1. How effective was Ko in defining and framing a vision for Motorola Penang? In what ways were her efforts similar to and different from the example of Charles Schwab citied earlier? * How did Ko resolve the dilemma of where visions come from? Where did she find her vision? Ko wants to her team both defining and framing a vision, because that will embrace visions best and see with their own eyes. Ko struggled with the most effective way of making her vision a reality. She engaged many of her top team in discussions about the challenges of the future of the facility. She had many specific and concrete ideas but didn’t want to seem to be imposing them on the group. She wanted to get most involvement possible to ensure all relevant information was considered that would be tasked with making the vision a reality.
Ko’s philosophy reflects a positive, familial, celebrate every accomplishment kind of work environment. Ko treated her people with respect. No yelling, no shouting, no finger pointing. Always gave visible rewards for achievers. She shared every success story. She preached the importance of the knowledge, and advances in technology. Charles Chwab started his own company built on what was a unique and quite unconventional idea. He anticipated a need in the middle class. His concern for the middle class was genuine, not just a business gimmick. His vision led him to a unique path. When market conditions change, he adjusts its business model and tactics. He made his vision reality.
* We cited doorman and jigsaw puzzle metaphors when describing how different leaders see themselves. Do either of these metaphors seem relevant to Ko?
Yes, she wants to involve the other top managers first then converted into jigsaw puzzle role. She encouraged her man to work in team, to teach each other. She loved to share her vision and thought to the others. She wanted her top team have future vision. She was not only share her vision, she wanted hear from the others first. She had good relation with press and a responsible corporate citizen in the community. She always looked for positive qualities of a person. She actually made this place for new university graduates.
2. Evaluate the content dimensions of Ko’s vision work at Motorola Penang. How did she do with: * Making the Case for Change
* Identifying an Ideal Goal
* Addressing the People dimension
Ko struggled with the most effective way of making that vision a reality. She engaged many of her top team in discussions about the challenges of the future of the facility, but they still looked to her as the leader and wanted to hear her vision of the future. She took a very hard-nosed approach to Motorola business model. She saw technology as a two-sided coin that would eliminate low-skill jobs at the same time that it brought new opportunities. She knew that other countries had lower labor costs. Yet she was committed to rapidly move Motorola to produce more complex systems products, creating an increased demand for technicians and engineers.
First Ko asked her managers’ envision, and then chose to focus on five major activities to help build capability of Motorola Penang and its employees to achieve this very ambitious vision. The five major activities are:
External relationships: Involving corporate in her new vision. Management development: Groom manager for new roles in the vision Maintaining state of the art manufacturing: Keeping up with technology to help achieve her vision Participative management process: Getting keep leadership involved in achieving the vision Technical skill development: Ko knew didn’t want to layoff underskilled workers so she established a Masters of Mechanical Engineering degree program with classes on Motorola’s grounds.
3. With respect to the Articulating and Communicating the Vision, how effectively did Ko address the three different levels of: * Strategic—“HEAD”
Strategic- “HEAD”: External relationships- Motorola Penang had built up a very good reputation for all that it had accomplished thus far. She had to maintain and expand those relationships. Tactical- “HANDS”: Management development- Ko had to groom managers for the new roles that the future facility would require. Maintaining state of the art manufacturing and administrative technologies- Ko had to nudge the evolution to keep Motorola Penang competitive against the lowest cost producers in the world. Participative management process- Ko did everything possible to make Motorola Penang a high involvement work place. Personal-“HEART”: Technical skills development- Ko was successful in establishing a program with the university with classes held right on the Motorola Penang ground.