Search Results

Employees who take a proactive approach at work – who speak up with suggestions, try to bring about improvements, and take initiative – generally perform better, are more satisfied with their job, and progress more quickly in their career. For organizations, a proactive workforce which anticipates changes and is willing to contribute to innovation is seen as a competitive advantage. So how can organizations encourage employees to be more proactive?  HOW TO BUILD A PROACTIVE WORKFORCE: TRAINING PROBLEM SOLVERS OR STRATEGIC CHANGE AGENTS? Employees who take a proactive approach at work – who speak up with suggestions, try to bring about improvements, and take initiative – generally perform better, are more satisfied with their job, and progress more quickly in their career. For organizations, a proactive workforce which anticipates changes and is willing to contribute to innovation is seen as a competitive advantage. So how can organizations encourage employees to be more proactive? Previous research has highlighted two potential avenues for organizations wishing to increase the proactivity of their workforce: hiring new human resources with particular personalities and skills sets, or changing the work context, for example by enriching existing employees’ work. However, these strategies often encounter two issues that may block their implementation: the lack of opportunity to hire due to difficult economic or budgetary contexts, and the lack in means and resources to enrich job roles. It therefore falls to training and development to offer a feasible approach to promoting employee proactivity. Indeed, in the United States alone, organizations spent over $165 billion on employee training and development in 2013. But how should training approaches aimed at encouraging proactivity in the workforce be designed? And which training approaches are most effective for employees with different needs and priorities? Karoline Strauss, together with Sharon K. Parker of the University of Western Australia, decided to carry out research to address these questions. “It was clear to us that the training approach an organization should take would depend on the type of proactivity it is looking for in its employees”, says Prof. Strauss. The researchers suspected that a different training approach would be needed to encourage employees to become proactive in solving problems they encountered in their day-to-day work, or to encourage them to involve themselves in strategic change and become proactive in shaping the future of the organization. The researchers developed two distinct training interventions focused on encouraging these two types of proactivity. The researchers then recruited 112 volunteers from a police force in the North of England. The volunteers were randomly allocated to one of the two training approaches, or to a third group that received no training whatsoever. “To test whether the training approaches were effective in promoting proactivity, we compare employees who took part in the training to employees in this third group”, explains Prof. Strauss. “This means that we can rule out that employees throughout the organization became more or less proactive because of other changes that took place during the time of our study”. The researchers then tracked employees over 9 months to see if their proactivity increased. The findings showed that both training approaches were potentially effective in encouraging employees to be more proactive, but that employees’ needs and preferences determined whether the training worked for them. Prof. Strauss’s findings showed that employees faced with a high workload were most likely to respond positively to the training approach aimed at encouraging them to be proactive problem solvers. “These employees felt swamped by the demands they were facing”, states Prof. Strauss. “We succeeded in training them to approach their job in a more proactive way and take charge of challenges and obstacles they were facing”. Training these employees to identify problems in their job and to develop ways to address these problems helped them to find more efficient ways of completing their day-to-day tasks. On the other hand, the training approach aimed at encouraging employees to become more proactive in shaping the future of the organization was most effective for those who are generally more focused on long-term rather than short-term benefits. Employees who were more interested in the short-term did not respond to the training approach in the same way – they did not become more proactive. “Our findings really show that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to proactivity training”, explains Prof. Strauss. “For organizations who want to enhance proactivity in their workforce this has two important implications. First, what kind of proactivity do they expect? Do they want employees to become proactive in overcoming obstacles and finding more efficient ways of working, or do they want employees who think about the long-term future and about strategic change at the organization level? Second, organizations need to consider the situation the employee is in. What are the employee’s needs and preferences? Pushing somebody who is generally not very interested in the long-term to contribute to bringing about a vision of the organization in the future is unlikely to be effective in making them more proactive, and our findings suggest that it can even backfire”. Prof. Strauss’s work has been recognized for the strength of its experimental design which rules out alternative explanations for changes in employee proactivity. However, she suggests that more research is needed on the effects of training interventions on employee proactivity. “Our study is an important first step in determining which type of training approach can be effective in encouraging employees to be more proactive, and who is most likely to respond positively to the training. But can we, for example, combine the different training approaches, and are there other ways in which employees and organizations can benefit from proactivity training?” Further research will need to explore these questions in other organizational settings. by Karoline Strauss , 03.10.16 Source : Knowledge Lab Essec

From accelerating sales to optimizing operational processes, digital impacts the value chain in every aspect. If the digital revolution generates an inevitable modernization of companies and a hope of value generation, it also provokes a major challenge for organizations: Data. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT THANKS TO THE DATA FOOTPRINT Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, companies have had to accelerate their digital transformation. This implies increased investments, so substantial that they require C-level support. The stakes are high for organizations. From accelerating sales to optimizing operational processes, digital impacts the value chain in every aspect. If the digital revolution generates an inevitable modernization of companies and a hope of value generation, it also provokes a major challenge for organizations: Data. Data from transactions, customers, products, etc. invades the daily operations of organizations, constituting a potentially valuable asset, but above all an important challenge in terms of governance and management. Organizations must increase the understanding of these data as part of their transformation. In the very short term and in an uncertain time, data becomes more crucial than ever to identify the levers of performance of companies. Optimizing costs, increasing business revenues, and driving process efficiency are all initiatives based on the availability of relevant data. As the decision cycles accelerate, many decision-makers will no longer be able to drive their businesses with approximate and often inaccurate data. Having good data - and just in time - has become a pressing necessity. But this prospect seems attainable only if the data heritage is better mastered. This is precisely the purpose of the "Data Footprint" method designed by Kearney and Essec. Evaluating the data footprint now constitutes an essential approach to secure investments and increase control over data assets. The Data Footprint approach introduces a virtuous practice that aims to understand the data heritage, risks, challenges and limits linked to data within organizations. The Data Footprint is an evaluation process based on a 360° analysis of the data required as part of a company initiative steered by the entity in charge of Data Governance. The aim of the Data Footprint is to assess the data assets to establish a risk assessment score. Based on multiple dimensions of analysis such as data quality or security, our method allows a quantified assessment of the data heritage in an organization. Today, the data heritage is still poorly controlled and exploited in many companies. What is the quality level of critical data sets in the organization (e.g customers/suppliers’ data)? What is the level of risk associated? What is the degree of control and ownership of data in the organization? These questions are often asked by decision makers without concrete answers based on a structured assessment. The complexity of information systems combined with the lack of governance make the data equation often complex and costly. The Data Footprint allows companies to get a tangible data assessment across multiple dimensions in order to establish a risk score. The purpose of such a measure is to be able to accurately assess areas of weakness and to monitor data heritage improvements. The approach also allows internal and external benchmarks based on a standardized analysis grid. The strategy for implementing a Data Footprint should be progressive while focusing on the critical data sets in the context of companies’ major programs, projects or business transformation initiatives. The approach should involve several collaborators, at least representatives of business lines and IT, who jointly use a score sheet based on the following five dimensions:accessibility and availability,quality, ownership,risks, and identification of the future users. The overall score calculated on these five dimensions can range between 0 and 15, the lower the score the higher the risk related to the enterprise initiative. Consider as an example a company specializing in the distribution of electronic equipment to the general public through its distribution network of more than 2,000 stores. As part of its data strategy, the company decides to launch a priority project that deploys a “Customer-centric” approach in order to increase customer value. The objective is to capture a better understanding of customer preferences in order to meet their expectations. The company anticipates a significant potential risk linked to data (availability, quality, etc.) and decides to launch a Data footprint approach. The total Data risk score for this company was less than 5 in the evaluation exercise. On the recommendation of the Chief Data Officer in agreement with the rest of the team, the decision to launch the project is postponed pending the implementation of a specific data related action plan. This approach allowed the company to apprehend a major risk related to data on this project. Indeed, a rapid launch of this project without prior assessment would have potentially led to failure with economic consequences (losses estimated at a few hundred thousand euros). The approach also made it possible to initiate collaborative work around the data over the entire duration of this assessment (one month), and thus avoiding internal misunderstandings about the responsibilities of the various stakeholders (Business lines, IT teams, etc.). Finally, a clear action plan could be drawn justifying the investment of technical and human resources to upgrade the information system. by Jeroen Rombouts , 19.10.20 Source : Knowledge Lab Essec

For entrepreneurs to flourish, they need funding: venture capital is financial capital provided to early-stage, high-potential, high-risk, growing entrepreneurial companies. Venture capital is particularly attractive for new companies with a limited operating history that are too small to raise capital in the public markets, and have not reached the point where they are able to secure a bank loan or complete a debt offering The role of venture capital securities in entrepreneurship For entrepreneurs to flourish, they need funding: venture capital is financial capital provided to early-stage, high-potential, high-risk, growing entrepreneurial companies. Venture capital is particularly attractive for new companies with a limited operating history that are too small to raise capital in the public markets, and have not reached the point where they are able to secure a bank loan or complete a debt offering. In exchange for the high risk that venture capitalists (VCs) shoulder by investing in smaller and less mature companies, venture capitalists usually get a significant portion of the company's ownership (and consequently their value). Once a VC decides to invest in a venture, the involved parties need to settle on a deal structure. When negotiating the deal structure, parties need to keep a few considerations in mind: The deal structure needs to protect the VC against losses and should encourage entrepreneurs to work hard to make the venture a success. Most VC investments are illiquid, which means that unlike shares of listed companies, they cannot be sold very easily. Finally, most investments are characterized by asymmetric information. In general, the entrepreneur knows more about the venture than the investor. VCs typically use convertible preferred equity to finance ventures. As the name suggests there are two important features of these securities: conversion and preferred. Investors of convertible preferred equity have the option of either holding a debt-like claim -preferred equity or converting into common equity. Converting into common equity implies sharing ownership in the venture with the entrepreneur. Preferred terms make it similar to a loan (debt), gives holders a right to interest payment (dividends) and additionally gives preference in payments over common equity. In other words, the preferred feature ensures that preferred investors are paid before common equity holders. In a typical deal, VCs would hold preferred equity and the entrepreneur common equity, thus the VC can get paid before the entrepreneur if the venture does not do well. However, if the venture succeeds and its value increases, the VC would convert the preferred equity into common equity and share the fruits of this success with the entrepreneur. AAnother feature of VC investments is that they are done in stages. VCs would never provide all the capital upfront to a venture; instead, they would only provide sufficient capital to reach the next milestone. Once the capital has been used up, the entrepreneur has to raise another round of financing to reach the next milestone. The advantage of staging is that VCs can stop financing if the venture is not doing well. It can also be advantageous for the entrepreneur, as the terms can be made more favorable to them if their venture is successful. Staging also helps reconcile the aforementioned asymmetric information levels between entrepreneurs and VCs, since future investments are only made based on past outcomes. Finally, in addition to providing capital, VCs also monitor and guide the venture. The structure of most deals is designed to ensure the monitoring role of VCs. While VCs do not hold the majority of shares, they would have the right to nominate members to the board of directors. These rights help the VC monitor progress and guide the venture and gives them the power to replace managers if operations are not going smoothly. Having discussed the general features of VC investments, we will now explore details of some specific securities used in VC contracting. It must be noted that convertible preferred securities come in various flavors. Dr. Arcot analyzes one such security called participating convertible preferred security (PCP), used widely in venture capital contracts (Arcot, 2014). Participating convertible preferred stock gives its holders the right to be paid first (before common shareholders generally held by the entrepreneurs) and at the same time, allows them to participate in excess earnings (i.e., the cash flow after all debt and preferred claims have been satisfied) along with the common stockholder. PCP holders thus concurrently hold both a debt-like claim (preferred equity) as well as an equity claim (participation rights). However, PCP holders lose their preferred rights if they convert this PCP stock into common stock. His research explores why venture capitalists are willing to convert their PCP stock into common equity and give up their preferred rights. He proposes a signaling model for PCP stock based on its role in venture capital exits. The two major forms of exits observed in venture capital are the initial public offerings (IPOs) and the trade sale. IPOs are exits where shares of the venture are sold to investors and then listed on the stock market and trade sale is a transaction in which a venture is sold to another company. Typically, a PCP stake is converted into common equity during an IPO exit, but is not converted in a trade sale exit. The model shows that VCs can signal the quality of their venture in an IPO by converting their PCP stake into common equity and giving up some of their cash flow rights. By giving up something during an IPO, VCs are signaling to investors that the venture is of a high quality. Signaling is of particular importance in an IPO, because in an IPO shares are sold to new investors who do not have access to documents to analyze the venture’s performance. Investors in an IPO typically have to rely on a bank to perform the due diligence and hence are thus relatively uninformed about the venture. In contrast, potential trade buyers are given access to documents, which they can analyze to reach conclusions about the venture’s quality. Since trade buyers typically come from the same industry as the venture, they are likely to have industry knowledge and are better equipped to interpret the information provided. When exit is through an IPO, the entrepreneur retains control of the firm. Thus, when the firm value is high, an IPO exit rewards the entrepreneur and should be the preferred exit route. However, the VC may be reluctant to take that route, given that investors in an IPO are less informed and the VC may not get the full value for his stake. When the firm value is high, the VCs may prefer to target investors who are more informed and get a higher value for their stake. In other words, exit through a trade sale. However, the interests of VCs and entrepreneurs are more easily aligned when the VCs convert their PCP stakes into common shares and exit through an IPO. Venture capitalists investing in start-ups use sophisticated financial instruments to structure their investments. This article provides a rationale for the use of one such instrument, PCP stock, based on the venture capitalist’s exit strategy. In doing so, it makes a connection between the exit route and entrepreneurial effort. This highlights factors that have direct implications for the incentives of venture capitalists to invest in ventures and entrepreneurs to exert effort to make them a success. by Sridhar Arcot , 04.01.22 Source: Knowledge Lab

Istanbul IT Leadership Summit IT and Data Executives Register Now! In-Person Event | January 12, 2023 Attending Companies Discover More Why Attend our Event? Exclusive Content – In-depth, trend-forward sessions – with tons of practical takeaways and ideas to keep you ahead in the IT space. Connections – Hundreds of seasoned IT decision makers, cyber security experts, strategists, risk managers, data heads, marketers, and more to mingle and connect with. Meet your customers, vendors, expert resources, friends and colleagues. Network with leading solution providers – As a delegate, you will experience cutting-edge technology from solution providers that can fulfil your business requirements. Showcase of Technology solutions - Gather practical perspectives from many real-world use cases shared by the market’s leading players, including early adopters and leaders from across the region. Key Topics Technology is part of our daily lives and even more so in our professional environment. The goal of this invitation-only event is to encourage discussions and dialogue on what it means to be a successful IT executive and to provide tools and strategies to assist current and emerging leaders. We urge our leaders to confidentially share their experiences and plans while hearing from inspirational and visionary speakers. We explore and share the main topics amongst which artificial intelligence, fintech, cybersecurity and the metaverse are the most popular. We encourage you to come and meet some of the biggest players when it comes to cloud computing, big data security, customer service and enterprise technology. Coming together will not only expand your networks and knowledge, you can meet the industry specialists and learn more about their expert services. Innovation & Emerging Technologies Cybersecurity, Data Protection & IT Risk Management Metaverse, Blockchain & Cryptocurrencies Leadership & Business Transformation AI, Data & Analytics Cloud, Infrastructure & Operations The Agenda The event's dynamic agenda will take you through a series of roundtable discussions, real-life use cases, and dedicated industry tracks, giving you a bird's eye view of the current market situation, the latest technological innovations and strategies for propelling your organization to meet the unique challenges of these unprecedented times. Our Upcoming Events

Library WHY CYBER RISK ASSESSMENTS SHOULD BE A PART OF YOUR BUSINESS STRATEGY Every day brings with it the news of yet another company falling victim to a cyberattack. The costs the affected businesses face are enormous: lost critical data, stolen assets and damaged reputations... HOW SECURE ACCESS SERVICES EDGE SECURITY WILL TRANSFORM NETWORKS During a media event at Netskope’s SASE Week, Steve Riley, the discussion moderator and field chief technology officer for Netskope, asked, “What’s the driving force for SASE? Why now? What’s changed?”... THE ROLE OF VENTURE CAPITAL SECURITIES IN ENTREPRENEURSHIP For entrepreneurs to flourish, they need funding: venture capital is financial capital provided to early-stage, high-potential, high-risk, growing entrepreneurial companies. Venture capital is particularly attractive for... CYBERSECURITY 2023: CLOUD SECURITY IS KEY ISSUE FOR COMPANIES What challenges do companies currently face regarding security? What is their cybersecurity strategy for the future? And what role does digital sovereignty play in this?... Coming soon...

How can organizations do good (help the environment) while doing well (boosting economic growth)? While both worthy goals, they can be at odds with each other, creating a dilemma for organizations who wish to both contribute to environmental sustainability while maintaining economic growth.  DOING GOOD WHILE DOING WELL: THE CASE OF BUSINESS IT INITIATIVES How can organizations do good (help the environment) while doing well (boosting economic growth)? While both worthy goals, they can be at odds with each other, creating a dilemma for organizations who wish to both contribute to environmental sustainability while maintaining economic growth. All that glitters is not green Information technology (IT) is a major driver of economic and social development, but such advancement comes at a high environmental cost. Organizations’ reliance on IT has led to increased computing power and the development of large data centers that provide analytics and cloud computing services. These result in increased energy consumption, higher carbon emissions, and more electronic waste. This has led to the development of green IT initiatives to address the environmental consequences, meaning IT products and services that reduce the negative impact and improve sustainability. The existing research supports the idea that launching green IT efforts can improve sustainability outcomes, for example by managing energy consumption. Other examples of green IT initiatives include powering data centers with renewable energy sources, reducing waste from out-of-date computing equipment, and encouraging telecommuting/remote administration for reduced transportation-related emissions. There are a number of ways to go about a green IT initiative, but they all require a concerted effort from staff and involving IT processes and IT products. This is likely to be a significant technological trend with wide-reaching social implications. However, all that glitters is not green, and implementing green IT measures comes with complications such as disruption to existing systems, unpredictable returns and market demand, cost, and how stakeholders will react. This leads to the dilemma between doing good while doing well: while companies may wish to do good by implementing green IT initiatives, they may have legitimate concerns about how this will affect their bottom line (doing well). Indeed, much of the research has focused on the sustainability implications and less on the economic ones. This dilemma led the researchers to examine the drivers that impact an organization’s motivation to adopt green IT initiatives and their link to this reconciliation between sustainability and profit. What drives this process? To explore this question, the researchers conducted a qualitative study on eight organizations in China and Singapore, as it is crucial to explore how green IT implementation plays out in the real world as opposed to an experimental setting. The companies operated in telecommunications and IT-related industries. All eight were large companies with over 3000 employees, and all eight were pioneers of green technology. The research team used a multi-prong data collection approach, conducting interviews and clarifying information via emails and phone calls, field observations, and archival data. They looked at both internal and external drivers, separating them into three categories: competitiveness, legitimation, and ecological responsibility. Internal drivers, or organizational drivers, include factors like stakeholders’ attitudes, economic considerations, and technology skills. External drivers include factors like policy and industry pressures, like regulations on waste disposal and energy consumption. Breaking it down further, competitiveness is the link between ecological actions and long-term profitability; legitimation is the organization’s drive to align its actions within a certain set of norms or regulations; and ecological responsibility refers to an organization’s thoughts about its duty to society and its values. Looking at the results, the researchers found that green IT practices were seen as essential strategic considerations for these companies. They also found that organizations did not always manage to reconcile the gap between sustainability and profit through meeting the objectives of competitiveness, legitimation, and ecological responsibility. For companies that noted a significant amount of government pressure, an external driver, only a middling level of reconciliation was achieved. Organizations tended to have one main driver, like government pressure for Chinese companies and corporate social responsibility for the Singaporean companies, but were also motivated by the other drivers. Overall, the organizations tended to be most motivated by cost reduction, market drivers, government pressure, and corporate social responsibility. For reconciliation of sustainability and profit, the researchers found that the time frame matters: while IT initiatives tend to require a short-term investment, they will bring long-term benefits that surpass the initial investment. The strategy deployed also plays a role: one company invested in hybrid cloud computing, which set them apart from the competition, which will ultimately improve profits. Having a green image is also a competitive advantage, as it can boost customer satisfaction. Additionally, the dilemma becomes less of an issue in cases where companies experience external pressure, like from the government or external stakeholders. If going green is essential for market success, the financial investments become less of a consideration and more of a requirement. This shows that the dilemma can play out in different ways, and it is important to consider how both internal and external factors will impact the implementation of a green IT strategy. Takeaways IT services are ubiquitous in business and management, meaning that organizations and managers need to prioritize the implementation of green IT. Organizations may have different motivations for doing so, motivations that may fall into the categories of competitiveness (economic pressure), legitimation (shifting norms) or ecological responsibility (doing the right thing). These categories can include both external and internal factors. In practice, this highlights two main ways to motivate companies to implement green IT practices: A combination of pressure from the government and corporate social responsibility obligations Aligning green IT measures with the goal of improving profits by satisfying market demand and reducing operating costs The researchers note that the latter is more sustainable, but that the former may be able to stimulate progress by implementing incentives (tax breaks) or punishments (high energy costs). The climate crisis is increasingly urgent, and helping the environment requires an “all-hands on deck” approach. With soaring IT needs and their accompanying environmental consequences, green IT processes are likely to be a trend that won’t go away any time soon. With this research, we gain a better understanding of what motivates organizations to take on green IT initiatives and how they can reconcile “doing good” with “doing well”, enriching our understanding of the drivers of business IT initiatives, an understanding that can help organizations seeking to take such initiatives themselves. Further reading Yang, X., Li, Y., & Kang, L. (2020). Reconciling “doing good” and “doing well” in organizations’ green IT initiatives: A multi-case analysis. International Journal of Information Management, 51, 102052. by Yan Li , 17.05.21 Source : Knowledge Lab Essec