Becoming The Boss PDF

“BECOMING THE BOSS,” by Hill, L.A. The initial process of becoming a leader is long and hard, but also rewarding and a journey of continuous learning and self-development. Most new managers initially feel disoriented and overwhelmed. This is mainly because they have wrong assumptions about what it m...

“BECOMING THE BOSS,” by Hill, L.A. The initial process of becoming a leader is long and hard, but also rewarding and a journey of continuous learning and self-development. Most new managers initially feel disoriented and overwhelmed. This is mainly because they have wrong assumptions about what it means to be in charge. Moreover, managers have explained that as firms become leaner and more dynamic, the transition gets harder and harder. 1. Why Learning to Manage Is So Hard One of the first think managers learn is that their role is even more demanding than they had thought. They don’t always realize that the skills and methods required to be an effective and successful manager differ from the ones required for a successful contributor. Beforehand, they were responsible for their own successes. Now, they are responsible for setting and implementing an agenda for a whole group. Shelves are filled with books describing effective and successful leaders, but very few explain the challenges of learning to lead. Learning how to be a good manager – a good leader – is a process of learning by doing. Learning how to be a manager can’t be learned in books; it is a skill learned through on-the-job experiences. This learning occurs incrementally and gradually; as the managers unlearns a mind-set and habits that served him in the past, a new professional identity emerges. 2. A New Manager’s Misconceptions The main problem in the transition to a managing position is the misconceptions about the role of a manager. The ideas new managers have on their role are usually simplistic and incomplete. The main misconceptions/myths associated with the role of managers are the followings: (1) Managers wield significant authority Before becoming managers, they had the idea that they would “finally have the freedom to implement [their] own ideas.” However, the reality is much different: they are embedded in interdependency relationships; both with their subordinates and bosses, peers, and others inside and outside the organization – all of whom make relentless and often conflicting demands on them. Until they give up the myth of authority, new managers will not be able to lead effectively. They must build effective relationships with the key people the team depends on in order to have all the resources needed for the job. Managers often ignore this and focus on “immediate” tasks. But in the long run, this is not the right decision. (2) Authority flows from the manager’s position New managers do wield some power. However, most of them mistakenly believe their power is based on the formal authority that comes with their position in the hierarchy. In fact, when direct reports are told to do something they don’t necessarily respond. In fact, the more talented the subordinate, the less likely they will simply follow orders. Managers soon realize that their authority emerges on as they establish credibility with subordinates, peers, and superiors – which is often harder than imagined. Moreover, many are unaware of the qualities that contribute to credibility: (1) Character – the intention to do the right thing. This can be found in everything: the statements given, the nonverbal gesture, etc. (2) Competence – knowing how to do the right thing. This is often complicated because managers feel the need to prove their technical knowledge and prowess. However, this is useful while trying to gain subordinates’ respect, but not with direct reports. (3) Influence – the ability to deliver and execute the right thing. Managers need to build their influence by creating a web of strong, interdependent relationships, based on credibility and trust, throughout their team and the entire organization. By Angie Marinelli Management of Organizations 9  (3) Managers must control their direct reports Most new managers yearn for compliance from their subordinates. They fear that if they don’t establish this early on, their direct reports will walk all over them. However, compliance doesn’t equal commitment. If people aren’t committed, they won’t take the initiative. And if subordinates aren’t taking the initiative, the manager can’t delegate effectively. In an ideal way, managers should create a culture of inquiry – an organization in which people feel empowered, committed, and accountable for fulfilling the company’s vision. The more power managers are willing to share in this way, the more influence they tend to command. When they lead in a manner that allows their people to take the initiative, they build their own credibility as managers. (4) Managing must focus on forging good individual relationships Managing interdependencies and exercising informal authority derived from personal credibility require new managers to build trust, influence, and mutual expectations with a wide array of people. This is done by establishing productive personal relationships. However, ultimately, a manager must focus on harnessing the power of a team rather than one-to-one relationships. New managers tend to forget their team-building responsibilities and attend primarily individual performance. They hardly ever rely on group forums for identifying and solving problems. Managers later learn that supervising each individual and leading a team aren’t the same thing. (5) Managers must ensure that things run smoothly – Managers will be given the conditions for success Making sure an operation is operating smoothly is an incredibly difficult task. Managers are responsible for recommending and initiating changes that will enhance their groups’ performance; not make sure that things currently run smoothly. New managers need to generate changes, both within and outside their areas of responsibility, to ensure that their teams can succeed. They need to work to change the context in which their teams operate, ignoring their lack of formal authority. New managers often expect that the conditions for their success will be handed to them: enough time, enough budget, etc. However, this is not the case: Managers must create the conditions for their success. 3. New Managers Aren’t Alone New managers can learn the easiest and the fastest from their peers, colleagues, superiors, etc. However, this can also make them look “weak” or “not smart enough” therefore, managers often try to learn everything on their own. This only makes their learning longer and harder. If they had turned to their peers or superiors before, in most cases they would have noticed that they are nicer than they thought. Helping a new manager succeed doesn’t only benefit that individual, but the whole organization. By Angie Marinelli Management of Organizations 10  “CREATING SHARED VALUE,” by Porter, E. and Kramer, M. 1. Capitalism Today Capitalism is an unparalleled vehicle for meeting human needs, improving efficiency, creating jobs, and building wealth. But a narrow conception of capitalism has prevented business from harnessing their full potential. Today, companies are widely perceived to be prospering at the expense of the broader community; people are losing trust in the business. Thus, political leaders create policies that undermine competitiveness and sap economic growth. This puts business in a vicious circle. Companies keep viewing value creation narrowly, optimizing short-term financial performance rather than long- term success. People presume there is a trade-off between economic efficiency and social progress. Thus, most companies remain stuck in a “social responsibility” mind-set in which societal issues are at the periphery, not the core. Corporate responsibility programs have emerged for firms to improve their reputations and are seen as a necessary expense. However, a few companies, such as GE, Google, IBM, Intel, and Johnson & Johnson, have reconceived the intersection between society and corporate performance. Putting value creating as the center of their business and creating shared value. 2. What is Shared Value? 2.1. Shared Value Defined Creating economic value in a way that also creates value for society by addressing its needs and challenges is the main principle of creating shared value. Doing so does not raise costs for firms, because they can innovate and as a result, increase their productivity and expand their markets. Companies that manage to create share value (such as GE, Google, and the others mentioned previously) have a far deeper appreciation of societal needs, a greater understanding of the true bases of company productivity, and the ability to collaborate across profit/nonprofit boundaries. Shared value founds its source within the community. A business needs a successful community, not only to create demand for its products but also to provide critical public assets and a supportive environment. Plus, a community needs successful businesses to provide jobs and wealth creation > opportunities for its citizens. This interdependencies means that public policies that undermine the productivity and competitiveness of business are self-defeating, especially in global economies. So, in other words, shared value can be defined as policies and operating practices that enhance the competitiveness of a company while simultaneously advancing the economic and social conditions in the communities in which it operates. 2.2. The Difference Between Shared Value and CSR CSR CSV > Value: doing good > Value: economic and societal Creating shared value (CSV) should supersede benefits relative to cost corporate social responsibility (CSR) in guiding the > Citizenship, philanthropy, > Joint company and community sustainability value creation investments of companies in their communities. > Discretionary or in response > Integral to competing CSR programs focus mostly on reputation and have to external pressure only a limited connection to the business, making > Separate from profit maximization > Integral to profit maximization them hard to justify and maintain over the long run. > Agenda is determined by > Agenda is company specific In contrast, CSV is integral to a company’s external reporting and personal preferences and internally generated profitability and competitive position. It leverages > Impact limited by corporate > Realigns the entire company the unique resources and expertise of the company footprint and CSR budget budget Example: Fair trade purchasing Example: Transforming procure- to create economic value by creating social value. ment to increase quality and yield In both cases, compliance with laws and ethical standards and reducing harm from corporate activities are assumed. By Angie Marinelli Management of Organizations 23  3. Three Ways to Create Shared Value Companies can create economic value by creating societal value. There are three distinct ways to do this: (1) by reconceiving products and markets, (2) redefining productivity in the value chain, and (3) building supportive industry clusters at the company’s locations. Each of these is part of the virtuous circle of shared value; improving value in one area gives rise to opportunities in the others. 3.1. Reconceiving Products and Markets Society’s needs are the greatest unmet needs in the global economy. Business have spent decades learning how to parse and manufacture demand while missing the idea of creating shared value. When business focus on creating shared value, society’s gains are even greater. Moreover, disadvantaged communities and developing countries must be recognized as viable markets. Mostly because societal needs are even more pressing there. Overall, company’s starting point for creating shared value is by identifying all the societal needs, benefits, and harms embodied in the firm’s products. Once this is done, the company can reconceive their product to meet society’s needs. 3.2. Redefining Productivity in the Supply Chain A company’s value chain inevitably affects numerous societal issues such as natural resources and water use, health and safety, working conditions, and excess packaging of products. Such societal issues are an opportunity for firms to create shared value. Note that the connections between societal progress and productivity in the value chain are far deeper than what is traditionally believed. Synergy increases when firms approach societal issues from a shared value perspective and invent new ways of operating to address them. The most important ways in which shared value thinking is transforming the value chain are detailed below. Note that they tend to be mutually reinforcing rather than independent. (1) Energy use and logistics. With the new awareness of opportunities for energy efficiency, the use of energy is being re-examined throughout the value chain. Companies are also now thinking of the consequences of outsourcing and location. (2) Resource use. Better resource utilization will permeate all parts of the value chain and will spread to suppliers and channels. (3) Procurement. By increasing access to inputs, sharing technology, and providing financing, companies can improve suppliers’ quality and productivity. This makes supplier stronger and increase their profits – thus, creating shared value. (4) Distribution. Companies are re-examining distribution practices from a shared value perspective. New distribution models also help reduce resource use (e.g. plastic and paper). Moreover, opportunities for new distribution models can be even greater in non-traditional markets (5) Employee productivity. Awareness of the positive effects that a living wage, safety, wellness, training, and opportunities for advancement for employees have on productivity. (6) Location. Companies are now thinking on the impact of their location. Bad locations can increase transportation costs and lower the help of the local community. Strongest international competitors are often those who established deeper roots in important communities. 3.3. Enabling Local Cluster Development Success of every company affected by the supporting companies and infrastructure around it. Productivity and innovation are strongly influenced by clusters – a geographic concentration of interconnected businesses, suppliers, and associated institutions in a particular field. They also include businesses, academic institutions, trade associations, etc. Overall, they play a crucial role in driving By Angie Marinelli Management of Organizations 24 productivity, innovation, and competitiveness in the surrounding community. Firms create shared value by building clusters to improve company productivity while addressing gaps or failures in the framework conditions surrounding the cluster. Benefits of clusters apply not only in emerging economies but also in advanced countries. A key aspect of cluster building in both developing and developed countries is the formation of open and transparent markets. They can allow a company to secure reliable supplies and give suppliers better incentives for quality and efficiency. This leads to a positive cycle of economic and social development. 4. Capitalism with Shared Value The narrow conception of capitalism has prevented business from harnessing its full potential to meet society’s broader challenges. The purpose of a corporation must be redefined as creating shared value, not just profit. This will reshape capitalism and its relationship to society. Creating shared value represents a broader conception of Adam Smith’s invisible hand; it opens the doors of the pin factory to a wider set of influences. By Angie Marinelli Management of Organizations 25  “LEAN IN VERSUS THE LITTERATURE: AN EVIDENCE BASED EXAMINATION,” by Chrobot-Mason et al. 1. The Lean-In Premise In her book, Sheryl Sandberg cites evidence showing sex inequalities (pay inequalities and different positions in hierarchy). She concludes that women are facing significant barriers – both internal and external. Internal barriers are those that exist within oneself, while external barriers include organizational and societal policies, practices, and structures. Ultimately, Sandberg delivers advices for career women related to internal barriers. 2. An Evidence-Based Management Approach Evidence-based management has been defined as a willingness to put aside conventional wisdom and instead gather and then act upon facts to make informed and intelligent management decisions. It involves gathering evidence and then facing the facts about what works and what does not. In the following section, Sandberg’s six arguments are analyzed using evidence-based management. 3. The Examinations of Six Key Arguments Explications Findings Conclusion Research found that gender differences in Women hold self-efficacy is an important predictor of themselves back by leadership performance. having low self- Moreover, researchers found that women’s confidence successes tend to be attributed by others to (1) Women are holding themselves back external factors, rather than internal. Perhaps women hold themselves back, but it Researchers found that there was a difference doesn’t seem to be the in self-promotion due to gender expectations. Women don’t result of a lack of desire “raise their hands” Women might speak up, but they aren’t to engage in leadership necessarily heard. Women are interrupted roles. more than men. Women lower the There isn’t such a difference in the interest in expectations of challenging work due to gender differences, what they can however, there is a significant gender gap in achieve receiving those. Women tend not Researchers didn’t find any evidence that before they leave (2) Women leave Overall, this is not such a to aim for high psychological withdrawal is due to gender conscious strategy for position because gaps. However, they found that when women women but more of the they someday hope get pregnant, they tend to work even harder result of untenable, self- to leave and have a to maintain their professional image. Which imposed role demands. family often leads to a burnout. By Angie Marinelli Management of Organizations 30  (3) Women must change Sandberg is challenging women To asses this, researchers used the theory of Overall, literature their mindset to ignore to internalize the reasoned action (TRA) model. They found that confirms Sandberg’s negative messages revolution by our intended behavior is predicted by two point of view. It says changing their psychological constructs: (1) our own that gender stereotypes mindset and attitudes towards behavior, and (2) subjective are particularly harmful turning out the norms or our perceptions of how others to women. Hence, they negative messages expect us to behave. should ignore them. they often hear. Sandberg argues Researchers found that the process of Developing a leadership that fears are the claiming leadership is usually as follows: identity and leadership overcome their fears (4) Women need to root of most comparing yourself with schema of leadership, self-efficacy seem to go barriers. Thus, then experience with provisional/possible hand in hand, and those women should put selves. women wo are able to them aside and develop both benefit Moreover, identification as a leader enhances claim a leadership significantly in the work motivation to lead, engagement and identity. domain. opportunity seeking. Overall, while mentoring helps women’s (5) Women should seek support from advancement more than Sandberg argues men’s, psychosocial that women tend Research showed that mentoring and social support reduces to seek advice on support are routinely good for women, and women’s advancement also that more is better. other to achieve success how to manage more than men’s. their career rather Research showed that participation in Men are more likely to than men that seek mentoring needs to focus on task-related obtain opportunities for advice on how to support? promotions through manage a business. informal social network whereas women are more reliant to traditional routes Females are expected to behave within a narrower range of what is considered Overall, we can say that (6) Women must be authentic acceptable behavior for leadership positions. it is difficult for women Therefore, if being authentic falls outside of to act authentically. Sandberg says that this range, women will likely be perceived as women should be Women who have lower performers in their leadership positions. true to themselves broken through the and their values. Women tend to have more communal glass ceiling are qualities, and men more agentic qualities. perceived to be quite However, successful leaders are associated excellent, regardless of with agentic qualities rather than communal their qualities. qualities. 4. Does the Same Advice Hold True for Women of Color? Much of these advices come from Sandberg’s personal experience. However, the overall experience of exposure to gender-based stereotypes, bias, and discrimination is a shared phenomenon across racial groups. In facts, research suggests that it is even more disturbing for non-white women. Moreover, research also says that as minority groups are combined (black women, lesbian women, etc.) the discrimination is even higher. Moreover, for such women of minorities, it is even less advised to be true to themselves as it can lead to even more problems. By Angie Marinelli Management of Organizations 31  5. What About Social Class? One of the biggest criticism of her book is her tendency to focus on the upper social classes. While her advices are significant for such women, some others are in jobs that do not provide opportunities or mentors – dead-end jobs. However, once women succeed to higher levels, opportunities should expand to all women. By Angie Marinelli Management of Organizations 32 ariance agreement was k = 0!90 (Cohen 1960). Disagreements nguage were resolved through discussion between the coders. on one Next, the second author provided an outsider viewpoint. swing Through extensive discussions, the two authors debated ! ! ! and interpretations of the data and probed how data fit within ements the proposed dimensions. All discrepancies were dis- erences cussed to reach agreement. rviews. d tech- “EXPLOITATION-EXPLORATION TENSIONS AND ORGANIZATIONAL Stage 4. Building a Theoretical Framework. In the final stage, we drew on existing studies of ambidexterity fically, codes AMBIDEXTERITY: MANAGING PARADOXES OF INNOVATION,” by and paradox to refine our labels and understandings. To converge on a parsimonious set of constructs, we focused e used when Andriopoulos, C., and Lewis, M.W. only on the most robust findings. Figures 1(a) and 1(b) depict data structures for identified paradoxes of innova- Corbin tion andInnovation – which respectively. their management, denotes intricate knowledge management processes of identifying and utilizing nsights ideas, tools, and opportunities to create new or enhanced products or services, marks a vital but gement challengingParadoxes 4. Findings: managerial ofresponsibility. Innovation To prosper, or even survive, firms must excel at both exploitative es, we – extends current and Their Management knowledge, seeking greater efficiency and improvements to enable incremental e qual- innovation, Investigating and exploratory innovation exploitation-exploration – the tensions across thedevelopment of new knowledge, experimenting to foster coding the variation case firms, andtwo we identified novelty neededpatterns. overarching for moreFirst, radical innovation. Organizational ambidexterity signifies a rviews firm’s informants ability were to manage acutely aware ofthese tensions. tensions We distinguish two types of organizational ambidexterity: (1) surrounding goriza- opposing forms of innovation, apparent in rich descrip- architectural ambidexterity – which proposes dual structures and strategies, differentiating effort to ercoder tions offocus three,on highly eitherrobust tensions. or exploitative Even more inter-innovation, and (2) contextual ambidexterity – which exploratory ements esting, however, was that actors depicted the tensions as e first emphasizes behavioral and social means of integrating exploitation and exploration. paradoxes—not as either/or dilemmas or trade-offs, but as synergistic and interwoven The authors investigatedpolarities. Second, inte- exploitation-exploration tensions and their management in practice. They and Lewis: Expl Andriopoulos h Case. grationfound and differentiation tactics were lauded as vital to 702 three specific tensions that appeared highly robust. These are nested paradoxes swirling around: among g them (1) strategic intent, (2) customer orientation, and (3) personal drivers. This is illustrated in the following figures. Figure 1(b) Data Structure: Corresponding Management (tight-lo pect of Figure 1(a) Data Structure: Paradoxes of Innovation Approaches passion oncepts er than First-order Second-order Aggregate First-order Second-order Aggregate Corresponding underly concepts themes dimensions Corbin concepts themes dimensions paradox tics. Un Ensure stable revenues via ded to repeat clients Stress need for and Cultivate a the sou Profit emphasis synergies between paradoxical Integration views Careful resource allocation profit-breakthroughs vision seeming fosters efficiency Strategic Strategic bol of y intent Using Focus on reputation building Breakthroughs Select exploitative intent (e.g., p enhardt Risk-taking ensures long-term projects that leverage adaptability emphasis current skills Diversify project (e.g., br or sim- Differentiation Seek and/or create portfolio tive tug mparing exploratory opportunities in one Achieving project goals fosters themes client satisfaction and loyalty side in Tight coupling rved as Clients’ requirements help Leverage synergies Mana projects fulfill market needs d these Customer between current project Improvise Integration constraints and emerging purposefully nating t her by Probing new products/technologies orientation tion or surfaces future opportunities possibilities tial. Ac Loose coupling Customer highly Ongoing experimentation extends Begin by deepening orientation manage firm knowledge base vidence understanding of client capture expectations and market Iterate between in 341 landscape project tion and Well-defined development process Differentiation on cus- empowers contribution Gradually pull away constraints ment. In We also Discipline from initial constraints, and freedom seeming Targets (deliverables, budgets, deadlines) encourage execution then return to address gement Personal client requirements earlier, Explicit roles enable focus stomer drivers social ( Nurture paradoxical Personal expression, challenge, and identities (discipline and ioral (e in two pride motivate knowledge workers’ Passion passion as interwoven Socialize Integration share an creativity “practical artists” mparing elements of professional dox lite success) Personal ing con Vary nature of work drivers (Lewis during different projects on eith and different project Temporally and phases structurally paradox Differentiation Segregate routine/ separate work structur administration and non- modes routine/creation Puranam responsibilities dox lite and Van actors f We now managing each paradox. Although informants repeatedly ine thre and across all cases described these tensions and corre- intent, c sponding management practices, variations were appar- By Angie Marinelli ent, particularly between the smaller Management and larger49firms. of Organizations 4.1. P Cross-case comparison data tables (see appendix) and B illustrative quotes help present these patterns.  Ultimately, ewis: Exploitation-Exploration they Tensions found that Ambidexterity and Organizational there are virtuous cycles of ambidexterity, as the following figure show. (4), pp. 696–717, © 2009 INFORMS 707 They propose that three factors interact to reinforce and sustain organizational ambidexterity: (1) a multilevelelaborated: rector of Firm C similarly approach, (2) complementary tactics, and (3) learning synergies. Figure 2 Virtuous Cycles of Ambidexterity Exploitation Exploration ight and left brain—we constantly talk people how to switch from one side to the is realistic, and as a business, we cannot Integration s if they don’t do their timesheets, or if Profit Strategic intent Breakthroughs heir reports out because this is not an art emphasis emphasis Differentiation e can sit around and paint all day. emporal and spatial differentiation ap- manage the paradox of personal drivers. Integration Tight Loose ure of work at different times—during coupling Customer orientation coupling s and project phases—enabled knowl- Differentiation leverage their discipline and their pas- ce, as projects evolve, a team member’s cally shifts between exploitation and Integration ewise, individuals rotate across projects, Discipline Personal drivers Passion mental product extension to the poten- Differentiation king invention. An industrial designer rated how mixed projects are vital for ers as well as for the firm: exciting projects and some less exciting hink that the firm consciously tries to give orientation and strategic intent, and propose a more com- x because if you are doing hard time all prehensive framework. ssures your soul. We do projects that are e sky ! ! ! ! It is this wonderful deep water an swim in for a while. 5. Discussion: Fueling Virtuous inct roles enabled spatial separation as Cycles of Ambidexterity uals or units focused on either the dis- Through this comparative case study we sought to ion, budgeting, and other administrative contribute an alternative framework for examining as others tapped into the passion fos- exploitation-exploration tensions and their management. mentation and ideation. For instance, the Our findings highlight three nested tensions, presented C, and E) used more division of labor, as paradoxes of innovation. Further, managing these ees in the smaller firms wear multiple paradoxes involved a mix of integration and differ- all firms relied on paradoxical identities. entiation tactics. We now build from our case find- his might be vital to help prevent knowl- ings and existing literature to theorize how firms might om feeling like administrators. There- manage innovation paradoxes and thereby fuel virtuous rectors, who have risen through the firm, cycles of ambidexterity (see Figure 2 for illustration). s on billing, client relations, etc., they More specifically, we propose that three factors inter- ves as practical artists. Spatial separa- act to reinforce and sustain organizational ambidexterity: rees other designers and engineers to a multilevel approach, complementary tactics, and learn- ing synergies. We now leverage existing literature and case study examples to explicate each factor. in pictures, certainly not numbers but it First, we propose that a multilevel approach is vital work well on all projects and all clients. to managing nested paradoxes of innovation. As illus- ant clear minutes distributed the day after trated in Figure 2, the identified paradoxes are inter- d they want to be able to talk to someone woven across levels. Supporting previous claims (e.g., g, and the expenses and this and that. Even good at it, “do we really want them to March 1991, Smith and Tushman 2005), exploitation- heir time going over bills as opposed to exploration conflicts spawn a host of tensions through- that is why we have project coordinators. out organizations. Indeed, the recent review by Raisch (Director, Firm E) and Birkinshaw (2008) called for ambidexterity research that examines multiple levels and reflects this complex- back from case details to discuss the ity. These case studies enable a more holistic perspec- nal drivers, as well as those of customer tive. For instance, the strategic intent paradox appears By Angie Marinelli Management of Organizations 50  Notice that the infinity loop goes high into each upside, which depicts maximizing the benefits of each pole. The loop also goes only slightly into each downside, which depicts minimizing the limits of each pole. The authors of the Singapore Airlines article (Heracleous & Wirtz, 2014) have captured a “REFLECTIONS very important point – A PERSPECTIVE about the organization: ON PARADOX It is not just leadership or a partAND ITS Airlines but of Singapore the whole culture that works in support of both poles. Those who might think that “Mastering Paradox” or “LeveragingAPPLICATION Polarities” is justTO MODERN a way of thinkingMANAGEMENT,” by Johnson, or a tool for a leadership tool kit mayB. miss the full benefit we Thecan allfinds author gain thatfrom there paying attention is an underlying to this article phenomenon andin predictable that works Singaporeway Airlines (Heracleous & for paradoxes. Wirtz, 2014). He believes that the terms ‘interdependent pairs” is more descriptive of the phenomenon than both paradox and polarity. Leveraging!Interdependent!Pairs:!Our!Application!Experience( Ultimately, he suggests that these interdependent pairs can be illustrated as an infinity loop, as shown below. He says that there are two pole that are, always differentiated and energy holds them together. Leveraging the potential The energy between these twofrompolesthe interdependent is also known as tension.pairsIt isrequires theandengagement unsolvable unavoidable. of key stakeholders in two However, processes.this by addressing The first is tension, the one cancreation of Action competitive achieve sustainable Steps to maximize advantage.the upside of each To address pole. Thethis second is one tension, to identify Early must try and Warnings solve each side.that Notewill that let us know, by solving as early one side, as create one will possible, when we are problems getting into theother in the downsides one (henceof athe pole so that infinity weBuilding loop). can self- correct a culture to follows that minimize bothour time upper in will parts either leaddownside. an organization to achieve sustainable competitive advantage. Note that early warnings In Figure 4, below, you can see the Polarity Map including Action Steps alongside each upside – measurable and Earlyindicators Warnings thatbywilleach let you know that you downside. Theare gettingSteps Action into the downside come fromofthethe Singapore pole, are very important. Airlines article and They enable you to take action steps to are stated in summary form (Heracleous & Wirtz, 2014). get back to the upper poles. ! ! ! ( !!!!Figure!4.!!Polarity(Map(with(Action(Steps(and(Early(Warnings.( ! You will notice that some steps have an HL by them. We call it a High Leverage Action Step, which has double value because it simultaneously supports both upsides. The same HL step appears in the action steps for both upsides of the map. Having a “Dual Strategy” is essential for making the most of interdependent pairs. The Early Warnings are not listed in the article but are created by me based on con- tent in the article. I believe having Early Warnings would be a value-add to the processes being used by Singapore Airlines in getting the most from this interdependent pair and the other three identified in the article. ! The!Map!With!Action!Steps!and!Early!Warnings!Is!a!Wisdom! By Angie Marinelli Organizer( Management of Organizations 51 Because the phenomenon of interdependent pairs is so ubiquitous, we all have an experiential base  “‘BOTH/AND’ LEADERSHIP,” by Smith, W.K. et al. The main goal of leadership is to maintain a dynamic equilibrium. To do so, executives separate the imperatives that are in conflict with one another in order to recognize and respect each one, while at the same time actively managing connections between them in order to leverage interdependencies and benefit from their synergies. 1. The Paradoxes of Leadership Managers often face paradoxes – imperatives that are in conflict with each-other. These can be divided into three categories according to three question that many leaders perceive as “either/or” choices: (1) “Are we managing for today or for tomorrow?” Innovation paradoxes involve tensions between today and tomorrow, existing offerings and new ones, stability and change. (2) “Do we adhere to boundaries or cross them?” Globalization paradoxes are those that focus on tensions between global interconnection and local needs, breadth and depth, collaboration and competition. (3) “Do we focus on creating value for our shareholders and investors or for a broader set of stakeholders? Obligation paradoxes involve tensions between maximizing profits for the firm and trying to generate wider benefits – for investors, employees, customers and society These “either/or” questions can never be definitely answered. Rather, they invite consideration of alternative demands that are interdependent and contradictory. In order to answer them, they need to be reframed and considered as “both/and” questions. This can be hard for two reasons: (1) the relationship between the sources of a tension will change over time and in response to competitors’ moves or other external events, and (2) the sources of paradoxical tensions are often nested in different business unites of the firm. 2. The Paradoxical Mindset Paradoxical leadership begins with a reexamination of some implicit assumptions about leadership – which leads to movement in a new direction. (1) From well-intentioned consistency to consistent inconsistency Usually, when two ideas seem contradictory, choosing and championing just one can minimizing cognitive dissonance – the discomfort triggered when making decisions that we see as inconsistent, or when values conflict. This has to be changed to be able to benefit from the synergy of the ideas. (2) From scarce resources to abundant resources Traditional leadership approaches assume that resources are limited. On the other hand, leaders embracing paradox realize that resources can be abundant and generative at same time. Thus, they can pursue strategies to grow the pie with these resources: exploring collaborations with new partners, using alternative technologies, adapting more-flexible time frames for shifting resources. (3) From stability and certainty to dynamism and change Leaders seek to reduce their followers’ discomfort with uncertainty by asserting control. However, rather than seeking stability and certainty, paradoxical leadership depends on embracing dynamism By Angie Marinelli Management of Organizations 52 and change. Leaders must be open to approaches that emphasize the value of experimentation and failure, and spurring critical feedback to enable learning and ongoing adjustments. 3. Managing Dynamic Equilibrium Overall, we can say that to benefit from paradox, managers must build organizational competencies by both separating and connecting opposing forces. (1) Separating Separating refers to the fact that different organizational goals need to be pulled apart and valued individually. This can be done by either creating business units based on functions or geography, or by carving out dedicated times and spaces for exploring each goal using different decision-making processes. (2) Connecting Connecting refers to finding linkages and synergies across goals. This can be done by building an overarching organizational identity and unite people in higher purpose, or by designing roles and processes intended to integrate separate strategic goals. The table below summarizes what has been seen in this article: By Angie Marinelli Management of Organizations 53  “IS YOURS A LEARNING ORGANIZATION?,” by Garvin, D.A., et al. 1. Introduction A learning organization is one made up of employees skilled at creating, acquiring, and transferring knowledge. Therefore, employees foster open discussing, cultivate tolerance, think holistically and systematically. However, the ideal of the learning organization has not yet been realized. This is due to three factors: (1) many of the early discussions were paeans to a better world rather than concrete prescriptions, (2) the concept was aimed at CEOs rather than managers of smaller departments, and (3) standards and tools for assessment were lacking. 2. Building Blocks of Leaning Organization There are three essential building blocks for organizational learning and adaptability. Note that each building block is independent and can be measured separately. The three blocks reinforce one another and, to some extent, overlap. All organizations can develop distinctive approaches in each block as the blocks are still generic enough to assess performance. (1) A supportive learning environment. An environment that supports learning has four distinguishing characteristics: (1) psychological safety – employees must be comfortable expressing own thoughts, questions, and views, (2) appreciation of differences – recognizing value of opposing ideas sparks fresh thinking and prevents lethargy and drift, (3) openness to new ideas - learning is also about testing and exploring the unknown by taking risks, and (4) time for reflection – allowing for pause in the action and encouraging review of processes. (2) Concrete learning processes and practices A learning organization arises from a series of concrete steps and widely distributed activities. Learning processes involve the involve generation, collection, interpretation, dissemination of information. For maximum impact, knowledge must be shared in systematic and clearly defined ways. The knowledge sharing process can be either (a) internally focused or (b) externally focused. (a) Internally focused knowledge sharing processes are those that have an eye toward taking corrective actions. (b) Externally focused knowledge sharing processes are those that are scheduled forums with customers and experts to gain their perspective on firm’s activities. (3) Leadership that reinforces learning Organizational learning is strongly influenced by the behavior of leasers. Therefore, leaders need to signal importance of spending time of identification, knowledge transfer, and reflection. Moreover, they need to demonstrate through their own behavior that there are alternative views. Thus, employees will be empowered by these. 3. Uses for the Organizational Learning Tool Researchers designed an outline tool to help employee answer questions about the organizational unit they lead or work at. These two questions are: “To what extent is your unit functioning as a learning organization?” and “What are the relationships among the factors that affect learning in your unit?” People can use this survey to get a quick sense of their work unit or project team. Or, several members can each complete the survey and average their scores. Once you have identified the quartile in which your scores fall you can reflect on it. Overall, we can say that it is a diagnostic instrument that promotes dialogue. By Angie Marinelli Management of Organizations 59  4. Mowing Forward: Four Principles Overall, this research provided the authors with insights for managers who seek to cultivate learning organizations. The four main principles are defined here under. (1) Leadership alone is insufficient Learning-oriented leadership behavior, alone, are not enough. The cultural and process dimensions require more targeted interventions focusing on the size, location, and mission of the specific unit. (2) Organizations are not monolithic Managers must be sensitive to differences among departmental processes and behaviors as they strive to build learning organizations. (3) Comparative performance is critical scorecard Scoring very high in a certain area of learning doesn’t make that area a source of competitive advantage. Rather, companies must score high in comparison to others. (4) Learning is multidimensional Each of the building blocks are multidimensional and respond to difference forces. Therefore, companies should not concentrate on a single area but rather on all of them. By Angie Marinelli Management of Organizations 60  “THE NEW SCIENCE OF BUILDING GREAT TEAMS,” by Pentland, A. Pentland identifies the elusive group dynamics that characterize high-performing teams – those blessed with the energy, creativity, and shared commitment to surpass other teams. Note that these dynamics are observable, quantifiable, and measurable. 1. Looking for the “It Factor” With their research, they found that the key to high performance doesn’t lay in the content of a team’s discussions but rather in the manner in which it communicates. In other words, communication plays a critical role in building successful teams – it is even the most important predictors of a team’s success (although other factors such as individual intelligence, personality, skill, and the substance of discussion as also significant). Note that communication can be found both in a team’s energy but also in their engagement outside formal meetings. 2. Overcoming the Limits of Observation Perception is the result of our innate ability to process the hundreds of complex communication cues that we constantly send and receive. Until recently, we weren’t able to objectively record such cues as data. Advances in wireless and sensor technology have helped overcome these limitations, allowing to measure that ineffable “It Factor.” By comparing data gathered from badges from all the individuals on a team with data, we can identify communication patterns that make for successful teamwork. Those patterns vary little, regardless of the type of team and its goal. Productive teams have certain data signatures, and they are son consistent that we can predict a team’s success simply by looking at the data – without ever meeting its members. Overall, we can say that successful teams share the following defining characteristics: (1) Everyone on the team talks and listens in roughly equal measure, keeping contributions short and sweet, (2) Members face one another, and their conversations and gestures are energetic, (3) Members connect directly with one another – not just with the team leader, (4) Members carry on back-channel or side conversation within the team, and (5) Members periodically break, go exploring outside the team, and bring information back. In conclusion, the best way to build a great team is to learn how individuals communicate and to shape and guide the team so that it follows successful communication patterns. 3. The Key Elements of Communication In their research they identified three aspects of communication that affect team performance: (1) energy, (2) engagement, and (3) exploration. (1) Energy is measured by the number and the nature of exchanges among team members. Such exchanges can be ranked on their effectiveness; the most effective is face-to-face, followed by phone or videoconferences, and the least effective are e-mail and/or texting. However, note that energy levels within teams are not static. (2) Engagement refers to the distribution of energy among team members. If all team members have relatively equal and reasonably high energy with all other members, engagement is extremely strong. They found that the effect of a partially engaged team was particularly common in widely spread teams that talked mostly by telephone (3) Exploration is the communication that members engage in outside their team. They found that higher-performing teams seek more outside connections. By Angie Marinelli Management of Organizations 90 The following graphs illustrate these three elements. Note that here, the thickness of the arc indicates the amount of communication. The green indicates face-to-face communication and gray (for the later graphs) indicates communication via e-mail. Overall, we can say that exploration and engagement do not easily coexist because they require that the energy of team members be put in two different uses. The more that people devote to their own team (engagement), the less they have to use outside their team (exploration), and vice versa. However, successful teams must do both: oscillate between exploration for discovery and engagement for integration of the ideas gathered from outside sources. 4. Beyond Conventional Wisdom Although these three elements can appear blindingly obvious, the data from their research improved on conventional wisdom and added an unprecedent level of precision to the observations. For example, they found that 35% of the variation in a team’s performance can be accounted for by the number of face-to-face exchanges among the members, and that the “right” number of exchanges is as many as dozens per working hour, but that going beyond that ideal number decreases performance. Moreover, By Angie Marinelli Management of Organizations 91 they found that high performance team have members that are listening/speaking to the whole group about half the time and that the other half members engage in one-on-one conversations. Social time turns out to be deeply critical to team performance, often accounting for more than 50% of positive changes in communication patterns. 5. How to Apply the Data 5.1. The Three Steps to Build Better Individual and Team Performance Data can now provide a foundation on which to build better individual and team performance – this happen in three steps: (1) visualization, (2) training, and (3) fine-tuning performance. (1) Visualization By creating maps highlighting how the team performance is, they can identify low-energy and unengaged team-members. When such people are spotted, one can dig down into their individual badge data. The energy and engagement maps will make the problems clear and enable people to identify them. Once identified, the problem can then be fixed. Exploration maps also reveal patterns of communication across organizations. Time-lapse views of engagement and exploration will show whether teams are effectively oscillating between those activities This is well illustrated by the following example. By Angie Marinelli Management of Organizations 92  (2) Training With maps of the data in hand, we can help teams improve performance through iterative visual feedback. This helps improve teamwork through objective analysis. (3) Fine-tuning performance The last step mapping energy and engagement against performance metrics using the data batch. Such maps help make important discoveries. The closer the patterns come the those of high-performance ideal, the higher the productivity rises. 5.2. Successful tactics Once the need to improve energy and engagement has been recognized, leaders can engage in different approaches for moving those measurements, such as: (1) Reorganizing office space and seating, (2) Setting a personal example, (3) Policy changes, and (4) Switching out team members and bringing in new blood. 5.3. The Ideal Team Player In both productivity-focused and creativity-focused teams, we have discovered a data signature of what we consider best type of team member. These are often referred to as “charismatic connectors,” or “natural leaders.” Data shows that these people… - Circulate actively, engaging people in short, high-energy conversations. - Are democratic with their time – communicate with everyone equally and making sure all team members get a chance to contribute. - Are not necessarily extroverts but feel comfortable approaching other people. - Listen as much or more than they talk – “energized but focused listening.” - Connect their teammates with one another and spread ideas around. - Are appropriately exploratory and seek ideas from outside the group. 5.4. Mapping Communication Against Performance Visualizations can be used to compare energy and engagement with established performance metrics, as in the figure below. Note that high-energy and high-engagement teams are the most efficient, but that low-energy and low-engagement teams outperform teams that are out of balance. By Angie Marinelli Management of Organizations 93  “HOW SUCCESSFUL LEADERS THINK,” by Martin, R.L. R.L. Martin spent years studying leaders with exemplary records. He found that most of them have the predisposition and the capacity to hold in their heads two opposing ideas at once. And then, without panicking or simply settling for one alternative or the other, they’re able to creatively resolve the tension between those two ideas by generating a new one that contains elements of the others but is superior to both. This process of consideration and synthesis is known as integrative thinking. It is this discipline—not superior strategy or faultless execution—that is a defining characteristic of most exceptional businesses and the people who run them. Therefore, Martin’s aim was to deconstruct and describe a capability that seems to come naturally to many successful leaders. 1. Opposable Thumb, Opposable Mind Human beings are distinguished from nearly every other creature by a physical feature: the opposable thumb. Similarly, we were born with opposable minds, which allow us to hold two conflicting ideas in constructive, almost dialectic tension. We can use that tension to think our way toward new, superior ideas. Were we able to hold only one thought or idea in our heads at a time, we wouldn’t have access to the insights that the opposable mind can produce. However, most of us avoid complexity and ambiguity and seek out the comfort of simplicity and clarity. When looking at two models, our first impulse is usually to determine which of the two models is “right” and, by the process of elimination, which is “wrong.” We may even take sides and try to prove that our chosen model is better than the other one. But in rejecting one model out of hand, we miss out on all the value that we could have realized by considering the opposing two at the same time and finding in the tension clues to a superior model. By forcing a choice between the two, we disengage the opposable mind before it can seek a creative resolution. To take advantage of our opposable minds, we must resist our natural leaning toward simplicity and certainty. 2. The Four Stages of Decision Making Integrative thinkers go through the same decision-making steps as anyone else. However, they approach the steps differently: (1) Determining salience. The first step is figuring out which factors to take into account. Integrative thinkers actively seek less obvious but potentially relevant factors. They welcome complexity, because that’s where the best answers come from. (2) Analyzing causality. In the second step of decision making, you analyze how the numerous salient factors relate to one another. Integrative thinkers are not afraid to question the validity of apparently obvious links or to consider multidirectional and nonlinear relationships, while others tend to focus on a simple straight- line causal relationship. (3) Envisioning the decision architecture. Once the causality has been understood, the third step is to turn to the decision itself. Integrative thinkers don’t break down a problem into independent pieces and work on them separately or in a certain order. They see the entire architecture of the problem—how the various parts of it fit together, how one decision will affect another. Just as important, they hold all of those pieces suspended in their minds at once. They don’t parcel out the elements for others to work on piecemeal or let one element temporarily drop out of sight, only to be taken up again for consideration after everything else has been decided. By Angie Marinelli Management of Organizations 97  So what does the process of integrative think- which they might otherwise have produc- ing look like? How do integrative thinkers con- tively paid attention. sider their options in a way that leads to new When our decisions turn out badly, we often possibilities and not merely back to the same recognize after the fact that we’ve failed to inadequate alternatives? They work through consider factors that are significant to those four related but distinct stages. The steps outside the immediate reach of our jobs or themselves aren’t particular to integrative functional specialties. We say to ourselves, “I thinking: Everyone goes through them while should have thought about how the employees (4) Achieving resolution. thinking through a decision. What’s distinc- in our European operation would have inter- All of these stages lead to an outcome. our desire for simplicity has led us to ignore opportunities in the previous three steps to discover interesting and novel ways around the trade-off. Integrative thinkers, Conventional however, embrace Versus Integrative holistic rather Thinking than segmented thinking. This can creatively resolve the tensions that launched the decision-making process. When responding to problems or challenges, leaders work through four steps. Those who are conventional thinkers seek simplicity along the way and are often forced to make unattractive trade-offs. By contrast, integrative thinkers welcome complexity—even if it means repeating one or more of the steps—and this allows them to craft innovative solutions. The table below summarizes these four steps: 1 2 3 4 Determining Analyzing Envisioning Achieving Salience Causality the Decision Resolution Architecture CONVENTIONAL Focus only on Consider one-way, Break problems into Make either-or THINKERS obviously relevant linear relationships pieces and work on choices; settle for features between variables, them separately or best available in which more of A sequentially options produces more of B INTEGRATIVE Seek less obvious Consider See problems as a Creatively resolve THINKERS but potentially multidirectional whole, examining how tensions among relevant factors and nonlinear the parts fit together opposing ideas; relationships and how decisions generate innovative among variables affect one another outcomes 3. Born and Bred page 78 harvard business review june 2007 Overall, integrative thinking generates options and new solutions. It creates a sense of limitless possibility. Conventional thinking glosses over potential solutions and fosters the illusion that creative solutions don’t actually exist. With integrative thinking, aspirations rise over time. With conventional thinking, they wear away with every apparent reinforcement of the lesson that life is about accepting unattractive trade-offs. Fundamentally, the conventional thinker prefers to accept the world just as it is, whereas the integrative thinker welcomes the challenge of shaping the world for the better. By Angie Marinelli Management of Organizations 98 Missing Articles in Summary Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2006). Evidence-based management. Harvard Business Review, 84(1), 62. Evidence-Based Management: Using Data to Improve Decision-Making Evidence-based management involves using data and research to inform management decisions, similar to how doctors rely on evidence in medicine. This approach challenges traditional management practices that often rely on intuition, experience, or "best practices" that may not be supported by evidence. Many factors contribute to poor decision-making in management. These include: Over-reliance on personal experience: Managers may rely too heavily on their own experiences, which may not be generalizable or representative of the current situation. Dogma and belief: Managers may hold onto beliefs or practices that are not supported by evidence. The "first-mover" myth: The belief that being first to market guarantees success is often not true. Uncritical benchmarking: Blindly copying the practices of top performers without understanding the context or underlying logic can be ineffective. Overconfidence: Managers may overestimate their own abilities and fail to seek out evidence that contradicts their beliefs. The sources offer several examples to illustrate the benefits of evidence-based management and the pitfalls of relying on unsubstantiated beliefs. Stock options as compensation: Despite a widespread belief that granting stock options improves company performance, a review of 220 studies found no consistent evidence to support this claim. Forced ranking systems: While popular among companies like GE and Microsoft, forced ranking systems, where employees are ranked and the bottom performers are fired, can have negative consequences. Evidence suggests that this practice leads to lower productivity, decreased morale, and mistrust in leadership. Team performance: Research on sports teams consistently shows that teams with less pay disparity perform better, highlighting the negative impact of large pay gaps on team cohesion and performance.  Auto industry: John Paul MacDuffie's research on automobile plants found that plants with "lean production" systems, which emphasize teamwork, training, and flexible work arrangements, performed better than those with traditional hierarchical structures. Becoming an evidence-based manager requires a shift in mindset: Embrace humility: Recognize that personal experience and intuition can be flawed and be open to new evidence. Demand evidence: Question assumptions and ask for data to support claims. Treat the organization as an unfinished prototype: Experiment with different practices and gather data to see what works. Embrace a culture of learning: Encourage trial and error, and learn from both successes and failures. Challenge traditional hierarchies: Replace the emphasis on authority with a focus on evidence and data. The sources argue that evidence-based management is not about replacing human judgment with algorithms. Instead, it is about using data and research to inform decisions and challenge assumptions. By embracing evidence-based practices, managers can make better decisions, improve organizational performance, and create a more data-driven culture. One potential limitation of evidence-based management not explicitly addressed in the sources is the availability and quality of data. To make informed decisions, managers need access to reliable and relevant data. This may require investment in data collection and analysis capabilities. Davenport, T., & Sviokla, J. J. (2024) The 6 disciplines companies need to get the most out of Gen AI. Harvard Business Review Six Disciplines for Leveraging Generative AI Generative AI can enhance productivity and performance across various sectors. However, for businesses to effectively harness the capabilities of this technology, several disciplines are crucial. Behavioral Change: o People need to adapt their behavior when using generative AI. They should learn to use it at the appropriate stages of the content creation process.  o Individuals need to confirm the accuracy of the AI's output and refine it when necessary. o The nature of human and machine interactions will likely shift. For example, in a legal setting, lawyers might use AI to generate first drafts of briefs and contracts. o Two common behavioral shifts are recognizing the AI's limitations, particularly its tendency to make predictions, and the need to add to the generated content. A study showed that most generated content required editing by human researchers. While generative AI can produce novel content, it might need to be refined for specific contexts. Controlled Experimentation: o It is impossible to determine the value of AI solely through assumptions or anecdotal evidence. Leaders need to use controlled experiments to assess the technology's impact on various tasks. o The design and analysis of these experiments are often complex and require expertise. While data scientists are increasingly studying the impact of AI on productivity, many organizations lack the discipline to conduct proper experiments. o Companies need to invest in developing in-house expertise and design their own experiments to tailor them to their specific needs and circumstances. Measurement of Business Value: o Measurement of the business value generated by AI is crucial but often overlooked. While metrics like return on investment are commonly tracked, the impact on productivity and other less quantifiable factors is rarely measured. o Measuring the business value of AI is complex, as it often involves multiple components and changes in products and services. o Companies need to develop clear metrics for success with AI and track them over time. Examples of benefits that can be eventually measured are pharmaceutical companies using AI to bring new drugs to market faster. Data Management: o Generative AI relies heavily on high-quality data. Companies need to curate and manage their data effectively. o Data curation involves evaluating the relevance, currency, and importance of data. This task can be performed internally or outsourced to third parties. o For example, in the healthcare industry, AI-enhanced electronic health records can help capture comprehensive patient information, but effective data management is needed to ensure the seamless integration of this data into the existing systems.  Human Capital Development: o Instead of replacing employees, companies should focus on augmenting their capabilities with AI. This requires a commitment to employee training and development. o Employees need to understand the fundamentals of generative AI, fact-checking, high-quality content creation, and integration of the technology into their work processes. Systems Thinking: o Companies should adopt a systems thinking approach when implementing generative AI. For example, self-made billionaires have often achieved success by integrating various advantages into a competitive moat. o High-ticket sales organizations can leverage generative AI in various ways, including creating personalized sales presentations, simulating client interactions, and managing client relationships. These integrated applications can radically change the traditional sales model. o Incremental updates alone are insufficient to fully leverage generative AI. Companies must redesign their business systems to fully harness the technology's potential. Implementing Generative AI Assuming organizations can develop these capabilities, the next step is to identify practical projects. 1. Find the "responsible rebels." Every organization has employees who are eager to innovate. Harness their enthusiasm to drive positive change and break free from the focus on operational excellence and standardization. Finding ways to fund these individuals is key. One approach is to have them present a proposal to senior management or a panel of executives for project funding. Another is to secure incremental funding as projects progress and demonstrate value. 2. Choose projects that are practical, quick wins, and politically aligned. Focus on projects with short development cycles and clear value propositions, like those with measurable sales yield or margin. Aligning the project with the goals of executives can ensure political support and access to budget resources. 3. Link to the identity of the firm. Aligning AI projects with the company's mission and key goals enhances their impact. For example, Intuit, a company that provides personalized financial advice, could utilize AI to create customized content and deliver tailored advice to customers across all platforms. Conclusion Organizations can gain a competitive edge by mastering these disciplines and embracing a proactive approach to generative AI implementation. Companies that limit themselves to minor improvements risk falling behind. Zhang, D. C., Barratt, C. L., & Smith, R. W. (2023). The Bright, Dark, and Gray Sides of Risk Takers at Work: Criterion Validity of Risk Propensity for Contextual Work Performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 1-20 Risk Propensity and Contextual Performance: A Detailed Summary The provided source, an excerpt from the article "The Bright, Dark, and Gray Sides of Risk Takers at Work," examines the relationship between risk propensity, a stable personality trait, and contextual performance, behaviors that fall outside of normal job expectations, in work settings. The authors posit that contextual performance can be conceptualized as a form of workplace risk taking and investigate whether risk propensity can predict various forms of contextual performance, including organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs), counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs), and prosocial rule-breaking behaviors (PSRBs). Historically, risk-takers in the workplace were often perceived as liabilities due to their association with corporate failures like the 2008 financial crisis. However, contemporary research suggests that risk-takers can play a critical role in driving innovation, change, and social justice within organizations. The authors argue that risk propensity, an individual's general tendency to take risks, has not been sufficiently studied as a predictor of employee performance. They suggest that understanding the role of risk propensity in the workplace is crucial, especially given that it might be a personality trait distinct from the Big Five personality traits (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism), which are often used in organizational psychology research. Contextual Performance as Workplace Risk Taking The researchers explain that risky workplace behaviors involve uncertainty in outcomes and the potential for both benefits and negative personal or professional consequences. They argue that contextual performance, which encompasses OCBs, CWBs, and PSRBs, fits this definition because these behaviors: fall outside formal job responsibilities.  carry potential benefits and costs, along with uncertainty about the distribution of those outcomes. are associated with greater personal and professional risks compared to task performance, which is expected of employees. Key Hypotheses and Findings The authors propose several hypotheses to test their framework: Hypothesis 1. Risk propensity will positively predict OCBs, CWBs, and PSRBs. The results partially supported this hypothesis. Risk propensity was found to positively predict CWBs and PSRBs. The relationship between risk propensity and OCBs was positive but not statistically significant when controlling for demographic variables. Hypothesis 2. Willingness to take risks at work will mediate the relationship between risk propensity and contextual performance outcomes (OCBs, CWBs, PSRBs). This hypothesis was partially supported. A significant indirect effect of risk propensity on OCBs and PSRBs was found through an