Harvard Business Review - 2012.09.pdf

a“Proper Theory Of Business”The very first sentence of the very first issue of Harvard Business Review,published in the fall of 1922,signaled to readers that HBR would offer intelligent observation but might also be hard work:“Unless we admit that rules of thumb,the limited experience of the executives in each individual business,and the general sentiment of the street,are the sole possible guides for executive decisions of major importance,it is pertinent to inquire how the representative practises of business men generally may be made available as a broader foundation for such decisions,and how a proper theory of business is to be obtained.”The author,Wallace B.Donham,the second dean of Harvard Business School,went on to elaborate HBRs mission:to develop“business theory,”on the basis of rigorous research,that could help executives manage more effectively.Weve come a long way since then,and were now(I hope)less daunting to consume.But as we celebrate our 90th anniversary,we continue to honor Donhams premise:Best practices in business dont arise anecdotally but are the product of critical research.Well be addressing this and many other big ideas that have emerged over these 90 yearsduring what we call the Manage-ment Centuryin a special report in our November issue.Well also look at what HBR has gotten right,or wrong,in nine decades of writing about how to lead companies.Our Spotlight on Strategy in this issue continues the effort to apply method to management.The lead piece asks,Why is it that strategic-planning processes always seem to perpetuate the status quo?A quartet of impressive authors A.G.Lafley,Roger Martin,Jan Rivkin,and Nicolaj Siggelkowsay that the challenge is to bring science to the art of strategy,to marry empirical rigor with creative thinking.Dean Donham would surely approve.Adi Ignatius,Editor in ChiefPhotograPhy:EliE honEinhbr.org12 harvard business reviewSeptember 2012From the E too often unidirectional.What is needed today is dialogue between equalsthe sum of the authors four is.Milton Leung,executive coach and trainer,Sino Star Development The idea presented here may cause unfore-seen problems.Lets say that a company is planning to set up a new strategic plan.The CEO follows the authors four is strat-egy and talks to his managers about their views on the best way this can be done.But everyone will have his own notion of what the best way is.The CEO will fi nd it challenging to incorporate each perspec-tive and will cause dissatisfaction among the managers whose ideas were rejected.Also,the sense of inclusion this process fosters may make employees feel that they can follow their own strategies,regardless of the organizational objectives.Vivek Khetan,analyst,CIB Centre Mumbai Another way to look at this model is as a sales conversation.The leader is selling the culture and goals of the organization,and asking the employees to deliver great work.Too often in sales conversations people focus on the“what”without taking time to build alignment on the“why.”Ryan Hale,principal,Stroud ConsultingWhen I was a student I sat at my desk and listened to what the teacher said,replying only when asked.When I started work the boss was the boss.The older generation may have spent a signifi cant part of their work lives in this kind of hier-archy.But most of the younger generation have not been schooled in the command-and-control structure.Nowadays there is more interaction between teachers and students.It is easier to train younger people in a new leadership method because they dont have old patterns to break.For them,everything tends to be fresh and new.Cheryl Dale,independent management consultant and facilitatorThe interviewees may have been interna-tional,but Im afraid the authors perspec-tive seems U.S.-centric.There are vast diff erences among the cultures of China and India and Russia and Braziland all are very diff erent from the U.S.Martin Collinson,managing director,Enabling TalentHBR article by Boris Groysberg andMichael Slind,June 2012New technology and increased globalization are forcing out the traditional command-and-control manager in favor of one who is dynamic,sophisticated,andperhaps most impor-tantconversational.After two years of interviews with top executives,Groysberg and Slind determined that smart leaders were engaging employees in a dialogue characterized by the“four is”:intimacy,interactivity,inclusion,and intentionality.Eff ective Leaders Talk and ListenHow Managers Become LeadersHBR article by Michael D.Watkins,June 2012Managers must make seven seismic shifts of perspective and responsibility when they become leaders for the fi rst time.Why do we continue to force square pegs into round holes?When individuals are exceptionally talented in one area,they are often woefully defi cient in another.Hence,the intrinsic talents that make a great manager(or corporate survivor)are often diametrically opposed to those of a great leader and visionary.The real problem is that the corp