Leadership & Followship
This is an excerpt from the paper...
There are pros and cons for both types of research and development strategy, both leadership and followership. Leadership would be seen in an organization that did its own research and produced its own unique product based entirely on new concepts or new ways of using existing concepts. This approach can be very expensive and entails a considerable risk, for always there is the uncertainty as to whether or not a given product will be wanted by the public along with uncertainty whether it can be developed at all by the company. The leadership position has advantages when a product is brought to the market and is really successful, for the company creates in effect its own market niche and becomes the leader in that niche from the first. There may be challenges thereafter, but the company has an advantage in being first and in being identified as such by the public. The followership role would be to make changes in existing products to try to produce a better product and capture a larger portion of the market share, or to produce a different product that does the same thing for less money and so captures a larger share in that way. The computer business can serve as an example--the many clones of IBM did not innovate but rather adapted existing technology to a lower-priced version and captured a good deal of the PC market as a result, so much that IBM itself was imperiled. This approach has certain advantages in that much of the research and the initial introduction of
. . .
ough the accretion of details and attitudes in the way the company does business. If the company was well-organized, it begins with the mission statement and continues to develop with every program instituted to further that mission. Strategic decisions are based on the mission statement as well, but in turn strategic decisions shape the corporate culture that follows and influences all subsequent decisions. It is thus impossible to say whether strategy follows culture or culture follows strategy. In effect, they are so intermixed as to be the same thing. Neither is completely controlled or designed, and each feeds off the other. the most effective company is one where the two reflect the same values and underlying concepts.
Action planning can be a part of Management by Objectives, since formulating an action plan is an important element in strategic management, but action planning also contrasts with the Management by Objective approach of Peter Drucker in some ways. Drucker said that each manager should determine with his or her superior the measurable objectives for his or her unit, and these objectives should dovetail with the larger goals of the organization. The people responsible for achieving the results should
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
War II, Drucker Drucker, Wright Geroy, , Shim Siegel, Adam Smith, Cost Center, Profit Center, Investment Center, Management Objectives, corporate culture, action planning, responsibility center, strategic planning, center unit organization, standard costs, costs revenues, market share, unit organization, center unit, cost center, low market share, journal 12 11991, organization responsible costs, unit organization responsible,
Approximate Word count = 3423
Approximate Pages = 14 (250 words per page)
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
