Jess Westerly is the assistant product owner of CRM applications for computer and office supply wholesalers and retailers at Kauflauf, a fast-growing provider of subscription enterprise software headquartered in Heidelberg, Germany. Only months into her job, outsider Westerly tries and fails to implement a change in field consultants' sales call patterns. Westerly had introduced the changes to the sales organization via a memo that outlined her directive and explained the reasons behind it. Field consultants immediately complained about the infringement on their decisions about how to spend their time and the insensitivity to the relationship-oriented nature of developing business. Three months later, sales statistics show little difference in calling patterns. After explaining, defending, and reshaping her stalled initiative, Waverly presents her amended proposal to key senior executives and is given three weeks to produce an implementation plan. If the plan is deemed acceptable, she will be asked to implement it.
The case describes the evolution of an interpersonal mismatch between a previously successful manager, Jamie Turner, and his new boss, Pat Cardullo. Turner, a 32-year-old MBA graduate, has been recruited by Cardullo to be vice president of marketing and sales at Modern Lighting Industries, Inc. (MLI). MLI, a struggling regional distributor of industrial lighting systems and equipment based in Chicago, has recently been acquired by a division of the much larger San Diego-based Specialty Support Services (Triple S). Cardullo, the president of MLI, is the chief proponent of the Triple S acquisition, and he has told Turner to revive MLI, implying that if Turner succeeds he will soon advance to company president. It becomes apparent, however, that Cardullo and Turner have very different assumptions and expectations about turning MLI around. The case portrays Turner's developing problems and his unsuccessful attempts to resolve them, and also Cardullo's passage through several managerial challenges.
Written from the point of view of Richard Jenkins, the Executive Vice-President of Medical Devices at SciMat. Presents his reflections on the series of events leading to the firing of one of SciMat's general managers, Erik Peterson. A redisguised and updated version of earlier case 494-113.
Implicitly raises the question of what Peterson should do to extricate himself from his difficulties. Should he resign, go directly to his division's executive vice-president to seek relief, or attempt to clarify the situation within the company? A redisguised and updated version of earlier case 494-008.
Presents the final outcome of the events. The Richard Jenkins at SciMat case presents a description from the executive vice-president's point of view of the series of events as reported in the Erik Peterson at Biometra (A), (B), (C), and (D) cases. The Jenkins at SciMat case can be assigned with Erik Peterson at Biometra (E) to give a broader perspective on Peterson's behavior and problems. This case can be handed out during class discussion of the (D) case. A redisguised and updated version of earlier case 494-009.
Describes the outcome of Erik Peterson's meetings over the course of two days with a number of senior executives from the parent company. Students should have read the (A) and (B) cases. The (C) case may be assigned with the (D) case. A redisguised and updated version of earlier case 494-007.
This case describes the problems facing a recent MBA graduate in his job as general manager of a medical device company owned by a parent corporation. It raises issues of corporate divisional relationships and the difficulties facing an inexperienced manager who seems to be receiving little support. This case is a redisguised and updated version of earlier case 494-005, reflecting the challenges of managing in innovation-/R&D-driven industries and across multiple international sites.
The purpose of this note is to ground and amplify on the characteristics and challenges of the producing manager role. It is in response to requests from participants for a piece of "take away" material that can be shared with colleagues in professional service firms that is detailed and operational in nature.
This note describes the relationship between organizational alignment and performance in professional service firms and how to use McKinsey 7S Alignment to diagnose a firm's or practice's alignment, identify misalignments and determine how to bring about the changes needed to re-align.
Professional service firms (PSFs), like so many other companies, are juggling the modern challenges of global competition, increased regulation, and rapid employee turnover. In a people-oriented industry, attrition has special import. DeLong and Gabarro, of Harvard Business School, along with former Morgan Stanley and Ernst & Young executive Lees, argue that a PSF can gain a much-needed competitive edge by renewing its focus on mentoring. The authors' in-depth interviews with professionals from more than 30 PSFs have yielded four principles for firms to heed as they rediscover this lost art. First, mentoring is personal. Rather than relying on standardized programs, mentors must frequently - and fairly - provide authentic advice and nurturing. Partners at PSFs know how to use their ample people skills effectively with clients; the benefits of using them with junior colleagues are even greater. Second, not everyone is an A player. A small dose of attention given to a B player goes at least as far as a large one offered to an A player. Since B players constitute about 70% of PSF staff, that's time well spent. Third, choice assignments are in short supply, which limits the number of learning opportunities available for associates. Good alternatives include shadowing senior professionals on assignments and taking on research or other projects that are not client-related but that nonetheless build expertise. Finally, mentoring is a two-way street. Proteges should not only learn from their senior counterparts, but also be taught to attract mentors - and to co-mentor one another.
When some managers take over a new job, they hit the ground running. They learn the ropes, get along with their bosses and subordinates, gain credibility, and ultimately master the situation. Others, however, don't do so well. What accounts for the difference? In this article, first published in 1985, Harvard Business School professor John J. Gabarro relates the findings of two sets of field studies he conducted, covering 14 management successions. The first set was a three-year study of four newly assigned division presidents; the second consisted of 10 historical case studies. The project comprised American and European organizations with sales varying from $1.2 million to $3 billion. It included turnarounds, normal situations, failures, and triumphs. According to the author, the taking-charge process follows five predictable stages: taking hold, immersion, reshaping, consolidation, and refinement. These phases are characterized by a series of alternating periods of intense learning (immersion and refinement) and action (taking hold, reshaping, and consolidation). The study's results put to rest the myth of the all-purpose general manager who can be dropped into any situation and emerge triumphant. Understanding a situation and effecting change do not occur overnight, says Gabarro, and human variables such as managerial styles and effective working relationships make a difference.
Discusses the importance of living room groups (eight participants who share a living room) in Harvard Business School's Advanced Management Program developing into effective learning groups. The diversity of the groups is a strength, but only a conscious and concerted effort of group development can harness that strength. Outlines five steps in group development each team must take. Suggests that action learning, the skill the learning group must master to become effective, is also essential in their back-home organizations, given global competition and efficient markets.
In this classic HBR article, first published in 1980, John J. Gabarro and John P. Kotter advise readers to devote time and energy to managing their relationships with their bosses. The authors aren't talking about showering supervisors with flattery; rather, they ask readers to understand that the manager-boss relationship is one of mutual dependence. Bosses need cooperation, reliability, and honesty from their direct reports. Managers, for their part, rely on bosses for making connections with the rest of the company, for setting priorities, and for obtaining critical resources. It only makes sense to work at making the relationship operate as smoothly as possible. Successfully managing your relationship with your boss requires that you have a good understanding of your supervisor and of yourself, particularly strengths, weaknesses, work styles, and needs. Once you are aware of what impedes or facilitates communication with your boss, you can take actions to improve your relationship. You can usually establish a way of working together that fits both of you, is characterized by unambiguous mutual expectations, and makes both of you more productive and effective. No doubt, some managers will resent that on top of all their other duties, they must also take responsibility for their relationships with their bosses. But these managers fail to realize that by doing so, they can actually simplify their jobs, eliminating potentially severe problems and improving productivity.
Presents an overview of a method for diagnosing and developing an organization's capability to achieve its goals and implement its strategy, with exercises for application. A rewritten version of an earlier exercise.
Tim Blanchard struggles to balance all the demands facing him as a partner of a consulting firm. He must decide how to serve clients, mentor his people, provide strategy and direction to the high-tech group, and spend time with family. A rewritten version of an earlier case.
A middle manager is about to meet with his boss to discuss her request that he head up a task force to determine how overhead can be reduced by 20%. He must decide what to address in that meeting and how the task force should be launched and led. The focus is on team leadership at four stages in a team's life cycle: 1) preparation, 2) initial meeting, 3) mid-course consultation, and 4) post-performance debriefing. A rewritten version of an earlier case.
Wolfgang Keller, manager of the Ukrainian subsidiary of a German beer company, faces a managerial dilemma. His subordinate, Dmitri Brodsky, is a talented and experienced commercial director who is not meeting his goals expediently and often requires considerable assistance from Keller. Furthermore, Brodsky's style is causing conflict with clients, other staff members, and with Keller himself. Keller must decide the best course of action to take with this difficult employee in an environment in which the industry is rapidly changing and growing and the war for talent is strong. He must also consider what comprises an effective performance review and how his own behavior impacts Brodsky's poor performance. This case is a modernized revision of the popular case "Wolfgang Keller at Königsbräu-Hellas (A)."
This is the supplement to "Wolfgang Keller at Königsbräu-TAK (A)." This case is a modernized revision of the popular case "Wolfgang Keller at Königsbräu-Hellas (B)."