Samsung Beats Blackberry in the Global Alliance Game

To the investors of Research in Motion (RIM), the maker of Blackberry, the recent years have been really disappointing. It lost the fight to Apple and Samsung. There may be several explanations to this failure, but one which particularly stands out is the failure of RIM to build a strong alliance network. Alliances and partnerships are the sources of "network advantage"--the ability to improve operating efficiency and increase product innovation by combining resources and knowledge with partners. We discuss how companies can benefit from their relationships with customers, competitors and suppliers in a new e-book "Network Advantage: How to Unlock Value From Your Alliances and Partnerships". The print version of the book is available from January, 2014.

Let's look at the alliance network of RIM. This picture is built by looking at the RIM's alliance announcements between 2008 and 2011. Since these alliances happened a while ago, their positive or negative effects should be felt by now.

RIM is the firm at the centre of the picture and it has 4 (four!) alliance partners only. The alliance with the Royal Bank of Canada and Thompson Reuters (Woodbridge is its parent company) provided venture capital fund services to invest in mobile applications and services in Canada. The alliance with TiVo aimed at providing mobile television entertainment services for BlackBerry users globally. The alliance with NII Holdings Inc was to provide Blackberry Smartphone services in Latin America.

Did these alliances make sense? They sure did. But network advantage doesn't come to firms who simply build alliances, it comes to firms who build better (and more) alliances than competition. 

Let's compare RIM's alliance network to what Samsung is doing with its alliances. Below is the picture of Samsung's alliance network based on the announcements between 2008 and 2011:

Samsung works with Kia motors to build the car around its Galaxy tab, manufactures 4 G communication infrastructure in Russia, collaborates with Telstra to develop Internet TV for mobile devices, works with Nanosys to build better screens and batteries for smartphones using the nanotechnology. It works with Intel and Juniper on mobile security solutions and works with Korean Telecom (plus Intel) to transmit 3D signal through the mobile grid. It works with Dreamworks and Technicolor (Thompson) to develop 3D movies and viewing equipment. We might soon have 3D video enabled mobile phones!!!... Not to mention the fact that Samsung uses apps from Android platform for its phones. 

In short, the alliance network of Samsung allows it more (and cheaper) opportunities to innovate not only in hardware but also in content.

The sad story of RIM did not begin this year. It began several years ago when it failed to build a big enough network of alliances and partnerships to counter the network of Samsung (and of course the network of Apple). Samsung has excelled at the global alliance game and extracted its Network Advantage. Kudos to Samsung and condolences to RIM. May your company not repeat the RIM's mistakes!

How to make your company more creative? Hire a senior executive who worked abroad.

Creativity is an important driver of competitive advantage for companies. One way your company can be more creative is to hire executives who worked abroad. These people are likely to offer non traditional solutions to your problems.

I recently did a study with Frederic Godart, Will Maddux and Adam Galinsky. We looked at how foreign working experience of fashion designers affected creativity of their collections. We found that fashion critics and buyers were more likely to view a designer's fashion collection as creative, if this designer worked (or is currently working) abroad.

Apparently, working outside of your home country changes the way you think: by looking at how different people in different cultures solve problems differently, your brain learns to think about how to approach any business problem differently. If a problem is solved in France in one way, perhaps the Italians solve it in a different way. And you can perhaps think of the third way to solve the same problem--by combining the French and the Italian approach. Karl Lagerfeld is even reputed to work in Italy and France during the same day!

Working abroad also shapes your personal network. If you work in one country and then go work to another country, you become a bridge between professional communities in both countries. For example, a fashion designer who works in France gets to know other French designers and when she moves to work to Japan, she can get to know Japanese designers. If she still stays in touch with her French friends, she will know what is going on in French fashion world while she is working in Japan. And this knowledge will help her combine French and Japanese fashion influences in the future collections. Our study shows that such collections are seen as being very creative.

So, next time you are looking for a senior executive to fill a job that requires creativity and ability to innovate, look up their Linked-In profile. Does it indicate that the person worked in several different countries? If so, she or he is worth looking at, as this person is likely to be indeed creative.

Russian Businessmen Play the Global Status Game

How can a new company signal its quality to customers, suppliers and other business partners? One strategy is to "borrow status" from the well known people in the industry. If the prospective partners cannot judge the quality of your new company, they will think that your company must be of high status if it associates with high status people. After all, the prospective partners will think that your new high status associates must have done their due diligence before joining, thus it is safe for the prospective partners to work with your firm even if it is relatively new.

Russian businessperson Mikhail Friedman understands that very well. He is the man whose company received around 14,000,000,000 (14 Bln) dollars for the sale of its stake in TNK-BP-- the joint venture between a Russian oil and gas company TNK and British Petroleum. With these proceeds, Mr. Friedman set up a company -- called L1 Energy. This firm will make investments in oil, gas, telecoms, banking and retail. To add credibility to his venture, he hired a former BP chief Lord Browne to its international advisory board. Ironically, in the late 1990s and early 2000s Mr. Friedman and Lord Browne have been fighting over the control of Siberian oil fields, but eventually decided to cooperate on the creation of TNK-BP joint venture.

Apparently, having billions of dollars in the L1 Energy's war chest is not enough for success. So, Mr. Friedman turned to making status signals. What does Lord Browne bring to the table? He clearly has a lot of experience and knows people in the oil and gas industry, but his hiring is also designed to signal L1's status to prospective partners. James T. Hackett, former chief of the American company Anadarko Petroleum, and Andrew Gould, the former head of Schlumberger are also well known industry insiders. Naturally, their hiring is also aimed to enhance the status of Mr. Friedman's operations. The question is whether these status signals will persuade potential partners that it is safe to deal with Russian businessmen, knowing their tough reputation in the industry.

The lesson for other firms is clear. Get the well known people to work for you, this will help you enhance your status. Even if you have a lot of money, sending status signals is really important for continued success. 

What can Sony and Apple learn from the British MP Expense Scandal

My friend and co-author Henrich Greve recently made a blog post regarding the advantages of high status. He was wondering why every little bit of news about Sony or Apple made big waves in the media space and his conclusion was that this happened because both were high status companies. High status essentially means that the companies are thought of as leaders in their industries and whatever they do attracts a lot of attention. High status brings lots of positive things: customers buy your products and they think your products are of high quality, even if this is not always the case.

Status has a dark side too. Remember the discussions about student labor in the assembly plants of Apple's supplier Foxconn? That generated a lot of negative publicity not only for Apple but also for Foxconn. When French Tax Collector-In Chief—Jerome Cahuzac—was caught with undeclared Swiss bank account, everyone took notice and even the approval of his close ally—French President Francois Hollade took a dive. Essentially, high status means that falls from grace will be observed by a lot of people.

In a recent study Jonathan Bundy, Joseph F. Porac, James B. Wade and Dennis P. Quinn found that high status British MPs were not more likely than low status MPs to cheat in their expense claims. However, high status MPs were more likely to be targeted by media and other stakeholders with shaming after the false claims were discovered. Thus, more high status MPs had to quit parliament as compared to lower status MPs. 

What lessons does this study have for high status firms like Apple or Sony? You are being watched, so don’t slip, because if you do, you will crash spectacularly. 

Do you have "the right" alliance portfolio?

As you can see, the latest post on this platform was a while ago. This is because I was working on a book called "Network Advantage: How to Unlock Value from Your Alliances and Partnerships" which is due to come out in December 2013 (or maybe January 2014).  This is a joint work with Tim Rowley and Henrich Greve. The publisher is Wiley and we wish them well in converting our ideas into a tangible BOOK! 

The idea behind this book is to translate what we (as researchers) know about alliances and partnerships into the language that business executives can understand. Since "knowledge is power" we hope that thoughtful executives, including entrepreneurs, can use our ideas to build better alliances and partnerships. We extensively taught ideas and frameworks from this book in the exec ed classrooms while we were writing this book.

Now the book is in the publisher's hands, so I have some free time to write the blog posts.

While we were working on the book, Harvard Business Review published an article which is based on one of our ideas. The idea is that all of the firm's alliances should be managed as a portfolio of relationships. Most firms think of their alliances as one to one deal: a company forms an alliance with partner A, then an alliance with a partner B, then an alliance with a partner C without thinking about how these three alliances fit together.

Based on over 40 years of collective research (remember, we are three authors), we argue that the existence or absence of ties between partners of your firm will make a difference what you can use your alliance portfolio for. Your firm might play a role of a hub among your partners if your partners don't work with each other. If this is your portfolio, then you are well positioned to produce radical innovations, but you are unlikely to receive much help from these partners in times of need.

Other companies have portfolios with partners that have alliances with each other. If you are such company, then you are best positioned for incremental innovations – and for getting a whole lot of help in times of crisis.

We collected data on alliance portfolios of two well-known companies: Sony and Samsung. Samsung's alliance portfolio looks something like this. It is a hub and spoke portfolio, where Samsung is a hub and its partners are the spokes:

Sony's portfolio is different. It looks like this:

 Samsung’s alliances allow it to look to the future: From its vantage point at the hub of a network, Samsung can combine insights from diverse partners such as Dreamworks and Korean Telecom that are doing interesting things with 3D technologies but don’t typically work together. Like Apple, which invented the iPhone after gleaning insights from alliances with Motorola and disparate other partners, Samsung is well positioned to forge seemingly unrelated sets of knowledge into a breakthrough product – perhaps something such as the first handheld device for watching 3D movies without special glasses. Its recent Galaxy S4 mobile phone already includes cutting-edge gesture- and eye-tracking features.

Sony’s network, by contrast, seems more focused on the here-and-now. Its allies, including Sharp and Toshiba, which manufacture its LCD panels, work with one another and know what the other members of Sony’s network are doing. The group is thus more integrated than Samsung’s. Our research shows that such a network can help each partner make incremental technological improvements, but isn’t likely to yield breakthrough innovations.

Integrated networks can be helpful in another way, though. Highly interconnected partners tend to have a lot of trust in one another and are willing to assist in time of need. For example, after the March 11, 2011, earthquake in Japan, customers and suppliers of microchip maker Renesas Electronics, a firm with an integrated network, sent 2,500 of their own workers to help reconstruct a partially destroyed plant and quickly put it back into operation.

Our article describes several factors that affect whether you need a hub and spoke or an integrated alliance portfolio. If you are interested, you can access the full text of the article by clicking here. The text is free :).

Use Social Media to Develop Emotional Capital with Your Employees

Many organizations have started using social media tools internally to interact with their employees.  However, the majority of companies have either stayed away from using these tools or failed to see satisfactory results. In fact, in our survey of 1060 global executives, only 30% said that they work for companies that benefited from the internal use of social media.

Why do so many companies either avoid using social media or fail to make it work? In an article with Quy Huy which just came out in the MIT Sloan Management Review (http://sloanreview.mit.edu/the-magazine/2012-fall/54112/the-key-to-social-media-success-within-organizations/) we find that to be successful, internal social media initiatives must focus first on the development of EMOTIONAL CAPITAL  that represents the quality of the emotional connection between a company and its employees. Executives who use social media to build emotional capital in the communities of their employees reap real benefits, in terms of improved information flows, collaboration, lower turnover and higher employee motivation.

The reason social media works well in one company and can be totally ineffective in another can be seen by looking at the experience of two companies – a technology company Tekcompany [i] and the European Nordic branch of Tupperware, a U.S. based kitchenware company that sells the products through direct sales channel.

Tekcompany's executives mobilized expensive experts to develop internal applications that mirrored the functionality of Facebook and Twitter, and built a platform that allowed for the creation of internal wiki pages. In the end, however, the company had little to show for all that effort. Tupperware Nordic, by contrast, invested less than $50,000 in social media initiatives, but obtained much more impressive results. Between 2008 and 2011, the turnover rate of Tupperware’s predominately part-time sales consultants—one of the most important cost drivers and indicators of morale in a direct sales industry fell dramatically. Furthermore, both the ease at which best practices diffused throughout the company and the company’s revenues increased.

Tekcompany followed an implementation approach that reflected a traditional information technology mindset. When asked about the most important factors that accounted for success of social media communities, TEKCO executives told us only about technological aspects (e.g. the ease of use and availability of social media tools), without any hint that they had also considered emotional capital.

In a stark contrast to  Tekcompany , Stein Ove Fenne, managing director at Tupperware Nordic, had an intuitive understanding of the importance of creating positive feelings through social media tools. Through his actions he has demonstrated the four pillars of emotional capital:  authenticity, pride, attachment, and fun.

A major source of authenticity is the senior executives’ ability to show that their statements in the “virtual” world are consistent with their behaviour in the “physical” world. For example, Fenne began by establishing personal relationships with many consultants by visiting all major centers of activity. He started to invite consultants to Tupperware’s headquarters on a regular basis and roll out a long red carpet in front of them. Many of his colleagues were shocked by this treatment in the low key and egalitarian Scandinavian business culture. Yet, precisely because this symbolic gesture was so unusual in that local business context, consultants noticed it, greatly appreciated it and discussed it extensively in their physical and virtual conversations.

Pride is a feeling experienced when one’ achievements are recognized and appreciated, and this helps motivate people to continue achieving in the future. Fenne uses social media to provide an inexpensive platform for generating non-monetary rewards for consultants. He frequently organizes webcasts from his office, where he and his staff play the role of talk show hosts. Consultants’ teams from different countries connect and observe what is going on in headquarters through WebTV and post their live comments on a Facebook-type “wall” seen by all participants. During the show, Fenne calls on every sales team, publicly asks them to report their results and thanks them for their achievements.

Employees’ attachment to the company is generated when employees feel that they belong to community with shared values and interests. Some of these values go beyond direct work-related interactions. Fenne created a Tupperware Nordic page on Facebook to which consultants can link their personal pages. Some consultants indicate that they enjoy cooking, others enjoy music, and still others enjoy reading/writing blogs on burning social issues. When consultants visit the company’s Facebook page (or Fenne’s personal page), they can identify other consultants who share the same non-work interests and connect with them directly.

Fun is particularly important in an organization that wants to encourage innovation. When Tupperware’s consultants discover particularly effective ways of product demonstration, they produce best practices videos. Sometimes these videos gently make fun of the persons in those videos, for example, showing a competition among Danish men who (somewhat clumsily) compete in cooking using Tupperware products. These videos are shared through social networking websites. Funny elements in these videos attract viewers’ attention and show that deviance from “corporate” ways of getting things done not only is tolerated, but encouraged.

You can read more about this research at:

http://sloanreview.mit.edu/the-magazine/2012-fall/54112/the-key-to-social-media-success-within-organizations/

---

[i] A company’s identity is disguised.

Benefit from the networks of your lost employees

Is losing employees bad for your firm? An intuitive answer would be a straight “yes” because by losing employees, your organisation seemingly loses not only its human capital (i.e. their skills and tacit knowledge accumulated over the years) but also its social capital (i.e. all the internal and external connections your employees have made over their career inside your firm). In other words, conventional wisdom suggests that by losing employees, companies lose both brains and address books. This idea is out of date.

The late 1980s spawned the War for Talent mantra: in essence, firms have to make sacrifices and be very creative to retain talent. Hence management should attract the best, make sure they grow, keep them as long as possible and make sure they do not leave. Twenty years ago, these were considered insightful and thought-provoking ideas. Talent was seen as a scarce resource in an increasingly competitive and globalised world. We think that the rules of the game have changed. Fighting to get the best talent is still important, but having the courage to let them go is also crucial because there are benefits in letting people go, whether in good or in bad economic times.

My research at INSEAD, together with Frederic Godart and Kim Claes focusing on the antecedents and consequences of performance in creative industries, shows that firms can actually benefit from losing employees. To back our claims, we conducted an intensive study of the global fashion industry, including dozens of interviews with senior industry executives, and collected information on the careers of thousands of fashion professionals. Using this wealth of data, we analysed the impact that losing designers to competitors has on the performance of fashion houses.

Surprisingly, we found that designer departures can actually lead to greater performance of fashion houses that lose them. This can be attributed to the ability of source fashion houses to benefit from the social capital of departed designers. First, gaining information about what competitors are doing is critical, because this is how houses can gain insights into the newest and hottest trends. When designers go to work for another fashion house, they maintain contacts with their former employers, while creating new connections in the new place of employment. These contacts result in an informal communication bridge between the two houses and through this bridge the ‘source’ house can learn what is going on at competitors. The insights collected from different competitors can enable source houses to generate new ideas and produce more creative and critically-acclaimed fashion collections. In the fashion industry, famous designers pay a lot of attention to where their assistants and apprentices go and maintain close relationships with them. This holds also true in many other industries where alumni maintain close relations with their former employees: both the international consulting firm McKinsey & Company and global consumer products manufacturer Procter & Gamble (both unequivocal leaders in their respective fields) maintain strong networks of departed employees that feed their former organisations on the whereabouts of clients or competitors.

Second, departed employees can be a basis of a source house’s influence in the industry. This is because departed employees expose competitors to the house’s operating philosophy and principles, which increases the industry’s perception of the house’s creative thought leadership. Thus, fashion houses such as Prada or Marc Jacobs have become ‘platforms’ of recognised creativity. Designers join these houses for a while, learn the trade of fashion there – generally with a clear focus, for example, on knitwear or leather – and move on to work for the other fashion houses spreading the positive buzz about their prior employers. Other top fashion houses such as Lanvin are generally well known to expand their influence in the fashion industry by letting designers work at other places: for example in the case of their recent collaboration with H&M, a way for the company to grow its market. In other industries, companies like GE also rely on their past employees to showcase their thought leadership and spread their management methods, such as renowned quality management methodology Six Sigma, which leads to new business for these companies.

Third, designer departures enable organisational turnover. When designers leave, they provide room for new designers to come into the fashion house and bring their unique experiences from the outside. This brings in fresh ideas, positively impacting creative performance. Moreover, some fashion houses purposefully let some of their people go to work for competition in order to help them develop their careers and not feel upset from the lack of personal development opportunities. As one of the fashion executives interviewed for this article put it: “If our company cannot provide room for a designer to grow, we would prefer that he or she goes work for the competition as opposed to staying with us and feeling unhappy.” As it turns out, unhappy designers are also not very good contributors to organisational performance, but a designer who left to work for a competitor might return at some point to the source fashion house with newly-acquired expertise. Top consulting companies know this and do not hesitate to ask their young analysts to leave for a while, before coming back as associates. This is also the raison d’être of MBA programmes: provide high-potential employees with new horizons. Let them come back if they wish; some degree of turnover is good for employers and for employees.

Whole industries, beyond fashion, are based on the premise that letting people go is not necessarily bad. Think about how high-tech firms in Silicon Valley rely on personnel exchanges to grow and get new ideas. This is also true of the Hollywood and ‘Bollywood’ movie industries where temporary teams of actors, movie makers, producers, technicians and script writers assemble temporarily and move across projects. In banking, analysts and investment bankers do not hesitate to move around, to the benefit of their employers who can get them back later with better skills.

Letting some people go is healthy and the biggest beneficiaries of talent loss will be firms which recognise that departed employees and their networks are important drivers of competitive advantage. Except that, in this case, competitive advantage is obtained not from the physical assets possessed by the firms, but rather from the social networks of the departed employees. The bottom line is that in the 21st century the whole global economy should learn how to benefit from well-managed professional mobility.