AN ASSIGNMENT

ON

ASIAN MANAGEMENT THINKER

PREPARED BY :- SUBMITTED TO:-

RAVAL CHANDRASHEKHAR R DR. RAJESH BHATT

CONTENT
1. BIOGRAPHY

2. EARLY WORK AND CONTRIBUTION TO FIELD

3. LEARNING

4. BOOKS

5. ARTICLES

6. REFERENCES

BIOGRAPHY:-
 September 26, 1948
Born
Kolkata, India
March 3, 2004
Died
Hampstead, United Kingdom
Nationality Indian
Fields Management
Harvard Business School
MIT Sloan School of Management
Alma mater
Indian Institute of Social Welfare and
Business Management

 Sumantra Ghoshal was born in Kolkata in 1948. After a Bsc in

physics at Delhi University and a period at Indian Oil, he was
awarded a Fulbright Fellowship in 1981

 Ghoshal graduated from Delhi University with Physics major and at

the Indian Institute of Social Welfare and Business Management and
worked for Indian Oil Corporation, rising through the management
ranks before moving to the United States on a Fulbright Fellowship in
1981.

 Sumantra Ghoshal was the founding Dean of the Indian School of

Business in Hyderabad, which is jointly sponsored by the Kellogg
School at Northwestern University and the London Business School..

 Ghoshal was awarded an S.M. and a Ph.D. from the MIT Sloan
School of Management in 1983 and 1985 respectively, and was also
awarded a D.B.A. degree from Harvard Business School in 1986. In
1985, he joined INSEAD Business School in France and wrote a
stream of influential articles and books.
  In 1994, he joined the London Business School. Ghoshal was a
Fellow of the Advanced Institute of Management Research (AIM) in
the U.K and a Professor of Strategic and International Management at
the London Business School. He served as a member of The
Committee of Overseers of the Harvard Business School..

 Ghoshal’s research focuses on strategic, organizational and

managerial issues confronting large, global.

SUMANTRA GHOSAL’S EARLY WORK AND CONTRIBUTION TO

THE MANAGEMENT FIELD:-
 Ghoshal's early work focused on the matrix structure in multinational
organizations, and the "conflict and confusion" that reporting along both
geographical and functional lines created. His later work is more ambitious, and
hence perhaps more important - the idea that it is necessary to halt economics
from taking over management. This, he theorised, is important since firms do
not play on the periphery of human life today, but have taken a central role.

 His treatment of management issues at the level of the individual led

him to conclude that management theory that focuses on the economic aspects
of man to the exclusion of all others is incorrect at best. According to him, "A
theory that assumes that managers cannot be relied upon by shareholders can
make managers less reliable."

 Such theory, he warned, would become a self-fulfilling prophecy, a

particularly stinging critique of the output of a majority of his colleagues in
Business Schools that made him controversial. To his death, his fight was
against the "narrow idea" that led to today's management theory being
"undersocialised and one-dimensional, a parody of the human condition more
appropriate to a prison or a madhouse than an institution which should be a
force for good."

 In co-operation with Christopher Bartlett, Ghoshal researched

successful enterprises on international markets. They found three types of
internationalization, differing in structural approach and strategic capabilities.
The types were dubbed Multinational, Global and International.

• Ghosal categorizing existing firms into three forms: companies

 I. The multinational or multi-domestic enterprise, as exemplified by
Unilever or Philips, whose strength lies in a high degree of local
responsiveness. It is a decentralized federation of local firms linked
together by a web of personal controls (expatriates from the home
country firm occupying key positions abroad)

II. The global enterprise, such as Ford and Matsushita, whose strengths
are scale efficiencies and cost advantages. Global scale facilities,
often centralized in the home country, produce standardized
products, while overseas operations are considered as delivery
pipelines to tap into global market opportunities. There is tight
control of strategic decisions, resources and information by the
global hub

III. The international enterprise whose strength is its ability to transfer

knowledge and expertise to less advanced overseas environments. It
is a coordinated federation of local firms, controlled by sophisticated
management systems and corporate staff. The attitude of the parent
company tends to be parochial, fostered by the superior know-how
at the center.
 Multinational International
Global Enterprise
Enterprise Enterprise

Strategic
responsiveness efficiency transfer of learning
competency

tightly centralized
Somewhere in
enterprise; national
lose federations of between
subsidiaries
enterprises; national multinational and
primarily seen as
Structures subsidiaries solve all global enterprises;
distribution centres;
operative tasks and some strategic areas
all strategic and
some strategical. centralized, some
many operative
decentralized
decisions centralized

Samples Unilever, ITT Exxon, Toyota IBM, Ericsson

 Due to an ever faster changing environment, Bartlett and Ghoshal see a

further need for adaptation with a drive toward a company, that masters
not one, but all three of the strategic capabilities of the named types. The
ideal-type thus created, they dubbed the transnational enterprise.
THEORY ABOUT MATRIX MANAGEMENT:-

 As companies struggled with these changing environmental realities,

many fell into one of two traps—one strategic, one structural.
 The strategic trap was to implement simple, static solutions to complex
and dynamic problems. The bait was often a consultant’s siren song
promising to simplify or at least minimize complexity and discontinuity.
Despite the new demands of overlapping industry boundaries and greatly
altered value-added chains, managers were promised success if they
would “stick to their knitting.” In a swiftly changing international
political economy, they were urged to rein in dispersed overseas
operations and focus on the triad markets, and in an increasingly intricate
and sophisticated competitive environment, they were encouraged to
choose between alternative generic strategies—low cost or
differentiation.
 Yet the strategic reality for most companies was that both their business
and their environment really were more complex, while the proposed
solutions were often simple, even simplistic. The traditional telephone
company that stuck to its knitting was trampled by competitors who
redefined their strategies in response to new technologies linking
telecommunications, computers, and office equipment into a single
integrated system.
 The packaged-goods company that concentrated on the triad markets
quickly discovered that Europe, Japan, and the United States were the
epicenters of global competitive activity, with higher risks and slimmer
profits than more protected and less competitive markets such as
Australia, Turkey, and Brazil.
 The consumer electronics company that adopted an either-or generic
strategy found itself facing competitors able to develop cost and
differentiation capabilities at the same time.
 In recent years, as more and more managers recognized
oversimplification as a strategic trap, they began to accept the need to
manage complexity rather than seek to minimize it.
 This realization, however, led many into an equally threatening
organizational trap when they concluded that the best response to
increasingly complex strategic requirements was increasingly complex
organizational structures.
 The obvious organizational solution to strategies that required multiple,
simultaneous management capabilities was the matrix structure that
became so fashionable in the late 1970s and the early 1980s.
 Its parallel reporting relation-ships acknowledged the diverse,
conflicting needs of functional, product, and geographic management
groups and provided a formal mechanism for resolving them. Its multiple
information channels allowed the organization to capture and analyze
external complexity. And its overlapping responsibilities were designed
to combat parochialism and build flexibility into the company’s response
to change.
 In practice, however, the matrix proved all but unmanageable—
especially in an international context.
 Dual reporting led to conflict and confusion; the proliferation of channels
created informational logjams as a proliferation of committees and
reports bogged down the organization; and overlapping responsibilities
produced turf battles and a loss of accountability. Separated by barriers of
distance, language, time, and culture, managers found it virtually
impossible to clarify the confusion and resolve the conflicts.
 In hindsight, the strategic and structural traps seem simple enough to
avoid, so one has to wonder why so many experienced general managers
have fallen into them. Much of the answer lies in the way we have
traditionally thought about the general manager’s role.
 As the competitive climate grows less stable and less predictable, it is
harder for one person alone to succeed in that great visionary role.
Similarly, as formal, hierarchical structure gives way to networks of
personal relationships that work through informal, horizontal
communication channels, the image of top management in an isolated
corner office moving boxes and lines on an organization chart becomes
increasingly anachronistic.
 Top-level managers in many of today’s leading corporations are losing
control of their companies.
 The problem is not that they have misjudged the demands created by an
increasingly complex environment and an accelerating rate of
environmental change, nor even that they have failed to develop
strategies appropriate to the new challenges.
 The problem is that their companies are organizationally incapable of
carrying out the sophisticated strategies they have developed.

 Over the past 20 years, strategic thinking has far outdistanced
organizational capabilities.
 The strategic trap was to implement simple, static solutions to complex
and dynamic problems. The bait was often a consultant’s siren song
promising to simplify or at least minimize complexity and discontinuity.
 The obvious organizational solution to strategies that required multiple,
simultaneous management capabilities was the matrix structure that
became so fashionable in the late 1970s and the early 1980s.
 Its parallel reporting relation-ships acknowledged the diverse, conflicting
needs of functional, product, and geographic management groups and
provided a formal mechanism for resolving them.
 Its multiple information channels allowed the organization to capture and
analyze external complexity. And its overlapping responsibilities were
designed to combat parochialism and build flexibility into the company’s
response to change
LEARNING:-

 While Managing Across Borders focused on broader issues facing the

MNCs, The Individualized Corporation stressed the importance of human
issues in companies.

 In Managing Radical Change, Ghoshal studied the critical elements

required by organizations to achieve major improvements in their
performance as well as adapt themselves to the rapidly changing business
environment

 His original thinking in management disciplines, such as corporate

strategy and globalization, made him one of the most popular figures in
global business and the academic community, which witnessed the
arrival and quick departure of several management thinkers.

 Using a Purpose – People – Process model, Ghoshal urges firms to

develop self-renewal abilities. “You cannot renew a company without
revitalizing its people. Yet you cannot teach an old dog new tricks. But
what you can do, is to change the smell of the place.” Adults don’t
change basic attitudes unless they en-counter personal tragedy. Events at
work rarely make such an impact. To revitalize people, companies must
change the context of what they create around people.

 Successful enterprises often overlook the need to revitalize. “Satisfactory

under-performance is a far greater problem than a crisis,” he says . .
BOOKS :-

Sumantra Ghoshal published 10 books..

 The Differential Network: Organizing the Multinational Corporation

for Value Creation, a book he co-authored with Nitin Nohria, won the
George Terry Book Award in 1997.

 The Individualized Corporation:A Fundamentally New Approach to

Management, co-authored with Christopher Bartlett, won the Igor
Ansoff Award in 1997, and has been translated into seven languages.

 Managing Radical Change, won the Management Book of the Year

award in India. He was described by The Economist as 'Euroguru'.

 Managing Across Borders: The Transnational Solution, a book he co-

authored with Christopher Bartlett, has been listed in the Financial
Times as one of the 50 most influential management books and has
been translated into nine languages.

 The Strategy Process: Concepts, Contexts, Cases : Global by Henry

Mintzberg, Joseph Lampel, James Brian Quinn, and Sumantra
Ghoshal, 2002.

 The Differentiated Network : Organizing Multinational Corporations

for Value Creation (The Jossey-Bass Business & Management Series)
by Nitin Nohria and Sumantra Ghoshal .

 Sumantra Ghoshal on Management : A Force for Good by Julian

Birkinshaw and Gita Piramal.
ARTICLES:-

 "Beyond Self-Interest Revisited" by Hector Rocha and Sumantra

Ghoshal, Journal of Management Studies, 2006 Vol. 43, No. 3, pp.
585-619
 "Bad Management Theories are Destroying Good Management
Practices" by Sumantra Ghoshal, Academy of Management
Learning and Education, 2005 Vol. 4 Issue 1, pp.75-91
 "Unleashing Organisational Energy" by Heike Bruch and
Sumantra Ghoshal, MIT Sloan Management Review, Fall 2003
Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 45–51
 "What is a Global Manager" by Christoper A. Barlett and
Sumantra Ghoshal, Harvard Business Review, 2003
Aug;81(8):101-108, 141
 "Managing Personal Human Capital" by Lynda Gratton and
Sumantra Ghoshal, European Management Journal, 2003 vo. 21,
No. 1, pp. 1-10
 "Beware the Busy Manager" by Heike Bruch and Sumantra
Ghoshal, Harvard Business Review, 2002, vol. 80, No. 2, pp. 62-
69
 "Strategy as a Guided Evolution" by Bjorn Lovas and Sumantra
Ghoshal, Strategic Management Journal, 2000, vol. 21, No. 9, pp.
875-896
 "Management Competence, Firm Growth and Economic Progress"
by Sumantra Ghoshal, M Hahn and Peter Moran, Contributions to
Political Economy, Vol. 18, pp. 121-150, 1999
 "Markets, Firms, and the Process of Economic Development" by
Peter Moran and Sumantra Ghoshal, The Academy of
Management Review, 1999, Vol. 24, No. 3, 390-412
 "Social Capital and Value Creation: The Role of Intrafirm
Networks" by Wenpin Tsai and Sumantra Ghoshal, The Academy
of Management Journal, 1998 Vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 464-476
 "Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizational
advantage" by Janine Nahapiet and Sumantra Ghoshal, Academy
of Management Review, 1998 23(2): 242-266
 "Theories of Economic Organisation: The Case for Realism and
Balance" by Peter Moran and Sumantra Ghoshal, The Academy of
Management Review, 1996, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 58-72
 "Bad For Practice: A Critique of the Transaction Cost Theory" by
Sumantra Ghoshal and Peter Moran, The Academy of
Management Review, 1996 Vol. 21, No. 1, pp.13-47
 "Building the Entrepreneurial Corporation: New Organisational
Processes, New Managerial Tasks" by Sumantra Ghoshal and
Christopher A. Barlett, European Management Journal, 1995 Vol.
13 No.2, pp.139-55
 "Differentiated Fit and Shared Values: Alternatives for Managing
Headquarters-Subsidiary Relations" by Nitin Nohria and Sumantra
Ghoshal, Strategic Management Journal, 1994, Vol. 15, No. 6, pp.
491-502
 "Interunit Communication in Multinational Corporations" by
Sumantra Ghoshal, Harry Korine and Gabriel Szulanski,
Management Science, Vol. 40, No. 1, January 1994, pp. 96-110

 "Beyond the M-form: Toward a Managerial Theory of the Firm"

by Christopher A. Barlett and Sumantra Ghoshal, Strategic
Management Journal, 1993 No. 14, Winter, pp. 23-46
 "Matrix Management: Not a Structure, a Frame of Mind" by
Christopher A. Barlett and Sumantra Ghoshal, Harvard Business
Review, 1990 Jul-Aug; 68(4): 138-145
 "Environmental Scanning in Korean Firms: Organisational
Isomorphism in Action" by Sumantra Ghoshal, Journal of
International Business Studies, 1988 Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 69-86
 "Creation, Adoption, and Diffusion of Innovations by Subsidiaries
of Multinational Corporations" by Sumantra Ghoshal and
Christopher A. Barlett, Journal of International Business Studies,
1988 Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 365-388
REFERENCES:-

 http://www.google.com
 http://www.wikipedia.com
 http://www.grin.com/e-book/20527/essay-about-christopher-a-bartlett-
sumantra-ghoshal-managing-across
 http://www.grin.com/e-book/20527/essay-about-christopher-a-bartlett-
sumantra-ghoshal-managing-across
 http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/search/article/410304/uk-gurus-
sumantra-ghoshal/
 http://www.centrostudilogos.com/news_ita/upload/uploads/Bad
%20management%20theories.pdf
 http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/w/p/wpt1/Social%20capital%20and
%20value%20creation%20The%20role%20of%20intrafirm
%20networks.pdf
 http://www.imh.unisg.ch/org/imh/web.nsf/c2d5250e0954edd3c12568e40
027f306/eae8ab48868be644c1256cf4002d3a7f/$FILE/bruch_goshal.pdf
 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science
 http://www.amazon.com/Sumantra-Ghoshal-Management-Force-
Good/dp/0273701835
 http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Sumantra_Ghoshal
 http://journals.aomonline.org/amj/editorials/Rynes.Ghoshal.2007.pdf