Leadership

Should executives make decisions based on what their "gut" tells them? Lately that idea has lost some favor, as technology's ability to accumulate and analyze data has rapidly increased -- supplanting, according to some accounts, the high-level manager's need to draw heavily on intuition. But intuition needs some rescuing from its detractors, and the place to start is by clarifying what it really is, and how it should be developed. Intuition is not a magical sixth sense or a paranormal process; nor does it signify the opposite of reason or random and whimsical decision making. Rather, intuition is a highly complex and highly developed form of reasoning that is based on years of experience and learning, and on facts, patterns, concepts, procedures and abstractions stored in one's head. In this article, the authors draw on examples from the worlds of chess, neuroscience and business -- especially Austria's KTM Sportmotorcycle AG -- to show that intuitive decision making should not be prematurely buried. They point out that although the study of intuition has not been extensively explored as a part of management science, studies reveal that several ingredients are critical to intuition's development: years of domain-specific experience; the cultivation of personal and professional networks; the development of emotional intelligence; a tolerance for mistakes; a healthy sense of curiosity; and a sense of intuition's limits. Companies should, of course, continue to exploit their abilities to mine data as a means of obtaining a competitive edge. But they shouldn't overlook the continuing value of experienced executives who can draw on their intuition to make decisions when the numbers yield a question rather than an answer: Now what do we do?

Solid principles for navigating the 21st century.

How innovators identify the critical things they don’t even know that they don’t know.

Five conversations — often avoided — are essential to the success of any high stakes project.

Numerous studies confirm that few people can make it through a typical day without lying. So it should not be surprising that falsehoods and deception are widespread in business negotiations as well. The unspoken, and perhaps unconscious, thought is that if everyone lies, why is it so bad? The author examines legal and ethical views of lying, noting that while courts often hold parties to the truth of their representations, negotiators have many ways to mislead the opposing side. For example, negotiating tactics such as nondisclosure and evasion are rarely considered illegal. Indeed, it is often possible to avoid liability by using misleading behaviors that make no representations but which seem to. In light of the moral and legal ambiguity of lying, the author offers suggestions for how to detect lies and how to protect oneself against bargaining deception including: establishing negotiating ground rules before the discussions begin, asking the same question in different ways, asking questions to which you already know the answer, including written claims in the final agreement, using contingent agreements or using an escrow agent or a performance bond.

Business schools and others interested in management education and development have vigorously debated how best to teach strategy to future leaders. Some experts have questioned whether the topic should be taught at all -- or at least whether it should be taught to managers. Often missing from the debate, however, has been any in-depth discussion of how individuals learn to think strategically in the first place. What specific experiences are important and how do they contribute? Moreover, what are the different ways in which people absorb those experiences to develop the ability to think strategically? To answer these and other questions, the author conducted a study that identified executives who were considered the top strategic thinkers in their industry. The study then investigated the totality of experiences (educational, job related or other) that contributed to the high ability of those individuals. In addition, the research investigated the different ways in which the executives acquired their expertise in strategic thinking -- a process that typically took more than a decade The data showed that strategic thinking arises from 10 specific types of experiences -- for instance, spearheading a major growth initiative or dealing with a threat to organizational survival. Moreover, executives appear to gain their expertise in strategic thinking through one of three developmental patterns. These findings help demystify the process by which strategic thinking is learned, offering important implications for management development and the practice of strategy.

Societal consequences give power to formal sanctions.

It can be good or bad, depending upon what kind it is and in what cultural context it occurs.

Organizations often try to include as many people as possible in the decision-making process, but sometimes it's just not possible to involve anyone beyond a small group. The need for confidentiality and speed are constraints, as is the sheer difficulty of polling an entire organization of thousands of employees regarding decisions that will affect the entire company. Managers or executives must sometimes "download" a decision to their people after the fact -- and this is where many a decision crashes on rocky shoals. Mergers fail as key employees leave and others resist change; union contracts are rejected after months of negotiation; and changes in employee benefits meet with strident protest. What's behind these failures, and what can be done to avert them? The authors lay out reasons for ineffective downloading: a disconnect between the two sides as the negotiating party fails to see the negatives of a decision; a failure to clarify responsibilities that result in rumor and word of mouth being the primary channels of communication; a desire to inform people quickly -- which often means superficially; and a paternalistic desire to protect members of an organization when people would prefer just to hear the truth. Against this record of mistakes and misguided notions, the authors set their four-stage process for a robust decision downloading. Their process is informed by survey research of several hundred employees in a variety of organizations, as well as interviews with dozens of executives.

Since the 1980s, the percentage of obese Americans has risen from one-sixth of the population to nearly one-third -- and the problem is particularly acute among children and adolescents, where the obesity rate has tripled in 30 years. While this problem is certainly, in the first instance, one of personal responsibility and self-control, business leaders should be concerned, too -- for at least four reasons. The first reason is simple self-preservation: Food and beverage companies could find themselves in the trial lawyers' crosshairs. The second reason is closely related to the first: The food and beverage industry is the target of the public's increasing ire over portion sizes and unhealthy ingredients. Third, companies will not be able to function efficiently if a significant proportion of their current and future employees suffer from obesity. And finally, opportunity knocks: Companies have the chance to develop new products and create a positive brand image that will fatten the corporate bottom line while simultaneously helping obese Americans shed dangerous pounds. The authors explain how several companies are actively pursuing several strategies to help solve America's other "energy crisis" -- too much consumption and too little movement.