“Economists seem to miss things that are important” because they’re so busy. “Specialization coupled with strong competitive pressures within academia leads to a situation in which academics often feel that they just do not have time to ponder broad issues and learn even basic simple facts outside their specialty,” the Shiller paper says. “Their general knowledge may be embarrassingly limited, and so they may retreat into their own specialty and produce research which contributes in small ways to the development of the field, but fails to pay attention to the larger picture.”
جایزه ی مشارکت علمی مجله « فصلنامه علم اداری (Administrative science quarterly)» به مقاله ای داده شده است که پنج سال پیش منتشر شده و بر اساس توضیحات جری دیویس، ادیتور مجله ASQ تاثیر شگرفی در حوزه ی مطالعات کسب و کارهای خانوادگی داشته است. (برای اطلاعات بیشتر اینجا کلیک کنید).
این مقاله با عنوان «Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family-controlled firms: Evidence from Spanish olive oil mills»، به بررسی ریسک پذیری کسب و کارهای خانوادگی می پردازد. تا پیش از این مقاله دانشمندان عقیده داشتند که کسب و کارهای خانوادگی به علت اینکه تمام ثروت و دارایی یک خانواده هستند، کمتر میل به ریسک دارند و محافظه کارانه عمل می کنند. اما این مقاله با بررسی حدود 1200 کسب و کار خانوادگی فعال در زمینه روغن زیتون در 54 سال گذشته، نشان داده است وقتی بحث «ثروت اجتماعی-احساسی» در میان باشد، کسب و کارهای خانوادگی ریسک های بزرگ را نیز ممکن است بپذیرند.
دو نکته برای من جالب بود که به نظرم رسید با مخاطبان سایتم به اشتراک بگذارم:
نکته اول: برساخته «ثروت اجتماعی-احساسی (Socioemotional Wealth)»
ثروت اجتماعی-احساسی، به صورت زیر تعریف می گردد:
«مجموع ارزش مرتبط با احساسات که برای یک بنگاه در دسترس می باشد. (he stock of affect-related value available to the firm)»
انواع ثروت اجتماعی-احساسی، شامل پنج مورد زیر است:
- تاثیرگذاری و کنترل کسب و کار توسط خانواده (Family Control and Influence)
- هویت گرفتن اعضای خانواده با اسم و رسم کسب و کار(Identification of Family Members With the Firm)
- ایجاد پیوندها و شبکه های اجتماعی برای خانواده(Binding Social Tie)
- دلبستگی احساسی اعضای خانواده(Emotional Attachment of Family Members)
بسیاری از اتفاقات و تعاملات در حوزه ی کسب و کارها را می توان بر اساس این برساخته توضیح داد و برخی مواردی که با ارزش های مادی قابل توصیف نیستند نیز بر اساس همین برساخته قابل بررسی هستند.
نکته دوم: نمونه ای بارز از یک مورد جذاب مطابق مقاله موری دیویس 
موری دیویس در مقاله معروف خود «That's Interesting!» مطرح می کند که مقاله ها برای جلب توجه و چاپ شدن باید جذاب باشند و لازم نیست حتما درست باشند. به صورت خلاصه می توان از این مقاله نتیجه گرفت که جذاب بودن وقتی رخ می دهد که مقاله نشان دهد که موضوعی را که تاکنون به نحوی خاص به نظر می رسیده است آنطور نیست و طور دیگری است.
مقاله برون و همکاران نیز دقیقا همینطور است. تا قبل از این مقاله در مورد ریسک پذیری کسب و کارهای خانوادگی تصور بر این بود که به علت اینکه کسب و کارهای خانوادگی اغلب همه دارایی یک خانواده هستند، ریسک پذیری بالایی ندارند، اما این مقاله نشان داد که اینطور نیست و این کسب و کارها برای حفظ ثروت اجتماعی-احساسی خود ریسک های بزرگ را نیز می پذیرند. البته این به این معنی نیست که الزاما این مقاله صرفا جذاب است و درست نیست، اما جذابیت آن قابل توجه است.
1- Gómez-Mejía, L. R., Haynes, K. T., Núñez-Nickel, M., Jacobson, K. J., & Moyano-Fuentes, J. (2007). Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family-controlled firms: Evidence from Spanish olive oil mills. Administrative science quarterly, 52(1), 106-137.
2- Berrone, P., Cruz, C., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2012). Socioemotional wealth in family firms theoretical dimensions, assessment approaches, and agenda for future research. Family Business Review, 25(3), 258-279.
Entrepreneurs are a unique group of people, but they behave in patterns. In fact, as I recently wrote here on HBR, my firm’s research shows that most serial entrepreneurs display persuasion, leadership, personal accountability, goal orientation, and interpersonal skills. But in that same study, we also discovered a set of skills they do not possess.
Scholarly economic theory applies to more than just business. The same causal mechanisms that drive big corporations to success can be just as effective in driving our personal lives, says Professor Clayton M. Christensen. Key concepts include:
- In evaluating major life decisions, it’s helpful to employ a tool called discovery-driven planning, which essentially boils down to a single question: What assumptions must prove true for this plan to work?
- Incentives are not the same things as motivators.
- Marginal thinking can be dangerous. It’s safer to decide early on that you’ll stay true to your commitments 100 percent the time, rather than assess the risk of every “just this once” possibility that comes along.
Today, innovation is almost always supported—if not driven—by technology. No stranger to this rule is Todd Park, who in March ended a three-year stint as chief technology officer (CTO) of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to take on the role of CTO of the United States. In this interview—part of a series of articles from McKinsey’s public-sector practice (for more, see sidebar, “About this series”)—Park explains how he has tried to find creative ways to use IT and data to benefit the public. Among his achievements at HHS were the launch of programs such as the consumer Web site HealthCare.gov and the Health Data Initiative, which encourages the development of innovative applications using publicly available government data. McKinsey’s Eric Braverman and Michael Chui recently met with Park in Washington, DC, and asked him about his plans for accelerating innovation in the US government.
Are you inadvertently undermining your productivity by talking about your plans?
Research says yes, sometimes — that when you talk about intentions you could be taking the fizz out your motivation to move forward. Why? Because voicing plans runs the risk of creating a “premature sense of completeness.”
مقاله ای در سایت هاروارد بیزنس ریویو:
By: RON ASHKENAS
Here in the United States, the presidential election cycle gives us the opportunity to publicly discuss the characteristics of good leaders. Running a country calls for asophisticated array of leadership skills — from shaping strategy to building a team to managing day-to-day operations. Choosing a candidate therefore requires thoughtfulness about what experiences provide the best training for a good leader.
A recent New York Times article by David Leonhardt explores the issue of whether Mitt Romney’s consulting background enhances his qualifications as a potential president, particularly since Romney himself cites his track record with the Boston Consulting Group and Bain Capital to show that he knows how to “solve problems.” But whether we’re talking about Romney or not, it’s important to question whether consulting is good preparation for leadership. After all, as Leonhardt points out, many top business school graduates start their careers with large consulting firms. So as many of these talented people migrate into managerial roles, it’s worth asking: Are they ready to lead?
Of course there is no absolute answer to this question, and examples can be cited to support either side. For example, McKinsey alumni Lou Gerstner and Jeff Skillings both went on to lead large corporations. Gerstner turned around IBM and developed a reputation as one of the most effective executives ever — while Skillings played a major role in destroying Enron and ended up in jail.
As an alternative, let’s look at several characteristics of successful consultantsand determine whether these would be the same or different for successful leaders. Here are three such characteristics:
Deep analytical skills: Effective consultants can usually crunch through large amounts of data to identify patterns and opportunities. Logical conclusions drawn from this data then underpin their recommendations. Good leaders also need analytical skills to help them sort through divergent views and, whenever possible, to make data-based decisions. However, leaders also need to appreciate the limitations of data and have the courage to follow their instincts when the data is either inconclusive or just doesn’t feel right. Steve Jobs, for example, often relied less on market research than on his gut feel for what customers would want. And while he was sometimes wrong, more often his instincts were on target.
Objectivity and detachment: In difficult situations, consultants need to stay objective and go where the data leads them. To do this, they have to avoid emotional attachment and deliver bad news without feeling guilty about the consequences for individuals. Leaders also have to maintain objectivity and make tough calls that can negatively affect people — but do so with a genuine sense of compassion. Employees can accept bad news, but they generally don’t want to work for people who don’t care. That’s why Jack Welch used to talk about the need for his leaders to be “hard-headed and soft-hearted” — to make decisions in the best interest of the business but to remember that those decisions often have human costs.
Accountability: Most consultants say that their job is to get results. But most of the time this means identifying what the client needs to do to get results. In other words, most consultants take accountability for the quality of their recommendations, but not for their implementation: That’s the client’s job. Effective leaders, however, take end-to-end accountability for achieving results — from problem identification to strategy development to execution.
Looking at these three characteristics suggests that while consulting may be a useful background for an organizational leader, it’s certainly not sufficient. In fact if consultants-turned-managers don’t go beyond these core consulting characteristics, they are likely to fail.
So if you’re looking to make a career shift from consulting to management, think about whether you can combine intuition with your analytical ability, compassion with your toughness, and implementation with your ideas. And if you’re looking to choose a former consultant as a candidate for president, think about whether that person can add to his core consulting characteristics as well.