Search results

This case example looks at how Deloitte Consulting applies the Three Rules synthesized by Michael Raynor and Mumtaz Ahmed based on their large-scale research project that identified patterns in the way exceptional companies think.

The Three Rules concept is a key piece of Deloitte Consulting’s thought leadership program. So how are the three rules helping the organization perform? Now that research has shown how exceptional companies think, CEO Jim Moffatt could address the question, “Does Deloitte think like an exceptional company?”

Deloitte has had success with an approach that promotes a bias towards non-price value over price and revenue over costs.

It’s critical that all decision makers in an organization understand how decisions that are consistent with the three rules have contributed to past success as well as how they can apply the rules to difficult challenges they face today.

This is the first case study written from a CEO’s perspective that looks at how the Three Rules approach of Michael Raynor and Mumtaz Ahmed can foster a firm’s growth and exceptional performance.

Justice rules are standards that serve as criteria for formulating fairness judgments. Though justice rules play a role in the organizational justice literature, they have seldom been the subject of analysis in their own right. To address this limitation, we first consider three meta-theoretical dualities that are highlighted by justice rules – the distinction between justice versus fairness, indirect versus direct measurement, and normative versus descriptive paradigms. Second, we review existing justice rules and organize them into four types of justice: distributive (e.g., equity, equality), procedural (e.g., voice, consistent treatment), interpersonal (e.g., politeness, respectfulness), and informational (e.g., candor, timeliness). We also emphasize emergent rules that have not received sufficient research attention. Third, we consider various computation models purporting to explain how justice rules are assessed and aggregated to form fairness judgments. Fourth and last, we conclude by reviewing research that enriches our understanding of justice rules by showing how they are cognitively processed. We observe that there are a number of influences on fairness judgments, and situations exist in which individuals do not systematically consider justice rules.

Delivering performance is the primary accountability of the board. To perform boards need to integrate strategic thinking with strategic planning and strategic execution. Directors need to ensure, for successful roll out of their strategy, that the enterprise has the relevant decision‐making structures and skill sets needed for implementation and pertinent communication systems for the timely and complete execution of the activities required to achieve the objectives that derive from the strategy. Most enterprises do each of the three independent of the other and spend much time and energy attempting to bring the disparate, disconnected and often conflicting pieces together. The paper aims to outline a tested method for integrating the three elements by design and to demonstrate, in practical terms, the benefits that accrue. It outlines a strategic approach to development and deployment of strategy. It further outlines a framework to cascade the thinking, planning and execution down to the levels that deliver.

The concept of a performing board, as distinct from a board focused on compliance, is clarified. The paper develops a nested set of rules – three rules of three. The first set of three integrates performance, conformance and compliance, all three of which are central and required for effective governance; the aim is to provide a structure to guide the thinking processes, at the board level, so essential for the development of strategy aimed at execution. The second rule of three is designed to ensure effective deployment of strategy, which is viewed as the core index of board performance. It comprises and combines strategy with structure and structure with systems to facilitate the planning for execution by the directors. This approach helps crystallize the key result areas of strategic outcomes desired. Policy, people and process combine to form the third set of three and are aimed at efficient implementation of the outcomes derived from the thinking and planning process. All three in this set are derived from the second set of three. The paper discusses how these three rules feed into and off each other and the benefits of a structured, replicable process for development, deployment and implementation of strategy.

This article leverages the finding of the author that directors seldom, if ever, see their roles as overseers of enterprise performance. The usual tick box approach to ensure that statutory and regulatory corporate governance reports are filed in time has failed to deliver the revised expectations of directors. Many rules and regulations have been added to improve board accountability since the last decade of the twentieth century. Yet most boards continue to under‐perform. The integrated approach, while demanding, ensures that directors can oversee a well governed, proactively directed and well managed enterprise without having to micro manage the firm.

Many of the concepts and terms used are industry standard and referred to frequently in governance literature. The originality is set in enunciating the concept of performance governance, differentiating it from compliance and conformance and detailing its implications for directors in full. The value is embedded in the structured expose of the various relationships which enables real time real world execution.

Expectations ostensibly lead to the formation of hierarchies, and hierarchies are thought to improve coordination. A simulation model is introduced to determine whether expectations directly improve coordination.

Agent-based simulations of small group behavior are used to determine what rules for expectation formation best coordinate groups. Within groups of agents that have differing but unknown task abilities, pairs take turns playing a coordination game with one another. The group receives a positive payoff when one agent chooses to take a high-importance role (leader) and the other chooses a low-importance role (follower), where the payoff is proportional to the ability of the “leader.” When both individuals vie to be leader, a costly conflict gives the group information about which agent has a higher task-ability.

The rules governing individuals’ formation of expectations about one another often lead to coordination that is suboptimal: They do not capitalize on the differential abilities of group members. The rules do, however, minimize costly conflicts between individuals. Therefore, standard rules of expectation formation are only optimal when conflicts are costly or provide poor information.

Rules that govern the formation of expectations may have served an evolutionary purpose in guiding individuals towards coordination while minimizing conflict, but these psychologically hardwired rules lead to suboptimal hierarchies.

This paper looks at how well empirically observed expectation-generating rules lead to group coordination by adding a game theoretic conception of interaction to the e-state structuralism model of hierarchy formation.

The purpose of this paper is to reexamine the value, momentum and size factors employed in the trading strategy originally proposed by Reinganum. Also to enhance our understanding of the impact of these factors over time; to evaluate the effectiveness of these factors; to develop new strategies through a framework presented by Chan et al.; and to investigate the possibility of limiting the number of filters to allow for a larger universe of eligible stocks without hurting performance for both long and short strategies.

Using data from 1970 to 1983, Reinganum developed a profitable trading strategy based on four (or nine) variables to select stocks. First this paper shows why it is increasingly difficult to implement his original trading strategy, then tests his strategy on 23 additional years of data through 2006, and compares it to similar strategies that incorporate straightforward modifications to his filters. The analysis is further extended to a long/short trading strategy similar to that of Chan et al.

Using the Capital Asset Pricing Model, Fama‐French's three‐factor model and Carhart's four‐factor model to evaluate returns following portfolio formation, significant and consistent alphas and portfolio sizes were found.

It is concluded that strategies that mix value, momentum and size filter rules can be developed to produce consistently negative or non‐positive (vs solely positive) alphas.

The paper shows that it is possible to form profitable short‐only and long/short strategies and to increase the number of eligible stocks in the sample despite our modifications to Reinganum's variables. By creating strategies based on mixed filter rules to produce either consistently positive (or negative) risk‐adjusted returns, it can be concluded that slightly different versions of a given filter rule – often much simpler versions – not only enhance return performance but also increase its effectiveness in terms of portfolio size.

This study aims to investigate the configurational effects of five rules – artificial intelligence (AI)-based hiring decision transparency, consistency, voice, explainability and human involvement – on applicants' procedural justice perception (APJP) and applicants' interactional justice perception (AIJP). In addition, this study examines whether the identified configurations could further enhance applicants' organisational commitment (OC).

Drawing on the justice model of applicants' reactions, the authors conducted a longitudinal survey of 254 newly recruited employees from 36 Chinese companies that utilise AI in their hiring. The authors employed fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to determine which configurations could improve APJP and AIJP, and the authors used propensity score matching (PSM) to analyse the effects of these configurations on OC.

The fsQCA generates three patterns involving five configurations that could improve APJP and AIJP. For pattern 1, when AI-based recruitment with high interpersonal rule (AI human involvement) aims for applicants' justice perception (AJP) through the combination of high informational rule (AI explainability) and high procedural rule (AI voice), there must be high levels of AI consistency and AI voice to complement AI explainability, and only this pattern of configurations can further enhance OC. In pattern 2, for the combination of high informational rule (AI explainability) and low procedural rule (absent AI voice), AI recruitment with high interpersonal rule (AI human involvement) should focus on AI transparency and AI explainability rather than the implementation of AI voice. In pattern 3, a mere combination of procedural rules could sufficiently improve AIJP.

This study, which involved real applicants, is one of the few empirical studies to explore the mechanisms behind the impact of AI hiring decisions on AJP and OC, and the findings may inform researchers and managers on how to best utilise AI to make hiring decisions.

The purpose of this paper is to review the phenomenon of moral principles as they have been adopted over time. The paper specifically reviews the Golden Rule, and the subsequently formulated Platinum Rule. While the value of both these rules is underscored, the paper also reviews their weaknesses in light of our new millennium awareness of increased globality and ensuing interconnectedness. The paper makes a statement that even moral principles that have been around for centuries, may have to be reevaluated in light of changed circumstances, and conclusively presents “The Spiritual Rule,” a principle that eliminates the risk of excessive arbitrariness, and calls for consideration of all life on earth in every decision we make.

This paper is a conceptual paper, reflecting on two existing principles that influence the way human beings, and therefore managers as well, make their decisions in general. The author first briefly reviews both principles (or “rules”), subsequently analyzes their weaknesses in light of contemporary developments, and ultimately introduces a new principle, the spiritual rule, thereby drawing on supporting statements various researchers and authors with in‐depth consideration of modern days' developments in human interaction.

When one wants to engage in “good business” in these and future days, one can no longer merely focus on a one‐on‐one perspective, or limit ourselves to the stakes of only two parties. There are greater interests at stake and there are larger groups of people involved in our decisions. Individualism has proven its merit, but so has collectivism. The awareness that is dawning upon us these days is that no extreme is of lasting benefit to all of us. A well‐considered blend of various strategies, resulting from openness to other ways of thinking, is the enlightened behavioral paradigm in and outside of the workplace.

There are many complicated theories out there about how leaders should make their decisions. However, what works best is a simple guideline that can be used in all situations and environments and that is based on the realization that human beings are first and foremost interconnected spiritual entities. This paper addresses this need and identifies the important practical considerations that leaders will need to include in their decisions.

The paper's unique contribution is to offer a moral principle that incorporates the spiritual dimension in every area of decision‐making. The three considerations presented in this paper, reduction of selfish reflections, reduction of unjust assessments of other's wishes, and reduction of harm to the welfare of our planet, are on target with the trends toward global interconnectedness and encourage leaders to consider the value of implementing and maintaining the spiritual rule.

To introduce and analyze recent amendments to the rules of three US securities exchanges to add specific continued listing standards applicable to exchange-traded funds (ETFs).

Provides an introduction and summary overview of the topic, summarizes the scope of the rule changes, discusses the industry reaction to the proposed rule changes and the regulator’s response, notes the applicability of the rule changes to ETFs relying on their own fund-specific regulatory relief, and identifies compliance dates.

Each of three US securities exchanges filed separate proposals to amend their listing standards to add specific continued listing standards for ETFs. Notwithstanding various concerns expressed in comment letters from key industry participants, by March 2017 the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved all three proposals in substantially the form proposed.

ETF sponsors should note that significant compliance enhancements may be required to ensure proper and continuous testing of securities in an ETF’s underlying index and/or portfolio in lieu of testing for compliance solely at the time of initial listing or at the time of an investment decision. The rule changes are scheduled to take effect by October 1, 2017.

Practical analysis from a premier financial services law firm on the issues presented by the ETF rule changes.

So far, the simplicity of heuristics has been mostly studied at the rule level. However, actors' bounded rationality implies that small bundles of rules drive behavior. This study thus conducts a conceptual elaboration around such bundling. This leads to reflections on the various processes of heuristic emergence and to qualifications of the respective characteristics of basic heuristic classes.

Determining which rules – out of many possible ones – to select in one's small bundle constitutes a difficult combinatorial problem. Fortunately, past research has demonstrated that solutions can be found in evolutionary mechanisms. Those converge toward bundles that are somewhat imperfect yet cannot be easily improved, a.k.a., locally optimal bundles. This paper therefore identifies that heuristic bundles can efficiently emerge by social evolutionary mechanisms whereby actors recursively exchange, adopt and perform bundles of rules constitute processes of heuristic emergence.

Such evolutionary emergence of socially calculated small bundles of heuristics differs from the agentic process by which some simple rule heuristics emerge or from the biological calculation process by which some behavioral biology heuristics emerge. The paper subsequently proceeds by classifying heuristics depending on their emergence process, distinguishing, on the one hand, agentic vs evolutionary mechanisms and, on the other hand, social vs biological encodings. The differences in the emergence processes of heuristics suggest the possibility of comparing them on three key characteristics – timescale, reflectivity and local optimality – which imply different forms of fitness.

The study proceeds as a conceptual elaboration; hence, it does not provide empirics. At a microlevel, it enables classification and comparison of the largest possible range of heuristics. At a macrolevel, it advocates for further exploration of managerial bundles of rules, regarding both their dynamics and their substantive nature.

In the field, practitioners are often observed to socially construct their theory of action, which emerges as a bundle of heuristics. This study demonstrates that such social calculations provide solutions that have comparatively good qualities as compared to heuristics emerging through other processes, such as agentic simple rules or instinctive – i.e. behavioral biology – heuristics. It should motivate further research on bundles of heuristics in management practice. Such an effort would improve the ability to produce knowledge fitting the absorptive capacity of practitioners and enhance the construction of normative managerial theories and pedagogy.

Bundles of rules may also play a crucial role in the emergence of collective action. This study contributes to a performativity perspective whereby theories can become reality. It demonstrates how the construction of a managerial belief system may amount to the launching of a social movement and vice versa.

Overall, many benefits accrue from integrating the bundles of rules expressed and exchanged by practitioners under the heuristic umbrella. So far, in management scholarship, such emergent objects have sometimes been interpreted as naïve or as indicative of institutional pressures. By contrast, this study shows that socially calculated bundles may efficiently combine the advantages of individuals' reflective cognitive processes with those provided by massive evolutionary exchanges. In conclusion, the social calculations of small heuristic bundles may constitute a crucial mechanism for the elaboration of pragmatic theories of action.

The way organizations cope with uncertainty in strategic decision making is prominently discussed. Concepts such as heuristics and simple rules are gaining increasing attention in strategic management research. However, despite their importance, little is known how heuristics and simple rules operate. Our qualitative study reveals that, first, strategic decisions consist of three basic elements: single rules, rule patterns, and emotional handling. Second, we find that firms develop generalizable rule patterns which follow a sequential order of inter-linked rules. Based on the findings we introduce the concept of organizational heuristics as inter-linked rule patterns drawing on organizational experience.