factors; they then illustrate how a company can influence its SFG rate by carefully managing some combination of those factors--that is, some mix of speeding cash flow, reducing costs, and raising prices. They expand on the original example by showing how to include income taxes and depreciation; plan for asset replacement; and identify which one of multiple product lines holds the greatest growth potential. The authors also discuss how various kinds of businesses--manufacturing firms, importers, and service companies--differ greatly in their abilities to finance growth from internally generated funds.     

Which of these people is your future CEO?

Americans have long believed that U.S. military officers--trained for high-stakes positions, resilience, and mental agility--make excellent CEOs. That belief is sound, but the authors' analysis of the performance of 45 companies led by CEOs with military experience revealed differences in how the branches (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps) prepare leaders for business. Those differences reflect the trade-off between flexibility and process that each branch of the armed services must make. Army and Marine Corps officers operate in an inherently uncertain environment. They define the mission but then give subordinates the flexibility to adjust to realities on the ground. This leadership experience tends to turn out business executives who excel in small firms, where they can set a goal and then empower others to work toward it. Navy and Air Force officers, who operate expensive, complex systems such as submarines and aircraft carriers, are trained to follow processes to the letter, because even small deviations can have large consequences. In corporations, these leaders excel in regulated industries and in firms that take a process approach to innovation. The larger lesson that the military can offer the business world is that fit matters. Different circumstances demand different leadership skills. Hire the person who fits the job.     

Who really makes the big decisions in your company?

In many companies, the top management team is officially responsible for helping the CEO make a company's big decisions. But another, unofficial group usually does that job de facto. That's the way it should be, argues Frisch, of the Strategic Offsites Group, provided that the CEO is deliberate in devising the role of this informal and unnamed "kitchen cabinet." Problems can nevertheless arise when senior executives learn about important decisions after the fact, mistakenly assume that they have real power to protect their departments, and find themselves in a system where the way decisions are actually made goes unacknowledged. The key, according to Frisch, is to make better use of senior executives' time and talents by giving them specific responsibilities that complement--but do not overlap--the advisory duties of the kitchen cabinet. A CEO who explicitly acknowledges the role of her cabinet and strikes the right balance between it and her official advisory group of executives can get the best from both.     

Are the strategic stars aligned for your corporate brand?

In recent years, companies have increasingly seen the benefits of creating a corporate brand. Rather than spend marketing dollars on branding individual products, giants like Disney and Microsoft promote a single umbrella image that casts one glow over all their products. A company must align three interdependent elements--call them strategic stars--to create a strong corporate brand: vision, culture, and image. Aligning the stars takes concentrated managerial skill and will, the authors say, because each element is driven by a different constituency: management, employees, or stakeholders. To effectively build a corporate brand, executives must identify where their strategic stars fall out of line. The authors offer a series of diagnostic questions designed to reveal misalignments in corporate vision, culture, and image. The first set of questions looks for gaps between vision and culture; for example, when management establishes a vision that is too ambitious for the organization to implement. The second set addresses culture and image, uncovering possible gaps between the attitudes of employees and the perceptions of the outside world. The last set of questions explores the vision-image gap--is management taking the company in a direction that its stake-holders support? The authors discuss the benefits of a corporate brand, such as reducing marketing costs and building a sense of community among customers. But they also point to cases in which a corporate brand doesn't make sense--for instance, if you are a product incubator, if you've recently experienced M&A activity, or if you are expecting fallout from risky ventures.     

Want to perfect your company's service? Use behavioral science.

It may seem like the topic of service management has been exhausted. Legions of scholars and practitioners have applied queuing theory to bank lines, measured response times to the millisecond, and created cults around "delighting the customer." But practitioners haven't carefully considered the underlying psychology of service encounters--the feelings that customers experience during these encounters, feelings often so subtle they probably couldn't be put into words. Fortunately, behavioral science offers new insights into better service management. In this article, the authors translate findings from behavioral-science research into five operating principles. First, finish strong: the ending is far more important than the beginning of an encounter because it's what remains in the customer's memory. Second, get the bad experiences out of the way early: in a series of events, people prefer to have undesirable events come first and to have desirable events come last. Third, segment the pleasure, combine the pain: since experiences seem longer when they are broken into segments, it's best to combine all the boring or unpleasant steps of a process into one. Fourth, build commitment through choice: people are happier when they believe they have some control over a process, particularly an uncomfortable one. And fifth, give people rituals and stick to them: most service--encounter designers don't realize just how ritualistic people are. Ultimately, only one thing really matters in a service a encounter--the customer's perception of what occurred. This article will help you engineer your service encounters to enhance your customers' experiences during the process as well as their recollections of the process after it is completed.     

Should you take your brand to where the action is?

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. Managers may find themselves facing a situation that presents both an emerging opportunity and a strategic threat, and alternatives to vertical extensions may have even higher risks and costs. Furthermore, a number of brands have been extended vertically with complete success. If after assessing the risks and rewards you conclude that a vertical extension is on the horizon, proceed with caution. And keep in mind that your challenge will be to leverage and protect the original brand while taking advantage of the new opportunity.     

Are your engineers talking to one another when they should?

Communication may not be on managers' minds at companies that design complex, highly engineered products, but it should be. When mistakes take place, it's often because product-component teams fail to talk. The consequences can be huge: Ford and Bridgestone Firestone lost billions by not coordinating the design of the Explorer with the design of its tires. The major delays and cost overruns involved in the development of Airbus's A380 "superjumbo"--which most likely led to the CEO's exit--were a result of unforeseen design incompatibilities. To help managers mitigate such problems, the authors present a new application of the design structure matrix, a project management tool that maps the flow of information and its impact on product development. Drawing on research into how Pratt & Whitney handled the development of the PW4098 jet engine, they have developed an approach that uncovers (a) areas where communication should be occurring but is not (unattended interfaces, usually bad) and (b) areas where communication is occurring but has not been planned for (unidentified interfaces, usually good). After finding the unattended and unidentified interfaces, the next step is to figure out the causes of the critical ones. If a significant number of unattended interfaces cross organizational boundaries, executives may need to redraw organizational lines. Executives can then manage the remaining critical interfaces by extending the responsibilities of existing integration teams (those responsible for cross-system aspects, such as a jet engine's fuel economy) to include supervising the interaction, by dedicating teams to specific interfaces, or by formally charging teams already involved with the interfaces to oversee them. Finally, it's important to ensure that the teams are working with compatible design equipment; inconsistencies between CAD tools have cost Airbus dearly.