Gino and Pisano Literature Review

Gino and Pisano Literature Review

Table of Contents

Order ID# 45178248544XXTG457	Plagiarism Level: 0-0.5%	Writer Classification: PhD competent
Style: APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago	Delivery: Minimum 3 Hours	Revision: Permitted
Sources: 4-6	Course Level: Masters/University College	Guarantee Status: 96-99%

Instructions

Gino and Pisano Literature Review

Gino, Pisano, Literature, Review

Failures get a postmortem. Why not triumphs? by Francesca Gino and Gary P. Pisano

Failure Understand It

Why Leaders Don’t Learn from Success

68 Harvard Business Review April 2011

1038 Apr11 Gino.indd 681038 Apr11 Gino.indd 68 2/25/11 4:55:33 PM2/25/11 4:55:33 PM

T Francesca Gino ([email protected] hbs.edu) is an associate professor of business administration at Harvard Business School.

Gary P. Pisano ([email protected] hbs.edu) is the Harry E. Figgie, Jr., Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School.

an organization with a long history of winning: the Ducati Corse motorcycle racing team. Motorcycle racing may seem a long way from the world of business, but in fact it provides a perfect laboratory for research on learning. Performance is unambiguously measurable by lap times and race results.

You know with brutal precision whether you’re getting better or worse. Racing is also unforgiving. The race is Sun- day, and it won’t wait if you’re late. Finally, the racing circuit is intensely competitive: During a season a dozen world-class teams battle each week for the top spot. For an organization like Italy’s Ducati, wins have a huge impact on brand equity and commercial bike sales.

In 2003, Bologna-based Ducati entered the Grand Prix motorcycle racing circuit (or “MotoGP”) for the first time. Being a newcomer, it approached 2003 as

“a learning season,” its team director told us. The goal was to acquire knowledge that would help it develop a better bike for future seasons. To that end, the team fitted its bikes with sensors that captured data on 28 performance parameters (such as temperature and horsepower). Riders were debriefed after every race to get input on subjective characteristics like handling and responsiveness. The team looked like a model learning organization.

Then something unexpected happened: The rookie team finished among the top three in nine races and was second overall for the season, and its bike was the fastest in the field. But with each success the team focused more on winning and less on learning, and it ended up analyzing little of the data it collected. As one team member commented,

“You look at the data when you want to understand what’s going wrong. You do not look at the data be- cause you want to understand why you’re performing well.”

The successful season caused the team members to believe Ducati could win it all in 2004. After all, if they could finish second as rookies, why shouldn’t they take first now that they had some experience?

THE ANNALS of business history are full of tales of companies that once dominated their industries but fell into decline. The usual reasons offered staying too close to existing customers, a myopic focus on short-term financial performance, and an inability to adapt business models to disruptive innovation don’t fully explain how the leaders who had steered these firms to greatness lost their touch.

In this article we argue that success can breed failure by hindering learning at both the individual and the organizational level. We all know that learning from failure is one of the most important capacities for people and companies to develop. Yet surprisingly, learning from success can present even greater challenges.

To illuminate those challenges and identify approaches for overcoming them we will draw from our research and from the work of other scholars in the field of behavioral decision making, and focus on three interrelated impediments to learning.

The first is the inclination to make what psychologists call fundamental attribution errors. When we succeed, we’re likely to conclude that our talents and our current model or strategy are the reasons. We also give short shrift to the part that environmental factors and random events may have played.

The second impediment is overconfidence bias: Success increases our self-assurance. Faith in our- selves is a good thing, of course, but too much of it can make us believe we don’t need to change anything.

The third impediment is the failure-to-ask-why syndrome the tendency not to investigate the causes of good performance systematically. When executives and their teams suffer from this syndrome, they don’t ask the tough questions that would help them expand their knowledge or alter their assumptions about how the world works.

Lessons from Ducati We began to examine the challenges of learning from success in 2004, when we did a case study of ILL

1038 Apr11 Gino.indd 691038 Apr11 Gino.indd 69 2/25/11 4:55:43 PM2/25/11 4:55:43 PM

This confidence manifested itself in the decision to radically redesign the team’s bike for the 2004 season rather than incrementally improve the 2003 model.

More than 60% of the 2004 model’s 915 components were new. But at the outset of that season, it became apparent that the bike had serious handling problems and that the team had made a big mistake in changing so much at once without giving itself the time to test everything.

Gino and Pisano Literature Review

RUBRIC
Excellent Quality 95-100%	Introduction 45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.		Literature Support 91-84  points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.			Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score 50-85%	40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.		83-76  points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.			52-49  points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality 0-45%	37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.		75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.			48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow Gino and Pisano Literature Review

Gino and Pisano Literature Review

PLACE THE ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!