Management

The Innovator’s Dilemma was published in 1997, so when The New Yorker last week printed a detailed dissection of disruptive innovation, the idea at the heart of Clayton Christensen’s book, my first reaction was: what took critics so long?

Andrew Hill

Clayton Christensen (Peter Foley/Bloomberg)

Clay Christensen is a gentle man, of devout Mormon faith, prone to sentimentality and beloved by many – not least for his lessons to students on how to find fulfilment, which he turned into an unexpected bestseller, How Will You Measure Your Life?

But the avuncular Harvard Business School star is hot under the collar about this week’s New Yorker attack on the book (The Innovator’s Dilemma) and theory (disruptive innovation) for which he is best known.

What seems to have made him particularly angry is the fact that the author, Jill Lepore, who is also a Harvard academic, did not drop by to chat to him about her detailed allegations that his theory does not stand up. Read more

Since the financial crisis, the only politically palatable response to corporate malfeasance has been to add more pages to the rule book. Last week, for example, George Osborne, Britain’s chancellor of the exchequer, said he would make manipulation of foreign exchange and other benchmarks a criminal offence.

Andrew Hill

Outsiders have been marvelling at the uncanny skills of robots for decades. In 1978, commentators on the FT’s “Technical Page” were wowed by a machine called Puma (“programmable universal manipulator for assembly”) that had the “dexterity and accuracy [to] insert lamps into automobile instrument panels”. These days, Puma would look about as nimble as a first world war tank. My colleague Tanya Powley writes in the last of the FT’s series on robots at work that a Danish company has developed a machine that “can pack millions of eggs without crushing them”, while lightweight collaborative robots work alongside humans.

Missing, though, from most accounts of how automation will transform the workplace is a similar sense of wonder at the dexterity of managers as they adapt their human skills to the demands of the sophisticated machinery around them. Read more

Welcome to the World Cup in Brazil, brought to you by Fifa, a corporate governance disaster that is also one of the most successful multinational enterprises on earth.

Andrew Hill

Spanish Crown Prince Felipe Photo: Reuters

A couple of royal handovers and a papal resignation and suddenly abdication – which used to have a near uniformly negative connotation – is all the rage. Read more

John Gapper

Stephen Immelt, brother of Jeff Immelt, chairman and chief executive of General Electric, has become the second Immelt to lead a multinational organisation – in his case the law firm Hogan Lovells.

Jeff Immelt has given his brother some advice on how to do so. In an interview with The Lawyer magazine, Steve says Jeff has a rule of three-to-five for managing GE: Read more

Self-castration was such a popular path to a high-flying advisory career in China’s imperial court that the Ming dynasty ended up having to employ lots of eunuchs it could not afford.

Early in her career at Apollo Hospitals, Preetha Reddy, then aged 30, went to question a senior doctor. Affronted about being interrogated by a manager half his age, he quit the next day. It taught Ms Reddy, now managing director of the Indian healthcare group, to practise “the art of listening” before confronting a more experienced team member with new ideas.

Andrew Hill

Graves at the Père-Lachaise-cemetery in Paris

I’ve been wondering about the most suitable place to commemorate the death of the Omnicom-Publicis deal. How about Père Lachaise cemetery in Paris, where Oscar Wilde and The Doors’ Jim Morrison are buried?

A photo of Maurice Lévy and John Wren, respectively the bosses of Publicis and Omnicom, thumbing their noses at each other against a backdrop of moss-covered tombs would be just as appropriate in its way as the infamous deal-announcement image of the two men toasting one another, with the Arc de Triomphe in the background. Read more

The recent history of Britain’s Co-operative Group is so peculiar it is tempting to paraphrase the opening lines of Anna Karenina – “Happy companies are all alike and every unhappy company is unhappy in its own way” – and dismiss it as a management aberration.

Adam Jones

Managers are notorious for prioritising short-term demands when they clash with long-term goals. Research in the US has shown that most executives would shy away from a value-enhancing long-term project if it caused them to miss a quarterly earnings forecast.

How companies can manage such clashes was the subject of a “Strategy Live” debate organised by the Financial Times in London this morning. Chaired by management editor Andrew Hill, the session featured senior figures from finance and industry, who spoke on a non-attributable basis under the Chatham House rule.

Participants used the example of Barclays to launch a broader debate, examining its controversial decision to increase bonuses to its investment bankers even as it – seemingly paradoxically – tried to move to a less abrasive, more long-termist cultureRead more

Andrew Hill

Rajeev Suri, newly appointed head of Nokia, has plenty to tackle at the Finnish group, but one challenge relates to the part of the business he no longer oversees – the handset business that has finally transferred to Microsoft’s ownership.

As head of Nokia Solutions and Networks, Mr Suri developed the telecoms equipment business, which now makes up the largest part of “new Nokia”, more or less autonomously from the devices business. Its culture is likely to dominate the Finnish group as it now evolves. But what of the deep-rooted residual link with the handsets in our pockets?

Even if the Nokia brand is quickly stripped from smartphones, I wonder whether the Finnish group will experience the business equivalent of “phantom limb syndrome” – twitching and wincing as though the amputated devices arm is still attached to the rest of the body corporate. Read more

I am sitting in a packed conference room, somewhere in the heart of London’s financial centre, in an office I have sworn not to identify. It is quiet for a midweek lunchtime. In fact, it is silent. Along with the ex-chairman of a blue-chip company, a handful of executives and board members, a former senior central banker, a Buddhist software engineer, a Benedictine monk and 60 others, I am meditating. Or trying to.

Andrew Hill

Researching my latest column about the management benefits of mindfulness and meditation, I came across a priceless FT article from 1957. Headlined “Keeping Managers Healthy”, it warns about the “effects of stress and strain on top-level executives” and concludes, gravely, that a number of executives “break the most important rule of all – which is not to ‘keep in touch’ with the company while ostensibly on holiday”.

The article contains this cut-out-and-keep list of 10 “do’s and dont’s”, distilled in part from “what one oil company advises its men [sic]“: Read more