First Look

Abstract—In your career, or anyone's, there is one transition that stands out as the most crucial—going from individual contributor to competent manager. New managers have to learn how to lead others rather than do the work themselves, to win trust and respect, to motivate, and to strike the right balance between delegation and control. Many fail to make the transition successfully. In this book, I trace the experiences of 19 new managers over the course of their first year in the role. I reveal the complexity of the transition, highlighting the expectations of these managers, their subordinates, and their superiors. I hear the new managers describe how they reframed their understanding of their roles and responsibilities, how they learned to build effective cross-functional work relationships, how and when they used individual and organizational resources, and how they learned to cope with the inevitable stresses of leadership. I show that becoming a manager is a profound psychological adjustment—a true transformation—as well as a continuous process of learning from experience.

Publisher's link: https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=55991

Abstract—CEO activism refers to corporate leaders speaking out on social and environmental policy issues not directly related to their company’s core business. Distinct from nonmarket strategy and traditional corporate social responsibility, the recent wave of CEO activism focuses on social issues unrelated to their core business, ranging from environmental issues to LGBTQ rights and race relations. In the first study of this phenomenon, we implement two framed field experiments to provide evidence on how CEO activism can influence public opinions about government policies and consumer attitudes regarding the CEO’s company.

Publisher's link: https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=55999

Abstract—Gatekeepers in financial markets have the power to provide the institutional stability, fortitude and direction necessary for the development and the smooth functioning of capital markets. At the same time, they are often motivated by their own private incentives. This, along with the trade-offs they face and the at-times unintended consequences of the regulations they propose and enforce, can undermine their effectiveness. A thorough understanding of gatekeepers and their roles can thus illuminate academics, the financial community and regulators on how such gatekeepers can be the most effective and generate the greatest benefits for capital markets. Since gatekeeping roles and the literature they have inspired encompass a wide array of institutions and agencies, our overview concentrates on those that the conference papers appearing in this volume focus on. We conclude that collectively, the papers contribute to significant progress, point out some crucial areas that call for further investigation, and offer opportunities for future research.

Publisher's link: https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=56001

Abstract—In this paper, I address how the ascendance of the theory of shareholder value maximization into the central consciousness of public corporations and its canonization as the only legitimate expression of corporate purpose has contributed to both a widening breach between American-style capitalism and justice and increased alienation of the public from capitalism as a system of economic governance. Despite the vast academic literature and many management testimonials advocating a broader conception of corporate purpose—one that addresses the interests of firms’ multiple constituencies and the well-being of their employees, customers, and operating environment—shareholder value maximization remains the de facto expression of corporate purpose and guide for decision-making for most publicly owned firms in the United States (and the United Kingdom). I argue that narrowing the compatibility gap between capitalism and justice and reversing declining public trust in contemporary capitalism requires a very different conception of corporate purpose—one reflecting established moral and economic principles that challenge those underlying the shareholder value maximization doctrine. To this end, I start by discussing the vulnerability of contemporary capitalism, which is largely rooted in the social and moral disengagement of firms operating under this doctrine. I then explain how the emergence of the doctrine over the past four decades has led to this social and moral disengagement, what the theoretical underpinnings of the shareholder value maximization doctrine are, how this doctrine has become so deeply ingrained in our capitalist system, and the conceptual and practical problems presented by this doctrine and related theory of the firm. Next, I propose an alternate, principle-based guideline for corporate purpose that blends Aristotle’s theory of reciprocal justice with considerations of corporate purpose, along with Chester Barnard’s compatible theory of business organizations as cooperative systems. Aristotle stresses the ethicality of cooperation in transactional settings; Barnard stresses the efficiencies and adaptive benefits flowing from cooperation. Both see utility in truly reciprocal, cooperative relationships, which is not a priority in a shareholder value maximization regime. This alternative approach—referred to as ethical reciprocity—not only provides the basis for a rebuttal of the shareholder-primacy doctrine based on principles of justice and economic efficiency, but also offers a practical guideline for balancing the interests of shareholders and other corporate constituencies in the conduct of everyday business affairs. After presenting ethical reciprocity as a justice-sensitive guideline for corporate purpose, I turn to two practical questions related to its implementation: (a) whether “reciprocity practitioners” can compete in a world dominated by shareholder value maximizers, and (b) if so, what asset holders and asset managers, corporate directors, and educators can do—and, in some instances, are currently doing—to foster increased attention to both the principle and spirit of ethical reciprocity in the definition and pursuit of corporate purpose.

Download working paper: https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=55998

How to run a platform to match four million writers of stories to 75 million readers? Use data science. Make money by doing deals with television and filmmakers and book publishers. The case describes the challenges of matching readers to stories and of helping writers produce better stories by supplying feedback on their chapters as they write, all by processing a billion data points daily. But it's hard to acquire new customer groups when algorithms have a bias to replicate the tastes on which they are trained.

Purchase this case:
https://hbsp.harvard.edu/product/919413-PDF-ENG

The case opens in 2016 as Barbaros Ozbugutu, co-founder and CEO of the Istanbul-based payment technology start-up iyzico, contemplates the offers the company received for its Series C round. The case then describes iyzico’s origins and provides a detailed overview of the business model and growth story that led iyzico to dominate the industry in Turkey within three years of its founding. Having raised A and B rounds from local and institutional investors in 2014 and 2015 respectively, Ozbugutu believes that iyzico could benefit from another round in 2016, this time from international venture capital, to reach its aggressive growth targets. In the summer of 2016, after an intense few months of talks with potential investors, Ozbugutu was looking at five competitive term sheets from funds with great fintech know-how and emerging-markets experience. From the previous rounds, he knew that if he chose the right investors—ones who could also act as advisors—surprises would be rare. He now needed to weigh the pros and cons of the different term sheets and VCs and decide which offers to ultimately accept.

Purchase this case:
https://hbsp.harvard.edu/product/219064-PDF-ENG

The case opens in July 2016 as Barbaros Ozbugutu, co-founder and CEO of the Istanbul-based payment technology start-up iyzico, contemplates the pros and cons of the different term sheets the company has received for its Series C round. The case then informs the reader about some changes in circumstances that affected the terms of the shortlisted offers. At the end, the case poses this question: Being faced with worsening terms in a volatile environment, should Ozbugutu go ahead with the round, or should he wait and try again at a later point in time?

Purchase this case:
https://hbsp.harvard.edu/product/219065-PDF-ENG

Set in March 2018, the case follows ride-sharing company Uber as it develops and launches a new product called Express POOL. This product offers a reduced price to riders willing to carpool, walk a short distance to/from their pick-up and drop-off points, and wait a few minutes before being matched to a driver. Two weeks after the launch of Express POOL in six U.S. cities, Uber’s product managers discover that if riders are made to wait five minutes to be matched to a driver—rather than the standard two minutes—rider cancellation rates increase, but Uber’s costs per ride are reduced. Together with data scientists, engineers, and product operations specialists, the product managers must decide whether to keep rider wait times at two minutes or increase wait times to five minutes in the six newly launched cities. The decision is complicated by the fact that Uber’s data science team normally places a five-week moratorium on changes to any new product, to allow robust data to be collected on its performance. This case is paired with a supplementary dataset from Uber (HBS No. 619-702). In advance of the class discussion, students can analyze the data and draw their own conclusions about the trade-offs of maintaining the standard wait times or increasing them.

Purchase this case:
https://hbsp.harvard.edu/product/619003-PDF-ENG

No abstract available.

Purchase this case:
https://hbsp.harvard.edu/product/819079-PDF-ENG

Chinese appliance company Haier's 2016 acquisition of iconic GE Appliances (GEA) ushered in strategic and structural changes to encourage innovation and entrepreneurship at the U.S. company and to help it grow. Haier, which had a model designed to bring the company closer to users of its products, wanted GEA to adopt a version of the model that suited the U.S. market, U.S. consumers, and GEA's employees. This case describes GEA's efforts to do that as a member of the Haier Group.

Purchase this case:
https://hbsp.harvard.edu/product/319044-PDF-ENG

In 2008, Goldman Sachs started the 10,000 Small Businesses program to help small businesses in the United States by providing education and a network of support—at no cost —and access to capital. It required the firm to create a new business ecosystem with a wide variety of partners including community colleges, city governments, and national and local support organizations. In 2018, the program had graduated 7,300 scholars—just 2,700 shy of the 10,000 target. The case examines the creation of the 10,000 Small Businesses ecosystem and asks students to judge the merits of the program and whether the program should be sustained beyond 10,000 scholars and, if so, how to fund the program moving forward.

Purchase this case:
https://hbsp.harvard.edu/product/319005-PDF-ENG