Harvard business review最新文献

Team conflict can add value or destroy it. Good conflict fosters respectful debate and yields mutually agreed-upon solutions that are often far superior to those first offered. Bad conflict occurs when team members simply can't get past their differences, killing productivity and stifling innovation. Destructive conflict typically stems not from differences of opinion but from a perceived incompatibility between the way certain team members think and act. The conventional approach to working through such conflict is to respond to clashes as they arise. But this approach routinely fails because it allows frustrations to build for too long, making it difficult to reset negative impressions and restore trust. In their research on team dynamics and experience working with executive teams, Toegel and Barsoux have found a proactive approach to be much more effective. In this article, they introduce a methodology that focuses on how people look, act, speak, think, and feel. Team leaders facilitate five conversations--one focused on each category--before the team gets under way, to build a shared understanding of the process, rather than the content, of work and lay the foundation for effective collaboration.

Health care providers in much of the world are trying to respond to the tremendous pressure to reduce costs--but evidence suggests that many of their attempts are counterproductive, raising costs and sometimes decreasing the quality of care. Kaplan and Haas reached this conclusion after conducting field research with more than 50 health care provider organizations. Administrators looking for cuts typically work from the line-item expense categories on their P&Ls, they found. This may appear to generate immediate results, but it usually does not reflect the optimal mix of resources needed to efficiently deliver excellent care. The authors describe five common mistakes: (1) Reducing support staff. This often lowers the productivity of clinicians, whose time is far more expensive. (2) Underinvesting in space and equipment. The costs of these are consistently an order of magnitude smaller than personnel costs, so cuts here are short-sighted if they lower people's productivity. (3) Focusing narrowly on procurement prices and neglecting to examine how individual clinicians actually consume supplies. (4) Maximizing patient throughput. Physicians achieve greater overall productivity by spending more time with fewer patients. (5) Failing to benchmark and standardize. Administrators, in collaboration with clinicians, should examine all the costs of treating patients' conditions. This will uncover multiple opportunities to improve processes in ways that lower total costs and deliver better care.

The open office is the dominant form of workspace design for good reason: It fosters collaboration, promotes learning, and nurtures strong culture. But what most companies fail to realize is that collaboration has a natural rhythm that requires both interaction and private contemplation. Companies have been trying for decades to find the balance between public and private workspace that best supports collaboration. In 1980 52% of U.S. employees lacked workspaces where they could concentrate without distraction. In response, high-walled cubicles took over the corporate landscape. By the late 1990s, the tide had turned, and only 23% of employees wanted more privacy, and 50% wanted more access to other people. Ever since, firms have been beefing up spaces that support collaboration and shrinking areas for individual work. But the pendulum seems to have swung too far: Once again, people feel a pressing need for privacy, not only to do heads-down work but to cope with the intensity of work today. To address these needs, according to the authors, we have to rethink our assumptions about privacy. Traditionally defined in physical terms, privacy is now about the individual's ability to control information and stimulation. In this article, the authors examine workspace design through the new lens of privacy and offer insights on how to foster teamwork and solitude.

To promote accountability, productivity, and shared learning, many organizations create open work environments and gather reams of data on how individuals spend their time. A few years ago, HBS professor Ethan Bernstein set out to find empirical evidence that such approaches improve organizational performance. What he discovered is that this kind of transparency often has an unintended consequence: It can leave employees feeling vulnerable and exposed. When that happens, they conceal any conduct that deviates from the norm so that they won't have to explain it. Unrehearsed, experimental behaviors sometimes stop altogether. But Bernstein also discovered organizations that had established zones of privacy within open environments by setting four types of boundaries: around teams, between feedback and evaluation, between decision rights and improvement rights, and around periods of experimentation. Moreover, across several studies, the companies that had done all this were the ones that consistently got the most creative, efficient, and thoughtful work from their employees. Bernstein's conclusion? By balancing transparency and privacy, organizations can capture the benefits of both, and encourage just the right amount of "positive deviance" needed to increase innovation and productivity.

Few companies measure whether the design of their workspaces helps or hurts performance, but they should. The authors have collected data that capture individuals' interactions, communications, and location information. They've learned that face-to-face interactions are by far the most important activity in an office; creating chance encounters between knowledge workers, both inside and outside the organization, improves performance. The Norwegian telecom company Telenor was ahead of its time in 2003, when it incorporated "hot desking" (no assigned seats) and spaces that could easily be reconfigured for different tasks and evolving teams. The CEO credits the design of the offices with helping Telenor shift from a state-run monopoly to a competitive multinational carrier with 150 million subscribers. In another example, data collected at one pharmaceuticals company showed that when a salesperson increased interactions with coworkers on other teams by 10%, his or her sales increased by 10%. To get the sales staff running into colleagues from other departments, management shifted from one coffee machine for every six employees to one for every 120 and created a new large cafeteria for everyone. Sales rose by 20%, or $200 million, afterjust one quarter, quickly justifying the capital investment in the redesign.

Executives on the front lines of managing across borders share their insights: Luc Minguet, of France's Michelin, talks about the importance of cultural training not just for managers taking on assignments abroad but also for local employees who work with colleagues from around the world. He describes how his own experience learning to communicate across cultures reflects the tire-maker's broader practices. Eduardo Caride, of Madrid-based Telefónica, explains how the relatively young multinational is investing in a diverse talent mix as it strives to become a truly global company. Whereas early on, leaders relied on exporting Spanish managers abroad, he notes, the street now runs both ways. Takeo Yamaguchi, of Japan's Hitachi, details his efforts to create standardized global HR systems and processes across the conglomerate's 948 separate companies. "Three years ago, we had no systematic way of tracking employees, evaluating performance, or identifying future leaders," Yamaguchi says. "Today we do." And Shane Tedjarati, from the United States' Honeywell, talks about how the industrial powerhouse is shifting its strategy toward new regions, such as China, India, vietnam, and Indonesia. "We call these markets 'high-growth regions' instead of emerging markets," says Tedjarati, "because they now account for more than half of Honeywell's total growth."