Desperately Seeking Synergy and Competing on Capabilities Reaction Paper
Desperately Seeking Synergy and Competing on Capabilities
Reaction paper
I.) I didn’t think that synergy was that much big of a deal until I read this article. I am one of those who assume that synergy exists, can be achieved, and will be beneficial, I didn’t really think about the downsides of synergy. When I read the article, it seems that it would be better if executives give more attention and evaluation to find real synergy opportunities. It’s good that the writer included in his article about the four managerial biases because it’s true that all too often, the managers are the ones being blamed for the failure of a synergy program, when the ones who really are to blame are the corporate executives themselves. These four biases will help corporate executives evaluate better the managers and themselves, be more aware of the situation, and be able to make more successful synergy programs. The process of sizing the prize is also a good addition to the article. Being more precise as to what needs to be done rather than generalizing all the goals tend to be more efficient and successful. It clarifies the real costs and benefits of a synergy program, as the writer stated, sizing the prize is the first and most important discipline in making sound decisions on synergy. Overarching goals should be disaggregated into discrete, well-defined benefits, and then each benefit should be subjected to hard-nosed financial analysis. Pinpointing the parenting opportunity will clear up the parenting bias. Corporate executives must know when and how to intervene in the management. The article conveniently stated the three relevant cases as to when intervention must take place to help the corporate executives. Then there is this bringing downsides to light which can clear up the synergy and upside bias. I think that in every action which anyone may undertake, being more familiar with the consequences and downsides of that action can help the individual evaluate that action
Reaction paper
I.) I didn’t think that synergy was that much big of a deal until I read this article. I am one of those who assume that synergy exists, can be achieved, and will be beneficial, I didn’t really think about the downsides of synergy. When I read the article, it seems that it would be better if executives give more attention and evaluation to find real synergy opportunities. It’s good that the writer included in his article about the four managerial biases because it’s true that all too often, the managers are the ones being blamed for the failure of a synergy program, when the ones who really are to blame are the corporate executives themselves. These four biases will help corporate executives evaluate better the managers and themselves, be more aware of the situation, and be able to make more successful synergy programs. The process of sizing the prize is also a good addition to the article. Being more precise as to what needs to be done rather than generalizing all the goals tend to be more efficient and successful. It clarifies the real costs and benefits of a synergy program, as the writer stated, sizing the prize is the first and most important discipline in making sound decisions on synergy. Overarching goals should be disaggregated into discrete, well-defined benefits, and then each benefit should be subjected to hard-nosed financial analysis. Pinpointing the parenting opportunity will clear up the parenting bias. Corporate executives must know when and how to intervene in the management. The article conveniently stated the three relevant cases as to when intervention must take place to help the corporate executives. Then there is this bringing downsides to light which can clear up the synergy and upside bias. I think that in every action which anyone may undertake, being more familiar with the consequences and downsides of that action can help the individual evaluate that action