C. K. Prahalad - Management Expert

“Coimbatore Krishnarao Prahalad (pronounced as: Pra-huh-laadh)... is the Paul and Ruth McCracken Distinguished University Professor at the Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, specialises in corporate strategy ”

C. K. Prahalad is the author of a number of well known works in corporate strategy including The Core Competence of the Corporation (Harvard Business Review, May-June, 1990). He has authored several international bestsellers, including: "Competing for the Future"(with Gary Hamel), 1994, "The Future of Competition," (with Venkat Ramaswamy), 2004 and "The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty through Profits," Wharton School Publishing, 2004. His new book with co-author M. S. Krishnan is called The New Age of Innovation.

He was co-founder and became CEO of Praja Inc ("Praja" from a Sanskrit word "Praja" which means "citizen" or "common people"). The goals of the company ranged from allowing common people to access information without restriction (this theme is related to the "bottom of pyramid" or BOP philosophy) to providing a testbed for various management ideas. The company eventually laid off 1/3rd of its workforce and was sold to TIBCO. He his still on the board of TiE, The Indus Entrepreneurs.

Prahalad has been a top ten management thinker in every major survey for over ten years. Business Week said of him: "a brilliant teacher at the University of Michigan, he may well be the most influential thinker on business strategy today." He is a member of the blue ribbon commission of the United Nations on Private Sector and Development. He is the first recipient of the Lal Bahadur Shastri Award for contributions to Management and Public Administration presented by the President of India in 2000.

Read More......

Summary only...

How do the best organizations actually change?

“John P. Kotter, on change processes and the key challenges in order to create an ongoing successful change culture.”

Which are skills and talents used by an effective Change-Leader?
The one thing that we need to understand the best, is the fundamental process by which significant change can happen effectively with a minimum of pain and expense. In the process there are all kind of different types of skills that people can, at one point or another, usefully apply, and what you find increasingly, is the significant number of people that get involved in this efforts. Very often it works because they know the roadmap.

One person helps because he is particularly good at one thing, at one particular part of the process, another person helps most because he is particularly good at another thing, at another part of the process. So it is not one person with one sort of skills that makes it happen. It’s more that sufficient people, who understand how this can work, who all contribute various skills, are set at the right time, in the right way, to make the change happen effectively.

That means the change leader is in a role of a conductor?

In a lot of cases, it increasingly is. Additionally, as the world moves faster and faster, the size of the orchestra, that he or she is dealing with, is growing: When we were at a string quartet 15 or 20 years ago - we are now up to a full orchestra, which means, that the complexity is growing.

Where do you see the differences between a Manager and a Leader – and is there a chance for a manager to become a great Leader?

What good managers do, is that they take something that exists and make it work well. They do it through the kind of processes that are taught in MBA programs: budgeting, structuring activities, people staffing, control systems, etc. All of that done well, can take even very large organisations and help all the activities happen in a way that it produces the outcome that was desired. So that the products come out of the factory on time and on budget. The thing works.

What leaders tend to do is, they either create the organisation of those systems that managers manage or they take them and help change them in a significant way, to take advantage of new opportunities or to avoid induct new hesits that are coming from the outside. They do it in totally different sorts of processes: the first of that is working with people in order to create this new vision of ‘where we want to go’ and ‘how to get from here to there’. The second important point is about communicating the information to as many relevant people as possible, in a way that they get them not only to understand, but to become convinced, that it is the right way to change into the direction toward that vision. The third is to create conditions that really motivate people, inspire people to want to put in the action that will make implement the strategy and make the vision reality, even when they run into obstacles.Those things: the vision, the strategy, the communication, the inspiration and the motivation is the leadership side of the change. While the Manager is in a more hierarchical structure and looks that the things are done in the right way, the Leader is less hierarchy based but more vision focused.

Why do firms/companies often fail in change-processes?

The first and main reason is, that it is difficult! The second reason is, that companies don’t understand the dynamics of a significant change. They don’t know the secrets of dealing with difficulties and actually making things happen without provoking a lot of frustration and pain. The reason they don’t know this is, because they didn’t grow up in an increasingly fast moving world. They saw lots of examples from companies getting hit with new technologies, companies getting hit with new competitors because of globalisation, that needed to make significant changes, and did it well. So it is not in their experience that it is so difficult. When you put it all together, it is not surprising that most of the times they don’t do a great job with a perspective significant change.

If a change process is fundamental, e.g. by a new vision or a new positioning, but not realised in the organisation as urgent, how can a Leader create an urgency for change in his organisation?

What we found is a kind of formula that get used by firms that are most successful. It all starts with step one, which is creating some sense of urgency: killing off the complacency that so easily grows in bureaucracies and also getting pass other things like fear or anger that people want to hide. Urgency is the state where I feel that ‘I’ve got to do something’ but ‘can’t do it on my own’. We’ve got to figure out new and better ways to grab up opportunities and avoid hesits. If you look how people create their urgency, and when you look at enough companies, it’s almost an endless list of creative things that people come up with, they all tend to be attention grabbing. The leaders tend to be not just to work on the rational side but also the emotional side of the brain. They grab people not only in the logic but in the stomach. No matter the form, it is all the same logic: it’s trying to take a complacent group and get them to suddenly sit up and say: maybe we need to do something! Once they get the concept, the place to start on all of this has to be, to get some minor, minimum amount of urgency going. People can be very creative at looking at their specific situation, at specific details on what is going on in a company like that, and come up with very creative ways to start making things happen.

In a change-process, how do you deal successfully with the matter of resistance and fear?

The answer to that is, the more the process is done well, the more fear goes down and resistance goes down. When people feel a sense of urgency they resist less. If they feel that the people who are pushing the most are credible, seem like a logical group to help out, seem to have skills, then, fear and resistance go down. So it does, if the vision makes sense to them, if they can understand it. But if they are trying to do something but find that they are bumping into roadblocks and barriers all the time, frustration grows and at a certain point, even if you understand ‘we got to move over there’ they get frustrated, they stop and become part of the resistance. Only if people see someone move into the right direction, they calm down, they resist less. So trust, credibility and transparence are important parts of the process.

Which key-points are important by putting together an effective change-team?

Two things:

1. The people on it has to feel some sense of urgency themselves. If they don’t, they don’t put in enough time and energy.

2. Companies have to bring together a set of complementary skills that you must obtain in order to drive a change: somebody that knows the territory, someone specialized in technology, somebody that is good at leadership, etc. At least you need to have some people who are highly trusted in the organization and have a great reputation. Some which are a little more analytical, some that are little more emotional and then, the critical thing is to get them all together to work as a team.

What are the most challenging points in order to creating an ongoing change-culture?

The most important thing by far is, that the organization achieves multiple changes successfully. When that happens the actions and attitudes that help facilitate an ongoing change-culture, will start to be part of the culture. So culture is something, that is less a cost than an effect. You can’t go at it directly: holding a meeting and explaining, what the culture has got to be, doesn’t work. The aim is to get a culture that facilitates change and not saying we need to have one. Changing will simply be successful when the experience shows that it works. Then attitude and behavior will just automatically be adopted and will create that culture, the right norms and the right values associated with it.

Regarding the structures of a winning organisation in the 21th century, what are the key-challenges for the leaders?

The challenge is to give more and more help for more and more people. In the former industrial model, a very limited number of smart people at the top of a hierarchy, were developing the strategy, and then there was a bunch of people with implements below them. If you look at some of the most successful companies on earth, which have been able to sustain their success over more than only 3 to 5 years, people are really into the game and are not just doing some limited job for contributing more understanding. In great organisations you can go five levels down the hierarchy and find people to have an intelligent discussion about corporate strategy, while in the old model, you’d have trouble going down one level. I think the challenge of making that happen, of going from a more limited, exclusive, to a more inclusive group of people, who do understand things and who contribute brains, is a tough transition from an industrial model. The people are the brain of the company not only 5 or 6 people at the top. A company in the 21th century is increasingly a knowledge driven organisation and not a machine. So it’s a big challenge, but it’s increasingly critical to making companies succeed in a rapidly changing world.


Source: Our Iceberg Is Melting: "Changing and Succeeding Under Any Conditions" John P. Kotter

Read More......

Summary only...

The Top 50 Thinkers

“Business gurudom remains a man's world, with only three women in the top 50”

1. C. K. Prahalad Indian management guru
2. Bill Gates Geek-turned-philanthropist
3. Alan Greenspan Ex-Federal Reserve chairman
4. Michael Porter Competitive strategy author
5. Gary Hamel Business strategist
6. W. Chan Kim & Renée Mauborgne INSEAD professors - Blue Ocean Strategy
7. Tom Peters In Search of Excellence author
8. Jack Welch Former GE CEO-turned-columnist
9. Richard Branson Iconic British entrepreneur
10. Jim Collins Good to Great author

11. Philip Kotler Kellogg’s marketing guru
12. Robert Kaplan & David Norton The creators of the balanced scorecard
13. Kjell Nordstrom & Jonas Ridderstralle Funky Business duo from Sweden
14. Charles Handy The original portfolio worker
15. Stephen Covey The man with seven successful and highly effective habits
16. Henry Mintzberg Controverisal Canadian management expert
17. Thomas Stewart Editor of Harvard Business Review
18. Malcolm Gladwell Author of The Tipping Point and Blink
19. Lynda Gratton London Business School professor and author of Hot Spots
20. Donald Trump US Apprentice host

21. Scott Adams Creator of Dilbert
22. Ram Charan Co-author of Execution
23. Vijay Govindarajan A Tuck professor and GE’s new chief innovation consultant
24. Warren Bennis Veteran on leadership
25. Clayton Christensen Innovation expert
26. Thomas Friedman Author of The World is Flat
27. Kenichi Ohmae Globalisation guru
28. Rosabeth Moss Kanter Renowned Harvard academic and author
29. Steve Jobs Apple’s iconic business leader
30. John Kotter Leadership and change guru

31. Jeff Immelt Jack Welch’s successor at GE
32. Rob Goffee & Gareth Jones Authentic leaders at London Business School
33. Adrian Slywotsky Heavyweight modern strategist
34. Marshall Goldsmith Coach to the top executives
35. Bill George Another fan of authentic leadership
36. Larry Bossidy Co-author of Execution with Charan (22)
37. Daniel Goleman The father of social and emotional intelligence
38. Marcus Buckingham Top self-help guru
39. Howard Gardner Harvard’s creator of the multiple intelligence concept

40. Edward de Bono Supreme lateral thinker
41. Al Gore Climate change campaigner
42. David Ulrich Human resources expert
43. Seth Godin An insightful marketer
44. Costas Markides Charismatic strategist
45. Rakesh Khurana Harvard thinker
46. Richard D’Aveni Hyper-competition expert
47. Peter Senge Learning organisation guru
48. Chris Argyris The originator of the learning organisation concept
49. Jeffrey Pfeffer Stanford intellectual
50. Chris Zook Bain consultant-turned-author

Read More......

Summary only...

Porter thinks his way to the top

Type your summary here

“Times names Michael Porter ... the current king of management thinking”

MICHAEL E. PORTER is the Bishop William Laurence University Professor at Harvard Business School. With 18 books and a host of influential articles to his name, his status in the world of management thinking is legendary. As well as teaching and writing, he consults widely with the Monitor Group, the consulting firm he helped to establish.

Professor Porter is an educator but he is not a performer or management superstar in the conventional guru sense. One magazine observed that he was as likely to write a bestselling management blockbuster as give a lecture wearing a bra and stockings. Few of his books are available in paperback.

He has advised the public and private sectors world wide and has received civic medals usually reserved for military heroes or extraordinary sportspeople. The son of an army officer, he was born in 1947 in Ann Arbor, Michigan. He studied mechanical and aerospace engineering at Princeton and then switched to business, gaining an MBA and PhD in economics from Harvard.

A talented golfer and all-round sportsman, Professor Porter has always been obsessed by competition. His first widely-read book, Competitive Strategy, is now in its 63rd imprint. In it he analyses competition, introducing his Five Forces framework, still essential reading for MBA students. He subsequently moved from competition between firms to competition between nations. In The Competitive Advantage of Nations he examines why some countries are wealthy and others not. His study of national economies is extensive, though not always welcome. In Can Japan Compete? he showed that the long recession suffered by Japan was the inevitable result of successive postwar Japanese governments’ policies. In 2003 he produced a report for the DTI on the UK’s competitive position — examining ways to tackle the productivity gap in the UK. He also established the Initiative for a Competitive Inner City in the mid-Nineties.

Read More......

Summary only...

Top Management Thinkers

W. Chan Kim and Renee Mauborgne

“Are two minds really better than one?”

It looks that way. Kim and Mauborgne’s book, Blue Ocean Strategy, was the business bestseller of 2005. The Korean, Kim, and the American, Mauborgne, are professors at the French business school, Insead, and rank 15th in the Times Thinkers 50 in 2005.

Blue ocean? Is it similar to blue-sky thinking?

No. Kim and Mauborgne argue that companies spend too much time battling each other in red oceans. These are existing markets. They believe there is a huge capacity to create new industries and markets, blue oceans.

Such as?

They point to Cirque du Soleil as a good example. It took the best of traditional circuses and combined it with the best of modern theatre to create a completely new market.

If you’re making money in a red ocean why bother jumping into a blue one?

Very few industries in the first decade of the 20th century were still in the picture a century later. New industries are being created far faster than ever before. The successful industries of today were unheard of 30 years ago. The only certainty is that most industries are important at some time, but no industry remains great for ever; the same can be said of companies.

And the point is?

Business is in a constant state of flux: big growth industries of the past 30 years include the computer industry, software, gas-fired electricity plants, mobile phones and the café bar concept. In 1970 not one of those industries existed in a meaningful way.

What can I do?

Don’t fight in contested territory; find a new market — with lower prices and a differentiated product or service — and make competition irrelevant.

Read More......

Summary only...