How Apple Is Organized for Innovation: The Leadership Model
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ก.ค. 2024
- Apple leaders need deep expertise, immersion in details, and collaborative debate. (Part 2 of 3)
This is part 2 of 3
Part 1--The Functional Organization: • How Apple Is Organized...
Part 3--Leadership at Scale: • How Apple Is Organized...
Ever since Steve Jobs implemented the functional organization, Apple’s managers at every level, from senior vice president on down, have been expected to possess three key leadership characteristics: deep expertise that allows them to meaningfully engage in all the work being done within their individual functions; immersion in the details of those functions; and a willingness to collaboratively debate other functions during collective decision-making. When managers have these attributes, decisions are made in a coordinated fashion by the people most qualified to make them.
Based on the HBR article, “How Apple Is Organized for Innovation" by Joel M. Podolny and Morten T. Hansen: hbr.org/2020/11/how-apple-is-...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
At Harvard Business Review, we believe in management. If the world’s organizations and institutions were run more effectively, if our leaders made better decisions, if people worked more productively, we believe that all of us - employees, bosses, customers, our families, and the people our businesses affect - would be better off. So we try to arm our readers with ideas that help them become smarter, more creative, and more courageous in their work. We enlist the foremost experts in a wide range of topics, including career planning, strategy, leadership, work-life balance, negotiations, innovation, and managing teams. Harvard Business Review empowers professionals around the world to lead themselves and their organizations more effectively and to make a positive impact.
Sign up for Newsletters: hbr.org/email-newsletters
Follow us:
hbr.org/
/ harvard-business-review
/ hbr
/ harvardbiz
/ harvard_business_review - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Become an expert, lead other experts, and drive innovation. Awesome video. Thanks for sharing it with us!
Thanks for giving very interesting business savvy insights!
Awesome video! Thank you Harvard!
I find the concept of 'Collaborative Debate Approach' @3:15 seems promising - I'd love to get that started internally!
Interessante
2023 November 29- Special Comment3 of 3- Baseball, Empires, World Peace- HBR TH-cam channel: The Explainer- How Apple is Organized for Innovation- Leadership
Let’s stay inside the track of “whole world empire, single-leader” model. You know, I kinda buy that. One global unified army. Only payroll department. It’s a gigantic bureaucracy nightmare, but at least, a united armed force. Turf fights occur e.g. between a Navy Admiral versus Air Force General or Army Chief. But basically more like Machiavelli (knives or poison) than large mobilizations ala Clausewitz or Sun Tzu. Civilian casualties very minimal. Corruption maybe, but no global conflagration. So yeah, I get it.
Question: Even if this whole world empire materializes, what about the “beast” innate in all men? Here’s my take:
If the “beast” innate in every man growls, LET IT. Let this killing urge, this vengeance-is-mine Count of Monte Cristo urge or whatever shake our moral cage. And if their numbers reach battalion numbers, well…. the merrier the better. It’s a festival of beasts.
Let these “beasts”, fight it out, to their heart’s content. Let them gouge each others eyes. BUT… there is a “but”, they do it in a designated private place, privately. If you just want to kill, why make it a show? And here’s one more rule. We want to minimize casualties even among beasts. So in that arena, no weapons. just bare naked bodies. Angry wolves don’t wear kevlars or wield machetes, why should they? Fight with your bare bodies, bare hands. Eventually, they’ll exhaust themselves, as wolves exhaust themselves.
Now if individuals, clerics, writers, or even nation-state leaders, preach violence to resolve issues instead of dialogue, THEN… let them be the first to enter the arena, mano-a-mano. By all means let them walk their talk. In a perverted way, let them lead violence by example so to speak. Let their evil bravura glow malevolently in their nakedness.
My point, if “beasts” demand an arena, let’s build it. Outside Earth. On the far side of the Moon. Earth is for human beings. We will learn the way of beast, so we can help them be not beasts eventually, but we will not cultivate the way of the beasts in our children. Let us give our children of the world a peaceful future.
Question: Going back, what’s the link between Jeremy (baseball homerun hero), Global Empire and and World Peace?
Peace because “all are under heaven”. I get it. Jeremy metaphorically represented humanity. Dreams, strengths and shortcomings. But what all the Jeremy’s (representing nation-state leaders) didn’t get, is that we got our home run. We got our global empire. It’s called The United Nations.
Now here’s the catch. To avoid the mistakes of a single-leader global empire model (remember Alexander the Great), our United Nations empire was structured to be governed by Councils. Not by a single-nation leader. But it seems, each of the powerful members of this council still thinks he’s “Jeremy, the lumbering 240 pound batter, who didn’t realize he hit a homerun (the achievement of a United Nations benevolent empire). That’s why the “Jeremy’s” stumble… fall… and frantically crawls back to first base (the failed single leader global empire model).
Anyway we got the first part right. United Nations. Let’s work to make it function right. “Many in body, one in mind”. Now, it’s still doing the opposite. “Many in body, many in mind”. We’re almost there.
What about the “beast” in all of us? Does it really want to kill or it just wants to compete? It is about “competition”. President Tsunesaburo Makiguchi rightly tracked its evolutionary path. From military competition, to ideological or philosophical competition, to economic competition, humankind competes. Single amoebas, emerging millions of years ago, the precursor of human life, never dreamt of nuking the planet. It just wants to live and enjoy Earth. (see Netflix Life series).
Since our “beasts” is still evolving, then we should make it veer towards humanitarian competition. Why? Guided, united, the competitive energy innate in us could help us go interstellar. Other civilizations got there. They can’t reach interstellar without unity. Logic dictates existential technology in a divided planet, in the wrong hands eventually obliterates that planet. Proof is our dire climate situation now.
Why did the single-great-leader model fail? Is a human being wired to fail? No, we’re not. Sakyamuni broke through and achieved Buddhahood. Nichiren Daishonin broke through. Many did. In fact, 80 million nayutas of Buddhas attended the Ceremony in the Air, and swore to re-emerge in our time called Mappo, as Bodhisattvas of the Earth. They are either here now or before us, as a compassionate Muslims, as compassionate Christians, as compassionate Jews, as compassionate Atheists, all genders and denominations too many to mention. But we have to unite. Many in body, one in mind.
Nichiren Daishonin, in his treatise The Opening of the Eyes gave an answer as to how great civilizations led by their leaders rise and fall. The three virtues approach. The virtue of Sovereign (to protect), the virtue of Parent (to nurture), the virtue of Teacher (to educate and guide). Previous empires, emperors crumble, because each (leader or their organizations) could only manifest one or two virtues. And not even sustain the practice. Alone, without the help of like-minded companions they fail. United, together, we could achieve breakthroughs. Each could become the most compassionate person one could ever be.
Why will the practice of the three virtues bring out the best in us? Because the practice of the three virtues, regardless of one’s faith, color, race or creed, for oneself and for others, are what enables one to become a Buddha, just as we are, in this lifetime.
So now… we’ve got the first part of the model right. One global empire. The United Nations Empire. The next part is tricky. One purchasing department for us all to “compete” for. What say you, Professor Hayes, Professor Gates, HBR, Google?
If Apple had failed then the same video would have been shown as reasons to be its failure. What matters is success and then world tries to understand how the success was achieved.
They teach this as well, it’s called successful strategy vs. successful outcome. I think it’s safe to say that in Apple they are correlated through causation.
Apple sucks. Harvard sucks