Weekly Business Insights from Top Ten Business Magazines
Extractive summaries and key takeaways from the articles curated from TOP TEN BUSINESS MAGAZINES to promote informed business decision-making | Since 2017 | Week 353 | June 14-20, 2024 | Archive
Experience this week’s edition in audio
Shaping Section
The EU hits China’s carmakers with hefty new tariffs
The Economist | June 12, 2024
Extractive Summary of the Article | Read | Listen
On June 12th, after an eight-month probe, the EU’s executive arm accused China of unfairly subsidising its industry with tax breaks, cheap loans and the like. It fears that cut-price imports pose a “clearly foreseeable and imminent injury” to European carmakers. Provisional tariffs of between 26% and 48%, compared with 10% for other imported cars, will be imposed from July on Chinese EVs. The precise duty will depend on each firm’s willingness to assist the investigation.
In the short term, it is hard to sniff out a winner. Car buyers hoping to inhale the intoxicating new-car odour will certainly suffer if the prices of imported cars rise and competitive pressures on European firms ease. But Europe’s carmakers are not taking a victory lap, either. They did not ask for the probe. Now they fear retaliation from Beijing, which looks inevitable.
China has hinted at raising its tariffs on large-engine (in other words, German) vehicles from 15% to 25%. It could also make life harder for foreign carmakers in China with more onerous regulations and spread the net of tariffs wider to agricultural goods or aviation. In January it fired a warning shot at France by initiating an anti-dumping investigation of cognac and other European brandies.
Europe’s tariffs will hit not only Chinese firms. Foreign companies that make cars in China for export back to Europe will be subject to duties of 31% on average. Tesla, the American EV pioneer, is by far the most exposed. But Europe’s mass-market carmakers, which face the greatest threat from cheap Chinese electric runarounds, are also in the firing line.
As for Chinese carmakers, higher duties may temporarily slow their progress and give the Europeans the opportunity to catch up by launching a new generation of more competitive vehicles. But the tariff barrier is unlikely to stop all the Chinese in their tracks. Having set prices in Europe a little lower than for competing European models, they have scope to cut.
Indeed, in the long run the tariffs could even hasten China’s conquest of the European car market. To become significant forces on the continent, the Chinese companies were always going to have to produce their EVs locally. BYD, which aims to become the region’s top EV-maker by 2030, will build a factory in Hungary and is soon expected to announce another in Spain. Chery signed a deal in April also to make cars in Spain. Others are reportedly knocking on the door of big European contract manufacturers.
3 key takeaways from the article
- On June 12th, after an eight-month probe, the EU’s executive arm accused China of unfairly subsidising its industry with tax breaks, cheap loans and the like. It fears that cut-price imports pose a “clearly foreseeable and imminent injury” to European carmakers. Car buyers hoping to inhale the intoxicating new-car odour will certainly suffer if the prices of imported cars rise and competitive pressures on European firms ease. But Europe’s carmakers are not taking a victory lap, either. They did not ask for the probe. And Europe’s tariffs will hit not only Chinese firms.
- China has hinted at raising its tariffs on large-engine in other words, German vehicles. It could also make life harder for foreign carmakers in China with more onerous regulations and spread the net of tariffs wider to agricultural goods or aviation.
- As for Chinese carmakers, higher duties may temporarily slow their progress. In the long run the tariffs could even hasten China’s conquest of the European car market.
(Copyright lies with the publisher)
Topics: Electric Cars, Technology, China, EU, Competition, Anti-dumping Duties
How gamification took over the world
By Bryan Gardiner | MIT Technology Review | June 13, 2024
Extractive Summary of the Article | Read | Listen
Often pondered during especially challenging or tedious tasks in meatspace (writing essays, say, or doing your taxes), it’s an eminently reasonable question to ask. Life, after all, is hard. And while video games are too, there’s something almost magical about the way they can promote sustained bouts of superhuman concentration and resolve.
For some, this phenomenon leads to an interest in flow states and immersion. For others, it’s simply a reason to play more games. For a handful of consultants, startup gurus, and game designers in the late 2000s, it became the key to unlocking our true human potential.
In her 2010 TED Talk, “Gaming Can Make a Better World,” the game designer Jane McGonigal called this engaged state “blissful productivity.” “There’s a reason why the average World of Warcraft gamer plays for 22 hours a week,” she said. “It’s because we know when we’re playing a game that we’re actually happier working hard than we are relaxing or hanging out. We know that we are optimized as human beings to do hard and meaningful work. And gamers are willing to work hard all the time.” McGonigal’s basic pitch was by making the real world more like a video game, we could harness the blissful productivity of millions of people and direct it at some of humanity’s thorniest problems—things like poverty, obesity, and climate change.
Broadly defined as the application of game design elements and principles to non-game activities—think points, levels, missions, badges, leaderboards, reinforcement loops, and so on—gamification was already being hawked as a revolutionary new tool for transforming education, work, health and fitness, and countless other parts of life.
Adding “world-saving” to the list of potential benefits was perhaps inevitable, given the prevalence of that theme in video-game storylines. But it also spoke to gamification’s foundational premise: the idea that reality is somehow broken. According to McGonigal and other gamification boosters, the real world is insufficiently engaging and motivating, and too often it fails to make us happy. Gamification promises to remedy this design flaw by engineering a new reality, one that transforms the dull, difficult, and depressing parts of life into something fun and inspiring. Studying for exams, doing household chores, flossing, exercising, learning a new language—there was no limit to the tasks that could be turned into games, making everything IRL better.
Today, we live in an undeniably gamified world. We stand up and move around to close colorful rings and earn achievement badges on our smartwatches; we meditate and sleep to recharge our body batteries; we plant virtual trees to be more productive; we chase “likes” and “karma” on social media sites and try to swipe our way toward social connection. And yet for all the crude gamelike elements that have been grafted onto our lives, the more hopeful and collaborative world that gamification promised more than a decade ago seems as far away as ever. Instead of liberating us from drudgery and maximizing our potential, gamification turned out to be just another tool for coercion, distraction, and control.
The late 2000s and early 2010s were, as many have noted, a kind of high-water mark for techno-optimism. For people both inside the tech industry and out, there was a sense that humanity had finally wrapped its arms around a difficult set of problems, and that technology was going to help us squeeze out some solutions. Adding video games to this heady stew of optimism gave the game industry something it had long sought but never achieved: legitimacy.
Because gamification is so pervasive and varied, it’s hard to address its effectiveness in any direct or comprehensive way. But one can confidently say this: Gamification did not save the world.
3 key takeaways from the article
- Like any other art form, video games offer a staggering array of possibilities. They can educate, entertain, foster social connection, inspire, and encourage us to see the world in different ways. Some of the best ones manage to do all of this at once.
- Yet for many of us, there’s the sense today that we’re stuck playing an exhausting game that we didn’t opt into. This one assumes that our behaviors can be changed with shiny digital baubles, constant artificial competition, and meaningless prizes. Even more insulting, the game acts as if it exists for our benefit—promising to make us fitter, happier, and more productive—when in truth it’s really serving the commercial and business interests of its makers.
- So what can we do? If gamifying the world has turned our lives into a bad version of a video game, perhaps this is the perfect moment to reacquaint ourselves with why actual video games are great in the first place.
(Copyright lies with the publisher)
Topics: Technology and Humans, Gamification
Introducing Fortune’s first-ever Southeast Asia 500: Firms that mine stuff, make stuff, and move stuff dominate a fast-growing region
By Clay Chandler | Fortune Magazine | June 18, 2024
Extractive Summary of the Article | Read | Listen
The inaugural Fortune Southeast Asia 500 list, Fortune’s first-ever ranking of the largest companies in this part of the world, reflects a dynamic and fast-changing region—one that boasts a GDP of $4 trillion, and one whose core economies are growing notably faster than those of Europe or the U.S.
Southeast Asia is also taking on far greater significance in the global economy. In the wake of the COVID pandemic, a host of Global 500 multinationals have shifted more of their supply chains to Southeast Asian nations. Foreign direct investment to the region is soaring. And with a young and growing population of 680 million, low inflation, and stable exchange rates, Southeast Asia is emerging as an attractive market in its own right.
A defining feature of the Southeast Asia 500 is its domination by a handful of giant firms with far-flung global operations. Only five companies on the Southeast Asia 500 were large enough to have made the 2023 edition of the Fortune Global 500, for which the revenue threshold was $30.9 billion. By comparison, that list included 119 companies from Europe, 136 from the U.S., and 142 from China including Hong Kong and Taiwan.
In compiling the Southeast Asia 500, Fortune surveyed companies in the region’s six core economies plus Cambodia. Indonesia, with a population of 280 million and a GDP of $1.5 trillion, claimed the largest number of companies on the list, with 110. Thailand, with 70 million people and a $550 billion economy, came in a close second with 107. Singapore, with only 5.6 million people, punches way above its weight on the Southeast Asia 500, fielding 84 companies. Vietnam, one of the region’s fastest-growing economies, was home to 70 companies on the list.
A historically minded reader can find parallels between this list and the inaugural U.S. Fortune 500, from 1955. As with Southeast Asia’s rankings today, the top echelons of the first U.S. list were dominated by producers of major commodities: Four of the top 10 in 1955 were oil producers, for example, and two were steelmakers.
3 key takeaways from the article
- The inaugural Fortune Southeast Asia 500 list, Fortune’s first-ever ranking of the largest companies in this part of the world, reflects a dynamic and fast-changing region—one that boasts a GDP of $4 trillion, and one whose core economies are growing notably faster than those of Europe or the U.S.
- Southeast Asia is also taking on far greater significance in the global economy. In the wake of the COVID pandemic, a host of Global 500 multinationals have shifted more of their supply chains to Southeast Asian nations. Foreign direct investment to the region is soaring. And with a young and growing population of 680 million, low inflation, and stable exchange rates, Southeast Asia is emerging as an attractive market in its own right.
- A defining feature of the Southeast Asia 500 is its domination by a handful of giant firms with far-flung global operations. Indonesia claimed the largest number of companies on the list with 110. Thailand came in a close second with 107. Singapore fielded 84 companies. And Vietnam was home to 70 companies on the list.
(Copyright lies with the publisher)
Topics: Southeast Asian Economies, Global Economy, Globalization
Strategy & Business Model Section
Keep calm and allocate capital: Six process improvements
By Tim Koller with Zuzanna Kraszewska | McKinsey & Company | June 5, 2024
Extractive Summary of the Article | Read | Listen
Most large corporations have annual processes to allocate capital and other resources across business units and for strategic initiatives enterprise-wide. The typical practice is to begin with a strategy or “strategic refresh,” develop a long-term (three- to seven-year) financial plan, and lay out a highly detailed budget for the first year of the plan. Unfortunately, the processes are often both muddled and rigid; they typically take months to iterate, generate reams of distracting detail—and then fail to allow for sufficient flexibility to adjust resource allocation over the year. The result: a failure to align resources with strategy.
Every company faces unique challenges. Not all of the measures described here will be appropriate in every situation, and there’s no one-size-fits-all list of process improvements. However, the authors find that in most cases, senior leaders should do the following:
- Identify each business unit’s role and the most important enterprise initiatives. Every strategic refresh should address two fundamental questions: first, what is the role of each business in realizing company strategy (such as to accelerate growth, improve ROIC, or divest), and second, which specific initiatives are the highest priority for the company, within that business and across the enterprise. In the author’s experience, they have found that the sweet spot for companies is ten to 30 essential initiatives.
- Focus on a small number of key value drivers for the long-term financial plan. To be effective, a long-term financial plan needs to be concise. An enterprise runs on value drivers, not accounting items. An effective financial plan clearly lays out the most important value drivers for each business unit, surfacing the few key elements that are most important for profitable growth, return on capital, and other company imperatives. While the number of line items should be kept to a minimum, the number of business units or product lines should be sufficiently granular to aid the allocation of resources based on the roles, objectives, and needs of each business unit.
- Ensure that resources are allocated to the most important priorities. Be clear on targets and have the long-range financial plan highlight the specific resources that are allocated to the highest-priority initiatives, whether they are enterprise-wide or within a particular business unit, to make sure those targets are met.
- Base this year’s budget on the first year of the long-term financial plan. While the year one budget should be more detailed than the long-term financial plan, the top-line revenues, profits, and cash flows for each unit should always match year one of the long-term plan. Two techniques are useful for making this happen. First, start building the budget based on the initial year of the financial plan, rather than on last year’s budget or current year’s results. Second, require that only the CEO and CFO have authority to approve deviations from the long-range plan.
- Compress the time frame for the entire planning process. Financial planning can be a never-ending story. Precise timelines will vary depending on the enterprise—which in turn depends on its industry. But to borrow from the old saying, nothing so concentrates the mind as 24 weeks to finish a strategic refresh, a long-term financial plan, and year one of next year’s budget.
- Build in year-round resource allocation. To prepare for inevitable changes in the number of resources needed and available during the year, the authority for meaningful flexibility in resource allocation should belong only to senior leaders, at the enterprise level. An investment committee, including the CEO and CFO (and ideally only one to three additional voting members, with the CEO making the deciding call) should meet monthly to make important in-year investment decisions. These monthly meetings should be for decisions, not for progress updates or general reviews.
2 key takeaways from the article
- Most large corporations have annual processes to allocate capital and other resources across business units and for strategic initiatives enterprise-wide. Unfortunately, the processes are often both muddled and rigid. The result: a failure to align resources with strategy.
- In most cases, senior leaders should do the following to create this alignment: as part of the strategy or strategic refresh, identify the role of each business in realizing the company’s strategy and the company’s ten to 30 most important initiatives; use a streamlined approach to develop the company’s long-term financial plan by employing a value driver model, with only a few line items for each individual business unit or product line; ensure that the long-term financial plan allocates resources to the company’s ten to 30 most important initiatives; match next year’s budget to the first year of the long-term financial plan; keep to a compact planning schedule; and design in-year flexibility, at a regular cadence, to allocate more (or less) resources to existing or new initiatives.
(Copyright lies with the publisher)
Topics: Strategy, Business Model, Processes, Financial Planning, Financial Resource Allocation, Strategy Implementation, CEOs, CFOs, Financial Teams
Personal Development, Leading & Managing Section
How CEOs Build Confidence in Their Leadership
By Claudius A. Hildebrand et al., | Harvard Business Review Magazine | July–August 2024 Issue
Extractive Summary of the Article | Read | Listen
New CEOs frequently face a conundrum. While the people around them publicly express high hopes for what they’ll be able to achieve, in private those same people are skeptical. As a result many new CEOs underestimate how much work it takes to build confidence in their leadership—something that’s crucial to their ability to effectively drive change. Buoyed by outward expressions of support and eager to make their mark, they steam ahead with bold new initiatives before they’ve won the full support and trust of all stakeholders—and that gets them into trouble.
Few things instill more confidence than a strong track record does, yet if you’re a new CEO, you start with a blank slate. So how to proceed? Six key practices that you should apply systematically.
- Set a deliberate pace. Many new CEOs who, feeling the pressure to deliver quick wins, hit the ground at a full sprint, launching a variety of initiatives and pursuing multiple objectives without having secured the alignment of the board, their leadership team, or other key stakeholder groups. Needless to say, that approach backfires because the race they’re running is not a sprint but a marathon. A marathon requires patience, endurance, and a sustainable long-term strategy.
- Pick your battles strategically. New CEOs can benefit from quickly launching just a few well-structured initiatives, designed to help them gain momentum and signal to audiences inside and outside the organization the direction they plan to take. That approach allows you not only to demonstrate how and where you’ll focus your energies but also to develop a track record that gets stakeholders on your side.
- Align your team. The problem is, if you don’t have a team in place that’s cohesive, in agreement on objectives, and able to act effectively in support of your plans, it’s almost impossible to gain people’s confidence widely.
- Engage stakeholders at the right time. For most new CEOs, this process starts with the board. Building trust, familiarity, and support here is a priority, but new CEOs rarely recognize just how much time they’ll need to invest in learning the subtleties of boardroom dynamics and developing a strong relationship with each director.
- Communicate clearly and relentlessly. What’s the best way to handle it effectively? Repetition, repetition, repetition. No matter whom you’re addressing or in what setting, you’ll need to tell people what you’re going to tell them, tell them, and then tell them what you told them. You’ll get tired of this process, but remember: Much of what you’ll be saying either will feel new to your audience or will start to sink in only after many repetitions. Similarly, in all your communications, make sure to repeatedly signal progress: Remind your stakeholders where you started, where you are, and where you’re going. To help them recognize advances, break your overall journey into smaller, shorter parts with easily measurable objectives.
- Better yourself. With so many constituents to serve, most new CEOs don’t prioritize their own learning. That’s a mistake. Continued investment in your own abilities will help you gain stakeholders’ confidence and build your self-confidence more quickly. Most CEOs, new or experienced, benefit from having a coach or an adviser—somebody who can regularly hold up the mirror, help them grow, provide new perspectives, and push their thinking.
3 key takeaways from the article
- As a new CEO, you’ll find it tempting to seek out quick wins and take bold actions that reveal a decisive attitude. When you start your job, the excitement is high—and so is the pressure. But the journey to earning your stakeholders’ trust and support is neither short nor easy.
- Follow the following 6 steps to build this trust—set a deliberate pace, strategically pick your battles, mobilize your team, engage stakeholders at the right time, communicate clearly and relentlessly, and invest in self-betterment.
- Patience, persistence, and consistent communication during your early years will be key to navigating the complexities of leadership and maximizing the value you create in the long term.
(Copyright lies with the publisher)
Topics: Leadership, Stakeholders, Board Members
How to Come Back Stronger From Organizational Trauma
By Payal Sharma | MIT Sloan Management Review | Summer 2024 Issue
Extractive Summary of the Article | Read | Listen
It is a sobering reality of life today that many organizations across sectors and industries will face trauma. According to the author his institution, the Lee Business School at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), became one of them on Dec. 6, 2023, when a shooting on campus profoundly changed their community.
When we experience trauma, it shatters our belief that the world makes sense, and we consequently feel less safe, less in control, and more vulnerable. However, psychology research has also found that as they recover from trauma, individual survivors can experience post-traumatic growth (PTG). This process doesn’t minimize the suffering or psychological challenges that survivors encounter but rather taps the “rich and remarkable resources, creativity, and success of the human spirit to adapt, cope, and survive.
In the aftermath of trauma, how might leaders help their organization move forward to collectively survive — and even engage in learning and growth that surpasses its pretrauma state.
Events that cause trauma for organizations are catastrophic, life-threatening, or life-altering, and disrupt core functions; their causes can be either internal or external. They include incidents such as workplace violence, natural disasters, and terrorism.
For leaders to understand how to facilitate organizational growth after trauma, they first need to understand the psychological impact of trauma. Trauma destroys assumptive worlds or three core assumptions we have about the world and ourselves: We are safe. We have control. And we are deserving.
Thus, in the aftermath of trauma, leaders can facilitate their organization’s growth through the collective construction of revised beliefs that are more complex and concrete about safety, control, and protection. The goal is to create a rebuilt assumptive world that integrates the trauma, including an accompanying collective sense of vulnerability and disillusionment — but allows the group to move forward and cease fully defining itself by the trauma. This is also the path from seeing oneself as a victim to seeing oneself as a survivor.
Research into PTG in individuals has found three pathways for growth. The first, seeing strength through suffering, is recognizing that one has sufficient strength to tolerate and continue on despite pain and suffering. The second pathway, generating psychological preparedness, can be seen as building the capacity to face future traumatic events with equanimity. The third pathway, crafting greater meaning and purpose, arises as survivors of trauma often experience a change in perspective and reprioritize what they most value; they stop taking what’s important for granted. These can be activated in an organizational context by following the following: define your organization by your collective strength, generate organizational preparedness, and craft greater organizational meaning and purpose.
3 key takeaways from the article
- It is a sobering reality of life today that many organizations across sectors and industries will face trauma. When we experience trauma, it shatters our belief that the world makes sense, and we consequently feel less safe, less in control, and more vulnerable. Events that cause trauma for organizations are catastrophic, life-threatening, or life-altering, and disrupt core functions; their causes can be either internal or external.
- For leaders to understand how to facilitate organizational growth after trauma, they first need to understand the psychological impact of trauma.
- Research into Post Trauma Growth in individuals has found three pathways for growth. One, recognizing that one has sufficient strength to tolerate and continue on despite pain and suffering. Two, building the capacity to face future traumatic events with equanimity. Three, crafting greater meaning and purpose. These can be activated in an organizational context by following the following: define your organization by your collective strength, generate organizational preparedness, and craft greater organizational meaning and purpose.
(Copyright lies with the publisher)
Topics: Trauma, Organizational Sustainability, Leadership
Four Steps To Take If You Disagree With Your Company’s Strategic Direction
By Benjamin Laker | Forbes Magazine | June 19, 2024
Extractive Summary of the Article | Read | Listen
Disagreeing with the strategic direction of your company can be a challenging and uncomfortable position to be in. It often feels daunting to question decisions made by higher management, especially when those decisions are based on extensive analysis and a broader vision for the firm’s future.
You may worry about potential backlash, being perceived as a troublemaker, or even jeopardizing your career prospects. However, it’s important to remember that constructive dissent can be a powerful catalyst for positive change. When approached thoughtfully and respectfully, voicing your concerns can lead to meaningful discussions, improved strategies, and a more inclusive decision-making process.
By addressing your concerns constructively, you not only contribute to the betterment of the organization but also demonstrate your commitment to its success and long-term goals. So, here are four steps to take if you find yourself at odds with your organization’s strategic direction.
- Understand the Rationale. Before taking any action, it’s crucial to fully understand the rationale behind the strategic direction. Take the time to gather all available information regarding the strategy. This includes reading internal communications, attending meetings, and discussing with colleagues who might have more insight. If possible, review any presentations or documents that explain the strategy in detail, and take notes on key points and assumptions. Approaching the situation with a mindset of understanding rather than immediate opposition can provide you with the necessary context to evaluate the strategy more fairly.
- Collect Evidence and Constructive Feedback. The next step is to collect evidence and formulate constructive feedback. If you disagree with certain aspects of the strategy, gather data and examples that support your perspective. This could include market research, performance metrics, or case studies from similar companies. Constructive feedback should not only highlight the issues but also propose viable alternatives or improvements.
- Communicate Your Concerns Professionally. Schedule a meeting with your manager or relevant leadership to discuss your viewpoints. Choose an appropriate time and setting where you can have a focused and uninterrupted conversation. Before the meeting, organize your thoughts and prepare an outline of the key points you want to discuss, ensuring you stay on topic and make your case clearly. During the meeting, present your concerns clearly and respectfully. It’s important to remain calm and open to dialogue, showing that your goal is to contribute positively to the organization’s success. Be prepared to listen to the responses and engage in a constructive discussion, rather than simply presenting your point of view.
- Be Prepared for Different Outcomes. After communicating your concerns, be prepared for different outcomes. Leadership might agree with your perspective and consider making changes to the strategy. Alternatively, they might provide additional context that clarifies their decision, or they might choose to proceed with the current plan despite your feedback. Understanding that not all suggestions will be implemented is important for maintaining a professional attitude. Regardless of the outcome, maintain a professional attitude.
3 key takeaways from the article
- Disagreeing with the strategic direction of your company can be a challenging and uncomfortable position to be in. It often feels daunting to question decisions made by higher management, especially when those decisions are based on extensive analysis and a broader vision for the firm’s future.
- You may worry about potential backlash, being perceived as a troublemaker, or even jeopardizing your career prospects. However, it’s important to remember that constructive dissent can be a powerful catalyst for positive change. When approached thoughtfully and respectfully, voicing your concerns can lead to meaningful discussions, improved strategies, and a more inclusive decision-making process.
- By addressing your concerns constructively, you not only contribute to the betterment of the organization but also demonstrate your commitment to its success and long-term goals. So, here are four steps to take if you find yourself at odds with your organization’s strategic direction: understand the rationale, collect evidence and constructive feedback, communicate your concerns professionally, and be prepared for different outcomes.
(Copyright lies with the publisher)
Topics: Leadership, Strategic Planning, Decision-making
Entrepreneurship Section
10 Lessons on Collaboration to Expedite Your Business Success
By Martin Zwilling | Inc Magazine | June 17, 2024
Extractive Summary of the Article | Read | Listen
Any business founder with a vision can postulate a new business, but it takes the collaboration of many people to make it a success. Today the complexity of forces required for success include multidisciplinary skills, competencies, and experiences in which the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Business owners who embrace the lone-genius approach usually live to regret it.
While borrowing from the classic book The Collaboration Imperative, by Ron Ricci and Carl Wiese, which makes the case very well for why collaboration matters in every business, as well as startups, every business owner should heed the following lessons on collaboration:
- Consensus is the enemy of collaboration. Collaboration leaves everyone with a feeling of “win-win,” while consensus is “win-lose” or even “lose-lose.” Collaboration opens more possibilities, while consensus narrows them to a compromise.
- Collaboration has to start at the top. Company culture is not set by words but by the actions of the founder. That means treating everyone with respect and providing regular constructive feedback. Trust is required for every successful collaboration.
- The biggest barriers to collaboration are not technical. They are cultural and organizational in nature. Business executives need to first build a culture and processes with communication and shared goals, rather than internal competition and bureaucracy.
- Collaboration cannot be deployed — it must be embraced. Executives and managers must be willing participants, modeling collaborative behavior and embracing the technology tools, not just taskmasters. All team members must be committed.
- Good ideas come from anywhere, so the more voices the better. These are critical in arriving at a clear idea of what is important, exploring what is possible based on constraints, and coordinating effective actions to produce successful outcomes.
- Collaboration enhances personal communication skills. As team members interact and play to their strengths, they learn to be authentic and genuine, which increases their effectiveness as well as their skills. They reach agreement faster and communicate more.
- You get out of collaboration what you put in. According to a global study of business conducted by Frost & Sullivan, the return on a collaboration investment progressively improves as better tools are deployed and a collaborative culture takes shape.
- Collaboration success means changing both roles and rewards. This means creating processes that allow more perspectives, but make it clear who has decision-making rights. It’s essential to provide incentives to change ingrained behavior.
- More interaction opens opportunities to create more value. Within any given new business environment (market, industry structure, competitors, product/service mix, etc.), opportunities exist that are often missed unless everyone is listening and communicating.
- The average return on collaboration is four times the initial investment. From the study referenced, measured gains ranged from three to six times. This ROI comes from cost avoidance, cost reductions, business optimization, and faster business decisions.
2 key takeaways from the article
- Any business founder with a vision can postulate a new business, but it takes the collaboration of many people to make it a success. Today the complexity of forces required for success include multidisciplinary skills, competencies, and experiences in which the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Business owners who embrace the lone-genius approach usually live to regret it.
- The classic book The Collaboration Imperative, by Ron Ricci and Carl Wiese, makes the case very well for why collaboration matters in every business, as well as startups: consensus is the enemy of collaboration, collaboration has to start at the top, the biggest barriers to collaboration are cultural and organizational, good ideas come from anywhere, so the more voices the better, collaboration enhances personal communication skills, you get out of collaboration what you put in, collaboration success means changing both roles and rewards, more interaction opens opportunities to create more value, and the average return on collaboration is four times the initial investment.
(Copyright lies with the publisher)
Topics: Entrepreneurship, Startups, Collaboration, Culture, Innovation, Skills
I’ve Grown a High-Performing Team in Just 2 Years — Here’s are 5 Growth Strategies I Learned
By Greg Davis | Edited By Micah Zimmerman | Entrepreneur Magazine | June 18, 2024
Extractive Summary of the Article | Read | Listen
According to the author, when he transitioned as Bigleaf’s CEO in 2022, his day-one goal was establishing a solid, high-performing team. A team’s strength lies in its people’s skills and how they synergistically come together.
- Clear mission alignment, role clarity and accountability. One of the first steps the author took was ensuring every team member understood the company’s direction and aspirations. They clarified their product-market fit, value proposition, and the milestones critical to customer satisfaction. Moreover, they focus on reaching business goals by strategically tying job functions to them.
- Thoughtful performance metrics. Beyond ARR, they learned to balance their performance metrics carefully. Prioritizing one metric over another could lead to unintended consequences. For example, focusing on service quality alone could lead to inefficiency and vice versa. Their practice has evolved to meticulously analyze and strategically balance performance metrics. They incentivize the right behaviors aligned with the core of their business, which has worked wonders so far, helping them achieve desired outcomes across the organization. This also minimizes the risk of unforeseen repercussions.
- Intellectual safety. Creating an environment where every team member feels safe sharing ideas and challenging the status quo significantly influences their performance levels. Intellectual safety in the workplace can drive creativity. This open-door policy encourages open communication, innovation and risk-taking, allowing the team to collaborate and pioneer solutions to our unique challenges in the workplace and the business. They strive to maintain and solidify this culture to consistently boost morale, engagement and productivity and, ultimately, drive bottom-line results.
- Preventing burnout. To prevent burnout, he focuses first on maintaining his own equilibrium. As the saying goes, “You cannot pour from an empty cup.” As for the team, we keep our mission and goals clear, ensuring every task has a purpose. Having a dispersed work environment comes with its unique perks and challenges. Some members may feel tracking their time and productivity is a form of micromanagement; some may understand that it’s a tool to keep their focus on what really matters and spend less time on other tasks. Regardless, building that personal connection is essential. They hold regular in-person meetings, monthly all-hands-on-deck calls and an annual company gathering to strengthen that sense of belonging and unity. These initiatives are not merely logistical but crucial to maintaining their team’s overall health and morale.
- Learning from mistakes. Every mistake has been a step toward understanding what it truly takes to build a high-performing team. Leaders, as much as you want things done sooner, remember there are no shortcuts, especially in growing a team. Yes, following the more straightforward route or listening to a single opinion is tempting, especially in recruitment, but building comprehensive training programs is worth it.
3 key takeaways from the article
- According to the author, when he transitioned as Bigleaf’s CEO in 2022, his day-one goal was establishing a solid, high-performing team. A team’s strength lies in its people’s skills and how they synergistically come together.
- The author pursued the following to achieve the arduous task of establishment of a solid, high performing team: clear mission alignment, role clarity and accountability; thoughtful performance metrics; provide intellectual safety to your people; prevent burnout; and develop a culture that promotes learning from failure as well as successes.
- We should invest heavily in our people, providing ongoing training, encouraging open communication, and ensuring every team member feels valued and heard.
(Copyright lies with the publisher)
Topics: Startups, Growth, Team, Synergy, Skills, Learning, Culture
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.