Term papers writing service


Peters and watermans eight attributes of excellence essay

Themes[ edit ] Peters and Waterman found eight common themes which they argued were responsible for the success of the chosen corporations. The book devotes one chapter to each theme. A bias for action, active decision making - 'getting on with it'.

Peters and watermans eight attributes of excellence essay

Autonomy and entrepreneurship - fostering innovation and nurturing 'champions'. Productivity through people- treating rank and file employees as a source of quality.

Tom Peters - in Search of Excellence

Hands-on, value-driven - management philosophy that guides everyday practice - management showing its commitment. Stick to the knitting - stay with the business that you know.

Peters and Waterman’s Eight Attributes of Excellence Essay

Simple form, lean staff - some of the best companies have minimal HQ staff. Simultaneous loose-tight properties - autonomy in shop-floor activities plus centralized values.

Criticisms[ edit ] As early as 1984 it was apparent, to certain analysts, that the book's choice of companies was poor to indifferent. NCRWang LabsXerox and others did not produce excellent results in their balance sheets in the 1980s. Rick Chapman titled his book on high-tech marketing fiascoes, In Search of Stupidity, as a nod to Peters's book and the disasters that befell many of the companies it profiled. He notes that "with only a few exceptions.

Rosenzweigh opines that it was not possible to identify the traits that make a company perform simply by studying already-performing companies which Peters and Waterman did. Most of the "confessions" were humorously self-deprecating remarks In Search of Excellence had been "an afterthought. One of them, however, used the term "faked data: We faked the data. A lot of people suggested it at the time. The big question was, How did you end up viewing these companies as "excellent" companies?

Please turn JavaScript on and reload the page.

A little while later, when a bunch of the "excellent" companies started to have some down years, that also became a huge accusation: If these companies are so excellent, Peters, then why are they doing so badly now? Which I'd say pretty much misses the point. How did we come up with them? We went around to McKinsey's partners and to a bunch of other smart people who were deeply involved and seriously engaged in the world of business and asked, Who's cool?

Who's doing cool work? Where is there great stuff going on? And which companies genuinely get it?

Navigation menu

That very direct approach generated a list of 62 companies, which led to interviews with the people at those companies. Then, because McKinsey is McKinsey, we felt that we had to come up with some quantitative measures of performance. Those measures dropped the list from 62 to 43 companies. General Electric, for example, was on the list of 62 companies but didn't make the cut to 43 -- which shows you how "stupid" raw insight is and how "smart" tough-minded metrics can be.

Attributes of Management Excellence

Were there companies that, in retrospect, didn't belong on the list of 43? I only have one word to say: Was our process fundamentally sound? If you want to go find smart people who are doing cool stuff from which you can learn the most useful, cutting-edge principles, then do what we did with Search: Start by using common sense, by trusting your instincts, and by soliciting the views of "strange" that is, nonconventional people. You can always worry about proving the facts later.

Webberbased on a six-hour interview with Peters. Peters reviewed and approved the article prior to publication, but the actual phrase "we faked the data" was Webber's, and Peters had not actually used these words during the interview. BusinessWeek quoted Peters as saying "Get off my case. We didn't fake the data.