'Clock Building'에 해당되는 글 4건 |
||
[짐 콜린스의 Good to Great 부등식] People Decision > Strategy Decision :: 2007/09/27 00:01
'Good to Great' Principles (좋은 기업을 넘어... 위대한 기업으로)
Built to Last가 방대한 기업분석 결과를 토대로 1994년에 제시한 비전기업의 특징은 매우 인상적이었다. 뛰어난 아이디어, 카리스마 넘치는 리더(time teller)가 아닌 지속적인 성과를 낼 수 있는 체계화된 시스템과 역동성이 넘치는 회사 자체의 구축(Clock Building)에 성공비결이 있었고, 후행지표이기 마련인 이익의 극대화를 추구하기 보다는 해당기업에 특화된 명확한 핵심이념을 조직 구성원과 공유하고 행동양식으로 삼는데 집중했다는 특징을 갖고 있었다. 또한, 변하지 않는 기업의 핵심이념을 제외한 다른 영역 (기업문화, 전략/전술, 사업, 정책)에 있어서는 지속적인 변화와 발전을 지향하는 열정도 중요한 비결 중의 하나였다. 조직 구성원이 한 마음이 되어 한 방향으로 달릴 수 있게 해주는 BHAG(크고 위험하고 대담한 목표), 명확한 규율 기반의 결집력 강한 기업문화에 관한 사례도 매우 인상적이었다. 리더십 그룹을 외부에서 수혈하기 보다는 내부에서 성장시키는 home-grown management 시스템은 잭 웰치와 제프리 이멜트 같은 좋은 CEO를 배출할 수 있는 GE가 오랜 세월을 비전기업으로 군림해 온 이유를 알려주고 있었다. 정교한 전략적 계획보다는 수많은 아이디어를 다윈의 바다에서 경쟁시켜 살아남은 아이디어를 상품화하는 적자생존 기반의 ideation to productization 시스템과 일신우일신에 대한 병적인 집착도 비전기업의 주요 특징 중의 하나였다.
"나는 우리가 이 버스를 어디로 몰고 가야 할지 정말 모릅니다. 하지만 이건 웬만큼 압니다. 우리가 적합한 사람들을 버스에 태운다면 적합한 사람들을 적합한 자리에 앉히고 부적합한 사람들을 버스에서 내리게 한다면, 이 버스를 멋진 어딘가로 몰고 갈 방법을 알게 되리라는 겁니다."
[Q] What were the surprises when you reexamined your research through the lens of decision-making?
[A] We tend to think that decisions are very much about "what." But when I look at my research notes and I look at interview transcripts from the executives we've interviewed, one theme that comes through is that their greatest decisions were not "what" but "who." They were people decisions. [Q] Why are people decisions so important? [A] Fundamentally, the world is uncertain. Decisions are about the future and your place in the future when that future is uncertain. So what is the key thing you can do to prepare for that uncertainty? You can have the right people with you. Let's take a nonbusiness case and a business case to illustrate the importance of the people piece. In 1978, Jim Logan and his partner, Mugs Stump, became the first people to climb the Emperor Face of Mount Robson in the Canadian Rockies. And to this day, everybody else who's tried the face has either died or failed on the route. When I asked Logan, "Why were you able to do the Emperor Face?" he said, "Because I made the single most important decision, I picked the right partner." He told me that there was this one place, the "death zone," and once they went above it, they really couldn't retreat. They were going to either summit or die--no going back. They didn't know what they were going to find beyond that point, and they didn't know what the weather was going to be. And so, therefore, what's your greatest hedge against uncertainty? Having people who can adapt to whatever the mountain throws at you.
Trackback Address :: http://read-lead.com/blog/trackback/424
|
||||||
[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
|
||