'Jim Collins'에 해당되는 글 6건 |
||
지속적인 메세징에서 메세징의 creativity로... :: 2007/04/30 00:03지속적인 메세징도 중요하지만, 요즘 드는 생각은 메세징의 creativity가 더 중요하다는 거... _____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
- 자기계발/업무개선을 하지 않는 사람의 (person C) 출발을 동일선상인 1에서 했다고 가정할 때 세사람의 실력 추이를 1년동안 그려보면 아래와 같습니다.자기계발/업무개선은 성격상 단리보다는 복리 쪽에 가깝습니다. 계속 하는 사람은 비약적으로 발전하고 많이 하지 않거나 아예 안하면 항상 제자리를 맴돌게 되는 속성이 있습니다.
Trackback Address :: http://read-lead.com/blog/trackback/204
|
||
[Built to Last] 비전기업의 탐색 :: 2007/04/20 00:013년 전 수강했던 Mini-MBA 과정 중 가장 인상 깊었던 PGEC (Principles of great enduring companies) 과정의 5주차 숙제...
다음으로 비전기업의 한 예로 여러분이 몸 담고 있는 기업이나 관심이 있는 기업(Find The BTL Evidence 학습자료에 소개된 18개 기업을 포함하여 국내 기업도 가능: 가능한 한 관련자료를 얻기 쉬운 기업) 중 한 개의 기업을 선정하여 웹사이트를 방문하십시오. 그리고 그 곳에서 어떻게 그 기업이 비전기업인지에 대한 증거를 찾아내어 아래의 질문 순서에 따라 600자(2-3페이지)분량으로 작성하십시오. 다음의 질문 순서에 따라 답하시오.
P&G is a training company. It has been conducting on-the-job, formal classroom, and web based training for a long time based on the belief that its success is derived from its people. It has been paying much attention to attracting and recruiting the finest people in the world. P&G provides the various learning program like personal leadership, people and communication, project management and e-learning programs. P&G’s extensive supports for training its people means that it can encourage individuals to develop their competency through high-quality education. P&G’s pursuing the learning organization surely seems to focus on long-term success, not short-term profit. P&G has been clearly concentrated on building a “learning” organization rather than on acquiring the individual personality traits of visionary leadership. That is the outstanding example of clock building. As the principle put it, organization is the ultimate invention of the clock-building leadership. [2] 그 기업이 지속적으로 핵심 가치와 핵심목표에 부합하고 있다는 증거 한 가지를 들어 주십시오.
Yes, P&G has a clearly defined core ideology and do every effort to stick to it.
In Yes, this anecdote shows clearly how P&G adhere to its core ideology.
4-1. Preserve the Core P&G has long-standing practices of carefully screening potential new hires, hiring young people for entry-level jobs, rigorously molding them into P&G ways of thought and behavior, spitting out the misfits, and making middle and top slots available only to loyal P&Gers who grew up inside the company. Indoctrination processes are both formal and informal. P&G inducts new employee into the company with training and orientation sessions and expects them to read its official biography “Eyes on Tomorrow”, which describes the company as “an integral part of the nation’s history” with “A spiritual inheritance” and “unchanging character”. New hires immediately find nearly all of their time occupied by working or socializing with other members of “the family”. P&G has a long historical track record of paternalistic and progressive employee pay and benefit programs, which bind its people closely to the company. (profit-sharing plan for workers, employee stock ownership plan, sickness-disability-retirement-life-insurance plan) P&G has used these programs not only as a means of rewarding employees, but also as mechanisms to influence behavior, gain commitment, and ensuring tightness of fit. That means P&G translates its core ideologies into tangible mechanisms aligned to send a consistent set of reinforcing signals. And it also indoctrinates people and impose tight of fit, and create a sense of belonging to something special. That is the exact example of “Cult-like Culture”, one mechanism among “Preserve the Core” principles. You’ve proved the existence of indoctrination process and tight of fit mechanism, showing that you understand cult-like culture which is pivotal in preserving the core.
P&G has the competing brand management structure that P&G brands compete directly with other P&G brands, almost if they were from different countries. P&G already had the best people, the best products, the best marketing muscle. So why not pit the best of P&G against the best of P&G? If the marketplace doesn’t provide enough competition, why not create a system of internal competition that makes it virtually impossible for any brand to rest on its laurels? That means P&G create internal competition in order to keep itself vibrant. P&G has a definite discomfort mechanism in place to combat the disease of complacency that inevitably begins to infect all successful organizations. This is the good example of “Good enough never is”, one mechanism among “Stimulate Progress”. Yes, brand manager system is a perfect example of GENI translated in the form of “clock”. Instructor feedback: Yours was a perfect one. Assessment: E Trackback Address :: http://read-lead.com/blog/trackback/209
|
||
[Built to Last] 사이프러스 반도체 분석 :: 2007/04/19 00:023년 전 수강했던 Mini-MBA 과정 중 가장 인상 깊었던 PGEC (Principles of great enduring companies) 과정의 4주차 숙제...
[1] 사이프러스사가 시계 만들기(Clock Building) 원칙에 부합하는지 아니면 상충하는지 예를 들어 분석하십시오. 적어도 두 가지 예를 들어 설명하십시오. CS(Cypress Semiconductor), in its early stage, focused on instituting a decentralized multidivisional structure based on its CEO, T.J. Rodgers’ wish that CS would be a big company with the speed, discipline, and energy of its early history. Rodgers proposed the idea of building a federation of small companies. The philosophy behind this approach was designed to create an energy level, sense of mission, and spirit of determination that Rodgers doubted could be achieved in a large company. That means CS aimed to be a self-contained market economy rather than a self-centered bureaucracy. Considering that its decentralization gave every division the authority and freedom to run it as if it were an independent business, this surely was the example CS practiced ‘clock building’ principle. Yes, CS had adopted the decentralized organization approach before. On the other hand, CS has the example of conflicting with ‘clock building’ principle. It changed its organizational structure in the face of negative growth in 1992. It has cut its product portfolio in half and removed incubator ventures and subsidiaries and sold some assets, laid off employees in the recognition that there was too much autonomy and not enough control. This change seemed to be focused on short-term profit rather than long-term success because it chose just the way to increase rapidly its operational efficiency without paying much attention to what would provide the long-term success. (Mechanism that could develop decentralized organization based on employees’ individual initiatives, for example, education program) Yes, as you put it, Rodgers have turned the direction of CS to a wrong destination.
Yes, at least seemingly, CS has developed its own core ideology based on internal consensus.
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. 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. Trackback Address :: http://read-lead.com/blog/trackback/208
|
||