clair015

Seeing your star employees being poached by a rival always seems a bit of a bummer. And rightly so. We know from research, on industries as varied as semi-conductors and mutual funds, that they often take valuable knowledge with them and therefore enhance the performance of your rivals. And indeed, research on Silicon Valley law firms as well as on Dutch accounting firms*, shows that moving employees do not only enhance the survival chances of the poaching firms but also decrease the survival probability of the firms from which they were poached. This was especially true if the employees moved in groups and if it concerned geographically proximate rivals, because they are the ones you are especially in competition with. Customers poaching So far the bad news. But can there be any upside to your employees being recruited? Well, yes, actually there is definitely a potential upside to that as well – especially if your employees are being hired by your customers, as professors Deepak Somay...

Management consultancy has boomed over the past decades. I recently saw a statistic which showed that in 1980 global revenues in the consultancy business equalled $3 billion. By 2005, it was more than $150 billion. But what does it say about you, as a company and management team, when you are hiring a management consultant to help you out, with your strategy or organizational structure? On the one hand it is a good thing, right; you are not afraid to ask for help, and management consultants can bring in valuable outside knowledge, ideas, and experience. On the other hand, it could be interpreted as a bit of an admission of defeat… “we’re not able to figure it out ourselves”, “we have run out of ideas and options”, “we’re in seriously trouble; we need help” or something along those lines. Plus, these pin-striped guys do not exactly come cheap. Whatever way you put it, it is some sort of a signal – either openness to outside ideas or a signal of brewing trouble. And signals are what the ...

In about 70 percent of the cases, the stock market responds negatively to the announcement of an acquisition. Put differently, despite their popularity, the average take-over destroys value for the acquiring firm. There are literally hundreds of good academic studies that consistently show that effect. For long, it was actually quite impossible to find any category of acquisitions that defied this rule and made some money, but lately a few studies have started to emerge that identify types of acquisitions that are seen in a more positive light by the ever elusive stock market. One such sub-sub-subcategory of acquisitions that do appear to make at least a little bit of money are international acquisitions that were preceded by an alliance between the merging firms, especially if it was a strong form of an alliance, i.e. an R&D or Marketing alliance or prior buyer-supplier relationship (rather than a mere equity stake or licensing agreement). I know, it sounds like a very very specif...

Decades of research scarily consistently shows that most acquisitions destroy value , and only cost the acquirer money. There is really no denying it – all “ifs” and “buts” have been raised, examined and rebutted – about 70 percent of acquisitions fail. That is because acquirers are usually inclined to overpay (under pressure from bankers, the press and their own adrenaline; a take-over premium of 60-80 percent is really nothing unusual) and because managers systematically overestimate their potential for value creation; integration is often much harder to pull off than one thinks and “synergies” carry you only so far. So far the (familiar) bad news. Slightly to my surprise though – although not unwelcome – over the past years a few studies have emerged that managed to identify categories of acquisitions which on average do create surplus value. And the first category identified is actually quite a sizeable one: the acquisition of private firms. Pretty much all of the research on M...

Attractive people are generally seen as more competent and fit for their job. For example, experiments using headshot photographs of people mixed with random CVs generally show that people rated as physically more attractive also receive higher ratings in terms of “job competence”. Men deemed to be handsome are more likely to be regarded good business leaders. Yet, we know that, at the same time, for example intelligence and physical attractiveness don’t correlate (positively or negatively!). Hence, it is purely a physical preference; and nothing else. The most striking example and evidence of this I found was not in an experiment on business leaders but from an experiment on political leaders – although I am sure the situation won’t be much different for business leaders. Two researchers from the faculty of business and economics at the University of Lausanne - John Antonakis and Olaf Dalgas – ran an experiment in which they gave 684 people in Switzerland photographs – and nothing els...