MB 127
Kent Thiry and DaVita
1. A big question to consider in this case is whether top executives and particularly
CEOs determine the performance of organizations. As Yukl notes in Chapter 12,
there may be internal and external constraints on the ability of top management
to change organizations. What were the constraints on Kent Thiry?
2. Another argument for top managers not really determining success is that
we have a tendency to attribute success or failure to top executives because
we have an attributional bias that organizational success can be attributed
to a charismatic leader and failure is the fault of an inept leader. Was Kent
Thiry solely responsible for success at DaVita? Why might we think he was such
a strong factor in DaVita's performance?
3. Researchers studying changes in organizations over time argue that organizations
go through periods of reorientation and convergence. CEOs have the potential
to have a larger impact during periods of reorientation. Did the evolutionary
stage at DaVita have an influence on Kent Thiry's ability to lead and change
the organization?
4. Yukl discusses techniques leaders use to influence organizational performance
in Chapter 12. What techniques were used by Kent Thiry? How did Kent deal with
the external environment?
5. Consultants, when faced with making recommendations to successful organizations,
like to shake up the organization by saying "your biggest strengths are
your biggest weaknesses".
This
page last modified on
2/6/07