Kent Meyers pointedly shares:
>I see this all the time with meetingware. The group creates a list, and
>everybody is dying to use the prioritization tools. A favorite is to
>prioritize a list of problems. Consider how abusrd this would be if your
>doctors did it. They come up with three problems: fever, aches, runny
>nose. They are decision makers, and they decide that fever has priority.
>They show their knowledge by explaining that fever can kill you, while the
>other problems can't. Now that they have only one problem to deal with,
>they recommend the best medicine for reducing fever. Time is up and they
>walk away, convinced that something was accomplished. After all,
>"everybody was in the room", they used "technique" to get "consensus", and
>there was "action" rather than aimless discussion.
[What a great analogy!]
However, is the person who asked the original question, Adrian Szumski,
still in the room, so to speak? Are we looking at his face to see if we
are indeed addressing his questions? I'm sure the intelligent discussions
are useful and certainly address his first question:
>>How You understand that concept?
...but in my reading they have also strayed from:
>>Is it some factors that allow company to survive (like Ohmae wrote)
>>or rather factors that make company leader on market (like other autors
>>wrote)?
>>In my opinion this two ways of understanding that are very diffrent.
>>Other things makes company survive, and other makes them leaders.
>>Maybe leaders don't have to keep factors of survive and can concetrate
>>on success factors?
The strategic question may be, is the objective to stay in business or
dominate the market? Kent's allusion to the scorecard touches on this.
All factors must be considered at some level all the time. But isn't it
still a question of priority? What factors should senior management
concern themselves with? What challenges does the enterprise face now and
in the future?
I think the flaw in Ohmae's work is the singularity of it--THE mind of THE
strategist--as though one "key" person can be knowledgable of all the
factors much less discern those to be treated as "key." This is not to
detract from the value of his book, rather to help put his advice, his
perspective in context.
Now, after all this Adrian, do you have any follow-up questions?
Cheers,
Ginger Shafer
The Leadership Dimension
"Bringing Leadership to Life"
vshafer@azstarnet.com
--vshafer@azstarnet.com (Virginia I. Shafer)
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>