Advanced Search

Career Journal of the _Wall Street Journal_ presents the results of its two-year long survey of corporate recruiters' ratings of MBA programs from around the world. According to their survey, three smaller B-schools, Dartmouth's Tuck School, Carnegie Mellon University's Graduate School of Industrial Administration, and Yale University's School of Management, were rated the top three, displacing the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford, and Harvard. In a series of articles about the findings, the _Wall Street Journal_ also discusses the methodology and rankings, as well as information on the top school. Be sure to view the fascinating moderated discussion of the rankings. [Scout Report Annotation]

Increasingly, intangible knowledge assets are dwarfing the value of tangible book assets at many companies. But don't ask for details. While corporate reports heap praise on various efforts to capitalize on knowledge, they fail to supply reliable, objective benchmarks for measuring the values a company gets from its patents, brands, trademarks, capital expenditures, and research-and-development programs.

To assist financial managers in grappling with knowledge assets, CFO's second annual Knowledge Capital Scoreboard updates and expands last year's techniques--and its conclusions. In the 2000 edition, the methodology, designed at CFO's request by Prof. Baruch Lev of New York University's Stern School of Business, pierces the knowledge capital veil in more detail. Top companies in 20 industries were ranked according to their levels of knowledge capital, from a high of $211 billion at mighty Microsoft Corp., down to $332 million at our smallest knowledge-rated company, Adolph Coors Co. At our median company, $21 billion of knowledge capital amounted to three times book value.

High book-to-market (B-to-M) firms tend to be in poor financial health, as reflected by their low stock prices and poor earnings performance. Yet research consistently shows that a portfolio of these "value" firms outperforms both the overall market and portfolios comprised of low B-to-M "glamour" firms.

The reason for this is because a small number of high B-to-M firms are strong enough to raise the portfolio's mean performance, compensating for the many high B-to-M firms that under-perform the market. Wouldn't it be great to have a way to distinguish prospective winners from likely losers? A University of Chicago Graduate School of Business professor thought so, too.

Investors generally subscribe to the conventional wisdom that growth stocks outperform value stocks. But a study of international portfolios by professors at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business and the Yale School of Management has shown that in reality the reverse is true: Value stocks reap higher returns than growth stocks in markets around the world.

Editor's Note: this is an old article so it would be interesting to see the authors' subsequent work; one key finding is that CAPM does not work well (while CAPM considers sensitivity to the market return the authors found two other measures necessary: a measure to distinguish the risks in small stocks versus big stocks, and a measure to distinguish the risks in value stocks versus growth stocks.)

Who is better equipped to set the corporate agenda: a small and homogeneous top management team of like-minded individuals, or a larger, more heterogeneous team of individuals from a wider variety of backgrounds and perspectives?

There are many opinions on this issue, but very little hard data exists to recommend one approach or the other. As a result, in collaboration with the Center for Effective Organizations (part of the Marshall School of Business at the University of Southern California), the authors sought to address the issue by analyzing 66 peer-reviewed studies of top management team composition and performance conducted since 1984.

For a searchable repository of business cases check out our Case Study Center

---

How did a small Seattle company turn itself into a global synonym for java and joe? The answer, we believe, lies with an ingredient as central to Starbucks's business as the premium coffee beans it roasts: Relationships.

Starbucks is not the only company that firmly believes that an emphasis on relationships should be more than simply management rhetoric. Nor is it the only company that has profitably put this belief into practice. Our research indicates that relationships are indeed central to the sustained, superior performance of many of the world's most successful companies. In late 2001, researchers at Booz Allen Hamilton and Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management surveyed 113 executives at a representative sample of Fortune 1000 companies and found that winning companies define and deploy relationships in a consistent, specific, multifaceted manner. Although some companies will dub any concluded business deal a relationship, top-performing companies focus extraordinary, enterprise-wide energy on moving beyond a transactional mind-set as they develop trust-based, mutually beneficial, and long-term associations, specifically with four key constituencies: customers, suppliers, alliance partners, and their own employees. Starbucks, we believe, exemplifies this new model of the relationship-centric organization.

Note: Older EBF articles are not currently online. I'm not sure if this is temporary or permanent. If you click you will be taken to the Archive.org site to find an archived copy.

---

Entrepreneurship is once again fashionable with policymakers, business schools, large corporations and the media. But in the light of the dot-com crash, many wonder whether it can provide the much needed spark to re-ignite growth. What exactly is the link between rates of new business formation and the wider performance of an economy? Can large corporations replicate the conditions in which small companies successfully innovate and expand, or alternatively manage their own ‘intrapreneurs'? Does large business have a social obligation to support entrepreneurs? Is Europe destined to lag behind the United States? How can more women be encouraged to start their own enterprises? These and other questions are addressed in this edition of EBF.

Editor's Note: as with most of the EBF debates, the articles are a mixture of quality. For my money, the most significant reads are the articles by Roy Thurik, Andrew Campbell, Robert Burgelman, Chris West, and Emmanuel Peltier.

This EBF debate was re-opened in the subsequent issue with three excellent follow-up articles by Andrew Campbell, Robert Burgelman and Rosabeth Moss Kanter. Find them at:
http://www.ebfonline.com/at_forum/at_forum.asp?id=442

When product companies see the cost of materials rise, the result for consumers is often a price increase (gasoline) or, less often, a smaller amount of product at the same price (potato chips).

Which option is more likely to turn off your customers? For many products, it's better to reduce quantity than raise prices, conclude Harvard Business School marketing professor John Gourville and University of Texas professor Jonathan Koehler. Gourville discusses the price-versus-quantity dilemma in this e-mail interview.

Think Small. This slogan launched the Volkswagen Beetle back when Americans drove tanks with fins and it might well be the slogan of small business today. Small businesses often look a bit insignificant next to the Hummers of the Fortune 500, but like the Beetle, small business actually has economics on its side: it's the bugs of the business world that are creating the most jobs. Faculty from Emory University and its Goizueta Business School explore the strengths and challenges of small business in the U.S.

Harvard Business School professor Zaltman notes that despite enormous amounts of time and money dedicated to customer surveys and marketing, approximately 80% of all new products fail within six months or fall significantly short of their profit forecast. This shouldn't be surprising, he convincingly argues, since "a great mismatch exists between the way consumers experience and think about their world and the methods marketers use to collect this information." He calls for creative questioning that probes the unconscious values underlying consumers' reactions to products and marketing campaigns. Drawing on an impressive array of recent multidisciplinary research, Zaltman is especially provocative on the importance of memory, metaphor and storytelling in customers' decision making and the ways marketers might use these findings. Marketers worried about the scale and complexity of the surveys Zaltman advocates will breathe a sigh of relief as he outlines efficient methods to develop a set of shared values in a target market by creatively interviewing a small sample of customers. In fact, large vision and practical application go hand-in-hand for Zaltman. He may caution, rather abstractly, that successfully gauging the mind of the market depends on developing creative surveys and quality thinking about information gathered, but he also reminds readers to frame campaigns for a product in terms that vividly communicate its function and its emotional appeal for consumers. Zaltman's smart, practical analysis and many success stories will hold special appeal for those facing competitive markets, as well as for those rethinking more limited marketing approaches.
Copyright 2002 Reed Business Information, Inc.

The Encyclopedia of Leadership brings together for the first time everything that is known and truly matters about leadership as part of the human experience.

Developed by the award-winning editorial team at Berkshire Publishing Group, the Encyclopedia includes hundreds of articles, written by 400 leading scholars and experts from 17 countries, exploring leadership theories and leadership practice. Over a third of the work-some 500,000 words-is devoted to biographical essays and to case studies focused on leaders (and their followers). Articles and sidebars show leadership in action-in corporations and state houses, schools, churches, small businesses, and nonprofit organizations.

Read review at:
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/book-review.jhtml?id=4175&t=leadership

Rosabeth Moss Kanter will convince you that the goal of winning is not losing two times in a row. In her view, success and failure are not events, they are self-fulfilling tendencies. "Confidence is the sweet spot between arrogance and despair--consisting of positive expectations for favorable outcomes." says Kanter, a Harvard Business School Professor and author of The Change Masters.

She applies the literature of cognitive psychology (dissonance, explanatory models, learned optimism) to explore the winning and losing streaks of a diverse lineup including the BBC, Gillette, Verizon, Continental Airlines, the Chicago Cubs, and Target. The result is a brilliant anatomy lesson of the big decisions and the small gestures that build and restore confidence.

Three cornerstones are clearly detailed: "Accountability," the actions that involve facing facts without humiliation; "Collaboration," the rituals of respect that create teamwork, and "Initiative/Innovation," the "kaleidoscope thinking" that unlocks energy and creativity. A standout chapter describes how Nelson Mandela created a culture of confidence in South Africa. Some readers may wish for more strategies about positive habits of mind in individuals. Others will search for a quick fix. Instead, Moss Kanter's in-depth examples and ideas about resilient organizations will become required reading. They add up to a persuasive and informed optimism. --Barbara Mackoff

Who'd have thought fighting with each other would be good for employees? Or that ignoring superiors would be a wise business practice? Sutton, consultant and professor at the Stanford Engineering School, advocates taking a nontraditional approach to innovation and management in this quirky business manual. He advises taking unorthodox actions, suggesting managers should forget the past, especially successes; hire people who make them uncomfortable and hire slow learners. According to Sutton, these unconventional steps are particularly important when companies are dealing with unusual problems or stuck in a rut. Standard management policy may work for routine work matters, but weird ideas are far more effective when employees are trying to use innovative techniques. Sutton uses many real-life examples, like Tetley's pioneering round teabags, to show readers how his suggestions can work. But he observes that even companies such as IBM, Lucent and GE, which have been praised for their innovation, devote only a small percentage of their annual budgets to testing new products and services. Sutton's writing is clear and persuasive, and his book takes an insightful look at innovation.
Copyright 2001 Cahners Business Information, Inc.

web site of the popular PBS show for entrepreneurs; has some good content, incl. 4 steps for starting and 4 step for growing a business, a checklist, and extensive links

The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) is a national economic indicator of customer satisfaction with the quality of goods and services available to household consumers in the United States.
The Index is produced through a partnership among the University of Michigan Business School, the American Society for Quality, and the CFI Group. The University of Michigan Business School's National Quality Research Center, which developed the methodology used, compiles and analyzes the ACSI data.

Each quarter, scores for one or two sectors of the U.S. economy are updated. Quarterly results include scores for individual firms, industries, economic sectors, and the U.S. economy as a whole. The ACSI uses a 100-point scale.

ACSI measures satisfaction with 164 companies and 30 government agencies. The U.S.-owned companies produce about 40% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Their goods and services sold in the household market account for approximately 30% of GDP. Additionally, ACSI includes customer evaluations of foreign-owned companies with large market shares in a number of the industries, and an aggregate satisfaction index for smaller and emerging companies in each industry.

The renowned MOOT CORP® Competition opens its archives of award-winning business plans and presentations to create a mini-course for budding entrepreneurs to use in writing their business plans and in finding the resources to launch their businesses. The Creating a Fundable Business Plan website is part of the UTOPIA project, an ambitious new initiative designed to open The University of Texas at Austin's doors of knowledge, research, and information to the public.

"Our archives now hold twenty years of the best MOOT CORP Competition business plans and digitized presentations, which are used by business schools around the world to teach MBAs to analyze, write and present business plans," said Gary Cadenhead.

Because business plans are nearly always confidential, students and aspiring entrepreneurs rarely have the opportunity to read and analyze excellent business plans for real ventures. With permission to use these plans for educational purposes, the MOOT CORP Program has integrated carefully selected excerpts from outstanding plans and presentations together to assist entrepreneurs in writing and presenting their business plans to gain the resources needed to launch their ventures.

The website features introductory narration by Dr. Cadenhead, written excerpts from MOOT CORP business plans related to the module topic, an exercise requiring the viewer to analyze the examples presented, advice from experts and excerpts from MOOT CORP presentations.

Editor's Note: see the related site MOOTCORPtv.com, which webcasts entertaining and informative content for aspiring and existing entrepreneurs, small business owners and students interested in starting new ventures.

Tom Tierney was worldwide CEO of international consulting firm Bain & Company from 1992 until he began to focus on the Bridgespan Group, Bain's non-profit affiliate, in 2000. Under Tierney's leadership, Bain grew its revenues six-fold, expanding from 12 to 26 offices worldwide. He has now captured what he learned from the experience in the book Aligning the Stars (Harvard Business School Press), written with Harvard Business School's Jay Lorsch. With talent shortages and companies increasingly reliant on a small number of key individuals, Tierney says that managing talented but demanding individuals now lies at the heart of many organisations and that the lessons of professional services firms - such as legal, accounting and consulting firms - are increasingly relevant to those in other industries.

claims to have 1,419 basic program entries but detailed program data on just a small % of schools. Search criteria includes: State or Region (USA); Country (very limited); Program Concentration; Level (undergrad vs. grad)

Career Journal of the _Wall Street Journal_ presents the results of its two-year long survey of corporate recruiters' ratings of MBA programs from around the world. According to their survey, three smaller B-schools, Dartmouth's Tuck School, Carnegie Mellon University's Graduate School of Industrial Administration, and Yale University's School of Management, were rated the top three, displacing the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford, and Harvard. In a series of articles about the findings, the _Wall Street Journal_ also discusses the methodology and rankings, as well as information on the top school. Be sure to view the fascinating moderated discussion of the rankings.

Each month when I make a payment on the student loan I took out to get an M.B.A. degree, I wonder if going to graduate business school was the right decision. My wife and I are struggling to raise two small children, and I think about what we could do with the money if we weren't making the loan payment. I think, too, about all the money I could have earned if I had attended school part time instead of full time. Perhaps the way I attended was wrong, too.

At any rate, here's my full accounting of why I went to b-school, why I attended full time, what I expected from the degree, what I got, and how this decision has affected my life.

Small-town schools offer a lot that big-city schools don't, especially a close-knit community and strong attachment between student and institution.

FORTUNE claims these grad schools blend real-world small-business know-how with top academics.

Note: eMarketer is a fee-based site

---

This content is for members only. But registering is free and painless.

In the final in his three part podcast series with Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, Donald Sull, Associate Professor of Management Practice in Strategic and International Management, speaks with the Stanford University Professor about what makes good management teams.

Eisenhardt begins this podcast by stating that in her opinion the most useful metaphor about teams for managers is a basketball team because the teams are fast moving, fluid and if they’re good they score. Eisenhardt builds on this by explaining that good teams, like basketball teams, are relatively small, highly differentiated with a variation of experience.

Eisenhardt elaborates that the best teams are able to make decisions quickly, are able to handle conflict and can walk out of a meeting room and be ready to execute their ideas, while still liking each other. She points out that one of the challenges of conflict is to ensure that the conflict is about an issue and not any individual person. Eisenhardt suggests that this can be achieved by staying focused in the data and also by developing multiple alternatives which can depersonalise conflict and encourage creative decision making.

On a lighter note, Eisenhardt points out the importance of humour and how encouraging an environment of fun and good humour puts people in a good mood and they become more co-operative.

If conflict does arise, it is important to be able to cut it off and Eisenhardt suggests introducing some simple rules. For example teams could include a rule limiting the number of meetings about a particular issue or a rule that defers the final decision to a particular leader if there is difficulty in reaching a decision.

For a complete set of career resources check out our Career Center

---

Dear Experts,

I moved to NYC from Europe (Switzerland)in 2001 (right time isn'it!). I do have a an MBA from a second-tier MBA in London (Cass Business School) and possess a green card.

I went through the classical job hunting approach (job search site, sending lots of resume to targeted ads and companies). My field is in financial management/analysis from experiences European exclusively(UK and Switzerland).

Previous to my MBA, my field was business analysis in Education up to 1996 and is not of much use. My post MBA experience is rather short (more than 2 years). Overall, my job search led me to few interviews and no job offers.

I trying now a more qualitative approach to the job market. Selecting what I want to do and what seems to have chances to succeed. I am trying to go beyond HR gatekeepers and target directly decision makers. I am also trying alternatives such as consulting work for small companies, volunteering, etc... I am also trying to network.

However trying to do these non-classical approaches are tough. I am not sure what I really should do. Would be great to have some advise.

Thanks,
Alan

Note: Older EBF articles are not currently online. I'm not sure if this is temporary or permanent. If you click you will be taken to the Archive.org site to find an archived copy.

---

Business schools are invaluable for laying the foundations for the practice of management. This is especially true for marketing, finance, or human resources, but far less so for strategy. The problem with the current system is that it forces strategy into the direct and narrow approach to teaching. If the shortest distance between two points in geometry is a straight line, then the shortest distance between teaching and learning consists of making students internalize concepts as rapidly and as efficiently as possible. A deep grasp of strategy, however, resists this approach because understanding strategy means seeing and understanding parts and wholes simultaneously.

In strategy, good foundations consist of understanding the whole and the parts of strategy, separately and together. Business schools are ideal for understanding the parts, less so for the wholes, and not at all for the relationship between the two. Understanding this relationship is at the heart of strategy.

There is a balance between talking and thinking, analysis and reflection. Teaching strategy moves back and forth between these dualities. The desired outcome is strong intuitive capabilities combined with a developed ability to articulate. Intuitive capabilities are essential for recognizing the parts and wholes that make up strategy; articulating is necessary for exploring and developing an understanding of how they interact. The process exists to ensure that intuition helps articulation and articulating reinforces intuition.

The process can easily go wrong, and our present educational systems almost ensure that it does go wrong. Direct learning reinforces the tendency to over-articulate. Students learn to apply SWOT analysis, industry analysis, or value chain analysis but these tools drain strategy of its complexity and nuance. The opposite is also true. Paradoxically, direct learning reinforces the tendency to be over-intuitive. Students learn strategy as a set of disconnected and abstract words. From there it is a small step to mastering words like 'competencies', 'vision', and 'leadership' which explain very little.