Harvard business review最新文献

In puzzling over whether it's better to be feared or loved as a leader, Machiavelli famously said that, because it's nigh impossible to do both, leaders should opt for fear. Research from Harvard Business School's Amy Cuddy and consultants Matthew Kohut and John Neffinger refutes that theory, arguing that leaders would do much better to begin with "love"--that is, to establish trust through warmth and understanding. Most leaders today approach their jobs by emphasizing competence, strength, and credentials. But without first building a foundation of trust, they run the risk of eliciting fear, resentment, or envy. Beginning with warmth allows trust to develop, facilitating both the exchange and the acceptance of ideas--people really hear your message and become open to it. Cultivating warmth and trust also boosts the quantity and quality of novel ideas that are produced. The best way to gain influence is to combine warmth and strength--as difficult as Machiavelli says that may be to do. In this article, the authors look at research from behavioral economics, social psychology, and other disciplines and offer practical tactics for leaders hoping to project a healthy amount of both qualities.

Three years ago, when a cave-in at the San José mine in Chile trapped 33 men under 700,000 metric tons of rock, experts estimated the probability of getting them out alive at less than 1%. Yet, after spending a record 69 days underground, all 33 were hoisted up to safety. The inspiring story of their rescue is a case study in how to lead in situations where the stakes, risk, and uncertainty are incredibly high and time pressure is intense. Today executives often find themselves in similar straits. When they do, many feel torn. Should they be directive, taking charge and commanding action? Or should they be empowering, enabling innovation and experimentation? As the successful example of André Sougarret, the chief of the mine rescue operation, shows, the answer is yes--to both. The choice is a false dichotomy. Implementing this dual approach involves three key tasks. Each has directive and enabling components. The first task is envisioning, which requires instilling both realism and hope. The second task is enrolling, which means setting clear boundaries for who is on and off the team, but inviting in helpful collaborators. The third task is engaging--leading disciplined execution while encouraging innovation and experimentation. The authors of this article describe how Sougarret ably juggled all of these tasks, orchestrating the efforts of hundreds of people from different organizations, areas of expertise, and countries in an extraordinary mission that overcame impossible odds.

In theory, the risk management groups of two British banks--Saxon and Anglo--had the same influence in their organizations. But in practice, they did not: Saxon's was engaged in critical work throughout the bank, while Anglo's had little visibility outside its areas of expertise. In their study of these two financial institutions, the authors identified four competencies--trailblazing, toolmaking, teamwork, and translation--that help functional leaders or groups compete for top management's limited attention and increase their impact. Anglo's risk managers were strong in only some of the competencies, but Saxon's were strong in all four. They consistently scanned the internal and external environment for important issues to which they could apply a risk management perspective (trailblazing) and then developed tools--such as quarterly risk reports--that spread their expertise (toolmaking). While controlling the tools' design and implementation, the risk managers incorporated business managers' insights (teamwork) and made sure everyone could understand the findings (translation). Ultimately, experts' roles must fit the organization's strategy and structural needs. In some situations, functional experts can raise their profile by cultivating just two of the competencies. But those who are strong in all four are likely to be the most influential.

Change is hard, especially in a large organization. Yet some leaders succeed--often spectacularly--at transforming their workplaces. what makes them able to exert this sort of influence when the vast majority can't? The authors tracked 68 change initiatives in the UK's National Health Service, an organization whose size, complexity, and tradition can make reform difficult. They discovered several predictors of change agents' success--all of which emphasize the importance of networks of personal relationships: Change agents who were central in the organization's informal network had a clear advantage, regardless of their position in the formal hierarchy. People who bridged disconnected groups or individuals were more effective at implementing dramatic reforms. The resisters in their networks did not necessarily know one another and so were unlikely to form a coalition. Change agents with cohesive networks, in which all individuals were connected, were better at instituting minor changes. Their contacts rallied around the initiative and helped convince others of its importance. Being close to people who were ambivalent about a change was always beneficial. In the end, fence-sitters were reluctant to disappoint a friend. But close relationships with resisters were a double-edged sword: Such ties helped push through minor initiatives but were a hindrance when attempting major change.

The ability to persuade others to contribute to your efforts is a key skill for managers, for team members--for anyone who wants to elevate the probability of success. Research by leading social scientist Robert Cialdini has found that persuasion works by appealing to certain deeply rooted human responses: liking, reciprocity, social proof, commitment and consistency, authority, and scarcity. In this edited interview with HBR's executive editor, Cialdini expands on the six principles of persuasion and how leaders can make effective, authentic use of them in everyday business situations. He also previews findings from new research on the ethics of influence and how dishonesty affects individuals and the organization.

Recently, technological advances have led neuroscientists to develop a new and more sophisticated framework. It shifts the focus of study from the activity of specific brain regions to how networks of brain regions activate in concurrent patterns. In this article, two experts in brain science explain important discoveries that have been made about four key networks: the default network, which is engaged in introspection and in imagining a different time, place, or reality; the reward network, which activates in response to pleasure; the affect network, which plays a central role in emotions; and the control network, which is involved in understanding consequences, impulse control, and selective attention. These discoveries hold major implications for managers. In particular, they shed light on: the best way to generate "Eureka!" thinking. What motivates employees. Whether you should trust your gut and listen to your emotions in decision making. The opportunities and pitfalls of multitasking. These insights are just the beginning, say the authors, who believe that a hugely productive dialogue between neuroscience and business will develop as more findings emerge.

A mishmash of sustainability tactics does not add up to a sustainable strategy. Too often, companies launch sustainability programs with the hope that they'll be financially rewarded for doing good, even when those programs aren't relevant to their strategy and operations. They fail to understand the trade-offs between financial performance and performance on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues. Improving one typically comes at a cost to the other. But it doesn't have to be this way. It's possible to simultaneously boost both financial and ESG performance-if you focus strategically on issues that are the most "material" to shareholder value, and you develop major innovations in products, processes, and business models that prioritize those concerns. Maps being developed by the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board, which rank the materiality of 43 issues for 88 industries, can provide valuable guidance. And broad initiatives undertaken by three companies-Natura, Dow Chemical, and CLP Group-demonstrate the kind of innovations that will push performance into new territory. Communicating the benefits to stakeholders is also critical, which is why integrated reports, which combine financial and ESG reporting, are now gaining in popularity.

The Cleveland Clinic has long had a reputation for medical excellence. But in 2009 the CEO acknowledged that patients did not think much of their experience there and decided to act. Since then the Clinic has leaped to the top tier of patient-satisfaction surveys, and it now draws hospital executives from around the world who want to study its practices. The Clinic's journey also holds Lessons for organizations outside health care that must suddenly compete by creating a superior customer experience. The authors, one of whom was critical to steering the hospital's transformation, detail the processes that allowed the Clinic to excel at patient satisfaction without jeopardizing its traditional strengths. Hospital leaders: Publicized the problem internally. Seeing the hospital's dismal service scores shocked employees into recognizing that serious flaws existed. Worked to understand patients' needs. Management commissioned studies to get at the root causes of dissatisfaction. Made everyone a caregiver. An enterprisewide program trained everyone, from physicians to janitors, to put the patient first. Increased employee engagement. The Clinic instituted a "caregiver celebration" program and redoubled other motivational efforts. Established new processes. For example, any patient, for any reason, can now make a same-day appointment with a single call. Set patients' expectations. Printed and online materials educate patients about their stays--before they're admitted. Operating a truly patient-centered organization, the authors conclude, isn't a program; it's a way of life.

No organization can fulfill every hope and desire of its employees, so it helps to know which matter most to people. Goffee and Jones have identified the six most essential imperatives for creating an ideal work environment. Their insights come from surveys and interviews of hundreds of executives from all over the world. Few organizations embody all six attributes of the dream organization, many are difficult to achieve, and some even conflict with one another. But they nonetheless stand as an agenda for executives who wish to create the most productive, most rewarding workplace imaginable. Agenda 1. Let people be themselves. 2. Unleash the flow of information. 3. Magnify people's strengths. 4. Stand for more than shareholder value. 5. Show how the daily work makes sense. 6. Have rules people can believe in. This list contains no surprises, but implementing the elements is no easy task. Almost all of them require leaders to carefully balance competing interests and to reallocate their time and attention. Companies like Arup, LVMH, Waitrose, and even McDonald's are doing it to varying degrees. Your challenge is to match-and then to exceed-what they have managed to accomplish.