No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Microsoft: instilling a growth mindset
Abstract
When Satya Nadella became CEO of Microsoft in February 2014, the company seemed in danger of fading into irrelevance. Now its share price is at an all‐time high. How did he do it? By Herminia Ibarra and Aneeta Rattan
... Their first acquisition was Forethought Inc., purchased in 1987, which became the predecessor of Microsoft Powerpoint (Cochrane, 2004). Bill Gates and Paul Gardner Allen founded the company, with Bill leading the company (Ibarra, Rattan, & Johnston, 2018), marked by dwindling share prices and financial performance. In 2014, Satya Nadella was appointed CEO. ...
... According to analysts, the major change he brought was changing the mindset and culture of the company. This allowed for Microsoft to undertake major changes which reinvigorated their business, engaged a wider range of user base, and ultimately led to increased share prices (Ibarra, Rattan, & Johnston, 2018). Chief among this, was diversifying their revenue streams, and building new products, services, and overall ecosystem. ...
Companies perform mergers and acquisitions to grow, either horizontally by way of new products, or vertically across the value chain. Mergers and acquisitions are a widely used growth strategy for various industries, moreover in the global information technology sector. Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ: MSFT) has used mergers and acquisitions as an integral part of their business strategy to either acquire new products, enhance the the capabilities of existing products, or to serve a new business segment. Studies and evaluations of the impact of mergers and acquisitions normally assess long-term financial performance or short-term returns. The former usually measures value creation for the compay, while the latter measures value creation for shareholders. This study attempts to assess both short-term value creation via abnormal returns using four sample acquisitions and long-term value creation by way of financial ratio analysis to better understand how Microsoft Corporation creates value for shareholders and the company. The study found that most acquisitions do not create short-term value for shareholders and the company, this mostly happens in the long run. The results support the efficient market hypothesis. Furthermore, this study can be used as reference for managers on how to create value for shareholders and the company via acquisitions. Integrating the acquisition into one's product portfolio to build strong product experience appears to have more bearing on value creation for shareholders and the company.
... Studies show that having an agile mindset, which Dweck (2017) also refers to as the growth mindset, can help one to progress (Ibarra et al. 2018). Agile mindset individuals always seek continuous improvement in learning and also embrace challenges (Sidky 2010;Dweck 2017;Anderson 2018;Beatson et al. 2019;Pusenius 2019). ...
... Studies also state that agile mindset individuals always seek continuous improvement and do not fear failure (Sidky 2010;Miler and Gaida 2019). According to Pusenius (2019), fixed mindset individuals fear failure because they believe it defines them, and they are more likely to choose tasks that are compatible with their current abilities (Ibarra et al. 2018). In contrast, agile mindset individuals gain confidence through these failures, knowing that they are improving and gaining more knowledge (Rising 2016;Schroder et al. 2019). ...
In today’s digital era, where communication is primarily conducted using computers and other technological devices, an agile mindset is not enough to be sustainable. Given the significant influence of human behaviour in agile environments, it is common for emotions to come into play among team members, particularly when they seek to assert their opinions or perspectives. Having digital emotional intelligence (DEQ) is crucial for agile team members in the current digital age, as it allows them to comprehend the emotions of their fellow team members using digital tools and technologies. This study focused on determining the reciprocal influence for team members between DEQ and an agile mindset in an agile environment. Qualitative research was implemented using semi-structured interviews. The identified participants were industry agnostic and were the team members working in agile projects, transitioning to agile and working in hybrid projects. The findings revealed that the intersection of agile mindset and DEQ is self-awareness. Self-awareness includes psychological empowerment, communication and collaboration, and respect. Possessing an agile mindset and DEQ in an agile environment has advantages, including improved virtual collaboration, faster adaptation to new technologies, better management of digital distractions, enhanced customer focus in digital channels, and improved data literacy.
... enabler for their chosen business model have to create an effective digital (Kane et al., 2016) and customer-focused culture (Gulati & Oldroyd, 2005). One example of a digital-native company that embarked on such an endeavor is Microsoft when they identified the culture they want to have: (1) customer obsession, (2) diversity & inclusion, and (3) one Microsoft (Ibarra et al., 2018). As culture has been cited as one of the most significant self-reported barriers (Goran et al., 2017), companies who are about to embark on a transformation journey must think culturally rather than about culture. ...
In response to modern-day disruptions and to maintain competitiveness and viability, companies embark on corporate transformation journeys to enhance performance and boost organizational health. When transformations succeed, they fundamentally boost a company’s key business drivers. This article is a first step in providing prescriptive literature to transforming companies that they can use to navigate their journey. The article defines the three components of corporate transformations business model transformation, digital-enabled transformation, and organizational transformation - and their interdependencies. The study is based on the systematic review of literature available on the components of corporate transformations which is mostly unidimensional and leads to the consolidation of the components into a framework. It also describes the strategic routes of corporate transformations (mesa-transformation and meta-transformation). The framework is applicable for academic research and for practitioners when diagnosing companies, strategizing their transformations, and planning their transformation journeys.
... customer-focused culture (Gulati & Oldroyd, 2005). One example of digital-native companies who embarked on such endeavor is Microsoft when they identified the culture they want to have: (1) customer obsession, (2) diversity & inclusion, and (3) one Microsoft (Ibarra, Rattan, & Johnston, 2018). As culture has been cited as one of the most significant self-reported barriers (Goran, LaBerge, & Srinivasan, 2017), companies who are about to embark on a transformation journey must think culturally rather than think about culture. ...
In response to disruptions, non-digital-native companies embark on corporate transformation journeys. Research done indicate that most companies fail to survive such journeys. So, why success varies among those companies, potentially costing the global economy trillions of dollars? My hypothesis is that those who orchestrate the three components of a corporate transformation (Business model transformation, Digital enabled transformation, and Organizational transformation) are more successful in their transformation journey compared to companies who don’t. By conducting a case study research, I validated my hypothesis and developed a prescriptive orchestration framework that will allow non-digital-native companies not only successfully navigate their corporate transformation journey but also switch their transformation to always-on.
... For example, the culture in India differs from that of the United States, with each perceiving the power distance differently (see figure 5) (Hofstede Insights, 2022), and they are also related to different country clusters according to GLOBE, with India included in the Southern Asia cluster, which has distinct characteristics than the USA that is included in the cluster of Anglo (Northouse, 2016). Before Nadella became CEO, employees were more focused on competing for more than collaboration, and the company was focusing on mobile more than cloud technology, whereas Nadella was attempting to shift the company's focus into modern management and empower the culture of collaboration, as well as focus more on the booming technologies of the day by shifting the culture into the coaching style and supporting continuous learning (Ibarra et al., 2018). He embraced the growth mindset and steered the company in a new strategic direction that prioritized customer obsession, diversity, inclusion, as well as the concept of "One Microsoft," which states that everyone has the same goal but may pursue it in different ways (Ryon, 2015). ...
The leadership topic is in continuous improvement especially after the pandemic of COVID-19 when many related topics are raised like the employees’ burn-out, work-life balance, and the importance of digital skills. For that reason, the topic of leadership is so important and requires attention to help organizations sustain their business and lead people in a modern human way that improves their performance. This article explains the effect of leadership style and personality on organizational performance and how Satya Nadella, the CEO of Microsoft, supported HR and empowered them to deploy modern strategies to retain employees and to do successful onboarding and performance improvements. Companies should take into consideration both, the employees’ needs and the client’s satisfaction, by building a productive culture based on the work-life balance using five leadership skills: collaboration, coaching, cultural formation, learning, and empowerment, that boost employees’ engagement to perform better.
... 2014 was a turning point as the company moved to become a data-driven intellectual monopoly. Microsoft deprioritized Windows and gave priority to mobile and cloud businesses based on big data and AI (in particular deep learning) as sources of continuous innovations (Ibarra & Rattan, 2018). ...
This book develops new theoretical perspectives on the economics and politics of innovation and knowledge in order to capture new trends in modern capitalism. It shows how giant corporations establish themselves as intellectual monopolies and how each of them builds and controls its own corporate innovation system. It presents an analysis of a new form of production where Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple and Microsoft, and their counterparts in China, extract value and appropriate intellectual rents through privileged access to AI algorithms trained by data from organizations and individuals all around the world.
These companies’ specific form of production and rent-seeking takes place at the global level and challenges national governments trying to regulate intellectual monopolies and attempting to build stronger national innovation systems. It is within this context that the authors provide new insights on the complex interplay between corporate and national innovation systems by looking at the US-China conflict, understood as a struggle for global technological supremacy. The book ends with alternative scenarios of global governance and advances policy recommendations as well as calls for social activism.
This book will be of interest to students, academics and practitioners (both from national states and international organizations) and professionals working on innovation, digital capitalism and related topics.
Bengt-Åke Lundvall is Professor emeritus in economics at Department of Business Studies at Aalborg University and Professor emeritus at Department of Economic History at Lund University. His research is organized around a broad set of issues related to innovation systems and learning economies.
Cecilia Rikap is Lecturer in International Political Economy at City, University of London, CONICET researcher and associate researcher at COSTECH, Université de Technologie de Compiègne. She has a PhD in Economics from the University of Buenos Aires, Argentina. Her research deals with the global political economy of science, technology and innovation.
... 2014 was a turning point as the company moved to become a data-driven intellectual monopoly. Microsoft deprioritized Windows and gave priority to mobile and cloud businesses based on big data and AI (in particular deep learning) as sources of continuous innovations (Ibarra & Rattan, 2018). ...
In this chapter, we show that tech giants organize what we define as corporate innovation systems from which they appropriate knowledge that they transform into intangible assets garnering intellectual rents. We define corporate innovation systems as systems that are organized and controlled by an intellectual monopoly and include a multitude of more or less subordinate organizations participating in production and innovation networks. The chapter studies selected US and Chinese tech giants’ corporate innovation systems through an analysis of their scientific publications’ co-authoring organizations, their participation in the open-source software environment and start-up acquisitions.
... 2014 was a turning point as the company moved to become a data-driven intellectual monopoly. Microsoft deprioritized Windows and gave priority to mobile and cloud businesses based on big data and AI (in particular deep learning) as sources of continuous innovations (Ibarra & Rattan, 2018). ...
In this chapter, we conceptualize artificial intelligence as a technological innovation system (TIS) and use data on tech giants’ publications to analyse their crucial role in developing and shaping the system. A unique characteristic of the AI system is the integrative role of cloud computing, a set of digital services completely dominated by a handful of tech giants. We demonstrate that tech giants are at the forefront both in the development of artificial intelligence core techniques and in its functional and field applications. We point to the crucial role and limits of digital learning in shaping the future of this TIS. Rather than defining the performance of the system in terms of its expansion, we demonstrate that the dominant position of tech giants results in a problematic guidance.
... 2014 was a turning point as the company moved to become a data-driven intellectual monopoly. Microsoft deprioritized Windows and gave priority to mobile and cloud businesses based on big data and AI (in particular deep learning) as sources of continuous innovations (Ibarra & Rattan, 2018). ...
In Chapter 4, we analysed artificial intelligence (AI) as a technological innovation system (TIS) dominated by the tech giants. This chapter gives insights into the emergence and dynamics of this system. We explore the technological convergence between two tech giants with quite distinct origins using lexical analyses of these companies’ patents and scientific publications. We find that both Amazon and Microsoft have zoomed in their research and development (R&D) efforts on deep learning and neural networks as well as functional AI applications. We also find evidence of increasing centrality of harvesting, storing and processing data. R&D on cloud computing infrastructure is another area where both companies overlap. Given their dominant role in the AI TIS and the importance of economic factors in the selection of the cluster of technologies that constitute technological paradigms, we argue that these companies’ priorities are indicative of the prevailing directions within AI technological trajectories.
... 2014 was a turning point as the company moved to become a data-driven intellectual monopoly. Microsoft deprioritized Windows and gave priority to mobile and cloud businesses based on big data and AI (in particular deep learning) as sources of continuous innovations (Ibarra & Rattan, 2018). ...
In this final chapter, we introduce alternative scenarios concerning tech giants, the US and Chinese states, data governance and innovation under the current governance regime. On this basis, we advance policy recommendations and calls for activism aiming at a less polarized future where technology is guided towards collectively solving societal, ecological and health challenges. We elaborate on why there is a need for new forms of governance that take into account the growing importance of global digital public goods as well as the need for new forms of public access to science and technology. We end by applying a global perspective pointing to major dilemmas between what can be done under existing governance regimes and what should be done in the long term.
... 2014 was a turning point as the company moved to become a data-driven intellectual monopoly. Microsoft deprioritized Windows and gave priority to mobile and cloud businesses based on big data and AI (in particular deep learning) as sources of continuous innovations (Ibarra & Rattan, 2018). ...
This chapter focuses on the role of the state and its interaction with tech giants in the US–China race for AI global dominance. In the previous chapter, we elaborated on the role of the Chinese state in China’s AI catching-up. In response, the US government has combined measures to promote AI with technology embargos with the aim to protect its AI lead. We use the concepts techno-globalism and techno-nationalism to capture fundamental changes in state involvement and international relations. Simultaneously, the chapter elaborates on the co-evolution between state policy and corporate strategy, characterized by elements of consonance and discord. Tech giants operate globally and their interplay with their home states is at the core of the current transformations of the global innovation system.
... 2014 was a turning point as the company moved to become a data-driven intellectual monopoly. Microsoft deprioritized Windows and gave priority to mobile and cloud businesses based on big data and AI (in particular deep learning) as sources of continuous innovations (Ibarra & Rattan, 2018). ...
This book conceptualizes the global innovation race between nation states and corporations in the second phase of a technological revolution characterized by Artificial Intelligence and explosive growth in digital services. Each chapter elaborates on an existing or new conceptual framing to analyse empirical dimensions of the economics and politics of innovation in the context of digital capitalism. In this introductory chapter, we set the scene by presenting the main actors and highlight the crucial role of Artificial Intelligence. We end it by introducing the structure of the book.
... 2014 was a turning point as the company moved to become a data-driven intellectual monopoly. Microsoft deprioritized Windows and gave priority to mobile and cloud businesses based on big data and AI (in particular deep learning) as sources of continuous innovations (Ibarra & Rattan, 2018). ...
In this chapter, we introduce and further develop the intellectual monopoly concept and argue that US and Chinese tech giants are paradigmatic examples. We distinguish different degrees of intellectual monopoly and identify data-driven intellectual monopolies as belonging to the highest degree. They have monopolized a new method of invention: the application of deep learning and neural networks to process big data, producing digital intelligence that locates the most promising new combinations of the existing elements of knowledge. The chapter considers the threats for society of tech giants’ consolidation as data-driven intellectual monopolies.
... 2014 was a turning point as the company changed from an intellectual monopoly mostly based on legal monopoly rents, towards becoming a data-driven intellectual monopoly. The new Microsoft deprioritized Windows and gave top priority to mobile and cloud businesses based on big data and artificial intelligence as sources of continuous innovations (Ibarra and Rattan 2018). ...
This paper focuses on tech giants as active drivers of a phase of globalisation characterized by growth in digital services trade combined with a general shift to intangible assets. By analysing how Google, Amazon and Microsoft organize their innovation activities, we show that they continuously monopolize knowledge while outsourcing innovation steps to other firms and research institutions. The paper compares science and technology collaborations with patent co-ownership suggesting knowledge predation from those other organizations. We also highlight that selected tech giants combine the collection of innovation rents with rents from exclusive access to data. We therefore refer to tech giants as data-driven intellectual monopolies, each organizing and controlling a global corporate innovation system (CIS). Intellectual monopolies predate knowledge (including data when they are data-driven) from their CIS that they turn into intangible assets. The paper ends with reflections on the implications for innovation and development.
This paper uses novel, firm-level communication measures derived from communications metadata several months before and after a CEO transition for 102 firms to study whether and how this organizational event is reflected in employees’ communication flows. We find that CEO turnover is associated with an initial decrease in intrafirm communication (−20% relative to the pre-CEO transition period), followed by a significant increase approximately five months after the CEO turnover (+20% relative to the pre-CEO transition period). The increase in communication is driven primarily by interdepartmental (i.e., communication involving employees of different functional departments) and vertical (i.e., communication among managers and employees) communication flows. This study suggests that communications metadata are a useful tool to examine how organizational change and related uncertainty impact information flows within firms.
This paper was accepted by Alfonso Gambardella, business strategy.
Supplemental Material: The online appendix and data files are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.02719 .
Miguel Pina e Cunha and Marco Berti understand serendipity as a process that requires the right combination of effort and luck. In this chapter, they suggest that organizations are better off embracing or “cultivating” serendipity as learning opportunities. Their approach is to frame serendipity as a “negative capability, i.e. a capacity to pursue a vision that leads to confusion and uncertainty rather than to certainty and clarity.” Their argument sets out by making a distinction between the mechanistic view and the organismic view of organization. In contrast to mechanistic views, organismic views acknowledge the unpredictability and uncontrollability of the environment external to the organization and, thus, its serendipitous potential. Cunha and Berti lament that organizational cultures rather engage in a paradoxical strategy, of trying to predict what their competitors will do, while at the same time trying to remain unpredictable to them. They suggest several ways in which effort towards serendipity can be realized, including generative doubt—the fostering or embracing of a state of not-knowing, and peripheral vision—paying more attention to areas outside the organization’s attention. Conclusively, Cunha and Berti argue that while not being controlled, serendipities’ probability can be increased.
Organizations want employees to grow their skills, with companies like Microsoft embracing growth mindset interventions and policies to foster employee development. At the same time, organizations often seek to build collaborative cultures where employees frequently help one another. Thus, a question arises as to how growth mindsets impact other-directed behaviors, such as helping. To address this research question, we develop the concept of a work growth mindset—a mindset specific to growth opportunities at work—and we explore how it influences helping across a pilot study and five experimental studies. Study 1 (an online experiment) and Study 2 (a within-person field experiment) show that employees help coworkers more after participating in a work growth mindset intervention. Studies 3A–C explore the mechanisms underlying this relationship and the circumstances in which growth-oriented employees help others. These experiments show that a work growth mindset makes employees more other-oriented and likely to help, but that this effect relies on the extent to which the helping opportunities can be seen as enabling both self-and other-development, allowing for both the helper and the help recipient to grow. We discuss the implications of our find-ings for theory and the future of the growth mindset at work.
What helps a client embrace change? Growth mindset and positive mental health aid psychotherapeutic change. Positive mental health facets aiding change include wellbeing, emotional regulation, distress tolerance, interpersonal effectiveness, self-control, self-awareness, and spirituality. The literature review examined the formulation, principles, critique, and function of growth mindset construct within contexts of success, talent, neuroscience, trauma, impairment, and each positive mental health facet. The review indicated growth mindset impacts change. The objective involved testing for evidence of associated relationship between growth mindset and positive mental constructs using Pearson's correlation coefficient. Utilization occurred of eight self-rating measures, one each for wellbeing, emotional regulation, distress tolerance, interpersonal effectiveness, self-control, self-awareness, and spirituality. Growth mindset measures received individual comparison with nine positive mental health measures. The null hypothesis was r ≤ .03. There were nine alternative hypotheses, one per positive mental health measure. The sample size was 148, obtained by internet survey distribution. The result was failure to reject the null hypotheses for all nine alternative hypotheses allowing for the following conclusions: no evidence of associated relationships; growth mindset and positive mental health constructs are meaningful and useful; belief alone does not lead to change effort. Recommended research includes qualitative case studies, quasi-experiment comparisons, development of enhanced measurements, or longitudinal observation.
Keywords: growth mindset, fixed mindset, positive mental health, psychotherapeutic change, change beliefs
Since the Industry 4.0 nature is a world-scale phenomenon, lot of information are available today from several sources, presenting different points of view. From the scientific papers, the research is focused more on the theoretical steps for a future implementation and the benefits achievable, with important information on the development path followed by the industry to reach today’s situation. Other important resources are represented by the companies operating on the consultant and high-tech sectors, because the revolution is completely intertwined with the digital world and their reports can provide interesting information. At the end, the government reports of the most important manufacturing countries have been a good information source for the practical steps and the necessary requirements in order to create a favorable field for the implementation. Therefore, this chapter is intended to contribute over all these mentioned areas of knowledge, providing a brief state of the art regarding the Industry 4.0, the role of IoT and cloud computing in today’s and future factories, as well as a view along all those enabling technologies that complement among each other in the diverse industrial scenarios.
The emergence of digital technology in the twenty-first century has led the evolution of learning practices in the modern workforce. The growing demand for skilled employees, distributed workforce, and opportunities offered by new technologies has triggered the growth of digital learning in the form of massive open online courses (MOOCs), user-generated content, and other online learning experience platforms. Empirical research on measuring the impact of digital learning shows disappointment; however, organizations have launched digital hubs and embraced digital learning techniques to upskill employees (Sheehan Glob Focus EFMD Bus Mag 10(3):10–13, 2016). This chapter primarily focuses on defining a digital learning framework and how organizations are working on implementing digital platforms and tools to harness the impact of digital learning.
Leaders strive to encourage helping behaviors among employees, as it positively affects both organizational and team effectiveness. However, the manner in which a leader influences others can unintentionally limit this desired behavior. Drawing on social learning theory, we contend that a leader’s tendency to influence others via dominance could decrease employees’ interpersonal helping. Dominant leaders, who influence others by being assertive and competitive, shape their subordinates’ cognitive schema of success based on zero-sum thinking. Employees with a zero-sum mindset are more likely to believe that they can only make progress at the expense of others. We further propose that this zero-sum mindset results in less interpersonal helping among subordinates. We test our hypotheses by employing different operationalizations of our key variables in eight studies of which four are reported in the manuscript and another four in Supplemental Information across a combined sample of 147,780 observations. These studies include a large archival study, experiments with both laboratory and online samples, and a time-lagged field study with employees from 50 different teams. Overall, this research highlights the unintended consequences that dominant leaders have on their followers’ helping behavior by increasing their zero-sum mindset.
https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030738846
DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-73885-3
Contribución de dos capítulos al libro:
11. A Literature Review on Lean Manufacturing in the Industry 4.0: From Integrated Systems to IoT and Smart Factories . . . . . pág. 181
G. Turconi, G. Ventola, V. González-Prida, C. Parra, and A. Crespo
13 Calculating the Optimal Frequency of Maintenance for the Improvement of Risk Management: Plausible Models for the Integration of Cloud and IoT . . . . . . .pág.209
E. Fuenmayor, C. Parra, V. González-Prida, A. Crespo, F. Kristjanpoller, and P. Viveros
Why do great companies and other organizations fail, sometimes abruptly? Why do admired leaders fall from their organizational pedestals? Why do young and promising managers derail? Why do organizations create and reinforce rules that manifestly damage both them and those that they employ, serve and sustain? Leadership is a much-discussed but ill-defined idea in business and management circles. Analysing and understanding the skills and behaviours exhibited in leadership practice, leaders exhibit paradoxical activities that challenge our understanding of organizations.
In this text, the authors identify leadership behaviours that compete toward business equilibrium: selfish versus selfless, distance versus proximity, consistency versus individuality, enforcing professional standards versus flexibility, and control versus autonomy. These paradoxical dilemmas require a reflexive and analytical approach to a subject that is tricky to define. The book explores the paradoxes of power and leadership not as a panacea for solving organizational problems but as a lens through which leadership and power are seen as an exercise in dynamic balance. Read this book as an invitation to the paradoxes of power and leadership that frame organizational life today. Be prepared to find surprises – and some counterintuitive arguments.
Providing a thought-provoking guide to the traits and skills that will help readers to understand and navigate paradoxical leadership behaviour, this reflexive book will be useful reading for students and scholars of business, management and psychology globally.
Abstract. Since the Industry 4.0 nature is a world-scale phenomenon, lot of information
are available today from several sources, presenting different point of view. From the
scientific papers, the research is focused more on the theoretical steps for a future implementation
and the benefits achievable, with important information on the development
path followed by the Industry to reach the today situation. Other important resources are
represented by the companies operating in the consultant and high-tech sectors, because
the revolution is completely intertwined with the digital world and their reports can provide
interesting information. At the end, the government reports of the most important
manufacturing countries have been a good information source for the practical steps and
the necessary requirements in order to create a favorable field for the implementation.
Therefore, this chapter is intended to contribute over all these mentioned areas of
knowledge, providing a brief state of the arts regarding the Industry 4.0, the role of IoT
and Cloud computing in today’s and future factories, as well as a view along all those
enabling technologies that complement among each other in the diverse industrial scenarios.
Keywords: State-of-the-Art, Asset Management, Cloud & IoT, Lean Manufacturing,
Industry 4.0, Maintenance, Uncertainty.
Deep connections must be forged between the three fundamental processes of strategy, capability development, and talent development. There is no “one size fits all” strategy for human talent development but some include hiring stars and building around them, developing strategic jobs that move your organization forward, avoiding “assholes”, recognizing our own biases, paying attention to our own networks of senior managers, and looking to the current and future generations of workers to recognize characteristics that inspire talent.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.