Leadership P. 10

In recent years, a "postcompany" school of business experts has argued that leaps in information technology have made possible a new world of seamless collaboration among businesses, one that will bring enormous gains in efficiency and flexibility. Indeed, the experts counsel, executives should look for opportunities to tear down the "walls" around their organizations, merging their companies into amorphous "enterprise networks" or "business webs." The author concedes that the universal IT infrastructure that has been developed over the past decade does create pressures to homogenize business processes and organizations. But he warns that it is dangerous for companies to assume that the "death of distance" brought about by new communications technologies will mean the death of the company. New technologies will never conquer cutthroat competition, and managers need to be wary of alliances, outsourcing contracts and specialization initiatives that foreclose opportunities for advantage and put long-term profitability at risk. Companies will always need the walls they have so carefully erected over the years to protect their advantages.

For the past couple of decades, companies have focused on creating strong leaders of business units and influential heads of functions & #8212; men and women responsible for achieving results in one corner of an organization. But they have not paid as much attention to a more important challenge: developing leaders who see the enterprise as a whole and act for its greater good. And that perspective has become increasingly necessary as companies seek to provide not just products but broad-based customer solutions. The author explores the three key questions that companies must answer in order to link strategy to leadership development: What are the key elements of the enterprise leader’s job? Why is learning to lead at the enterprise level such a difficult challenge? And what can companies do to identify and develop enterprise leaders? He illustrates his points with examples from PricewaterhouseCoopers, Canada’s RBC Financial Group, IBM and others.

Companies deploying dishonest tactics toward customers, suppliers, distributors and others typically do so to increase short-term profits, and in that regard they might succeed. But the misconduct is likely to fuel social psychological processes within the organization that have the potential for ruinous fiscal outcomes, outweighing short-term gains. There are three types of consequences to organizational dishonesty: reputation degradation, (mis)matches between values of employees and the organization, and increased surveillance. These outcomes can lead to decreases in repeat business and job satisfaction -- and increases in worker turnover, employee theft and other hidden costs. These consequences will, like tumors, spread and eat progressively at the organization's health and vigor. They will also be difficult to identify through typical accounting methods and might lead to corrective efforts that overshoot the true causes of poor productivity and profitability. Without a thorough understanding of the three types of consequences, an organization could try to control one financial hemorrhage (for example, losses from employee theft) by creating another (namely, investments in increasingly expensive security systems).

Charismatic and controversial former CEOs like General Electric Co.’s Jack Welch and Tyco’s Dennis Kozlowski are giving way to a new breed of leader dedicated to reviving the forward-thinking legacies of Old Economy titans, such as GE’s ingenious Thomas Edison and IBM’s visionary Tom Watson Jr. After years of focusing on the art of the deal, says the author, this renewed emphasis on innovation encourages corporate giants to again ground their organizations in what they do best. Many of today’s emergent corporate leaders, like MCI’s Michael Cappellas, IBM’s Sam Palmisano and GE’s Jeff Immelt, emulate the legendary standard bearers of invention by emphasizing technological engineering over financial engineering, product over marketing and real science over junk science. Critical to their leadership is an unrelenting drive for self-improvement, a strong interest in learning, an appreciation of a motivated work community and longer time frames than those dictated by a preoccupation with the daily stock price. For example, MCI is emerging from the years of WorldCom scandal by consciously drawing upon its legacy of telecommunications innovation. IBM actively seeks to again become the epitome of prestige, employee loyalty and innovation. GE creates a hothouse of R&;D while sharpening its innovative capability in the media and medical sectors through advantageous acquisitions. In addition, executives at 3M, DuPont and Pfizer, who increasingly emphasize research and innovation over promotion and hype, have helped their companies reassert their leadership roles in their respective fields.

If retaining employees is the goal, the answer is yes — and no.

Fear is a four-letter word in companies today, but CEOs” rhetoric of & ldquo;love”

Companies often focus on creating organizational processes and structures that allow them to learn quickly. But recent research shows that organizations must also effectively manage how they forget. The authors present a new construct for companies to determine how best to remember the knowledge they should and forget the knowledge they shouldn't. According to them, forgetting can be categorized along two dimensions. The first differentiates between accidental and intentional forgetting. The former is most often associated with the loss of valuable knowledge, which thus reduces a company's competitiveness. Intentional forgetting, on the other hand, can benefit an organization by helping to rid it of knowledge that has been producing dysfunctional outcomes. The other dimension highlights the difference between knowledge that is entrenched versus new. The two dimensions form a matrix that categorizes the four types of organizational forgetting: 1. memory decay, 2. failure to capture, 3. unlearning and 4. avoiding bad habits. Each form is associated with a distinct set of processes and contexts that result in a specific set of challenges. As such, each of the four processes must be managed differently.

Researchers are beginning to explore the complex effects of employee identity on the workplace.

Corporate America has spent the last few years in restructuring mode, drastically reorganizing processes in order to wring profits from a battered economy. However beneficial these efforts may be to the bottom line, say the authors, a reliance on restructuring has had unintended negative side effects, as hierarchies that once controlled the direction of many companies become less relevant, and loyal employees become increasingly disheartened by disruptive -- and often short-sighted -- strategies. In response, companies resort to even more restructuring, frequently with less than optimal results.The authors recommend that companies shift away from knee-jerk responses such as restructuring and hierarchy building toward a transformation of established corporate structures, a wider distribution of knowledge, and the use of modern performance-measurement systems and technologies. Citing examples at BP, North Carolina's Duke Power and W.L. Gore, the authors claim that only companies developing their advantage upon the agility and flexibility of their processes, people and technologies can build lasting value for their company, customers and employees.

Performance variability frustrates managers everywhere. According to the authors, it takes a variety of forms: vastly different sales figures for similar retail stores in similar neighborhoods; significantly varying productivity rates at factories producing the same products; major differences in insurance payments for similar auto accidents. In their quest to reduce performance variability, however, managers often go too far, say the authors. By forcing workers to "copy exactly" or "follow instructions exactly" in every situation, they make it far more difficult for people to use their own judgment and knowledge to solve problems that would benefit from a new approach. Having studied this issue in depth, the authors found that the appropriate intervention to reduce differences in performance depends on individual work practices -- their frequency and predictability. Practices that are more frequent and predictable tend to be more conducive to rigid duplication, whereas those that are rare and unpredictable have greater need for flexibility and innovation. The authors contend that it's not enough to have a balance between uniformity and discretion at the company level: Each group of practitioners within an organization must also have it.