【正文】 co n t in u a lly ―t u rn s o n a d ime ‖ t o m e e td 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.R e fl e c ti o n . Va l u e s re v i e w o fs i g n i f i ca n t e v e n t s 。 t yp i ca l l y h e a d e d i n a c l e a r l yf o cu s e d d i re c t i o n .B r o a d R e a c h . Pu rs u e s m a n y g o a l ss i m u l t a n e o u s l y。 i s v e ry m u ch a w a re o fco m p e t i t o rs a n d cl o s e l y f o l l o w s t h em o v e s t h e y ma keSy s te m a ti c . R e l i e s h e a v i l y o no rg a n i ze d p l a n s f o r o u r w o rk. W o rkp ro ce ss e s a re cl e a rl y d e f i n e d .Sp o n ta n e o u s . R e l i e s o n a b i l i t y t ore s p o n d t o j u s t i n t i m e o p p o rt u n i t i e s 。 t m a ke t o u g h ca l l sH P i s n o t v e r y v i si b l e t o cu st o m e r sH P I n t e r v i e w s C o m p a q I n t e r v i e w s17 cultural due diligence study advice to carly michael from interviews and focus groups: ? be inclusive ? define your work and roles ? define/municate what you want the new pany to be ? be bold ? clarify roles and anization structure ? take action quickly ? continue to municate a lot。 very topdown, slow, long decision cycle times。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 3 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 5 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 6 congruence model output input environment resources history strategy system unit individual work people formal anization informal anization 7 strategy hp on hp similarities ? topdown strategy。 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。 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 。co n t in u a lly ―t u rn s o n a d ime ‖ t o m e e td 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 。 i s b ro a d re a ch i n g a n dm u l t i f o cu s e d .D o m i n a n c e . Pu rs u e s g ro w t h t h ro u g hp ro d u ct p ro l i f e ra t i o n / l i n e e x t e n s i o n sa n d a cq u i s i t i o n s .Va l u e . Pu rs u e s g ro w t h t h ro u g hp ro d u ct i n n o v a t i o n a n d a n t i c i p a t i o n o fe m e rg i n g cu s t o m e r n e e d s .D e s i g n e d . W h e n i m p l e m e n t i n gch a n g e i n i t i a t i v e s , i n