It's incredible how the author of this book is so biased; she is totally against P&G and her rage is obvious. One can easily deduct that she is using all her journal power to revenge of something. She quotes opinions of some employees who couldn't get a hold with their strong corporate culture and the few examples she gaves reflect the "truth" of 100,000+ employees worldwide. Where is the good side of the company? It is incredible how unfair this book is and how you can get the bad feeling of the author since the first page.

Since our life is short, one way to learn and to know more is reading other people's life and company's history. I find big firms building image, brand and products in order to get people's money. Therefore, they all have to protect image and recoup the investment. SO that is the ultimate goal, build the name, compete in the market, get the money, grow the business, make sure the numbers look great--if ends justify means, people and companies will keep doing this. It is no different from what famous people or politicians do . This shouldn't surprise anyone. We see it everyday but rarely that someone will actually write it down without getting sued. It would be interesting to read more about other big firms to see if they are the same.
I like the Chinese saying that, 'if you don't want people to know, just don't do it'.
It's a good reading,

I was a Proctoid for nearly 8 years and can personally confirm some of the stories Swasy relates.

The only weakness of the book is that she misses some of the dirt (the prostitution ring busted the same week as the drug ring at Sharon Woods Technical Center, for example) and some of the weaknesses of the company (low pay among technical people, driving out experienced people to bring in legions of temps with no loyalty to the company, and much more).

Procter isn't unique in its problems, but if they are not addressed honestly and in a timely fashion, in the long term, the company is in trouble. This 'elephant' does not dance, and they cannot go on buying good companies and running those brands into the ground while gutting research and innovation in-house.

Changing Focus could have been a compelling and dramatic story about the challenges still facing the Eastman Kodak Company. Sadly, it lacked focus, and more importantly, it was weak on drama.

Fiction or non-fiction, the story needs to be a 'page turner.' For example, the author glossed over the aborted attempt to move marketing headquarters from Rochester to D.C. The dramatic moment was a semi, drapped with a protest message by local merchants, parked in front of Kodak Headquarters during a board of directors meeting. The board freaked and the move was over in a Kodak moment. The author destroys CEO Kay Whitmore's financial judgement, but omitted an infamous memo by Jack Thomas, Whitmore's president, to all employees to reduce everything from postage stamps to toilet paper to achieve fourth quarter earnings. Wall Street howled and the stock went down with the stamps.

Without the real drama, Ms. Swasy dabbles in a variety of mundane opinions by employeees, insiders and the community. The Class of '93, a group of layoff victims, revisited often in the book, was not generally a sympathetic group. This is especially true of the Coutures, a yuppie couple impacted by layoffs, who sang, 'The world owes me a living,' throughout the book.

Swasy's biggest challenge is that the Kodak story is far from being complete. The battle with Fuji, the shift to digital, and the change in culture may one day yield a dramatic business case and drama. 'Changing Focus' is a blurred attempt, which falls short.