Selling the brand inside

When you think of marketing, chances are your mind goes right to your customers--how can you persuade more people to buy whatever it is you sell? But there's another "market" that's equally important: your employees. Author Colin Mitchell argues that executives by and large ignore this critical internal audience when developing and executing branding campaigns. As a result, employees end up undermining the expectations set by the company's advertising--either because they don't understand what the ads have promised or because they don't believe in the brand and feel disengaged or, worse, hostile toward the company. Mitchell offers three principles for executing internal branding campaigns--techniques executives can use to make sure employees understand, embrace, and "live" the brand vision companies are selling to the public. First, he says, companies need to market to employees at times when the company is experiencing a fundamental challenge or change, times when employees are seeking direction and are relatively receptive to new initiatives. Second, companies must link their internal and external marketing campaigns; employees should hear the same messages that are being sent to the market-place. And third, internal branding campaigns should bring the brand alive for employees, creating an emotional connection to the company that transcends any one experience. Internal campaigns should introduce and explain the brand messages in new and attention-grabbing ways and then reinforce those messages by weaving them into the fabric of the company. It is a fact of business, writes Mitchell, that if employees do not care about or understand their company's brands, they will ultimately weaken their organizations. It's up to top executives, he says, to give them a reason to care.     

The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy

When it comes to philanthropy, executives increasingly see themselves as caught between critics demanding ever higher levels of "corporate social responsibility" and investors applying pressure to maximize short-term profits. In response, many companies have sought to make their giving more strategic, but what passes for strategic philanthropy is almost never truly strategic, and often isn't particularly effective as philanthropy. Increasingly, philanthropy is used as a form of public relations or advertising, promoting a company's image through high-profile sponsorships. But there is a more truly strategic way to think about philanthropy. Corporations can use their charitable efforts to improve their competitive context--the quality of the business environment in the locations where they operate. Using philanthropy to enhance competitive context aligns social and economic goals and improves a company's long-term business prospects. Addressing context enables a company to not only give money but also leverage its capabilities and relationships in support of charitable causes. The produces social benefits far exceeding those provided by individual donors, foundations, or even governments. Taking this new direction requires fundamental changes in the way companies approach their contribution programs. For example, philanthropic investments can improve education and local quality of life in ways that will benefit the company. Such investments can also improve the company's competitiveness by contributing to expanding the local market and helping to reduce corruption in the local business environment. Adopting a context-focused approach goes against the grain of current philanthropic practice, and it requires a far more disciplined approach than is prevalent today. But it can make a company's philanthropic activities far more effective.     

Competing on talent analytics

Do investments in your employees actually affect workforce performance? Who are your top performers? How can you empower and motivate other employees to excel? Leading-edge companies such as Google, Best Buy, Procter & Gamble, and Sysco use sophisticated data-collection technology and analysis to answer these questions, leveraging a range of analytics to improve the way they attract and retain talent, connect their employee data to business performance, differentiate themselves from competitors, and more. The authors present the six key ways in which companies track, analyze, and use data about their people-ranging from a simple baseline of metrics to monitor the organization's overall health to custom modeling for predicting future head count depending on various "what if" scenarios. They go on to show that companies competing on talent analytics manage data and technology at an enterprise level, support what analytical leaders do, choose realistic targets for analysis, and hire analysts with strong interpersonal skills as well as broad expertise.     

It's so hard to be fair

When employees believe they are being treated fairly-when they feel heard, when they understand how and why important decisions are made, and when they believe they are respected-their companies will benefit. Research shows that practicing process fairness reduces legal costs from wrongful-termination suits, lowers employee turnover, helps generate support for new strategic initiatives, and fosters a culture that promotes innovation. What's more, it costs little financially to implement Yet few companies practice it consistently. Joel Brockner examines this paradox, exploring psychological and other reasons that cause managers to resist embracing process fairness. The fact that it's relatively inexpensive to implement, for instance, may be why some numbers-oriented executives undervalue it. Many managers believe that they practice process fairness, but 360-degree feedback tells another story. Some corporate policies actually undermine it--such as when the legal department won't let managers fully explain decisions for fear that disclosure could expose the firm to lawsuits. And, frequently, managers simply follow the all-too-human tendency to avoid uncomfortable situations. But the good news is that organizations can take concrete steps to promote greater process fairness. Many studies have shown that training programs make a big difference, and the author describes the most effective format. In addition, warning your managers that they may experience negative emotions when practicing fair process will help prepare them to cope with those feelings. Finally, role modeling fair process on the executive level will help spread the practice throughout the organization. The fact is, process fairness is the responsibility of all executives, at all levels and in all functions; it cannot be delegated to HR. The sooner managers realize that and work to make it a company norm, the better off the organization will be.     

The Theory and Practice of Corporate Risk Management*

The financial crisis of 2008 and the resulting recession caught many companies unprepared and, in so doing, provided a stark reminder of the importance of effective risk management. While academic theory has long touted the benefits of risk management, companies have varied greatly in the ways and extent to which they put theory into practice. Drawing on a global survey of over 300 CFOs of non‐financial companies, the authors report that while most CFOs felt that their risk management programs have significant benefits, the risk management function in general needs more attention. A large percentage of the finance executives surveyed acknowledged that the most important corporate risks extend far beyond the CFO's direct reports, and that risk‐based thinking is not incorporated into everyday business activities or corporate strategies. A large majority of executives also said they were seeking a more widespread understanding of risk throughout their organizations—and many confessed their firms' inability, or lack of interest, in evaluating their own risk management functions. At the same time, the efforts of most companies to develop enterprise‐wide risk management (ERM) programs were said to fall well short of the comprehensive and highly coordinated programs envisioned by the proponents of such programs. Three areas of opportunity were clearly identified as having potential to improve corporate risk management in ways that increase firm value over an entire business cycle:

• ? Incorporate risk management thinking into the strategic planning process. Line executives, and not just technicians, need to be sensitive to risks, thereby building flexibility into the firm's business plan and its execution.
• ? Clearly define the objectives of the risk management function, in part by developing appropriate benchmarks. The risk management process should be subject to the same rigorous evaluation process that is used when measuring risks throughout the business.
• ? Instill a risk management culture throughout the organization. While an effective risk management function is necessary, only when employees at all levels of the company embrace risk management as part of their daily operations will the firm get maximum value from risk management.

     

The service-driven service company

For more than 40 years, service companies like McDonald's prospered with organizations designed according to the principles of traditional mass-production manufacturing. Today that model is obsolete. It inevitably degrades the quality of service a company can provide by setting in motion a cycle of failure that produces dissatisfied customers, unhappy employees, high turnover among both--and so lower profits and lower productivity overall. The cycle starts with human resource policies that minimize the contributions frontline workers can make: jobs are designed to be idiot-proof. Technology is used largely for monitoring and control. Pay is poor. Training is minimal. Performance expectations are abysmally low. Today companies like Taco Bell, Dayton Hudson, and ServiceMaster are reversing the cycle of failure by putting workers with customer contact first and designing the business system around them. As a result, they are developing a model that replaces the logic of industrialization with a new service-driven logic. This logic: Values investments in people as much as investments in technology--and sometimes more. Uses technology to support the efforts of workers on the front lines, not just to monitor or replace them. Makes recruitment and training crucial for everyone. Links compensation to performance for employees at every level. To justify these investments, the new logic draws on innovative data such as the incremental profits of loyal customers and the total costs of lost employees. Its benefits are becoming clear in higher profits and higher pay--results that competitors bound to the old industrial model will not be able to match.     

Capitalizing on capabilities

By making the most of organizational capabilities--employees' collective skills and fields of expertise--you can dramatically improve your company's market value. Although there is no magic list of proficiencies that every organization needs in order to succeed, the authors identify 11 intangible assets that well-managed companies tend to have: talent, speed, shared mind-set and coherent brand identity, accountability, collaboration, learning, leadership, customer connectivity, strategic unity, innovation, and efficiency. Such companies typically excel in only three of these capabilities while maintaining industry parity in the other areas. Organizations that fall below the norm in any of the 11 are likely candidates for dysfunction and competitive disadvantage. So you can determine how your company fares in these categories (or others, if the generic list doesn't suit your needs), the authors explain how to conduct a "capabilities audit," describing in particular the experiences and findings of two companies that recently performed such audits. In addition to highlighting which intangible assets are most important given the organization's history and strategy, this exercise will gauge how well your company delivers on its capabilities and will guide you in developing an action plan for improvement. A capabilities audit can work for an entire organization, a business unit, or a region--indeed, for any part of a company that has a strategy to generate financial or customer-related results. It enables executives to assess overall company strengths and weaknesses, senior leaders to define strategy, midlevel managers to execute strategy, and frontline leaders to achieve tactical results. In short, it helps turn intangible assets into concrete strengths.     

Loyalty-based management

Despite a flurry of activities aimed at serving customers better, few companies have systematically revamped their operations with customer loyalty in mind. Instead, most have adopted improvement programs ad hoc, and paybacks haven't materialized. Building a highly loyal customer base must be integral to a company's basic business strategy. Loyalty leaders like MBNA credit cards are successful because they have designed their entire business systems around customer loyalty--a self-reinforcing system in which the company delivers superior value consistently and reinvents cash flows to find and keep high-quality customers and employees. The economic benefits of high customer loyalty are measurable. When a company consistently delivers superior value and wins customer loyalty, market share and revenues go up, and the cost of acquiring new customers goes down. The better economics mean the company can pay workers better, which sets off a whole chain of events. Increased pay boosts employee moral and commitment; as employees stay longer, their productivity goes up and training costs fall; employees' overall job satisfaction, combined with their experience, helps them serve customers better; and customers are then more inclined to stay loyal to the company. Finally, as the best customers and employees become part of the loyalty-based system, competitors are left to survive with less desirable customers and less talented employees. To compete on loyalty, a company must understand the relationships between customer retention and the other parts of the business--and be able to quantify the linkages between loyalty and profits. It involves rethinking and aligning four important aspects of the business: customers, product/service offering, employees, and measurement systems.     

Lead for loyalty.

The greater the loyalty a company engenders among its customers, employees, suppliers, and shareholders, the greater the profits it reaps. Frederick Reichheld, a director emeritus of Bain & Company, offers advice on improving loyalty that is based on more than a decade of research. Primarily, he says, outstanding loyalty is the direct result of the decisions and practices of committed top executives with personal integrity. The "loyalty leader" companies--those with the most impressive loyalty credentials--are a diverse group, ranging from Vanguard and Northwestern Mutual to Chick-fil-A, Harley-Davidson, Intuit, and Enterprise Rent-A-Car. But beneath their surface variations lie six strikingly similar relationship strategies: 1. Preach what you practice. Executives must preach the importance of loyalty in clear, precise, powerful terms. 2. Play to win-win. It's not enough that your competitors lose; your partners must win. There's a clear connection, for instance, between a company's treatment of its employees and its attitude toward customers. 3. Be picky. A truly humble company knows it can satisfy only certain customers, and it goes all out to keep them happy. Careful selection of employees also plays an important role. 4. Keep it simple. Great leaders understand that they must simplify rules for decision making. 5. Reward the right results. Many companies reward employees who grab short-term profits and short-change those who build long-term value and customer loyalty. 6. Listen hard, talk straight. Long-term relationships require honest, two-way communication and learning. Exemplary leaders break through the cynicism of the times by showing they believe that an organization thrives when its partners and customers do.     

Arm yourself for the coming battle over Social Security

The U.S. Social Security system is in deep trouble--and that's not just bad news for your friends and family. It's also bad news for your company. Unless the Social Security system is changed, by 2017 the cash flowing out of it will exceed the cash coming in, and by 2041 the system will be utterly insolvent. But the trouble will start sooner than that: In the next decade, the very prospect of the rising deficit will mean serious pressure on recent tax cuts, higher long-term interest rates, increased pension-funding costs, and other punishing conditions for U.S. businesses. Clearly, there's a lot at stake for companies, which is why executives need to participate in the growing debate about Social Security reform, says Robert Pozen, a visiting professor at Harvard Law School who served on the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security. In this article, he urges business leaders to take a stance on how the system should be reformed, suggesting they work with interest groups to make their voices heard. After taking a comprehensive look at the debates surrounding Social Security reform, Pozen outlines the three main alternatives executives might choose to support: increasing contributions to Social Security, decreasing the growth of benefits for more-affluent workers, and increasing investment returns on Social Security assets. What's needed to fix the current system, he contends, is a careful balance of all three.     

Sharpening the intangibles edge

Intangible assets--patents and know-how, brands, a skilled workforce, strong customer relationships, software, unique processes and organizational designs, and the like--generate most of a company's growth and shareholder value. Yet extensive research indicates that investors systematically misprice the shares of intangibles-intensive enterprises. Clearly, overpricing wastes capital. But underpricing raises the cost of capital, hamstringing executives in their efforts to take advantage of further growth opportunities. How do you break this vicious cycle? By generating better information about your investments in intangibles, and by disclosing at least some of that data to the capital markets. Getting at that information is easier said than done, however. There are no markets generating visible prices for intellectual capital, brands, or human capital to assist investors in correctly valuing intangibles-intensive companies. And current accounting practices lump funds spent on intangibles with general expenses, so that investors and executives don't even know how much is being invested in them, let alone what a return on those investments might be. At the very least, companies should break out the amounts spent on intangibles and disclose them to the markets. More fundamentally, executives should start thinking of intangibles not as costs but as assets, so that they are recognized as investments whose returns are identified and monitored. The proposals laid down in this article are only a beginning, the author stresses. Corporations and accounting bodies should make systematic efforts to develop information that can reliably reflect the unique attributes of intangible assets. The current serious misallocations of resources should be incentive enough for businesses to join--and even lead--such developments.     

Strategy as ecology

Microsoft's and Wal-Mart's preeminence in modern business has been attributed to any number of factors--from the vision and drive of their founders to the companies' aggressive competitive practices. But the authors maintain that the success realized by these two very different companies is due only partly to the organizations themselves; a bigger factor is the success of the networks of companies with which Microsoft and Wal-Mart do business. Most companies today inhabit ecosystems--loose networks of suppliers, distributors, and outsourcers; makers of related products or services; providers of relevant technology; and other organizations that affect, and are affected by, the creation and delivery of a company's own offering. Despite being increasingly central to modern business, ecosystems are still poorly understood and even more poorly managed. The analogy between business networks and biological ecosystems can aid this understanding by vividly highlighting certain pivotal concepts. The moves that a company makes will, to varying degrees, affect the health of its business network, which in turn will ultimately affect the organization's performance--for ill as well as for good. Because a company, like an individual species in a biological ecosystem, ultimately shares its fate with the network as a whole, smart firms pursue strategies that will benefit everyone. So how can you promote the health and the stability of your own ecosystem, determine your place in it, and develop a strategy to match your role, thereby helping to ensure your company's well-being? It depends on your role--current and potential--within the network. Is your company a niche player, a keystone, or a dominator? The answer to this question may be different for different parts of your business. It may also change as your ecosystem changes. Knowing what to do requires understanding the ecosystem and your organization's role in it.     

Strategic sourcing: from periphery to the core

As globalization changes the basis of competition, sourcing is moving from the periphery of corporate functions to the core. Always important in terms of costs, sourcing is becoming a strategic opportunity. But few companies are ready for this shift. Outsourcing has grown so sophisticated that even critical functions like engineering, R&D, manufacturing, and marketing can-and often should-be moved outside. And that, in turn, is changing the way companies think about their organizations, their value chains, and their competitive positions. Already, a handful of vanguard companies are transforming what used to be purely internal corporate functions into entirely new industries. Companies like UPS, Solectron, and Hewitt have created new business models by concentrating scale and skill within a single function. As these and other function-based companies grow, so does the potential value of outsourcing to all companies. Migrating from a vertically integrated company to a specialized provider of a single function is not a winning strategy for everyone. But all companies need to rigorously reassess each of their functions as possible outsourcing candidates. Presented in this article is a simple three-step process to identify which functions your company needs to own and protect, which can be best performed by what kinds of partners, and which could be turned into new business opportunities. The result of such an analysis will be a comprehensive capabilities-sourcing strategy. As a detailed examination of 7-Eleven's experience shows, the success of the strategy often hinges on the creativity with which partnerships are organized and managed. But only by first taking a broad, strategic view of capabilities sourcing can your company gain the greatest benefit from all of its sourcing choices.     

Every employee an owner. Really

Surveys indicate that when new rules on expensing stock options take effect, many companies are likely to limit the number of employees who can receive equity compensation. But companies that reserve equity for executives are bound to suffer in the long run. Study after study proves that broad-based ownership, when done right, leads to higher productivity, lower workforce turnover, better recruits, and bigger profits. "Done right" is the key. Here are the four most important factors in implementing a broad-based employee equity plan: A significant portion of the workforce--generally, most of the full-time people--must hold equity; employees must think the amounts they hold can significantly improve their financial prospects; managerial practices and policies must reinforce the plan; and employees must feel a true sense of company ownership. Those factors add up to an ownership culture in which employees' interests are aligned with the company's. The result is a workforce that is loyal, cooperative, and willing to go above and beyond to make the organization successful. A wide variety of companies have recorded exceptional business performance with the help of employee-ownership programs supported by management policies. The authors examine two: Science Applications International, a research and development contractor, and Scot Forge, which shapes metal and other materials for industrial machinery. At both companies, every employee with a year or so of service holds equity, and employees who stay on can accumulate a comfortable nest egg. Management's sharing of financial information reinforces workers' sense of ownership. So does the expectation that employees will accept the responsibilities of ownership. Workers with an ownership stake internalize their responsibilities and feel they have an obligation not only to management but to one another.     

Investor Protection and Governance in the Valuation of Emerging Markets Investments

The combination of ineffective corporate governance at the company level and an uncertain legal and regulatory environment can significantly reduce the prices investors are willing to pay when investing in companies in emerging markets. The authors report the findings of their recent survey that asks investment professionals to compare the value of a hypothetical Australian company with that of its identical counterparts located in five emerging markets: Malaysia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and Iran. The responding investors said they would value the emerging markets investments at discounts from the value of the Australian company that ranged from a low of 13.5% for its Malaysian counterpart to 51.2% for the Iranian company. Moreover, they indicated they would require costs of equity for these investments that were consistent with even larger valuation discounts. The investors' responses to the survey also suggest that corporate governance is especially important in countries with weaker investor protection. Well‐governed companies located in these countries enjoy significant value premiums that can partly offset the negative effect of the poor institutional environments, which suggests there may be a significant payoff for investors that succeed in improving the governance of the companies they invest in.     

Disruptive change. When trying harder is part of the problem

When a company faces a major disruption in its markets, managers' perceptions of the disruption influence how they respond to it. If, for instance, they view the disruption as a threat to their core business, managers tend to overreact, committing too many resources too quickly. But if they see it as an opportunity, they're likely to commit insufficient resources to its development. Clark Gilbert and Joseph Bower explain why thinking in such stark terms--threat or opportunity--is dangerous. It's possible, they argue, to arrive at an organizational framing that makes good use of the adrenaline a threat creates as well as of the creativity an opportunity affords. The authors claim that the most successful companies frame the challenge differently at different times: When resources are being allocated, managers see the disruptive innovation as a threat. But when the hard strategic work of discovering and responding to new markets begins, the disruptive innovation is treated as an opportunity. The ability to reframe the disruptive technology as circumstances evolve is not an easy skill to master, the authors admit. In fact, it might not be possible without adjusting the organizational structure and the processes governing new business funding. Successful companies, the authors have determined, tend to do certain things: They establish a new venture separate from the core business; they fund the venture in stages as markets emerge; they don't rely on employees from the core organization to staff the new business; and they appoint an active integrator to manage the tensions between the two organizations, to name a few. This article will help executives frame innovations in more balanced ways--allowing them to recognize threats but also to seize opportunities.     

Session Ii: Capitalism and Social Insurance

In what Jeff Gordon describes as “the great risk shift,” large U.S. companies have responded during the last 50 years to the forces of globalization and increased pressure from investors by transferring the risks associated with product and worker obsolescence from their shareholders to their employees. Layoffs have generally meant very large, if not complete, losses of “firm‐specific investments” by displaced employees. And the problem is especially troubling in the U.S., where the employees of large companies lose not only their jobs and income streams, but also often their connection to their social network, to the entire system of social welfare and insurance that tends to be provided by large companies and the workplace. While applauding corporate retraining programs, Gordon suggests that individual company efforts are likely to be overwhelmed by the demand for such services. The solution accordingly lies in the form of government‐provided social insurance—in programs that, whether orchestrated and funded at the state or federal level, provide the most cost‐effective government “match” designed to ensure the preservation of human potential and lifetime earnings power of employees.     

非高管股权激励与企业创新:公平理论视角

股权激励管理办法允许上市公司通过股权激励计划对部分非高管员工进行股权激励,但设定激励对象等方面的有关规定对企业的影响却鲜有研究关注。本文从公平理论视角分析我国非高管员工股权激励对上市公司创新的影响,并依据中国上市公司股权激励计划与专利数据实证检验了非高管员工股权激励有效性假说与不公平假说。研究发现,总体上我国股权激励计划能够显著促进企业创新,但非激励员工因薪酬不公平而产生的消极行为在一定程度上削弱了股权激励计划的激励效果。具体而言,在国有控股上市公司以及激励与非激励员工收入差距小的上市公司中,非高管股权激励弱化企业创新的影响明显小于其他公司;而在非高管员工覆盖比例较高的公司中,非高管股权激励计划弱化企业创新的影响不存在。因此适当提高员工股权激励覆盖的范围可以减少激励员工与非激励员工之间因激励错配导致的薪酬不公平问题,有助于提升我国上市公司股权激励计划的创新激励效果。     

Crisis communication. Lessons from 9/11

The sheer enormity of last year's terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon gave new meaning to the term "crisis management." Suddenly, companies near Ground Zero, as well as those more than a thousand miles away, needed a plan. Because the disasters disrupted established channels not only between businesses and customers but between businesses and employees, internal crisis-communications strategies that could be quickly implemented became a key responsibility of top management. Without these strategies, employees' trauma and confusion might have immobilized their firms and set their customers adrift. In this article, executives from a range of industries talk about how their companies, including Morgan Stanley, Oppenheimer Funds, American Airlines, Verizon, the New York Times, Dell, and Starbucks, went about restoring operations and morale. From his interviews with these individuals, author and management professor Paul Argenti was able to distill a number of lessons, each of which, he says, may "serve as guideposts for any company facing a crisis that undermines its employees' composure, confidence, or concentration." His advice to senior executives includes: Maintain high levels of visibility, so that employees are certain of top management's command of the situation and concern; establish contingency communication channels and work sites; strive to keep employees focused on the business itself, because a sense of usefulness enhances morale and good morale enhances usefulness; and ensure that employees have absorbed the firm's values, which will guide them as they cope with the unpredictable. The most forward-thinking leaders realize that managing a crisis-communications program requires the same dedication and resources they give to other dimensions of their business. More important, they realize that their employees always come first.     

Bringing Silicon Valley inside

In 1998, Silicon Valley companies produced 41 IPOs, which by January 1999 had a combined market capitalization of $27 billion--that works out to $54,000 in new wealth creation per worker in a single year. Multiply the number of employees in your company by $54,000. Did your business create that much new wealth last year? Half that amount? It's not a group of geniuses generating such riches. It's a business model. In Silicon Valley, ideas, capital, and talent circulate freely, gathering into whatever combinations are most likely to generate innovation and wealth. Unlike most traditional companies, which spend their energy in resource allocation--a system designed to avoid failure--the Valley operates through resource attraction--a system that nurtures innovation. In a traditional company, people with innovative ideas must go hat in hand to the guardians of the old ideas for funding and for staff. But in Silicon Valley, a slew of venture capitalists vie to attract the best new ideas, infusing relatively small amounts of capital into a portfolio of ventures. And talent is free to go to the companies offering the most exhilarating work and the greatest potential rewards. It should actually be easier for large, traditional companies to set up similar markets for capital, ideas, and talent internally. After all, big companies often already have extensive capital, marketing, and distribution resources, and a first crack at the talent in their own ranks. And some of them are doing it. The choice is yours--you can do your best to make sure you never put a dollar of capital at risk, or you can tap into the kind of wealth that's being created every day in Silicon Valley.