Group items tagged

Companies are investing major resources in training employees to“think big,” “get inspired,” and nimbly embrace change. Some have made significant progress in the last several years, but most innovation initiatives fall flat. Why? Because too many change initiatives simply add another layer of processes to the to-do lists of already overwhelmed and tired employees. Rather than piling on more, you must begin by getting rid of things rather than continually building on what doesn’t work. In effect, you must “kill” your company.

Therein lies the dilemma, because even as we shunt aside innovation in favor of more immediately gratifying business initiatives, most of us know that innovation—the ability to develop novel and useful ideas with a business purpose—is what will really drive growth and carry our organizations into the future. It’s, therefore, imperative that we better balance how much time we spend working internally on ways to make the status quo more efficient with time we spend examining what’s changing externally so we can start questioning the status quo altogether. We need to accept some risk, because innovation requires taking risks. We need to find ways to develop and support a culture that makes room for innovative insight. A company mired in complicated processes and short-term results is simply not in a position to encourage innovation, no matter how many new programs its leaders talk about or implement, or how often they demand innovation from their employees. It just won’t work. To create the company of tomorrow, you must break down the bad habits, silos, and inhibitors that exist today. That’s why you have to kill the company first. It’s probably the most innovative thing a leader can do.

The challenge for most companies isn’t how to get people to be more innovative; it’s how to stop paying lip service to innovation and create a structure and culture in which it actually can flourish and deliver results.

More than half the faculty, postdocs, and other research and academic staff told us that they use library databases to search for e-journal articles, and almost the same number of faculty told us that they use Vera, the library’s gateway to electronic subscriptions.

Why would experienced researchers like faculty include Vera in their searching repertoire? Library databases—all of which can be accessed through Vera—generally offer information that is more consistently relevant and reliable (and may also be peer-reviewed). Google is quite fast with a single search box, is well embedded in many browsers, and can do a general search across all disciplines at the same time. Often, however, the information found in library databases is not, or cannot be, indexed in Google. Library databases on a subject are likely more in-depth, although they may not be quite as fast to search, and a single database generally does not cover all academic disciplines.

After years of guarding such details, one of the nation's largest nonprofit chiropractic colleges has disclosed on its tax forms that the institution's president and his family members collectively earned more than $1-million in 2010-11. The bulk of the $1,028,939 went to George A. Goodman, whose $798,198 compensation as president of Logan College of Chiropractic University Programs, in Missouri, rivals that of the leaders of some elite research institutions. The remaining $230,741 went to Mr. Goodman's wife, son, and daughter-in-law.

The second-highest earner in the family was Mr. Goodman's son, Jason C. Goodman, whose compensation as an instructor totaled $97,910. Elizabeth A. Goodman, Mr. Goodman's wife, earned $92,486 in her role as dean of university programs. Jessica Chrun-Goodman, Jason Goodman's wife, earned $40,345 for duties unspecified in the form.

The IRS assesses all benefits flowing to a family to determine whether compensation for a chief executive is excessive, and any tax form that fails to provide that information is incomplete, said Raymond D. Cotton, a lawyer in Washington who specializes in presidential contracts and compensation matters.