Harvard business review最新文献

We've all heard of (or experienced) the "boss from hell." But that's just one form that incivility in the workplace can take. Rudeness on the job is surprisingly common, and it's on the rise. Whether it involves overt bullying or subtle acts of thoughtlessness, incivility takes a toll. It erodes productivity, chips away at morale, leads employees to quit, and damages customer relationships. Dealing with its aftermath can soak up weeks of managerial attention and time. Over the past 14 years the authors have conducted interviews with and collected data from more than 14,000 people throughout the United States and Canada in order to track the prevalence, types, causes, costs, and cures of incivility at work. They suggest several steps leaders can take to counter rudeness. Managers should start with themselves-monitoring their own behavior, asking for feedback on it, and making sure that their actions are a model for others. When it comes to managing the organization, leaders should hire with civility in mind, teach it on the job, create group norms, reward good behavior, and penalize bad behavior. Lest consistent civility seem an extravagance, the authors caution that just one habitually offensive employee critically positioned in an organization can cost millions in Lost employees, lost customers, and lost productivity.

Top talent is an invaluable asset: In highly specialized or creative work, for instance, "A" players are likely to be six times as productive as "B" players. So when your company has a crucial strategic project, why not multiply all that firepower and have a team of your best performers tackle it? Yet many companies hesitate to do this, believing that all-star teams don't work: Big egos will get in the way. The stars won't be able to work with one another. They'll drive the team Leader crazy. Mankins, Bird, and Root of Bain & Company believe it's time to set aside that thinking. They have seen all-star teams do extraordinary work. But there is a right way and a wrong way to organize them. Before you can even begin to assemble such a team, you need to have the right talent management practices, so you hire and develop the best people and know what they're capable of. You have to give the team appropriate incentives and leaders and support staffers who are stars in their own right. And projects that are ill-defined or small scale are not for all-star teams. Use them only for critical missions, and make sure their objectives are clear. Even with the right setup, things can still go wrong. The wise executive will take steps to manage egos, prune non-team-players, and prevent average coworkers from feeling completely undervalued. She will also invest a lot of time in choosing the right team Leader and will ask members for lots of feedback to monitor how that leader is doing.

When Joseph Jimenez joined Novartis, in 2007, the company was facing a big challenge: Its blockbuster drug Diovan, which accounted for more than 20% of the pharmaceutical division's revenue, would lose its U.S. patent in 2012. His senior executives had some ideas for offsetting the loss-about 100 of them. From that list they chose three on which to focus: (1) The division invested significantly in testing Afinitor (a treatment for renal cell carcinoma that was nearly ready for market) in breast cancer. (2) It set up Novartis China Commercial University to screen, hire, and train several hundred salespeople for rapid expansion in high-growth markets. (3) It began to transition to an outcomes-based approach to selling medicine by offering to screen patients for responsiveness to new drugs before they're prescribed. Five years later, Jimenez writes, those efforts are beginning to pay off: Revenue is expected to remain stable even as Diovan gives way to generics.

When the history of an organization comes up, it's usually in connection with an anniversary--just part of the "balloons and fireworks" (as one business leader characterized his company's bicentennial celebration, knowing that the investment of time and money would have little staying power). A fast-changing world leaves little time for nostalgia and irrelevant details--or, worse, strategies for winning the last war. But the authors, business historians at the Winthrop Group, assert that leaders with no patience for history are missing a vital truth: A sophisticated understanding of the past is one of the most powerful tools they have for shaping the future. The job of leaders, most would agree, is to inspire collective efforts and devise smart strategies for the future. History can be profitably employed on both fronts. As a leader strives to get people working together productively, communicating the history of the enterprise can instill a sense of identity and purpose and suggest the goals that will resonate. In its most familiar form, as a narrative about the past, history is a rich explanatory tool with which executives can make a case for change and motivate people to overcome challenges. Taken to a higher level, it also serves as a potent problem-solving tool, one that offers pragmatic insights, valid generalizations, and meaningful perspectives--a way to cut through management fads and the noise of the moment to what really matters.

Most people are born creative. But over time, a lot of us learn to stifle those impulses. We become warier of judgment, more cautious more analytical. The world seems to divide into "creatives" and "noncreatives," and too many people resign themselves to the latter category. And yet we know that creativity is essential to success in any discipline or industry. The good news, according to authors Tom Kelley and David Kelley of IDEO, is that we all can rediscover our creative confidence. The trick is to overcome the four big fears that hold most of us back: fear of the messy unknown, fear of judgment, fear of the first step, and fear of losing control. The authors use an approach based on the work of psychologist Albert Bandura in helping patients get over their snake phobias: You break challenges down into small steps and then build confidence by succeeding on one after another. Creativity is something you practice, say the authors, not just a talent you are born with.

Most big deals--megamergers, major sales, infrastructure projects--are built on a series of smaller ones. Each component deal presents a tactical challenge, but sequencing the parts in a way that achieves the target outcome is a strategic challenge that can unfold over months or years. This process, which the authors call a negotiation campaign, must generally be conducted on several fronts, each involving multiple parties. A multifront campaign can be much more effective than direct negotiation. After failed talks between Longshoremen and the Pacific Maritime Association--a group of shippers and port operators--the PMA's president turned away from the bargaining table and embarked on a campaign to align member-firms, the business community, the U.S. government, and the public around his target outcome: the deployment of new information technologies to help unclog busy ports. The result was an agreement that was ultimately mutually beneficial. Designing and executing a negotiation campaign involves identifying the relevant parties, grouping them into fronts according to shared interests, determining whether to combine fronts (if, for instance, doing so would unite your allies), and deciding which fronts to approach early on and which to engage only after you've made progress elsewhere. The deal between the PMA and the Longshoremen involved high stakes, but many small-scale deals--such as gaining approval for a new product--also play out on multiple fronts. Going straight to a key decision maker often makes sense, but in many cases a multifront campaign is the only way.