Harvard business review最新文献

From Apple to Merck to Wikipedia, more and more organizations are turning to crowds for help in solving their most vexing innovation and research questions, but managers remain understandably cautious. It seems risky and even unnatural to push problems out to vast groups of strangers distributed around the world, particularly for companies built on a history of internal innovation. How can intellectual property be protected? How can a crowd-sourced solution be integrated into corporate operations? What about the costs? These concerns are all reasonable, the authors write, but excluding crowdsourcing from the corporate innovation tool kit means losing an opportunity. After a decade of study, they have identified when crowds tend to outperform internal organizations (or not). They outline four ways to tap into crowd-powered problem solving--contests, collaborative communities, complementors, and labor markets--and offer a system for picking the best one in a given situation. Contests, for example, are suited to highly challenging technical, analytical, and scientific problems; design problems; and creative or aesthetic projects. They are akin to running a series of independent experiments that generate multiple solutions--and if those solutions cluster at some extreme, a company can gain insight into where a problem's "technical frontier" lies. (Internal R&D may generate far less information.)

Employees make decisions every day about whether to contribute to others--and their willingness to help is crucial to group and organizational effectiveness. But in a competitive, often zero-sum, world of work, generosity can be a dangerous path. How can leaders foster it without cutting into productivity, undermining fairness, and allowing employees to become doormats? The key, explains Wharton's Adam Grant, is to help givers reach a more nuanced understanding of what generosity is and is not. They'll be better positioned for sustainable giving when they can distinguish generosity from three attributes that often travel with it: timidity, availability, and empathy. Givers can overcome timidity, Grant says, by learning to act as agents--using "relational accounts" to advocate for others while negotiating for themselves. They can set boundaries on when, how, and whom to help. And they can strive to be perspective takers, not just empathizers, gathering knowledge about others that can lead to more-productive allocations of time that will benefit the organization as a whole.

Almost every organization has people it can't do without--specialists with "deep smarts," who are the go-to experts on critical issues. But because their knowledge is experienced-based, it's often instinctive and unarticulated, and never gets passed on. Capturing it is a challenge for both the organization and for colleagues who wish to become in-house authorities themselves. This article offers a methodical system for acquiring deep smarts from an expert. It involves observing that person extensively to understand what makes him successful, practicing the behaviors he exhibits on your own, partnering with him to solve problems, and ultimately taking responsibility for some of his tasks. Describing the experiences of one executive as she takes this journey with a mentor, the authors show how you too can gain the wisdom that will make you indispensable to your firm.

Why doesn't a woman who continues to have unwanted pregnancies avail herself of the free contraception at a nearby clinic? What keeps people from using free chlorine tablets to purify their drinking water? Behavioral economics has shown us that we don't always act in our own best interests. This is as true of health decisions as it is of economic ones. An array of biases, limits on cognition, and motivations leads people all over the world to make suboptimal health choices. The good news is that human nature can also be a source of solutions. Through her studies in Zambia exploring the reasons for unwanted pregnancies and the incentives that would motivate hairdressers to sell condoms to their clients, the author has found that designing effective health programs requires more than providing accessible, affordable care; it requires understanding what makes both end users and providers tick. By understanding the cognitive processes underlying our choices and applying the tools of behavioral economics--such as commitment devices, material incentives, defaults, and tools that tap our desire to help others--it's possible to design simple, inexpensive programs that encourage good health decisions and long-term behavior change.

Traditionally, companies have managed their constituencies with specific processes: marketing to customers, procuring from vendors, developing HR policies for employees, and so on. The problem is, such processes focus on repeatability and compliance, so they can lead to stagnation. Inviting your constituencies to collectively help you solve problems and exploit opportunities--"co-creation"--is a better approach. It allows you to continually tap the skills and insights of huge numbers of stakeholders and develop new ways to produce value for all. The idea is to provide stakeholders with platforms (physical and digital forums) on which they can interact, get them to start exploring new experiences and connections, and let the system grow organically. A co-creation initiative by a unit of Becton, Dickinson and Company demonstrates how this works. A global leader in syringes, BD set out to deepen its ties with hospital customers and help them reduce the incidence of infections from unsafe injection and syringe disposal practices. The effort began with a cross-functional internal team, brought in the hospital procurement and supply managers BD had relationships with, and then reached out to hospitals' infection-prevention and occupational health leaders. Eventually product designers, nurses, sustainability staffers, and even hospital CFOs were using the platform, contributing data that generated new best practices and reduced infections.

We live in a media-saturated world, where consumers are drowning in irrelevant messages delivered from the web, TV, radio, print, outdoor displays, and a proliferating array of mobile devices. Advertising strategies built on persuading through interruption, repetition, and brute ubiquity are increasingly ineffective. To win consumers' attention and trust, marketers must think less about what advertising says to its targets and more about what it does for them. Rayport outlines four domains of human experience: In the public sphere people move from one place or activity to another, both online and off. In the social sphere they interact with and relate to one another. In the tribal sphere they affiliate with groups to define or express their identity. In the psychological sphere they connect language with specific thoughts and feelings. Savvy marketers think about crafting messages that consumers will welcome in these domains. Zappos did that when it placed ads in airport security bins (the public sphere)--reaching people whose minds may be on their shoes. Nintendo identified young mothers who were willing to host Wii parties and provided them with everything they needed for these social-sphere events. Yelp's Elite Squad of reviewers have a heightened sense of tribal affiliation that makes them powerful brand ambassadors. Life is good Inc. is rooted in the psychological sphere: It advertises only through the optimism-promoting logo and slogan on its products.

Some personality assessment tools are good at identifying what you like to do, but they tell you very little about whether you're good at it or how to improve if you're not. Fortunately, one way of grouping people into types is based on an attribute that does predict performance: promotion focus or prevention focus. Promotion-focused people see their goals as creating a path to advancement; they are comfortable taking chances, like to work quickly, dream big, and think creatively. Prevention-focused people see their goals as responsibilities; they are vigilant, risk-averse, thorough, and accurate, and like to maintain the status quo. Motivational focus affects how we approach life's challenges. It affects what we pay attention to, what we value, and how we feel when we succeed or fail. Once you know your focus, you can choose role models, frame goals, seek or give feedback, and provide incentives that will strengthen your motivation or your team's. This article details how you can create motivational fit, which enhances and sustains both the eagerness of the promotion-minded and the vigilance of the prevention-minded.

Some people are practically phobic about going to the bargaining table. If their minimum needs are met, they'll sign on the dotted line just to end the stress of dealing with people who have different agendas and styles. But that can be an expensive aversion, the authors write. When you're facing an important negotiation, rigorous preparation--running the numbers, scouting the marketplace, developing a plan B--is essential. But it's only half the story. The truth is that your passions matter in real-life deal making and dispute resolution. You need to understand, channel, and learn from your emotions in order to adapt to the situation at hand and engage others successfully. The authors studied 20 seasoned negotiators to explore their thoughts and feelings about the process. They invited their participants to find and combine pictures that metaphorically depicted those feelings and to describe in in-depth interviews the collages they'd created. Three reasons for the stressfulness of the negotiation experience emerged: lack of control, unpredictability, and the absence of feedback. This article includes a six-step warm-up exercise to help you prepare emotionally to negotiate effectively.

The more uncertain your environment, the greater the opportunity--if you have the leadership skills to capitalize on it. Research at the Wharton school and at the authors' consulting firm, involving more than 20,000 executives to date, has identified six skills that, when mastered and used in concert, allow leaders to think strategically and navigate the unknown effectively. They are the abilities to anticipate, challenge, interpret, decide, align, and learn. This article describes the six skills in detail and includes a self-assessment that will enable you to identify the ones that most need your attention. The authors have found that strength in one skill cannot easily compensate for a deficit in another. An adaptive strategic leader has learned to apply all six at once.