How much do coaches actually matter? – Paul Michelman and Ben Shields

Paul Michelman, editor-in-chief of MIT Sloan Management Review

MIT Sloan Lecturer Ben Shields

Excerpt from MIT Sloan Management Review

Bill Snyder at Kansas State. Eddie Robinson at Grambling. Mike Krzyzewski at Duke. Gregg Popovich with the Spurs. It’s hard to underestimate the impact these coaches have had on their organizations. But are coaches always an X factor? Just look at the Golden State Warriors. Dominating as they have been under Steve Kerr’s steady guiding hand, they have been every bit as successful — actually statistically even more successful — during Kerr’s two extended absences from the team when Luke Walton and then Mike Brown (not exactly Hall of Fame coaches) took the helm. Which brings us to the question of the day: How much do coaches actually matter? Well, two researchers from the University of Chicago just might have the answer.

Read More »

Join the #Innovate4Health Twitter Chat “Accelerating Developing World Growth Through Innovation & Entrepreneurship in Healthcare” on May 15

Building Sustainable Healthcare Systems through Innovation and Entrepreneurship, MIT-King’s College of London Summit, May 22, 2019

What role can innovators and entrepreneurs play in overcoming global health challenges, creating a safer and healthier world, and driving global prosperity?

Join us for an #Innovate4Health Twitter chat on Wednesday, May 15 at 9 a.m. Boston / 2 p.m. London time.

The featured experts are Georgina Flatter (@GeorgieMIT), Research Scientist at the Legatum Center for Development and Entrepreneurship at MIT, and Prashant Jha (@drpjha), Head of Affordable Medical Technologies at the School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences at King’s College London. Suranga Chandratillake (@surangac) of Balderton Capital, will be leading the discussion as host. Together, they will discuss how innovators and entrepreneurs around the world are challenging what is possible in healthcare and driving global progress.

Read More »

Can citizens trust government if falsehoods are part of the story? – Doug Criscitello

Doug Criscitello, Executive Director of MIT’s Center for Finance and Policy

Doug Criscitello, Executive Director of MIT’s Center for Finance and Policy

From The Hill 

While trust in government around the world has been trending downward for decades, trust in the U.S. government now appears to be in freefall as a host of half-truths and downright lies become entrenched in our political system. Playing fast and loose with the facts has long been a hallmark of politicians, so why be concerned with the counterfactual and scientifically dubious logic flowing from Washington these days?

When the leader of the free world cannot be trusted as an authoritative source of information on critically important topics, the world, already a dangerous place where bad things can and do happen, becomes riskier. Consider what would happen if any of the following were to occur: pandemics, financial crises, natural disasters, nuclear accidents, cyberattacks and/or military conflicts. Economists study the likelihood and impacts of these highly consequential but low probability events, called tail risks. Although unlikely, it’s bad, really bad, when one of these extreme, end-of-the-bell-curve events occurs.

Read More »

Companies with visionary leaders are hurt if the CEO and chairman roles are split – Egor Matveyev

Visiting Assistant Professor of Finance, Egor Matveyev

From MarketWatch

A number of recent corporate scandals put a renewed focus on the dual role of CEOs serving as chairmen of the board of directors.

Carlos Ghosn of the Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi Alliance is currently jailed in Japan on charges of under-reporting his pay. Facebook’s FB, -2.22%  Mark Zuckerberg has been criticized on how he managed recent crises, and has been called on to step down from the chairman post. Tesla’s TSLA, -3.96%  Elon Musk had to resign from the chairman role as part of the settlement agreement reached with the Securities and Exchange Commission in its investigation into Musk’s erratic communication through social media, which might have misled investors.

In recent years, the number of CEOs in a dual CEO-chairman role in large U.S. firms has been steadily declining. In the mid-1990s, about 65% of all firms were led by CEOs who were also chairmen. Most recent data from fiscal 2017 show that this number is down to 41%. Given the public pressure to separate CEO and chairman positions in publicly traded firms, this downward trend is expected to continue.

Advantages, disadvantages

There are many potential benefits that come from splitting the roles of the CEO and the chairman. First, it puts checks and balances in place, and ensures that important decisions are weighted and, if needed, challenged. Second, it sends a signal to all stakeholders — employees, business partners and shareholders — that the firm has two centers of power, and therefore is likely to be more stable. Third, it shows that the firm is more likely to be equitable, which may increase its appeal in the eyes of customers, prospective employees and business partners.

While the benefits are frequently discussed, costs are rarely mentioned. In my recent work with co-authors, we show that having additional power amplifies the effect of both good and bad CEOs on firm value and performance. It means that if the firm is single-handedly run by a powerful CEO, disastrous events, such as suspected fraud in the case of Nissan or misleading investors through social media in the case of Tesla, are more likely to happen. On the flip side, however, it also means that strong, visionary leaders benefit from being able to run their firms as they see fit and having their business decisions unchallenged. Many of the great success stories, such as Apple AAPL, -0.87% (under Steve Jobs, until his death in 2011), Amazon AMZN, -0.72% (Jeff Bezos) and Netflix NFLX, -1.50%(Reed Hastings) are all associated with powerful chairmen-CEOs. As we know, the ability to move fast and execute is critical in fast-moving industries.

Effect on shareholders

We show that these amplification effects of powerful CEOs on shareholder value are very large. For example, while good CEOs on average account for 4% of their firms’ value, good CEOs who have more power account for as much as 9%. Conversely, while bad CEOs on average can destroy up to 3% of shareholder value, bad CEOs with more power destroy more than 5%.

Read the full post at MarketWatch.

Egor Matveyev is a Visiting Assistant Professor of Finance at the MIT Sloan School of Management.

Every leader’s guide to the ethics of AI – Tom Davenport and Vivek Katyal

Fellow, MIT Center for Digital Business, Tom Davenport

From the MIT Sloan Management Review 

As artificial intelligence-enabled products and services enter our everyday consumer and business lives, there’s a big gap between how AI can be used and how it should be used. Until the regulatory environment catches up with technology (if it ever does), leaders of all companies are on the hook for making ethical decisions about their use of AI applications and products.

Ethical issues with AI can have a broad impact. They can affect the company’s brand and reputation, as well as the lives of employees, customers, and other stakeholders. One might argue that it’s still early to address AI ethical issues, but our surveys and others suggest that about 30% of large companies in the U.S. have undertaken multiple AI projects with smaller percentages outside the U.S., and there are now more than 2,000 AI startups. These companies are already building and deploying AI applications that could have ethical effects.

Many executives are beginning to realize the ethical dimension of AI. A 2018 survey by Deloitte of 1,400 U.S. executives knowledgeable about AI found that 32% ranked ethical issues as one of the top three risks of AI. However, most organizations don’t yet have specific approaches to deal with AI ethics. We’ve identified seven actions that leaders of AI-oriented companies — regardless of their industry — should consider taking as they walk the fine line between can and should.

Read More »