【正文】 cultural due diligence study wele agenda: presentation of findings qa session cultural due diligence study presentation of findings cultural due diligence study data collected from around the world in both panies: 127 individual executive interviews 138 focus groups spanning 1,500 managers and individual contributors in 22 countries congruence model output input environment resources history strategy system unit individual work people formal anization informal anization 4 cultural due diligence study 1. paring and contrasting premerge hp and paq 2. definitions similarities things that the people in each pany perceived about themselves that matched the other pany differences things that the people in each pany perceived about themselves that were at odds with the other pany unique mentary things that people in each pany expressed very often which those in the other pany talked much less about 3. the findings reflect perceptions congruence model output input environment resources history strategy system unit individual work people formal anization informal anization 6 input hp on hp similarities ? proud about HP legacy ? industry consolidating ? disadvantaged in supply chain and overhead costs ? good products unique mentary ? pride in success linked to innovation ? technical/engineering heritage ? good reputation with customers ? power historically with the business and the back end paq on paq similarities ? strong brand, products and services ? industry consolidating ? disadvantaged in supply chain and overhead costs ? good products unique mentary ? historically fast, nimble, and able to execute ? traditionally shortterm focused ? fast growth through new business model ? redefined puting landscape 7 congruence model output input environment resources history strategy system unit individual work people formal anization informal anization 8 strategy hp on hp similarities ? topdown strategy。 midmanagement not involved ? need for planning and execution process ? differences ? strategy is longterm oriented unique mentary ? strategy increasingly unclear as you go down the anization ? strategy has to be translated into something concrete paq on paq similarities ? strategy es through a topdown process ? little/no strategic process differences ? susceptible to frequent changes in direction ? customer focused with a shortterm orientation toward the market。 interferes with investing/building for the future unique mentary ? tendency to be influenced more by major customer accounts than technological advancements 9 congruence model output input environment resources history strategy system unit individual work people formal anization informal anization 10 work hp on hp differences ? respect for process ? strong planning and financial processes ? work process is anizationally based, vertically strong, works well unique mentary ? autonomy in managing one’s own work is the norm。 accountability at individual level ? upper management does not seem to be held accountable in the same way as others ? poor crossfunctional accountabilities and ownership of work paq on paq differences ? process seen as bureaucracy, aversion to processes ? lack of clear, disciplined processes ? work process: swat teams unique mentary ? technology is great ? information systems are not integrated ? multitasking is a norm ? worklife balance is not achieved 11 congruence model output input environment resources history strategy system unit individual work people formal anization informal anization 12 people hp on hp similarities ? low credibility in leadership differences ? leadership focused on relationships (how things get done) unique mentary ? multicultural, diverse, dedicated workforce ? teamoriented ? losing the ―family feeling‖ ? lower levels of management are informal。 top management is more formal and removed ? recent changes led to low morale paq on paq similarities ? low credibility in leadership differences ? leadership achievementoriented, rugged individualists (what gets done) unique mentary ? people are bright, mitted, and work hard, long hours ? good interpersonal relationships ? learning happens on the job ? insufficient investment in training and development ? people do not feel empowered, except in field 13 congruence model output input environment resources history strategy system unit individual work people formal anization informal anization 14 formal anization hp on hp similarities ? goals change too often。 they are unclear, execution not enforced ? no consequences for not meeting objectives。 performance metrics unclear or absent, differ across ―silos‖ ? frontend/backend structure exacerbated problems with accountability ? hp is horizontally challenged ? more power moving to the frontend anization ? hp is being more centralized differences ? no mon process for decision making。 very topdown, slow, long decision cycle times。 but thoughtful and high involvement ? general perception that decisions are rarely made, but tend to stick once made paq on paq similarities ? goals change frequently and not synchronized between frontend and backend anizations ? people are not held accountable。 structure and measurement systems cloud accountability ? strong matrix management leading to fuzzy lines of accountabilities ? performance management inconsistent, generally poor planning and control ? crossanizational collaboration difficult ? country managers are kings ? many