The old ways of setting and implementing strategy are failing us, writes the author of Leading Change, in part because we can no longer keep up with the pace of change. Organizational leaders are torn between trying to stay ahead of increasingly fierce competition and needing to deliver this year's results. Although traditional hierarchies and managerial processes--the components of a company's "operating system"--can meet the daily demands of running an enterprise, they are rarely equipped to identify important hazards quickly, formulate creative strategic initiatives nimbly, and implement them speedily. The solution Kotter offers is a second system--an agile, networklike structure--that operates in concert with the first to create a dual operating system. In such a system the hierarchy can hand off the pursuit of big strategic initiatives to the strategy network, freeing itself to focus on incremental changes to improve efficiency. The network is populated by employees from all levels of the organization, giving it organizational knowledge, relationships, credibility, and influence. It can liberate information from silos with ease. It has a dynamic structure free of bureaucratic layers, permitting a level of individualism, creativity, and innovation beyond the reach of any hierarchy. The network's core is a guiding coalition that represents each level and department in the hierarchy, with a broad range of skills. Its drivers are members of a "volunteer army" who are energized by and committed to the coalition's vividly formulated, high-stakes vision and strategy. Kotter has helped eight organizations, public and private, build dual operating systems over the past three years. He predicts that such systems will lead to long-term success in the 21st century--for shareholders, customers, employees, and companies themselves.
When it comes to gaining buy-in for a new idea, we've been taught to focus on getting the idea right instead of on making sure people understand and support it. That, explains Kotter, has left us unprepared to deal with the attacks that can kill off even the most carefully developed concepts. In this edited interview, the leadership expert discusses various idea-killing attacks and offers some rules for responding to them. Whether you're working on a small deal with just a few players or a large-scale change effort in an organization of thousands, you're in the "murky land of human nature and group dynamics," Kotter says. People's anxieties and opinions color the way they react to new ideas. Kotter and Lorne Whitehead have identified four common ways that people shoot down ideas: fear-mongering, death by delay, confusion, and ridicule. Marginalizing the troublemakers might seem like the obvious response, but Kotter and Whitehead have found that people who were effective at gaining support for their ideas invited naysayers to critique their ideas and treated them with respect. They also communicated clearly and simply, never let the disagreement become personal, attended to the entire group instead of just to the most vocal critics, and prepared responses to a variety of potential attacks. Learning how to win buy-in for an idea is a basic life skill, Kotter says-one that is as relevant to a student working on a group project as it is to an executive in a business setting.
The rapid rate of change in the world of management continues to escalate. New government regulations, new products, growth, increased competition, technological developments, and an evolving workforce compel organizations to undertake at least moderate change on a regular basis. Yet few major changes are greeted with open arms by employers and employees; they often result in protracted transitions, deadened morale, emotional upheaval, and the costly dedication of managerial time. Kotter and Schlesinger help calm the chaos by identifying four basic reasons why people resist change and offering various methods for overcoming resistance. Managers, the authors say, should recognize the most common reasons for resistance: a desire not to lose something of value, a misunderstanding of the change and its complications, a belief that the change does not make sense for the organization, and a low tolerance for change in general. Once they have diagnosed which form of resistance they are facing, managers can choose from an array of techniques for overcoming it: education and communication, participation and involvement, facilitation and support, negotiation and agreement, manipulation and co-optation, and both explicit and implicit coercion. According to the authors, successful organizational change efforts are characterized by the skillful application of a number of these approaches, with a sensitivity to their strengths and limitations and a realistic appraisal of the situation at hand. In addition, the authors found that successful strategic choices for change are both internally consistent and fit at least some key situational variables.
Businesses hoping to survive over the long term will have to remake themselves into better competitors at least once along the way. These efforts have gone under many banners: total quality management, reengineering, rightsizing, restructuring, cultural change, and turnarounds, to name a few. In almost every case, the goal has been to cope with a new, more challenging market by changing the way business is conducted. A few of these endeavors have been very successful. A few have been utter failures. Most fall somewhere in between, with a distinct tilt toward the lower end of the scale. John P. Kotter is renowned for his work on leading organizational change. In 1995, when this article was first published, he had just completed a ten-year study of more than 100 companies that attempted such a transformation. Here he shares the results of his observations, outlining the eight largest errors that can doom these efforts and explaining the general lessons that encourage success. Unsuccessful transitions almost always founder during at least one of the following phases: generating a sense of urgency, establishing a powerful guiding coalition, developing a vision, communicating the vision clearly and often, removing obstacles, planning for and creating short-term wins, avoiding premature declarations of victory, and embedding changes in the corporate culture. Realizing that change usually takes a long time, says Kotter, can improve the chances of success.
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.
Leadership is different from management, but not for the reasons most people think. Leadership isn't mystical and mysterious. It has nothing to do with having "charisma" or other exotic personality traits. It is not the province of a chosen few. Nor is leadership necessarily better than management or a replacement for it. Rather, leadership and management are two distinctive and complementary systems of action. Each has its own function and characteristic activities. Both are necessary for success in today's business environment. Management is about coping with complexity. Its practices and procedures are largely a response to the emergence of large, complex organizations in the twentieth century. Leadership, by contrast, is about coping with change. Part of the reason it has become so important in recent years is that the business world has become more competitive and more volatile. More change always demands more leadership. Most U.S. corporations today are over-managed and under-led. They need to develop their capacity to exercise leadership. Successful corporations don't wait for leaders to come along. They actively seek out people with leadership potential and expose them to career experiences designed to develop that potential. Indeed, with careful selection, nurturing, and encouragement, dozens of people can play important leadership roles in a business organization. But while improving their ability to lead, companies should remember that strong leadership with weak management is no better, and is sometimes actually worse, than the reverse. The real challenge is to combine strong leadership and strong management and use each to balance the other.
A gap has existed between the conventional wisdom about how managers work and the actual behavior of effective managers. Business textbooks suggest that managers operate best when they carefully control their time and work within highly structured environments, but observations of real managers indicate that those who spend their days that way may be undermining their effectiveness. In this HBR Classic, John Kotter explains that managers who limit their interactions to orderly, focused meetings actually shut themselves off from vital information and relationships. He shows how seemingly wasteful activities like chatting in hallways and having impromptu meetings are, in fact, quite efficient. General managers face two fundamental challenges: figuring out what to do despite an enormous amount of potentially relevant information, and getting things done through a large and diverse set of people despite having little direct control over most of them. To tackle these challenges, effective general managers develop flexible agendas and broad networks of relationships. Their agendas enable them to react opportunistically to the flow of events around them because a common framework guides their decisions about where and when to intervene. And their networks allow them to have quick and pointed conversations that give the general managers influence well beyond their formal chain of command. Originally published in 1982, the article's ideas about time management are all the more useful for today's hard-pressed executives. Kotter has added a retrospective commentary highlighting the article's relevance to current concepts of leadership.
Examines the recruiting process of Bowles Hollowell Conner & Co. (BHC), an investment banking firm known for its work with middle market companies. Specifically, presents a profile of the firm and its recruiting process and then examines that process through the firm's recruiting efforts at Harvard Business School (HBS). Includes the resumes of 17 second-year HBS students who sought interviews for an associate position with BHC and raises the issue of how interview selections were made from those resumes.
This redisguised version of an earlier case, Tom Levick, provides an updated setting but does not change the teaching objectives. Chronicles the first six weeks of experience on the job for a recent business school graduate. Emphasis is on managing upwards--particularly with respect to errors discovered by the protaganist for which his boss was responsible. Provides background data.
Examines the three factors critical to this company's remarkable success in the high tech field. The first factor is the founder, Dr. Inamori's powerful leadership. The second is the strong corporate culture or philosophy of the firm. The third element in Kyocera's success is the company's management systems, i.e. the "amoeba" system of profit centers. This system is bound together by an interactive level of meetings and the strong philosophy of the company which emphasizes both creativity and working toward a higher goal for the good of the company. This philosophy of a higher common goal prevents infighting amongst profit centers and preserves a unity of purpose, while encouraging a great deal of individual autonomy and creativity through the management system. This system in conjunction with the philosophy also promotes multiple levels of leadership and individual initiative throughout the firm. Dr. Inamori's leadership communicates this philosophy to the employees.
Depicts the reformation of Nissan Motor Co.'s corporate culture and the company's subsequent turnaround in market share and profits. In 1985, Yutaka Kume became president of Nissan and thereafter, he continually emphasized the need for internal change throughout the organization. Despite the difficulty of effecting widespread change in such a large organization, Nissan's managers and employees got behind this effort. By 1990, there was a discernable difference in Nissan's image and product. The infamous "econo-boxes" of the early 1980s had been replaced by sleek new models like the Silva (240sx). This case explores many of the changes which took place throughout the organization to make such cultural change possible and effective, from the top management level, to the design department, to the assembly line. Also examines the difficulty and time needed to make lasting change in an organization.
In just 10 years, 1980-1990, British Airways turned around both its declining image and financial situation. Focusing on the paramount importance of customer service, British Airways went from "bloody awful" to "bloody awesome." Experiencing a financial crisis in 1981 and trying to meet the challenges of privatization helped the people at British Airways focus on changing their culture through reorganization and instituting new beliefs.
Introduces the student to Mary Kay Cosmetics, Inc., its business, its strategy, and its organization. Provides the necessary background for understanding the contributions of Mary Kay Ash, the company's founder and chairman.
Traces a complex resource allocation decision facing British Steel in 1975. Students study the influences on the various managers involved in making the decision.
Focuses on the management style of Renn Zaphiropoulos in the context of a rapidly changing business environment within Xerox Corporation. To be contrasted with the case, Fred Henderson and the videotape, A Day with Fred Henderson (9-881-502), which are appropriate for a more stable environment.
Focuses on the management style of Fred Henderson in the context of a relatively stable business environment within Xerox Corporation. To be contrasted with the case, Renn Zaphiropoulos and the videotape, A Day with Renn Zaphiropoulos (9-881-501), which are appropriate for a more dynamic environment.
In today's large and complex organizations, the effective performance of most managerial jobs requires one to be skilled at the acquisition and use of power. It is primarily because of the dependence on others inherent in managerial jobs that the dynamics of power necessarily form an important part of a manager's processes. To help cope with dependency relationships, effective managers create, increase, or maintain different types of power over others.
In 1969, Megalith centralized its financial and control functions. John Boyd, senior vice president for finance, hired four brilliant young managers to "bring the group out of the stone age." By 1975, this management team had created a near-perfect finance office of 630 employees. But two of the "young stars" have just quit, and Boyd is sure the constraints of salary ceilings are responsible. He talks with a compensation consultant (Hay Associates).