PlanningPlanningAll too often in the business world managers are spending a majority of time fighting fires in their departments or areas of responsibility. The approach of many of these managers is reactive instead of proactive, and for many stepping back from a situation and planning an attack instead of jumping in immediately is difficult. The difference between these managers and more experienced and successful managers is the ability to see a bigger picture and more detailed perspective to an issue. This type of planning is something that everyone can develop through continual usage and learning but must be done with a firm belief in a strong ethical system. This is exactly the type of behavior Johnson & Johnson demands company-wide. It begins with a basic understanding of planning, continues through effective ethical standards and finishes with learning and further planning for the future.
The first step of any project is to decide to attack it but doing so without a plan can only lead to disaster. When starting to plan for any undertaking, it is best to remember the following: 1) The largest benefit of planning comes from the process itself. A manager needs to learn how to work with and listen to the team around him or her; 2) The truest fact a manager will obtain is that there is no perfect plan. Learning from the process and growing with the results is the best path to future success; 3) The planning process is a small-step process that builds on itself and may include everyone from the CEO to the person hired that day; 4) Things are never as bad as they seem or as good as one would like. Learn from what happens and grow accordingly; 5) Start simple, but start! The only true way to start on a path to success is to take the first step, no matter how scary it may seem. (McNamara n.d.).
The second biggest factor a manager needs to consider when undertaking a planning initiative, especially when he or she is just beginning to learn the ropes, is how the endeavor being undertaken will be viewed ethically. Ethics is simply learning what is right or wrong then doing the right thing for the company, society, and those within both. The problem lies in the fact that ethical situations are not the cut and dry type and need to be analyzed from many angles. One of the best examples of handling a touchy situation with superb ethical standards comes from Bob Kniffin, Vice President of External Affairs, at Johnson & Johnson Company. In 1982, seven people in Chicago died after taking extra-strength Tylenol, a leading pain-killer medicine, that had been laced with cyanide by an unknown offender. The tampering had occurred after the product had reached shelves. Tylenol took a major
reward from consumers, and many had to stop their lives, despite the fact that this medicine was safer than aspirin. The decision to give the medicine, that is, to people at risk of death in its absence, in 1982 to patients who were still suffering from similar symptoms of a similar ailment was a blow to the reputation of the company and the American public. A similar moral panic began to grow among physicians as more companies began to invest in developing more effective treatments for the drug’s deadly effects, resulting in the widespread use of Tylenol. In 1983, in response, Johnson and #038 became the first to give it to individuals under 19. One of these individuals was a young woman named Jennifer who was battling breast cancer. She had a stroke, but had recently been breast-feeding, and was undergoing an immunotherapy. In order to begin the trial she had to pay hospital bills. “The other, and most telling, problem was whether the doctors who treated Ms. Jennifer considered her, or they did not,” says Johnson Company. A week later, Ms. Jennifer met Dr. David Hochschild, a pediatric neurosurgeon. By then, there was a serious problem and Johnson decided to give the drug to both sexes under 18. At an earlier hearing, Ms. Jennifer complained of nausea and vomiting. It was just six months, not six months, before the doctors told Dr. Hochschild that she was sick too. They advised her not to go to bed until 3 a.m., but she did. In response, a representative of the Johnson & was set to present the company’s revised policy on treating breast cancer. Hochschild gave the company until September 8, 1983 to come up with its own specific guidelines for treatment of the disease. In March, 1983, The FDA accepted the guidelines and the doctor who treated Ms. Jennifer decided to go to the pediatric neurosurgeon for two days before her hearing before the Senate, where he could prescribe the drug to the adult patients to prevent her from sleeping. Dr. Hochschild recommended taking about eight capsules a day. The FDA considered the decision to take two capsules a day, as opposed to three, because it was considered that the drug’s anti-epileptic properties were already present. Hochschild told his patients that Ms. Jennifer should take no more than two capsules a day. They were not surprised when Dr. Hochschild stated “The only difference here is that the doctor is willing to prescribe this to Ms. Jennifer.” At the beginning of the course of the hearing, Senator Bob Dole of Arkansas began talking about his bill. Senator Dole also introduced the following bill which was introduced before the Senate on February 8, 1984 (see attached), sponsored by Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts. The plan was proposed at a hearing in March 1984 at the Consumer Protection Board in Washington D.C. Senator John Kennedy began by asking for an understanding of the problems with the proposed regulation and about how much of the new regulation would benefit women’s access to Tylenol and related products. Senator Lyndon Johnson of Massachusetts, who had met with Dr. Hochschild, said, “We agree. It may be better if this is a single dose for all women and men. That’s a sensible idea.” Kennedy continued by asking Kennedy, “When do you think people are going to stop taking this?” Kennedy responded, “I think I understand the fact, but I
reward from consumers, and many had to stop their lives, despite the fact that this medicine was safer than aspirin. The decision to give the medicine, that is, to people at risk of death in its absence, in 1982 to patients who were still suffering from similar symptoms of a similar ailment was a blow to the reputation of the company and the American public. A similar moral panic began to grow among physicians as more companies began to invest in developing more effective treatments for the drug’s deadly effects, resulting in the widespread use of Tylenol. In 1983, in response, Johnson and #038 became the first to give it to individuals under 19. One of these individuals was a young woman named Jennifer who was battling breast cancer. She had a stroke, but had recently been breast-feeding, and was undergoing an immunotherapy. In order to begin the trial she had to pay hospital bills. “The other, and most telling, problem was whether the doctors who treated Ms. Jennifer considered her, or they did not,” says Johnson Company. A week later, Ms. Jennifer met Dr. David Hochschild, a pediatric neurosurgeon. By then, there was a serious problem and Johnson decided to give the drug to both sexes under 18. At an earlier hearing, Ms. Jennifer complained of nausea and vomiting. It was just six months, not six months, before the doctors told Dr. Hochschild that she was sick too. They advised her not to go to bed until 3 a.m., but she did. In response, a representative of the Johnson & was set to present the company’s revised policy on treating breast cancer. Hochschild gave the company until September 8, 1983 to come up with its own specific guidelines for treatment of the disease. In March, 1983, The FDA accepted the guidelines and the doctor who treated Ms. Jennifer decided to go to the pediatric neurosurgeon for two days before her hearing before the Senate, where he could prescribe the drug to the adult patients to prevent her from sleeping. Dr. Hochschild recommended taking about eight capsules a day. The FDA considered the decision to take two capsules a day, as opposed to three, because it was considered that the drug’s anti-epileptic properties were already present. Hochschild told his patients that Ms. Jennifer should take no more than two capsules a day. They were not surprised when Dr. Hochschild stated “The only difference here is that the doctor is willing to prescribe this to Ms. Jennifer.” At the beginning of the course of the hearing, Senator Bob Dole of Arkansas began talking about his bill. Senator Dole also introduced the following bill which was introduced before the Senate on February 8, 1984 (see attached), sponsored by Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts. The plan was proposed at a hearing in March 1984 at the Consumer Protection Board in Washington D.C. Senator John Kennedy began by asking for an understanding of the problems with the proposed regulation and about how much of the new regulation would benefit women’s access to Tylenol and related products. Senator Lyndon Johnson of Massachusetts, who had met with Dr. Hochschild, said, “We agree. It may be better if this is a single dose for all women and men. That’s a sensible idea.” Kennedy continued by asking Kennedy, “When do you think people are going to stop taking this?” Kennedy responded, “I think I understand the fact, but I