Pub Date : 1988-08-01DOI: 10.5465/AME.1988.4277252
R. B. Chase, W. Erikson
{"title":"The Service Factory","authors":"R. B. Chase, W. Erikson","doi":"10.5465/AME.1988.4277252","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5465/AME.1988.4277252","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":337734,"journal":{"name":"Academy of Management Executive","volume":"484 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1988-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122747164","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1988-08-01DOI: 10.5465/AME.1988.4277254
E. Lawler
The most prevalent approach to designing work organizations calls for such features as hierarchical decision making, simple repetitive jobs at the lowest level, and rewards based on carefully measured individual job performance. But this "control" approach appears to be losing favor. Numerous articles and books have recently argued that work organizations need to move toward an "involvement" or "commitment" approach to the design and management of work organizations.' The advantages of the involvement approach are said to include higher quality products and services, less absenteeism, less turnover, better decision making, and better problem solving in short, greater organizational effectiveness.2 Careful examination of the suggested ways to increase involvement reveals not one but at least three approaches to managing organizations. All three encourage employee participation in decision making. These three approaches, however, have different histories, advocates, advantages, and disadvantages. An organization interested in adopting an involvement-oriented approach needs to be aware of the differences among these approaches and strategically choose the approach that is best for it. The three approaches to involvement are (1) parallel suggestion involvement, (2) job involvement, and (3) high involvement. They differ in the degree to which they direct that four key features should be moved to the lowest level of an organization. Briefly, the features are: (1) information about the performance of the organization, (2) rewards that are based on the performance of the organization, (3) knowledge that enables employees to understand and contribute to organizational performance, and (4) power to make decisions that influence organizational direction and performance. Information, rewards, knowledge, and power are the central issues for all organizations. How they are positioned in an organization determines the core management style of the organization. When they are concentrated at the top, traditional control-oriented management exists; when they are moved downward, some form of participative management is being practiced. The parallel suggestion approach does the least to move power, knowledge, information, and rewards downward, while the high involvement approach does the most. Because they position power, information, knowledge, and rewards differently, these approaches tend to fit different situations and to produce different results. It is not that one is always better than another, but that they are different and, to some degree, competing. Let us consider how these three approaches operate, and the results they produce. Once we have reviewed them, we can discuss when and how they are best used.
{"title":"Choosing an Involvement Strategy","authors":"E. Lawler","doi":"10.5465/AME.1988.4277254","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5465/AME.1988.4277254","url":null,"abstract":"The most prevalent approach to designing work organizations calls for such features as hierarchical decision making, simple repetitive jobs at the lowest level, and rewards based on carefully measured individual job performance. But this \"control\" approach appears to be losing favor. Numerous articles and books have recently argued that work organizations need to move toward an \"involvement\" or \"commitment\" approach to the design and management of work organizations.' The advantages of the involvement approach are said to include higher quality products and services, less absenteeism, less turnover, better decision making, and better problem solving in short, greater organizational effectiveness.2 Careful examination of the suggested ways to increase involvement reveals not one but at least three approaches to managing organizations. All three encourage employee participation in decision making. These three approaches, however, have different histories, advocates, advantages, and disadvantages. An organization interested in adopting an involvement-oriented approach needs to be aware of the differences among these approaches and strategically choose the approach that is best for it. The three approaches to involvement are (1) parallel suggestion involvement, (2) job involvement, and (3) high involvement. They differ in the degree to which they direct that four key features should be moved to the lowest level of an organization. Briefly, the features are: (1) information about the performance of the organization, (2) rewards that are based on the performance of the organization, (3) knowledge that enables employees to understand and contribute to organizational performance, and (4) power to make decisions that influence organizational direction and performance. Information, rewards, knowledge, and power are the central issues for all organizations. How they are positioned in an organization determines the core management style of the organization. When they are concentrated at the top, traditional control-oriented management exists; when they are moved downward, some form of participative management is being practiced. The parallel suggestion approach does the least to move power, knowledge, information, and rewards downward, while the high involvement approach does the most. Because they position power, information, knowledge, and rewards differently, these approaches tend to fit different situations and to produce different results. It is not that one is always better than another, but that they are different and, to some degree, competing. Let us consider how these three approaches operate, and the results they produce. Once we have reviewed them, we can discuss when and how they are best used.","PeriodicalId":337734,"journal":{"name":"Academy of Management Executive","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1988-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117304287","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1988-05-01DOI: 10.5465/AME.1988.4275515
T. Peters
Every day brings new reports of lousy American product or service quality, vis-a-vis our foremost overseas competitors. The news of buyers rejecting our products pours in from Des Moines; Miami; Santa Clara County, California; Budapest; Zurich; and even Beijing. Industry after industry is under attack old manufacturers and new, as well as the great hope of the future, the service industry. Change on an unimagined scale is a must, and islands of good news those responding with alacrity are available for our inspection. But it is becoming increasingly clear that the response is not coming fast enough. For instance, even the near-freefall of the dollar does not seem to be enough to make our exports attractive or reduce our passion for others' imports. "Competitiveness is a microeconomic issue," the chairman of Toyota Motors stated recently. By and large, I agree. There are things that Washington, Bonn, Tokyo, Sacramento, Harrisburg, and Albany can do to help. But most of the answers lie within that is, within the heads and hearts of our own managers.
{"title":"Restoring American Competitiveness: Looking for New Models of Organizations","authors":"T. Peters","doi":"10.5465/AME.1988.4275515","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5465/AME.1988.4275515","url":null,"abstract":"Every day brings new reports of lousy American product or service quality, vis-a-vis our foremost overseas competitors. The news of buyers rejecting our products pours in from Des Moines; Miami; Santa Clara County, California; Budapest; Zurich; and even Beijing. Industry after industry is under attack old manufacturers and new, as well as the great hope of the future, the service industry. Change on an unimagined scale is a must, and islands of good news those responding with alacrity are available for our inspection. But it is becoming increasingly clear that the response is not coming fast enough. For instance, even the near-freefall of the dollar does not seem to be enough to make our exports attractive or reduce our passion for others' imports. \"Competitiveness is a microeconomic issue,\" the chairman of Toyota Motors stated recently. By and large, I agree. There are things that Washington, Bonn, Tokyo, Sacramento, Harrisburg, and Albany can do to help. But most of the answers lie within that is, within the heads and hearts of our own managers.","PeriodicalId":337734,"journal":{"name":"Academy of Management Executive","volume":"80 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1988-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133647109","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1988-05-01DOI: 10.5465/AME.1988.4275532
Jerald Greenberg
C ertainly, it would appear that being fair is a central interest among today's managers, concerned as they must be about providing "equal employment opportunities," adhering to "fair labor practices," and offering "a fair day's pay for a fair day's work." Just as judges promote fairness in the legal system, and referees and umpires ensure that sporting events are played fairly, managers are responsible for upholding both their company's and society's views of fairness by guaranteeing the fair treatment of employees.1 Despite this, however, it remains unclear what those responsible for the day-to-day management of organizations think constitutes fair behavior. Not surprisingly, just as legal scholars and philosophers cannot agree on what fairness really is in any absolute sense, social scientists have relied on studying justice as it is perceived to be that is, what is fair is in the eye of the beholder.2 In organizations, where the differing perspectives, interests, and goals of supervisors and subordinates might offer each access to different sources of information (as well as different biases on the same information), uncertainties about what is perceived to be fair are likely to arise.3 As a result, we may expect that seasoned managers trying to be fair may learn to focus on what others believe to be fair, thereby cultivating an impression of fairness rather than striving toward any abstract sense of morality. Indeed, when interviewing executives on the topic of organizational justice, I learned that in business organizations fairness was often a matter of impression-management. As one senior vice-president of a Fortune 500 firm confided in me, "What's fair is whatever the workers think is fair. My job is to convince them that what's good for the company is fair for them as individuals." Hearing this sentiment echoed by others, I began to suspect that fairness as viewed by corporate management was perhaps as much a matter of image as it was a matter of morality; that is, "looking fair" may be at least as important as actually "being fair." After all, even the best-intentioned, most "fair-minded" manager may fail to win the approval of subordinates who are not convinced of his or her fairness. Given this, we may ask the following two questions: (1) Are managers more concerned about looking fair or actually being fair? and (2) What do managers do to cultivate impressions of fairness? The Importance of Looking Fair: Survey Evidence
{"title":"Cultivating an Image of Justice: Looking Fair on the Job","authors":"Jerald Greenberg","doi":"10.5465/AME.1988.4275532","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5465/AME.1988.4275532","url":null,"abstract":"C ertainly, it would appear that being fair is a central interest among today's managers, concerned as they must be about providing \"equal employment opportunities,\" adhering to \"fair labor practices,\" and offering \"a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.\" Just as judges promote fairness in the legal system, and referees and umpires ensure that sporting events are played fairly, managers are responsible for upholding both their company's and society's views of fairness by guaranteeing the fair treatment of employees.1 Despite this, however, it remains unclear what those responsible for the day-to-day management of organizations think constitutes fair behavior. Not surprisingly, just as legal scholars and philosophers cannot agree on what fairness really is in any absolute sense, social scientists have relied on studying justice as it is perceived to be that is, what is fair is in the eye of the beholder.2 In organizations, where the differing perspectives, interests, and goals of supervisors and subordinates might offer each access to different sources of information (as well as different biases on the same information), uncertainties about what is perceived to be fair are likely to arise.3 As a result, we may expect that seasoned managers trying to be fair may learn to focus on what others believe to be fair, thereby cultivating an impression of fairness rather than striving toward any abstract sense of morality. Indeed, when interviewing executives on the topic of organizational justice, I learned that in business organizations fairness was often a matter of impression-management. As one senior vice-president of a Fortune 500 firm confided in me, \"What's fair is whatever the workers think is fair. My job is to convince them that what's good for the company is fair for them as individuals.\" Hearing this sentiment echoed by others, I began to suspect that fairness as viewed by corporate management was perhaps as much a matter of image as it was a matter of morality; that is, \"looking fair\" may be at least as important as actually \"being fair.\" After all, even the best-intentioned, most \"fair-minded\" manager may fail to win the approval of subordinates who are not convinced of his or her fairness. Given this, we may ask the following two questions: (1) Are managers more concerned about looking fair or actually being fair? and (2) What do managers do to cultivate impressions of fairness? The Importance of Looking Fair: Survey Evidence","PeriodicalId":337734,"journal":{"name":"Academy of Management Executive","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1988-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122199193","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1988-05-01DOI: 10.5465/AME.1988.4275518
I. MacMillan
Today the popular press as well as the academic literature is replete with discussions of the increased turbulence of competition. The surviving competitors in the wake of this past decade's turbulent times are highly competent, aggressive, and possess significant resources. The implication for corporate strategy is that any competitive advantage currently held will eventually be eroded by the actions of these competent, resourceful opponents. It is no longer a question of whether the current competitive advantage will be eroded but rather a question of when. As a result, the challenge for today's strategist is to constantly seek the "second act" even as the firm is benefiting from the current competitive advantage it should be laying the groundwork for the upcoming competitive advantage. This challenge is best depicted by Exhibit 1. From the time the firm decides to make some strategic move to secure the initiative to the time that this initiative has been achieved and some type of competitive advantage has been created, is called the launch period. It is critical to minimize this period of time. The longer it takes to get an initiative in place, the more likely it is competitors will spot the move and the more time they will have to develop a counterinitiative. Furthermore, the launch period is a period of investment rather than revenue generation. So the longer it takes, the more we have to discount the revenue streams that result from having secured the initiative. In today's high cost capital markets, projects with long launch periods and high early outlays seldom return a positive net present value.
{"title":"Controlling Competitive Dynamics by Taking Strategic Initiative","authors":"I. MacMillan","doi":"10.5465/AME.1988.4275518","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5465/AME.1988.4275518","url":null,"abstract":"Today the popular press as well as the academic literature is replete with discussions of the increased turbulence of competition. The surviving competitors in the wake of this past decade's turbulent times are highly competent, aggressive, and possess significant resources. The implication for corporate strategy is that any competitive advantage currently held will eventually be eroded by the actions of these competent, resourceful opponents. It is no longer a question of whether the current competitive advantage will be eroded but rather a question of when. As a result, the challenge for today's strategist is to constantly seek the \"second act\" even as the firm is benefiting from the current competitive advantage it should be laying the groundwork for the upcoming competitive advantage. This challenge is best depicted by Exhibit 1. From the time the firm decides to make some strategic move to secure the initiative to the time that this initiative has been achieved and some type of competitive advantage has been created, is called the launch period. It is critical to minimize this period of time. The longer it takes to get an initiative in place, the more likely it is competitors will spot the move and the more time they will have to develop a counterinitiative. Furthermore, the launch period is a period of investment rather than revenue generation. So the longer it takes, the more we have to discount the revenue streams that result from having secured the initiative. In today's high cost capital markets, projects with long launch periods and high early outlays seldom return a positive net present value.","PeriodicalId":337734,"journal":{"name":"Academy of Management Executive","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1988-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128739942","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1988-05-01DOI: 10.5465/AME.1988.4275526
A. Howard
Downsizing. The word has a fearful ring, both to those whose jobs are in jeopardy and to those who must make the decision to push others out of the corporation. To soften the blow of workforce reductions, especially when they involve management employees, companies frequently offer a financial incentive or "golden handshake" to volunteers willing to terminate their employment ahead of schedule. This has been particularly effective for those nearing retirement, who can claim their pension and an additional payout. The golden handshake offer often takes the form of a bonus payment, which may be supplemented by a change in pension requirements, resulting in a larger pension. (For example, a company may give the employee credit for more years than he or she actually worked.) Observing the departure of managers reaching for such golden handshake offers, an executive may wonder, "What have I done? Have I lost my best managers?" At the same time, colleagues may wonder, "What will become of them? Will they regret it? Should I do the same thing?" Some answers to these questions come from a longitudinal study begun in the 1950s of Bell System managers. Participants in the study were followed intensively until the mid-1980s, by which time a significant number had taken an early retirement. Those who left with golden handshake offers were compared to other early retirees, and all who retired early were compared to an equivalent group who remained active on the company payroll. Also explored was whether it was possible to predict which managers were most likely to retire early. Data collected periodically over their managerial careers reveal that the retirees differed from the actives in terms of their work motivations and attitudes, their financial concerns, and their values and interests. A final consideration is the reactions of the early retirees to the circumstances of their departures and to their lives in retirement. These various analyses have led to recommendations for companies' using golden handshake offers.
{"title":"Who Reaches for the Golden Handshake","authors":"A. Howard","doi":"10.5465/AME.1988.4275526","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5465/AME.1988.4275526","url":null,"abstract":"Downsizing. The word has a fearful ring, both to those whose jobs are in jeopardy and to those who must make the decision to push others out of the corporation. To soften the blow of workforce reductions, especially when they involve management employees, companies frequently offer a financial incentive or \"golden handshake\" to volunteers willing to terminate their employment ahead of schedule. This has been particularly effective for those nearing retirement, who can claim their pension and an additional payout. The golden handshake offer often takes the form of a bonus payment, which may be supplemented by a change in pension requirements, resulting in a larger pension. (For example, a company may give the employee credit for more years than he or she actually worked.) Observing the departure of managers reaching for such golden handshake offers, an executive may wonder, \"What have I done? Have I lost my best managers?\" At the same time, colleagues may wonder, \"What will become of them? Will they regret it? Should I do the same thing?\" Some answers to these questions come from a longitudinal study begun in the 1950s of Bell System managers. Participants in the study were followed intensively until the mid-1980s, by which time a significant number had taken an early retirement. Those who left with golden handshake offers were compared to other early retirees, and all who retired early were compared to an equivalent group who remained active on the company payroll. Also explored was whether it was possible to predict which managers were most likely to retire early. Data collected periodically over their managerial careers reveal that the retirees differed from the actives in terms of their work motivations and attitudes, their financial concerns, and their values and interests. A final consideration is the reactions of the early retirees to the circumstances of their departures and to their lives in retirement. These various analyses have led to recommendations for companies' using golden handshake offers.","PeriodicalId":337734,"journal":{"name":"Academy of Management Executive","volume":"56 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1988-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115952134","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1988-05-01DOI: 10.5465/AME.1988.4275524
F. Luthans
W hat do successful managers those who have been promoted relatively quickly have in common with effective managers those who have satisfied, committed subordinates and high performing units? Surprisingly, the answer seems to be that they have little in common. Successful managers in what we define as "real organizations" large and small mainstream organizations, mostly in the mushrooming service industry in middle America are not engaged in the same day-to-day activities as effective managers in these organizations. This is probably the most important, and certainly the most intriguing, finding of a comprehensive four-year observational study of managerial work that is reported in a recent book by myself and two colleagues, titled Real Managers.1 The startling finding that there is a difference between successful and effective managers may merely confirm for many cynics and "passed over" managers something they have suspected for years. They believe that although managers who are successful (that is, rapidly promoted) may be astute politicians, they are not necessarily effective. Indeed, the so-called successful managers may be the ones who do not in fact take care of people and get high performance from their units. Could this finding explain some of the performance problems facing American organizations today? Could it be that the successful managers, the politically savvy ones who are being rapidly promoted into responsible positions, may not be the effective managers, the ones with satisfied, committed subordinates turning out quantity and quality performance in their units? This article explores the heretofore assumed equivalence of "successful managers" and "effective managers." Instead of looking for sophisticated technical or governmental approaches to the performance problems facing today's organizations, the solution may be as simple as promoting effective managers and learning how they carry out their jobs. Maybe it is time to turn to the real managers themselves for some answers. And who are these managers? They are found at all levels and in all types of organizations with titles such as department head, general manager, store manager, marketing manager, office manager, agency chief, or district manager. In other words, maybe the answers to the performance problems facing organizations today can be found in their own backyards, in the managers themselves in their day-today activities. The Current View of Managerial Work
{"title":"Successful vs. Effective Real Managers","authors":"F. Luthans","doi":"10.5465/AME.1988.4275524","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5465/AME.1988.4275524","url":null,"abstract":"W hat do successful managers those who have been promoted relatively quickly have in common with effective managers those who have satisfied, committed subordinates and high performing units? Surprisingly, the answer seems to be that they have little in common. Successful managers in what we define as \"real organizations\" large and small mainstream organizations, mostly in the mushrooming service industry in middle America are not engaged in the same day-to-day activities as effective managers in these organizations. This is probably the most important, and certainly the most intriguing, finding of a comprehensive four-year observational study of managerial work that is reported in a recent book by myself and two colleagues, titled Real Managers.1 The startling finding that there is a difference between successful and effective managers may merely confirm for many cynics and \"passed over\" managers something they have suspected for years. They believe that although managers who are successful (that is, rapidly promoted) may be astute politicians, they are not necessarily effective. Indeed, the so-called successful managers may be the ones who do not in fact take care of people and get high performance from their units. Could this finding explain some of the performance problems facing American organizations today? Could it be that the successful managers, the politically savvy ones who are being rapidly promoted into responsible positions, may not be the effective managers, the ones with satisfied, committed subordinates turning out quantity and quality performance in their units? This article explores the heretofore assumed equivalence of \"successful managers\" and \"effective managers.\" Instead of looking for sophisticated technical or governmental approaches to the performance problems facing today's organizations, the solution may be as simple as promoting effective managers and learning how they carry out their jobs. Maybe it is time to turn to the real managers themselves for some answers. And who are these managers? They are found at all levels and in all types of organizations with titles such as department head, general manager, store manager, marketing manager, office manager, agency chief, or district manager. In other words, maybe the answers to the performance problems facing organizations today can be found in their own backyards, in the managers themselves in their day-today activities. The Current View of Managerial Work","PeriodicalId":337734,"journal":{"name":"Academy of Management Executive","volume":"75 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1988-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132250543","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1988-02-01DOI: 10.5465/AME.1988.4275592
Ellen F. Jackofsky, J. Slocum, Sara J. McQuaid
One hundred fifty years ago, William Procter and James Gamble delivered their handmade candles and soap by wheelbarrow. Their emphasis even then on innovative marketing, competitive strategies, and uncompromised honesty are hallmarks of the multinational Procter & Gamble Company today. IBM's Tom Watson, Jr. believed in constructive rebellion, claiming, "You can make a wild duck tame, but you can't make a tame duck wild again." Today the wild duck is a symbol of IBM's unwavering respect for creative nonconformists that is, as long as they fly in the same direction. A founder of more recent vintage, Apple Computer's Steven Jobs is the quintessential rugged individualist whose fresh approach, willingness to take risks, and originality are evident in the company's name, as well as every product it makes. These descriptions illustrate how a founder's values permeate a corporation and affect its direction. When leadership changes, the new leader often carries on traditions while bringing along a new set of values that are also gradually integrated into the company's culture. An awareness of different companies' values can facilitate a firm in its business transactions and help stave off conflict. The abundance of such corporate raiders as T. Boone Pickens and Carl Icahn, and the impact raiders have had on Phillips Oil, TWA, CBS, Gulf Oil, and other companies' human resources, are clear evidence of a clash of values. The current emphasis on corporate culture both in academic journals and the popular press underscores the need for practicing managers to appreciate its influence. Yet little attention has been paid to the influence of national culture on corporations outside the United States. Viewing the world as "global village" requires that managers become more knowledgeable about international business yet many managers simply conduct international business as though they were dealing with fellow Americans. Culture shock, not to mention lost business, has often been the result. This article presents a framework for anticipating societal values that ultimately impact the behaviors of chief executive officers. Analyses of CEOs from five different cultures will illustrate how the framework can be used by managers involved in international business. Although biographies, stories, and legends about company founders are abundant, surprisingly little consideration has been given to the importance of the current CEO to the firm. What has been written usually focuses on CEO succession or demographic statistics. Clearly, other variables including personality characteristics, organizational design, environment, and business strategy influence CEO behavior, but it is our contention that value systems necessarily come first and may actually determine these other factors and govern their impact on the CEO. The potential for cultural differences among organizations is well known. The dominant values of a particular national culture are reflected in the constraints i
{"title":"Cultural Values and the CEO: Alluring Companions?","authors":"Ellen F. Jackofsky, J. Slocum, Sara J. McQuaid","doi":"10.5465/AME.1988.4275592","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5465/AME.1988.4275592","url":null,"abstract":"One hundred fifty years ago, William Procter and James Gamble delivered their handmade candles and soap by wheelbarrow. Their emphasis even then on innovative marketing, competitive strategies, and uncompromised honesty are hallmarks of the multinational Procter & Gamble Company today. IBM's Tom Watson, Jr. believed in constructive rebellion, claiming, \"You can make a wild duck tame, but you can't make a tame duck wild again.\" Today the wild duck is a symbol of IBM's unwavering respect for creative nonconformists that is, as long as they fly in the same direction. A founder of more recent vintage, Apple Computer's Steven Jobs is the quintessential rugged individualist whose fresh approach, willingness to take risks, and originality are evident in the company's name, as well as every product it makes. These descriptions illustrate how a founder's values permeate a corporation and affect its direction. When leadership changes, the new leader often carries on traditions while bringing along a new set of values that are also gradually integrated into the company's culture. An awareness of different companies' values can facilitate a firm in its business transactions and help stave off conflict. The abundance of such corporate raiders as T. Boone Pickens and Carl Icahn, and the impact raiders have had on Phillips Oil, TWA, CBS, Gulf Oil, and other companies' human resources, are clear evidence of a clash of values. The current emphasis on corporate culture both in academic journals and the popular press underscores the need for practicing managers to appreciate its influence. Yet little attention has been paid to the influence of national culture on corporations outside the United States. Viewing the world as \"global village\" requires that managers become more knowledgeable about international business yet many managers simply conduct international business as though they were dealing with fellow Americans. Culture shock, not to mention lost business, has often been the result. This article presents a framework for anticipating societal values that ultimately impact the behaviors of chief executive officers. Analyses of CEOs from five different cultures will illustrate how the framework can be used by managers involved in international business. Although biographies, stories, and legends about company founders are abundant, surprisingly little consideration has been given to the importance of the current CEO to the firm. What has been written usually focuses on CEO succession or demographic statistics. Clearly, other variables including personality characteristics, organizational design, environment, and business strategy influence CEO behavior, but it is our contention that value systems necessarily come first and may actually determine these other factors and govern their impact on the CEO. The potential for cultural differences among organizations is well known. The dominant values of a particular national culture are reflected in the constraints i","PeriodicalId":337734,"journal":{"name":"Academy of Management Executive","volume":"30 9","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1988-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114059433","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1988-02-01DOI: 10.5465/AME.1988.4275576
M. Jelinek, N. Adler
It is no secret that business faces an environment radically different from that of even a few years ago, the result of increasingly global competition. The Commerce Department estimated in 1984 that in U. S. domestic markets some 70% of firms faced "significant foreign competition," up from only 25% a decade previously. By 1987, the chairman of the Foreign Trade Council estimated the figure to be 80%. In 1984, U.S. exports to markets abroad accounted for 12.5% of the GNP; by comparison, Japan's 1984 exports were 16.5% of its GNP.1 Global competition is serious, it is pervasive, and it is here to stay. More stringent competition is an important result of this global economy. (See Exhibit 1.) Because markets are increasingly interconnected, "world-class standards" are quickly becoming the norm. New products developed in one market are soon visible in markets around the world, as initial producers use their advantage, forcing competitors to meet the challenge or lose market share. Product life-cycle has been reduced by 75%. Product development and worldwide marketing are becoming almost simultaneous. For example, recent developments in superconductivity, initially demonstrated in Zurich, were quickly replicated in The People's Republic of China, the United States, Japan, and in Europe. Similarly, U.S. automobile customers quickly learned to demand improved quality from U.S. automakers, once the Japanese autos had demonstrated it. Standards for price, performance, and quality have been permanently altered worldwide.
{"title":"Women: World-Class Managers for Global Competition","authors":"M. Jelinek, N. Adler","doi":"10.5465/AME.1988.4275576","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5465/AME.1988.4275576","url":null,"abstract":"It is no secret that business faces an environment radically different from that of even a few years ago, the result of increasingly global competition. The Commerce Department estimated in 1984 that in U. S. domestic markets some 70% of firms faced \"significant foreign competition,\" up from only 25% a decade previously. By 1987, the chairman of the Foreign Trade Council estimated the figure to be 80%. In 1984, U.S. exports to markets abroad accounted for 12.5% of the GNP; by comparison, Japan's 1984 exports were 16.5% of its GNP.1 Global competition is serious, it is pervasive, and it is here to stay. More stringent competition is an important result of this global economy. (See Exhibit 1.) Because markets are increasingly interconnected, \"world-class standards\" are quickly becoming the norm. New products developed in one market are soon visible in markets around the world, as initial producers use their advantage, forcing competitors to meet the challenge or lose market share. Product life-cycle has been reduced by 75%. Product development and worldwide marketing are becoming almost simultaneous. For example, recent developments in superconductivity, initially demonstrated in Zurich, were quickly replicated in The People's Republic of China, the United States, Japan, and in Europe. Similarly, U.S. automobile customers quickly learned to demand improved quality from U.S. automakers, once the Japanese autos had demonstrated it. Standards for price, performance, and quality have been permanently altered worldwide.","PeriodicalId":337734,"journal":{"name":"Academy of Management Executive","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1988-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114814911","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1988-02-01DOI: 10.5465/AME.1988.4275596
C. Hill, M. Hitt, R. Hoskisson
{"title":"Declining U.S. Competitiveness: Reflections on a Crisis","authors":"C. Hill, M. Hitt, R. Hoskisson","doi":"10.5465/AME.1988.4275596","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5465/AME.1988.4275596","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":337734,"journal":{"name":"Academy of Management Executive","volume":"72 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1988-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131131218","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：