Change just won’t go awayKippenberger, T
2000 The Antidote
doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000006869
Discusses the surge of interest in hi‐tech shares fuelled by dot.com mania. Flags up that most mergers and acquisitions fail to achieve their originally intended benefits — even though this is ignored at times. Looks at Jack Welch, CEO of General Electric (GE) and the way that, in the last 20 years, he has changed one of the world’s largest companies — the value increasing from $14bn to more than $400bn. Concludes GE is now a business built to last.
What does it mean to be flexible?Kippenberger, T
2000 The Antidote
doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000006870
Proclaims much depends on managers’ capacity to move to a dynamic form of control that is the antithesis of routine management. States the era of mass production was at its peak in the 1950s and 1960s, which saw jobs become standardized and management tasks more specialized as control and co‐ordination became central for organization. Posits organizations have to be able to innovate and adapt to changing conditions in order to survive.
How some long‐lived companies thriveKippenberger, T
2000 The Antidote
doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000006871
Uses 18 companies as signposts for visionary leaders in this study and lists them in an inset along with comparison companies. Believes that by investigating companies over their life‐spans to date, and comparing them with their leading competitors to form fundamental principles, applicable over long time spans and various industries gives an overall, wider picture. Uses a Figure to emphasize conceptual framework. Contends that preserving the core ideology is an underlying need. Concludes that complacency has to be obliterated to stimulate change and improvement.
Change that can kill off great, well‐run companiesKippenberger, T
2000 The Antidote
doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000006872
Profiles two types of technological change — sustaining and disruptive. Employs an inset of definitions explaining technology, innovation, sustaining technologies and disruptive technologies. States a lack of understanding about the strategic difference between sustaining and disruptive technologies can result in a crucial failure. Further insets shows Hewlett‐Packard’s laser jet and ink‐jet printers as a prime example of how to cope with disruptive technology, even if it threatens suicide for its original business division. Sums up firms are rarely in a position to have the correct organizational, managerial or cultural response to enable them to cope successfully with changes generated by disruptive technologies.
Two contrasting theories of change: Theory E and Theory OKippenberger, T
2000 The Antidote
doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000006873
Proclaims that the hard approach (referred to here as theory E) is the creation of economic value/high returns to shareholders; and that the soft approach (theory O) sees organizations as having many stakeholders, developing employees and their loyalty. Posits that, for organizations to prosper, eventually, theory E must be joined with theory O. Uses an inset with some arguments about change. Gives an example of Asda trying to combine Theories E and O, although, because Wal‐Mart bought Asda in 1999 for eight times its 1991 value, the Asda case could not be tracked over time.
The gap between rhetoric and realityKippenberger, T
2000 The Antidote
doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000006874
Covers change in organizations and highlights three in particular: BT payphones; Citibank; and Hewlett‐Packard, using insets to show level of change, initial response, movement and new situations. Discusses research findings and unveils a variety of factors that affect how change initiatives are received, employing a Figure to aid in explanation of three groups: content; context; and cognition. Concludes, for employees to unlearn old ways, they themselves must take some responsibility for change.
Using time‐paced change to maintain momentumKippenberger, T
2000 The Antidote
doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000006875
Discusses event pacing (companies reacting to various changes) and time pacing (creating new products/services, etc.) and looks at their differences in detail. Identifies three areas in particular where transition management is crucial. Employs two insets, one on specification trade‐offs, the other strategic choices. Believes time pacing helps companies to tread the fine line between over‐and under‐reacting. Concludes time pacing many not be every businesses’ answer — but it cannot be ignored.
Embedding a culture for continuous changeKippenberger, T
2000 The Antidote
doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000006876
Profiles Patrick O’Sullivan, CEO of UK‐based insurer Eagle Star. Looks at how he brought about change in a company that was in poor condition financially, culturally and competitively. Cites, in an inset, the ‘Workout’ US system which O’Sullivan brought into Eagle Star, and which was a resounding success. Describes how 3,000 staff (40%) have participated (some more than once!) in the change process.