Introducing T-shaped managers. Knowledge management's next generation

Most companies do a poor job of capitalizing on the wealth of expertise scattered across their organizations. That's because they tend to rely on centralized knowledge-management systems and technologies. But such systems are really only good at distributing explicit knowledge, the kind that can be captured and codified for general use. They're not very good at transferring implicit knowledge, the kind needed to generate new insights and creative ways of tackling business problems or opportunities. The authors suggest another approach, something they call T-shaped management, which requires executives to share knowledge freely across their organization (the horizontal part of the "T"), while remaining fiercely committed to their individual business unit's performance (the vertical part). A few companies are starting to use this approach, and one--BP Amoco--has been especially successful. From BP's experience, the authors have gleaned five ways that T-shaped managers help companies capitalize on their inherent knowledge. They increase efficiency by transferring best practices. They improve the quality of decision making companywide. They grow revenues through shared expertise. They develop new business opportunities through the cross-pollination of ideas. And they make bold strategic moves possible by delivering well-coordinated implementation. All that takes time, and BP's managers have had to learn how to balance that time against the attention they must pay to their own units. The authors suggest, however, that it's worth the effort to find such a balance to more fully realize the immense value of the knowledge lying idle within so many companies.     

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS ROUNDTABLE ON ENERGY DERIVATIVES AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE U.S. CORPORATE ENERGY SECTOR

In this roundtable, a successful oil entrepreneur and a group of ex‐bankers whose careers have taken them into the energy business discuss the deregulation of energy markets and the emergence of energy derivatives, and how these two developments have affected both the way companies do business with each other, and how the companies themselves are organized internally. The first part of this two‐part discussion explores how derivatives and corporate risk management have produced a strikingly new business model for a number of once traditional energy companies, including Enron Corp. and Mirant Corporation (until recently, Southern Energy). In addition to its ability to change corporate strategy, the panelists also consider how the hedging of price risks can affect a company's financing strategy and cost of capital. A notable feature of the new business model is a corporate structure that differs greatly from that of conventional large energy companies. And in the second half of the discussion, the focus shifts from risk management and strategy to issues of corporate structure, such as: How do companies divide themselves into business centers for reporting and accountability; how much decision‐making authority is entrusted to the managers of those divisions; and how many layers of corporate management are necessary to coordinate and control the activities of the business units? Also discussed at great length are questions of performance evaluation and incentive compensation: How do companies evaluate their own performance on a year‐to‐year basis? And what basis do they use for rewarding their managers?     

Is American business working for the poor?

At first glance, poverty seems to have little to do with business. When most people--managers included--think about poverty, they assume that people are poor because they are isolated from the mainstream economy, not productive participants in it. But according to Harvard University professors Mary Jo Bane and David Ellwood, this is a misleading image of the true face of poverty in the United States today. Most poor adults--and a full 90% of poor children--live in families where work is the norm, not the exception. Poor people often work or want to work. But at the low-wage end of the American economy, having a job is no guarantee of avoiding poverty. Poverty is a business issue, then, because the American poor are part of the American work force. And this poses a problem for managers. In a more competitive and fast-changing economic environment, the performance of companies increasingly depends on the capabilities of their employees. In response to this human-resource challenge, more and more managers are embracing the language of "empowerment". And yet how can low-wage employees believe empowerment when their experience of work is, quite literally, impoverishment? It is unlikely that American companies can create the work force of the future with the poverty policies of the past. Fortunately, there are some simple policy mechanisms that can assist the working poor without putting an undue burden on business. Enacting them, however, requires managers to see poverty policy as one part of a national human-resource strategy that links the strategic concerns of companies to a broad social agenda.     

Selection bias and the perils of benchmarking

To find the secrets of business success, what could be more natural than studying successful businesses? In fact, nothing could be more dangerous, warns this Stanford professor. Generalizing from the examples of successful companies is like generalizing about New England weather from data taken only in the summer. That's essentially what businesspeople do when they learn from good examples and what consultants, authors, and researchers do when they study only existing companies or--worse yet--only high-performing companies. They reach conclusions from unrepresentative data samples, falling into the classic statistical trap of selection bias. Drawing on a wealth of case studies, for instance, one researcher concluded that great leaders share two key traits: They persist, often despite initial failures, and they are able to persuade others to join them. But those traits are also the hallmarks of spectacularly unsuccessful entrepreneurs, who must persist in the face of failure to incur large losses and must be able to persuade others to pour their money down the drain. To discover what makes a business successful, then, managers should look at both successes and failures. Otherwise, they will overvalue risky business practices, seeing only those companies that won big and not the ones that lost dismally. They will not be able to tell if their current good fortune stems from smart business practices or if they are actually coasting on past accomplishments or good luck. Fortunately, economists have developed relatively simple tools that can correct for selection bias even when data about failed companies are hard to come by. Success may be inspirational, but managers are more likely to find the secrets of high performance if they give the stories of their competitors'failures as full a hearing as they do the stories of dazzling successes.     

THE DETERMINANTS OF SELECTIVE EXCHANGE RISK MANAGEMENT–EVIDENCE FROM GERMAN NON-FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS

Survey studies of both corporate exchange risk management and the corporate use of derivatives in general have shown considerable variation in managerial practices. Some firms do not hedge open positions at all, and some hedge their exposures completely. Most companies, however, hedge only those positions on which they expect a currency loss, while leaving open positions on which they expect a currency gain—a practice known as “selective hedging.” Finally, there is a small minority of firms that engage in outright speculation, deliberately creating risk exposures in addition to those arising from their normal business operations. Such findings are consistent with survey studies that suggest that a majority of corporate financial managers appear to believe that they are able to “beat the market”—a belief that, of course, is inconsistent with efficient markets theory. So why do some companies follow selective risk management strategies while other firms hedge open positions without recourse to exchange rate forecasts? In an attempt to answer this question, the author surveyed 74 German non‐financial companies about their exchange risk management practices. He found that highly levered firms were less likely to take bets in the currency markets, while bank‐controlled firms were more likely to use a selective risk management strategy. There was a negative relationship between profitability and the use of selective hedging—a finding that could be interpreted as suggesting that selective hedging does not generally benefit the firm's shareholders. Finally, there was a weak tendency for larger firms to be more inclined to use forecasts in their foreign exchange risk management.     

How to make experience your company's best teacher

In our personal life, experience is often the best teacher. Not so in corporate life. After a major event--a product failure, a downsizing crisis, or a merger--many companies stumble along, oblivious to the lessons of the past. Mistakes get repeated, but smart decisions do not. Most important, the old ways of thinking are never discussed, so they are still in place to spawn new mishaps. Individuals will often tell you that they understand what went wrong (or right). Yet their insights are rarely shared openly. And they are analyzed and internalized by the company even less frequently. Why? Because managers have few tools with which to capture institutional experience, disseminate its lessons, and translate them into effective action. In an effort to solve this problem, a group of social scientists, business managers, and journalists at MIT have developed and tested a tool called the learning history. It is a written narrative of a company's recent critical event, nearly all of it presented in two columns. In one column, relevant episodes are described by the people who took part in them, were affected by them, or observed them. In the other, learning historians--trained outsiders and knowledgeable insiders--identify recurrent themes in the narrative, pose questions, and raise "undiscussable" issues. The learning history forms the basis for group discussions, both for those involved in the event and for others who also might learn from it. The authors believe that this tool--based on the ancient practice of community storytelling--can build trust, raise important issues, transfer knowledge from one part of a company to another, and help build a body of generalizable knowledge about management.     

How to kill creativity

In today's knowledge economy, creativity is more important than ever. But many companies unwittingly employ managerial practices that kill it. How? By crushing their employees' intrinsic motivation--the strong internal desire to do something based on interests and passions. Managers don't kill creativity on purpose. Yet in the pursuit of productivity, efficiency, and control--all worthy business imperatives--they undermine creativity. It doesn't have to be that way, says Teresa Amabile. Business imperatives can comfortably coexist with creativity. But managers will have to change their thinking first. Specifically, managers will need to understand that creativity has three parts: expertise, the ability to think flexibly and imaginatively, and motivation. Managers can influence the first two, but doing so is costly and slow. It would be far more effective to increase employees' intrinsic motivation. To that end, managers have five levers to pull: the amount of challenge they give employees, the degree of freedom they grant around process, the way they design work groups, the level of encouragement they give, and the nature of organizational support. Take challenge as an example. Intrinsic motivation is high when employees feel challenged but not overwhelmed by their work. The task for managers, therefore, becomes matching people to the right assignments. Consider also freedom. Intrinsic motivation--and thus creativity--soars when managers let people decide how to achieve goals, not what goals to achieve. Managers can make a difference when it comes to employee creativity. The result can be truly innovative companies in which creativity doesn't just survive but actually thrives.     

Six IT decisions your IT people shouldn't make

Senior managers often feel frustration--even exasperation--toward information technology and their IT departments. The managers complain that they don't see much business value from the high-priced systems they install, but they don't understand the technology well enough to manage it in detail. So they often leave IT people to make, by default, choices that affect the company's business strategy. The frequent result? Too many projects, a demoralized IT unit, and disappointing returns on IT investments. What distinguishes companies that generate substantial value from their IT investments from those that don't? The leadership of senior managers in making six key IT decisions. The first three relate to strategy: How much should we spend on IT? Which business processes should receive our IT dollars? Which IT capabilities need to be companywide? The second three relate to execution: How good do our IT services really need to be? Which security and privacy risks will we accept? Whom do we blame if an IT initiative fails? When senior managers aren't involved in these decisions, the results can be profound. For example, if they don't take the lead in deciding which IT initiatives to fund, they end up overloading the IT department with projects that may not further the company's strategy. And if they aren't assessing security and privacy risks, they are ignoring crucial business trade-offs. Smart companies are establishing IT governance structures that identify who should be responsible for critical IT decisions and ensure that such decisions further IT's strategic role in the organization.     

Effects of audit partners on clients’ business risk disclosure

We empirically investigate audit engagement partners’ involvement in business risk disclosure. Specifically, we examine whether the quality of business risk disclosure is influenced by engagement partner tenure and knowledge. We also examine whether the effects of partner tenure and knowledge are similar for Big 4 audit firms and non-Big 4 firms. Since fiscal year 2003, listed companies in Japan have been required to disclose business risk information. Although the business risk information is not audited, auditors concerned about their audit quality may seek to influence clients’ business risk disclosure practices. Giving advice to management on the narrative business risk disclosure can contribute to improving the perceived value of the auditor’s services which can be a competitive advantage. Using a sample of Japanese listed companies from 2003 to 2010, we find that if the engagement partners’ tenure is shorter, a company discloses more business risk information and the disclosure is more detailed. Furthermore, companies with audit partners who have a larger number of client engagements disclose larger amounts of business risk information in more detail. However, the engagement partner effects are mitigated if they belong to a Big 4 firm.     

MANAGEMENT FADS AND ORGANIZATIONAL ARCHITECTURE

This article applies and extends the three-part organizational framework used in the preceding article to a broad range of management innovations. After furnishing some interesting evidence of the rise and fall of management techniques such as TQM, Reengineering, Just-in-Time Production, and Activity-Based Costing, the authors raise and then attempt to answer a number of questions: What explains the popularity of these management innovations? Why do they often fail to produce the expected benefits? How can managers tell if a particular technique is right for them? What can managers do to increase the likelihood that an adopted technique will be successful? The persistent, and at times seemingly insatiable, corporate demand for management innovations is viewed by the authors as a “rational” economic response by senior managers to major changes in the external business environment—changes that in turn dictate changes in business strategy. For example, when confronted with external changes such as deregulation or heightened global competition, companies often find it necessary to refocus their efforts on improving product quality and operating efficiency. And such changes in business strategy tend to require a revamping of the three critical components of organizational architecture: (1) assignment of decision rights, (2) performance evaluation systems, and (3) compensation systems. As the authors argue, innovations such as TQM, outsourcing, Re-engineering, and JIT typically involve major changes in just one or two of these critical elements of the organization, but not all three. The failure to coordinate organizational changes in such a way that these three elements are mutually consistent and reinforcing is one important reason why management innovations can fail to meet expectations. The framework described in this article is designed to help managers considering one potentially valuable set of organizational changes to identify other facets of the organization that also require attention and perhaps complementary adjustments.     

高管宏观认知具有管理者“烙印”吗？——基于管理者风格效应的实证检验

本文利用“管理层讨论与分析”(MD&A)中的文本信息构造高管宏观认知指标(MMC),研究高管宏观认知是否具有管理者风格效应及其作用机理。研究发现,高管宏观认知具有明显的管理者个体“烙印”,会受到管理者个人风格的显著影响,表现为管理者风格效应。进一步研究发现,管理者个人背景特征对高管宏观认知的管理者风格效应具有显著影响,管理者风格效应主要受管理者后天因素的影响。管理者能力与高管宏观认知的管理者风格效应显著正相关。     

RETHINKING RISK MANAGEMENT

This paper presents a theory of corporate risk management that attempts to go beyond the "variance-minimization" model that dominates most academic discussions of the subject. It argues that the primary goal of risk management is not to dampen swings in corporate cash flows or value, but rather to provide protection against the possibility of costly lower-tail outcomes –situations that would cause financial distress or make a company unable to carry out its investment strategy. (In the jargon of finance specialists, risk management can be viewed as the purchase of well-out-of-the-money put options designed to limit downside risk.)
By eliminating downside risk and reducing the expected costs of financial trouble, risk management can also help a company to achieve both its optimal capital structure and its optimal ownership structure. For, besides increasing corporate debt capacity, the reduction of downside risk also encourages larger equity stakes for managers by shielding their investments from "uncontrollables."
The paper also departs from standard finance theory in suggesting that some companies may have a comparative advantage in bearing certain financial market risks–an advantage that derives from information acquired through their normal business activities. Although such specialized information may lead some companies to take speculative positions in commodities or currencies, it is more likely to encourage "selective" hedging, a practice in which the risk manager's "view" of future price movements influences the percentage of the exposure that is hedged.
But, to the extent that such view-taking becomes an accepted part of a company's risk management program, it is important to evaluate managers' bets on a risk-adjusted basis and relative to the market. If risk managers want to behave like money managers, they should be evaluated like money managers.     

The discipline of innovation.

As managers recognize the heightened importance of innovation to competitive success, they face an apparent paradox: the orderly and predictable decisions on which a business rests depend increasingly on the disorderly and unpredictable process of innovation. How can managers expect to plan for--or count on--a process that is itself so utterly dependent on creativity, inspiration, and old-fashioned luck? Drawing on his many years' experience studying innovative and entrepreneurial companies, the author argues that this paradox is apparent only, not real. Most of what happens in successful innovations is not the happy occurrence of a blinding flash of insight but, rather, the careful implementation of an unspectacular but systematic management discipline. At the heart of that discipline lies the knowledge of where to look for innovation opportunities and how to identify them. It is to this study of the sources of innovation that Mr. Drucker here addresses himself.     

What really works

When it comes to improving business performance, managers have no shortage of tools and techniques to choose from. But what really works? What's critical, and what's optional? Two business professors and a former McKinsey consultant set out to answer those questions. In a ground-breaking, five-year study that involved more than 50 academics and consultants, the authors analyzed 200 management techniques as they were employed by 160 companies over ten years. Their findings at a high level? Business basics really matter. In this article, the authors outline the management practices that are imperative for sustained superior financial performance--their "4+2 formula" for business success. They provide examples of companies that achieved varying degrees of success depending on whether they applied the formula, and they suggest ways that other companies can achieve excellence. The 160 companies in their study--called the Evergreen Project--were divided into 40 quads, each comprising four companies in a narrowly defined industry. Based on its performance between 1986 and 1996, each company in each quad was classified as either a winner (for instance, Dollar General), a loser (Kmart), a climber (Target), or a tumbler (the Limited). Without exception, the companies that outperformed their industry peers excelled in what the authors call the four primary management practices: strategy, execution, culture, and structure. And they supplemented their great skill in those areas with a mastery of any two of four secondary management practices: talent, leadership, innovation, and mergers and partnerships. A company that consistently follows this 4+2 formula has a better than 90% chance of sustaining superior performance, according to the authors.     

The four things a service business must get right

Many of the management tools and techniques used in service businesses were designed to tackle the challenges of product companies. Although they are valuable to service managers, they aren't sufficient for success. In this article, Harvard Business School's Frei explains why and urges companies to add some new ones to the mix. After years of extensive research and analysis, she offers an approach for crafting a profitable service business based on four critical elements: the design of the offering, employee management, customer management, and the funding mechanism. Just like a product that's going to market, a service needs to be compellingly designed, and management must field a workforce capable of producing it at an attractive price. Additionally, however, service firms must manage their customers, who do not simply use the service but also can be integral to its production: Because customers' involvement as producers can wreak havoc on costs, companies must also develop creative ways to fund their distinctive offerings, by providing a self-service alternative, for example, or by offsetting expenses with operational savings. A close look at successful service businesses--Wal-Mart, Commerce Bank, the Cleveland Clinic, and others--reveals that effective integration of the four elements is key. There is no "right" way to combine them; the appropriate design of one depends upon the other three. If managers don't get all four pulling together, they risk pulling the enterprise apart. Incumbents can fend off attacks from highly focused upstarts by becoming multifocused--that is, by pursuing multiple niches through optimized service models rather than trying to cover the entire waterfront with one model. Shared services within a firm (functions such as HR and finance) can help, since they will enable it to generate economies of scale and experience across models.     

What working for a Japanese company taught me

In the late 1970s, John E. Rehfeld read everything he could on Japanese business. Most of the discussions focused on interest rates, the education system, and the culture--all very interesting but not very useful. What did these things have to do with day-to-day management? Since then, by working for Japanese companies, he has discovered more than ten Japanese management techniques that have everything to do with running a business. As vice president and general manager of Toshiba's U.S. computer business for nine years and president of Seiko Instruments USA for two, he has seen firsthand how the Japanese manage, and he has applied those techniques in the United States. Using six-month budget cycles, quantifying intangibles, and looking back to see what you could have done better are among the seemingly insignificant practices that combine to have big impact. For example, the author first saw budgeting for 6 months instead of 12 as twice as much work. But he came to appreciate the benefits: managers work harder because they have two deadlines a year, and planning and control improve because managers can adjust their targets to changing conditions more quickly. The author had another change of heart when he was asked to specify how many PCs would sell as the result of a demo program, a task he first thought ridiculous. Though he still thinks such numbers are shaky, he values the discipline of the thought process. These and other techniques, he says, explain much of Japanese companies' success and are tools that managers anywhere can use.     

Hiring for smarts

Yes, it's nice when a leader is charismatic and confident. And a great resume can tell you a lot about a person's knowledge and experience. But such assets are no substitute for sheer business intelligence, and they reveal very little about a leader's ability to consistently reach the "right" answer. How can hiring managers flag individuals with such smarts? Historically, the only reliable measure of brainpower has been the standard IQ test, which is rarely used in business settings because of the specific subjects it tests for-math, reading, and spatial reasoning-and because of its multiple-choice format. Despite its shortcomings, the standard IQ test is still a better predictor of managerial success than any other assessment tool companies currently use, Justin Menkes argues. It's true that there isn't a version of IQ testing that applies to the corporate world, but in rejecting IQ tests altogether, hiring managers have thwarted their own attempts to identify true business stars. The author defines the specific subjects that make up "executive intelligence"-namely, accomplishing tasks, working with people, and judging oneself. He describes how to formulate questions to test job candidates for their mastery of these subjects, offering several examples based on real situations. Knowledge questions, such as those used in standard behavioral interviews, require people to recite what they have learned or experienced; intelligence questions call for individuals to demonstrate their abilities. Therefore, the questions in an executive intelligence test shouldn't require specific industry expertise or experience; any knowledge they call for must be rudimentary and common to all executives. And the questions should not be designed to ask whether the candidate has a particular skill; they should be configured so that the candidate will have to demonstrate that skill in the course of answering them.     

How business schools lost their way

Business schools are facing intense criticism for failing to impart useful skills, failing to prepare leaders, failing to instill norms of ethical behavior--and even failing to lead graduates to good corporate jobs. These criticisms come not just from students, employers, and the media but also from deans of some of America's most prestigious B schools. The root cause oftoday's crisis in management education, assert Warren G. Bennis and James O'Toole, is that business schools have adopted an inappropriate--and ultimately self-defeating--model of academic excellence. Instead of measuring themselves in terms of the competence of their graduates, or by how well their faculty members understand important drivers of business performance, they assess themselves almost solely by the rigor of their scientific research. This scientific model is predicated on the faulty assumption that business is an academic discipline like chemistry or geology when, in fact, business is a profession and business schools are professional schools--or should be. Business school deans may claim that their schools remain focused on practice, but they nevertheless hire and promote research-oriented professors who haven't spent time working in companies and are more comfortable teaching methodology than messy, multidisciplinary issues--the very stuff of management. The authors don't advocate a return to the days when business schools were glorified trade schools. But to regain relevancy, they say, business schools must rediscover the practice of business and find a way to balance the dual mission of educating practitioners and creating knowledge through research.     

Making strategy: learning by doing

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. Executives hone their capabilities by tackling problems over and over again. Changing strategy, however, is not usually a task that they face repeatedly. Once companies have found a strategy that works, they want to use it, not change it. Consequently, most managers do not develop a competence in strategic thinking. This Manager's Tool Kit presents a three-stage method executives can use to conceive and implement a creative and coherent strategy themselves. The first stage is to identify and map the driving forces that the company needs to address. The process of mapping provides strategy-making teams with visual representations of team members' assumptions, those pictures, in turn, enable managers to achieve consensus in determining the driving forces. Once a senior management team has formulated a new strategy, it must align the strategy with the company's resource-allocation process to make implementation possible. Senior management teams can translate their strategy into action by using aggregate project planning. And management teams that link strategy and innovation through that planning process will develop a competence in implementing strategic change. The author guides the reader through the three stages of strategy making by examining the case of a manufacturing company that was losing ground to competitors. After mapping the driving forces, the company's senior managers were able to devise a new strategy that allowed the business to maintain a competitive advantage in its industry.     

The Influence of the Accountant on British Business Performance From the Late Nineteenth Century to the Present Day

Britain has more professionally qualified accountants per capita than any of her leading economic rivals and they play a major role as advisers to British companies and take a disproportionate share of the jobs in top management. Unfortunately for the accountants, business historians, other academics, commentators and even contemporary politicians have almost universally noted this to be a bad thing. This article discusses whether this reputation is justified by assessing the past performance of professional accountants as business advisers and managers. Stereotypical criticisms of accountants in terms of excessive caution, their support for the holding company form, or seeing problems in narrow financial terms are found to be unjustified. The promotion of accountants to the top jobs can be seen as rational profit-maximizing behaviour by British companies and a recent survey has demonstrated the performance of accountants in top management in recent years to be superior to other professions such as engineers.