En el año 2006, cuando George Clooney apareció en el primer anuncio de Nespresso, no solo popularizó la provocadora frase “What else?”, sino que también se hicieron famosas las innovadoras cápsulas de cafépremium de Nestlé, que se convirtieron desde entonces en el producto estrella de la compañía. Solo entre los años 2006 y 2010 las ventas de los cartuchos y cafeteras de Nespresso se dispararon de US$ 1.159 millones a US$ 2.998 millones. Un éxito que la empresa pudo disfrutar con relativa calma, ya que en el camino aparecieron decenas de marcas con productos alternativos, cuyas cápsulas eran compatibles con el sistema Nespresso, pero muchísimo más baratas y con una presencia agresiva en el canal de distribución de los supermercados, teniendo en cuenta que Nespresso solo se encontraba en exclusivas tiendas.

La compañía se enfrentaba a una encrucijada. Mientras enfrentaba a la competencia luchaba también contra la expiración de algunas de sus patentes. En el 2012, vencieron aquellas patentes relacionadas a sus cápsulas, lo que facilitó el ingreso de otros jugadores al rubro. Fue entonces que el CEO de Nespresso, Richard Girardot, tomó decisiones atrevidas pero que sirvieron para mantener su ventaja competitiva en el sector del café premium. Estas han sido analizadas minuciosamente en el estudio “Nespresso: What next?”, realizado por los profesores Jamie Anderson (Antwerp Management School), Nader Tvassoli (London Business School) y el investigador Mark Collins. El reporte revela cómo Nespresso desplegó una serie de acciones para contrarrestar el esfuerzo de la competencia y mantener su supremacía.

EL CLUB DE NESSPRESO

Bajo ese enfoque estratégico de exclusividad, sumaron más de 10 millones de membresías en el mundo. Un factor clave del enfoque de exclusividad fue su llegada a través de canales sofisticados. Mientras que las máquinas están disponibles a través de una red de minoristas, las cápsulas solo se pueden comprar por la plataforma de e-commerce, una red de más de 200 boutiques de alta gama y 100 centros de atención al cliente. La marca enfatiza que ofrece un estilo de vida completo con sus productos. Así, los consumidores consideran que por comprar los productos Nespresso pertenecen a una exclusiva red de conocedores de café, promoviendo un sentido de pertenencia a un grupo de élite de clientes, entre los que están George Clooney, justificando los precios considerablemente más altos que el promedio del mercado.

Según los autores del estudio “Nespresso: What next?”, el Club Nespresso representa el corazón de la gestión de las relaciones con los clientes, a quienes se les ofrece una amplia gama de servicios que les permiten hacer pedidos, recibir noticias de la empresa y solicitar asesoramiento de expertos en café. Además, el Club Nespresso sirve al mismo tiempo como base de datos para permitirle a la empresa llevar una relación más personalizada con cada consumidor. Como para ser socio se deben registrar los datos personales, desde el modelo de la máquina hasta hábitos de consumo, Nespresso está en la capacidad de ofrecer servicios personalizados a segmentos y compartir información a un nivel individualizado.

Nespresso también involucra a los clientes comunicándoles que pertenecen a una red exclusiva. Y a través de eventos especiales, como torneos deportivos, catas de café y clases de cocina, Nespresso busca generar la sensación de que solo personas excepcionales llegan a sumarse al club. De esta forma, dicen los investigadores, los clientes terminan emocionalmente más conectados que con el resto de marcas convencionales. “Este enfoque de ser parte de una gran familia desarrolla un sentimiento de orgullo y, por lo tanto, crea efectos de boca en boca positivos y creíbles”, dice el reporte.

5 LECCIONES DE NESPRESSO

Nespresso transformó un mercado de productos básicos abierto, de máquinas de café y granos de café, en una red cerrada, a partir de máquinas sofisticadas y una estrategia que involucraba a los mismos consumidores, quienes obtenían beneficios por pertenecer a la red. Entre las principales lecciones que podemos sacar de este caso, podemos sacar cinco conclusiones.

1. Exclusividad: La sensación de pertenecer a un perfil exclusivo de consumidores no se debe terminar en la adquisición del producto o de la experiencia. Nespresso mantuvo la relación con sus consumidores, gracias a la creación de un club.

2. Conocimiento: Para pertenecer a la red bastaba no solo con adquirir las máquinas o las cápsulas de café, era obligatorio registrar datos personales para acceder a los diferentes beneficios. De esa manera Nespresso pudo segmentar mejor a su público.

3. Intangibles: Si bien es importante ofrecer un producto de primera calidad, en el caso del café, de sabor y aroma incomparable, la estrategia de la marca se basó en ofrecer experiencias únicas como catas de café.

4. Segmentación: Las historias que giran alrededor de una marca hacen que esta se conecte con el consumidor. Por eso, Nespresso puede tener competencia, que compita por precio y distribución, pero esta no podrá acceder a ese público tan sofisticado.

5. Fans: Al igual que Apple, que exige utilizar un sistema operativo incompatible con la mayoría de aplicaciones que no sean las nativas, Nespresso exige utilizar determinadas máquinas y cápsulas. Pero, a cambio, ofrece acceder a un estilo de vida exclusivo.

Si la estrategia Blue Ocean (Océano Azul) dice que es difícil ingresar a un mar rojo, en el que los tiburones se enfrentan por las pocas presas del mar, por lo que mejor es entrar a un mar azul, con pocos competidores, a partir de la creación de productos únicos o innovadores, Nespresso revela que es posible crear áreas azules en mercados maduros y altamente competitivos. La clave: ir más allá del producto, desarrollando una estrecha relación con los consumidores, a quienes les llegaba una tarjeta de bienvenida al Club Nespresso, firmada por el mismo CEO de la compañía, tras registrar sus datos.

¿Quiénes están dispuestos a ir más allá de vender productos u ofrecer servicios? Como en una relación, eso exige esfuerzo.

Como director ejecutivo del Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) Perú, organismo que reúne a las empresas que interactúan alrededor del ámbito de la publicidad digital, así como director ejecutivo de Ynnovadores, incubadora y aceleradora de startups, Juan Alberto Flores observa los esfuerzos de las grandes organizaciones por introducir culturas innovadoras dentro de sus modelos de negocios, muchas veces sin el éxito que estas esperan.

Para Flores, introducir una cultura que acelere la transformación digital en una empresa , generando un ecosistema para generar productos, servicios y procesos innovadores, no es un programa cuyos resultados se ven en el corto plazo, pero se debe empezar ahora mismo, porque, asegura, mañana será tarde.

¿Cuáles son los elementos que se requieren para hacer de la innovación una cultura organizacional?
Para que exista una cultura que conduzca a la transformación digital a una empresa, o a convertirse en una organización innovadora, se requiere principalmente un ecosistema que permita que esto ocurra. No cualquier empresa podrá hacerlo, porque no es fácil. Como país estamos atrasados en modelos organizacionales. Muchas empresas creen que abren los ojos un día, mientras que ya empezó el tránsito a la innovacióno la transformación digital, pero no es tan simple.

¿Cuáles son los factores que debe reunir ese ecosistema?
Primero, una revisión del modelo de negocio. Segundo, revisar los programas de capacitación, que deben incorporar elementos de innovación y cultura digital, incluso desde el proceso de inducción. Las universidades no forman a los alumnos en estos campos y las empresas lo deben hacer. Una organización que busca hacer el tránsito hacia una cultura organizacional innovadora que no se preocupa por capacitar a sus ejecutivos en estos temas, no lo va a lograr.

¿Cuáles son los cambios se deben realizar en términos como el de la misión y la visión?
Las organizaciones modernas ya no hablan de visión o misión, sino de propósito y sentido de la trascendencia, entendiendo estos elementos como la búsqueda de generar un impacto positivo en el campo del bienestar, tanto del mercado local como global.

¿Es un proceso de corto o largo plazo?
Es un proceso largo, costoso, pero con acciones de corto, mediano y largo plazo. Se puede activar mañana pero no esperemos resultados pasado mañana, ni tampoco esperemos ver un retorno inmediato de la inversión. Sin embargo, este plan, si se lleva a cabo de forma estratégica y seria, nos va a permitir no perder dinero en el futuro y, en el mejor de los casos, a sobrevivir en un mundo 100% digital. Es invertir ahora para cosechar en cinco o diez años.

En tu experiencia, ¿cómo se acercan las empresas peruanas a estos procesos de transformación?
Existen cinco situaciones. Están las empresas que recién toman conocimiento de su situación, que se dan cuenta que no tienen experiencia en este campo, que son la mayoría. Un segundo tipo son las empresas que ya están introduciendo programas de capacitación en herramientas como Canvas y Design Thinking, saben que es importante pero todavía no saben cómo hacerlo. Un tercer tipo son las organizaciones medianamente sensibilizadas que deciden probar un proyecto de transformación. Le siguen las empresas que deciden crear sus propios laboratorios de innovación.
Finalmente, están aquellas que sabe lo que quieren, que tienen ya sus laboratorios generando ideas innovadoras, pero consideran necesario asesorarse con empresas o consultoras especializadas, con el fin de multiplicar el alcance de sus innovaciones, porque tendrán la ventaja de no estar sujetas a las jerarquías, procesos y tiempos del corporativo.

¿Qué puede aprender una gran empresa de una startup?
Son organizaciones más pequeñas, más audaces, más flexibles. Tienen pocos recursos, están pensando cómo sobrevivirán el día de mañana, por lo tanto sus procesos son cortos, eficientes, rápidos y baratos. Poseen una cultura del recorte de procesos, del ahorro de tiempo y dinero, y de manejo de la tecnología como base de su estrategia. Hacen en seis meses lo que una gran empresa podría hacer en tres años. Las grandes empresas deberían prestarle más atención a las startups.

Dentro de la organización, ¿de quiénes depende que se tome la decisión de hacer esta transición?
De los líderes, desde el directorio hasta el CEO, pero tampoco se va a lograr si el proyecto no compromete al resto de la organización, desde los mandos medios hasta la pieza más operativa. Se requieren cuatro elementos para que esto funcione:
✔ Liderazgo: Los líderes de la empresa deben comprometerse hasta el final con llevar adelante esta transformación, incorporándola a su modelo de negocio.
✔ Usuario: Se debe comprometer a los colaboradores en este tránsito, preocupándonos primero porque asuman la transformación internamente antes de llevarla al consumidor.
✔ Educación: Se debe gestionar una estrategia digital que le sea útil a todos, que de verdad les genere valor, que contribuya a acercar las áreas y que no genere brechas.
✔ Digitalización de los procesos: La manera más tangible de experimentar un cambio es incorporando la transformación digital y la innovación en el día a día.

¿La masificación de la transformación digital terminará obligando a las empresas más tradicionales a hacer este tránsito, o todavía pueden esperar unos años más?
Si vas a empezar hoy, estás tarde. En el Perú, el comercio electrónico mueve más de 1.800 millones de dólares y la publicidad digital representa el 15% de la inversión total. Por otro lado, estamos viendo cómo se incrementa la inversión en los procesos de digitalización de la manufactura. Mañana es tarde, debes empezar hoy.

A few years ago, Ford Motor Company started asking its (mostly male) engineers to wear the Empathy Belly, a simulator that allows them to experience symptoms of pregnancy firsthand—the back pain, the bladder pressure, the 30 or so pounds of extra weight. They can even feel “movements” that mimic fetal kicking. The idea is to get them to understand the ergonomic challenges that pregnant women face when driving, such as limited reach, shifts in posture and center of gravity, and general bodily awkwardness.

It’s unclear whether this has improved Ford’s cars or increased customer satisfaction, but the engineers claim benefits from the experience. They’re still using the belly; they’re also simulating the foggy vision and stiff joints of elderly drivers with an “age suit.” If nothing more, these exercises are certainly an attempt to “get the other person’s point of view,” which Henry Ford once famously said was the key to success.

Empathy is all the rage pretty much everywhere—not just at Ford, and not just on engineering and product development teams. It’s at the heart of design thinking, and innovation more broadly defined. It’s also touted as a critical leadership skill—one that helps you influence others in your organization, anticipate stakeholders’ concerns, respond to social media followers, and even run better meetings.

But recent research (by me and many others) suggests that all this heat and light may be a bit too intense. Though empathy is essential to leading and managing others—without it, you’ll make disastrous decisions and forfeit the benefits just described—failing to recognize its limits can impair individual and organizational performance.

Here are some of the biggest problems you can run into and recommendations for getting around them.

Problem #1: It’s exhausting.

Like heavy-duty cognitive tasks, such as keeping multiple pieces of information in mind at once or avoiding distractions in a busy environment, empathy depletes our mental resources. So jobs that require constant empathy can lead to “compassion fatigue,” an acute inability to empathize that’s driven by stress, and burnout, a more gradual and chronic version of this phenomenon.

Health and human services professionals (doctors, nurses, social workers, corrections officers) are especially at risk, because empathy is central to their day-to-day jobs. In a study of hospice nurses, for example, the key predictors for compassion fatigue were psychological: anxiety, feelings of trauma, life demands, and what the researchers call excessive empathy, meaning the tendency to sacrifice one’s own needs for others’ (rather than simply “feeling” for people). Variables such as long hours and heavy caseloads also had an impact, but less than expected. And in a survey of Korean nurses, self-reported compassion fatigue strongly predicted their intentions to leave their jobs in the near future. Other studies of nurses show additional consequences of compassion fatigue, such as absenteeism and increased errors in administering medication.

Failing to recognize the limits of empathy can impair performance.

People who work for charities and other nonprofits (think animal shelters) are similarly at risk. Voluntary turnover is exceedingly high, in part because of the empathically demanding nature of the work; low pay exacerbates the element of self-sacrifice. What’s more, society’s strict views of how nonprofits should operate mean they face a backlash when they act like businesses (for instance, investing in “overhead” to keep the organization running smoothly). They’re expected to thrive through selfless outpourings of compassion from workers.

The demand for empathy is relentless in other sectors as well. Day after day, managers must motivate knowledge workers by understanding their experiences and perspectives and helping them find personal meaning in their work. Customer service professionals must continually quell the concerns of distressed callers. Empathy is exhausting in any setting or role in which it’s a primary aspect of the job.

Problem #2: It’s zero-sum.

Empathy doesn’t just drain energy and cognitive resources—it also depletes itself. The more empathy I devote to my spouse, the less I have left for my mother; the more I give to my mother, the less I can give my son. Both our desire to be empathic and the effort it requires are in limited supply, whether we’re dealing with family and friends or customers and colleagues.

Consider this study: Researchers examined the trade-offs associated with empathic behaviors at work and at home by surveying 844 workers from various sectors, including hairstylists, firefighters, and telecom professionals. People who reported workplace behaviors such as taking “time to listen to coworkers’ problems and worries” and helping “others who have heavy workloads” felt less capable of connecting with their families. They felt emotionally drained and burdened by work-related demands.

Sometimes the zero-sum problem leads to another type of trade-off: Empathy toward insiders—say, people on our teams or in our organizations—can limit our capacity to empathize with people outside our immediate circles. We naturally put more time and effort into understanding the needs of our close friends and colleagues. We simply find it easier to do, because we care more about them to begin with. This uneven investment creates a gap that’s widened by our limited supply of empathy: As we use up most of what’s available on insiders, our bonds with them get stronger, while our desire to connect with outsiders wanes.

Preferential empathy can antagonize those who see us as protecting our own (think about how people reacted when the Pope praised the Catholic Church’s handling of sexual abuse). It can also, a bit more surprisingly, lead to insiders’ aggression toward outsiders. For example, in a study I conducted with University of Chicago professor Nicholas Epley, we looked at how two sets of participants—those sitting with a friend (to prime empathic connection) and those sitting with a stranger—would treat a group of terrorists, an outgroup with particularly negative associations. After describing the terrorists, we asked how much participants endorsed statements portraying them as subhuman, how acceptable waterboarding them would be, and how much voltage of electric shock they would be willing to administer to them. Merely sitting in a room with a friend significantly increased people’s willingness to torture and dehumanize.

Although this study represents an extreme case, the same principle holds for organizations. Compassion for one’s own employees and colleagues sometimes produces aggressive responses toward others. More often, insiders are simply uninterested in empathizing with outsiders—but even that can cause people to neglect opportunities for constructive collaboration across functions or organizations.

Problem #3: It can erode ethics.

Finally, empathy can cause lapses in ethical judgment. We saw some of that in the study about terrorists. In many cases, though, the problem stems not from aggression toward outsiders but, rather, from extreme loyalty toward insiders. In making a focused effort to see and feel things the way people who are close to us do, we may take on their interests as our own. This can make us more willing to overlook transgressions or even behave badly ourselves.

Multiple studies in behavioral science and decision making show that people are more inclined to cheat when it serves another person. In various settings, with the benefits ranging from financial to reputational, people use this ostensible altruism to rationalize their dishonesty. It only gets worse when they empathize with another’s plight or feel the pain of someone who is treated unfairly: In those cases, they’re even more likely to lie, cheat, or steal to benefit that person.

In the workplace, empathy toward fellow employees can inhibit whistle-blowing—and when that happens, it seems scandals often follow. Just ask the police, the military, Penn State University, Citigroup, JPMorgan, and WorldCom. The kinds of problems that have plagued those organizations—brutality, sexual abuse, fraud—tend to be exposed by outsiders who don’t identify closely with the perpetrators.

In my research with Liane Young and James Dungan of Boston College, we studied the effects of loyalty on people using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, an online marketplace where users earn money for completing tasks. At the beginning of the study, we asked some participants to write an essay about loyalty and others to write about fairness. Later in the study, they were each exposed to poor work by someone else. Those who had received the loyalty nudge were less willing to blow the whistle on a fellow user for inferior performance. This finding complements research showing that bribery is more common in countries that prize collectivism. The sense of group belonging and interdependence among members often leads people to tolerate the offense. It makes them feel less accountable for it, diffusing responsibility to the collective whole instead of assigning it to the individual.

In short, empathy for those within one’s immediate circle can conflict with justice for all.

How to Rein In Excessive Empathy

These three problems may seem intractable, but as a manager you can do a number of things to mitigate them in your organization.

Split up the work.

You might start by asking each employee to zero in on a certain set of stakeholders, rather than empathize with anyone and everyone. Some people can focus primarily on customers, for instance, and others on coworkers—think of it as creating task forces to meet different stakeholders’ needs. This makes the work of developing relationships and gathering perspectives less consuming for individuals. You’ll also accomplish more in the aggregate, by distributing “caring” responsibilities across your team or company. Although empathy is finite for any one person, it’s less bounded when managed across employees.

Make it less of a sacrifice.

Our mindsets can either intensify or lessen our susceptibility to empathy overload. For example, we exacerbate the zero-sum problem when we assume that our own interests and others’ are fundamentally opposed. (This often happens in deal making, when parties with different positions on an issue get stuck because they’re obsessed with the gap between them.) An adversarial mindset not only prevents us from understanding and responding to the other party but also makes us feel as though we’ve “lost” when we don’t get our way. We can avoid burnout by seeking integrative solutions that serve both sides’ interests.

Take this example: A salary negotiation between a hiring manager and a promising candidate will become a tug-of-war contest if they have different numbers in mind and fixate on the money alone. But let’s suppose that the candidate actually cares more about job security, and the manager is keenly interested in avoiding turnover. Building security into the contract would be a win-win: an empathic act by the manager that wouldn’t drain his empathy reserves the way making a concession on salary would, because keeping new hires around is in line with his own desires.

Give people breaks by allowing them to focus on their own interests.

There’s only so much empathy to go around, but it’s possible to achieve economies of sorts. By asking questions instead of letting assumptions go unchecked, you can bring such solutions to the surface.

Give people breaks.

As a management and organizations professor, I cringe when students refer to my department’s coursework—on leadership, teams, and negotiation—as “soft skills.” Understanding and responding to the needs, interests, and desires of other human beings involves some of the hardest work of all. Despite claims that empathy comes naturally, it takes arduous mental effort to get into another person’s mind—and then to respond with compassion rather than indifference.

We all know that people need periodic relief from technical and analytical work and from rote jobs like data entry. The same is true of empathy. Look for ways to give employees breaks. It’s not sufficient to encourage self-directed projects that also benefit the company (and often result in more work), as Google did with its 20% time policy. Encourage individuals to take time to focus on their interests alone. Recent research finds that people who take lots of self-focused breaks subsequently report feeling more empathy for others. That might seem counterintuitive, but when people feel restored, they’re better able to perform the demanding tasks of figuring out and responding to what others need.

How do you give people respite from thinking and caring about others? Some companies are purchasing isolation chambers like Orrb Technologies’ wellness and learning pods so that people can literally put themselves in a bubble to relax, meditate, or do whatever else helps them recharge. McLaren, for example, uses the pods to train F1 supercar drivers to focus. Other companies, such as electrical parts distributor Van Meter, are relying on much simpler interventions like shutting off employee e-mail accounts when workers go on vacation to allow them to concentrate on themselves without interruption.

Despite its limitations, empathy is essential at work. So managers should make sure employees are investing it wisely.

When trying to empathize, it’s generally better to talk with people about their experiences than to imagine how they might be feeling, as Nicholas Epley suggests in his book Mindwise. A recent study bears this out. Participants were asked how capable they thought blind people were of working and living independently. But before answering the question, some were asked to complete difficult physical tasks while wearing a blindfold. Those who had done the blindness simulation judged blind people to be much less capable. That’s because the exercise led them to ask “What would it be like if I were blind?” (the answer: very difficult!) rather than “What is it like for a blind person to be blind?” This finding speaks to why Ford’s use of the Empathy Belly, while well-intentioned, may be misguided: After wearing it, engineers may overestimate or misidentify the difficulties faced by drivers who actually are pregnant.

Talking to people—asking them how they feel, what they want, and what they think—may seem simplistic, but it’s more accurate. It’s also less taxing to employees and their organizations, because it involves collecting real information instead of endlessly speculating. It’s a smarter way to empathize.

Collaboration is taking over the workplace. As business becomes increasingly global and cross-functional, silos are breaking down, connectivity is increasing, and teamwork is seen as a key to organizational success. According to data we have collected over the past two decades, the time spent by managers and employees in collaborative activities has ballooned by 50% or more.

Certainly, we find much to applaud in these developments. However, when consumption of a valuable resource spikes that dramatically, it should also give us pause. Consider a typical week in your own organization. How much time do people spend in meetings, on the phone, and responding to e-mails? At many companies the proportion hovers around 80%, leaving employees little time for all the critical work they must complete on their own. Performance suffers as they are buried under an avalanche of requests for input or advice, access to resources, or attendance at a meeting. They take assignments home, and soon, according to a large body of evidence on stress, burnout and turnover become real risks.

What’s more, research we’ve done across more than 300 organizations shows that the distribution of collaborative work is often extremely lopsided. In most cases, 20% to 35% of value-added collaborations come from only 3% to 5% of employees. As people become known for being both capable and willing to help, they are drawn into projects and roles of growing importance. Their giving mindset and desire to help others quickly enhances their performance and reputation. As a recent studyled by Ning Li, of the University of Iowa, shows, a single “extra miler”—an employee who frequently contributes beyond the scope of his or her role—can drive team performance more than all the other members combined.

But this “escalating citizenship,” as the University of Oklahoma professor Mark Bolino calls it, only further fuels the demands placed on top collaborators. We find that what starts as a virtuous cycle soon turns vicious. Soon helpful employees become institutional bottlenecks: Work doesn’t progress until they’ve weighed in. Worse, they are so overtaxed that they’re no longer personally effective. And more often than not, the volume and diversity of work they do to benefit others goes unnoticed, because the requests are coming from other units, varied offices, or even multiple companies. In fact, when we use network analysis to identify the strongest collaborators in organizations, leaders are typically surprised by at least half the names on their lists. In our quest to reap the rewards of collaboration, we have inadvertently created open markets for it without recognizing the costs. What can leaders do to manage these demands more effectively?

Precious Personal Resources

First, it’s important to distinguish among the three types of “collaborative resources” that individual employees invest in others to create value: informational, social, and personal. Informational resources are knowledge and skills—expertise that can be recorded and passed on. Social resources involve one’s awareness, access, and position in a network, which can be used to help colleagues better collaborate with one another. Personal resources include one’s own time and energy.

These three resource types are not equally efficient. Informational and social resources can be shared—often in a single exchange—without depleting the collaborator’s supply. That is, when I offer you knowledge or network awareness, I also retain it for my own use. But an individual employee’s time and energy are finite, so each request to participate in or approve decisions for a project leaves less available for that person’s own work.

Up to a third of value-added collaborations come from only 3% to 5% of employees.

Unfortunately, personal resources are often the default demand when people want to collaborate. Instead of asking for specific informational or social resources—or better yet, searching in existing repositories such as reports or knowledge libraries—people ask for hands-on assistance they may not even need. An exchange that might have taken five minutes or less turns into a 30-minute calendar invite that strains personal resources on both sides of the request.

Consider a case study from a blue-chip professional services firm. When we helped the organization map the demands facing a group of its key employees, we found that the top collaborator—let’s call him Vernell—had 95 connections based on incoming requests. But only 18% of the requesters said they needed more personal access to him to achieve their business goals; the rest were content with the informational and social resources he was providing. The second most connected person was Sharon, with 89 people in her network, but her situation was markedly different, and more dangerous, because 40% of them wanted more time with her—a significantly greater draw on her personal resources.

Este artículo analiza el efecto indirecto de la justicia interpersonal e informativa en la identificación con la organización a través del cumplimiento del contrato psicológico en los diferentes niveles de sensibilidad a la equidad. Por medio de medidas de autoinforme se recogieron datos de 656 empleados fijos de cinco bancos comerciales de Paquistán. Los resultados estadísticos del estudio confirman que es significativo el efecto indirecto de la justicia interpersonal e informativa en la identificación con la organización a través del cumplimiento del contrato psicológico. No obstante, dichos resultados demuestran también que el efecto indirecto de la justicia interpersonal e informativa no es distinto en los distintos niveles de sensibilidad a la equidad. El estudio propone algunas implicaciones para que los directivos mantengan una relación eficaz de empleo con los empleados en el seno de las organizaciones.