DOCSLIB.ORG

1 Prototyping: Weaving Together Conceptual, Empirical, And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 Prototyping: Weaving Together Conceptual, Empirical, And Prototyping: Weaving Together Conceptual, Empirical, and Applied Perspectives A Proposal to the Design Thinking Research Program Principal Investigator: Professor Robert I. Sutton Department of Management Science & Engineering Stanford University [email protected] Co-Investigator: Debra L. Dunn Consulting Associate Professor Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford [email protected] Stanford University Co-Investigator: Jeffrey Pfeffer Thomas D. Dee II Professor of Organizational Behavior Graduate School of Business Stanford University [email protected] July, 2008 1 Abstract This proposed stream of research will focus on developing a conceptual perspective on prototyping, which is intended to be both empirically grounded and practical. This stream of research will begin with efforts by Scott Klemmer, Jeffrey, Pfeffer, and Robert Sutton to develop a working framework that specifies the process and effects of rapid prototyping; this framework will be grounded in diverse theory and research from the behavioral sciences and engineering. The ideas from this framework will be further developed, tested, and revised on the basis of quantitative and qualitative evidence generated through a year-long d.school “lab” or “learning community” of 8 to 12 organizations that will focus on prototyping potentially better ways of designing and using employee performance evaluations. This set of pilot studies and experiments will focus on using a “bottoms-up” and human-centered approach to reinventing performance evaluation systems and experiences. Debra Dunn, Jeffrey Pfeffer, and Robert Sutton will take the primary leadership roles in developing, guiding, and evaluating the prototypes designed and implemented by this learning community. Finally, we will use our work on this conceptual framework, evidence from the learning community, and input from design classes and faculty (at both Stanford and Potsdam) to generate and continuously refine a set of practical and valid guidelines for people and organizations that adopt prototyping mindsets and methods. 2 Prototyping: Weaving Together Conceptual, Empirical, and Applied Perspectives The aim of this proposed stream of research is to develop an integrated conceptual perspective on prototyping. If we are successful, this perspective will be grounded in the best and most pertinent theory and research in the behavioral sciences and engineering, and continue to evolve as we gather and analyze original evidence about prototyping. This perspective will also be used to generate evidence-based guidelines for leaders and knowledge workers about how and when to use rapid prototyping to develop products, software, services, organizational practices, and business strategies. This is a tall order. But we believe substantial progress can be made by bringing together an interdisciplinary team of researchers, d.school teaching faculty, and practicing executives to participate in this journey. The researchers will include Scott Klemmer from Computer Science and Jeffrey Pfeffer from the Stanford Business School, along with doctoral students. The d.school teaching faculty will include former Hewlett-Packard EVP Debra Dunn, former eBay EVP Michael Dearing, Timbuk2 CEO Perry Klebhan, and IDEO Partner Diego Rodriguez. The executives will include Mozilla CEO John Lilly and Procter & Gamble’s VP of Design Claudia Kotchka. In particular, Jeffrey Pfeffer, Debra Dunn, and I will take leadership roles in this project. The efforts of this team will focus on three intertwined activities (some of which have already started), and that will persist through at least the 2008-2009 academic year. These are: 1. developing a working theory on the process and impact of prototyping; 2. conducting experiments and pilot studies of prototyping in real organizations; and 3. developing and spreading a set of evidence-based guidelines for leaders and knowledge workers who engage in rapid prototyping. I explain each in turn. Developing a Working Theory on the Process and Impact of Prototyping Prototyping is one of the hallmarks of design thinking. It is both a set of methods and a way of seeing the world. The underlying notion is that -- rather than talking and arguing about whether an idea is any good – more can be learned by getting a half-baked idea out into the world quickly, trying to use it and break it, watching how others react when they see it or try to use it, and then quickly revising the idea based on what is learned along the way (or quickly abandoning the idea altogether). And then going through this process often, and going through it quickly, again and again. This simple and powerful idea is applied throughout the Stanford d.school and used (or suggested) by design consultancies of all kinds. Design firms like IDEO, Frog, and Design Continuum originally applied rapid prototyping to products, but now apply it to everything from customer experiences to food to organizational designs. Other consultancies, such as Stone-Yamashita focus on applying the logic and methods of rapid prototyping to business problems. In the three years that the d.school has been teaching classes, our students have applied the logic of rapid prototyping to everything from bike safety on the Stanford campus, to water pumps for third world countries, to spreading the Firefox browser and hip-hop music, to developing radio programs, to developing board games. 3 When many of the most renowned practioners of design-thinking are asked how they “know” that rapid prototyping is effective, they often tell stories about their personal successes with prototyping and the successes of others. And when student teams at the d.school get stuck, they often tell those students that they just need to have faith in the power of the process and all will come it OK in the end (I plead guilty here too). In this vein, I once heard a renowned product designer proclaim that “rapid prototyping is my religion.” Certainly, self-confidence is important for success in any endeavor, and indeed, research on the self-fulfilling prophecy (Rosenthal & Rubin, 1978) suggests that such faith also likely increases the odds of success -- although other research also suggests that such faith will also lead people to engage in escalating commitment to a failing course of action as well (Staw, 1981). But design thinking needs to be more than a faith-based process if it is to have the desired impact on organizations and society, and if it is to be improved as more and better knowledge accumulates. This lack of attention to systematic evidence does not mean, however, that there is a complete absence of theory and research on the topic. On the contrary, there are literatures where the efficacy of rapid prototyping is discussed and studied explicitly, such as in the conference papers and journals in the field of human-computer interaction (See, for example, Brandt, Guo, Lewenstein, and Klemmer, 2008; Hartmann, Klemmer, Bernstein, Abdulla, Burr, Robinson-Mosher, and Gee, 2006). Moreover, my recent conversations with Scott Klemmer, as well as my writings with Jeffery Pfeffer on evidence-based management (see Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006), suggest that studies explicitly using the terms “prototyping” or “rapid prototyping” only begin to scratch the surface of what is already known about the value – and limits – of processes that entail getting ideas out there quickly, failing a lot, failing fast, and updating quickly. Pertinent basic work in the behavioral sciences research, for example, includes studies of the conditions under which people learn best from failure (e.g., Ellis and Davidi, 2005) and on the hazards and opportunities of admitting failure (e.g., Lee, Peterson, and Tiedens, 2004). And perhaps the most pertinent work is on wisdom (Sternberg, 1990), especially research on the differences between smart people (who say smart things and can rapidly give correct answers to many questions) versus wise people (who know the limits of their knowledge, ask good questions, and listen well). Traditional education focuses on the former, while the prototyping mindset is about the latter. There are also pertinent studies on more applied topics across the behavioral sciences that consider the implications of in-depth study and analysis before taking action, versus acting quickly on more meager information and updating on the basis on what is learned along the way. For example, Eisenhardt’s (1989) classic study of high-technology start-ups found that the most effective top management teams analyzed new information very quickly and, when they decided that a new course of action was necessary, they implemented a new strategic direction rapidly and more completely than their less successful competitors (which were led by teams that took far longer to make new decisions and were less likely to update their cognitive models and strategic direction when new information came along). In design thinking language, the leaders of more effective start-ups applied the logic of rapid prototyping to their business strategies. And Simonton’s (1995) historical research on creative geniuses shows that the most creative people in a host of fields – composers, authors, scientists, artists, and many others -- have failure rates that are just as high as their more ordinary counterparts; they just try a lot more things – a perspective quite consistent with the design thinking mantra “fail early, fail often.” As Scott Klemmer and I began talking about all the different places where the logic and assumptions behind
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Strategic Management Mie Augier • David J
    The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Strategic Management Mie Augier • David J. Teece Editors The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Strategic Management With 76 Figures and 26 Tables Editors Mie Augier David J. Teece GSBPP, Naval Postgraduate School Berkeley Research Group, LLC Monterey, CA, USA Emeryville, CA, USA Haas School of Business University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA, USA ISBN 978-0-230-53721-7 ISBN 978-1-137-00772-8 (eBook) ISBN 978-1-349-57692-0 (print and electronic bundle) https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-00772-8 Library of Congress Control Number: 2018932040 # Macmillan Publishers Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations Printed on acid-free paper This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
    [Show full text]
  • People Capability Maturity Model (P-CMM) Version 2.0, Second Edition
    People Capability Maturity Model (P-CMM) Version 2.0, Second Edition Bill Curtis Bill Hefley Sally Miller July 2009 TECHNICAL REPORT CMU/SEI-2009-TR-003 ESC-TR-2009-003 Software Engineering Process Management Unlimited distribution subject to the copyright. http://www.sei.cmu.edu This report was prepared for the SEI Administrative Agent ESC/XPK 5 Eglin Street Hanscom AFB, MA 01731-2100 The ideas and findings in this report should not be construed as an official DoD position. It is published in the interest of scientific and technical information exchange. This work is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense. The Software Engineering Institute is a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense. Copyright 2009 Carnegie Mellon University. NO WARRANTY THIS CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY AND SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE MATERIAL IS FURNISHED ON AN "AS-IS" BASIS. CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY MAKES NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, AS TO ANY MATTER INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR PURPOSE OR MERCHANTABILITY, EXCLUSIVITY, OR RESULTS OBTAINED FROM USE OF THE MATERIAL. CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY DOES NOT MAKE ANY WARRANTY OF ANY KIND WITH RESPECT TO FREEDOM FROM PATENT, TRADEMARK, OR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. Use of any trademarks in this report is not intended in any way to infringe on the rights of the trademark holder. Internal use. Permission to reproduce this document and to prepare derivative works from this document for internal use is granted, provided the copyright and "No Warranty" statements are included with all reproductions and derivative works.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Using Organizational Science Research to Address U.S. Federal
    Using Organizational Science Research to Address U.S. Federal Agencies’ Management and Labor Needs * Herman Aguinis Carrie Leana George Washington University University of Pittsburgh Gerald F. Davis Thomas W. Lee University of Michigan University of Washington James R. Detert Elizabeth Morrison University of Virginia New York University Mary Ann Glynn Jone Pearce Boston College University of California, Irvine Susan E. Jackson Jeffrey Pfeffer Rutgers University Stanford University Tom Kochan Denise Rousseau Massachusetts Institute of Technology Carnegie Mellon University Ellen Ernst Kossek Kathleen M. Sutcliffe Purdue University Johns Hopkins University Forthcoming in Behavioral Science Policy Journal * Authorship order is alphabetical. Corresponding author’s e-mail address: [email protected]. We thank Sara Rynes-Weller, Sim Sitkin, and Dave Nussbaum for highly constructive and useful comments on previous drafts. 1 Using Organizational Science Research to Address U.S. Federal Agencies’ Management and Labor Needs Summary We describe important and common management and labor needs across more than 80 federal agencies as identified by the annual Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) and offer evidence-based interventions for addressing them based on organizational science research. Our recommendations have the synergistic goals of improving employee wellbeing, employee productivity, and agency performance and innovation, which will result in increased agency efficiency and effectiveness for the taxpayer. Specifically, we describe empirical findings and offer suggestions for interventions to improve (a) employee motivation through engagement, empowerment, and embeddedness; (b) employee voice; and (c) within- and across-unit cooperation, communication, and collaboration. We offer recommendations that are sufficiently general to be relevant to many agencies, while also being concrete and actionable.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Organizational Science Research to Address U.S. Federal Agencies’ Management and Labor Needs *
    IN PRESS: Behavioral Science Policy Using Organizational Science Research to Address U.S. Federal Agencies’ Management and Labor Needs * Herman Aguinis George Washington University Gerald F. Davis University of Michigan James R. Detert University of Virginia Mary Ann Glynn Boston College Susan E. Jackson Rutgers University Tom Kochan Massachusetts Institute of Technology Ellen Ernst Kossek Purdue University Carrie Leana University of Pittsburgh Thomas W. Lee University of Washington Elizabeth Morrison New York University Jone Pearce University of California, Irvine Jeffrey Pfeffer Stanford University Denise Rousseau Carnegie Mellon University Kathleen M. Sutcliffe Johns Hopkins University * Authorship order is alphabetical. Corresponding author’s e-mail address: [email protected]. We thank Sara Rynes-Weller, Sim Sitkin, and Dave Nussbaum for highly constructive and useful 1 comments on previous drafts. 2 Using Organizational Science Research to Address U.S. Federal Agencies’ Management and Labor Needs Summary We describe important and common management and labor needs across more than 80 federal agencies as identified by the annual Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) and offer evidence-based interventions for addressing them based on organizational science research. Our recommendations have the synergistic goals of improving employee wellbeing, employee productivity, and agency performance and innovation, which will result in increased agency efficiency and effectiveness for the taxpayer. Specifically, we describe empirical findings and offer suggestions for interventions to improve (a) employee motivation through engagement, empowerment, and embeddedness; (b) employee voice; and (c) within- and across-unit cooperation, communication, and collaboration. We offer recommendations that are sufficiently general to be relevant to many agencies, while also being concrete and actionable.
    [Show full text]
  • View Website, Bloomberg Business Week Online, Inc., Time, and for the “On Leadership” Section of the Washington Post
    Jeffrey Pfeffer Author, Professor, and Organizational Behavior Guru Jeffrey Pfeffer is the Thomas D. Dee II Professor of Organizational Behavior at the Graduate School of Business, Stanford University where he has taught since 1979. He is the author or co-author of 14 books including: The Human Equation: Building Profits by Putting People First; Power: Why Some People Have It—and Others Don’t; The Knowing-Doing Gap: How Smart Companies Turn Knowledge Into Action; Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths, and Total Nonsense: Profiting from Evidence-Based Management; And more than 150 articles and book chapters. Pfeffer’s latest book, entitled Leadership B.S.: Fixing Workplaces and Careers One Truth at a Time, was published in September, 2015, by HarperBusiness. Dr. Pfeffer received his B.S. and M.S. degrees from Carnegie-Mellon University and his Ph.D. from Stanford. He began his career at the business school at the University of Illinois and then taught at the University of California, Berkeley. Pfeffer has been a visiting professor at the Harvard Business School, Singapore Management University, London Business School, Copenhagen Business School, and for the past 10 years a visitor at IESE in Barcelona. Pfeffer currently writes a semi-monthly column for Fortune (Fortune.com). From 2003-2007, Pfeffer wrote a monthly column, “The Human Factor,” for the 600,000-person circulation business magazine, Business 2.0 and from 2007-2010, he wrote a monthly column providing career advice for Capital, a leading business and economics magazine in Turkey. Pfeffer also has been a regular blogger for the Corner Office section of BNET (CBS Interactive), and for the Harvard Business Review website, Bloomberg Business Week online, Inc., Time, and for the “On Leadership” section of The Washington Post.
    [Show full text]
  • CURRICULUM VITAE February 2006
    CURRICULUM VITAE February 2006 DAVID KNOKE Home: 7305 Wooddale Office: Department of Sociology Edina, MN 55435 University of Minnesota (952) 920-5277 Minneapolis, MN 55455 [email protected] (612) 624-4300 Birthdate: March 4, 1947 Martial Status: Married, one adult child ACADEMIC TRAINING: B.A. 1969 University of Michigan: Honors in Psychology, High Honors in Sociology M.A. 1970 University of Chicago: Sociology M.S.W. 1971 University of Michigan: Social Work Administration Ph.D. 1972 University of Michigan: Sociology and Social Work EMPLOYMENT: Instructor, University of Michigan School of Social Work, 1971-1972 Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, Indiana University, 1972-1975 Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, Indiana University, 1975-1981 Professor, Department of Sociology, Indiana University, 1981-85 Director, Institute of Social Research, Indiana University, 1982-84 Director, Center for Survey Research, Indiana University, 1982-84 Professor, Department of Sociology, University of Minnesota, 1985- Chair, 1989-92 Visiting Scholar, University of Chicago, 1979 Gastprofessor, Zentrum für Umfragen, Methoden, und Analysen (ZUMA), Mannheim, Germany, 1985 Gastprofessor, Institut für Soziologie, Christian Albrechts Universität zu Kiel, 1989 Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, CA 1992-93 AWARDS AND FELLOWSHIPS: National Merit Scholarship, 1965-1969 Executive Editor, The Michigan Daily, 1968-1969 Phi Beta Kappa, 1969 National Science Foundation Fellowship, 1969-1970 NIMH Traineeship,
    [Show full text]
  • Personality Psychology in the Workplace
    PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY Vol. 59, No. 3—Autumn, 2006 741–778 JOHN W. FLEENOR Book Review Editor Center for Creative Leadership Greensboro, North Carolina COPYRIGHT C 2006 BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC. 741 742 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY BOOK REVIEW ADVISORY PANEL David G. Altman, Center for Creative Leadership Gary B. Brumback, Palm Coast, FL Victoria Buenger, Texas A&M University Robert G. Jones, Missouri State University Claude Levy-Leboyer, Institut de Recherches et D’Applications en Psychologie du Travail Jeffrey Pfeffer, Stanford University Malcolm James Ree, Our Lady of the Lake University Paul Spector, University of South Florida Lynn Summers, North Carolina Office of State Personnel Paul W. Thayer, North Carolina State University BOOK REVIEWS 743 CONTENTS Neil Conway and Rob B. Briner. Understanding Psychological Contracts at Work: A Critical Evaluation of Theory and Research Reviewed by William H. Macey ....................................... 745 John Antonakis, Anna T. Cianciolo, and Robert J. Sternberg (Editors). The Nature of Leadership. Reviewed by David W. Bracken ....................................... 747 Arne Evers, Neil Anderson, and Olga Voskuijl (Editors). The Blackwell Handbook of Personnel Selection. Reviewed by Veronica S. Harvey ...................................... 750 Kim S. Cameron and Robert E. Quinn. Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework. Reviewed by Andrew Garman......................................... 755 John B. Miner. Organizational Behavior 1: Essential Theories of Motivation and Leadership. Reviewed by Victoria Buenger ........................................ 757 Denise M. Rousseau. I-Deals: Idiosyncratic Deals Employees Bargain for Themselves. Reviewed by Theodore L. Hayes ...................................... 759 Kecia M. Thomas. Diversity Dynamics in the Workplace. Reviewed by Donald Fischer .......................................... 761 R. Roosevelt Thomas. Building on the Promise of Diversity. Reviewed by Robert G.
    [Show full text]
  • Rosenzweig CMR Prepdf Su07
    Misunderstanding the Nature of Company Performance: THE HALO EFFECT AND OTHER BUSINESS DELUSIONS Phil Rosenzweig n February 2005, Dell Computer was ranked #1 among the World’s Most Admired Companies by Fortune magazine. Just two years later, in February 2007, amid slumping performance, Michael Dell removed I CEO Kevin Rollins and took over the reins to revive the company. What had gone wrong? Observers were quick to offer their views. According to Business Week, “Dell succumbed to complacency in the belief that its business model would always keep it far ahead of the pack.” It had been “lulled into a false sense of security.” An unsuccessful acquisition was said to be evi- dence of “hubris.”1 In Leadership Excellence, a management consultant explained that Dell “got stuck in a rut” and became “reluctant to change.” When rivals had matched Dell’s strategy of customization, managers “fell back on an old practice: they cut costs to maintain market share.” The Financial Times quoted a business school professor at the University of Maryland who opined: “[Dell has] forgotten how to make customers happy. I have to believe the problems with the company are cultural and they begin at the top.”2 Dell’s misfortunes made for an irresistible story—How the mighty have fallen. The reasons that were advanced—complacency, hubris, reluctance to change, and poor leadership—all sounded reasonable. They offered explanations that most readers would find sensible and satisfying. On closer inspection, however, the coverage of Dell illustrates some of the common errors that distort our under- standing of company performance.
    [Show full text]
  • July, 2011 VITA Joseph Galaskiewicz Office Address: University Of
    July, 2011 VITA Joseph Galaskiewicz Office Address: University of Arizona Department of Sociology Social Sciences Building, Room 400 1145 East South Campus Drive Tucson, Arizona 85721 (520) 621-7084 Email: [email protected] Birth Date: February 24, 1949 (Chicago, IL) Citizenship: United States of America Education: Graduate: University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 1971-1976 - Sociology, Ph.D. (Advisor: Edward O. Laumann) University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 1971-1973 - Sociology, M.A. (Advisor: Morris Janowitz) Undergraduate: Loyola University, Chicago, Illinois 1967-1971 - Sociology, A.B. Honors Academic Appointments: 2009- : Professor of Government and Public Policy (courtesy), U. of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 2005 : Visiting Professor of Sociology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands 2001-09 : Professor of Public Administration and Policy (courtesy), School of Public Administration and Policy, Eller College of Management, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 2001- : Professor of Sociology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 1989-01 : Professor of Strategic Management and Organization, Curtis L. Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 1986-01 : Professor of Sociology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 1998 : Visiting Professor of Sociology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 1988 : Visiting Professor of Sociology, Nankai University, Tianjin, People's Republic of China 1980-86 : Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 1976-80 : Assistant Professor of Sociology,
    [Show full text]
  • Changing Mental Models: Hr's Most Important
    CHANGING MENTAL MODELS: HR’S MOST IMPORTANT TASK Jeffrey Pfeffer In the “managerial knowledge” marketplace, there is little evidence of much diffusion of ideas or innovative business models or management practices. In organizations not implementing what they know they should be doing based on experience and insight, and in companies not acting on the basis of the best available evidence, one main factor explains the difficulties—the mental models or mind-sets of senior leaders. How they are formed, what they are about, and a multitude of examples that show how those mind-sets can be improved are presented here. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Here is a paradox. In the financial markets, powerment and putting people first, the lan- investment information is rapidly and effi- guage of employee and customer loyalty, ciently diffused. New product and service and so forth—in many cases, not much ac- innovations, be they junk bonds, new forms tually changes in terms of what occurs on a of options, or debt securities that allocate day-to-day basis and in fundamental organi- and price risk in an innovative fashion, get zational business models. rapidly copied by competitors. But in the A few examples will help illustrate how “managerial knowledge” marketplace, there long it takes to successfully imitate effective is little evidence of much diffusion of ideas management models. Southwest Airlines or innovative business models and manage- was the most successful, productive, and ment practices. How can I say this in a profitable U.S. airline. Its success was world in which there are entire industries widely described in books, cases, and articles devoted to spreading concepts and best literally decades before JetBlue, ATA, and a practices, and where management is occa- few others in the United States, Europe, and sionally accused of being too fad-driven? Asia finally began to successfully imitate its Because although there is certainly rapid approach.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Number 1 Copyright © 2016 Mckinsey & Company
    2016 Number 1 Copyright © 2016 McKinsey & Company. All rights reserved. Published since 1964 by McKinsey & Company, 55 East 52nd Street, New York, New York 10022. Cover artwork by Matt Shlian McKinsey Quarterly meets the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) chain-of- custody standards. The paper used in the Quarterly is certified as being produced in an environ- mentally responsible, socially beneficial, and economi- cally viable way. Printed in the United States of America. 2016 Number 1 THIS QUARTER Each spring, McKinsey’s global managing director Dominic Barton meets with the leaders of about 15 global organizations to get advice on our emerging ideas. Last year, Dom invited me to go along, but there was a price of admission: putting some thoughts down on paper about the “organization of the future.” As a firm, we had a number of research initiatives underway connected with this theme, and although they were far from complete, Dom suggested we start getting feedback. I sketched out three big priorities (embracing digital tools, achieving agility, and nurturing new kinds of leaders), which our advisors found hard to disagree with but urged us to investigate further. As we did, we realized that our terms needed to be sharpened. “Organization of the future” implies that there’s a single structural solution to the demands being placed on today’s companies, but that’s simply not true. Instead, as this issue of the Quarterly suggests, every company should be thinking about how it “organizes for the future,” by which we mean reconciling the need for organizational stability with the reality that technology-enabled changes in business processes and workforce automation are rapidly uprooting traditional pillars of company confidence.
    [Show full text]
  • Jeffrey Pfeffer CV Nov 2019
    JEFFREY PFEFFER November, 2019 Graduate School of Business 655 Knight Way Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-7298 Phone: (650) 723-2915 FAX: (650) 725-9932 E-mail: [email protected] I. EDUCATION University Major Field Dates Degree Carnegie-Mellon Administration and 9/64-6/68 B.S. University Management Science Carnegie-Mellon Industrial Administration 9/67-6/68 M.S. University Stanford University Business Administration 9/69-1/72 Ph.D. (Organizational Behavior) II. ACADEMIC HONORS AND AWARDS A. Carnegie-Mellon University George F. Westinghouse Scholarship Phi Kappa Phi B.S. degree with Distinction M.S. degree with Distinction First student in G.S.I.A. to receive both B.S. and M.S. degrees in four academic years. B. Stanford University University Fellowship C. Professional and Career The New Concept Award of the Organizational Behavior Division of the Academy of Management, awarded 1979 for the article, "A Social Information Processing Approach to Job Attitudes and Task Design" (with G. R. Salancik). George R. Terry Book Award of the Academy of Management, awarded 1984 for Organizations and Organization Theory. 1 Scholarly Achievement Award of the Personnel/Human Resources Division of the Academy of Management, awarded 1988 for the article, "The Effect of the Proportion of Women on Salaries: The Case of College Administrators" (with A. Davis-Blake). Robert M. and Anne T. Bass Faculty Fellow for 1988-1989. Fellow, Academy of Management. Richard D. Irwin Academy of Management 1989 Distinguished Scholarly Contribution Award. Distinguished Scholar Award, Organization and Management Theory Division of the Academy of Management, 1992. Winner, of the Academy of Management Review best paper award for 1993 for "Barriers to the Advance of Organizational Science." Winner of the Academy of Management Executive best paper award for 1995 for "Producing Sustainable Competitive Advantage Through the Effective Management of People." Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, 1998-1999.
    [Show full text]