Источник
Выбор редакции
19 октября, 16:00

Why Climate Change and Other Global Problems Are Pushing Some Business Leaders to Embrace Regulation

  • 0

Martin Barraud/Getty Images Global carbon emissions need to be reduced to net zero by 2050 to have a good chance of holding global average temperature rises to no more than 1.5oC, a level that would be disastrous, but not catastrophic for human civilization. So states a new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which sets out the policy choices governments around the world need to make over the next 12 years to 2030 if they want to limit global temperature rises to 1.5oC rather than 2oC. If global temperatures rise more than 1.5oC, the risks of draught, floods, forest fires, heat-related deaths and loss of agricultural productivity all worsen significantly. The response from political leaders so far has been mixed. Some governments may be poised to revise their climate change targets in line with the call for net zero emissions by 2050. Others have been less enthusiastic. The Australian government has rejected the report’s call to phase out coal power by 2050. In the U.S., President Trump’s response to the IPCC report so far has been to cast doubt on it. This follows his summer 2017 announcement that he was withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement. Since then the Trump Administration has been busy unravelling a series of public policy initiatives and regulations that underpinned the Paris commitments the U.S. had made, like the Clean Power Plan and vehicle emissions standards, citing them as an impediment to business. Predictably, environmentalists, pro-environment politicians, and countries especially vulnerable to climate change have reacted to all of this with distress. But perhaps a little less predictably, so have many business leaders. For example, many American CEOs spent considerable energy in the weeks building up to Trump’s Paris announcement lobbying the President not to withdraw. Over 1,700 companies and investors have subsequently signed the We Are Still In statement, making public their commitment to uphold the agreement. While it’s become more normal in recent years to see some businesses taking proactive measures to drive innovation to tackle some of the world’s most pressing social and environmental challenges, it generally remains a widespread assumption that business leaders see government intervention in the economy and increased regulation as something to be avoided. But there is now a growing trend of some CEOs actively lobbying for more ambitious government action and regulation on a whole range of social and environmental issues. Many businesses were actively involved in lobbying governments to make an ambitious agreement on climate in Paris in the first place. Unilever CEO Paul Polman was one of many who worked tirelessly to push governments to higher ambition. More than 365 companies and investors voiced their support for the US Clean Power Plan in 2015. More than 200 companies have publicly called for the introduction of carbon pricing. Business leaders are now calling on governments to create the policy frameworks to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. And it’s not just on climate. Companies invested significant resources in pushing for high public policy ambition in agreeing the UN Sustainable Development Goals in 2015. On human rights issues, companies have lobbied the UK government for stronger regulation tackling Modern Slavery in corporate supply chains, and the Cambodian government for stronger protection for worker’s rights. What’s going on? Businesses aren’t supposed to want more regulation of their activities. This growing trend is the subject of a research program at Hult International Business School, where we have followed a number of CEOs and companies involved in such advocacy activities over the past few years. Part of what’s been driving more ambitious corporate action on innovation to address social and environment challenges is increased pressure and higher expectations from the rest of society that business should play a role in helping sort out contemporary global challenges. Ultimately, long-term legitimacy, reputation, and license to operate are at stake. A number of CEOs are realizing that such expectations cannot be met by innovation and voluntary actions alone. The scale of today’s social and environmental challenges requires government action, too — there are some ways in which public policy can drive change that cannot be achieved otherwise. In some cases, regulatory change can lead to direct commercial benefit, creating markets that didn’t exist before, or handing competitive advantage to those better able to capitalize on the regulatory change. For many companies, the right solutions are available for tackling social and environmental challenges, but they don’t become commercially viable unless regulatory change aligns commercial incentives with the right thing to do. As a result, some CEOs have started overcoming their aversion to government intervention and fears that incompetent government meddling will get in the way of prosperity. There’s a growing recognition that ambitious government intervention has a crucial role to play in both addressing global challenges and helping business succeed. So what are these companies learning about how to do this kind of advocacy well? Our research, as well as recent studies by others such as Business Fights Poverty and Harvard, and scholars at the University of Lugano in Switzerland, point to a number of key issues to get right. Respect the leadership role of government, but be prepared to use your voice and influence. Your activities should be aimed at informing and supporting—but not replacing—the responsibility of governments to decide public policy. But that doesn’t mean business should be silent if government is not acting in the public interest. Aim for public policy outcomes that seek to effectively address societal challenges. The aim should be to reach solutions that address the problem and have consensus backing, rather than making sure your own interests prevail regardless of the impact on others. This may sometimes involve accepting public policy initiatives that could result in a short-term hit to profits, because in the long run they are going to help solve the problem, and help maintain your longer-term legitimacy. The outcomes you are aiming at need to be consistent with key universal standards, such as UN Global Compact and UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Be inclusive. Traditional lobbying is done between government and individual companies or trade associations. But advocacy for more ambitious public policy is more effective if it is done on a multi-stakeholder basis. Public policy outcomes are going to be more effective if all groups affected have had a say in shaping them. Ensure the voices of the marginalized have a say in the process. Consider active joint advocacy with NGOs. Unlikely partnerships between companies and NGOs can have more impact on influencing policymakers, as each can compensate for the weaknesses of the other. Governments can distrust NGOs as being purely ideologically motivated, and can distrust business for being purely profit-motivated. Joint advocacy can deal with these legitimacy questions of both sides. Be transparent and truthful. Lobbying often happens behind closed doors, and the worst kind of lobbying in the past has been characterized by misinformation and misdirection. Public policy outcomes are going to be more effective if people have confidence that they know what different groups were calling for and they can trust the basis on which these positions were put forward. Be transparent about third party lobbying organizations that you offer financial support to. Invest to be able to advocate from a robust evidence base, for example on climate or health and nutrition. Make sure you have coherence and consistency between your external advocacy positions and internal policies and practices. You should also ensure the advocacy positions of trade bodies you are a member of are consistent too. Make sure you have the right skills and capabilities. It turns out that lobbying to persuade governments to introduce new regulatory measures often requires a different kind of skill set to the traditional government affairs function. Many companies have found themselves hiring in campaigners from NGOs to join their advocacy teams. Finally, this is a question of personal leadership. Our research showed high levels of peer networks in CEO advocacy for more ambitious government action – each CEO reaching out to others to make the case for them to get involved in advocacy coalitions. An effective approach needs a personal commitment from the top.

Выбор редакции
19 октября, 15:00

Lessons from Mayo Clinic’s Redesign of Stroke Care

  • 0

David Pereiras/Getty Images Facing escalating costs of medications and technology, health care patients and providers in the United States continue to search for opportunities to reduce overall costs while maintaining and improving health care outcomes. At the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Stroke Center Practice, we conducted a project to design and deliver care more customized to the needs of individual patients while reducing cost and resource constraints. It is a risk-stratified approach that could be applied to treating many medical conditions. The Mayo Stroke Practice used time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) to study costs associated with alternative protocols for stroke care (see the graphic below). TDABC uses a bottoms-up approach to identify the actual clinical processes and resources used to care for a patient over a period of time. TDABC works from a process map of a patient’s care pathway, attributing costs to the time of each resource used at each step of the pathway. With this information, clinicians learn how to make more efficient use of high-cost resources, leading to lower total costs while achieving the same or better patient outcomes.   However if one could predict a patient does not need such care, this could save the system, as well as payers, a lot of money. The daily cost of an NSPCU bed — both to the payer (insurers and patients) and the hospital — averages $500 a day less than an ICU-level care bed, which is multiplied by length of stay (LOS). There are also measurable costs “turning over” a hospital bed in terms of both time delays such as patient’s waiting in the emergency department as well as financial expenses in cleaning and sanitizing a room to be ready for the next patient. Similar to the opening moves in a game of chess, which can determine the rest of the game, similar bed logistics can make or break hospital bed flow. So how can one improve both hospital bed flow and improve value-based care in stroke patients? Using existing stroke data and TDABC mapping, one can stratify a stroke patient’s true risk for needing or not needing ICU-level care using the National Institutes of Health stroke scale (NIHSS). Historically, a “step-down” unit or progressive care unit (PCU) was typically used on the back end after ICU-level care for patients too sick and unsafe to send to a regular hospital bed because they might decompensate and end up back in the ICU. Using a NPCU strategy on the front end for some stroke patients is revolutionary in the sense patients are admitted directly from the emergency department after receiving TPA. This reengineering of hospital bed flow allows a relative cost savings without compromising quality and improves the value. Since 1995, when TPA was FDA-approved to treat stroke patients, the common practice was to monitor these patients in the ICU environment due to concerns for decompensation from intracranial bleeding and complex interventions. Under fee-for-service reimbursement, however, stays in the ICU can incur daily charges up to $2,500, nearly 25% of Medicare’s total reimbursement ($11,000) for TPA treatment. The Mayo stroke team used the NIH Stroke Scale (NIHSS), which ranges from 0 (normal) to 42 (severe), to stratify patients into different risk categories and identify those who truly needed ICU-level care. In a trial for intravenous TPA for acute stroke care, reported in 1995 in the New England Journal of Medicine, the average NIHSS score was about 14. The most severely affected stroke patients had a NIHSS greater than 24 were most likely to need ICU-level care for monitoring. Therefore, Mayo Clinic’s stroke center data showed similar findings and proposed that stroke patients with an NIHSS score of 18 or higher should be monitored in the ICU for the first 24 hours after receiving TPA. Such patients often suffered medical complications that required advanced interventions such as intubation and mechanical ventilation. However, patients with few comorbidities and NIHSS scores of 14 or less had a reduced probability of severe complications that required critical interventions. Care for these patients could potentially be managed and monitored in the lower-cost NSPCU environment. The team saw an opportunity to reduce costs based upon how and where patients received care, while still meeting Joint Commission requirements for post-TPA care, by treating low-risk patients in a NSPCU-level bed with a specialized hybrid level of nursing care (see the table below) for the first 12 hours. This risk-stratified care model improved value by delivering equivalent care quality with a lower-cost mix of resources. In addition, the stratification process allowed for better “demand elasticity” of ICU bed utilization. Comparing NeuroICU and NSPCU Nurse Monitoring for Stroke Patients Parameter Neuroscience ICU (NSICU) Neuroscience PCU (NSPCU) Costs per day (1 = least expensive, 5 = most expensive) 3 2 Medicare reimbursement for tissue plasminogen activator (TPA) Same Same Nursing monitoring Every 15 minutes for the first 2 hours, then hourly for the next 24 hours Every 15 minutes for the first  2 hours, then hourly for remaining 12 hours, then every 2 hours until 24 hours Potential benefits Frequent monitoring to detect and prevent neurologic deterioration Less-intense neurological checks to allow stroke patients more sleep for healing Potential drawbacks Not cost-effective for less severely affected patients. Default for community hospitals with less resources to create NSPCU. Increased sleep deprivation for patients with hourly neurochecks. Missed opportunity for intervention if patient suddenly declines with longer gaps between neurochecks NIH stroke scale (NIHSS) range 18-42 < 18 Note: NIHSS cutoff of 18 was chosen at Mayo Clinic for TPA along with consensus clinical judgment of other comorbidities, which might necessitate patients being placed in ICU–level care for 24 hours versus PCU-level care. Source: Mayo Clinic Foundation for Medical Education and Research (Kern Center) Optimizing NSPCU and ICU bed utilization therefore is analogous to the game of Tetris in which players fit blocks of various sizes inside an available structure. All hospitals play a similar game to optimize space utilization by getting the “right patient to the right bed” with the fewest moves possible. ICU-level care beds are the most expensive in the hospital and are reimbursed at the highest rate. Ideally, they should be used only for the most complex medical/surgical cases or for transfers from emergency department (ED) and other hospitals. By freeing up ICU beds, previously used for lower-risk stroke patients, hospitals have more capacity, or elasticity, to admit postoperative ICU patients and ICU admissions from the ED and allow those care teams to focus on those patients. Getting the right patient to the right bed also reduces the number of transitions of care (TOCs). Historically, some patients underwent four separate handoffs as they made transitions initially from ED or an operating room to the neuroscience ICU, then to the NSPCU, and finally, to a regular floor bed. This represents at least four moves (A →B→C→D) for the patient and adds risks: Details about medication allergies and other Important information about the patient can be lost, communicated incorrectly, or misconstrued during the handoff from one care team to the next. Handoffs are similar to those in football. The number of handoffs increases the complexity of the play and is associated with a higher likelihood of “fumbles,” or medical errors. When stroke patients are admitted from the ED directly to the NSPCU, a regular floor bed the next day, then discharged home, there is at least one less TOC, or handoff. In addition to reducing the total number of TOCs, a standardized, or structured, communication tool — a checklist — for exchanging important patient information during handoffs can reduce the number of medical errors as well. As illustrated in the above examples, the ability to stratify and predict patient needs up-front opened the door for actions that enhanced process efficiencies, reduced operational costs, and improved patient outcomes. Patients that received TPA and were subsequently monitored in the NSPCU had an average reduced cost of 25%. Of 448 stroke patients seen in the past three years, all of whom would previously been sent to the ICU, 166 (37%) were monitored in the NSPCU, leading to a net cost reduction of nearly 10%, with no adverse impact on patient outcomes. While the role for a progressive care, or step-down, unit is not new in health care, it is one we believe may be underutilized for elderly and more complex patients, especially when its cost advantage over the highly-resourced ICU has not been quantified. An NSPCU increases the effective capacity of existing ICU-level beds and provides better utilization of regular-ward-floor beds for medically-stable patients. Importantly, the risk-stratified approach does not replace or supersede physician judgment about factors not accounted for in the NIHSS-weighted model when deciding the best overall course and bed status for the patient. As this case illustrates, process mapping of care pathways and accurate costing makes it possible to design and deliver care that is more customized to the needs of individual patients. The customization produces equivalent or better quality and outcomes at reduced costs because of more efficient resource utilization and diminished risk from medical errors. None of the gains discussed in this article are unique to stroke treatment, and the NSPCU model can be extended to many medicine and surgery areas to improve the value delivered at hospital, national, and international levels.

Выбор редакции
19 октября, 14:00

Research: Investors Punish Entrepreneurs for Stereotypically Feminine Behaviors

  • 0

Francesco Carta fotografo/Getty Images “I would not be caught dead in a pink suit now,” says Susan Perry, the founder of SpeechMED, a startup that translates complex medical information into language patients can understand. Clothing is just one of the issues Perry has reconsidered when it comes to how she pitches her business. As a middle-aged woman, she has faced bias because she doesn’t fit the stereotype of what an entrepreneur looks like. Raised to be soft-spoken, Perry now makes a conscious effort to lower her voice, plant her feet firmly, and speak directly. When she gets one of the tough, defensive, “prevention-oriented” questions that women entrepreneurs tend to receive from investors, she redirects and instead offers a bold and expansive vision for her company, more in the style of how a man might answer. Perry’s transition to a more gender-neutral, or even masculine, pitching style seems to be working. Her company completed the Women Innovating Now (WIN) Lab at Babson’s Center for Women’s Entrepreneurial Leadership, was accepted into the gener8tor accelerator program, and is currently gearing up to pitch dozens of investors. Most importantly, she now feels confident about her pitch and her ability to raise money. We know that women entrepreneurs face significant challenges securing funding from investors. Our research found that only 15% of companies receiving venture capital investment have a woman on their executive team and less than 3% have a woman CEO. Perry’s experiences — and my own years of research on gender and funding — help explain why. While we often assume women entrepreneurs are discriminated against simply for being women, my research shows that they’re actually penalized for exhibiting stereotypically feminine traits. In fact, men are also at a disadvantage when they display “feminine” behaviors in the pitch room, while women are not penalized if they project more “masculine” behaviors. A study my colleagues and I recently published found that masculinity and femininity, rather than gender identification (whether someone is a man or a woman), affect how entrepreneurs are perceived by potential investors. In an elevator pitch competition, investors were less likely to select as finalists entrepreneurs who demonstrated stereotypically feminine behaviors like warmth and expressiveness, regardless of their gender. What’s unique about our study is that it looks at how gender roles and gender stereotypes, as distinct from sex, impact the pitching process. Our findings suggest that it’s not women who have a harder time raising money from investors, it’s anyone who fits certain feminine stereotypes. This is supported by the fact that, as a group, the women in our study were no less likely to receive investor interest than the men. It was behaviors, not gender, that mattered. While this bias against feminine traits is certainly problematic, being clear on what plays well to investors is something women can use to their advantage. You can’t change your gender, but you can control how you present yourself. Pitching a business is like any kind of performance — you need to know your audience. The pitch room is a unique environment with its own cultural norms and expectations about what kinds of behaviors are hallmarks of a successful entrepreneur. Just as someone wouldn’t show up to a pitch without a slide deck or proper business attire, it’s critical to take these behavioral norms and expectations into account as well. That doesn’t mean remaking your personality or the way you express your gender. It simply entails thinking carefully about what sides of yourself you want to emphasize when you pitch. We’re all more or less aggressive, nurturing, assertive, or sensitive in various areas of our life, depending on the role we play in a given situation. Women should consider what might happen if they brought forward certain parts of their persona in the pitch room and left others outside. Perry doesn’t view adopting a more masculine pitch style as trying to be something she’s not, but instead as uncovering a part of her “natural self.” She’s felt empowered to drop some of the ways society trains women to hold themselves back. “Women are risk takers,” she says, but “we’re sometimes taught that it’s not nice to be seen that way.” Indeed, research shows that women in many fields face a catch-22 when navigating gender: They are discriminated against for being feminine (which conflicts with the norms of jobs and industries perceived as masculine) but also penalized if they try to act masculine (which contravenes the norms of their gender). Perhaps the most famous example of this phenomenon, known as gender role congruity theory, is when Hillary Clinton was criticized for being too ambitious, aggressive, and cold (all masculine traits) during her presidential runs. Though she was also critiqued as “weak” for exhibiting stereotypically feminine behaviors, people liked her more when she behaved in a manner consistent with her gender. A number of studies have found that women face this particular bind in areas including politics, management, and corporate leadership. However, our research shows that this dynamic does not apply to entrepreneurs seeking funding. Women in our study were not punished for behaving in more masculine ways; instead, they benefitted by avoiding the penalty that comes with acting feminine. This finding suggests that women don’t need to fear backlash when shifting toward a more bold, assertive approach in their pitch. This shift should encompass both style and content, for example, having aggressive revenue projections as well as presenting them in a confident way. Perry says, “As women, we want to collaborate and calm people’s fears, but we are not rewarded for that when we’re pitching. We’re rewarded for thinking boldly and being comfortable about risk.” Access to early-stage capital has been shown to be important, often critical, to startup success, which is why the funding gap between men and women entrepreneurs is so concerning. Yet the strategy of simply having more women investors won’t work if feminine traits are penalized in the pitching context by investors of all genders. In the long run, investors need to broaden their view of what makes a successful business leader and create room for both masculine and feminine entrepreneurs (and those in the middle). For now, women founders can benefit from having a clearer understanding of what the expectations are when they step into the pitch room and how they can present themselves most effectively.

Выбор редакции
19 октября, 13:00

7 Myths About Coming Out at Work

  • 0

hh5800/Getty Images More and more big businesses are providing workplace protections for LGBTIQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer) people. It’s becoming clear that when workers can bring their authentic selves to work, they are more productive and engaged. Research shows that coming out increases job satisfaction, intention to stay, and emotional support from co-workers, whereas staying “in the closet” has costs — both for the individual and the company. And yet, many people are still reluctant to come out at work. In our study, we surveyed 1614 LGBTIQ+ Australian workers and held focus groups with 60 participants across various industries. We found that 68% of respondents are not out to everyone at work. Other studies show that this number decreases to 46% in the US, and 35% in the UK. We know that when LGBTIQ+ people work in a safe environment, they are more willing to come out. But while workplace policies and practices are critical, the decision to come out at work is a complex and personal one. It involves other factors, like when, how and whom to come out to. Our research considers this, and digs below the surface to examine the experience of LGBTIQ+ people at work. We challenge myths that are drawn from common assumptions about coming out and offer suggestions to organizations that want to help their workers feel safe being themselves. Myth #1: Coming out at work is not a big deal — after all, it’s the 21st century! Though the LGBTIQ+ community has seen big wins in the past few years — same-sex marriage is now legal in 26 countries, and around 20 have passed some kind of legislation recognizing transgender rights — coming out is still dangerous in many areas of the world and can be deadly for trans and gender diverse people. Even in countries that are economically-developed and progressive, like Australia, homosexuality has only been decriminalized since 1997, and marriage equality was just legalized in December of last year. The LGBTIQ+ rights movement is still very much in progress, and this factors into some workplace cultures and how comfortable people may feel coming out. Myth #2: Coming out is similar for all LGBTIQ+ people. The LGBTIQ+ community and their workplace experiences are diverse. In Australia, there has been a gradual transformation in gay and lesbian rights over the past 40 years, which has also seen support for and protections of gay and lesbian people at work. However, trans/gender diverse workers have been historically overlooked. They are often less willing to come out at work due to fears of discrimination and social exclusion. Our research finds that 32% of trans/gender diverse people fear they would lose their job if they came out at work versus just 6% of LGB (lesbian, gay and bisexual) people. Not surprisingly then, 49% of trans and gender diverse workers try hard to conceal their identity from colleagues, compared to only 13% of LGB workers. Myth #3: LGBTIQ+ workers have complete control over whether they do or don’t come out at work. For some LGBTIQ+ workers, living authentically at work remains an aspiration. While almost three-quarters of our respondents indicated coming out is important to them, only one-third are out to everyone at work, suggesting that not everyone who wants to be out feels comfortable being out. For others, decisions about when and how to come out are often out of their control. Some individuals are outed against their will, while others are forced to come out because of workplace policies. One transgender respondent wrote, “Give me a choice to NOT disclose – the reason HR knows I am a trans man is because it was policy for HR to process police checks when I started at my current workplace.” In fact, research shows that transgender people going through the transition process often have to come out to co-workers, causing great anxiety and distress. For some transgender people, living authentically means keeping their gender history private, particularly if they affirmed their gender identity when they were very young. For others, who transition later in life, as one participant told us, “we are out merely by existing.” Myth #4: Coming out has nothing to do with work. Our research reveals that people who are able to come out at work are happier. Compared to workers who are out to some people or no one at all, those who are completely out at work are significantly more satisfied with their job (29% versus 16%), enthusiastic about their job (40% versus 26%), and proud of their work (51% versus 38%). Other research finds that having a double life — being out in private life but not at work — increases social stress and depression. Because workplaces are where people share their personal experiences, coming out — and feeling safe enough to do so — is about something as simple as participating in conversations without having a guard up or editing. For an LGBTIQ+ person, telling a story about their weekend could be an indirect way of signaling their identity. Heterosexual and cisgender workers typically don’t face the same dilemma because they are part of a majority group when it comes to sexual orientation and gender identity. They have the privilege of being visible just by being. LGBTIQ+ people often must choose to come out if they want to be visible at work. If an LGBTIQ+ person feels that they can’t come out or chooses not to, others might assume that they are also a member of the majority group. One gay male respondent reported, “I am more masculine and fit a certain (jock/rugby) stereotype and so people assume that I am straight and I often don’t correct them.” Myth #5: Coming out at work happens just once. Coming out is actually a repetitive process. It occurs not just once, but on multiple occasions. For instance, a bisexual woman may come out to her immediate manager when she is first starting a job, but also later, when she meets new co-workers, other managers, or clients. Among our respondents who indicated that they openly talk about their LGBTIQ+ identity at work, only 17% of them openly talk about their identity to clients. Some are concerned that being out may jeopardize client relationships and negatively impact the company as a whole. One respondent reported, “During the marriage equality vote, my organization had a big client – we are talking about a multi-million-dollar client — who said ‘if you publicly support marriage equality, you will lose our business.’” Other respondents indicated that being out at work meant risking their lives: “[With] every new client, I’m scared that it might be my last time walking the earth as I enter their house.” Myth #6: There is only one way to come out or not come out. There is a range of ways LGBTIQ+ people can signal their identities, or hide them. For instance, 47% of our respondents display objects like photographs, magazines, or symbols to reveal their identity at work. In contrast, 21% of our respondents avoid revealing their identity by keeping quiet when co-workers talk about their romantic lives, and 23% said they avoid behaving in ways that may conform to stereotypes associated with their identity group. Others who conform to heterosexual or cisgender stereotypes say they can ‘fly under the radar’ altogether. Myth #7: People are scared to come out just because of career risks. Coming out is a constant cost-benefit analysis and requires weighing different risks. A lack of support from co-workers and supervisors, and past experiences of discrimination, often prevent LGB workers from coming out. But our research also shows that respondents are more concerned about social exclusion than career penalty. While about 19% of respondents who are not out at work worry their careers would be ruined if they were, 70% are concerned coming out would make their colleagues uncomfortable around them. The importance of a supportive social environment plays a huge role in a person’s coming out decision. So what can organizations do to develop a work space in which living authentically is an everyday reality for LGBTIQ+ workers? Leadership makes all the difference. Our research reveals that respondents whose leaders publicly support LGBTIQ+ issues are 50% more likely to be out to everyone at work. We recommend leaders who want to create an LGBTIQ+ inclusive culture: Develop a working partnership with leaders who have a different sexual orientation or gender identity than your own. This will help you learn, champion change, and challenge your assumptions. Make LGBTIQ+ inclusion visible in your organization. You can show support by displaying rainbow flags or other inclusive symbols, asking HR to create a diversity group for LGBTIQ+ people to connect and share their experiences, or developing a network of staff allies. Learn about all members of the LGBTIQ+ community. This means not just LGB people, but also people who are trans or gender diverse, who have an intersex variation, or who are pansexual. Check your assumptions to see if they hinder LGBTIQ+ inclusion. For instance, assumptions like: everyone is straight; everyone prefers binary pronouns; coming out is a purely personal issue, and not a workplace issue; this person must be LGBTIQ+ because of how they look, sound, dress, or behave; it’s ok to ‘out’ someone. Avoid non-inclusive or presumptuous language, like “that’s so gay,” asking women about their “husbands” and men about their “wives,” or assigning someone a gender pronoun. If you see someone participating in these behaviors, confront them. When you do so, that person will be less likely to do it again and they will also be more likely to change their views on what is appropriate behavior — as will any bystanders. Finally, we should point out that it’s not just about leadership. Organizational policies and strategies that recognize the specific needs of, and sometimes just the existence of LGBTIQ+ people, are also key to establishing an inclusive environment. We recommend organizations: Include sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex status in diversity and inclusion policies; have transition policies and supports in place for staff who are trans or gender diverse; make sure parental leave policies recognize LGBTIQ+ people. Review workplace forms to ensure that they are inclusive, and have an option for people who don’t identify as male or female. Make some bathrooms gender-neutral, and introduce gender-neutral dress codes if your company has dress codes. LGBTIQ+ people can be themselves and have a real choice about coming out at work when their employer and people at work are supportive. Being aware of the common assumptions and the challenges people face is the first step toward building a work environment that is inclusive and safe for LGBTIQ+ people. * “LGBTIQ+’ refers to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender/gender diverse, intersex, and queer. The “+” recognizes that LGBTIQ doesn’t include a range of other terms that people identify with, or use to describe themselves.

Выбор редакции
19 октября, 12:05

Working with People Who Aren’t Self-Aware

  • 0

Sven Krobot/EyeEm/Getty Images Even though self-awareness — knowing who we are and how we’re seen — is important for job performance, career success, and leadership effectiveness, it’s in remarkably short supply in today’s workplace. In our nearly five-year research program on the subject, we’ve discovered that although 95% of people think they’re self-aware, only 10 to 15% actually are. At the office, we don’t have to look far to find unaware colleagues — people who, despite past successes, solid qualifications, or irrefutable intelligence, display a complete lack of insight into how they are coming across. In a survey we conducted with 467 working adults in the U.S. across several industries, 99% reported working with at least one such person, and nearly half worked with at least four. Peers were the most frequent offenders (with 73% of respondents reporting at least one unaware peer), followed by direct reports (33%), bosses (32%), and clients (16%). Un-self-aware colleagues aren’t just frustrating; they can cut a team’s chances of success in half. According to our research, other consequences of working with unaware colleagues include increased stress, decreased motivation, and a greater likelihood of leaving one’s job. So how do we deal with these situations? Is it possible to help the unaware see themselves more clearly? And if we can’t, what can we do to minimize their damage on our success and happiness? Understanding the problem Not all badly-behaving colleagues suffer from a lack of self-awareness, and not all who do can be helped. Therefore, you must first determine whether the source of the problem is truly someone’s lack of self-awareness. Ask yourself: What’s behind the tension? When we’re having trouble working with someone, the problem isn’t always a lack of self-awareness on their part. Interpersonal conflict can arise from different priorities, incompatible communication styles, or a lack of trust. To determine whether you’re truly dealing with an un-self-aware person, consider how others around them feel. Typically, if someone is unaware, there’s a consensus about their behavior (i.e., it won’t just be you). More specifically, we’ve found several consistent behaviors of un-self-aware individuals: They won’t listen to, or accept, critical feedback. They cannot empathize with, or take the perspective of, others. They have difficulty “reading a room” and tailoring their message to their audience. They possess an inflated opinion of their contributions and performance. They are hurtful to others without realizing it. They take credit for successes and blame others for failures. Where is this person coming from? In contrast to the unaware, certain difficult colleagues—like office jerks—know exactly what they’re doing, but aren’t willing to change. I once knew a chief operating officer with a reputation for humiliating his team whenever they disappointed him. When finally confronted about his behavior, his response was, “The best management tool is fear. If they fear you, they will get the work done.” (Unsurprisingly, his superiors did not share his views and fired him several months later). The biggest difference between the unaware and the Aware-Don’t-Care are their intentions: the unaware genuinely want to be collaborative and effective, but don’t know they’re falling short. Whereas the “aware don’t care” unapologetically acknowledge their behavior (“Of course I’m pushy with clients. It’s the only way to make the sale!”), the unaware can’t see how they’re showing up (“That client meeting went well!”). Helping the unaware Once you’ve determined someone suffers from a lack of self-awareness, it’s time to honestly assess whether they can be helped. Think about their intentions and whether they’d want to change. Have you seen them ask for a different perspective or welcome critical feedback? This suggests that it’s possible to help them become more self-aware. But the odds can be steep. Our survey found that although 70% of people with unaware colleagues have tried to help them improve, only 31% were successful or very successful. And among those who decided not to help, only 21% said they regretted their decision. So before you step in, ask yourself: Am I the right messenger? The number one reason our survey respondents gave for not helping an unaware person was that they didn’t think they were the right messenger. It’s true that when helping the unaware, providing good, constructive feedback only gets us part of the way. For someone to truly be open to critical feedback, they must trust us — they must fundamentally believe that we have their best interests at heart. When trust is present, the other person will feel more comfortable being vulnerable, a prerequisite to accept one’s unaware behavior. So think about the relationship you have with your unaware colleague: have you gone out of your way to help or support them in the past? And are you confident they will see your feedback for what it is—a show of support to help them get better—rather than inferring a more nefarious motive? Or, are there others who might be better suited to deliver the feedback than you? Am I willing to accept the worst-case scenario? The second most common reason people decide not to help the unaware is that the risk is simply too high. As one of our study participants noted, “I may not be able to help and trying [might] just make them angry.” The consequences of help-gone-awry can range from uncomfortable (tears, the silent treatment, yelling) to career limiting (an employee might quit; a colleague may try to sabotage us; a boss could fire us). Here, power differentials are a factor. For example, though unaware bosses have an especially detrimental impact on their employees’ job satisfaction, performance, and well-being, confronting one’s boss is inherently riskier because of the positional power she holds. Conversely, the risk is usually lower with peers, and lower still with direct reports (in fact, if you have an unaware employee, it is literally your job to help them). But regardless of their place on the organizational chart, we must be ready to accept the worst-case scenario should it occur. If you believe you can help, then what’s the best way to do so? There are certainly many helpful resources on providing high-quality feedback, and most apply with the unaware. There are, however, three practices worth underscoring for these individuals. First, talk to them in person (our research suggests those who provide feedback via email are 33% less successful). Second, instead of bringing up their behavior out of the blue, practice strategic patience. If possible, wait until your colleague expresses feelings of frustration or dissatisfaction that (unbeknownst to them) are being caused by their unawareness. Ask if you can offer an observation in the spirit of their success and wellbeing (using the word “feedback” risks defensiveness). Third, if they agree, focus on their specific, observable behavior and how it’s limiting their success. End the conversation by reaffirming your support and asking how you can help. What to do if they don’t change It’s easy to feel hopeless when you can’t help someone who is unaware. The good news is that although we can’t force insight on them, we can minimize their impact on us. Mindfully reframe their behavior: The popular workplace practice of mindfulness can be an effective tool for dealing with the unaware. Specifically, noticing what we’re feeling in a given moment allows us to reframe the situation and be more resilient. Here is one tool to notice but not get drawn in to our negative reactions to the unaware. I first came up with the “laugh track” when I had the misfortune of work­ing for an Aware-Don’t-Care boss. One day, after a particularly unpleas­ant encounter, I recalled my favorite TV show growing up, The Mary Tyler Moore Show. Mary’s boss was a surly man named Lou Grant. On a good day, Lou was grumpy; on a bad day, he was downright abusive. But because his comments were followed by a canned laugh track, they became surprisingly endearing. I de­cided that the next time my boss said something horrible, I’d imagine a laugh track behind it instead. I was frequently surprised at how much less hurtful (and occasionally hilarious) this tool rendered him. Find their humanity: As easy as it can be to forget, even the most unaware among us are still human. If we remember this, instead of flying off the handle when they’re behaving badly, we can recognize that, at the core, their unaware behavior is a sign that they are struggling. We can adopt the mindset of compassion without judgment. Researchers have found that honing our compassion skills helps us remain calm in the face of difficult people and situations. As management professor Hooria Jazaieri points out, “there are [negative] consequences…when we are…thinking bad thoughts about someone” — compassion “allows us to let them go.” Play the long game: When it comes to dealing with the unaware, one of the most important things to remember is that just because they’re that way now doesn’t mean they won’t change in the future. Unaware behaviors sometimes have to be pointed out multiple times before the feedback begins to stick — or, as one of our research participants noted, “Sometimes they have to bump their head enough times to finally see the light.” In our research, we’ve studied people who made dramatic, transformational improvements in their self-awareness. Though it takes courage, commitment, and humility, it is indeed possible—and whether or not the people around us choose to improve their self-awareness, we have complete control over the choice to improve ours (find a quick, high-level assessment of your self-awareness here). At the end of the day, perhaps that’s where our energy is best spent.

Выбор редакции
18 октября, 20:05

Underpaid (Live)

  • 0

Do you deserve a higher salary? In this episode of HBR’s advice podcast, Dear HBR:, cohosts Alison Beard and Dan McGinn answer your questions in a live taping with an audience of compensation experts. With the help of Susan Hollingshead, the chief people officer at Vendini, they talk through how to get more money when you haven’t been in your role long, the company isn’t giving out merit increases, or you’re at the bottom of your job’s salary range. Download this podcast Listen to more episodes and find out how to subscribe on the Dear HBR: page. Email your questions about your workplace dilemmas to Dan and Alison at [email protected] From Alison and Dan’s reading list for this episode: HBR: How to Ask for a Raise by Carolyn O’Hara — “Pitch your raise as not only recognition for past achievements, but also tacit acknowledgment that you are a dedicated team player committed to growing with the company. Lay out your contributions, then quickly pivot to what you hope to tackle next. Assure your boss that you understand his pressures and goals, and pitch your raise as a way to help him.” HBR: New Research Shows How Employees Feel When Their Requests for Raises Are Denied by Lydia Frank — “According to our analysis, 33% of employees who were denied a raise were provided no rationale. Of those who did receive some rationale (whether budgetary constraints, performance, or some other reason), just over 25% actually believed it. And of those who didn’t believe the rationale or didn’t receive one, more than 70% said they planned to seek a new job in the next six months.” HBR: How to Get a Raise When Budgets Are Tight by Peter Bregman — “Think like a shareholder of the company. Ask lots of questions about the strategy, what’s keeping the top leaders awake at night, how your department impacts revenue or profitability, and what’s important to your direct manager. Identify, with your manager, the top two or three things you can work on that will drive revenue or profitability. Once you’ve had that conversation, you’ll have your raise-worthy work focus.” HBR: 15 Rules for Negotiating a Job Offer by Deepak Malhotra — “Sadly, to many people, ‘negotiating a job offer’ and ‘negotiating a salary’ are synonymous. But much of your satisfaction from the job will come from other factors you can negotiate—perhaps even more easily than salary. Don’t get fixated on money. Focus on the value of the entire deal: responsibilities, location, travel, flexibility in work hours, opportunities for growth and promotion, perks, support for continued education, and so forth. Think not just about how you’re willing to be rewarded but also when.”

Выбор редакции
18 октября, 17:00

How to Stop Delegating and Start Teaching

  • 0

Creativ Studio HeinemannE/Getty Images As a college professor, I regularly train PhD students. In psychology and most fields of science, students are assigned to a project early on in their studies and learn key skills through an apprenticeship model. Many go onto to take on projects related to more specific research goals, and are eventually taught to design their own studies — a slow and painstaking process. Each step, from idea development and design to data analysis and reporting, requires a lot of supervision. It would generally be faster for lab directors to hire employees to carry out these studies instead, or to do all the heavy lifting themselves. But, then, who would train the next generation of scientists? Managers who have difficulty delegating tasks can learn from this process — particularly if your workload has become overwhelming, or you need someone to pick up the slack when you are out of town. The hardest part about delegating a task to someone else is trusting that they will do it well. And many managers are reluctant to turn over their responsibilities to someone who may not meet that expectation. But there is a problem with this mindset. Managers need to stop thinking of passing off responsibilities as delegating — period. If you do, then you will only assign your employees high-level tasks when you don’t have time to do them. Until then, you will continue doing everything yourself. This is not an uncommon behavior. After all, you are probably better at doing your job than your direct reports, who have less experience in your role. The problem with this style of delegation is that it sets your employees up for failure. A coach wouldn’t let an athlete go into a big game without practicing extensively beforehand. Managers should share this same mentality. When you assign someone a task for the first time — with no prior training — simply because you are unavailable to do it, their chances of succeeding are slim. You also run the risk of damaging team morale. Employees might get the impression that they are not capable of doing complex work if they are too overwhelmed by the task. As a manager, a central part of your job is to train and develop people. This includes people who want to move into leadership roles, similar to yours, one day. When you take on the mindset of a trainer — instead of a manager delegating work — you will naturally look for ways to give a little more responsibility to the people who work for you. And those people who put in effort, and show an aptitude for the work, should be given more opportunities to try new, challenging tasks. To start, try to gauge who on your team genuinely wants to move up in the organization, and identify their main areas of interest. Create a development plan for them and write down the skills they will need in order to reach their goals. Then, focus on giving them assignments that require those skills, as well as any tasks you think they are curious to explore. Often, people need a nudge to focus on their weaknesses — particularly ones that they are convinced fall out of their wheelhouse. Structure the experience so that your employees are able to work their way up to a challenging task. Give them a series of practice sessions. The first time you introduce a task to someone, you might want them to experience it as a ride-along. Just let them shadow you while you explain some of the key points. Then, give them a piece to do on their own with your supervision. Only let them carry the full load when you sense that they are ready. For example, you might want to teach someone how to run a weekly progress meeting while you are out. Start by training them when you are in the office. Have them watch you formulate the agenda and think through the issues that will be discussed. Then, the next time, let them create an agenda of their own, but critique it. Give them a chance to run part of the meeting with your supervision. That way, they are ready to run a full meeting on their own when the time comes. By doing this, you are both helping your team reach their career goals, and training them to take on some of your own responsibilities. Taking on some of your direct reports as apprentices is an effort. It will take extra time out of your already busy week. You will have to check their work carefully at first to make sure that it is up to your standards. You will have to teach them not only how to do the tasks, but also, why the tasks are done that way. You will have to call on them to help fix any problems that arise from the work they’ve done, because practice is how they will learn. And your own productivity may slow down as a result of the time you spend mentoring others. When you make this kind of training a regular part of your job, though, delegating tasks becomes easy. You will have created a team of trusted associates who can step in and help when you are overwhelmed or out of the office. And, as an added bonus, you have also groomed your successors. After all, as the old saying goes, if you can’t be replaced, you can’t be promoted.

Выбор редакции
18 октября, 16:00

Which Data Skills Do You Actually Need? This 2×2 Matrix Will Tell You.

  • 0

Jorg Greuel/Getty Images Data skills — the skills to turn data into insight and action — are the driver of modern economies.  According to the World Economic Forum, computing and mathematically-focused jobs are showing the strongest growth, at the expense of less quantitative roles.   So whether it’s to maximize the part we play in data-driven economic growth, or simply to ensure that we and our teams remain relevant and employable, we need to think about transitioning to a more data-skewed skillset. But which skills should you focus on? Can most of us expect to keep pace with this trend ourselves, or would we be better off retreating to shrinking areas of the economy, leaving data skills to the specialists? To help answer this question, we rebooted and adapted an approach we took to prioritizing Microsoft Excel skills according to the benefits and costs of acquiring them. We applied a time-utility analysis to the field of data skills. “Time” is time to learn — a proxy for the opportunity cost to you or your team of acquiring the skill. “Utility” is how much you’re likely to need the skill, a proxy for the value it adds to the corporation, and your own career prospects. Combine time and utility, and you get a simple 2×2 matrix with four quadrants:   Learn: high utility, low time-to-learn. This is low hanging fruit that will add value for you and your team quickly. Plan: high utility, high time-to-learn. While this is valuable, acquiring this skill will mean prioritizing it ahead of other learning and activities. You need to be sure that it’s worth the investment. Browse: low utility, low time-to-learn. You don’t need this now, but it’s easy to acquire so stay aware in case its utility increases. Ignore: low utility, high time-to-learn. You don’t have the time for this. In order to help you decide where to focus your development effort, we have plotted key data skills against this framework.  We longlisted skills associated with roles such as: business analyst, data analyst, data scientist, machine learning engineer, or growth hacker. We then prioritized them for impact based on how frequently they appear in job postings, press reports, and our own learner feedback. And finally, we coupled this with information on how difficult the skills are to learn — using time to competence as a metric and assessing the depth and breadth of each skill. Insight Center Scaling Your Team’s Data Skills Sponsored by Splunk Help your employees be more data-savvy. We did this for techniques, rather than for specific technologies: so, for machine learning rather than TensorFlow; for business intelligence rather than Microsoft Excel, etc. Once you’ve worked out which techniques are priorities in your context, you can then work out which specific software and associated skills best support them. You can also apply this framework to your own context, where the impact of data skills might be different.  Here are our results:   At Filtered, we found that constructing this matrix helped us to make hard decisions about where to focus: at first sight all the skills in our long-list seemed valuable. But realistically, we can only hope to move the needle on a few, at least in the short term. We concluded that the best return on investment in skills for our company was in data visualization, based on its high utility and low time to learn. We’ve already acted on our analysis and have just started to use Tableau to improve the way we present usage analysis to clients. Try the matrix in your own company to help your team determine which data skills are most important for them to start learning now.

Выбор редакции
18 октября, 15:00

3 Steps for Engaging Health Care Providers in Organizational Change

  • 0

Westend61/Getty Images One of the hardest things about introducing innovation or change in organizations is getting people on board. This is especially true in health care. As health care organizations are being pressured to cut costs, reduce medical errors, and adopt both standardized processes and new innovations, providers are being asked to give up established and comfortable ways of working. They are having to spend more time on documentation, see more patients in a day, and use unfamiliar processes and tools. For many staff, physicians, and nurses, these changes mean less time healing patients and fostering wellness — the reasons they became health care professionals. Naturally, many start to question the direction of their organization, as these new behaviors and practices appear to conflict with the values of their profession. When staff view innovations and changes as clashing with longstanding patient care values, they are less likely to adopt new behaviors and practices. This is why health care leaders need to focus on aligning innovation with existing cultural values, and devote more time to explaining how new processes and behaviors will allow employees to better enact their values and deliver high quality care. Based on our research on organization change, our involvement in health care leadership training, and our conversations with over a hundred health care executives, we offer three key ways managers can engage providers in change and connect innovation efforts to their core motivations, passions, and values. Insight Center The Future of Health Care Sponsored by Medtronic Creating better outcomes at reduced cost. Seek to understand why staff think innovations or changes do not align with the existing culture and mission.  In a leadership training session we observed, the CEO of a nonprofit medical practice and research organization listened to division and department chairs share their employees’ concerns: quality care is sacrificed for financial pressures, standardized processes negate years of expertise, techniques once heralded as best practices are being replaced, and so on. The CEO told these leaders to take two steps: first, listen to the doctors and staff to understand why they perceive misalignment between the myriad of changes and the values of the organization; second, reframe and strengthen the connection between innovations and the core values of the hospital, so it no longer seems like a misalignment. For example, standardized processes or instruments are not negating doctors’ expertise, but rather helping ensure consistent quality of care. Elsewhere, a CEO of a large integrated health system told us about seeking to understand staff perspectives through weekly rounds. In one case, he listened to nurses express resistance to a new process for end-of-shift patient handoffs. The old handoff process was simply a private conversation between two nurses; but the new way included a “bedside shift report” that included the patient in the nurses’ conversation. Many nurses thought the new process took much longer and hindered the exchange of information. The CEO addressed their concerns by focusing on the improvement in patient care. He highlighted that with the new process, patients were more engaged in their care and better understood the need for medications or procedures, which in turn affected the ultimate outcome of patient health. He reminded the nurses that good patient care was central to the hospital’s values and why most of them became caregivers. Once the nurses accepted the rationale, the focus of the conversation shifted to logistical barriers that kept them from adopting this change (e.g., what to do if the patient is asleep at shift change). Alignment of common values enabled and motivated them to work through this change adoption together. Engage employees with data to explain the problem, its urgency, and how to address it. Data and metrics can create an awareness of problems, a means to explore them, and a goal post to measure progress. Let’s look at a problem shared by many health care organizations — health care-associated infections. Based on data from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), on any given day, about one in 25 hospital patients gets at least one health care-associated infection. A common cause is poor hand hygiene: The CDC suggests that, on average, health care providers clean their hands less than half of the times they should. The leader of a large integrated hospital system shared with us how they used data to change existing norms and routines and drive more hand washing. The hospital assigned “stealth monitors” — employees at various levels and roles who worked across several units and covertly collected observational data at set times. A safety group collated this data by unit and included it in a posted weekly report. During morning huddles, unit and division leaders shared the data and started conversations about potential reasons behind the numbers. This weekly dialogue not only kept the problem in the forefront, but also engaged employees in diagnosing the barriers and factors outside of their control that made change hard to implement. In one discussion, employees shared that when the batteries in the hand sanitizer dispensers died, it decreased handwashing until workers from another floor could replace the batteries. A simple change of moving spare batteries to the units and allowing anyone to replace them eliminated a critical barrier to improving adoption. This combination of data, engaging staff in problem-solving, and appealing to the mission of good patient care drove the rate of handwashing from 45% to 82% in one year. Pay attention to the behaviors you reward and tolerate. As part of the same hand washing initiative, hospital system administrators created a Speak Up program, which empowers and trains nurses, staff, and doctors to call out anyone failing to wash their hands, on the spot, as they moved from patient to patient. For the campaign to work, no one, regardless of level or status, was immune from a reminder to wash his or her hands. Engrained cultural norms and power relationships about speaking up needed to be shaken (e.g., technicians were empowered to remind surgeons to wash their hands). The weekly huddle meetings became a time to acknowledge those who bucked the existing power norms and reinforce the new behaviors. At these, the CMO handed out Starbucks gift cards to the staff that spoke up to physicians and others when they did not wash their hands. Rewarding new behaviors that contradicted the existing norms reinforced the message that it is safe to act in new ways. The change would not stick if doctors were exempt from feedback about noncompliance. Doctors were also encouraged to thank anyone who spoke up to them when they forgot to wash their hands. When physicians negatively reacted to feedback from staff and resisted the culture change, an administrator reached out to them. The administrator reminded the physician of everyone’s responsibility for patient health, often using an emotional appeal: “How would they feel if their family member was seen by staff that did not engage in healthy hygiene?” Their comments linked physician behavior to the shared core values of high quality patient care. The status quo persists when bad behaviors at any level of the organization are tolerated. When leadership understands that turning a blind eye to one bad behavior can decimate the adoption of innovation by others, they may be more willing to hold difficult conversations with the highest-status employees in their organization. As health care continues to transform, aligning new innovations with existing cultural values will make it easier to lead successful change initiatives. Seeking to understand staff perspectives, using data, and holding all employees accountable for patient safety and care will help providers understand how change can support, rather than contradict, the values they hold dear.

Выбор редакции
18 октября, 14:00

The Trade War with China Could Accelerate 3-D Printing in the U.S.

  • 0

SAUL LOEB/Getty Images Vice President Pence just made it all but official: The United States is in a cold war with China. Fed up with Beijing’s industrial espionage, market manipulation, and cyber attacks on the West, coupled with its bullying of neighbors and repression at home, the Trump administration announced a series of strong steps to fight back. Since the Chinese think their time on the global stage has come, they aren’t likely to back down anytime soon. That spells trouble for American manufacturers with global supply chains. Undoubtedly, it will accelerate the reshoring of items now sourced in China. As companies rethink their supply chains, they ought to seriously consider embracing a new manufacturing technology that’s now ready for prime time: 3-D printing. No longer relegated to trinkets and prototyping, 3-D printing, which is also called additive manufacturing, is now moving into mass production. Printer makers have solved a variety of quality, cost, and speed problems to the point where printers can compete with conventional manufacturers at volumes of tens or even hundreds of thousands of units. That’s true even when the individual 3-D printer factory makes only a few hundreds of units, because it won’t depend as much on economies of scale.  Parts made in small American factories will cost nearly the same as those made in giant Asian plants — especially since these highly automated printers require less labor than conventional processes. So 3-D printing is tailor-made for reshoring — bringing production back home to be closer to customers. Not only does it lessen supply chain risks, but it weakens China’s advantages in manufacturing. The U.S. military has already been working on additive as a quicker way to supply repair parts to remote locations and to make ultra-light, high-performance fighter jets. More broadly, the Obama administration set up the National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Center (“America Makes”), a technology support program in Youngstown, Ohio. But the Trump administration is looking to ramp up those efforts with tax breaks and direct subsidies to companies that bring military supply chains home. Those supports will be crucial to getting manufacturers on board with the new technology. It will take time and effort: Additive manufacturing require a steep learning curve for engineers used to working on conventional assembly lines, and each part must be tested extensively to make sure it holds up under wartime conditions. Additive manufacturing just passed a major test when GE certified parts for the new GEnx engines in Boeing 747s.  If additive can stand up to the rigors of jet propulsion, then it can handle most any military demand. Speeding up the adoption of additive is still going to be a challenging investment, even with Pentagon subsidies. But companies making the upfront investment will likely reap even greater rewards down the line. As I described in “The 3-D Printing Playbook,” the payoff from additive will build over time.  Organizations will gradually revamp their operations to take advantage of its flexibility and versatility well beyond the factory floor. From product design to customer outreach, additive enables a fully-digitized enterprise that is hyper-responsive to market trends. Companies that move especially quickly could pioneer the next stage of additive manufacturing. Because 3-D printers are so versatile, they can go from one kind of product to another with minimal time and cost for the switchover. That means companies can move from industry-specific factories to plants that produce for multiple industries. If demand in one industry slows, the company can switch some printers over to industries that are hot — and keep the factory’s capacity utilization high. Once factories develop the software to coordinate and optimize these multi-industry operations, we’ll see the emergence of “pan-industrial” corporations. From the outside, these behemoths may look like conglomerates. But on the inside, thanks to the digital integration enabled by additive, they’ll achieve a variety of cross-division synergies.  Imagine a “Universal Metals” pan-industrial that makes drones, jeeps, and mortars. Once a pan-industrial perfects its integration software, it’s likely to create a software platform for suppliers and distributors to join. That’s the only way to fully optimize the value chain around additive. And as we know with Google and other software giants, the more companies you have on the platform, the stronger your platform will be. Pan-industrials could eventually create dominant ecosystems based on their integration platforms. Other industries besides defense are likely to work on additive-driven reshoring and pan-industrialism. Jabil, the giant contract manufacturer, has been buying up numerous printers and integrating them into its sophisticated supply-chain software platform. Until the slide in the company’s fortunes generated leadership turmoil, General Electric had been making progress as well. The defense industry won’t be alone in pushing the additive frontier. It just may have the greatest urgency.

Выбор редакции
18 октября, 13:55

What Can Big Businesses Learn About Innovation from Social Entrepreneurs? - SPONSOR CONTENT FROM QATAR FOUNDATION

  • 0

Big businesses struggling in an era of rapid transformation can learn a lot from the experiences of social entrepreneurs finding and adapting innovative solutions in difficult contexts. In the 1990s, when Afghanistan was being ravaged by war, a bootstrapped initiative started by a former refugee was able to succeed where multi-million dollar projects funded by governments and large-scale development organizations could not. Believing that the best route to long-term empowerment for women was through education, Sakena Yacoobi created an underground network of schools that operated out of private homes. Despite resistance from local militias to allowing women to attend school, the project grew over time to help millions of children attain invaluable literacy and critical thinking skills. As the winner of the WISE Prize for Education in 2015, Yacoobi’s initiative is one of many that we at Qatar Foundation support to harness the potential of innovation for social development. WISH and WISE The World Innovation Summit for Health (WISH) and the World Innovation Summit for Education (WISE) are global initiatives of Qatar Foundation that support key stakeholders from across the world to develop new ideas and solutions capable of shaping the future of education and healthcare. Based on our collective experience of working with thousands of innovators, policymakers, and activists around the world, here are three key ideas big businesses can learn about innovation from social entrepreneurs. 1. Empower Bottom-up Solutions The most talked-about buzzword in social innovation is “co-creation,” and that is true for a simple reason: enabling end users to design solutions leads to better outcomes. Sultana Afdhal, the CEO of WISH, has firsthand experience identifying youth community leaders and supporting their projects through the WISH Young Innovator Program. “We may have many great ideas about things we perceive people need, but it is important to talk to the end user and listen to them,” she says. “Maybe what you think is the best idea you’ve ever had actually isn’t.” One graduate of the WISH Young Innovator Program is Adepeju Jaiyeoba from Nigeria, who created the Mother’s Delivery Kit as a cost-effective solution to providing expectant mothers with the products they need during childbirth. Jaiyeoba’s birth kits have proven to be an effective intervention that addresses pregnancy-related mortality, saving the lives of newborns and their mothers. To date, an estimated 100,000 birth kits have been distributed. Jaiyeoba’s project was successful not just because it was frugal innovation, but because she was intimately aware of what users needed and how they could be served. The impetus for Jaiyeoba’s project came following the death of a friend due to pregnancy-related complications. Afdhal adds, “People think of innovation as high-tech, scientific, and costly, but cheaper, simpler interventions can often be a seed for something greater.” 2. Scale Ideas that Work To stay competitive in today’s marketplace, one approach that large corporations have taken is to invest considerable financial resources and talent toward dedicated innovation labs and Silicon Valley outposts. Despite glitzy promises, such projects often fail to deliver substantive impact. This is in part because even when such initiatives land upon good ideas, they don’t have the right mechanisms in place to apply those learnings at a broader level. Dr Asmaa Al-Fadala, Director of Research and Content Development at WISE, says, “Innovative ideas remain as ideas if we do not act on them. That is why we focus on translating theory into practice.” To bridge the gap between innovation and application, it is crucial to identify best practices around the world, and provide the innovators with channels so that their message can reach important decision-makers. One such channel is the WISE Accelerator Program, which selects education initiatives with high potential for scalability and positive impact and supports them through mentorship, access to investors, and international networks. A beneficiary of the WISE Accelerator has been Ideas Box, created by Libraries Without Borders, which offers a portable multimedia toolkit to build rich learning environments in emergency contexts. Today, the project has been successfully implemented in multiple countries, making headlines in news outlets ranging from The Wall Street Journal to National Geographic. Ideas Box is a great example of an initiative that is made much more impactful through being given the recognition and support good ideas deserve. 3. Adapt to Local Contexts There is no “copy-paste” method of innovation. Great ideas still need to be contextualized to different social, cultural, and economic circumstances. Take the Orenda Project for example, a rising edtech start-up from Pakistan that was incubated as part of the WISE Learner’s Voice Program. Orenda makes high-quality education accessible and fun for children through digitally streamed cartoons. Its programs already serve dozens of schools and are set to grow rapidly, providing much-needed alternative learning pathways for children in underserved communities. But the success of the initiative was the result of a spontaneous pivot. At first, the founders of Orenda wanted to open a school for Afghan refugees living in Pakistan, only to find out that the government planned to demolish the slum where they were planning to build. Backed into a tight spot, the minds behind Orenda realized that untapped opportunities were offered by the extensive use of smartphones in the local community. The solution was to build a virtual education platform instead. As businesses navigate the rough seas of creative destruction, such examples from the world of social entrepreneurship may offer inspiration and insight for how to tackle uncertainty. After all, as Afdhal notes, the most useful exercise for organizations trying to innovate more effectively is to learn from other industries. To learn more about the World Innovation Summit for Education, the World Innovation Summit for Health, and other initiatives of Qatar Foundation, visit www.qf.org.qa.

Выбор редакции
18 октября, 13:00

Case Study: When Two Leaders on the Senior Team Hate Each Other

  • 0

kuritafsheen/Getty Images The feedback in the 360-degree reviews was supposed to be anonymous. But it was crystal clear who’d made the negative comments in the assessment of one executive. Lance Best, the CEO of Barker Sports Apparel, was meeting with Nina Kelk, the company’s general counsel, who also oversaw human resources. It had been a long day at the company’s Birmingham, England, headquarters, and in the early evening the two were going over the evaluations of each of Lance’s direct reports. Lance was struck by what he saw in CFO Damon Ewen’s file. Most of the input was neutral, which was to be expected. Though brilliant and well respected, Damon wasn’t the warmest of colleagues. But one person had given him the lowest ratings possible, and from the written remarks, Lance could tell that it was Ahmed Lund, Barker’s head of sales. One read: “I’ve never worked with a bigger control freak in my life.” Editor's NoteThis fictionalized case study will appear in a forthcoming issue of Harvard Business Review, along with commentary from experts and readers. If you’d like your comment to be considered for publication, please be sure to include your full name, company or university affiliation, and email address. “These comments are pretty vicious,” Lance said. “You’re surprised?” Nina asked. “I guess not,” Lance acknowledged. His CFO and his sales chief had been at loggerheads  for a while. Ahmed’s 360 also contained a few pointed complaints about his working style — no doubt from Damon. Lance sighed. Five years earlier, when he’d stepped into his role, he’d been focused on growing the company that his father, Eric — the previous CEO — had founded. Barker had licensing deals with sports leagues to make merchandise with their logos and partnered with large brands to produce it for retail markets, and when Lance took the company over, its revenues were about £100 million. Soon after, he’d landed the firm’s biggest partner, Howell. Negotiating the deal with the large global brand had been a challenge, but it increased business so much that Lance and his direct reports still felt as if they didn’t have enough hours in the day to get everything done. They certainly didn’t have time for infighting like this. “So what do we do with this info?” Lance asked. Nina shrugged. “This is the first time I’ve been through this process myself.” “Right. Clearly I’ve got to do something, though. I know that Ahmed and Damon aren’t mates, but I do expect them to be civil.” Nina nodded, but Lance sensed she was biting her tongue. “You can be honest with me, Nina. I need your counsel.” “Well, if I’m honest,” she said tentatively, “I think that’s part of the problem. The expectation is that we’re civil, but that doesn’t translate to collaboration. We all trust you, but there isn’t a whole lot of trust between the team members.” “So does everyone think Damon is awful?” he asked, pointing to the report. Nina shook her head. “It’s not just about him. You can see from the feedback that Ahmed isn’t a saint, either. He picks fights with Damon, and the tension between them — and their teams — has been having a ripple effect on the rest of us. You see the finger-pointing. It seems like everyone is out for themselves.” Although Lance hated hearing this, it wasn’t news. He’d just tried to convince himself that the problems were growing pains and would sort themselves out. After all, sales and finance were often at odds in organizations, and the conflict hadn’t had a big impact on Barker’s revenues. They’d grown 22% the previous year and 28% the year before that. Of course, none of that growth had come easily, and opportunities had certainly been missed. The team had dropped the ball on inquiries from several retailers interested in its products by failing to coordinate getting them into the company’s system quickly. Now, Lance realized that might be a sign of more fallout to come. He needed to fix this. “My dad always wanted to do one of those team-building retreats,” he said, smiling. This had been a running joke among Barker’s executives for years. Whenever Eric had sensed tension, he’d mention the idea, but he never followed through. Nina laughed. “Unfortunately, I think we’re beyond that.” This Mess The next morning, Lance was in his office when he got a text from Jhumpa, the head of product and merchandising: Can you talk? Knowing this couldn’t be good, Lance called her immediately. Skipping the formalities, she launched in: “You need to get them on the same page.” Lance didn’t have to ask who “them” was. “Ahmed has promised samples for the new line on the Clarkson account, but his order exceeds the limits accounting set, so we need Damon’s signoff, and he won’t give it.” This was a recurring fight. Ahmed accused Damon of throwing up roadblocks and using his power to undermine the sales department. Damon retorted that Ahmed was driving Barker into the ground by essentially giving products away. Lance went back and forth on whose side he took, depending on which of them was behaving worse. But he didn’t want to intervene again. Why couldn’t they just find a compromise? Practically reading his mind, Jhumpa said, “They’ll stay in this standoff forever if you let them. It’s as if they’re in their own little fiefdoms; they act like they’re not even part of the same team.” “Have you talked to them about this?” “The holdup with Clarkson? Of course I have. But it doesn’t help. This situation is a mess.” The last comment stung. The team wasn’t perfect, but it was still operating at a pretty high level. “It would really help if you talked to them,” Jhumpa gently pleaded. Lance thought back to the last time he’d sat down with Ahmed and Damon. Each had brought a binder filled with printouts of the e-mails they’d exchanged about a missed sale. Lance had marveled at how long it had probably taken each of them to prepare — never mind the wasted paper. “Let me look into it,” Lance said. This had become his default response. “Can I tell you what I’d do if I were in your shoes?” Jhumpa said. “Fire them both.” Though Lance had always appreciated her straightforwardness, he was taken aback. “Just kidding,” she added hastily. “What about having them work with a coach? I mean, we could all benefit from someone to help us talk through how we handle conflicts and from establishing some new norms.” Lance wondered if the firing comment had really been a joke, but he let it pass. “I did talk to that leadership development firm last year,” he said. “They had some coaching packages that seemed appealing, but we all agreed we were too busy with the new accounts.” “Well, maybe we should make time now,” Jhumpa replied. After they hung up, Lance was still thinking about the idea of letting Ahmed and Damon go. Terrifying as the thought was, it might also be a relief. He’d heard of CEOs who’d cleaned house and replaced several top execs at once. He could keep Jhumpa, Nina, and a few others and bring in some fresh blood. It would be one surefire way to reset the team dynamics. Doing Just Fine Later that afternoon, at the end of a regular meeting with the finance team, Lance asked Damon to stay behind. “I heard there’s a holdup on the Clarkson samples,” he said. “The usual. Sales needs to pare back the order. As soon as Ahmed does that, I can sign off,” Damon said calmly. “It doesn’t sound like Ahmed’s budging.” “He will.” Lance decided to wade in. “Is everything OK with you guys?” “Same as usual. Why? What’s going on? The numbers look great this quarter. We’re doing just fine.” “I agree on one level, but I have concerns on another. It’s taking six months to onboard new customers at a time when everyone is fighting for them.” “Is this about those 360 reviews? I tried to be fair in my feedback,” Damon said a bit defensively. “The input is anonymous, so I don’t know who said what, but the tension between you and Ahmed is obvious.” “Of course it is. I’m the CFO and he’s in charge of sales. If we’re both doing our jobs well, there’s going to be conflict. And that’s what I’m doing: my job. I’m the keeper of the bottom line, and that means I’m going to butt heads with a few people.” Lance had heard him say this before, but Damon took it one step further this time. “Your discomfort with conflict doesn’t make this any easier.” They both sat quietly for a minute. Lance knew that as part of this process he’d need to examine his own leadership. Indeed, his 360 had been eye-opening. His people had described him as a passionate entrepreneur and a visionary, but they’d also commented on his preference for managing one-on-one, instead of shepherding the team, and his tendency to favor big-picture thinking over a focus on details. “OK. I hear you on that,” Lance finally said. “That’s on me. But you also need to think about what you can do to improve this situation. There’s a difference between productive and unhealthy conflict, and right now it feels like we’ve got too much of the latter.” Our Vision Might Crumble “Have you considered one of those team-building retreats?” Lance’s father asked when they spoke that night. “I know you all never took me seriously — ” Lance chuckled. “Because you never booked it!” “ — but I still think it’s a good idea,” Eric continued. “No one really knows how to have a productive fight at work. It’s not a skill you’re born with. You have to learn it.” “I’m considering it, Dad. But I’m not sure it would be enough at this point.” “What about the comp?” This was another thing that Eric had brought up routinely. During his tenure as CEO, he’d realized that the C-suite compensation wasn’t structured to encourage collaboration. Bonuses were based on individual, functional unit, and company performance at respective weightings of 25%, 70%, and 5%. “Maybe it’s time to bump up that 5% to at least 10% or even 20%,” Eric said. “I’d like to make those changes, but I need Damon’s help to do it, and he’s swamped,” Lance said. “Besides, lots of experts say that too many people view comp as a hammer and every problem as a nail. CEOs expect comp to fix anything, but usually you need other tools. I may have to do something more drastic.” “You’re not considering firing anyone, are you?” Eric had personally hired all the senior executives now on Lance’s team and was almost as loyal to them as he was to his own family. “To be honest, it’s been on my mind. I’m not sure what I would do without Ahmed or Damon. They’re an important part of why we make our numbers each year. They help us win. But I look back  and wonder how we did it playing the game this way. I need a team that’s going to work together to reach our longer-term goals.” When Eric had retired, he and Lance set a target of reaching revenues of £500 million by 2022. “This group feels as if it could disintegrate at any moment. And our vision might crumble along with it.” “I’m sorry,” Eric said. “Do you feel like you inherited a pile of problems from your old dad?” “No, I feel like I’ve somehow created this one — or at least made it worse.” “Well, one thing is certain:  You’re the boss now. So you’ll have to decide what to do.” What should Lance do about the conflict between Damon and Ahmed? If you’d like your comment to be considered for publication in a forthcoming issue of HBR, please remember to include your full name, company or university affiliation, and email address.