Harvard Business School

...now browsing by tag

 
21st Century Careers 21st century jobs 21st century workforce Academic Initiative career paths careers cisco College and university challenges community colleges corporate social responsibility CSR developed countries developing countries Education foreign students GE General Electric General Electric’s Ecomagination globalization global knowledge economy global knowledge economy strategies Harvard Business School Hewlett-Packard HP IBM India Infosys Intel IT professionals Jobs of the future knowledge jobs Lisa Kahn math skills Microsoft Microsoft Learning offshoring outsourcing SAP science science skills Smarter Planet STEM STEM education universities workforce of the future
 

The Governmental Mandate of Shared Value Creation

Sunday, March 6th, 2011

My February 6 blog (Shared Value Creation: The Next Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility and of Capitalism) explained the many benefits that corporations can achieve through a new, more business-aligned approach to corporate philanthropy. This approach, which is called Shared Value Creation, consists of “policies and practices that enhance the competitiveness of a company while simultaneously advancing the social and economic conditions of the communities in which it operates,” It is a concept, which as Harvard Business School professor Michael Porter explains, is becoming more than a corporate opportunity—it is practically becoming a corporate mandate: a form of “self-interested behavior” that creates economic value for the company, by the very process of creating societal value.

As Porter described in his January 2011 Harvard Business Review article, when applied effectively, shared value creation can burnish a company’s brand, attract new customers and help a company recruit employees and improve employee commitment to the organization. This, however, is only the tip of a value proposition that can go much deeper. It can directly help the company enter new markets, improve economies in existing markets and create totally new business opportunities—generating cost savings, as well as revenue gains.

While the HBR article and my February 6 blog focused on the opportunities for corporations to benefit from Shared Value Creation, a January 2011 Accenture study, New Waves of Growth: Unlocking Opportunity in the Multi-Polar World, effectively suggests ways in which shared value creation can help communities and countries, as well as companies.

Capitalizing on the Four Waves of Growth

According to the Accenture report, governments that hope to create significant growth in GDP and jobs over the next decade must capitalize on what it identifies as four major waves of growth. These waves are based on opportunities being created around:

  • The “silver” economy. The graying of the population, as through initiatives in areas including connected health, health and welfare products and services, lifelong finance and new products that are optimized for older people;
  • The resource economy. The providing of more reliable and cleaner sources of energy and other types of increasingly scarce resources (land, water, food, minerals, etc.), including the need to build and manage intelligent infrastructures and processes (as for energy, buildings, water and land management and so forth);
  • A multi-technology future. The rapid adoption and increasingly integrated roles that new technologies (such as superfast broadband, cloud computing, sensors, analytics, mobility and security) will play across all industries and processes and as integrated with traditionally distinct disciplines to create new fields such as bio-informatics, micropayments and manu-services;
  • The emerging-markets surge. The rise of a multi-polar world in which economic activity and resources are increasingly gravitating toward emerging economies and rapidly growing urban centers and creating new opportunities for all types of low-cost goods and services, citizen services and smart infrastructures.

Countries that effectively capitalize on these waves can, according to an Oxford Economics’ analysis commissioned by Accenture, gain huge benefits. The U.S., for example, could add 0.7 percentage points to its otherwise anticipated 3.1% average annual GDP growth and create 9.7 million additional jobs by 2020—a level of economic output and job growth equivalent to the current size of the entire U.S. auto industry. Other countries could achieve correspondingly similar gains. Germany, for example, could boost average GDP growth by 32% and employment by an additional 3 million, United Kingdom by 24% and 2.6 million and India by about 9% and 37.5 million jobs.

The Government Mandate

Although Accenture paints an encouraging picture for countries and societies that can effectively ride these waves of growth, accomplishing these results will take years of hard work. Strategies must be developed, smart infrastructures built, business environments enhanced and most critically, millions of people must be educated, trained and retrained to create and effectively utilize new capabilities.

This leads to the biggest challenge and the biggest opportunity of all. For better or worse, no single company, government or sector of society has the resources, the skills or the reach required to define comprehensive national strategies for, much less create the foundations for capitalizing on these waves. Positioning a country to capitalize will require entirely new levels of cooperation and coordination among all types of businesses, all layers of government and many different non-profit organizations (especially schools and universities).

This is a challenge in that so few countries have seriously attempted to foster this type of cooperation (and in that many attempts to do so have failed). It is an opportunity in that there has never before been such an urgent need to do so. Emerging countries must do so to address the rapidly growing aspirations (not to speak of the expectations and demands) of their citizens. Developed countries must find ways of compensating for relative declines in economic power and security and especially for preparing their citizens to compete and thrive in an increasingly global workforce.

The good news is that there are a growing number of examples in which corporations, schools, foundations and government entities are cooperating to address common needs. These, as discussed in my last two years of blogs and reports, include Microsoft’s Partners in Learning Program, IBM’s Academic Initiative, Intel’s Teach and Entrepreneurship programs, General Electric’s Ecomagination program (see my forthcoming March blogs and report) and IBM’s Smarter Planet and Cisco’s Smart+Connected Communities initiatives (see my forthcoming April blogs). Not to speak of Accenture’s own Skills to Succeed program.

But as effective as some of these and other industry efforts have been, and as promising as some of their prospects, most address only specific, often local elements of huge, multi-faceted national problems. Large-scale success will require thousands of such initiatives and increasingly formal coordination among them.

There is, however, precious little evidence that most countries are prepared for such efforts. The U.S., in particular, has a fundamental and very vocal disagreement as to whether such efforts will indeed help or harm the country. But disagreement notwithstanding, President Obama is intent on creating foundations for such cooperation. He has, for example, engaged foundations in his effort to enhance community college curricula and graduation rates and has recently enlisted two high-profile business executives to chair groups that are intended to align public and private-sector efforts around initiatives to prepare the nation for the future (and incidentally, to capitalize on Accenture’s waves).

In January 20011, he named General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt as chairman of his new Council on Jobs and Competitiveness (whose mission is described by its name) and Steve Case as chairman of Startup America (whose goal is to promote entrepreneurism and high-growth startups). Both are likely to enlist other executives into their efforts and coordinate their efforts with other business constituencies. Immelt is likely to draw members and ideas from groups to which he belongs, such as the Business Roundtable and the Business Council. Startup America, meanwhile, has already won support of and about $400 million in funding from IBM, Intel and Hewlett-Packard. Both groups will at least formalize private sector inputs into critical government decisions. Ideally they will do more, such as usher in an era of cooperation among public, private and non-profit sectors.

After all, as Accenture explains, no one segment of the economy controls all of the levers required to mobilize all the country’s efforts. “Coordination among the three sectors—business, government and non-profit—will no longer be a bonus, but a necessity.”

Posted in 21st Century Careers, Corporate Social Responsibility, Technology's Impact on Job Skills | No Responses »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Shared Value Creation: The Next Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility and of Capitalism

Sunday, February 6th, 2011

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate philanthropy (CP) used to be managed separately from the business. They consisted largely of cash contributions that companies viewed, at best, as an effort to give back to the communities in which they operated and their employees lived. At worst, they were seen as a subtle form as extortion that companies had to pay to appease and demonstrate their “commitments” to their communities.

This is changing. A growing number of companies now recognize that:

  • CSR and CP initiatives can deliver big business benefits to their organizations; and that
  • They can often deliver much greater value to society by contributing technology and expertise than they can by contributing just money.

Many companies, for example, now recognize that reputations for social responsibility can burnish the company’s brand, attract new customers, aid in recruiting employees and improve employee commitment to the organization. Some even claim that their CSR and CP activities have increased their share prices by attracting incremental new investments from the growing number of Social Investment Funds.

This, however, is only the tip of a value proposition that can go much deeper—a value proposition that can directly help the corporation enter new markets, improve economies in existing markets and create totally new business opportunities. In fact, Michael Porter and Mark Kramer, in their January 2011 Harvard Business Review article, argue that companies must recast narrowly defined CSR and CP programs around a proposition for creating shared value—an approach designed to deliver as much value to the company as to society. They insist that a structured approach to Shared Value Creation (the latest non-intuitive buzzword for efforts intended to deliver both business and societal value) can, for example, yield:

  • Big cost savings, as in the $250 million savings (a $2.71 return on every dollar it spent on these programs from 2002 through 2008) that Johnson & Johnson attributed to its employee wellness programs (not to speak of demonstrated improvements in employee attendance and productivity);
  • Big revenue gains, as in the $18 billion that General Electric derived from the sale of Ecomagination products in 2009, a category of offerings that is expected to grow at twice the rate of total company revenues over the next five years (an issue that I will discussed in my February 20th blog on GE’s Smart Grid strategy); and
  • Big improvements to employee leadership development and retention, as with IBM’s Corporate Service Corps (as I examined in my January 23 blog and accompanying report), which deploys teams of high-potential employees on 30-day projects to help emerging countries address some of their most pressing societal needs.

Porter and Kramer, in fact, go further, much further. Not only do they view Shared Value Creation as the next evolution of CSR and CP, they also view it as the next evolution of capitalism—a more sophisticated form of capitalism that “arises not out of charity but of a deeper understanding of competition and economic value creation.” It is a form of “self-interested behavior” that creates economic value to the company, by the very process of creating societal value. A form of behavior that will also help mend badly frayed corporate and capitalist reputations and facilitate a more productive relationship between business and governments.

This “Harvard School” view of Shared Value Creation appears diametrically opposed to the “Chicago School” view in which Milton Friedman famously equated the spending of shareholders’ money for any purpose other than to advance the interests of the business as a form of “theft.”

Perhaps, however, these views are not as philosophically opposed as they may appear. After all, even Friedman was not opposed to all corporate giving. He admitted that corporate philanthropy could be justified if it served a business objective, such as increasing customer loyalty, improving employee teamwork and motivation or strengthening the marketing of a company’s brand.

But whichever side of the supposed philosophical divide on which one may fall, the issue is becoming increasingly moot. A rapidly growing number of very large, and very influential corporations (including virtually all of the largest technology companies) have instituted large CSR and CP programs and most have conceived and are managing these programs in way that is intended to create shared value. And this does not include the hundreds of small companies that have built their entire business models around addressing societal needs or the growing number of social entrepreneurs who are creating hybrid organizations that blur the line between for-profit and non-profit organizations.

In other words, regardless of whether you consider social value creation to be a new generation of capitalism, or just a new generation of corporate social responsibility, one thing is clear. More and more companies—and especially technology companies—are becoming convinced that they can, do quote another well-known economic philosopher, Benjamin Franklin, “do well by doing good.”

Posted in Corporate Social Responsibility, IT Industry Role in Education | No Responses »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Is the U.S. Losing the Luxury of Educational Choice?

Sunday, September 20th, 2009

The U.S. emerged from World War II as the richest country in the world. Although our prosperity has certainly hit a number of speed bumps over the 60 years, our prosperity has given our children an unprecedented luxury. They could study virtually any subjects in which they had an interest and, assuming they did reasonably well in college, have a reasonable chance of obtaining a good job and earning at least, a middle-class lifestyle.

Have we outgrown this luxury? Should students who hope for a reasonable shot at the American Dream follow the lead of Chinese and Indian students by focusing their studies in the fields that offer the best prospects of employment, rather than those that feed their passions?

Realities of the Great Recession

The traditional American educational luxury of pursuing one’s passion (like many other luxuries during our current mini-depression), is beginning to look less and less affordable. Young adults, aged 20-24, currently face 15% unemployment, up from 8.2% in 2007. While recent college graduates certainly fare much better than those with high school degrees, the National Association of Colleges and Employersestimates that corporate entry-level hiring has fallen by more than 20% and that only 19.7% of 2009 graduates who have so far applied for jobs have actually received offers.

In fact, it claims that the total number of jobs for 2009 graduates will fall by 22% from 2008—during a year in which colleges are graduating more students than any year in the last decade. Moreover, many of those students who are lucky enough to receive offers are having to settle for lower-level positions, jobs outside their preferred field and jobs that do not teach the skills needed to compete with those who graduate two or three years from now.

The damage, according to recent study by Yale School of Management economist Lisa Kahn, can be long-lasting. Graduates who join a company during a recession (1981 for her study) not only start at lower wages, but they generally continue to earn lower wages and find it difficult to compete with younger, more recent graduates when normal hiring patterns resume.

And one thing is certain. Things will become more difficult before they improve. Although we have begun to see a number of promising “green shoots,” most economists agree that unemployment rates will rise—probably above 10%—before they are likely to begin to decline around mid-2010. Moreover, it is likely to be 2014 before our economy will produce the same number of jobs as in 2007—and that does not even begin to account for the 100,000 new jobs that must be created each month just too keep up with new labor force entrants. More challenging still, globalization will claim a growing number of new jobs and, increasingly, a growing percentage of relatively high-paying knowledge jobs.

As I have discussed in previous reports (“Why the Private Sector Must Develop Socially Responsive Workforce Globalization Policies“) and articles (“Welcome to the Global Knowledge Economy“),  two separate 2007 and 2008 studies by Princeton Economics Professor Alan Blinder and the Harvard Business School concluded that a minimum of 21% and up to a potential of 42% of U.S. jobs had the potential of being offshored.(Not that they will be offshored mind you, but they have the potential.) The greatest future challenges will occur not in manufacturing, but in knowledge jobs—those that generally require college degrees and that pay moderate to high wages.

Accommodations to the New Normal

Although this sounds pretty gruesome, all is not gloom and doom. Some newly-minted graduates have had no problem finding the jobs they desire. Some even have the luxury of selecting among two or more attractive offers (fewer offers than in previous years to be sure, but still enough to provide a choice). As discussed in the Council of Economic Advisors’ July 2009 report, “Preparing the Workers of Today for the Jobs of Tomorrow”, these offers tend to concentrate in:

  1. A relative handful of industries, such as healthcare, education, aerospace, pharmaceuticals and environmental sciences; and
  2. Job functions and disciplines that entail specialized, post-secondary education, ranging from associate- and vocational-level programs (like medical records technicians and home health aides), to college degrees (registered nurses and teachers), through post-graduate degrees in fields such as medicine, biochemistry and electrical engineering. The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2008-09 provides details on jobs that offer the best and worst prospects through 2016.

This, however, begs the question. Have U.S. children lost—or are they in danger of losing—the luxury of using education to pursue our passions? Must we begin to view higher education as we view apprenticeships and view vocational schools—as preparations for a job, rather than for a preparation for life?

I don’t think so. As I will discuss in my next blog, I believe that students not only can continue to use education to pursue their passions—they must do so to optimize their prospects. A relative handful of students may, as they always have, have the opportunity to reshape realities to accommodate their own interests and needs. The rest of us, however, while still able to pursue our educational and occupational passions, may have to make a few accommodations to an environment that is increasingly being called the “New Normal.”

Posted in 21st Century Careers, Business Trends, Creating the 21st Century Workforce, Education System and Institutions, Globalization, Immigration and Offshoring, Job and Career Opportunities, Skills Requirements, Societal Forces, STEM Careers, Universities and Grad Schools, Workforce Trends | No Responses »
Tags: , , , , , ,

Welcome to the Global Knowledge Economy

Monday, June 15th, 2009

We live and work in a global economy. In most cases, the signs of a global workforce are so integrated in our day-to-day lives that we don’t even notice them, such as when we buy products that have been made overseas (whether from Wal-Mart or Gucci), or when we sign a tax return that was actually prepared by an accountant in India. Increasingly, however, the signs of a global workforce become so apparent that they force their way into our consciousness, such as when we struggle to understand an Indian customer service rep or when jobs in our community fall victim to Chinese manufacturers. Occasionally, global workforce practices become high political drama, as around immigration laws, NAFTA, U.S-Chinese economic relations and the staging of protests and riots around international trade and economic summits.

The Globalization of Knowledge Services

But for all the attention, one rapidly growing and ultimately much more critical aspect of workforce globalization has largely escaped broad public attention—the globalization of knowledge jobs. Although most U.S. IT workers have seen how Indian IT jobs are migrating steadily up the value chain (from basic application testing to complex development and even application architecture), this is only the first and most advanced of offshore entries into high-value, knowledge-based services. Consider, for example, that:

  • China (followed by the U.S.) and India are now the most popular locations for multinational corporations to establish research and development laboratories, with China alone housing more than 700 such facilities;
  • “Medical tourist” hospitals in countries such as Thailand and Indian boast world-class surgeons already operate on close to 1 million American patients per year. Some U.S. insurance companies not only cover such procedures, they now offer financial incentives for patients to use these hospitals; and
  • India graduates about 10,000 Chartered Financial Analysts (CFAs) per year, more than any country other than the U.S.—and this is despite the fact that the cost of obtaining the certification is almost as high as likely first year salaries.

The list goes on and on. Accounting, financial analysis, architectural, market analysis and legal research jobs, once the exclusive province of developed country professionals, have all begun to move to offshore providers. And as shown in the figure below, emerging country knowledge jobs are pushing rapidly up the value chain, from those that require relatively rote process-based skills, to analytical, conceptual and, increasingly, to high-level innovative tasks.

The Global Knowledge Services Continuum

Portent or ParanoiaGiven the relative lack of public attention to this phenomenon, one may be tempted to dismiss the examples as isolated incidents. Tempting, but not likely. Consider, for example, the findings of two separate studies, a 2007 study by Princeton Economics Professor Alan Blinder and a 2008 project by the Harvard Business School. Each concluded, using very different methodologies, that a minimum of 21%—and up to a potential of 42%—of U.S. jobs have the potential of being “offshoreable.” (Not that they actually will be offshored, mind you, but that they have the potential.)

As scary as the numbers may be, the trends behind the numbers provide even greater pause. While manufacturing jobs used to face the greatest threat of being offshored, knowledge jobs—those that generally require college degrees and that pay moderate to high wages—are now the most vulnerable to offshoring.

So what can a country—much less a company or an individual—do?

  • Fight the trend by prohibiting it, imposing punitive penalties or by publicly pillorying companies and executives that engage in offshoring? Yet this can ignite a firestorm of inflationary price increases, invite the enmity of countries that have already bought into U.S. championed vision of free and open trade, reduce the competiveness of U.S. corporations and chase many of our most successful businesses to reincorporate in other countries.
  • Ignore it and hope that it will go away—or wait until the problem becomes so acute that we are forced into immediate reaction? This is certainly a time-honored approach to difficult problems. And it may work, at least if we are willing to sit and watch as millions of previously secure jobs disappear, and families and communities are disrupted. Then, we will need to wait for the market to eventually come up with its own solutions, for our educational institutions to adjust and for society and governments to foot the bill.

Surely, there’s a better way. What do you think?

Posted in 21st Century Careers, Business Trends, Creating the 21st Century Workforce, Economic and Political Forces, Economic Forces, Global Forces-General, Globalization, Immigration and Offshoring, Innovation/Entrepeneur, Job and Career Opportunities, Political Forces, Skills Requirements, Societal Forces, STEM Careers, Technology's Impact on Job Skills, Workforce Trends | No Responses »
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,