To download current issue Click Here
To listen Podcast of current issue Click Here
Shaping: Ideas and forces shaping economies and industries
Leading & Managing
Entrepreneurship
Executive Summaries of Articles
After the exodus: Office re-entry is proving trickier than last year’s abrupt exit
The Economist | Jul 1st, 2021
As vaccination rates rise in the rich world the home-working experiment is being unwound. But the speed of the unwinding, and its scope, has become a matter of hot debate among chief executives, and between them and their staff. One change is already obvious. The universal anti-remote-work mindset of yesteryear is gone, replaced by a range of attitudes that vary by industry and region. At one extreme, some companies now expect all workers to be back at their desks. At the other, certain firms are doing away with offices altogether. Most businesses fall somewhere in the middle.
The top three USA’s banks bosses worry that remote workers are less engaged with the company, and potentially less productive. Whether or not they agree with the Wall Street titans deep down, their counterparts in Europe see such intransigence as an opportunity to lure disaffected bankers who prefer greater flexibility. Noel Quinn, chief executive of HSBC, has described drifting back to pre-pandemic patterns as a “missed opportunity” and would like the Asia-centric bank’s staff to embrace hybrid arrangements. Many technology CEOs seem to share Mr Quinn’s sentiment.
Across regions and industries evidence suggests that people like the ability to work from home at least occasionally. At the same time, many workers of all ages are still keen to come to the office every now and again—not least to enjoy reliable air-conditioning during what is shaping up to be a scorching northern summer. The public sector, often the largest employer in a country, faces similar considerations. All this suggests that hybrid arrangements will persist in most places (with the possible exception of Wall Street). They present their own challenges, however. For instance, they blur the lines between work-family life and Zoom meetings fatigue.
That is a lot for companies to ponder, even as they deal with short-term controversies, such as whether or not to bar unvaccinated workers from the office. Disruptive though it was, last year’s abrupt transition to remote work may, ironically, prove considerably smoother than the shift to whatever counts as normal in the post-pandemic era.
3 key takeaways from the article
- The covid-19 pandemic forced governments around the world to impose strict lockdowns. Overnight, most of the world’s offices became off limits. To survive, companies everywhere embarked on a gigantic experiment in home-working.
- As vaccination rates rise in the rich world the home-working experiment is being unwound. But the speed of the unwinding, and its scope, has become a matter of hot debate among chief executives, and between them and their staff.
- The strategies that emerge out of these debates will shape not just what happens in the next few months but also the longer-term future of office work.
(Copyrights)
Topics: COVID-19, Employment, Global Economy
Figuring Out Social Capital Is Critical for the Future of Hybrid Work
By Jennifer J. Deal and Alec Levenson | MIT Sloan Management Review | July 01, 2021
For many companies, the early months of the pandemic and the transition to remote work led to a jump in productivity. Established social capital made it relatively easy to shift to remote work without losing a sense of the larger organizational context. An unfortunate side effect of persistent remote work during the pandemic has been that social capital networks within organizations have weakened, making it harder for people to maintain the same high level of productivity. When thinking about returning to the office — whether in person full time or a hybrid model — leaders should think strategically about how their plans address three key areas:
- Think about the opportunities to develop weak ties. Because the social capital held in weak ties supports work across silos, groups, and organizations, it turns out that the “informal organization” is largely constructed of the weak ties that need frequent strengthening to retain their functionality. Leaders need to think about how they’re going to improve this social capital and, if employees are going to continue to work remotely, how they’re going to invest in the social capital of weak ties, not just the social capital involved in intact or changing workgroups.
- Make online team formation a standard. Examples from this past year suggest that when teammates can’t convene in person for a first meeting, having everyone online for that initial meeting can level the playing field and create a more equitable environment than when some members are physically colocated and others are remote. In fact, many members of new teams have told the authors that this past year, they felt truly integrated into a new team from the beginning for the first time.
- Support younger employees in the organization. One concern for organizations is the loss of implicit knowledge transfer from established employees to those who are onboarding through regular interactions in the office. While new employees can learn technical processes and systems via virtual onboarding meetings, it is much more challenging to pick up on subtle subtext, political norms, and insights into organizational behavior without being able to observe it daily in person.
3 key takeaways from the article
- Established social capital made it relatively easy to shift to remote work without losing a sense of the larger organizational context.
- An unfortunate side effect of persistent remote work during the pandemic has been that social capital networks within organizations have weakened, making it harder for people to maintain the same high level of productivity.
- When thinking about returning to the office — whether in person full time or a hybrid model — leaders should think strategically about how their plans address three key areas: strengthening weak ties, building social capital in new teams, and supporting younger employees in the organization.
(Copyrights)
Topics: Employees Networking, Productivity, Organizational Performance, Virtual Teams
What does breaking up Big Tech really mean?
By James Surowiecki | MIT Technology Review | June 30, 2021
Trustbusting sentiment is growing among many critics of today’s mammoth tech companies, but it’s not obvious what can be done to cut them down to size.
Over the past four or five years, scholars, politicians, and public advocates have begun to push a new idea of what antitrust policy should be, arguing that we need to move away from that narrow focus on consumer welfare—which in practice has usually meant a focus on prices—toward consideration of a much wider range of possible harms from companies’ exercise of market power: damage to suppliers, workers, competitors, customer choice, and even the political system as a whole. They’ve done so, not surprisingly, with the Big Four i.e., Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Alphabet squarely in mind.
Indeed, if the new antitrust movement really wants to change the digital economy, challenging the Big Four’s various sketchy practices is not going to be enough. These companies’ greatest competitive advantage isn’t the legally dubious stuff they’re doing—it’s their perfectly legal access to enormous amounts of detailed and granular user data. That data helps them understand their users better than anyone else and make continuous improvements to their products and services—which in turn helps them keep their current users and add new ones, which gives them access to more data, and so on. It is the key to their growth. Truly challenging the power of the Big Four would mean rethinking how data is gathered and used by companies, and who gets access to it. It might mean requiring that data be shared, that algorithms be transparent, and that consumers have far more control over what they share and what they don’t.
For that to happen, the new trustbusters will have to make the case that even if we like what our digital overlords are doing with our data, it’s still wrong for a small number of companies to control so much of it. In a way, they need to make the case that, as in the past, at some point bigness in and of itself is a curse. Big Tech has made that a hard sell in America, simply because the companies have created so much value for consumers. We’re going to find out if that’s enough to keep them safe in this new world.
3 key takeaways from the article
- Trustbusting sentiment is growing among many critics of today’s mammoth tech companies, but it’s not obvious what can be done to cut them down to size.
- If the new antitrust movement really wants to change the digital economy, challenging the Big Four’s various sketchy practices is not going to be enough. These companies’ greatest competitive advantage isn’t the legally dubious stuff they’re doing—it’s their perfectly legal access to enormous amounts of detailed and granular user data.
- Truly challenging the power of the Big Four would mean rethinking how data is gathered and used by companies, and who gets access to it. It might mean requiring that data be shared, that algorithms be transparent and that consumers have far more control over what they share and what they don’t.
(Copyrights)
Topics: Technology, Antitrust, Regulating Industries, Competition
Getting tangible about intangibles: The future of growth and productivity?
By Hazan et al., | McKinsey Global Institute | June 16, 2021
Investment in intangible assets that underpin the knowledge or learning economy, such as intellectual property (IP), research, technology and software, and human capital, has risen inexorably over the past quarter-century, and the COVID-19 pandemic appears to have accelerated this shift toward a dematerialized economy. Are we seeing the start of a new stage in the history of capitalism based on learning, knowledge, and intellectual capital? As economies recover from the pandemic, could a wave of investment in intangible assets breathe new life into productivity and unlock more growth potential?
New research uses sector-level data and the results of a new survey of more than 860 executives that reveal that “top growers”—companies in the top quartile for growth in gross value added, a measure of economic growth—invest 2.6 times more in intangibles than low growers, companies in the bottom two quartiles.
Over the past 25 years, the United States and ten European economies achieved 63 percent growth in gross value added (GVA). During this period, the share of total investment of intangibles increased by 29 percent. Rising investment in intangibles has been linked with increasing total factor productivity of entire economies. This could indicate that the deceleration of productivity growth over the past decade partly reflects a slowdown in investment in intangible assets.
An intangibles-rich economic model is not the only way for an economy to be successful; there are other ways to promote productivity and growth. Nevertheless, economies that are experiencing growth in intangibles investment are also posting growth in total factor productivity. Additionally, there is an observable link between investment in intangibles and GVA growth at the sector level, though the strength of the correlations varies. Nevertheless, regardless of the sector, companies that invest more in intangibles grow more.
Purely investing in intangibles is not sufficient to drive growth. Companies need to think about how those intangibles are deployed and implemented to ultimately build capabilities that create a competitive advantage. More precisely about what delivers disproportionate returns, survey respondents cited specific use cases, rigorous processes, data-driven decision making, and, broadly, using the intangible investment to embed data, talent, innovation, and purpose in their day-to-day operations. In short, low growers plan, while top growers do.
3 key takeaways from the discussion paper
- Investment in intangible assets that underpin the knowledge or learning economy, such as intellectual property (IP), research, technology and software, and human capital, has risen inexorably over the past quarter-century, and the COVID-19 pandemic appears to have accelerated this shift toward a dematerialized economy.
- Regardless of the sector, companies that invest more in intangibles grow more.
- As the intangible, digitized economy spreads, the imperative to reskill—within companies, and more broadly in society—becomes even more urgent.
(Copyrights)
Topics: Strategy, Business Model, Organizational Performance
Do You Really Need All that Office Space?
By Nikodem Szumilo and Thomas Wiegelmann | HBR | July 02, 2021
Even as vaccination rates grow, companies remain uncertain about when, how — and in some cases, if — workers will return to their pre-Covid office routines. Data from Google shows that workplace activity in London, New York, and San Francisco is running at half what it was before the pandemic. For companies that opt to require fewer employees to be on-site each day, one question looms: Should managers make the long-term decision to jettison a portion of their office space? Factors to consider if you’re considering reducing space are:
- Attitude of employees. Surveys show that most office workers actually want to go back to an office — but only two or three days per a week. This suggests that the quality of the space should become more important than the quantity, and companies are likely to focus on smaller spaces that provide better services and amenities.
- Proximity to clients, customers, and amenities. Being physically close to your clients and collaborators becomes less important when more people work remotely, so the benefit of having an office in a central business district will probably decrease. At the same time, being close to amenities may matter more.
- Changing commuting patterns. As trips to the office will not necessarily be frequent, more people will live further away from their office. This will make access to short-distance commuting options less important and long-distance transport more valuable for office locations.
- Office design. When they choose to go to the office, talented workers will be attracted to offices where they can work more productively and focus on activities they cannot do from home. This will require less space but the location and quality of office locations will be critical.
- Environmental considerations. As companies re-imagine and reassess their need for physical space, the current crisis may be the perfect opportunity to start using office space more efficiently.
- Cost. Landlords may be more willing than ever to re-negotiate contracts. This means that even those who were locked in long-term deals can now try to rethink the way they use office space.
3 key takeaways from the article
- Even as vaccination rates grow, companies remain uncertain about when, how — and in some cases, if — workers will return to their pre-Covid office routines.
- For companies that opt to require fewer employees to be on-site each day, one question looms: Should managers make the long-term decision to jettison a portion of their office space?
- Factors to consider if you’re considering reducing space: attitude of employees towards working remotely; changed priorities with respect to proximity to clients, customers, and amenities; changing commuting patterns; office design for quality not quantity; environmental considerations; and cost.
(Copyrights)
Topics: COVID-19, Productivity
Why Emotionally Intelligent People Embrace the 2-Way-Door Rule to Make Better and Faster Decisions
By Jef Haden | Inc Magazine | July 6, 2021
You don’t want to make the wrong decision, because deep down in places you don’t talk about in parties, you want to get it right. You need to get it right. And you never actually make a decision. Or, if you do, it’s a timid, half-hearted, uncommitted version of the full-speed-ahead decision that would make success much more likely.
That’s the problem with decisions. The stakes always seem high. Sound familiar? If so, here’s a simple rule that will help you cut through the emotional clutter to make smarter, faster decisions — and with a lot less angst: The two-way-door rule.
Think about something major you want to do. If you’re like most people, you spend a lot more time thinking about potential downsides. What if you start a business and it fails, for instance? Most of us focus on how much we will regret a decision — even if it’s something we really want to do — if it doesn’t work out. But when we look back, what we regret are the things we didn’t do: the business we didn’t start. The career we didn’t change. The move we didn’t make. Because we tend to think every decision is a one-way-door decision.
One-way door. These decisions are almost impossible to reverse, so the door only swings one way. Like firing an employee. Selling your business. Ending a vendor or supplier relationship. Generally speaking, once you make a one-way-door decision, there’s no going back. (Bezos also calls these Type 1 decisions.)
Two-way door. These decisions are reversible, so the door swings two ways. Like hiring a new employee. Starting a side hustle. Providing a new service. Creating new pricing models. While two-way-door decisions can seem life-and-death, especially before you make them, with a little time and effort, they can be tweaked or modified or even reversed. (Bezos also calls these Type 2 decisions.)
And most of the decisions are not one door decision. You’ll get some two-way-door decisions wrong. But that’s OK. Trust that you’ll figure out how to react and respond. Know that you’ll come out on the other side a little more skilled and experienced.
3 key takeaways from the article
- A major problem with decisions is the stakes always seem high.
- Because we consider all decisions as one-door decisions i.e., irreversible. Most of the decisions are not. They are two-door i.e., reversible.
- You’ll get some two-way-door decisions wrong. But that’s OK. Trust that you’ll figure out how to react and respond. Know that you’ll come out on the other side a little more skilled and experienced.
(Copyrights)
Topics: Decision making, Leadership
FBI Negotiation Tactics You Can Use to Get What You Need
By Dr. Steven Ghim | Entrepreneur | June 20, 2021
FBI agents face some of the most intense and consequential negotiation situations on the planet. This makes them gurus when it comes to knowing how to direct conversations and to get what they want. Most of their tactics apply perfectly to the business world and can help you drive sales, partnerships, and growth. 3 methods to help you get what you want and need for your company
Pick your tone. FBI negotiator Chris Voss asserts that there are three main “voices” you can pick to get people to relax and trust you.
Late-night DJ voice: calm and slow, voice deflects downward, used selectively to make a point
Positive and playful: easygoing, relaxed; smile while talking
Direct/assertive: signals dominance
For the most part, the positive and playful voice can be your go-to. But the idea to remember is that your tone conveys just as much as the actual words you say. And body language connects to tone because it sends nonverbal cues to the person you’re dealing with. So try to be consistent between what you physically do and what you’re saying.
Repeat. Just repeat the last few words the other person said. For example, if your customer says, “I like Product X, but the price is too high,” then you say “Price is too high?” Rephasing like this creates a feeling of familiarity between you and the other person. It usually gets the other person to cough up a little more information without you asking directly for it, too. And that information becomes gold you can use to understand their pain points, needs, and wants.
Use labels. Labels describe your customer in some way. For example, if your customer is hyper-focused on cost, then a negative label could be “they hate high prices,” while a positive label could be “they love finding value.” Either way, take that label and stick in front of it. This validates how they’re feeling so you can build a bond.
3 key takeaways from the article
- FBI agents face some of the most intense and consequential negotiation situations on the planet. This makes them gurus when it comes to knowing how to direct conversations and to get what they want.
- Most of their tactics apply perfectly to the business world and can help you drive sales, partnerships, and growth.
- 3 methods to help you get what you want and need for your company are: pick your tone to get people to relax and trust you, repeat the last few words of the customers to create a feeling of familiarity and use labels to build strong bonds.
(Copyrights)
Topics: Negotiation, Entrepreneurship, Personal Development