In Search of Excellence (Essay Sample)

IN SEARCH OF EXCELLENCE
Name
Institution
Date
In Search of Excellence
Peter and Waterman investigated the area of business and organizations and discovered that strategies rarely dictate structural solutions. In addition, they realized that the significant problems in strategies were execution, continuous adopting, and flexibility. At this time, several organizations experienced stagnation on their management practices. However, these organizations adopted the Japanese management practices that ignored the cultural discrepancies (SINGH 2010).
In 1982, the two writers, Tom Peters and Robert Waterman co-authored the book In Search of Excellence that was flawed at inception. The writers sought to begin a movement away from the firmly structured and traditional management approach to a less structured culturally based management scheme. The book enjoyed success in readership across numerous organizations in the globe. The compilation of the book resulted from research done on management of several companies across the world. The research included 43 companies in the Fortune 500 organizations. The main research parameters investigated included the McKinsey 7-S model elements namely structure, strategy systems, style of management, staff and shared values. The authors further tried to prove that any organization’s most significant assets are the employees (PETERS & WATERMAN 2006). In the book, In Search of Excellence, the authors concentrated on eight main themes in the eight-chapter long book. The themes are “a bias of action, staying close to the customer, autonomy and entrepreneurship, productivity through people, hands-on, value-driven, stick to the knitting, simple form, lean staff, and simultaneous loose-tight properties” (PETERS & WATERMAN 2006). During the research and compilation of the books content, the two authors were employed by McKinsey, a leading organization of management consultants with a good reputation for structural reorganization of leading firms.
The theme of bias for action sought to encourage organizations to doing something in preference to engaging in excessive analysis of concern at hand. Additionally, it opposed the use of committees and several bureaucratic appearances of large firms that result to delays before any reactions are implemented. Close to the customer theme proposed heightened relationships with customers in terms of offering excellent customer service. This means that business organizations should keep the interest of their customers first. In autonomy and entrepreneurship, the book suggested that the company is divided into small units and encouraging them to think and act independently and competitively. Here, the emphasis is put on the innovativeness of every single unit. Productivity through people is a theme that is aimed at creating in all workers the understanding that their best endeavors are significant and share in the rewards of their firm’s success. This entails viewing the employees as key resources to a firm and their engagement in activities that prove their worth in the firm (PETERS & WATERMAN 2006).
The theme of Hands-On, value-driven proposes that an organizations’ executives should be fully involved with the company’s essential business activities. This means that the senior management staff should get concerned with the core business operations in order to promote a strong corporate culture and acquire responses (BETTLEY 2005). In addition, the stick to the knitting theme asserted that business organizations should remain with the business they know best. According to the authors, most successful firms stayed close to the business operations they understood best. This helps the management to avoid the temptation to accumulate other business activities they do not know a lot about. The simple form, lean staff theme entailed maintaining a simple organization structure. This entails retaining few administrative layers and few individuals at the upper level in the senior staff positions. Therefore, the organizations would avoid numerous intricacies of the matrix organization structure. Finally, the simultaneous loose-tight properties theme emphasizes on development of an environment that encourages dedication to the central values of an organization. This entails the tolerance and considerable freedom to all the workers who recognize these values (PETERS & WATERMAN 2006).
The initial flawing of the books content on its inception was the belief that it was meant to challenge the efficiency of the proven management techniques during the period of research and compilation. The management structures entailed rigorous performance measurements, economies of scales, bureaucracy, and quantitative analysis. In addition, majority of the managers of the time implemented scientific and systematic approach to govern their companies. The scientific management philosophies implemented included the works of Fredrick Taylor, Peter Drucker and Robert McNamara. The works of these philosophers were perceived to contain numerous advantages because of the concentration of the structural side of a firm and entirely focusing on the management theories and models (MINER 2007). Furthermore, majority of the companies were run using logic and rationality and totally ignored the significance of the “people” factor. In the management context, the people are considered as paradoxical creatures with conflicting ideas, for instance, seeking comfort in a group, craving autonomy as we search for a sense of belonging and being illogical and hard to understand (KIRKEBY 2000).
However, the book In Search for Excellence contradicted these assertions by suggesting that the utilization of logic to manage “irrationality” would suppress the one quality that brings excellence in individuals, that is passion. As a result, the writers eight themes discussed above were put in place that described excellent companies (KELLER & PRICE 2011). The themes were designed heavily on action, staying close to the field and the notion of as little structure as achievable. Moreover, the book advocated for certain qualities that formed the backbone of excellent companies such as greater customer experience, value creation, and quality products. In so doing, the book contradicted the scientific and proven approach to manage an organization to excellence and success in operations. These contradictions suffered criticism from managers and academic experts leading to branding the book as flawed. Therefore, the book did not have any impact on the practice in the management.
Other critics flawed the book for its failure to prove the theory of management excellence because of the loopholes on the research design, in adequate data about the authors’ analysis, their definition of “excellent” firm and the exclusion of non-management variables. The critics cited that several of the sample organizations deemed excellent were having trouble in some areas. In relation to this, there were several organizations previously branded as excellent that collapsed only two years after the publishing of the book. Several other critics asserted that the research done by Peter and Waterman had failed to integrate several ideas found in the traditional organization theory that narrowed the description of excellence (HALACHMI 2005). Consequently, the book’s content left out the viewpoints of many other stakeholders. The information from the critics branded the book as based on advocacy rather than science. This led to the flawing of the information contained in the book In Search of Excellence since its inception.
The book also experienced conceptual criticism from several researchers of the time. One of the eight themes of the book In Search of Excellence attributed the success of an organization mainly to internal factors. The critics asserted that the authors failed to consider the external environment crucial to the success of a firm such as protective e legislation, market dominance, and location. Furthermore, the initial content of the book suggested that organizations should concentrate more on the soft aspect of strategy and structure and exclude of the hard style (PETERS & WATERMAN 2006). Therefore, Peter and Waterman exclusively advocated for the soft style on the common issue of culture and the omission of other concerns such as technology and its effects on the structure. The books content was considered to fall short of adequate concern of the internal and external environments that determine the success of a firm. Furthermore, the authors’ assertions contradicted the contingency theory that offered a general basis for organizational analysis. Consequent...