In Search of Excellence by Peters and Waterman - Book Report/Review Example

In Search of Excellence In Search of Excellence is centered on a clear and reasonable idea. It goes on to show how organizations that are successful share many common practices. Peters and Waterman (1982) assert that the things being shared with these organizations are the ones explaining their success in business, excellence and put them aside from the organizations that do not succeed and excel. On the other hand, Peters and Waterman (1982) used the McKinsey ‘7-S’ framework. They claimed that excellent organizations had created methods that enabled them to strike a balance between the soft-s and hard-s factors achieved in a business. Maintaining and finding an applicable balance in these business factors was a vital issue in making an organization successful. According to Peters and Waterman (1982), then, the modest slippage of commercial America was to be observed as an imbalanced product in the American approaches to organization. They went on to argue that these imbalanced products had advanced in the organization approaches that had begun in America for the period of 1950s and 1960s. According to Peters and Waterman (1982), in the post second world war period, many managers in America were obsessed upon the hard-s business factors; structure, systems and strategy. In addition, the managers had not realized the significance of skill, style, superordinate goals, and staff which were the soft-s business factors needed in breathing life into systems, structures and strategies. Peters and Waterman (1982) recommend a more balanced management approach. The approaches considered balanced to business would hinge upon the energy, skills and imagination of managers. They are, therefore, charged with the duty of safeguarding the productive arrangements of the soft-s and hard-s business factors. When Peters and Waterman realized the central significance of the duties of a manager, they claimed that exceptional companies, even those having different commercial and industrial settings, would go to share common attributes. They went on to assert that each exceptional company despite having differences in their technologies, products and markets, would display generally alike management forms. They also stated that these companies would have a culture showing the eight aspects of excellence as shown in their research (Frost, Moore, Louis, Lundberg & Martin, 1985). Peters and Waterman listed the eight aspects of excellence. The first one was a bias for action. Exceptional companies engaged in planning activities that were traditional. However, the traditional activities did not bind the companies from other vital managerial approaches. They went on to argue that an excessive dependence on planning done traditionally and dependence upon the hard analysis of data, delayed decision making in many companies. It also discouraged risk taking. Exceptional companies avoided paralysis by analysis (Peters and Waterman, 1982). This was by evading using committees and refusing to agree that all decisions made have to be supported by hard analysis of data. Instead of using committees, these exceptional companies preserved a bias for action which explains the willingness in trying out innovative ideas and taking risks (Peters and Waterman, 1982). Peters and Waterman (1982) affirmed that the commitment in action was preserved by exceptional companies. This is because the exceptional companies form groups of people who like to experiment and innovate. This trend to action might be compared with approaches being adapted by other companies. These companies form committees that engage in briefs talks on experimentation (Peters and Waterman, 1982). The second aspect of excellence is a company’s in proximity to the customers. The exceptional companies have to improve their strategies, systems, structures and innovation in meeting and exceeding the customers’ expectation. Incase a product or a system did not satisfy the customer, exceptional organizations must have simple ways in identifying these problems. They should also have proper channels to enhance timely feedback relative to relayed information through appropriate channels of communication in the organization. The third aspect used by Peters and Waterman (1982) was entrepreneurship and autonomy. Exceptional organizations value entrepreneurship. These organizations make sure that their units and departments are small to enable informal networking. This would enable development of new ideas in an enterprise. The fourth aspect is the exceptional organization making productivity by using people. These organizations make sure that people are well recognized and rewarded in everything they contribute thus making them feel valued. The fifth aspect as stated by Peters and Waterman (1982) was hands on and value driven. The leaders in exceptional companies are value driven. These leaders maintain close contacts with their customers and staff. Additionally, they lead by example and are easily traceable by the respective employees. The sixth aspect is the fact that exceptional companies focus mainly on the key skills of the company. These companies prosper because they recognize their strengths and build upon them with a view to make their customers happy. The seventh aspect of excellence is having skillful and innovative members of staff. Peters and Waterman (1982) state that exceptional organizations implement simple structures that are designed in maximizing innovation, as well as interaction. These exceptional organizations are able to work successfully with competitive staff who meets the necessities of customers. The eighth aspect of excellence state that these exceptional organizations value inventions and risk taking henceforth, rewarding people who think freely and have the courage. These companies make sure that innovation focuses mainly on their customers’ satisfaction. In addition, they make sure that their workers learn and understand the values of the organization. Exceptional companies remunerate loyalty and nurture commitment. This is done by granting autonomy and freedom within the respective company (Peters and Waterman, 1982). There are many vital problems with the study made by Peters and Waterman (1982). The most common criticism against Peters and Waterman studies arose on November 1984 in the Business Week as a cover story titled ‘Oops: Who’s excellent now?’ The article detected that after publication of ‘in search of excellence,’ a third of the companies distinguished by Peters and Waterman suffered financial distress. Many critiques have criticized the study because it backed specific organizations even though there were distinctive exceptional organizations. One of the critical reviews on the in search of excellence was produced by Caroll. This was when excellence phenomenon had started to take off in the United States. Another critique named Guest argues that in search of excellence is reasonable and seductive but exceptionally dangerous (Green & Crowther, 2004). Peters and Waterman’s in search of excellence is based on the United States companies that are highly successful. It goes on to state that these successful organizations have the same attributes that define them and separate them from the organizations considered being less successful. Caroll and Guest among other critiques assert that in search of excellence has quite a number of shortcomings. They further state that Peters and Waterman used generally unscientific methods. According to them, the sample of exceptional organizations selected in the study by Peters and Waterman had a subjective basis. They state that in search of excellence believes that success of a company is a product of the management’s commitment and energy, which is not true (Watson, 2001). Peters and Waterman try to depict managers as the main architects of a company destiny. On the other hand, Caroll advocates that Peters and Waterman’s account of excellence is defective as it does not realize the ways whereby factors like market dominance, technology, natural policy and culture might have significant influence on the company’s revenue. Caroll goes on to say that in search of excellence does not acknowledge the range of environmental and contextual influences intervening in a business conduct and which influence chances for business success and excellence (Dann, 1996). He claims that Peters and Waterman did not clearly pointed out the factors which enhance the excellence of an organization. This is because the aspects of excellence may be considered as business success based on technology, trade protection, geographic advantage or any other relevant factor. On the other hand, Guest raises a criticism which was foreseen by Caroll (Peters and Waterman, 1982). He noted that the companies named by Peters and Waterman fell afterwards. He goes on to observe that on implementing the excellence attributes, Peters and Waterman failed to talk over whether all the eight aspects of excellence were essential for business excellence. In addition, Van der Merwe and Pitt argued how the excellence aspects showed by Peters and Waterman would be exhibited to organizations. They went on to raise three vital objections to Peters and Waterman’s study. They first stated that excellence was discussed shallowly without set of positions. Van der Merwe and Pitt said that company excellence may be useful and interpreted as possibilities continuum. They went on to state that Peters and Waterman talked more about leadership questioning the effectiveness of both authors desired cultural strategies in the management. Van der Merwe and Pitt also stated that Peters and Waterman portrayed excellent companies as culturally integrated collectives (Dann, 1996). They assert that the study of excellence requires an enhanced managerial appreciation and organizational politics. The third criticism put forward by Van der Merwe and Pitt was that getting close to customers as asserted by Peters and Waterman, may lead to additional costs. Going through the managerial trainings of in search of excellence, Karl Weick who is another critique argues that Peters and Waterman work with a lowly conceptualization of management. Upon observing that managing other peoples’ efforts is a political and social process hinged on verbal communication, Karl stated that in search of excellence is false whenever it promotes a bias for action (Hofstede, 1999). Furthermore, Karl affirms that prosperous managers had a bias for talk. Peters and Waterman went on to tell managers that they needed to be real and use sustained efforts when talking to their suppliers, customers and colleagues. Despite Karl criticizing the works of Peters and Waterman, a true account is that their works demonstrate the importance of persuasion and talk (Martin, 2002). Peters and Waterman advocate that when talking to the colleagues, suppliers and customers, managers are supposed to work in creating and propagating stories that reveal the main aspects of excellence and their peculiar commitment to the excellence quest. In addition, Peters and Waterman management action meant that the managers had to do the talking. This is because they recognized that managing is a political and social process depending on storytelling and making of myths. Despite of all the criticism being that in search of excellence faces, Watson appreciates the work stating that it is quite informative. This is because it reminds people that management has technical dimensions. Management depicts organizations as unpredictable and ambiguous (Trice & Beyer, 1993). In conclusion, Peters and Waterman ‘in search of excellence’ work is vital because it offered a new management identity and new ways for managerial practices at work. On the other hand, it has made management be popular. The texts in in search of excellence are significant because they keep managers how managing is a human endeavor. In search of excellence expresses an inevitable social truth that organizational life is ambiguous, complex and not easy to navigate (Hofstede, 1993). However, critics disregard this study on the pretext that it lacks taste to its readers. Quite a number of managers would recommend in search of excellence written by Peters and Waterman because it talks to them directly on the challenges which managers face in addition to recognizing them as key elements of an organization. In search for excellence was considered to be radical because it shredded the impression that businesses are about numbers and rational behaviors. The main reasons are that the people working in these excellent companies and establish the customer bases are not entirely rational themselves. Customers and employees need rational rewards, but they need purpose and meaning more (Schein, 1992). It is, therefore, essential that helpful lessons are drawn from the study in order to make a notable contribution in the respective organization. References Dann, S., 1996, Public sector reform and the long-term public servant, Journal of Public Sector Management, 9(2), 28-35. Frost, P., Moore, L., Louis, M., Lundberg, C., & Martin, J., 1985, Organizational culture. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Green, M., & Crowther, D., 2004, Organizational Theory, London: CIPD Publishing. Hofstede, G., 1993, Cultural constraints in management theories, Academy of Management Executive, 7(1), 81-94. Hofstede, G., 1999, Problems remain, but theories will change: The universal and specific in 21st century global management, Organization Dynamics, 21(1), 34-44. Martin, J., 2002, Organizational culture: Mapping the terrain, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Peter, T., & Waterman, R., 1982, In search of excellence: Lessons from American’s best-run companies, NY, NY: Warner Books. Schein, E., 1992, Organizational culture and leadership (2ndEd.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Trice, H., & Beyer, J., 1993, The cultures of work organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Watson, J., 2001, In Search of Management (Revised Edition): Culture, Chaos and Control in Managerial Work, Stamford: Cengage Learning. Read More