【正文】 d e m a n d s .Pr e c i s i o n . G e t t i n g t h e j o b d o n eri g h t i s m o re i mp o rt a n t t h a n g e t t i n gi t d o n e q u i ck l y, e v e n t h o u g h i t m a yt a ke e x t ra t i m e .Sp e e d . G e t t i n g t h e j o b d o n e f a s tm a ke s “ro u g h ly r ig h t ” o u t co m e sa cce p t a b l e e v e n t h o u g h w e m a ys a cri f i ce d i s ci p l i n e o r r i g o r.Em p h a s i s o n C o n s i s te n c y .Exce p t i o n s t o p o l i ci e s a n d p ro ce d u re sa re d i s co u ra g e d 。 d e b r i e f e v e n t s t os h a re i n s i g h t s a n d b e s t p ra ct i ce s .I te r a ti o n . Va lu e s a “t r ia l a n d e rro r”a p p ro a ch 。 be honest, but be sensitive in what you say cultural due diligence study regionspecific findings Comparison of hp with Compaq North America Cultural gap differences are statistically significant. Compaq’s Average HP’s Average C u l t u r a l G a p s 1 2 3 4 5 Pr e c e d e n c e . L o o ks t o t h eo rg a n iza t io n ’s ri ch h is t o ry a s a s o u rceo f kn o w l e d g e .I n q u i r y . F o cu s e s o n f u t u rep o ss i b i l i t i e s a n d l e a rn a s t h e y g o . I n te r n a l F o c u s . F o cu s e s m o s t l y o ni m p ro v e m e n t o f i n t e rn a l p ro ce s s e sa n d s t ru ct u re s 。 s se n se o f i n t e g r i t yC o m p a q se e m s t o b e t a ki n g o v e r —l i ke a r e v e r se a cq u i si t i o nC o m p a q h a s a co m m a n d a n d co n t r o l m a n a g e m e n t st y l eC o m p a q 39。 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 things are very centralized differences ? decisions made quickly ? a lot of “checking in” to make a decision, iterative decisions, topdown congruence model output input environment resources history strategy system unit individual work people formal anization informal anization informal anization hp on hp as strength similarities ? strong sense of ethics ? strong customerfocus (make great products) ? team culture, have to be part of the group ? getting results is rewarded, sometimes effort without a result gets rewarded ? having big new ideas is valued ? treat people with dignity ? multiple subcultures differences ? conflict avoidance and overpromise are normal ? titles not referenced, egalitarian unique mentary ? “silo mentality” ? failure deserves a second chance ? diversity and people are valued paq on paq similarities ? ethical behavior is enforced ? strong customer orientation (make what they want) ? teamwork is valued ? highly results/bottomline focused, sometimes effort without a results gets rewarded ? openness to good/new ideas ? don’t publicly embarrass people ? multiple subcultures differences ? conflict addressed directly/openly, aggressive, brash ? titles are referenced, abundant, hierarchical unique mentary ? initiative, flexibility, “go for it” attitude are valued ? relaxed/flex work environment。 they are unclear, execution not enforced ? no consequences for not meeting objectives。 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。a 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 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 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 congruence model output input environment resources history strategy system uni