Publications 101 - 120 / 158

Physicians performing leading-edge academic research represent a potential gold mine of talent for pharmaceutical and medical devices companies whose lifeblood is innovation and industry leadership. But, these researchers often lack the business and managerial skills necessary for a smooth transition to commerce, and the drop-out rate is high. Companies who want to recruit, retain, and develop academic research physicians have found that formal coaching and training programs help ensure success.
 

Compliance officers today are more prominent than at any time in the history of the function. Historically, compliance was addressed by the general counsel’s office, because the function arose from adhering to laws and regulations. But chief compliance officers (CCOs) are now becoming more visible and detached from the general counsel’s office, in part, to establish the role’s integrity with regulators. With this growing independence, many compliance officers in the post-Sarbanes- Oxley era have legal backgrounds. Compliance officers who are specifically trained to interpret and apply laws and regulations are becoming attractive corporate assets and an added measure toward preventing company wrongdoing.

The primary role of the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) of a medical device, pharmaceutical, or biotech company previously fell into one of three main categories: Clinical Strategy & Execution, Patient Safety and Risk Management. Today, circumstances such as a patient’s increasing power to influence or decide on the choice of diagnostic or curative product, the growing power of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and the decreasing tolerance for imperfect clinical outcomes – real or perceived – is rapidly changing the skill set required to be a successful CMO. It is, therefore, critical that CEOs and Boards of Directors recognize that their choice of CMO could be the difference between the success and failure of a product or, perhaps, the entire company.
 

In the realm of executive compensation, 2006 was an epic year, with the introduction of stock option expensing, a record number of shareholder pay proposals, backdating investigations and extensive new SEC disclosure rules that will make compensation decisions even more transparent. As the largest component of executive pay, long-term incentives continue to receive the greatest deliberation and scrutiny among shareholders, board members and HR executives.
 

Rapid advancement and an increasingly global orientation present both an opportunity and a challenge for firms operating in Asia, resulting in a scarcity of talent, as well as numerous difficulties in managing the talent that is available. All of this calls for an unusually high caliber of leadership at the top of organizations entering or seeking to expand in the region today. Yet, while expectations of foreign investors and multi-nationals are great, reconciling their growth targets with the paucity of best-in-class leadership talent in many of the local markets is proving difficult.
 

"The New Supply Chain Executive" examines a dual transformation: the evolution of the integrated supply chain and its implications on the role and responsibilities of supply chain executives. Analysis and insights are culled from interviews with heads of supply chain at three leading organizations.
 

Managing governance issues is now part of everyday corporate life. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which imposed numerous corporate governance requirements, has been in place since 2002. Similar legislative or regulatory actions have occurred worldwide and the trend towards independent director-dominated boards is global. In the U.S., the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and NASDAQ now require listed companies to have boards comprised of a majority of independent directors. The governance changes spurred by the Higgs and Smith Reports in the UK and the Bouton Report in France are also driving companies to increase representation by independent directors. Similarly, in Australia, the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) in 2003 established the Principles of Good Corporate Governance which have been embraced by most Australian companies.

The common thread of the three short pieces that make up this article is assessment. We assess ourselves. We ask others to give us their assessments. And we welcome {or at least tolerate) boss assessments. All for the purpose of perfortnance improvement, development, and getting ahead.
 

The decisions that a board of directors makes have a profound impact on the viability and profitability of any organization. Although semiconductor company boards have always played an important role in defining a firm’s direction and its ability to remain on the leading edge of innovation, today’s fast-changing business environment has created additional issues and pressures. Digital convergence in the consumer marketplace is placing new demands on executives – and boards – to broaden the scope of knowledge beyond technical concerns.

While the vast majority of executive women in finance are satisfied professionally and would recommend a finance career to others, far fewer plan to stay in the finance function until retirement.

This is among the important findings of Executive Women in Finance: Unique Challenges and Opportunities (PDF), a study conducted by the Financial Officers Practice of Korn/Ferry International to better understand the professional experiences of this unique group of individuals. The research covers a wide array of issues, including: career satisfaction and loyalty; key success drivers; the impact of gender on success in the finance field; sacrifices made to achieve success; mentorship; and work/life balance. The findings have broad implications both for companies that wish to recruit and retain top female talent and for executive women in finance themselves, as they map their future career paths and goals.

A global economy is catapulting law firms from their comfort zones into a fiercely competitive international marketplace. The same business expectations that promoted a leaner, more aggressive corporate environment during the past two decades are prompting major changes in the legal profession. Clients expect more from law firms today than ever before: a worldwide presence, multiple services, competitive pricing and technological know-how. But the pool of legal talent needed to meet growing client expectations is not growing at the same rate as the firms themselves.
 

You have a relatively new CEO. Fifty-seven years young. Became CEO a year and a half ago at 56. Doing well. Came from inside. Consensus choice. Replaced a great decade long CEO. She has confided in the board that she will step down as CEO when she is 62. Assuming her party wins the election, she has plans for public service and is slated for a post as ambassador in the country she and her family love and want to retire in. That means that you, she and the board have five years to find and prepare her replacement. A replacement that will face a tougher, more competitive world with global challenges and increasingly complex issues. Why might this be difficult?

Managing Talent -- putting the right person in the right job -- will always be challenging because humans are complex and difficult to predict. What's more, in these times of continual change, the demands of any given position are themselves in near-constant flux. So how can leaders know who in the workforce will excel in a particular role?
 

In this era of heightened regulatory demands and accountability standards, the chief audit executive (CAE) can determine whether an organization meets internal standards and outside regulatory controls or faces ongoing chaos and problems. However, finding the right person for the job can prove daunting, as the role continues to undergo fundamental change. In preparation for this article, authors Charles B. Eldridge and Paula Park sat down with more than a dozen practitioners and consultants to solicit their perspectives on the state of internal auditing and the evolving role of the CAE.