NORTHCENTRAL UNIVERSITY FOUNDATIONS FEEDBACK SHEET Activity 3 Dear Student, Please use this document to submit Activity 3. You can simply start typing in the first blank page (recommended) or paste in text from another document into the first blank page. Please save this file as: Your last name, first initial, e. g. , BTM7101 -3 (DoeJBTM7101-3). Please save a copy of this file for yourself. Academic Integrity: Please see and follow the Academic Integrity Policy in the Learner portal.
Main Task: Compare Two Chapters, Adhering to the Northcentral Academic Integrity Policy For this activity, read the two chapters listed in the Activity Resource section (Krames,J. A. (2003) Chapters 2 & 5). Each chapter relates to a successful, innovative business professional. You will be asked to discuss their journeys as practitioners and their contributions. Prepare a brief, 2-3 page paper in which you compare and contrast the two chapters.
Address the following in your paper: • Identify each business professional and briefly describe their main contributions to the field. • Discuss the resistance that each encountered in presenting and furthering their research, ideas, or programs. • Discuss any similarities you see in their professional stories. • Note how each one differed. • Finally discuss what factor(s) you think (environmental, professional, personal) may have impacted their success. Length: 2-3 pages
Your paper should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts that are presented in the course and provide new thoughts and insights relating directly to this topic. Your response should reflect scholarly writing and current APA standards. Be sure to adhere to Northcentral University’s Academic Integrity Policy. Submit your document in the Course Work area below the Activity screen. Learning Outcome: 3, 4, 5 • Demonstrate an understanding of Northcentral’s Academic Integrity policy. • Apply proper APA citation. Compare and contrast the impact of context and personal qualities on professional development. Your instructor will give you feedback using the form below and in margin comments on your work. Reading and using your instructor’s feedback is as much a part of your learning as is reading the course materials and doing activities Your instructor will not only help you understand the quality of your work on this activity, but will also give you guidance on how to improve your skills and increase your knowledge that, if you follow it, will help you do better on future activities!
Feedback Introduction to Feedback: 1. Was the activity completed as instructed? Activity ElementsFaculty Feedback |Each professional identified | | |Professionals’ main contributions briefly described | | |Resistance each encountered discussed | |Similarities in professional stories discussed | | |Differences in professional stories discussed | | |Factors that may have impacted success discussed | | |2-3 pages | | |Writing is clear | See 3. Below | |Paraphrases are correct | | |Citation and references list in APA style | See 4.
Below | |No instances of plagiarism (as shown by text-matching service report) | | 2. Are statements about all readings and resources accurate? 3. Is the writing clear and persuasive? 4. Is the writing correct in punctuation, grammar, word usage, and APA style? Grade and rationale. Grade is based on the following that maps onto the Northcentral rubrics as follows: 70% Content 1. Completion of the activity as instructed 2. Understanding of activity resources 3. Clarity and persuasiveness of writing 30% Presentation 4. Grammar, word usage and APA style Chapter two (Krames, 2003) depicts the values, journey and leadership style of Michael Dell. Michael Dell is the founder and CEO of Dell, Inc.
According to the author, Michael had an entrepreneurial gene in him since the childhood. He started his first business Dell Stamps when he was 12. Michael started his revolutionary journey of Dell Computer Corporation when he was 19 year old. He was the youngest CEO of a Fortune 500 company at the age of 27. As Krames describes, even though the intent was not to revolutionize, the mass customization and the providing competitive price to customer by eliminating the middleman, changed the landscape of computer business. Consumers, for the first time, realized that they can choose to get what they want with in a reasonable price compared to the standard machine from companies like Microsoft.
The differentiation and competitive advantage Michael created, because of his passion to understand his customer needs and give them price point advantage through automation, was evident in the chapter. Creating customer centric organization structure was an example of his clear alignment to strategy and vision. The entire business model predicates on knowing the customer preference and demand better through constant customer. The complexity of gathering the customer preference when the Information systems and Internet were not widely used was an enormous challenge for Dell. As referenced in the chapter in spite of his perseverance and tenaciousness to hit 100% of orders from Internet, at any point of time 90% was the plateau. Their inability to know the customer needs failed them in the Olympic project (Krames, 2003, Page 67).
The traditional organization structure was also in conflict with his vision of getting “as many people as possible in the organization involved in satisfying the customer” (Krames, 2003, Page 68). He had to create a structure around the customer to over come the huddle. Chapter 5 (Krames, 2003) depicts the leadership traits of Andy Grove to prepare the organization for the drastic change during the technology revolution. Andy Grove was the Cofounder and CEO of Intel Corporation. This Berkley graduate moved form Hungary and taught himself English. Time Magazine named him as the person of the year in 1997. Andy’s contributions to the semiconductor industry were revolutionary. His ability to strategize and execute to a vision of future needs is the core of Intel business success.
His leadership and management style to prepare the organization for unexpected was one of the reasons for Intel to survive several crashes. The chapter clearly articulates his boldness to challenge the norm and create the organizational dynamics with debate, discussion and innovation. His courage to revamp the business from bottoms up was evident, when he chose to come out of Memory and entered the Microprocessor business. His ability to deal with Strategic Infliction Points (Krames, 2003, page 141) are also exemplary. Andy was riding an up hill battle with changing technology in the chip world, as predicted by Gordon Moore in the chapter “the power of computer chip would double every 18 months”. His challenge was always to know what the industry needs ahead of the competition.
As mentioned in the chapter, Intel got hit twice in the decade with competitors changing the technology needs. Intel went through downsizing the business with several layoffs to deal with the impact. The organization paid an astronomical price for its inability to identify and predict the Strategic Infliction Points. Humans can only consume limited amount of change at any point of time. It will be immensely entertaining to get the employee perspective during these massive changes. I agree with the author (Krames), keeping a balance between healthy skepticism vs paralyzing with fear is critical. Even though, they both influenced different industries and took different leadership and management style, several similarities mentioned here are noticeable.
Resilience to deal with changing market needs, revolutionizing the market space with clear differentiation, making several levels of the organization part of the strategy, creating a learning organization, surviving and managing massive transformational changes in organizations, and preparing organizations for the unexpected. As mentioned above, different leadership and management styles were evident in several situations. Customer centric view of Michael was not too obvious in Andy’s style. It was noticeable that Andy focused more on Innovation and predicting what comes next vs Michael, who wants customers to tell him what they want. I see this as lead-the-market vs follow-the-market style.
Andy seemed to focus more on Organizational dynamics such as constructive confrontation, healthy skepticism etc. , where as, Michael focused on Organization structure such as customer centric organizations. In summary, several factors in their journey impacted their leadership style. The tough childhood Andy had could be the origin for his resilience. His ability to handle change and create an opportunity from any situation helped Intel stand the test of time. Experience Andy had in dealing with Nazi style in his childhood does not intimidate him from constructive confrontation or healthy skepticism. Michael, on the other hand, is from well-established family and did not have to suffer for any thing.
Exposure to entrepreneurial opportunities from childhood laid the foundation for his customer centric mind set. Uniqueness of the differentiation he created in the market space allowed him to come up with several innovative methods around price points, some of them are, automation, customer centric organization structure etc. Reference: Krames, J. A. (2003). Place the Customer at the Epicenter of the Business Model. What the best CEOs know 7 exceptional leaders and their lessons for transforming any business (pp. 55- 77). New York: McGraw-Hill. Krames, J. A. (2003). Prepare the Organization fro Drastic Change. What the best CEOs know 7 exceptional leaders and their lessons for transforming any business (pp. 131-152). New York: McGraw-Hill.