| |
Please answer all the questions in English. |
| |
|
| 1. |
LEARNING HOW TO LEARN |
| |
Many large companies, especially those that have been dominant in
their field, are now finding themselves having to take steps toward becoming
learning organizations. A good example is AT$T, which has made major changes
since it was forced to divest itself of local operating companies in 1984.
While the company has acquired the National Cash Register firm and McCaw
Electronics over the last couple of years, this has not stopped the firm
from redefining the way it does business and changing policies and procedures
to improve efficiency. For example, in the past each division at AT&T
used to operate semi-independently of the others. Now the executives of
all major business groups meet several days each month to discuss their
various operations and learn how to work together synergistically. This
is a totally new way of doing things for the firm. Top management has
also set up teams to explore and develop areas which they believe offer
the greatest opportunity for the firm. Each team consists of representatives
from all four business groups. The company's CEO recently explained the
logic behind this new arrangement by noting,"The intent is to mix
it up, get people talking, and figure out the businesses and structures
that AT&T as a company will need." |
| |
IBM is also making strides toward becoming a learning organization.
The company is now reorganizing and opening up lines of communication
between all units. Lou Gerstner, the new CEO, has created an eleven-member
executive panel, composed primarily of operating chiefs, and charged them
with finding ways of better working a worldwide council of thirty-four
executives. This team meets four to five times annually to compare practices,
problems, and solutions, and to thrash out company-wide initiatives. The
objective of these changes at IBM is to reduce the bureaucratic structure
and force managers to learn new ways of doing things. |
| |
In addition to implementing structural changes, many firms are now
rethinking the way they train their managers. To teach managers how to
be more flexible and how to handle unique situations, firms such as General
Electric, Motorola, Weyerhaeuser, and IBM are building their own in-house
universities or closely monitoring the training efforts of those they
bring in from the outside. For example, at Weyerhaeuser, the giant wood
and paper company, an in-house Leadership Institute for Managers has been
created. The firm has put 1240 of its managers through the program and
reports that its wood products unit is more profitable then ever. At General
Electric, in-house training is focused very heavily on action learning.
Managers are divided into teams and taught how to gather information on
business-related problems and present it to senior-level managers. Groups
of GE executives are divided into teams and given free rein to go anywhere
they want to gather the needed information. Some travel internationally
during the thirty-day period they have for handling the assignment. Then,
led by consultants, in-house trainers, and university professors, they
organize, analyze, evaluate, and present their information. As a result
of such programs, GE managers are learning how to rethink their old approaches
to problem solving and to turn their enterprise into a learning organization
that is able not only to cope with the ever-changing world of business,
but also to anticipate and learn from change. |
| |
| (1) |
Why do firms nowadays need to be learning organizations? (15%)
|
| (2) |
Why are learning organizations developing greater use of in-house
training and management development programs? Name a company in
Taiwan that has this kind of in-house training for your example.
(15%) |
|
| |
|
| 2. |
Bill Gates, "We're not playing catch-up. We're back in a pioneering
position." |
| |
Presidents come and go, antitrust policy waxes and wanes, and the
Microsoft case gets passed from judge to judge. But one thing never changes:
the company's personality. Chairman William H. Gates III is still in charge,
he still uses the same controversial techniques to expand his business,
and he's as aggressive as ever. |
| |
For evidence, look no further than Windows XP, the latest version
of the company's PC operating system, which is scheduled for release on
Oct. 25, 2001. It's a monopoly product. More than 95% of all PC buyers
will get it. And it's being packaged with a raft of Microsoft's other
products, including MSN Internet service, Windows Media Player 8.0, and
the MSN Messenger instant-messaging service. The transparent goal: to
push the vast installed base of Windows customers to use other Microsoft
software as more and more aspects of their lives migrate to the Net. |
| |
The land grab raises an important question: Does Microsoft's strategy
violate antitrust law? Critics say yes. By weaving into the Windows interface
software that other companies sell separately, such as its media player,
they believe Microsoft is guilty of illegal "tying." That's
the legal term used to describe a company that leverages a monopoly in
one market into an adjacent area. Opponents also contend that Windows
XP, when viewed in combination with Microsoft's other aggressive actions,
such as writing contracts that discourage PC makers from distributing
rival products, could be construed as illegal monopolization. That's when
a company tries to kill rivals who threaten an existing monopoly. |
| |
"NO VICTIM." Sound familiar? It should. These are the charges
leveled against Microsoft in the current antitrust case. And they are
the legal issues that will likely hang over the company for many years
to come. Microsoft is committed to pushing its operating system ever outward,
adding capabilities as new technologies emerge. And that means trustbusters
are likely to keep monitoring whether the Windows behemoth is getting
too big. |
| |
Whether a successful legal assault could be mounted against Windows
XP depends, in large part, on how the District of Columbia Circuit Court
of Appeals rules on the pending Microsoft case. This will mark the first
time that a major appeals court has considered the application of tying
and monopolization principles to the software industry. If the court finds
that the government's case was valid, then it probably wouldn't be that
hard to attach Windows XP. But if, as expected, the appeals court takes
a laissez-faire approach, then bringing a successful suit against Microsoft
becomes much harder. Another factor could complicate any antitrust attack
on Widows XP: the lack of an obvious poster child- a struggling young
company like Netscape that is an innovative pioneer of the Web and faces
destruction because of Microsoft's conduct. |
| |
Bottom line: Reining in Microsoft could be an iffy proposition. Given
the complexity and rapid changes in high-tech industries, most federal
judges are "skeptical of [their] ability to make technological judgments,"
says George Washington University antitrust scholar William Kovacic. "They
are unlikely to intervene in markets unless they are highly confident
that they have a good reason for doing so." |
| |
Will the courts slow this software Goliath down? In the 2000's annual
employee meeting, CEO Steven Ballmer told the crowd,"we were getting
shots from everywhere. Maybe we even had a little fear in our eyes. But
you know what I say? I say we're off the ropes!" Back then, Ballmer's
rallying cry was mostly wishful thinking. Now it's starting to look like
an understatement. Not only do Microsoft's over-the-hill days seem over,
but it is emerging more powerful than ever. Instead of the Internet relegating
Microsoft to the sidelines, the software maker has grown stronger in its
core PC business, gained ground in the lucrative enterprise corporate
market, and fought its way very nearly to the top of the Internet heap.
While competitors are pinching pennies in this harsher economic environment,
Microsoft is awash in cash: $30 billion, more than any other company in
Corporate America. Moreover,, it's adding $1 billion a month to its bank
account. |
| |
So don't be surprised if the Microsoft drama drags on for a while
longer - in fact, quite a while longer. |
| |
|
|
(1) Comment this article. (40%) |
| |
|
| |
|
| 3. |
If this school offers a Ph.D. program, what does "Ph.D."
stand for? What does a doctoral degree mean to you? (30%) |