Peter Drucker in himself remains an important figure in management and here are reasons why with my opinions as part of the ramblings:
1.) In the 1940s he made decentralization the bedrock principle of virtually every large organization the world. As businesses get bigger, the more the company ought to be decentralized. For example, some companies eventually become multinational like McDonalds and Jollibee for example- it's Chinese in China, it's Filipino in the Philippines, it's American in America approach. So what happens is decentralization has become important and one of the ways it gets decentralized to certain extents is through franchising, where a person buys the rights to operate the business and is given a set number of rules to abide by in decision making.
2.) In the 50s, he was asserting that the labor force should treat its workers as assets to be improved and not liabilities to be removed. It's a sad fact that laborers tend to be treated as if they're not human. However what many people do not realize that without the laborers, the company in itself cannot move forward so it's important to treat them with care.
3.) In the 50s, he viewed the corporate environment as a human community and not just for profit making. True profits are important in a corporation, however one must realize that the power of the company is not in the money but in the hands that make the money. What is stronger than cash than the hands that earn it? That is the riddle of cash. Also part of this one is that a corporation's success is because many people contributed, not just the brains of one person.
4.) Also in the 50s, he stressed that there is no business without a customer. How true. In a business, it's always a give and take, customers give their money to get good service. It takes a long time to gain customers but just seconds to lose one, stressing importance of treating customers as VIP members in the corporation.
5.) In the 1960s he emphasized importance of substance over style and institutionalized practices over charismatic leaders. Sometimes it can be true that style and charisma could be the very cloak of Lex Luthor type of businessmen, they appear good on the outside but have schemes on the inside. Style can be deadly- you can decorate a rock with icing and it's still a rock. People must follow their leaders because of their substance and practices, not because they are charismatic and stylish. Nothing against charisma and style but they're both just icing on the cake.
6.) In the 1970s he wrote about the contribution of knowledge workers. How true. A business is not a one man's success but rather the success of everyone who has contributed.
You may want to read this also:
http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-11-27/the-man-who-invented-management
1.) In the 1940s he made decentralization the bedrock principle of virtually every large organization the world. As businesses get bigger, the more the company ought to be decentralized. For example, some companies eventually become multinational like McDonalds and Jollibee for example- it's Chinese in China, it's Filipino in the Philippines, it's American in America approach. So what happens is decentralization has become important and one of the ways it gets decentralized to certain extents is through franchising, where a person buys the rights to operate the business and is given a set number of rules to abide by in decision making.
2.) In the 50s, he was asserting that the labor force should treat its workers as assets to be improved and not liabilities to be removed. It's a sad fact that laborers tend to be treated as if they're not human. However what many people do not realize that without the laborers, the company in itself cannot move forward so it's important to treat them with care.
3.) In the 50s, he viewed the corporate environment as a human community and not just for profit making. True profits are important in a corporation, however one must realize that the power of the company is not in the money but in the hands that make the money. What is stronger than cash than the hands that earn it? That is the riddle of cash. Also part of this one is that a corporation's success is because many people contributed, not just the brains of one person.
4.) Also in the 50s, he stressed that there is no business without a customer. How true. In a business, it's always a give and take, customers give their money to get good service. It takes a long time to gain customers but just seconds to lose one, stressing importance of treating customers as VIP members in the corporation.
5.) In the 1960s he emphasized importance of substance over style and institutionalized practices over charismatic leaders. Sometimes it can be true that style and charisma could be the very cloak of Lex Luthor type of businessmen, they appear good on the outside but have schemes on the inside. Style can be deadly- you can decorate a rock with icing and it's still a rock. People must follow their leaders because of their substance and practices, not because they are charismatic and stylish. Nothing against charisma and style but they're both just icing on the cake.
6.) In the 1970s he wrote about the contribution of knowledge workers. How true. A business is not a one man's success but rather the success of everyone who has contributed.
You may want to read this also:
http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-11-27/the-man-who-invented-management
Comments
Post a Comment