The pandemic has been a wake-up call for a lot of people, causing us to reevaluate our lives and our careers. It’s natural to think: “If I’m going to spend so much time at work, I might as well do something I’m passionate about.” But there are also benefits to thinking about it differently: Instead of pursuing a career based on your passion, how can you career be a conduit to your passion? Pursuing a passion outside of work can be less risky. And some research suggests transforming hobbies into work can actually undermine your enjoyment of these activities. Instead, look for a job that will give you the resources - time, money, and energy - to pursue your passion. If time is your scarcest resource, look for a job that offers schedule flexibility so that you can structure your work around your passions. If money is the issue, look for a job that allows you to pay for the life you want to lead. When it comes to energy, don’t think of your passion as something that provides fuel to energize you for work. Instead, look at your job as giving you the security and income to pursue your passion.

Many companies seek to promote a family-like atmosphere to foster loyalty and collegial bonding. But researchers found that one potential downside is that employees who work in a family-like culture are less likely to blow the whistle on a colleague’s misbehavior. To reap the benefits of promoting strong bonds without the costs, organizations may need to take extra steps, including ensuring their culture values fairness over loyalty and protects victims, and framing reporting a transgression as an opportunity to provide help to a fellow employee.

The pandemic has given many of us the opportunity to ditch the commute and work from home long-term, offering huge potential time savings. But to truly reap the benefits of remote work during the current crisis and beyond, we need to think proactively about how we restructure our workday in this new normal. The authors suggest six concrete, research-backed actions you can take today to create clearer work-life boundaries and optimize how you spend your time.

Coming up with creative ideas is easy; selling them to strangers is hard. Entrepreneurs, sales executives, and marketing managers often go to great lengths to demonstrate how their new concepts are practical and profitable--only to be rejected by corporate decision makers who don't seem to understand the value of the ideas. Why does this happen? Having studied Hollywood executives who assess screenplay pitches, the author says the person on the receiving end--the "catcher"--tends to gauge the pitcher's creativity as well as the proposal itself. An impression of the pitcher's ability to come up with workable ideas can quickly and permanently overshadow the catcher's feelings about an idea's worth. To determine whether these observations apply to business settings beyond Hollywood, the author attended product design, marketing, and venture-capital pitch sessions and conducted interviews with executives responsible for judging new ideas. The results in those environments were similar to her observations in Hollywood, she says. Catchers subconsciously categorize successful pitchers as showrunners (smooth and professional), artists (quirky and unpolished), or neophytes (inexperienced and naive). The research also reveals that catchers tend to respond well when they believe they are participating in an idea's development. As Oscar-winning writer, director, and producer Oliver Stone puts it, screen-writers pitching an idea should "pull back and project what he needs onto your idea in order to make the story whole for him." To become a successful pitcher, portray yourself as one of the three creative types and engage your catchers in the creative process. By finding ways to give your catchers a chance to shine, you sell yourself as a likable collaborator.

Managing the tension between performance and people is at the heart of the CEO's job. But CEOs under fierce pressure from capital markets often focus solely on the shareholder, which can lead to employee disenchantment. Others put so much stock in their firms' heritage that they don't notice as their organizations slide into complacency. Some leaders, though, manage to avoid those traps and create high-commitment, high-performance (HCHP) companies. The authors' in-depth research of HCHP CEOs reveals several shared traits: These CEOs earn the trust of their organizations through their openness to the unvarnished truth. They are deeply engaged with their people, and their exchanges are direct and personal. They mobilize employees around a focused agenda, concentrating on only one or two initiatives. And they work to build collective leadership capabilities. These leaders also forge an emotionally resonant shared purpose across their companies. That consists of a three-part promise: The company will help employees build a better world and deliver performance they can be proud of, and will provide an environment in which they can grow. HCHP CEOs approach finding a firm's moral and strategic center in a competitive market as a calling, not an engineering problem. They drive their firms to be strongly market focused while at the same time reinforcing their firms' core values. They are committed to short-term performance while also investing in long-term leadership and organizational capabilities. By refusing to compromise on any of these terms, they build great companies.

Companies find it challenging and yet strangely reassuring to take on opponents whose strategies, strengths, and weaknesses resemble their own. Their obsession with familiar rivals, however, has blinded them to threats from disruptive, low-cost competitors. Successful price warriors, such as the German retailer Aldi, are changing the nature of competition by employing several tactics: focusing on just one or a few consumer segments, delivering the basic product or providing one benefit better than rivals do, and backing low prices with superefficient operations. Ignoring cutprice rivals is a mistake because they eventually force companies to vacate entire market segments. Price wars are not the answer, either: Slashing prices usually lowers profits for incumbents without driving the low-cost entrants out of business. Companies take various approaches to competing against cut-price players. Some differentiate their products--a strategy that works only in certain circumstances. Others launch low-cost businesses of their own, as many airlines did in the 1990s--a so-called dual strategy that succeeds only if companies can generate synergies between the existing businesses and the new ventures, as the financial service providers HSBC and ING did. Without synergies, corporations are better off trying to transform themselves into low-cost players, a difficult feat that Ryanair accomplished in the 1990s, or into solution providers. There will always be room for both low-cost and value-added players. How much room each will have depends not only on the industry and customers' preferences, but also on the strategies traditional businesses deploy.

Most brands don't make much money. Year after year, businesses generate 80% to 90% of their profits from less than 20% of their brands. Yet most companies tend to ignore loss-making brands, unaware of the hidden costs they incur. That's because executives believe it's easy to erase a brand; they have only to stop investing in it, they assume, and it will die a natural death. But they're wrong. When companies drop brands clumsily, they antagonize loyal customers: Research shows that seven times out of eight, when firms merge two brands, the market share of the new brand never reaches the combined share of the two original ones. It doesn't have to be that way. Smart companies use a four-step process to kill brands methodically. First, CEOs make the case for rationalization by getting groups of senior executives to conduct joint audits of the brand portfolio. These audits make the need to prune brands apparent throughout the organization. In the next stage, executives need to decide how many brands will be retained, which they do either by setting broad parameters that all brands must meet or by identifying the brands they need in order to cater to all the customer segments in their markets. Third, executives must dispose of the brands they've decided to drop, deciding in each case whether it is appropriate to merge, sell, milk, or just eliminate the brand outright. Finally, it's critical that executives invest the resources they've freed to grow the brands they've retained. Done right, dropping brands will result in a company poised for new growth from the source where it's likely to be found--its profitable brands.

Most executives have a big, hairy, audacious goal. They write vision statements, formalize procedures, and develop complicated incentive programs--all in pursuit of that goal. In other words, with the best of intentions, they install layers of stultifying bureaucracy. But it doesn't have to be that way. In this article, Jim Collins introduces the catalytic mechanism, a simple yet powerful managerial tool that helps translate lofty aspirations into concrete reality. Catalytic mechanisms are the crucial link between objectives and performance; they are a galvanizing, nonbureaucratic means to turn one into the other. What's the difference between catalytic mechanisms and most traditional managerial controls? Catalytic mechanisms share five characteristics. First, they produce desired results in unpredictable ways. Second, they distribute power for the benefit of the overall system, often to the discomfort of those who traditionally hold power. Third, catalytic mechanisms have teeth. Fourth, they eject "viruses"--those people who don't share the company's core values. Finally, they produce an ongoing effect. Catalytic mechanisms are just as effective for reaching individual goals as they are for corporate ones. To illustrate how catalytic mechanisms work, the author draws on examples of individuals and organizations that have relied on such mechanisms to achieve their goals. The same catalytic mechanism that works in one organization, however, will not necessarily work in another. Catalytic mechanisms must be tailored to specific goals and situations. To help readers get started, the author offers some general principles that support the process of building catalytic mechanisms effectively.

Companies today increasingly rely on teams that span many industries for radical innovation, especially to solve "wicked problems." So leaders have to understand how to promote collaboration when roles are uncertain, goals are shifting, expertise and organizational cultures are varied, and participants have clashing or even antagonistic perspectives. HBS professor Amy Edmondson has studied more than a dozen cross-industry innovation projects, among them the creation of a new city, a mango supply-chain transformation, and the design and construction of leading-edge buildings. She has identified the leadership practices that make successful cross-industry teams work: fostering an adaptable vision, promoting psychological safety, enabling knowledge sharing, and encouraging collaborative innovation. Though these practices are broadly familiar, their application within cross-industry teams calls for unique leadership approaches that combine flexibility, open-mindedness, humility, and fierce resolve.

Team conflict can add value or destroy it. Good conflict fosters respectful debate and yields mutually agreed-upon solutions that are often far superior to those first offered. Bad conflict occurs when team members simply can't get past their differences, killing productivity and stifling innovation. Destructive conflict typically stems not from differences of opinion but from a perceived incompatibility between the way certain team members think and act. The conventional approach to working through such conflict is to respond to clashes as they arise. But this approach routinely fails because it allows frustrations to build for too long, making it difficult to reset negative impressions and restore trust. In their research on team dynamics and experience working with executive teams, Toegel and Barsoux have found a proactive approach to be much more effective. In this article, they introduce a methodology that focuses on how people look, act, speak, think, and feel. Team leaders facilitate five conversations--one focused on each category--before the team gets under way, to build a shared understanding of the process, rather than the content, of work and lay the foundation for effective collaboration.