Amplifying Ambiguous Risks at Nvidia

Source: Getty Images

How do leaders make sure they are hearing the unvarnished truth? How can they cut through the bureaucracy and access unfiltered information? Writing in today's Wall Street Journal, Ben Cohen describes one technique employed by Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia. Cohen draws from a new book by Tae Kim (“The Nvidia Way").   Cohen and Kim describe the infamous T5T memos that Huang reads each week. 

T5T notes (Top 5 Things) come from employees at all levels of Nvidia.  Huang reads them all.  They describe issues that they are noticing, concerns they have, or simply exciting and interesting things that they are working on in their areas.  He reads them all while sipping a glass of his favorite Scotch on a Sunday evening.  Cohen describes Huang's rationale for reading all these emails:

"The documents that make it to a typical CEO tend to get so watered down along the way that they’re liable to leave a puddle on his desk. Huang doesn’t bother with any of them. He doesn’t believe in formal strategic planning or status reports, either. “Status reports are meta-information by the time you get them,” Huang said last year. “They’re barely informative.” He doesn’t want information that has already made its way through layers of management. What he wants is 'information from the edge,' he said last month in a public interview with Laurene Powell Jobs."

In research with Amy Edmondson and Richard Bohmer, we have described how organizations tend to downplay ambiguous risks. Leaders and their teams discount warning signs that are unclear and fraught with incomplete information. As a result, organizations miss opportunities to recover from initial problems and develop solutions. Larger, more serious failures result from the inability to assess ambiguous threats effectively. Huang seems to be purposefully using the T5T memos to identify and amplify these ambiguous risks, and to make sure that the bureaucracy doesn't dampen or paper over important threats.

In Kim's book, Huang explains, “I’m looking to detect the weak signals. It’s easy to pick up the strong signals, but I want to intercept them when they are weak.”

Do You Really Want a Team Full of Self-Starters?

Is it effective to have many proactive members on your team?   You might think the answer is quite obvious.   Who wouldn't want a set of self-starters on a team?  Well, think again.  Kyle J. Emich and his co-authors have written an interesting new paper titled "Better Together: Member Proactivity Is Better for Team Performance When Aligned with Conscientiousness."  Interestingly, they used the Everest Simulation that I co-authored with Amy Edmondson as the basis for one of two studies conducted for this paper.   

These scholars find that the alignment of proactivity with conscientious leads to the best results.  In other words, teams are most effective if highly proactive individuals are also quite conscientious.  Meanwhile, teams are better off if the least conscientious members are not very proactive.   Why does this alignment (high-high and low-low) work best for teams?  The scholars find that it leads to more effective coordination among team members. They write:

At the outset of this paper, we asked how organizations should create teams that are proactive, but that also engage in the planning necessary to coordinate that proactivity and perform well. Taken together, our studies reveal that teams in which member proactivity and conscientiousness align within team members across the team are more coordinated and perform better than teams in which these attributes are unaligned.

It makes intuitive sense to me.  You do not want self-starters who take initiative, but then are unlikely to do the hard work required to follow through on their commitments.  We have all been part of groups in which some people don't fulfill their commitments.  Think about the Project Aristotle research project conducted at Google by Julia Rozovsky.  She and her colleagues studied more than 150 teams at Google, and they tried to identify the attributes that distinguished the highest performing teams from the lowest.  Dependability was one of the five key characteristics of the highest performing teams.  In those groups, members could count on others to do what they said they would do.  

Whole Foods Tries Small Format Stores... Again

Source: https://media.wholefoodsmarket.com/

Roshan Fernandez reports in today's Wall Street Journal about Whole Food's renewed attempt at operating small format stores. Fernandez writes that "The 9,100 square-foot Daily Shop location is about a quarter the size of a regular Whole Foods, and sells items at comparable prices. 'We’re serving a previously unmet need in the neighborhood,' said Nicole Davia, a Whole Foods senior vice president."  Whole Foods has opened several of these Daily Shops in New York, with plans to expand to Washington, D.C. soon. 

As it turns out, Whole Foods has tried small format stores previously, and that effort failed. In 2016, the company launched an experiment with a series of small format stores labeled "365 By Whole Foods Market."  Those stores sold primarily private-label items under the 365 label that Whole Foods sells in its larger locations.  The notion was to offer a lower-priced selection in these small format stores, with the target being millennial customers who were resistant to the high prices at Whole Foods.  The company was reacting to the "Whole Paycheck" image that turned away some shoppers.  At the time, Fortune's Beth Kowitt reported on the launch of the 365 stores:

“Our goal is to compete in the marketplace without lowering the Whole Foods standards,” Turnas (head of the 365 stores) told Reuters during a recent store tour. He said 365 stores will complement Whole Foods’ premium, full-service sister brand – often dubbed ‘Whole Paycheck’ in popular culture in reference to its perceived higher prices. But the new chain will have to work hard to avoid being labeled “a cheaper Whole Foods”, said Kevin Kelley, a principal at strategy and design firm Shook Kelley, which has worked with Whole Foods and other grocers.

When I teach strategy, I often invoke this story as a classic example of straddling two quite different business models... and failing as a result.  365 was quite distinct from the Whole Foods' premium grocer model, but not as lean as Aldi or as much of a fun treasure hunt experience as Trader Joe's.  It was hopelessly floating in the middle, unclear about who it truly wanted to be.  The result was confusion, both internally and for the customers.  

This time, Whole Foods is sticking with its premium, upscale positioning with the new small format stores.  Thus, it seems that they have addressed one major mistake from the attempt a decade ago.  Now, the question becomes whether they can operate small stores efficiently.  Fernandez quotes former Wal-Mart executive Bill Simon, who says, “If they’re going to operate a bunch of small-fresh stores, the degree of difficulty is as high as you’ll see in retail."  Simon and others point out that many larger grocers fail at small format stores because of the logistical challenges, as well as the difficulty stocking a sufficient number of higher margin items in the limited shelf space.  Aldi and Trader Joe's have perfected the small format model, but many large format grocers don't fully understand the difficulty shifting from their supercenters to these much smaller footprints, often in congested, urban areas.   If Whole Foods can figure it out, there is clearly opportunity here, as many customers do like the concept of "fill-in" trips to smaller stores that are located near their homes and workplaces.  

When to Express Gratitude: Timing Matters

Many employees would love to hear more expressions of gratitude from their leaders.  They often indicate that they do not receive sufficient recognition for taking on challenging work and achieving  tough objectives. As Thanksgiving approaches, perhaps leaders might consider how to say thank you to team members who have engaged in an extraordinary effort in pursuit of a challenging goal. However, leaders would be well-served to not just think about how to say thank you, but when they do so.

New research by Professors Hooria Jazaieri and Olivia O'Neill indicates that the timing for expressions of gratitude matters a great deal. They write, "According to our research, however, thanking people after they engage in their tasks does not provoke the same resilience and perseverance as expressing gratitude before the task begins."

In a series of studies, these scholars found that demonstrating gratitude before an employee embarks on an unpleasant task can help "counteract some of the negative emotions associated with the task."  Moreover, they found that anticipatory expressions of gratitude can foster more persistence on the part of their employees as they encounter obstacles and difficulties.  Why do anticipatory acts of gratitude have more beneficial impact than after-the-fact thank you statements?  The scholars argue that articulating one's gratitude before employees embark on an unpleasant task "can help cultivate employees’ sense of purpose and value."   As a result, employees demonstrate more resilience when encountering setbacks and obstacles.  

Retraining Your Brain to Cope with Negative Feedback

Have you ever become incredibly stressed and anxious after receiving negative feedback?  Have you spent more time worrying than actually addressing the corrective actions you might take in light of the criticism?  David Rock and Chris Weller have written a useful article for Fast Company about coping with negative feedback.   They offer some helpful tips.   Rock and Weller argue that your brain moves into a "threat state" when you receive negative feedback, and that mental state prevents you from moving forward constructively. They write:

The stress we feel during and after a negative feedback conversation is a form of a threat state—in particular, a threat to our sense of status. The brain senses danger, so it shuts down precious cognitive resources and diverts energy toward worrying about our standing and reputation. Cognition and threat, therefore, work as a kind of seesaw. As one is high, the other necessarily is low.

Rock and Weller argue that you may need a quick break (a walk is helpful) to calm down if you are feeling extremely anxious.  Then, you should assess the situation and engaging in practices they call labeling and reappraisal.  Labeling entails naming the emotions that one is experiencing and that might be getting in the way of thoughtfully considering how to improve based on the input one has received.   Then, they encourage people to "reframe part or all of the negative situation in a more positive light. For instance, if you’re given feedback that you don’t speak up enough in meetings, instead of feeling embarrassed or dejected, can you reappraise the situation as a positive in that your manager respects your opinions?"  

Having reappraised the criticism, individuals can examine why their performance led to the negative feedback.  Perhaps some obstacles have gotten in the way of doing good work.  Or, perhaps you became sidetracked and fell into some bad habits.   To develop a corrective action plan, individuals should imagine what improvement looks like.  What will success look like?  How will they behave in the future if they have addressed these concerns?  What changes will they have made to their work habits? How will others perceive them if they have undertaken a set of corrective actions?  Imagining a better, more productive self can help one move past the negative emotions that crowd out learning and self-improvement in the face of unexpected negative feedback. 

Why Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky Doesn't Believe in One-on-One Meetings

In this interview, Airbnb founder and CEO Brian Chesky argues against the use of recurring one-on-one meetings between leader and team member.   Here is an excerpt: 

I don't believe in one-on ones and almost no great CEO in history has ever done them... the one-on-one model is flawed it's a recurring one hour one-on-one meeting where the employee owns the agenda and what happens is they often don't talk about the things you want to talk about.  You become their therapist.  They're bringing you problems, but often times they're bringing you problems that you want other people in the room to hear.  There are very few times employees should come to you one-on-one without other people.  Perhaps if they're concerned about something if they're having a difficult time in their personal life, if they want to confide in you with something that they don't feel safe telling a group, but that should be infrequent.   If that's happening frequently that is a very ominous sign.  [I prefer] recurring group meetings in which everyone hears each other's views, where there are  notes taken.  It's very transparent.  [We all know] the topic, what decision was made, who was in the room, who had input.  If the process was unfair in some way... or inadequate, there is at least a record of the process, and people can weigh.  

Chesky loves to be provocative with regard to leadership style and process.  Here again he's offering a fresh perspective, and one that warrants serious consideration.  He's pointing out a serious risk associated with one-on-one meetings.  Specifically, he has two worries.  First, Chesky doesn't want decisions being made in these meetings, rather than in group settings where the person's peers can offer their perspectives on the same issues.  He wants the productive conversation and give-and-take that emerges from group dialogue and debate.  He doesn't want to make decisions in a vacuum.  Second, he worries about the one-on-one meeting becoming what he calls a "therapy session."  He thinks that quick check-ins as needed can occur if someone has a personal concern or problem, but he sees no reason for a recurring meeting to talk about personal matters.  Moreover, Chesky does not think the employee should be driving the agenda of these recurring one-on-one meetings.  

Chesky makes some strong points.  He's certainly correct that leaders should not be sacrificing transparency and the value of constructive debate by learning about perspectives and viewpoints too often in one-on-one rather than team meetings.  On the other hand, he doesn't talk about the value of one-on-one meetings as forums for providing coaching, mentoring, and constructive feedback.  Perhaps those meetings don't need to take place weekly, but most employees do need some opportunity to solicit and receive coaching and constructive criticism in a private setting.  In the end, I don't think the issue is WHETHER to hold recurring one-on-one meetings, but HOW leaders and their team members use the meetings.  It should not be a complaint session.  It should not primarily be a decision-making meeting.  It should be an opportunity to drive personal improvement and enhance performance.  

Are You Willing to Pay More for Products Someone Loved Creating?

Writing for Kellogg Insight, Dylan Walsh reports this month on some fascinating new research by Jake Teeny, Anna Paley, Robert Smith, and Daniel Zane. Teeny and his colleagues examined the relationship between willingness-to-pay and the level of enjoyment a seller derives from creating a product. Walsh summarizes the findings:

As a whole, the studies showed that buyers actually associated production enjoyment with greater product quality and value, consequently increasing how much they were willing to pay for it. And yet sellers often charged less for the products and services that they enjoy providing, even though they also believed them to be of higher quality.

The scholars argue that potential buyers seem willing to pay more for products when they believe that sellers have experienced high levels of intrinsic motivation while creating the products.  In other words, if the seller valued the process of creating the product as much, if not more, than the good itself, then buyers seem willing to pay a higher price for the product.  On the other hand, they argue that sellers price the product with their own enjoyment in mind.  If you are performing an unenjoyable task, you might charge more for a particular service.  If you are doing something very enjoyable, you may perceive some of your "compensation" has come in the form of that satisfaction and pride.  As a result, you may not expect as high of a price for the product from the buyers.  

What does this mean for sellers?  Think carefully about showing your customer how much effort and passion has gone into the creation of a good or service.  You might just command a higher price as a result.  And sellers... not shortchange yourself when placing a value on something you loved creating. 

Does this research have lessons for employees in larger organizations? Perhaps it does.  Do we demand less monetary compensation if we truly love our job?  Are we shortchanging ourselves in these situations?  

Coping with Changing Priorities

Every employee has been frustrated at times by changing organizational priorities.  They thought the understand this year's primary goals and objectives, but then, senior leaders threw them a curveball.   They shifted the priorities.  Even worse, sometimes leaders seem to simply add priorities to an already lengthy and challenging list.  Employees wonder what really matters most. Can it really be a "priority" if it is among a list of nine or ten goals, all of which seem to be deemed equally important?  

Here are four practical questions that can guide our actions when executives confront us with changing priorities. 

1.  What clarifying questions should I ask? 

Before one starts reallocating resources and taking decisive action in a new direction, a few clarifying questions might be illuminating.  Don't just act without making sure you understand clearly what you are being asked to do differently.  One question that I love:  Is this a change in destination or just a change in our flight path?  In other words, are we really aiming at a different outcome, or are we simply adjusting how we intend to arrive at that result?  

2.  Is this change a threat or an opportunity?

Many of us might naturally frame this type of shift in direction as a threat.  If we do so, we may be subject to what scholars call "threat rigidity."  In short, we tend to adopt well-established behavioral routines when framing an event as a threat.  We tend to be more open and innovative if we frame a change as an opportunity.  

3.  What tradeoffs am I willing to make?  What tradeoffs must I make?

We have to recognize that not all goals are equally important, and that we will have to make tradeoffs if we adding new priorities to an already lengthy list of goals and objectives.  Being clear about those tradeoffs is essential.  Moreover, we have to determine what criteria we should be using to make those tradeoffs.

4.  Why might others resist the change?

Before we ask our employees to shift their behavior, we must put ourselves in their shoes. Why might they resist this change?  What are their personal goals, motivations, and incentives?  Why might this change in their daily routines or allocation of time be unsettling?  By putting ourselves in their shoes, we can determine how to address this resistance.  

Five Priorities Is Probably Too Many

Willie Pietersen, retired CEO of businesses Lever Foods, Seagram USA, and Tropicana has written a column for Fortune in which he argues that many leaders proclaim too many priorities.  The article is titled, "You can’t have 5 priorities—even Steve Jobs and Bob Iger couldn’t."  He writes:

During my 20 years as the CEO of various enterprises, I developed an ingrained habit. Recognizing that the core responsibility of a leader is to unify an organization behind a clear strategic direction, I followed conventional wisdom and developed five key priorities for the business, and asked each function and business unit to follow suit.  However, at progress review meetings I saw that executives were often trudging through these priorities mechanically like a project checklist, without connecting them to a central strategic thrust or inspiring story.

Pietersen cites research by Don Sull and his co-authors, in which they find that many middle managers can't recall the priorities established by the senior leadership team.  Sull and his co-authors write,

The CEO of a large technology company (let’s call it Generex) recently reviewed the results of her company’s annual employee engagement survey and was delighted that strategic alignment emerged as an area of strength.  Among the senior leaders surveyed, 97% said they had a clear understanding of the company’s priorities and how their work contributed to corporate objectives. Based on these scores, the CEO was confident that the company’s five strategic priorities — which had not changed over the past two years and which she communicated regularly — were well understood by the leaders responsible for executing them.

We then asked those same managers to list the company’s strategic priorities. Using a machine-learning algorithm and human coders, we classified their answers to assess how well their responses aligned with the official strategic priorities. The CEO was shocked at the results. Only one-quarter of the managers surveyed could list three of the company’s five strategic priorities. Even worse, one-third of the leaders charged with implementing the company’s strategy could not list even one.

These results are typical not just in the technology industry, but across a range of companies we have studied. Most organizations fall far short when it comes to strategic alignment: Our analysis of 124 organizations revealed that only 28% of executives and middle managers responsible for executing strategy could list three of their company’s strategic priorities.  

In short, creating a list of five priorities or more often leads to confusion, misunderstanding, and a lack of organizational alignment.  For me, the lesson is clear.  Leaders need to have a coherent strategic story.  What's the overall direction?  What is the firm's desired competitive position, and how is that distinct from the competition?  Then, with that coherent story established and communicated, leaders need to make clear what matters most.  Perhaps there are five important goals, but are they truly equally important? Which ones are more critical than others?  It is very difficult to answer that final question, but it must be done.  Moreover, leaders need to communicate that overall strategic perspective over and over, through multiple channels and using multiple forums and media.  Then, most importantly, leaders need to take the pulse of the organization.  They have to test whether the message got through to lower levels of the organization.  Leaders have to do that through direct conversation with those at lower levels, through both formal and informal opportunities for communication and conversation.  

Successfully Onboarding New Employees

https://hires.shareable.com/

Fast Company's Julia Phelan has written a good article titled "The ultimate guide to onboarding an employee successfully."  As I read the article, several key points resonated with me, and led me to think about what else I might consider as suggestions about the onboarding process.  Here is a synthesis of Phelan's recommendations and my own:  

1.  Put yourself in the new employee's shoes.  Think about a time when you were brand new to an institution, whether it was a company, a school, or a volunteer organization.  Empathize with the new team member.  Recognize how and why they might be stressed, confused, or anxious.  If you have been at your firm for a long time, putting yourself in their shoes will be more difficult.  Therefore, companies should think about having recently hired employees be part of the onboarding process, and not just rely on seasoned managers. 

2.  Set them up for a small, early win.  Don't give them a huge project right off the bat.  Give them something manageable so that they can get some experience working within the organization and delivering desired results.  

3.  Make sure they know where to go for help. Beyond their direct supervisor, who else can be a resource to them?   What other sources of information and training are available to them?  Who are the key people they need to get to know as soon as possible, including key employees in other departments?

4. Establish a clear schedule for the initial set of one-on-one meetings with their supervisor.  Make sure that these meetings can put on the calendar right away.   

5. Introduce them to other new or relatively new hires.  Help them build a cohort of new members of the organization who can help each other navigate the onboarding process.  

6.  Make sure they understand the big picture.  It's important that they understand their personal goals.  However, it is also very important that they understand the broader organizational goals and priorities.  How does their work fit into the bigger picture?  Providing that clear viewpoint will help them discover purpose and meaning in their work. 

7.  Be clear about what technical skills and capabilities they will need to learn as soon as possible to succeed in their role.  Take a quick inventory.  Make sure you know what they can do and what they can't do.  Is Tableau required for the job?  If so, make sure they know how to get up to speed on that software?  What if they know Tableau, but it is not currently used in their department?  Could it be useful?  Could they teach others, or introduce the software to make key activities more effective and efficient?   

Thinking about these key questions can take onboarding to the next level.  It is about far more than insuring new hires know the company policies and procedures.  Onboarding should be about setting people up to succeed and thrive in the organization. 

Careful about Romanticizing Failure

Source: Vistage

Have we come to romanticize failure at times in business and in the society at large?  Perhaps we have.  Is that detrimental to us at times?  New research suggests that we should be careful about romanticizing failure.  Lauren Eskreis-Winkler, Kaitlin Woolley, Eda Erensoy, and Minhee Kim have published a paper titled "The Exaggerated Benefits of Failure" in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.   They conducted a series of studies that demonstrate that we often overestimate the likelihood that people will rebound from failure and achieve success.  They write,

Across 11 studies, people in the lab and professionals in the field overestimated the rate at which health failures, professional failures, educational failures, and failures in a real-time task were followed by success. People thought that tens of thousands of professionals who fail standardized tests would go on to pass (who do not), that tens of thousands of people with addiction would get sober (who do not), and that tens of thousands of heart failure patients would improve their health (in fact, they do not).

The scholars argue that people consistently tend to overestimate how much we will learn from our failures.  In reality, we often are not effective at reflecting upon our failures, identifying the root causes of poor performance, and implementing corrective courses of action.  

I would argue that we need to stop repeating overused and inaccurate cliches about failure.  One that often bothers me: We learn more from failure than from success.  Actually, research suggests that we learn most effectively when we can compare and contrast failure and successful outcomes.  Reflecting on both success and failure leads to more improvement than only conducting lessons learned exercises after we fail.   

For those interested in practical guidance for how failure can lead to learning, I highly recommend Amy Edmondson's book, The Right Kind of Wrong: The Science of Failing Well.  Edmondson does not romanticize failure. Instead, she offers a clear-eyed view of different types of failure, some that are more preventable than others, and some which can lead to a great deal of learning if we approach them the right way.  

Why Might CVS Be Breaking Up?

News reports indicate that CVS Health may be splitting up in the months ahead.   Company leaders apparently are mulling their strategic options while under pressure from Glenview Capital and other investors.  CVS Health has diversified through acquisition over the past two decades.  In 2006, CVS acquired Caremark, a pharmacy benefit manager.  Then in 2017, CVS acquired Aetna, making a major move into the health insurance business.  More recently, they have made other moves to expand in the healthcare delivery space, such as by acquiring Oak Street Health - a primary care provider.   Unfortunately, the company's stock has underperformed the S&P 500 by a wide margin over the past two years, leading to increasing pressure from investors. 

Why might CVS Health be considering a break-up after moving so aggressively to transform themselves from a pharmacy retail chain to an integrated healthcare company?  Several factors may explain the potential strategy reversal.   

1.  Diversification works best when the different business units within a corporation operate by the same "dominant logic."  C.K. Prahalad and Richard Bettis coined this term in a very famous academic paper published in the 1980s.  They defined dominant logic as "the way in which managers conceptualize the business and make critical resource allocation decisions..."   In short, what is the mental model that leaders use to think about the business and make choices?  Do the businesses make money in a similar manner, or are the value propositions and business models fundamentally different?  They argued that strategic variety and complexity means that multiple "logics" exist across the portfolio of businesses, making it very difficult for the top management team to lead them all effectively.  They cannot apply the same criteria, rules, and principles when making decisions across the businesses.   One could easily argue that the dominant logics at CVS vary considerably from pharmacy retail to health insurance to primary care provision.  Can one CEO and her leadership team manage all these businesses effectively?  

2.  Scale and scope do not always yield economies.  We often hear about the benefits of bringing multiple units together.  In short, what are the economies of scale and scope?  I would argue that managers often focus on these potential economies when justifying acquisitions, yet they underestimate the potential diseconomies of scale and scope.  How might the increased complexity of the business make it more difficult to manage effectively?  What conflicts might emerge among business units?  What costs and disruption might occur as a company tries to secure key synergies?  Do the costs outweigh the benefits of collaboration and integration?  CVS Health has become a behemoth, and at some point, that sprawling conglomerate becomes very hard to manage.  

3.  The existence of potential synergies alone does not justify mergers.  One has to ask whether one could achieve some of these benefits through some other sort of organizational arrangement (stretching from contracts and partnerships through strategic alliances and joint ventures).  Firms don't always have to merge to coordinate and collaborate in pursuit of certain economies of scale and scope.  Consider Target's decision about its own pharmacy business.  The company wanted to continue to have pharmacies within each of its stores.  However, it came to the conclusion that it was best not to try to manage and operate these pharmacies themselves. Instead, they sold the business to CVS, letting the pharmacy experts run the "stores within a store" at each Target location.  Target shed a business, but it retained some of the benefits of having a pharmacy within each of its stores (the pharmacies are good traffic drivers and lead to other incremental sales for Target).  

4.  Vertical integration has many potential benefits, but it does not come without substantial risks. One risk is that you find yourself competing with your own customers at times.  That brings challenges for many companies, including in the healthcare space.  CVS Health has embarked on quite a bit of vertical integration over the years, creating these potential conflicts of interest that can be challenging to manage. 

Women Rise to Executive Ranks More Often in Decentralized Organizations

Does organizational structure affect the likelihood that women will climb to C-suite positions?  Indeed, it seems that structure has a substantial impact.  Women tend to do better in decentralized organizations.  That finding emerges from new research by Tingyu Du and Ulya Tsolmon.   They assembled a dataset of over 15,200 companies with nearly 600,000 managers.  The scholars state that, "Our findings suggest that decentralized organizational structure seems more conducive to reducing the gender gap than centralized structures." 

The scholars explain their finding by focusing on the skills that are needed in centralized vs. decentralized organizations, as well as the differences in the way that performance is measured and evaluated. The scholars argue that decentralized firms with leaders of separate units, each with their own P&L, tend to have clearer performance metrics than managers in highly centralized firms. The scholars conclude, "“In decentralized organizations, managers often have clearer accountability for their units’ performance, making their achievements more recognizable both internally and externally." Women achieve promotions in those firms based on their abilities without confronting as much bias.  In the firms with a high degree of power centralization, performance is often harder to measure, and social networks, political capital, and relationships play a much larger role in the promotion process. Bias may be more prevalent in that setting, thereby limiting the likelihood that women will rise to the C-suite.

I'm struck by this finding because it makes sense intuitively, and I'm also intrigued because I don't think people have considered this relationship between structure and female advancement in the past. It seems that these scholars have discovered one more very important reason for reducing power centralization in organizations.

Communication Breakdowns During Leadership Transitions

Stephen Michael Impink, Andrea Prat, and Raffaella Sadun have published a thought-provoking paper titled "Communication within Firms: Evidence from CEO Turnovers." Impink and his co-authors studied internal communication data for more than 100 companies in the period around a CEO transition.  They found an interesting pattern.  First, during the three months following the appointment of a new CEO, email traffic and the number of meetings declined by approximately 20%.  Roughly five months after new CEOs began their tenure, communication increased to slightly more than the amount prior to the leadership transition.   Six months after the transition, meetings and email volume returned to approximately the level prior to the appointment of the new CEO.  

Why does communication dip immediately following the leadership transition? The authors suggest that employees are uncertain about the future strategy and direction of the organization.  Perhaps they are a bit confused.  People are waiting and watching, trying to interpret signals and analyze statements emerging from the C-suite.  A great deal of speculation about the future probably occurs, though likely amidst informal communication at the water cooler rather than through formal meetings.  

You can see the risk associated with this communication pattern.  The new leader may not want to pronounce their strategy in those first few weeks, as they learn about organization and diagnose the situation. Still, they have to be careful about just how much confusion and uncertainty might affect the organization.  If you leave people a vacuum, they will fill it... but with speculation and gossip, which might do more harm than good. 

Leaders would be well-served to keep employees in the loop as they proceed with their diagnostic and learning process.  Providing regular updates on the transition and meeting with people to collect feedback can help reduce stress and tamper down speculation. Giving people a rough timeline of how the transition will proceed can be helpful.  You don't want people paralyzed during a transition.  You want them to stay focused on executing, while the strategy reset is unfolding.  Finally, leaders need to ask themselves: what will most certainly NOT change?  Will the organization's foundational purpose remain the same? Will its values stay unchanged?  If so, let people know - loudly and clearly.  Reassure them regarding the things that will stay the same.  That will help alleviate much of the stress and confusion surrounding a transition. 

Keeping Secrets at Work: When Transparency Isn't Valued

We often hear discussion of the value of transparency in organizations.  Nevertheless, many employees become frustrated about the lack of openness in their organizations.  They wish that more information was shared about key initiatives so that they could understand future plans, as well as the rationale for pursuing certain courses of action.

In a new study, Michael Slepian, Eric Anicich, and Nir Halevy examine the issue of organizational secrecy.  They find that people who keep information from others in organizations experience personal benefits as well as costs.  On the negative side, the scholars report that individuals who maintain secrets tend to express more stress and social isolation.   However, withholding vital information from others also comes with certain benefits.   It boosts perceptions of status and privilege for those holding the secrets. They feel more valued in the organization and perceive their work to be more meaningful.   These findings should not surprise us.   Just think for a moment about how people with privileged access to information tend to behave in your own organization.  

While this study highlights certain key benefits and costs associated with secrecy, it leaves open the question of just how much withholding of information is necessary in organizations.  My sense is that, in many organizations, people are more secretive than they need to be.  They withhold information because these personal benefits (status, meaning) outweigh the personal costs.  That does not mean the lack of transparency is good for the organization as a whole.  People come up with all sorts of justifications for that secrecy, but often, these arguments don't hold water.  They are flimsy rationales for not being transparent.  Leaders should test these arguments and probe the rationale being used to justify secrecy.  The costs of disclosure need to be weighed against the substantial value that derives from being transparent.   

Founder Mode: Should Entrepreneurs Reject the Conventional Wisdom about How to Manage Their Companies?

Source: Y Combinator

Y Combinator co-founder Paul Graham sparked a vibrant and wide-ranging discussion after posting a short essay titled, "Founder Mode," on his website.  He drafted his blog post as a reaction to a recent talk given by Airbnb founder Brian Chesky.   Graham and Chesky propose that entrepreneurs ought to reject the conventional wisdom about how to scale a business.   Graham writes:

The theme of Brian's talk was that the conventional wisdom about how to run larger companies is mistaken. As Airbnb grew, well-meaning people advised him that he had to run the company in a certain way for it to scale. Their advice could be optimistically summarized as "hire good people and give them room to do their jobs." He followed this advice and the results were disastrous. So he had to figure out a better way on his own, which he did partly by studying how Steve Jobs ran Apple. So far it seems to be working. Airbnb's free cash flow margin is now among the best in Silicon Valley.

Graham argues that the usual advice to avoid micromanagement might be wildly off-base when it comes to founders leading their companies as they scale.   In short, he suggests that we are advising founders to delegate far more than they should.  He argues that the most effective founders might very well dive deep into the details more often than conventional wisdom recommends.  They can and should talk directly to technical experts at lower levels of the organization and frequently conduct skip-level meetings.  They should employ "founder mode" rather than delegating as much as many leadership consultants suggest.  

Graham acknowledges that you have to adjust your management style as you scale a business.  You cannot run a large organization in the same way you operate a startup.   In short, managing in founder mode is complicated... 

To me, the key argument here is not about whether founders should delegate more or less often.  "Founder mode" sounds interesting, but what exactly does that mean?  The key issue is WHEN one should delegate and when it is appropriate and effective to take a deep dive on critical issues.  I would love to hear Chesky, Graham, and others explain how they think about THAT important leadership choice.  It's all well and good to reference successful founders such as Steve Jobs, but plenty of entrepreneurs meddle too much, alienate people by not trusting them to make decisions, and burn out their subordinates.   Advising entrepreneurs to embrace "founder mode" might do more harm than good unless we help them understand how and when to engage in those deep dives.  

How Do We Select Managers? Where Self-Promotion Goes Awry

Source: https://www.aihr.com/blog/hiring-manager/

Ben Weidmann, Joseph Vecci, Farah Said, David Deming, and Sonia Bhalotra have published a thought-provoking new NBER working paper titled, "How Do You Find a Good Manager?"  The paper ingeniously uses an experimental methodology to examine whether self-promotion is harmful or helpful in the managerial selection process.   They find that people who nominate themselves for managerial roles tend to perform worse than those individuals selected randomly!  Moreover, they find that the "self-promoters" may be underperforming because they overestimate their own interpersonal skills. In short, overconfidence seems to be a significant problem for these self-promoters.  Here's an excerpt from their paper: 

Do people who want to be managers perform well in the job? We explore this question by randomly varying the manager selection mechanism in our experiment. After describing the expected tasks and compensation structure of the manager and worker roles, we elicit participants’ eagerness to be a manager on a 1-10 scale. Half of groups were randomly assigned to a “self-promotion” treatment where participants with the strongest preferences became managers. Managers were assigned randomly in the other half of groups. We find that self-promotion is worse than choosing managers randomly. Teams with self-promoted managers perform 0.1 standard deviations lower than teams with randomly assigned managers. This magnitude is roughly equivalent to being assigned a manager with fluid IQ one standard deviation lower. We show that self-selection can lead to mistaken inferences about the characteristics of good managers. People who prefer to be in charge– who we call ‘self-promoters’– have characteristics that differ from the broader population. For example, we find suggestive evidence that self-promoters tend to overestimate their own social skills relative to an objective test of emotional perceptiveness called the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET).   Among self-promoted managers, we find a negative relationship between self-reported people skills and managerial performance. In contrast, randomly selected managers do not tend to overestimate their social skills, and we find no negative relationship between self-reported people skills and managerial performance.

Naturally, more work needs to be done to examine how these dynamics play out in actual organizations rather than experimental settings.  Yet, intuitively, the findings resonate with me.  Considering the implications for hiring process should be top of mind for those leaders tasked with selecting managers for their teams.  

Three Critical Questions for the New Starbucks CEO Brian Niccol

As we all know, Starbucks hired a new CEO last week. They hired Chipotle CEO Brian Niccol to replace beleaguered CEO Laxman Narasimhan.  Niccol faces many challenges as the company has experienced declining revenues, frustrated customers, and disgruntled employees.  As a loyal customer (albeit also a frustrated one) and a close observer of the company, I've been considering the questions that Niccol must grapple with as he embarks on this transformation effort.  Here are three key questions:

1.  How much customization can Starbucks offer to its customers?  Give the customers what they want, right?  Customers clearly love to customize their drinks (in far more complex ways than Chipotle faces).  However, it has become abundantly clear that many Starbucks cafes are unable to effectively handle their throughput each day, particularly given the intense amount of customization they must deliver.  We've read about or experienced long wait times, abandoned orders, and incorrect drink orders.  Mass customization only works if a company can actually deliver on its promises.  One might argue that Niccol simply has to figure it out, and that he has to improve operational efficiency so that Starbucks can offer abundant customization.  However, Niccol also has to think about the practical implications of this strategy.  Should he curtail customization at all while he tries to figure out the operational challenges in the cafes?  I'm reminded of the story of Lego's turnaround twenty years ago, led by CEO Jorgen Vig Knudstorp (see HBS case study by Jan Rivkin and Stefan Thomke for details on this story).  He took charge when Lego faced the prospect of bankruptcy.  The number of parts produced by the company had doubled in the late 1990s, leading to numerous manufacturing and supply chain problems.  Knudstorp reduced the number of parts substantially so as to help the company gets its operations back in order.  At the same time, he invested heavily in innovation.  Lego came roaring back stronger than ever.  Niccol might want to study that turnaround as he considers the customization challenges at Starbucks.  

2.  How will the design (or redesign) of cafes balance worker efficiency vs. customer comfort/needs?  Longtime Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz envisioned the cafes as a "Third Place" where people could gather with others either to enjoy a friendly conversation or to get work done.  However, many of the cafes were designed to handle much less volume than they currently receive.  Workers are in each other's way, and they lack the equipment needed to handle as many orders as they receive.  In one of my local Starbucks cafes, they have renovated completely.  Now, the workers have more equipment (two espresso stations rather than one) and more space.  Undoubtedly, the set-up is much more efficient, and wait times will hopefully decline as a result.   However, customers have less places to sit and gather with others.  No tables are within reach of outlets at this point, reducing the ability to work at the cafes.  You can clearly see the tradeoffs that Starbucks must grapple with in their design choices.  Niccol has to determine the appropriate balance here between enhanced efficiency vs. "Third Place" dynamics.  

3.  How will Niccol handle the shadow of longtime CEO Howard Schultz?  We all know the story by now of how Schultz has returned twice after his initial resignation as CEO in 2000.  We also know that he has opined about the challenges his successors have faced, and he's done so in a very public way at times.  Most recently, he took to LinkedIn to criticize the efforts of CEO Laxman Narasimhan.  Niccol will have to think about how to engage Schultz.  He clearly has a great deal of influence, though he no longer serves on the Board of Directors.  Niccol can't allow Schultz to dictate strategy, but he cannot ignore him completely.  

Are We Aligned? If Not, Why Not?

Source: Superbeings

Effective leaders do not just articulate their goals clearly and concisely; they test for alignment repeatedly.  Did their message get through clearly to those several levels below them in the organizational hierarchy? Do middle managers and front-line employees understand the priorities, and do they know what is expected of them?  Why might alignment around goals and priorities not exist?  Here are five key reasons:

1.   Leaders did not repeat their message using different media and in different forums/channels.  They articulated the goals once or twice, and they expected others to hear them, understand them clearly, and embrace them fully.  You have to say it again and again, but using different modes of communication.  Some read their emails, and others do not.  Some listen at the town hall meetings, while others multi-task the entire time.  Some watch the 15-minute video you circulated, while others stop watching after 3 minutes. 

2.  Leaders established too many goals and objectives, and employees experience too many instances of competing priorities.  Employees don't know what really matters.  Employees draw disparate conclusions about what is most important.  

3.  Leaders did not build buy-in.  They didn't engage enough people in the process of determining those goals.  Therefore, employees do not feel a sense of collective ownership of the organization's plans and objectives.  

4.  Leaders have established goals that do not seem attainable to those doing the actual work.  As a result, employees become frustrated and start to make judgements about what is reasonable and achievable.  Those conclusions may be quite different across the organization. 

5.  Leaders create goals that do not match the needs and pain points of customers.  Thus, front-line employees perceive a mismatch between what customers want and what senior leaders would like to achieve.  Employees either address the customer needs and frustrate managers who don't see actions that fulfill their plans, or employees pursue the goals set out by top management while frustrating their customers.  

What Can We Learn From Olympic Fencing Stars?

Source: Sports Illustrated

As you watch the Olympics this week, take note of a few of the sports that receive much less attention.  For example, consider the sport of fencing.  You might notice something rather odd.  An unusually high number of athletes in the sport are left-handed.  Or, consider trap shooting.  As author David Epstein points out, "Half of the women in the final were left-handed, while fewer than ten percent of women in general are lefties."  Epstein cites fencing as an example of frequency dependent advantage.  Scholars use the term to describe the advantage left-handers may have in certain competitions because right-handers aren't well-equipped to face lefties and do not compete against them often at earlier points in their careers.  (The advantage in fencing seems obvious, but Epstein is not quite sure why such an advantage may exist in trap shooting).  

Jeff Haden, writing for Inc.com, points out that there's a lesson for all of us from these Olympic fencing competitors. He argues that we can CREATE a frequency dependent advantage in our careers. He writes, "Want to build a business? Be willing to do a few things your competition will not. Want to build a career? Be willing to do a few things the people you work with will not."  What terrific advice!  Haden has identified a key source of career success.  You can bet on your ability to do the same thing others are doing, but just better.  You might be successful, but that could be challenging.  Or, you could do things others aren't willing to do, or haven't chosen to invest time and effort into mastering to this point.  That might be a more fruitful way to propel your career forward at times.  

Should Senior Managers Learn about AI from Younger Employees?

https://michaelmauro.medium.com

Katherine C. Kellogg and her co-authors have written a fascinating new HBS Working Paper titled "Don’t Expect Juniors to Teach Senior Professionals to Use Generative AI: Emerging Technology Risks and Novice AI Risk Mitigation Tactics."  They begin by noting that experienced managers often can learn a great deal from younger, less experienced employees.  The scholars note the benefits of this "reverse mentorship" in their paper.  They point out that junior employees are often closer to the work, able to experiment with new methods more easily, and often are more open to learning about new techniques and practices.  They point, for instance, at a famous ethnographic study by Stephen Barley in which he found that senior radiologists learned a great deal about new CT scanning technology in the 1980s from their less experienced colleagues. 

However, Kellogg and her fellow scholars argue that such positive benefits of reverse mentorship do not always materialize.  For instance, senior professionals may find that their status in the organization feels threatened by such reliance on junior colleagues.  Moreover, they argue that we need to be careful in some instances, when junior colleagues may still not have clear knowledge of the benefits AND risks of emerging technologies such as AI.  If the technology is still evolving rapidly, and the risks associated with its use are still unclear, then we may not want to be so reliant on younger employees to teach senior managers.  

Junior employees may simply not be well-equipped to engage in appropriate risk mitigation strategies, and they may not know how best to convey an understanding of those risks and the appropriate ways to manage them.  To me, it seems that we need a more collaborative approach in these cases of emerging technologies with unclear risks.  Together, we need to engage in the type of two-way dialogue that enables us to learn about the appropriate application of these new technologies in our organizations, rather than depending on one set of individuals to teach another set.   Reverse mentorship has its place in organizations, but it may not be the best model for embracing new AI methods and practices. 

What Can We Learn from Nike's Struggles?

Source: Runners World

Over the past year, the S&P 500 Index has risen by roughly 20%.  Meanwhile, Nike's shares are down by more than 30%.  Revenue growth has stalled. In February, CEO John Donahue announced major layoffs.  What happened to Nike?

The company has made a number of key strategic mistakes in recent years.  I'd like to focus on one key blunder.  Nike focused a bit too much on the allure of driving growth by selling lifestyle-oriented shoes and apparel.  As a result, it didn't invest enough in innovation for the hard-core athlete, particularly runners.  Upstarts such as Hoka and On seized upon this opportunity, brought innovations to market, and grabbed market share.   For years, Nike had led with innovation for the serious athlete, and then used its brand credibility to appeal to more casual athletes and lifestyle customers.  

The Nike story is not a new one.  Many companies begin by appealing to a targeted market segment with innovative products, then expand their reach to the mass market.  However, many firms stumble by failing to protect the core, as well as failing to innovate sufficiently.  They begin to lose their hard-core customers, and ultimately, that damages the brand.   The loss of brand equity ultimately makes it harder to succeed in the mass market.  

How can companies avoid this trap?  First, they need to think about how every move to extend a brand or reach the mass market will affect the hard-core loyalists that were at the core of the initial success?  How will they perceive each particular growth strategy?  Are they diluting the brand, or damaging their reputation for technological preeminence?  Second, they need to invest substantially in customer research that focuses on the pain points and unfulfilled needs of their hard-core customers.   Third, they need to make sure incentives within the firm don't over-emphasize growth at the expense of succeeding with the narrow market niche that formed the heart of the firm's initial success.  Finally, they need to scan the external environment voraciously to examine trends that might lead to a change in consumer preferences among their hard-core brand loyalists.   These steps can help a firm make sure that it doesn't leave itself exposed to innovative upstarts.  

When Team Members Flatter the Leader, Problems May Ensue

Source: https://jonathanbecher.com/

People tend to flatter their leaders at times.  We've all done it on occasion.  At times, we have rolled our eyes when a peer begins to flatter the boss in a less-than-subtle manner.   The flattery might seem harmless, but it risks a problem for both leader and follower.  The leader may become overconfident if he or she lets the flattery go to their head.  Similarly, the follower may lose credibility with their peers if they are seen trying to ingratiate themselves with the boss.  It seems that a bit too much flattery directed at the boss is a surefire way to get yourself marginalized or mocked by your peers on the team.  

New research suggests another potential risk associated with flattery. Benjamin A. Rogers, Ovul Sezer, and Nadav Klein have published a new paper titled "Too naïve to lead: When leaders fall for flattery."  They find that some leaders can bear a cost if they respond ineffectively to flattery by their team members.  The scholars find that leaders who "fall for flattery" can be perceived as rather naive by team members and peers.  Those perceptions, of course, can have negative consequences as they try to persuade and influence subordinates and peers in the future.  If a leader is perceived as unfairly playing favorites based on past flattery, then they will lose the trust of their team members. 

Do New Hires Quickly "Learn" Not To Speak Up?

Source: Inc.com 

Derrick Bransby, Michaela Kerrissey, and Amy Edmondson have published some fascinating new research on psychological safety in the Harvard Business Review. They found an alarming trend regarding new hires and their willingness to speak up. They write, "We studied more than 10,000 employees in a large organization and discovered that new hires’ psychological safety eroded swiftly. On average, newcomers joined the organization with higher psychological safety relative to their more tenured colleagues, then lost it and waited years to reach levels comparable to when they arrived."  Their findings proved consistent across various demographic groups.  

As I read the article, I thought about why new hires might experience a significant drop in psychological safety soon after joining an organization.  One can imagine that new hires might think that leaders welcome pushback and are open to new ideas.  After all, they probably heard a good deal of positive talk during the hiring process about how leaders expect them to contribute during meetings and to bring fresh ideas.   New hires might learn quickly, however, that some leaders react poorly to dissenting perspectives or the sharing of bad news.  In some cases, experienced leaders might not recognize how their reactions to new perspectives have discouraged new hires.  

Three other explanations might exist for this drop in psychological safety though, and it may not involve dysfunctional behavior by team leaders.  First, new hires might not be particularly adept at speaking up.  Perhaps they try to share a concern about a proposed course of action, or express a dissenting opinion, during some early meetings.  If they struggle to present their ideas, they might find that others do not seem receptive.  New hires could conclude that people don't want them to speak up, when in fact, others simply didn't find the arguments well-crafted and persuasive.  Or, others may feel that the pushback was not presented in a constructive fashion.  The remedy for this problem is some effective coaching and development for new hires, so that they can become more effective at presenting their ideas. 

Second, psychological safety may decrease for new hires as a result of their socialization into the organization.  New hires may hear from peers that they should "keep their heads down" and "not rock the boat."  Sometimes, peers are sharing accurate appraisals of the culture, and specifically, of the low level of psychological safety on that particular team.   However, at times, peers may be overly negative.  Take, for instance, a situation in which the leaders themselves are relatively new.  Long-tenured employees may be accustomed to prior leadership that led in a top-down fashion and did not welcome dissenting views.  These experienced team members may not yet have adjusted to new leadership and may not trust that the new leaders genuinely want to hear dissent.  Peers also might be wary of newcomers who question existing practices and challenge the conventional wisdom.  They might even feel threatened.  As a result, they may discourage new hires from speaking up. 

Third, new hires may come to the organization with a "grass is always greener" mentality.  Perhaps they concluded during the hiring process that this organization is clearly superior to their old company.  When their highly optimistic expectations prove not to be accurate, they may become discouraged.  Perhaps the new team does have higher psychological safety than their old team, but the failure to meet lofty expectations may be troublesome.  It's certainly true that it can be very challenging to assess psychological safety during an interview process.  

Harley-Davidson: The Aging Customer Dilemma

John Keilman has written a Wall Street Journal article this week that is titled "Harley Will Ride or Die With the Graybeards." Keilman reports that, "The Milwaukee-based company is selling less than half as many bikes as it did during its 2006 peak. Harley’s portion of the U.S. large motorcycle market recently dropped to its lowest level since the 1980s."  He notes that the average age of the Harley customer has risen substantially in the past two decades.  The company reports that the average age is 49.  UBS analyst Robin Farley disagrees, arguing that it actually has reached the late 50s.  Critics argue that the current CEO has focused on high-priced bikes for older customers, prioritizing profit margins over growth.  In so doing, they say he has made it even harder to attract younger buyers.  

The Harley story illustrates several important lessons in business strategy.   First, the temptation for many executives at mature companies is to focus on high-margin products and opportunities to further increase margins at the expense of growing the customer base.  This focus often leads to better earnings per share in the short run, satisfying investors.  However, it creates a long-term challenge.  Eventually, the focus on the highest-margin products can exacerbate the challenge of bringing new customers to the brand.  In Harley's case, younger buyers find it increasingly difficult to afford the purchase of one of the company's bikes.  

Second, mature companies with an aging customer base always have to balance the desire to attract younger buyers with the worry that such efforts might alienate their most loyal customers.  Harley has to worry that attempts to build products and develop marketing campaigns aimed at millennials and Gen X customers might turn off the Baby Boomers and Gen X customers that comprise its most profitable pool of current customers. 

Third, companies often think that the answer to attracting younger customers is simply about the products they offer and the price point at which they sell those products.  While product and price matter a great deal, the brand image and the customer experience also prove to be very important.  Too often, managers at these mature firms are out of touch with trends, and with the younger potential customers in general.  They have been so laser-focused on their most loyal customers, and they are part of that demographic as well.  They need to find a way to truly step into the shoes of those younger potential buyers, and they need to hire people from that demographic.  Effective empathy-based user research is very important for firms in this predicament. 

Finally, firms have to understand the broader social trends against which they are battling.  In Harley's case, they need to understand that the current generation is not nearly as fascinated with the freedom of the open road as prior generations.  As Jonathan Haidt documents in his book, The Anxious Generation, far fewer young people are rushing to get their motor vehicle license at age 16.    He describes several reasons why young people are less eager to drive.  This broader social trend is clearly affecting Harley.  It needs to understand how the psychology of young people has changed, and how that will affect they way the firm should go to market.  

My sense is that Harley-Davidson executives should reach out to companies that have proven adept at navigating some of these challenges and refreshing brands that have encountered aging customer bases.  For example, the leadership team at LVMH has done a remarkable job of acquiring luxury brands that need a refresh, and then helping that brand attract a new generation of buyers.