Researchers have identified a cluster of anomalies that corrupt this process and lead to suboptimal allocation decisions. Among the most pernicious …

• DEFEND WHAT’S YOURS. Leaders tend to be territorial about the resources they control and are typically reluctant to share money and talent with other units, even when the returns might be higher.

• THE RICH GET RICHER. The biggest units in a multibusiness company tend to get more than their fair share of capital, not because they offer better returns, but because the leaders of these businesses have more political clout.

• GOOD MONEY AFTER BAD. Executives tend to overinvest in struggling businesses in hopes of turning them around. Research shows that in most cases, returns would have been higher if the money had been invested in less troubled units.

• SHARE THE PAIN. When cash is short, executives tend to cut spending across the board rather than protect high-priority areas.

• IT’S WHO YOU KNOW. Senior leaders with strong internal networks typically win more resources than leaders who are less well connected, irrespective of the merits of the particular business case.

• HOME IS WHERE THE HEART IS. Senior executives are less likely to defund or divest a business in which they worked earlier in their career.

• PRETTY IT UP. In competing for funds, business unit leaders have an incentive to inflate the merits of their investment proposals. These distortions are often difficult for corporate-level executives to ferret out.

• MORE OF THE SAME. Funding decisions are often made relative to last year’s budget. Every business or product line gets pretty much what it got the year before, plus or minus a few percentage points.

Thus, we should seek coordinated policies only when the gains are very large. There will be costs to demanding coordination, because it will ride roughshod over economies of specialization and more nuanced local responses. The brilliance of good organization is not in making sure that everything is connected to everything else. Down that road lies a frozen

maladaptive stasis. Good strategy and good organization lie in specializing on the right activities and imposing only the essential amount of coordination.

A system has a chain-link logic when its performance is limited by its weakest subunit, or “link.” When there is a weak link, a chain is not made stronger by strengthening the other links.

If one has not internalized the concept of quality matching and the problems of change in chain-link systems, then Marco’s explanation of his actions may seem banal—he identified the three problems and worked on them in turn. But if one has these concepts, then Marco’s statement is dense with meaning.

The first logical problem in chain-link situations is to identify the bottlenecks, and Marco did that—quality, sales’ technical competence, and cost. The second, and greatest, problem is that incremental change may not pay off and may even make things worse. That is why systems get stuck. Marco’s solution to this problem was to take personal responsibility for the final result and direct others’ attention to the three bottlenecks, one after another…

… Marco avoided this problem by shutting down the normal system of local measurement and reward, refocusing on change itself as the objective…

Instead, Marco described a turnaround in which he provided the overall definition of what had to be done and in which he anticipated and absorbed the costs of change. In any organization there is always a managed tension between the need for decentralized autonomous action and the need for centralized direction and coordination. To produce a turnaround of a chain-link system, Marco Tinelli tipped the balance, at least for a while, strongly toward central direction and coordination.

Because IKEA’s many policies are different from the norm and because they fit together in a coherent design, IKEA’s system has a chain-link logic. That means that adopting only one of these policies does no good—it adds expense to the competitor’s business without providing any real competition to IKEA.