Deborah Ancona

Elaine Backman

Kate Isaacs

<article-ideainbrief class="article-ideainbrief">
 <h4 class="ideainbrief-title">Idea in Brief</h4>
 <div class="ideainbrief-contents">
  <h5>The Challenge</h5>
  <p>Mature companies struggle to balance the need for innovation (which requires creative self-starters at all levels of the organization) with the need for discipline (which calls for strong internal controls).</p>
  <h5>The Case Studies</h5>
  <p>PARC and W.L. Gore are exceptions. They’ve held onto their entrepreneurial spirit and ability to innovate even as they’ve grown and their industries have changed.</p>
  <h5>The Findings</h5>
  <p>Both companies encourage employees at all levels to take on leadership roles. They also let the actions of employees collectively determine which growth projects to fund. As a result, key decisions are aligned with strategic goals—and bureaucracy is kept to a minimum.</p>
 </div>
</article-ideainbrief><p>Nobody has really <em>recommended</em> command-and-control leadership for a long time. But no fully formed alternative has emerged, either. That’s partly because high-level executives are ambivalent about changing their own behavior. They know perfectly well that their companies need to become more innovative—and they suspect it won’t happen unless they’re willing to push power, decision making, and resource allocation lower in the organization. But they’re terrified that the business will fall into chaos if they loosen the reins.</p>

LG94ZtzXtEqwbJYuEbYpUnp8Fxcu3eGr1fwziWlyllky/e7JFAKGz2eaS3sZ97Vg7ZJYU8VgVYbytj6hx1yP/uKC+hoJmmnbemHzk5cryUMMm0moPIT1XgATlizFkRmO

<p>Nobody really <em>recommends</em> command-and-control leadership anymore. But no fully formed alternative has emerged. So mature companies often struggle to balance the need for innovation with the need for discipline.</p>
<p>The authors studied two exceptions: the new-product-development stars PARC and W.L. Gore. Both companies, they learned, have three distinct types of leaders. <em>Entrepreneurial leaders,</em> found at lower levels, create new products and services and move their firms into unexplored territory. <em>Enabling leaders,</em> in the middle, make sure the entrepreneurs have the resources they need. And <em>architecting leaders,</em>near the top, monitor culture, high-level strategy, and structure.</p>
<p>This system allows both companies to be self-managing to a surprising degree. Employees choose their work assignments and dream up new projects, whose success rests on colleagues&#8217; volunteering to join in&#8212;making the companies collective prediction markets. And the mechanisms that enable self-management also balance freedom and control: The companies function efficiently and exploit new opportunities even as they minimize rules.</p>

Nimble Leadership

Nobody really recommends command-and-control leadership anymore. But no fully formed alternative has emerged. So mature companies often struggle to balance the need for innovation with the need for discipline. The authors studied two exceptions: the new-product-development stars PARC and W.L. Gore. Both companies, they learned, have three distinct types of leaders. Entrepreneurial leaders, found at lower levels, create new products and services and move their firms into unexplored territory. Enabling leaders, in the middle, make sure the entrepreneurs have the resources they need. And architecting leaders, near the top, monitor culture, high-level strategy, and structure. This system allows both companies to be self-managing to a surprising degree. Employees choose their work assignments and dream up new projects, whose success rests on colleagues’ volunteering to join in—making the companies collective prediction markets. And the mechanisms that enable self-management also balance freedom and control: The companies function efficiently and exploit new opportunities even as they minimize rules.

Nimble Leadership

Summary.

Partner Center