Ever since the financial crisis broke in earnest last September, history has been mined for nuggets of insight. The Great Depression, the Panic of 1907, Japan’s lost decade of the 1990s, the Swedish banking crash in the late 1990s, and so on. Each time, though, the focus has tended to be on the lessons learned for economic policy and theory.
Let’s try a different lens. How have past crises shaped management thinking and strategy? Innovation in management, after all, is adaptive. Management is not a science, like physics, with immutable laws and testable theories. Instead, management, at its best, is an intelligent response to outside forces, often disruptive ones.
Times of severe economic duress, management experts say, can serve to sharply accelerate trends already under way.
The Depression and its immediate aftermath, they say, was such a catalyst for forces already in motion. The main development, they note, was the rise of the modern multidivisional enterprise like General Electric, DuPont and General Motors. It was made possible by the mature technologies of transportation and communication — railroads, the telephone and the telegraph.
The technologies made it possible to monitor and coordinate business operations as never before. And the Depression made it imperative for managers to achieve efficient economies of scale to tap national markets, ensuring corporate survival amid a downward spiral in total demand.
A modern version of that kind of technology-aided shift in management practice and corporate organization could be in the offing, says John Hagel III, the co-director of the Deloitte Center for Edge Innovation, a research arm of the consulting firm.
The sharp downturn, according to Hagel, will force companies to go beyond simple cost-cutting to take a hard look at the economics of their businesses. Most companies, he says, are actually bundles of three different businesses: infrastructure management, product and service development and commercialization, and customer relations.
The current crisis, Hagel says, opens the door to “an unbundling of the corporation” to achieve greater efficiency and profitability. The trend, he says, is already exemplified by specialist companies that focus on particular infrastructure fields. In logistics, Hagel says, many companies farm out those chores to FedEx and UPS; in call centers, he points to Convergys; and in contract manufacturing, to Flextronics.
Of the three business areas, new product development is the one that lends itself not to size, but to small creative teams, and thus is the most difficult for large corporations. Hagel cites Procter & Gamble as a big company that understands the benefits of unbundling. It has set a goal of getting half its new-product innovations from outside the company, through licensing and collaboration with partners. And P&G, Hagel says, has invested heavily in Web technology and clever software to analyze and nurture customer relations.
To Hagel, such developments look like an Internet-era rerun of the corporate transformation of the 1930s and 1940s.
“We’re facing the potential to have that play out again — this time with digital infrastructures that allow companies to organize and manage their activities in new ways,” he said.
Manufacturing innovations and distribution patterns have been powerfully shaped by economic shifts. Japan’s just-in-time, lean manufacturing system, management experts note, was an adaptation to postwar poverty, a shortage of capital and scarce land for factories, while pro-market policies in China and India opened the door to globalization.
There may well be a different pattern of global production and distribution when the world economy emerges from the current crisis, says George Stalk, senior adviser to the Boston Consulting Group. Assuming that long-term oil prices average US$80 a barrel or so, and that roads, ports and airports continue to be congested, smaller factories closer to home — in the Midwest or Mexico, for example — may be more economical and flexible than those in Asia.
“For a lot of goods, China will no longer be the preferred source,” Stalk said.
Times of turmoil also bring changes in social attitudes and politics, which ripple into new management practices. Labor unions, for example, rose to prominence during the Depression. Unions brought large companies a needed dose of industrial stability, as the earlier ideological wars between labor and capital receded. If the workers were less likely to be radicals, the days of robber-baron owners were in eclipse as well.
Their power was supplanted by “a new subspecies of economic man — the salaried manager,” wrote Alfred Chandler Jr, in his Pulitzer Prize-winning history, The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business (Harvard, 1977). Chandler called the model “managerial capitalism,” and the role of management was to balance the interests of a diverse group of stakeholders including workers, government and shareholders.
That model held sway until the 1980s, when the stagnation of economic growth and corporate profits of the 1970s brought a narrowed focus on stock-market returns as the primary measure of management performance. In politics, the Reagan revolution decreed that government was not the solution, but the problem.
Today, the pendulum is swinging back to a model in which corporations will be regarded more as social organizations, whose obligations extend well beyond Wall Street, according to Rakesh Khurana, a professor at Harvard Business School. He says that in seeking government aid, the automakers portray themselves as “pillars of their communities and pillars of American manufacturing, not purely economic entities.”
“The narrative for corporate America has changed,” Khurana observed. “Government is not seen in opposition to the firm, but as a partner.”
Such swings, it seems, are the norm historically.
“If there’s an ideology of management,” he said, “it is pragmatism.”
Congressman Mike Gallagher (R-WI) and Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) led a bipartisan delegation to Taiwan in late February. During their various meetings with Taiwan’s leaders, this delegation never missed an opportunity to emphasize the strength of their cross-party consensus on issues relating to Taiwan and China. Gallagher and Krishnamoorthi are leaders of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party. Their instruction upon taking the reins of the committee was to preserve China issues as a last bastion of bipartisanship in an otherwise deeply divided Washington. They have largely upheld their pledge. But in doing so, they have performed the
It is well known that Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) ambition is to rejuvenate the Chinese nation by unification of Taiwan, either peacefully or by force. The peaceful option has virtually gone out of the window with the last presidential elections in Taiwan. Taiwanese, especially the youth, are resolved not to be part of China. With time, this resolve has grown politically stronger. It leaves China with reunification by force as the default option. Everyone tells me how and when mighty China would invade and overpower tiny Taiwan. However, I have rarely been told that Taiwan could be defended to
It should have been Maestro’s night. It is hard to envision a film more Oscar-friendly than Bradley Cooper’s exploration of the life and loves of famed conductor and composer Leonard Bernstein. It was a prestige biopic, a longtime route to acting trophies and more (see Darkest Hour, Lincoln, and Milk). The film was a music biopic, a subgenre with an even richer history of award-winning films such as Ray, Walk the Line and Bohemian Rhapsody. What is more, it was the passion project of cowriter, producer, director and actor Bradley Cooper. That is the kind of multitasking -for-his-art overachievement that Oscar
Chinese villages are being built in the disputed zone between Bhutan and China. Last month, Chinese settlers, holding photographs of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), moved into their new homes on land that was not Xi’s to give. These residents are part of the Chinese government’s resettlement program, relocating Tibetan families into the territory China claims. China shares land borders with 15 countries and sea borders with eight, and is involved in many disputes. Land disputes include the ones with Bhutan (Doklam plateau), India (Arunachal Pradesh, Aksai Chin) and Nepal (near Dolakha and Solukhumbu districts). Maritime disputes in the South China