Search results

This paper highlights the importance of executives taking a timeout to reflect – and to build that habit into their work routines.

It is based on extensive observation of and discussion with executives.

Most are so immersed in action and decision‐making that they have no time to think. The paper considers some of the barriers to pragmatic reflection and proposes ways round them – the aim being to help executives practice a new “learning cycle.”

Many executives are deluding themselves that their current mode of operation is sustainable. They must realize that they sometimes need to stop in order to progress.

The more turbulent the context, the higher the need for executives to reassess their priorities and the effort they require, and to develop a fresh perspective. Paradoxically, the less they can afford the time, the more they need to make the investment. Taking time out from the fray has become a matter of survival.

This paper aims to highlight the surprises awaiting executives making the transition from functional to general management responsibilities – and offer a guidance system to help general managers (GMs) focus their efforts.

The paper is based on extensive discussions with and informal surveys of executives.

General management responsibilities differ greatly from functional responsibilities, both in degree and in kind. The gap is larger than most executives anticipate. The big surprises are not always those that they expected. The way companies prepare executives for general management can generate problems of its own.

GMs need a guidance system for diagnosing where to spend their time and a system for exerting influence – and the paper provides a template.

The paper identifies the ways in which the move into general management presents a massive increase in the complexity of responsibilities for executives and why it is so challenging for many. The framework helps GMs anticipate and master the challenge of general management – and helps them prepare and develop their own subordinates for a similar move.

This interview of two IMD professors examines how leadership teams that are struggling to make decisions or experiencing tensions, can address the root causes of dysfunctionality -- "undiscussables" of some kind – unexpressed thoughts and feelings that, if addressed effectively, could help the team work more productively.

The interviewees identify four varieties of undiscussables, each with its own drivers and solutions: 10;∙9; “Things we think but don’t say.” 10;∙9; “Things we say but don’t mean.” 10;∙9; “Things we feel but can’t name.” 10;∙9; “Things we do but don’t realize.” 10;

Several high profile corporate disasters from Enron to Theranos are rooted in undiscussables with dysfunctional top teams stifling questioning voices and slowly creating a culture of fear denial and delusion that ends up leading the company astray. Team members are either unable or unwilling to express what ails them which systematically distorts their formal and informal interactions.

One key insight for leaders who are part of the “undicussable” proble: they need to demonstrate to followers that they prefer it when people push back and make them think.

By distinguishing the four types of undiscussables and delineating a fix for each the interview shows how to create a team context where criticism is an expected norm and questioning each other’s reasoning is not viewed as disloyal but rather as a valuable chance to learn and improve together.

Recruiting is a key aspect of building a leadership team. But hiring the right senior executives is not easy and can prove very costly when it goes wrong. This paper aims to address this issue.

This paper provides leaders with guidance on how to add value to the hiring process by improving their recruiting diagnostics.

The paper focuses on the concept of fit and unpacks the different strands: fit with the job, fit with the leader, fit with the team, and fit with the organization – not just with the current needs of the organization, but also with its emerging talent requirements.

Based on extensive discussions with senior executives and leaders and their answers to informal surveys, the paper also draws on published interviews with high‐profile CEOs. It considers the types of questions that leaders must ask and the cues to listen for when assessing fit. It also proposes questions designed to gauge the authenticity of a candidate's responses. Finally, it reminds leaders of their responsibility to provide candidates with the right information to make informed decisions.

Hiring errors have expensive consequences and leaders must continually improve their hiring diagnostics by paying as much attention to recruitment failures as they do to learning in other domains.

This paper explains how leaders who become more effective at hiring can be “masters of fit.”

The employee‐supervisor's relationship is crucial to a library's success. The purpose of this paper is to explore how supervisors interpret staff traits and behaviours including the “setting up‐to‐fail syndrome.”

The approach is a literature review of the set‐up‐to‐fail syndrome.

Supervisors are not aware that their first impressions of an employee is formed within the first few days of employment. Labeling the employee may be setting the employee up for failure from the start. Supervisors should be aware of this syndrome.

The paper makes library supervisors aware of the set‐up‐to‐fail syndrome and how to alleviate this syndrome in their workplace.

Addresses the cultural dimension of uncertainty avoidance (UA), of US and German staffing decisions – but uses a different viewpoint. Discusses and challenges the hitherto accepted meaning of individual positions of countries UA, using Höfstede’s guide. Adumbrates the concept of UA at the two levels of society and organization, linking the two levels. Concludes that low Höfstede UA index does not necessarily mean no or little need for certainty even in France and Denmark.