Adrian Wolfberg presents his research at a conference of national security professionals

I presented my qualitative research at an academic/practitioner conference of national security professionals. My research was on challenges to information flow between knowledge producers and decision makers as mediated through the function of a “briefer,” someone whose job it is to be the conduit between technical information production and policy-level decision making. My context was the U.S. national security system. A political science professor told me that there is nothing in the national security literature that discusses the role of the “briefer” to high level policy makers and this research opened up an area of inquiry never known to exist. An educator from a U.S. intelligence agency said that their job was to train analysts to think and write using evidence-based reasoning yet how surprising it was to find out from the research that “narrative,” as opposed to analytic discourse, was the mechanism through which knowledge was transferred to policy makers. An intelligence officer from an allied country, during an “aha” moment after the presentation, was able to apply the “knowledge producer-briefer-decision maker” model to their own context (after stating during the presentation that the findings did not generalize across contexts) and I was able to help generate four strategies to fill specific gaps in their information flow context. It was very interesting and exciting to see how others applied the research to their own contexts.

Adrian Wolfberg is a Department of Defense employee working in the Pentagon. He is a student in the Ph.D. in Management program at the Weatherhead School of Management at Case Western Reserve University and can be reached atawolfberg@gmail.com.  His research examines the nexus between information systems and organizational behavior to understand how technical knowledge is communicated to non-technical decision-makers.

Joann Farrell Quinn: What are you going to do with your PhD?

I cannot begin to count the number of time people, from close friends to new acquaintances, have asked me this question. When I went back to school for my MBA, with a decade of work experience behind me, I was often asked this question, and found no issue in quickly responding. I often explained that as I moved into leadership, I often wondered if what I was doing in my own role corresponded with what ‘I should be doing.’ I was hoping that getting an advanced degree, specifically the MBA, would help me in clarifying what best practices were and how I could be most effective. Well, as it turns out, I am still looking at the same underlying issues, but now my focus is turned outward. How can I assist others in being more effective? The experience of working toward my doctorate as a member of a professional and experienced cohort has been such a great growth experience for me. Even if I never told anyone that I had the degree, or even used it professionally, it would still be worth its weight in gold. The connections that I have made during the program have been really wonderful- personally and professionally. So, after three years in the program I now know how to answer the question—the answer to the question is that it is not about what I am going to do with the degree, it is about what I have gotten out of my participation in the DM program. It provided me with valuable learning opportunities and relationships that I would not otherwise have. I always say that life is an evolution, and this experience has added to my evolution.

Joann Farrell Quinn is Owner of JFQ Consulting and Adjunct Professor at the University of South Florida Polytechnic. Her research examines how emotional and social competencies, positive relationship and role/identity construction impacts individual performance in organizations. Joann is a doctoral candidate in the PhD in Management: Designing Sustainable Systems program at the Weatherhead School of Management at Case Western Reserve University.

Moraima DeHoyos-Ruperto: Is the networking the missing link in entrepreneurial success?

Scholars point toward the importance of creating networks as a noteworthy element for entrepreneurial success. But, may this be the missing link without which we cannot be successful in our entrepreneurial endeavors?

In fact, most of the experts in the field highlight the positive effect of networking for a business’s start-up and sustainability.   However, others question this by stating these relationships may destroy the likelihood for success of a business, instead of helping it.   

In view of this dilemma I wonder: is the creation of networks and the relations these entail so powerful, to the point of being capable of defining the success and/or failure of an entrepreneur? Furthermore, is it the relations per se, or is it with whom, when, how and for what means these relations are built that is important? Or is it our openness and flexibility towards creating new relations?  What is it in the creation of networks that can really make the difference? Or, is the business’s success and/or failure disjointed from the people and institutions that the entrepreneur relates him/herself with?

In my study, for example, I found that entrepreneurs’ relationships with other individuals and institutions seems to play an essential role in the success and/or failure of businesses in Puerto Rico.  So much so that I was able to identify differences in the type and use of networks between successful entrepreneurs and non-successful ones. In addition, through my quantitative research, I was able to observe that the individual relationships that entrepreneurs are establishing, instead of helping towards the positive development of the firm performance, are being detrimental.  Also, we could corroborate that most entrepreneurs do not search to establish relationships with entrepreneurial institutions and depend principally on their private/close network, which mainly includes friends and family members. 

This leads us to think whether or not there is a truly key role from the part of entrepreneurial networking as to entrepreneurial success. And even if we cannot solely attribute the success and/or failure of an enterprise to this specific factor, I think that we should better understand entrepreneurs’ networking processes and inquire about their true effect, if any, on the success and/or failure of a business. What do you think?

Moraima DeHoyos-Ruperto is a Professor of Business Administration in the University of Puerto Rico – Mayaguez.(http://www.uprm.edu/about/indexen.html)   She is currently the Program Advisor for “The Key for Your Business” of the Puerto Rico Trade Office.  Moraima is also a Doctor of Management (DM) candidate at Case Western Reserve University.

Nnaoke Ufere: “Alcohol Made Me Do It”: Rationalizations and CEO Corrupt Behavior

Albert "Jack" Stanley, the 65-year-old chairman and CEO of KKR, a senior executive at Halliburton, was legendary for winning billion-dollar contracts in emerging countries; he seemed to possess a magic wand for dealing with government officials and winning their trust in countries like Egypt, Malaysia, Nigeria and Yemen. Those who know Stanley well describe him as a smart and fearsome competitor, intent on winning big deals and getting rewarded for his contributions. His dedication to Halliburton was unquestionable and he was considered a global rainmaker. He had it all. But all that changed on one private trip to Abuja, Nigeria.

When Stanley boarded the flight to Abuja, Nigeria, little did he know that the fateful trip would not only end his winning ways and prestigious career, but also would send him to prison for 30 months, plus $10.8 million in restitution payment. Mr. Stanley, according to federal prosecutors, made the clandestine trip to meet with senior Nigerian officials to figure out who to bribe and how much to pay. The agreed $182 million bribery greased the palms of Nigeria procurement officials who reciprocated by awarding a lucrative contract worth more than $6 billion to Halliburton. Nigeria officials rewarded Stanley with “kickback” in the amount of $10.8 million. But Stanley violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, which forbid US-based companies from paying bribes to government officials abroad. The case went to trial and Stanley was convicted of bribery.

On the sentencing day on February 23, 2012, according to the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Stanley told Judge Keith Ellison that his decision to bribe Nigerian officials was fueled by "ambition, ego and alcohol". His rationalizations notwithstanding, the judge sentenced him to 30 months in prison and ordered him to refund the $10.8 million he received from the deal. Halliburton also settled with the US government and paid $579 million in penalties.

Mr. Stanley’s bribery behavior is not an isolated case nor is his use of “alcohol-made-me-do-it” rationalization strategy to justify criminal act atypical. According to case files on the Department of Justice and SEC websites, several multinational corporations (MNCs) have pleaded guilty to similar crimes – Johnson & Johnson, IBM, Shell, Baker Hughes, ABB, Siemens, Tyson Foods, Vetco, Wal-Mart (case pending), etc.

Finding from our research on supply-side corruption (those who pay bribes purposively for self-interested benefits) directly implicates CEOs as active perpetrators of corrupt practices. Our finding shows that a CEO’s corrupt behavior is shaped by four important factors. First, the host country’s institutional environment which creates opportunities for corrupt behavior by providing incentives and a moral free zone where CEOs rationalize and justify corrupt behavior as normative - the way business is done in the host country. Second, CEO’s motivational desires to achieve company and/or personal goals when the benefits of doing so exceed the costs. Third, the private payoff that accrues to the CEO. Fourth, a board of directors that explicitly or implicitly support and reward behaviors that promote corrupt practices or fail to take action when corrupt practices come to light.

When we examine Stanley’s case from the lens of self-interest used in our studies, we find a rational actor whose corrupt practices were guided in part by his motivational desires to achieve both organizational goals (lucrative $6 billion contract award) and personal reward ($10.8 million in kickback). One of the most intriguing findings from our research is that corrupt CEOs tend not to view themselves as corrupt. They tend to acknowledge their corrupt behaviors but at the same time rationalize it in ways that make them appear to be normal and acceptable business practice in their host countries.

Nnaoke Ufere is the Chief Executive Officer for iServiceX, Inc. in Atlanta, Georgia. He is also in the Ph.D. in Management: Designing Sustainable Systems program at the Weatherhead School of Management at Case Western Reserve University and can be reached at nufere@iservicex.com. His research examines the nexus of entrepreneurial illegality and venture performance to offer an initial exploration of the illegal behaviors enacted by entrepreneurs in pursuit of venture success.

Aparna Katre: What Does It Mean to Be a “Social Entrepreneur”?

We live in exciting times. We hold in our hands phones that allow us to communicate freely, access data and plan our schedules. We partner with companies and workers halfway around the world, and do so in real time. We have immediate access to information that can change outcomes, even lives.

Our understanding of "business" is changing. True, most students leaving business school will have in mind careers in corporations making considerable salaries, perhaps traveling widely or relocating to other countries. However, students also now have the option to choose "social entrepreneurship" – that is, to use the tools and strategies of business development to make socially conscious enterprises succeed.

Business technology and organizational methods now make it possible to do both: to operate businesses which are self-sustaining and generate profits, but which specifically address social ills. But that is not readily apparent: many students assume that the nonprofit and for-profit worlds are fundamentally separate, and that one’s career path necessarily means committing to one at the expense of the other. One MBA student put it this way: "I do think businesses must serve societal purpose, but I don’t think it can be their primary goal or mission. If so, it would probably be a non-profit organization or NGO or a CSR activity."

However, there are several examples of successful businesses which exist to fulfill a societal mission.Green Light Planet is delivering long-lasting, affordable products such as solar lamps to help families transition away from using kerosene lamps. Drishtee’s Education and Livelihood project operates a rural BPO center for the impoverished. Some of these are registered business entities, while others are charitable organizations: it really doesn’t matter which so long as the business is constituted to address a societal issue, and seeks to generate profits to sustain the business in the long-term service of the cause.

One common view is that "doing good" must wait until the MBA student has cemented a successful career in the for-profit sector. One student put it this way: "I want to do something for the education of poor, but first I need to do something which can provide enough financial stability to sustain my family. I don’t think starting a social business will help me do that."

But, in fact, there is no lack of opportunity to "make a difference" this way. For example, micro-lending, done properly, remains a viable method of helping communities. Likewise, helping communities obtain clean water, nutritious food, fuel, education, and access to banking services and telecommunications are all viable avenues.

Moreover, with current global economic pressures, entrepreneurs are needed in these areas: traditional funding for NGOs through foundations and private donations is drying up. Therefore, NGOs must take a business approach in order to survive and sustain. Increasingly, thinking of "business as an agent for societal good" will become the norm.

We are not speaking here of becoming wealthy; that goal is best pursued in the service of multinational corporations marketing and delivering products and services through complex global channels. But for the individual who wants to "make a difference" and produce sufficient income, there is no time like the present. Even as we speak, talented entrepreneurs are setting up businesses which fulfill a social need and, at the same time, support them and their families.

"It’s our job to give back to the society," admits one MBA student. And, more and more, this is entirely possible by bringing for-profit methodology to the running of nonprofit ventures.

Aparna Katre is a Consultant at Vidyamit Inc. and CEO at The Global Challenge Award in the Greater Chicago, Illinois area. She is a student in the PhD in Management: Designing Sustainable Systems program at the Weatherhead School of Management at Case Western Reserve University.

Marty Abbott: Team Building and Relationship Conflict

Go to any nearly geographic location in the US where there’s a high density of medium and larger sized businesses and you’ll find at least one small business focused on helping these corporations with “team building events”.  There’s a good chance that you are familiar with such businesses; they usually have some outdoor space dedicated to an obstacle course and have “camp counselors” who both help teams negotiate the obstacles and spark debate over various challenges the team is expected to accomplish. The courses are typically fun, the events challenging and the results for the team in the long term… well… inconsequential.

On closer inspection, this claim shouldn’t seem so surprising.  Our desired results are clear, at least to us: We hope build a “better functioning team”.  Often this means that we want to increase team cohesion through the fostering of shared identity born from shared experiences.  The more we know each other, the better we can operate.  The more time we spend together, the more likely we are to form a common identity and think of ourselves as a team.  The more our team thinks of itself as a single (or common) team, the lower our levels of internal relationship conflict.  The less relationship conflict we have in our team, the higher the level of team performance. 

The key to creating long term identity lies in the plural of the word “experience”.  A single experience simply will not foster long term identity for the team and will not produce the long term benefits we expect.  Our qualitative research indicates that leaders must consistently reinforce this identity through any of a number of activities.  One way to do this is to consistently reinforce (as in often – not once) team identity through shared experiences beyond the boardroom as in the case of an obstacle course.  Leaders can also create this identity through the creation of a compelling vision that transcends the team – focusing the team on transformational activities greater than any individual or even the sum of individuals within the team.  Such an approach also needs to occur repeatedly, as when leaders stop focusing on team identity development, the benefits of shared identity deteriorate.

Regardless of approach, identity must be nurtured over time if one wishes to harvest the benefits.  Team building is a journey, not a destination.

 Marty Abbott is a Managing Director of AKF Partners (www.akfpartners.com), an organization located in Fountain Hills, AZ that assists organizational teams resolve critical scale and availability issues by aligning organizational technology and product strategies with the needs of the business. He is also a Doctor of Management (DM) candidate at Case Western Reserve University and can be reached atmarty@akf.com.

Michael Fisher: First and Last

This past week kicked off the last semester of my classroom work in the DM/PhD program. This made me think back on the past two and a half years to when this journey started and I realized that I had written several reflection papers that first semester. Reading these papers again, I had a few observations that I thought note worthy.

In that first reflection paper, I highlighted three observations that I made during the first residency: multidisciplinary studies, self-directed study, and the purpose of reflection. As most would expect from a DM program the curriculum (http://weatherhead.case.edu/degrees/doctor-management/curriculum) spans a wide variety of disciplines ranging from collective action to complexity theory to global economics. This trend starts immediately with the first semester and continues throughout the program and also includes deliverables of qualitative and quantitative research projects. While we have spent significant amounts of time in the classroom discussing all of these topics we were and continue to be asked to explore our own interest. Often our research takes us into disciplines and topics that no course has prepared us for but the ability to teach ourselves is as important of a skill as grounded theory in qualitative research or regression analysis in quantitative research. While our time in the class draws to an end we can look back knowing that we are much broader and hopefully more critical thinkers but most importantly, in my opinion, is that courage and curiosity to pursue all the other knowledge that lays in our possible futures.

At this time again it is appropriate to reflect on reflecting. Two and a half years ago I wrote that “instead of either dismissing the EDM program for a couple of days in order to catch up on work and family obligations or immediately diving into the homework assigned for the next residency, this time spent thinking has given me an opportunity to bring the major concepts back into focus.” Unfortunately, I have never been one to keep a journal despite the genre of diaries and journals being one of my favorite for the first hand observations and unpolished narrative that it provides. And despite one of my former MBA colleagues keeping and later publishing his reflections from that pursuit (http://www.amazon.com/Physicians-Odyssey-MBA-Thomas-Stellato/dp/0750674164?tag=akpa-20) I still not keep up with my reflections during this program. Perhaps my contribution can be the spark for someone else to pursue this endeavor of self reflection.

Michael Fisher is a Managing Director of AKF Partners(www.akfpartners.com), an organization located in Fountain Hills, AZ that assists organizational teams resolve critical scale and availability issues by aligning organizational technology and product strategies with the needs of the business. He is also a student in the PhD in Management: Designing Sustainable Systems program at Case Western Reserve University and can be reached at michael@akf.com.

Stephan Liozu: Managing Complexity in Value and Pricing Management

Pricing is a complex process (Monroe, 1990; Nagle & Holden, 2002). Many industry managers consider pricing a headache and many firms have “thrown in the towel” on pricing. They complain that they have no control over prices since “the market sets the price and (they) have to figure out how to cope with it” (Dolan & Simon, 1996). Lancioni et al. (2005)proposed that pricing strategy has implications for stakeholders both within and outside the firm. For them, pricing is a difficult and complex process due to the plethora of internal and external economic and political influences that shape the firm’s pricing decisions. The tasks of price setting and implementation have numerous implications throughout the organization. These tasks involve “multidimensional processes affecting customers, products, cost recovery efforts, produce margin levels, customer retention, market share, and domestic and international sales” (Lancioni, et al., 2005, p. 125).

So what makes pricing so complex? Can pricing management be considered as a complex system? How do firms manage the complexity generated by the multidimensionality and multileveledness?

Our research work in the area of pricing management led us to conclude that one of the critical elements of the organizational journey towards pricing excellence is the organization capacity to change. Moving from a formula-based pricing orientation to a customer-value orientation requires deep changes and an overall organizational mobilization to achieve desired goals (Liozu, Boland, Hinterhuber, & Perelli, June 2011). This combination of change and complexity dimensions in pricing led us to the work of Richard Boyatzis and especially his 2006 paper on Intentional Change Theory from a complexity perspective.

Boyatzis refers to complex systems as “multi-level combination of systems that may behave in a way independent of any one of the component systems” (Boyatzis, 2006, p. 608). Later in his paper, he explores the aspect of his change theory that makes it a truly complex system: its multileveledness. We adopt these dimensions of system combination and multileveledness and apply to pricing management in organizations. We actually go one step further by stating that pricing is much more complex than that. Our figure below paints a complex picture. Complexity in pricing management is nested at various levels across multiple dimensions and cultures, and requires the convergence of multiple languages. Complexity is the result of complex interactions between internal sub-systems (functions and departments) exposed to the internal/external on-going opposition.

We conjecture that pricing management is multi-functional, multi-dimensional, multi-cultural, multi-lingual, and multi-leveled. Pricing requires the careful management of the multitude of agents involved in pricing decisions and the plethora of information that need to be consider to set price levels. Because all agents and actors act independently, tensions, conflicts, misunderstandings, difficult negotiations, and internal arguments are part of this complex price setting process. There is plenty of room for failure, for poor decision making and for break downs in the process. That is may be why most managers “throw in the towel”. 

Stephan Liozu is President & CEO of Ardex America Inc (www.ardexamericas.com), an innovative and high-performance building-materials company located in Pittsburgh, PA. He is also a PhD candidate in Management at Case Western Reserve University and can be reached atsliozu@case.edu.