In Search Of Excellence Essay Research Paper

In Search Of Excellence Essay, Research Paper

In Search of Excellence was the 1982 best-selling look at excellent companies and an attempt to identify the attributes they had in common that helped to make them successful. Thomas Peters and Robert Waterman studied dozens of American companies and deemed these companies to be excellent: Bechtel, Boeing, Caterpillar, Dana, Johnson & Johnson, Hewlett-Packard, Delta, Fluor, IBM, Procter and Gamble, McDonalds, 3M, Digital Equipment and Emerson Electric.

The book gives many anecdotes describing incidents of unusual efforts by employees, contributing to long-term financial performance and growth.

For example, IBM products were described to have higher cost than their competitors, and were harder to use. But customers felt that IBM went to unusual lengths to get to know their needs. They offered unequaled guarantees of reliability and service, which spoke of assurance and success. Procter and Gamble is regarded more for extreme commitment to product quality than for their legendary marketing. Frito’s potato chip salesmen strive to achieve a 99.5% service level. This is the foundation of its extraordinary success. Analysts showed how much could be saved if Frito would reduce its commitment to service The analysts are right, Frito would save money. However, analysts can not begin to predict the impact of service unreliability on the sales force, retailers, and eventually on the market share loss.

The successful companies limited themselves to a handful of themes that were intense and repetitive, and highly successful in helping employees buy into themes.

Quality and service were the hallmarks of these companies. In addition, everyone’s cooperation was required; they demanded extraordinary performance from average employees. Productivity through people was a common theme.

Excellent companies were ingenious on the basics. Companies worked hard to make things simple. They insisted on quality and made each customer feel vital. They listened to employees and treated them like adults. The excellent companies allowed for some chaos in return for quick action and regular experimentation. They simply persisted.

Over-commitment on reliability by Caterpillar (forty-eight hour parts service anywhere in the world or Cat pays) or Maytag (ten years trouble-free operation) makes no sense. Who in his right mind would establish MBWA (management by walking around), as HP does. Those excellent companies would have a hard time convincing skeptics that they had solid management practices.

The authors finally realized that they did not have to look at Japan to find the answer to corporate problems. Excellent companies here at home have been doing it right for years, with little fanfare.

The psychologist Ernest Becker explains that man needs at the same time to be a member of a winning team and a star in his own right. The excellent companies have found ways to meet both needs.

Excellent companies are learning organizations, and they create their own internal marketplace. When IBM had a 90% market share, they did it by creating the specter of competitors. A number of the companies in the book would ensure that departments would compete against each other on products.

Mavericks in a company usually make the big leaps. Studies have demonstrated that the industry leader never does.

Excellent companies get results because their organizations are fluid. These companies often insist on informality, and keeping in constant informal contact, such as MBWA (management by walking around).

Superb companies reinforced degrees of winning rather than degrees of losing. For example, IBM sets goals so that 70-80% of its salespeople meets quotas. A competitor works so that only 40% of the sales force can meet its quota. Thus, about 60% of the salesmen feel like losers. Rate someone a loser and they’ll think and act like one. The excellent companies’ strategies are not only designed to produce winners, but to celebrate the winning. People tune out if they fail, because they blame the system. If they win, they feel they are responsible.

Too much information can overload people. Excellent companies keep corporate staff small. There isn’t enough corporate staff around to generate as much confusion down the road. Dana has fewer than 100 people in its headquarters. Ford, on the other hand, has 17 layers of management, while Toyota has five.

A key is that excellent companies focus on only a few key business values and objectives. This lets everyone know what’s important. When Dana got a new CEO, he threw out over 22″ of policy manuals and replaced them with a one-page statement focusing on the “productive people”.

In these companies were eight traits the authors felt significantly contributed to their success. Kimsey Mann, CEO of the world’s second largest apparel manufacturer, believes that every one of the eight is about people. Each one may seem trite, but the intensity of the implementation of these traits, especially when compared to their competitors, is remarkable. The eight practices work because they make great sense. These basics are not new or untested, but managers have merely ignored the following practices.

A Bias For Action

The authors describe American companies as limited by structures which hinder a

Внимание, отключите Adblock

Вы посетили наш сайт со включенным блокировщиком рекламы!
Ссылка для скачивания станет доступной сразу после отключения Adblock!

Скачать