A better way to deliver bad news

In an ideal world, a subordinate would accept critical feedback from a manager with an open mind. He or she would ask a few clarifying questions, promise to work on certain performance areas, and show signs of improvement over time. But things don't always turn out that way. Such conversations can be unpleasant. Emotions can run high; tempers can flare. Fearing that the employee will become angry and defensive, the boss all too often inadvertently sabotages the meeting by preparing for it in a way that stifles honest discussion. This unintentional--indeed, unconscious--stress-induced habit makes it difficult to deliver corrective feedback effectively. Insead professor Jean-Fran?ois Manzoni says that by changing the mind-set with which they develop and deliver negative feedback, managers can increase their odds of having productive conversations without damaging relationships. Manzoni describes two behavioral phenomena that color the feedback process--the fundamental attribution error and the false consensus effect--and uses real-world examples to demonstrate how bosses' critiques can go astray. Managers tend to frame difficult situations and decisions in a way that is narrow (alternatives aren't considered) and binary (there are only two possible outcomes--win or lose). And during the feedback discussion, managers' framing of the issues often remains frozen, regardless of the direction the conversation takes. Manzoni advises managers not to just settle on the first acceptable explanation for a behavior or situation they've witnessed. Bosses also need to consider an employee's circumstances rather than just attributing weak performance to a person's disposition. In short, delivering more effective feedback requires an open-minded approach, one that will convince employees that the process is fair and that the boss is ready for an honest conversation.     

Almost ready: how leaders move up

Most designated CEO successors are talented, hardworking, and smart enough to go all the way--yet fail to land the top job. What they don't realize is, the qualities that helped them in their climb to the number two position aren't enough to boost them to number one. In addition to running their businesses well, the author explains, would-be CEOs must master the art of forming coalitions and winning support. They must also sharpen their self-awareness and their sensitivity to the needs of bosses and influential peers because they typically receive little performance feedback once they're on track to become CEO. Indeed, the ability to pick up on subtle cues is often an important part of the test. When succession doesn't go well--or fails altogether--many people pay the price: employees depending on a smooth handoff at the top, investors expecting continuous leadership, and families uprooted when jobs don't pan out. Among those at fault are boards that do not keep a close watch on the succession process, human resource organizations that should have the capacity to help but are not up to the task, and CEOs who do a poor job coaching potential successors. But the aspiring CEO also bears some responsibility. He can dramatically increase his chances of success by understanding his boss's point of view, knowing his own limitations, and managing what psychologist Gerry Egan has called the "shadow organization"--the political side of a company, characterized by unspoken relationships and alliances--without being labeled "political." Most of all, he must learn to conduct himself with a level of maturity and wisdom that signals he is ready--not almost ready--to be chief executive.     

Becoming the boss

Even for the most gifted individuals, the process of becoming a leader is an arduous, albeit rewarding, journey of continuous learning and self-development. The initial test along the path is so fundamental that we often overlook it: becoming a boss for the first time. That's a shame, because the trials involved in this rite of passage have serious consequences for both the individual and the organization. For a decade and a half, the author has studied people-particularly star performers-making major career transitions to management. As firms have become leaner and more dynamic, new managers have described a transition that gets more difficult all the time. But the transition is often harder than it need be because of managers' misconceptions about their role. Those who can acknowledge their misconceptions have a far greater chance of success. For example, new managers typically assume that their position will give them the authority and freedom to do what they think is best. Instead, they find themselves enmeshed in a web of relationships with subordinates, bosses, peers, and others, all of whom make relentless and often conflicting demands. "You really are not in control of anything, says one new manager. Another misconception is that new managers are responsible only for making sure that their operations run smoothly. But new managers also need to realize they are responsible for recommending and initiating changes-some of them in areas outside their purview-that will enhance their groups' performance. Many new managers are reluctant to ask for help from their bosses. But when they do ask (often because of a looming crisis), they are relieved to find their superiors more tolerant of their questions and mistakes than they had expected.     

Dear white boss. Do you remember that first management-team offsite

It's easy for white managers to assume that their colleagues of color face the same basic challenges they do. On one level that's true--the work itself is the same. But on another level, African-American managers often contend with an atmosphere of tension, instability, and distrust that can be so frustrating they lose the desire to contribute fully. Their white bosses and coworkers are simply unaware of the "miasma" and are often puzzled when African-Americans quit apparently for no reason or seemingly overreact to a minor incident. This portrayal of what it's like to be different in the workplace takes the form of a fictional letter from a black manager to a white boss. The letter, based on interviews and surveys the authors conducted with hundreds of mid- to senior-level African-American managers, is not about the lack of role models or mentors of color or any of the other barriers that limit opportunities for blacks in corporate America. Instead, the letter sheds light on the realities that lurk below the surface for black managers--the feeling that they leave some part of their identities at home and the sometimes subtle and often systemic racial biases that inhibit and alienate African-Americans. "Differences really do matter, although they may matter in ways you probably didn't expect. One of the big ways they matter is that race is always with us," the letter writer observes. "As a friend of mine said recently, 'I don't think a day goes by that I'm not reminded that I'm black.'" The letter may not apply to every leader, black or white, or to every organization, but the issues are more widespread than corporate America cares to acknowledge. It should be required reading for all white executives who don't want talent to slip through their fingers.     

Bottom-feeding for blockbuster businesses

Marketing experts tell companies to analyze their customer portfolios and weed out buyer segments that don't generate attractive returns. Loyalty experts stress the need to aim retention programs at "good" customers--profitable ones- and encourage the "bad" ones to buy from competitors. And customer-relationship-management software provides ever more sophisticated ways to identify and eliminate poorly performing customers. On the surface, the movement to banish unprofitable customers seems reasonable. But writing off a customer relationship simply because it is currently unprofitable is at best rash and at worst counterproductive. Executives shouldn't be asking themselves, How can we shun unprofitable customers? They need to ask, How can we make money off the customers that everyone else is shunning? When you look at apparently unattractive segments through this lens, you often see opportunities to serve those segments in ways that fundamentally change customer economics. Consider Paychex, a payroll-processing company that built a nearly billion-dollar business by serving small companies. Established players had ignored these customers on the assumption that small companies couldn't afford the service. When founder Tom Golisano couldn't convince his bosses at Electronic Accounting Systems that they were missing a major opportunity, he started a company that now serves 390,000 U.S. customers, each employing around 14 people. In this article, the authors look closely at bottom-feeders--companies that assessed the needs of supposedly unattractive customers and redesigned their business models to turn a profit by fulfilling those needs. And they offer lessons other executives can use to do the same.     

Designing high-performance jobs

Tales of great strategies derailed by poor execution are all too common. That's because some organizations are designed to fail. For a company to achieve its potential, each employee's supply of organizational resources should equal the demand, and the same balance must apply to every business unit and to the company as a whole. To carry out his or her job, each employee has to know the answers to four basic questions: What resources do I control to accomplish my tasks? What measures will be used to evaluate my performance? Who do I need to interact with and influence to achieve my goals? And how much support can I expect when I reach out to others for help? The questions correspond to what the author calls the four basic spans of a job-control, accountability, influence, and support. Each span can be adjusted so that it is narrow or wide or somewhere in between. If you get the settings right, you can design a job in which a talented individual can successfully execute on your company's strategy. If you get the settings wrong, it will be difficult for an employee to be effective. The first step is to set the span of control to reflect the resources allocated to each position and unit that plays an important role in delivering customer value. This setting, like the others, is determined by how the business creates value for customers and differentiates its products and services. Next, you can dial in different levels of entrepreneurial behavior and creative tension by widening or narrowing spans of accountability and influence. Finally, you must adjust the span of support to ensure that the job or unit will get the informal help it needs.     

Fear of feedback

Nobody likes performance reviews. Subordinates are terrified they'll hear nothing but criticism. Bosses think their direct reports will respond to even the mildest criticism with anger or tears. The result? Everyone keeps quiet. That's unfortunate, because most people need help figuring out how to improve their performance and advance their careers. This fear of feedback doesn't come into play just during annual reviews. At least half the executives with whom the authors have worked never ask for feedback. Many expect the worst: heated arguments, even threats of dismissal. So rather than seek feedback, people try to guess what their bosses are thinking. Fears and assumptions about feedback often manifest themselves in psychologically maladaptive behaviors such as procrastination, denial, brooding, jealousy, and self-sabotage. But there's hope, say the authors. Those who learn adaptive techniques can free themselves from destructive responses. They'll be able to deal with feedback better if they acknowledge negative emotions, reframe fear and criticism constructively, develop realistic goals, create support systems, and reward themselves for achievements along the way. Once you've begun to alter your maladaptive behaviors, you can begin seeking regular feedback from your boss. The authors take you through four steps for doing just that: self-assessment, external assessment, absorbing the feedback, and taking action toward change. Organizations profit when employees ask for feedback and deal well with criticism. Once people begin to know how they are doing relative to management's priorities, their work becomes better aligned with organizational goals. What's more, they begin to transform a feedback-averse environment into a more honest and open one, in turn improving performance throughout the organization.     

The moonlighter

Jeremy Hicks, Zagante Systems' lead programmer, walks into the office at eight o'clock on a Sunday night and does a double take when he spots his boss, Melanie. She's equally surprised to find she isn't alone. Before leaving for the evening, Melanie pays Jeremy a visit, only to discover that he isn't hard at work on Zagante's new product--he's programming a game for another company. The next day over lunch, Melanie confronts Jeremy and lets him know that he needs to stay focused on Zagante's new software. Jeremy insists that he's fully engaged in it. So Melanie agrees to keep the moonlighting under wraps so long as it doesn't interfere with Jeremy's job. That night, Melanie sits down at her laptop and opens up a Google window. "Moonlighting," she types. Dismayed at the number of hits, she changes her search to "Fired for moonlighting." This search leads her to case after case, but none helps her with Jeremy. She tries one more time. "Promoted for moonlighting," she types. No surprise. Zero hits. Frustrated with Jeremy, yet anxious to keep such a talented employee, Melanie turns to Jill Darby, Zagante's HR director, for guidance. Jill has both good and bad news. The bad news is that the company has no moonlighting policy. The good news is that Jill can arrange for Jeremy to receive a low-interest loan. But when Melanie tells Jeremy about the loan, he doesn't go for it. He's not just freelancing for the money, it turns out; he's downright enjoying the work and doesn't appreciate his boss butting in to his private business. How should Melanie handle this moonlighting issue? Commentators Bill Jensen, author of Work 2.0: Rewriting the Contract; attorney Barry LePatner; economics professors Jean Kimmel and Karen Conway; and HR director Sandra Davis offer advice in this fictional case study.     

The risky business of hiring stars

With the battle for the best and brightest people heating up again, you're most likely out there looking for first-rate talent in the ranks of your competitors. Chances are, you're sold on the idea of recruiting from outside your organization, since developing people within the firm takes time and money. But the authors, who have tracked the careers of high-flying CEOs, researchers, software developers, and leading professionals, argue that top performers quickly fade after leaving one company for another. To study this phenomenon in greater detail, the authors analyzed the ups and downs of more than 1,000 star stock analysts, a well-defined group for which there are abundant data. The results were striking. After a star moves, not only does her performance plunge, but so does the effectiveness of the group she joins--and the market value of her new company. Moreover, transplanted stars don't stay with their new organizations for long, despite the astronomical salaries firms pay to lure them from rivals. Most companies that hire stars overlook the fact that an executive's performance is not entirely transferable because his personal competencies inevitably include company-specific skills. When the star leaves the old company for the new, he cannot take with him many of the resources that contributed to his achievements. As a result, he is unable to repeat his performance in another company--at least not until he learns to work the new system, which could take years. The authors conclude that companies cannot gain a competitive advantage or successfully grow by hiring stars from outside. Instead, they should focus on cultivating talent from within and do everything possible to retain the stars they create. Firms shouldn't fight the star wars, because winning could be the worst thing that happens to them.     

The very real dangers of executive coaching

A personal coach to help your most promising executives reach their potential--sounds good, doesn't it? But, according to Steven Berglas, executive coaches can make a bad situation worse. Because of their backgrounds and biases, they ignore psychological problems they don't understand. Companies need to consider psychotherapeutic intervention when the symptoms plaguing an executive are stubborn or severe. Executives with issues that require more than coaching come in many shapes and sizes. Consider Rob Bernstein, an executive vice president of sales at an automotive parts distributor. According to the CEO, Bernstein had just the right touch with clients but caused personnel problems inside the company. The last straw came when Bernstein publicly humiliated a mail clerk who had interrupted a meeting to ask someone to sign for a package. At that point, the CEO assigned Tom Davis to coach Bernstein. Davis, a former corporate lawyer, worked with Bernstein for four years. But Davis only exacerbated the problem by teaching Bernstein techniques for "handling" employees--methods that were condescending at best. While Bernstein appeared to be improving, he was in fact getting worse. Bernstein's real problems went undetected, and when his boss left the company, he was picked as the successor. Soon enough, Bernstein was again in trouble, suspected of embezzlement. This time, the CEO didn't call Davis; instead, he turned to the author, a trained psychotherapist, for help. Berglas soon realized that Bernstein had a serious narcissistic personality disorder and executive coaching could not help him. As that tale and others in the article teach us, executives to be coached should at the very least first receive a psychological evaluation. And company leaders should beware that executive coaches given free rein can end up wreaking personnel havoc.     

New Leadership at the Federal Reserve*

As Chairman of the Federal Reserve for the past 18 years, Alan Greenspan deserves praise for his stewardship of monetary policy. He has guided the Fed and monetary policy in a way that has led to low and stable inflation. But if Greenspan's record clearly deserves praise, he could have done more to move monetary policy into the 21st century and prepare the institution for the future. Greenspan has relied heavily on his personal judgment and has argued repeatedly that the Fed must have extensive flexibility to respond to the economic environment. But if Greenspan's judgment, skill, and luck have served him and the country well, it is dangerous to rely so heavily on the judgment of a single individual. When he departed, he took with him his skill and judgment, as well as his credibility and his personal commitment to low inflation. The Fed he leaves behind has no explicit institutional commitment to long‐run price stability. This article argues that by operating with a set of rules and guidelines, or at a minimum clearly stated institutional objectives, the Fed would eliminate much of the second guessing about what it is doing and why, and the associated volatility in markets. More generally, the benefits of more explicit guidelines for monetary policy include:

• ? Increasing public understanding of monetary policy, including what it can and cannot do.
• ? Increasing transparency and accountability. Most organizations have clear goals and we hold their leaders accountable. The Fed is different. The Fed seems to be held accountable for all things economic and thus it is truly accountable for nothing. It never has to explain its actions and what went right or wrong.
• ? Establishing a clear focus for the Fed regarding its goals and objectives.
• ? Creating increased confidence that sound monetary policy will be followed in the future.

     

Bob's meltdown

Annette Innella is just coming into the lunchroom at Concord Machines when Bob Dunn starts screaming at her. After throwing his lunch tray against the wall, he stomps out, leaving Annette stunned. Naturally, Annette, the new senior VP for knowledge management, is beside herself. She knows her proposal to establish a cross-functional knowledge management committee is progressive thinking for this oldline manufacturer, but Bob's reaction is totally over the line. If Bob stays, she goes--that's all there is to it. Bob is contrite, but he's under a lot of pressure. The general manager of the Services Group, he's just returned from a two-week trip around the globe to gear up his troops to beat revenue targets again, despite shrinking budgets and hiring freezes. And what does he see when he gets back? An e-mail from Annette requesting that two of his best people devote half their time to what he calls her "idiotic" Knowledge Protocols Group. He's carrying the company on his back, and she's throwing this nonsense at him. Graphics specialist Paula Chancellor is surprised. Sure, Bob's gruff, but his staff loves him, and he's the only one of the big shots who ever talks to her. But HR director Nathan Singer is incensed; Bob's never been a team player, Singer complains, and it's time he learned a lesson. CEO Jay Nguyen is in a bind. Bob is his top manager; he brings in all the money. And even though future revenues are going to have to come from somewhere else, Jay is not totally behind Annette's initiative in the current business climate. He can't afford to lose Bob. But if he reins in Annette, it will look like he's condoning Bob's outburst. What should he do? Four commentators offer advice in this fictional case study.     

How I learned to let my workers lead

In 1980, Ralph Stayer owned a successful, growing sausage company that had him badly worried. Commitment was poor, motivation was lousy, the gap between performance and potential was enormous. Over the next five years, Stayer turned the company upside down, but only by turning himself upside down first. For years he had insisted on his own control, made all decisions, delegated nothing. But when he tried to picture what the company would have to look like to sell the most expensive sausage and still enjoy the biggest market share, he saw an organization whose employees took responsibility for their own work. After several false starts, he finally began in earnest by making himself give up much of his own authority. Stayer turned quality control over to the workers on the production line. Workers also began answering letters of complaint from customers. Rejects went from 5% to 0.5%. Employees thrived on their new responsibility and asked for more. Gradually, people on the shop floor took over personnel functions as well, followed by scheduling, budgeting, and capital improvements. Managers came to function more as coaches than as bosses. Stayer--a little to his own dismay--began to find himself superfluous. In mid-1985, the company faced a watershed decision--whether or not to accept a massive new order that would make huge demands on every employee and strain the company's capacities. Stayer asked the employees to make the decision. They accepted the challenge, and productivity, profits, and quality all rose dramatically. By the late 1980s, Stayer had reached his goal of working himself out of a job.     

How CEOs manage growth agendas

When does it make sense for companies to grow from within? When is it better to gain new capabilities or access to markets by merging with or acquiring other companies? When should you sacrifice the bottom line in order to nurture the top line? In a thought-provoking series of essays, five executives--Kenneth Freeman of Quest Diagnostics, George Nolen of Siemens USA, John Tyson of Tyson Foods, Kenneth Lewis of Bank of America, and Robert Creifeld of Nasdaq--describe how they have approached top-line growth in various leadership roles throughout their careers. They write candidly about their struggles and successes along the way, relaying growth strategies as diverse as the companies and industries they represent. The leaders' different tactics have almost everything to do with their companies' particular strengths, weaknesses, and needs. Freeman, for instance, emphasizes the importance of knowing when to put on the brakes. When he first became CEO of Quest, he froze acquisitions for a few years so the company could focus on internal processes and "earn the right to grow." But for Greifeld, it's all about innovation, which "shakes up competitive stasis and propels even mature businesses forward." The executives agree, though, that companies can grow (and can do so profitably) by distinguishing their offerings from those of other organizations. As Ranjay Gulati of Northwestern's Kellogg School of Management points out in his introduction to the essays, no matter what strategies are in play,"it's important to remember that growth comes in many forms and takes patience.... The key is to be ready to act on whatever types of opportunities arise."     

The end of corporate imperialism

As they search for growth, multinational corporations will have no choice but to compete in the big emerging markets of China, India, Indonesia, and Brazil. But while it is still common to question how such corporations will change life in those markets, Western executives would be smart to turn the question around and ask how multinationals themselves will be transformed by these markets. To be successful, MNCs will have to rethink every element of their business models, the authors assert in this seminal HBR article from 1998. During the first wave of market entry in the 1980s, multinationals operated with what might be termed an imperialist mind-set, assuming that the emerging markets would merely be new markets for their old products. But this mind-set limited their success: What is truly big and emerging in countries like China and India is a new consumer base comprising hundreds of millions of people. To tap into this huge opportunity, MNCs need to ask themselves five basic questions: Who is in the emerging middle class in these countries? How do the distribution networks operate? What mix of local and global leadership do you need to foster business opportunities? Should you adopt a consistent strategy for all of your business units within one country? Should you take on local partners? The transformation that multinational corporations must undergo is not cosmetic--simply developing greater sensitivity to local cultures will not do the trick, the authors say. To compete in the big emerging markets, multinationals must reconfigure their resources, rethink their cost structures, redesign their product development processes, and challenge their assumptions about who their top-level managers should be.     

Nobody trusts the boss completely--now what?

Catching problems early is a big advantage to any manager, and the best way to find out about developing headaches is to have your subordinates tell you. But how do you get them to be candid? How do you get them to talk freely about their own mistakes-and, harder yet, about yours? Candor depends on trust. Both have strict natural limits. People keep their mouths shut in order to protect themselves or their subordinates, to avoid the limelight, or because they are afraid of seeming timid or ineffectual, and so they try to fix their own problems without help. Company politics can also stand in the way of plain talk. Worst of all, trust avoids authority and flees a judge. Since employees always see the boss as judge, managers need to be aware of how they can increase trust-or destroy it. There are six critical areas: 1. Communication must always be a two-way street. 2. Support means being approachable, helpful, and concerned, especially when the chips are down. 3. Respect is a question of delegating authority and listening to what subordinates have to say. 4. Fairness means giving credit and assessing blame where they are due. 5. Predictability is being dependable and keeping promises. 6. Competence means knowing your own job and doing it well. But given the limits of trust, good managers watch for other telltale signs of trouble: decline in the information flow, deteriorating morale, ambiguous verbal messages, nonverbal signs, and diminishing results.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

徐曙光 董事长专业户的成功法则

他曾连续成功创业,并跨越不同的国家、涉足不同的领域。他正是董事长专业户徐曙光。     

Seven surprises for new CEOs

As a newly minted CEO, you may think you finally have the power to set strategy, the authority to make things happen, and full access to the finer points of your business. But if you expect the job to be as simple as that, you're in for an awakening. Even though you bear full responsibility for your company's well-being, you are a few steps removed from many of the factors that drive results. You have more power than anybody else in the corporation, but you need to use it with extreme caution. In their workshops for new CEOs, held at Harvard Business School in Boston, the authors have discovered that nothing--not even running a large business within the company--fully prepares a person to be the chief executive. The seven most common surprises are: You can't run the company. Giving orders is very costly. It is hard to know what is really going on. You are always sending a message. You are not the boss. Pleasing shareholders is not the goal. You are still only human. These surprises carry some important and subtle lessons. First, you must learn to manage organizational context rather than focus on daily operations. Second, you must recognize that your position does not confer the right to lead, nor does it guarantee the loyalty of the organization. Finally, you must remember that you are subject to a host of limitations, even though others might treat you as omnipotent. How well and how quickly you understand, accept, and confront the seven surprises will have a lot to do with your success or failure as a CEO.     

The reluctant entrepreneur

Unlike a lot of corporate executives, Ken Veit never longed to be his own boss. But after 30 years on the fast track, he lost his high-powered job at one of the world's largest insurance companies and was forced to take an entrepreneurial leap of faith. In 1989, Veit signed a franchise agreement to own and operate a Cartoon Corner store in a mall in Scottsdale, Arizona. Cartoon Corner was based on the Disney store idea, but it carried hundreds of products featuring cartoon characters from every movie studio. Most important, Cartoon Corner offered extensive training and an elaborate management support system for its franchisees. The company planned to franchise 100 stores over the next few years, then go public. If all went well, its young executives claimed, the Cartoon Corner chain would build a market valuation of up to $100 million by the mid-1990s. In addition, the mall, which was in the planning stages when Veit signed on, was supposed to become a new kind of entertainment mall, with seven movie theaters, a space-flight simulator, and a shark-filled aquarium. It had all sounded too good to be true--and it was. Despite Veit's careful forecasting, he suffered a series of unexpected catastrophes. The mall failed to keep its promises. The franchisor lost its venture capital. The Gulf War dried up retail traffic. But it was too late to back out. Veit went forward on his own, truly alone for the first time in his life. When the mall and his store finally opened in May 1991, they did so in the midst of a recession. Despite the inspirational stories of other former executives, Veit has learned that the life of an entrepreneur is not all it's cracked up to be. As he notes, "I began with well-above-average experience, a proven concept, and excellent capitalization, yet in my case, personal bankruptcy remains a distinct possibility."     

Creating the living brand

It's easy to conclude from the literature and the lore that top-notch customer service is the province of a few luxury companies and that any retailer outside that rarefied atmosphere is condemned to offer mediocre service at best. But even companies that position themselves for the mass market can provide outstanding customer-employee interactions and profit from them, if they train employees to reflect the brand's core values. The authors studied the convenience store industry in depth and focused on two that have developed a devoted following: QuikTrip (QT) and Wawa. Turnover rates at QT and Wawa are 14% and 22% respectively, much lower than the typical rate in retail. The authors found six principles that both firms embrace to create a strong culture of customer service. Know what you're looking for: A focus on candidates' intrinsic traits allows the companies to hire people who will naturally bring the right qualities to the job. Make the most of talent: In mass-market retail, talent is generally viewed as a commodity, but that outlook becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. Create pride in the brand: Service quality depends directly on employees' attachment to the brand. Build community: Wawa and QT have made concerted efforts to build customer loyalty through a sense of community. Share the business context: Employees need a clear understanding of how their company operates and how it defines success. Satisfy the soul: To win an employee's passionate engagement, a company must meet his or her needs for security, esteem, and justice.