Read & Lead

Yes, at least seemingly, CS has developed its own core ideology based on internal consensus.

But, its core ideology has the defect in some standpoint. CS made the mistake of simply describing its specific product line, ‘semiconductor’.  It can’t be considered an effective purpose because a specific product lines might not even exist in 100 years. . Purpose should not be confused with specific goals or business strategies, but be like a guiding star on the horizon. CS’s purpose places a definite limit on its being developed into a visionary company. This is the example of CS conflicting with core ideology principle.

Great! Mckinsey should not restrict its domain to consulting. Based on its purpose to help its clients to be the best in their industry, Mckinsey can do something other than consulting in 100 years later. Like this CS may do something more than just producing semiconductors sometime.



[3] 사이프러스사가 핵심을 보존하고 발전을 촉진하기(Preserve the Core and Stimulate Progress)원칙 혹은 메커니즘에 부합하는지 아니면 상충하는지 예를 들어 분석하십시오. 적어도 여섯 개 메커니즘 중에서 어느 것이든 네 가지 예를 들어 설명하십시오.

3-1. Preserve the Core and Stimulate Progress

The example that shows CS adheres to cult-like culture mechanism is its tightness of fit. Rodgers believed that hiring the talented people is the very important factor for CS’s success. As an important part of the recruiting process, all hiring managers must submit a “hiring book” that documents the entire process. It can select the talented people with right attitude through the severe and elaborate evaluation for the interviewees. During the interview process, an explicit attempt is made to probe for cultural mismatches by using a career, and aspirations. The questionnaire forces the applicant to be specific about hard-to-quantify issues. After all, CS acquires only the competitive and talented people that can fit its core values. Its core values are focused on winning in competition, talented people, excellent quality. This means CS vigorously screen out those who don’t fit with the ideology and create an almost cult-like environment around the core ideology. Good.

On the other hand, regrettably, CS shows the conflict with ‘home-grown management’ mechanism. It has focused only on attracting talented people from “raiding party”, not paid relatively little attention to training and developing its inner employees into managers, directors, chief executives. That means CS have been pursuing recruitment of talented people outside from the short-term perspective, have not made enough efforts to keep leadership continuity through developing current employees from long-term perspective. This enables big questions about CS like follows. “What will happen to CS when its great leader is gone?”

This time you offered two different examples, one for example of adherence and another for example of in conflict. This is a very good approach because CS may not be Gold but clearly be Silver.

3-2. Stimulate Progress

GR You mean CS? has a good mechanism to stimulate progress. Rodgers believed that growth masks waste, extravagance, and inefficiency. For this reason, CS demands ever-increasing productivity. To help achieve this, every quarter the company benchmarks itself on critical measures against its competitors. This exercise reinforces the shared mind-set about the importance of productivity growth. Unless there are significant improvements, the manager can’t request additional people. The logic underpinning this process is to run as lean as possible so that layoffs will not be required during a downturn. This means CS has discomfort mechanism in place to combat the disease of complacency that inevitably begins to infect all successful organizations. It is “Good enough never is” mechanism. I agree that Rodgers is a very demanding guy and he created some mechanisms to enforce discontent and endeavor to come up with it such as benchmarking.

On the other hand, CS didn’t have its own BHAGs. CS has only focused on continuous improvement cost efficiency and productivity of operations, the implementation of programs for reducing cycle times and inventory. It didn’t have any BHAGs that was so clear, compelling and fell well outside the comfort zone. It just concentrated on increasing short-term revenue through people/performance management, killer software rather than continually set bold new goals for itself long into the future. This is the conflict with BHAGs mechanism.

Yes. Just pursuing higher operational excellence cannot be a BHAGs.

Instructor feedback: Good job. You have proved you have a thorough and balanced view on CS.

Assessment : E.