Showing papers in "Harvard Business Review in 1989"

Evolution and revolution as organizations grow. 1972.

Abstract: A small research company chooses too complicated and formalized an organization structure for its young age and limited size. It flounders in rigidity and bureaucracy for several years and is finally acquired by a larger company.

Choosing strategies for change.

Abstract: Few organizational change efforts tend to be complete failures, but few tend to be entirely successful either. Most efforts encounter problems; they often take longer than expected and desired, they sometimes kill morale, and they often cost a great deal in terms of managerial time or emotional upheaval. More than a few organizations have not even tried to initiate needed changes because the managers involved were afraid that they were simply incapable of successfully implementing them.

End-game Strategies for Declining Industries

Abstract: As early as 1948, when researchers discovered the ‘transistor effect’, it was evident that vacuum tubes in television sets had become technologically obsolete. Within a few years, transistor manufacturers were predicting that by 1961 half the television sets then in use would employ transistors instead of vacuum tubes.

How executives can shape their company's information systems

Abstract: When a big New York bank expanded in London, technical specialists in the two cities disagreed about which vendor's information system was best. The debate continued for several months until finally the technical experts took the issue to a senior-management policy committee. But the senior managers didn't understand the terminology and kept postponing the decision. Meanwhile, the London office complained loudly that the slowdown was threatening the unit's growth. Like the bank, most companies need a new approach to making decisions about information technology (IT), especially since it now affects so many aspects of the business. The company's technical experts seldom understand the overall business, and the senior managers who understand the business are usually lost when it comes to computers. One way to blend both perspectives is to establish a task force that solicits input from top management and creates a set of principles to guide subsequent investments in information technology. By drawing on 10 to 15 statements that reflect management's basic beliefs about how the company should use IT, the task force translates the language of corporate strategy into computerese. For instance, an electronics company wanted various functions to act more like one company. It created a principle that said, "Information systems will provide application that support cross-functional integration of business processes." Managers making subsequent decisions about computers could immediately rule out any technologies that contradicted that statement. Principles thus speed up the decision-making process, but more important, they ensure that every investment in IT helps the corporation achieve its strategic goals.

Humble decision making.

Abstract: Old-fashioned decision making doesn't meet the needs of a world with too much information and too little time. So-called rational decision making, once the ideal, requires comprehensive knowledge of every facet of a problem, which is clearly impossible today. One of the most recent decision-making models, incrementalism, despairs of knowledge and instead concentrates on the smallest possible units of change-without any sense of grand design.Now a new model is evolving. It lets us proceed with partial information. It helps us adapt to new information as it becomes available. It also helps us achieve broad goals and purposes. This new model is actually an old model, used by doctors for centuries and by many managers. It's called mixed scanning or adaptive (or humble) decision making, and it involves two sets of judgments: broad, basic choices about an organization's goals and policies and small, experimental decisions based on indepth examination of a focused subset of facts and choices.Physicians never commit all their resources and prestige to their first diagnosis. Knowing where they want to go, they use focused trial and error to get there: try medicine x for y number of days, and if that doesn't work, try medicine z. Managers can use this technique to increase the flexibility and adaptability of their decisions. In addition, they can put decisions off, stagger them, or break them into separate parts, and they can also maintain strategic reserves that will allow them to take advantage of sudden opportunities and to cover unexpected costs.

Nobody trusts the boss completely--now what?

Abstract: Catching problems early is a big advantage to any manager, and the best way to find out about developing headaches is to have your subordinates tell you. But how do you get them to be candid? How do you get them to talk freely about their own mistakes-and, harder yet, about yours? Candor depends on trust. Both have strict natural limits. People keep their mouths shut in order to protect themselves or their subordinates, to avoid the limelight, or because they are afraid of seeming timid or ineffectual, and so they try to fix their own problems without help. Company politics can also stand in the way of plain talk. Worst of all, trust avoids authority and flees a judge. Since employees always see the boss as judge, managers need to be aware of how they can increase trust-or destroy it. There are six critical areas: 1. Communication must always be a two-way street. 2. Support means being approachable, helpful, and concerned, especially when the chips are down. 3. Respect is a question of delegating authority and listening to what subordinates have to say. 4. Fairness means giving credit and assessing blame where they are due. 5. Predictability is being dependable and keeping promises. 6. Competence means knowing your own job and doing it well. But given the limits of trust, good managers watch for other telltale signs of trouble: decline in the information flow, deteriorating morale, ambiguous verbal messages, nonverbal signs, and diminishing results.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Six basics for general managers.

Abstract: To sum up, outstanding GMs affect their companies in six important ways. They develop a distinctive work environment; spearhead innovative strategic thinking; manage company resources productively; direct the people development and deployment process; build a dynamic organization; and oversee day-to-day operations. Individually, none of these things is totally new or unique. But successful GMs are better at seeing the interrelationships among these six areas, setting priorities, and making the right things happen. As a result, their activities in these areas make a coherent and consistent pattern that moves the business forward. These six responsibilities don't tell the whole story, of course. Leadership skills and the GM's personal style and experience are important pieces of the whole. But focusing effort in these six areas will help any GM become more effective. And that should mean making the right things happen faster and more often--which is what all of us want to achieve as general managers.