MGMT 6643-01
Final Examination
Instructions:
On the following pages you will find two essay questions that primarily reflect the Harvard Business Review readings presented in class since the mid-term exam. The first question covers readings #8 and #9; the second covers readings #5, #6, and #7. The first will be valued at 40 pts., the second will be valued at 60 pts. Develop an answer for question 1 that is no less than three (3) but no more than five (5) pages in length. Develop an answer for question 2 that is no less than four (4) but no more than six (6) pages in length.
Each page should be double-spaced and have 1” margins on all sides; font size should be 12 points—no greater, no less. Begin each answer on a new page, and be sure your name appears at the beginning of each question. When you have completed your answers, save them both in a single document, and e-mail the document to your professor.
Essay responses should always begin with an introduction to the question topic and end with a clearly stated conclusion. As part of your discussion, you should take definite positions which are supported with cogent arguments. Whatever path you choose, be assured your answers will be read with great interest!
All take-home responses must be submitted no later than the beginning of class, i.e., 9:00AM, on July 30th. Otherwise, you will write the exam “in class.”
1. In “Energy Strategy for the C-Suite” Winston et al claim that firms make a strategic mistake when they neglect enormous opportunities to reduce risk, improve resilience, and create new value because they approach energy merely as a cost. The authors go on to claim that without the corporate ownership of energy strategy, it is very difficult to capitalize on opportunities because energy strategies require investment—if not in cash, then at least in time and organiza-tion. Because the scale of the challenge is so substantial, companies need to assemble cross-functional executive teams in order to make significant progress.
“In Managing Climate Change: Lessons from the US Navy” Reinhart & Toffel observe that as the world’s climate changes, the US Navy must address both an increased demand for its military and humanitarian services as well as an impaired capacity to deliver those services as risk of damage to ports and bases increases. They then assess potential climate-related impacts on naval infra-structure and supply chains and noted that businesses can also use the list as a guide in considering potential impacts of climate change on their particular operations.
First, compare and contrast the challenges of incorporating energy strategy into the operational and geographical scope of the firm, i.e., in light of economies of scope, transaction costs, and the costs of corporate complexity, with the challenges of incorporating climate change strategy into the operational and geographical scope of the firm. (Please note similarities and differences.) Con-clude by considering the idea that while certain kinds of planning and investment may appear unwise because the contingencies involved seem remote and/or incremental, constraining the managerial prerogative/responsibilities of an organization may sooner or later prove to be costly for a variety of stakeholders. How would you approach this dilemma, i.e., how would you deal with these risks?
2. In “Why Do We Undervalue Competent Management?” Sadun et all claim that neither great leadership nor brilliant strategy matters without operational excel-lence. Not only do organizations need competent management just as much as they need analytical brilliance, effective management processes and operational excellence are in fact highly correlated with traditional measures of strategic success. They go on to note that even the most successful firms often fail to implement best practices throughout the whole organization, even though better-managed firms are more profitable, grow faster, and are less likely to die.
In “Being the Boss in Brussels, Boston, and Beijing” Meyer notes that important cultural differences in leadership styles often create unexpected paradoxes with major impacts upon global teamwork. Thus, making a clear distinction between attitudes toward authority (from hierarchical to egalitarian) and attitudes toward decision-making (from top-down to consensual) is critical to helping leaders become more effective in a global context. To motivate and engage employees around the globe, a multifaceted approach is required if managers are to make smarter choices regarding cross-cultural interactions, be they as a leader or as a follower.
In “The Error at the Heart of Corporate Leadership” Bower and Paine claim that a company’s health—not shareholder wealth—should be the primary concern of corporate leaders. They claim that corporations can prosper over the long term only if they are able to learn, to adapt, and to regularly transform themselves. The authors conclude that a company-centered model of governance would not relieve corporations of the need to provide a return to shareholders, but rather corporations would be open to a wider range of strategic positions that would attract those investors who share their goals of corporate health.
Consider why Sadun et al dare to claim that “organizations need competent management just as much as they need analytical brilliance.” Why do you agree or disagree with this idea? Then consider Meyer’s claim regarding the apparent effect of “leadership style” upon global teamwork. Again, why do you agree or disagree with her position? Finally, consider Bower and Paine’s idea that corporations in fact perform many functions in society and thus must create value for multiple constituencies and not simply shareholders. Again, why do you agree or disagree with this statement? Conclude by discussing the challenges of “Implementing best practices throughout the organization” when its operations are global in scope. What potential effects can you envision that “competent management,” “leadership styles,” and “company-centered governance” might have upon organizational structure?