中国的管理思想总让人无从下手执行造成人治－－ZT
【书名】 The Halo Effect
... and the Eight Other Business Delusions That Deceive Managers
【作者】 Phil Rosenzweig，IMD Professor； Wharton PHD。
【简介】
The Halo Effect is an unusual business book: it offers a sharp critique of current management thinking, exposing many of the errors and mistaken ideas that pervade the business world, and suggests a more accurate way to think about company performance.
The main arguments of the book can be summarized in three points:
1， Much of our thinking about company performance is shaped by the Halo Effect, which is tendency to make specific evaluations ba<x>sed on a general impression. When a company is growing and profitable, we tend to infer that it has a brilliant strategy, a visionary CEO, motivated people, and a vibrant culture.
When performance falters, we’re quick to say the strategy was misguided, the CEO became arrogant, the people were complacent, and the culture stodgy. Using examples like Cisco, ABB, IBM, Lego, and more, I show how the Halo Effect is pervasive in the business world.
At first, all of this may seem like harmless journalistic hyperbole, but when researchers gather data that are contaminated by the Halo Effect—including not only press accounts but interviews with managers—the findings are suspect.
That is the principal flaw in the research of Jim Collins’s Good to Great, Collins and Porras’s Built to Last, and many other studies going back to Peters and Waterman’s In Search of Excellence. They claim to have identified the drivers of company performance, but have mainly shown the way that high performers are described.
This book is the first to show why, for all their claims of voluminous data and rigorous analysis, their research is fundamentally flawed—and why their conclusions about the drivers of company performance are unfounded.
2， Reliance on contaminated data leads to other errors, the most important of which is the widespread notion—explicit in Jim Collins’s work as well as that of many other management gurus— that companies can achieve success by following a formula.
This is erroneous for a simple but profound reason: in business, performance is inherently relative, not absolute. I provide a very striking example about Kmart: on many ob<x>jective dimensions (e.g., inventory management, procurement, logistics, automated reordering, etc.)
Kmart improved during the 1990s. Why then did profits and market share continue to decline? Because on those very same measures, Wal-Mart and Target improved even more rapidly. Kmart’s failure was a relative failure, not an absolute one.
3， Since performance is relative, not absolute, it follows that companies succeed when they do things differently than rivals, which means making choices under conditions of uncertainty, which in turn involves taking risks—and which may end in failure.
The Halo Effect shifts our thinking about performance from one that looks for a formula for success, toward one that sees the world in terms of probabilities. Strategic leadership is about making choices, under uncertainty, that have the best chance to raise the probabilities of success, while never imagining that success can be predictably achieved.
Even good decisions may lead to unfavorable outcomes, but that doesn’t mean the decision was wrong. The Halo Effect is not just an exercise in debunking flawed thinking—it seeks to improve the way that managers understand company performance and make strategic decisions.
【一些书评】
In a brilliant and unconventional book, Phil Rosenzweig unmasks the delusions that are commonly found in the corporate world.
These delusions affect the business press and academic research, as well as many best-selling books that promise to reveal the secrets of success or the path to greatness. Such books claim to be based on rigorous thinking, but operate mainly at the level of storytelling. They provide comfort and inspiration, but deceive managers about the true nature of business success.
The most pervasive delusion is the Halo Effect. When a company’s sales and profits are up, people often conclude that it has a brilliant strategy, a visionary leader, capable employees, and a superb corporate culture. When performance falters, they conclude that the strategy was wrong, the leader became arrogant, the people were complacent, and the culture was stagnant. In fact, little may have changed—company performance creates a Halo that shapes the way we perceive strategy, leadership, people, culture, and more. The Halo Effect is widespread, undermining the usefulness of business bestsellers from In Search of Excellence to Good to Great.
The Halo Effect is a landmark book that replaces mistaken thinking with a sharper understanding of what drives company performance. It’s a guide for the thinking manager, a way to detect errors in business research and to reach a clearer understanding of what drives success and failure. For managers who want to separate fact from fiction in the world of business, The Halo Effect is a much-needed antidote to the conventional thinking that clutters business bookshelves.
作者：XiamenTurtle 在 海归论坛 发贴, 来自【海归网】 http://www.haiguinet.com
... and the Eight Other Business Delusions That Deceive Managers
【作者】 Phil Rosenzweig，IMD Professor； Wharton PHD。
【简介】
The Halo Effect is an unusual business book: it offers a sharp critique of current management thinking, exposing many of the errors and mistaken ideas that pervade the business world, and suggests a more accurate way to think about company performance.
The main arguments of the book can be summarized in three points:
1， Much of our thinking about company performance is shaped by the Halo Effect, which is tendency to make specific evaluations ba<x>sed on a general impression. When a company is growing and profitable, we tend to infer that it has a brilliant strategy, a visionary CEO, motivated people, and a vibrant culture.
When performance falters, we’re quick to say the strategy was misguided, the CEO became arrogant, the people were complacent, and the culture stodgy. Using examples like Cisco, ABB, IBM, Lego, and more, I show how the Halo Effect is pervasive in the business world.
At first, all of this may seem like harmless journalistic hyperbole, but when researchers gather data that are contaminated by the Halo Effect—including not only press accounts but interviews with managers—the findings are suspect.
That is the principal flaw in the research of Jim Collins’s Good to Great, Collins and Porras’s Built to Last, and many other studies going back to Peters and Waterman’s In Search of Excellence. They claim to have identified the drivers of company performance, but have mainly shown the way that high performers are described.
This book is the first to show why, for all their claims of voluminous data and rigorous analysis, their research is fundamentally flawed—and why their conclusions about the drivers of company performance are unfounded.
2， Reliance on contaminated data leads to other errors, the most important of which is the widespread notion—explicit in Jim Collins’s work as well as that of many other management gurus— that companies can achieve success by following a formula.
This is erroneous for a simple but profound reason: in business, performance is inherently relative, not absolute. I provide a very striking example about Kmart: on many ob<x>jective dimensions (e.g., inventory management, procurement, logistics, automated reordering, etc.)
Kmart improved during the 1990s. Why then did profits and market share continue to decline? Because on those very same measures, Wal-Mart and Target improved even more rapidly. Kmart’s failure was a relative failure, not an absolute one.
3， Since performance is relative, not absolute, it follows that companies succeed when they do things differently than rivals, which means making choices under conditions of uncertainty, which in turn involves taking risks—and which may end in failure.
The Halo Effect shifts our thinking about performance from one that looks for a formula for success, toward one that sees the world in terms of probabilities. Strategic leadership is about making choices, under uncertainty, that have the best chance to raise the probabilities of success, while never imagining that success can be predictably achieved.
Even good decisions may lead to unfavorable outcomes, but that doesn’t mean the decision was wrong. The Halo Effect is not just an exercise in debunking flawed thinking—it seeks to improve the way that managers understand company performance and make strategic decisions.
【一些书评】
In a brilliant and unconventional book, Phil Rosenzweig unmasks the delusions that are commonly found in the corporate world.
These delusions affect the business press and academic research, as well as many best-selling books that promise to reveal the secrets of success or the path to greatness. Such books claim to be based on rigorous thinking, but operate mainly at the level of storytelling. They provide comfort and inspiration, but deceive managers about the true nature of business success.
The most pervasive delusion is the Halo Effect. When a company’s sales and profits are up, people often conclude that it has a brilliant strategy, a visionary leader, capable employees, and a superb corporate culture. When performance falters, they conclude that the strategy was wrong, the leader became arrogant, the people were complacent, and the culture was stagnant. In fact, little may have changed—company performance creates a Halo that shapes the way we perceive strategy, leadership, people, culture, and more. The Halo Effect is widespread, undermining the usefulness of business bestsellers from In Search of Excellence to Good to Great.
The Halo Effect is a landmark book that replaces mistaken thinking with a sharper understanding of what drives company performance. It’s a guide for the thinking manager, a way to detect errors in business research and to reach a clearer understanding of what drives success and failure. For managers who want to separate fact from fiction in the world of business, The Halo Effect is a much-needed antidote to the conventional thinking that clutters business bookshelves.
作者：XiamenTurtle 在 海归论坛 发贴, 来自【海归网】 http://www.haiguinet.com
没有找到相关结果
已邀请:
RSS Feed
2 个回复
leoyu163 (威望:2) (上海 ) 在校学生 总监
赞同来自:
这个现象是建立在人们对经济和社会现象永远无法全面获知的前提下，采用的一种似是而非的认知态度。
管理上经常采用的一种方法，所谓 Benchmarking，管理者生怕忽略掉其他相关的因素，向他人学习，就包括学他的所有方面。
认知方面的局限反映到管理的观念和理论，我认为，可以按抽象程度和结构程度来区分不同国家的文化影响。
抽象程度高，则概括性强，但具体实施有问题，让人还是无法下手。
结构精细度高，可以从一点一滴的小事做起，但是在总体战略上眼光难以长远。
从国家文化的差异，大致可以分为：
1）抽象度高，结构性差：如中国的管理基本理念，如采用孙子兵法，易经，甚至毛泽东游击战争的理论，再比如中医的理念。中国人往往很会抽象出来某种理论，但是具体指导性很差，除非领导者本人执行，他人无从下手。中国的管理多为人治，经常是荣辱集于一人之身。
2）抽象度低，结构性高：如德国和日本。日本甚于德国。在国家文化的特征描述中，避险度是一个重要度量。避险度高则更注重细节和规范。日本最高，德国次之。日本和德国在管理上更注重细节。TQM，JIT发源于日本原因就在此。当然还有其他的原因，比如日本的团队精神。在战略考量上，日本人和德国人就更迁就可行性，往往有局限性。德国的管理理论，也是建立在对管理对象的真正理解上，管理人要先理解为什么，然后才能去做。
3）既有一定的抽象，又有具体一些的结构。我认为这就是美国的管理理论区别于他国的特征。现代的管理理论多来自美国的管理学派，大多和美国的经济成长较快，和美国的经济统治地位有关。美国的许多经济管理理论，让人感觉似是而非，没有很多的论证和推演。比如Motorola 搞出来的six sigma，比如 Moore的cross chasm，比如 Balanced Scorecard。但是，美国的这一套实用，同时解决了一部分认知局限的问题，战略上也略胜一筹。另外就是该书提到的所谓Halo Effect。因为有人成功，所以这个方法成功。不过，还的确有些用。
文化无所谓好坏，管理理论也无所谓好坏。关键看能否对症。
工业化时期，德国和日本的管理思维或许效果明显，到了经济动荡变革的时期，美国的战略管理思维可以称道于世。
当软件产品成为经济发展的主要动力时，或许世界会变个样子。天平可能会向擅长抽象的以中国和印度东方管理理论倾斜，也没准？
我之所以说，这本书也是Halo Effect。正是觉得，该书的风格还是美国的管理理论思维。我觉得，但是我还没看呢。
作者：木辛 在 海归论坛 发贴, 来自【海归网】 http://www.haiguinet.com