Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Section E
Submitted By: Amit Yadav (PGP28263)
Similarities:
Below are the few similarities among all the situations I got involved in during the course. 1. Leadership: In all cases I found that change in leadership changed the functioning of organization. The leader transferred its traits to the people in the organization. He transformed the culture of the organization. 2. Cycle change (McKinsey 7 S framework): In all cases I found that change is not standalone. It requires change in all the aspects of organization like style, structure, staffing etc. These 7 steps help us in understanding what we need to change in order to bring a change in strategy or structure or any other aspect. 3. Hazy solutions: In all cases I found that solution of the problems are hazy and require management discretion to make final decision. There is no clear cut answer to the problem. 4. Tradeoff: Each decision in cases required some tradeoff to be made before making a decision. E.g entering a business with a high growth potential but on the other hand there is huge investment and risk of failure 5. Dilemma between focused versus diversified Approach: In most of the cases we found that company faced a dilemma whether they should pursue a more focused approach or more diversified approach. 6. Short term versus Long term: In all cases there were short term decision which were required to be taken to sustain the company whereas long term decision were required for future growth opportunities. 7. Alignment of Goals: All the short term and long term, goals aligned with the company strategy and were in line with the CEOs vision for the company.
Differences:
Below are the few differences among all the situations I got involved in during the course. 1. Kind of decision making: Some CEOs were required to turnaround the company whereas some of the CEOs were appointed when company was really doing well. For example in case of GE, the new CEO took the position when company was generating 23 % return for shareholders, whereas in Domestic Auto parts when the new CEO took over, she needed to turnaround the company as company was growing at a rate less than Industry average. 2. Transforming strategy versus Aligning Strategy: In some situations leaders were required to transform the overall strategy company was following whereas in other situations the they just needed to align the other elements of McKinsey 7s framework e.g in Domestic Auto Parts case, strategy itself required to be changed to a customer focused approach. This required operational changes, change in culture, change in structure etc. On the other hand in McKinsey case the strategy (knowledge management) was not required to be changed but new initiatives has to be in line with the current strategy of the firm. 3
Have I discovered any interrelations among the events, causes and consequences?
Yes, I found that all events are interrelated in a way the problem arises in the firm. Secondly every firm faces some kind of problem after a phase of continued growth. The problem may be related to leadership, strategy change, structure change, operational efficiency, maintaining growth rate etc. The causes are also somewhat similar on a broader level. The causes are a mix of internal and external factors. But this mix changes for every firm. In some firm, it inclines towards internal factors whereas in other firms it inclines more towards external factors.
Disruptive Innovation
Reverse Innovation
Open Innovation
Strategy Maps
Modular Organization
Virtual Organization
Case1(Corning) In corning I was not in the favor of reducing R& D spend in telecom sector. As investment in R&D are long term and cannot be stopped at once. Although some of the projects can be stalled. I was also of the opinion that the firm should
Case4(GE) In case of GE the new CEO should first focus on making the company sustain the shareholders return at 23 % But to prove himself as a leader than a follower. He should invest in new avenues. He should invest in future businesses. 6
How this course so far has changed/developed me (my thinking process, biases, world view, attitudes, habits, etc.)
Till now what I had learnt was only the theories of strategy like low cost strategy, differentiation. But how these theories are applied in real life I have learnt through this course. I just use to think of strategies in standalone. Now I can understand how changing strategy may involve lot of other things like structure, staffing etc. Sometimes structure of the organization may not allow a change in strategy. Hence then decision of flexibility in structure is to be taken into account i.e. how much flexible structure the firm has and how much scope it provides in changing the strategy of the firm. This relates to the tower building exercise we did in class. Flexible structures allowed some change in strategy at a later stage. But in case of rigid structure, it becomes very difficult to change the strategy. I also learnt about various innovation processes. I also learnt that a firm should continuously innovate to maintain its position but should also invest in disruptive innovation for long term sustainability of its business. I learned a new concept of boundary less organization and how they can help in achieving the business objectives using minimum resources. Next I learnt that the idea of licensing your innovations which are not in line with your business can create a revenue opportunity which otherwise would have gone wasted. I learnt that it is more important to make your business model better rather than being first entrant to market. Sometime you earn more by entering later but with a better business model.