Corning Glass Works International has a nagging problem. Their subsidiaries act independently of one another and do not also act in a manner which is most beneficial for the firm. For one, they take significant time to resolve disputes. This time can cost money, especially if clients or potential clients become dissuaded from purchasing Corning resources. Also, they act independently to such an extent that sometimes 2 or more subsidiaries chase after the same potential client. Furthermore, Forrest Behm needs time for coordinating the international markets and the actions of the subsidiaries takes time from his ability to do this.
As a result, we need to make a change. Another leader needs to be selected to maintain a position parallel to Forrest Behm. At this point, this primary manager will need to select a change into his international pyramid. The changes also need to be done as diplomatically as possible and need to satisfy as many of the subsidiaries as possible in order to maintain a positive working environment. Therefore, it seems wise to take a member of each subsidiary to represent the opinions of each subsidiary. These "subsidiary managers" could meet monthly at a rotating location where they could express their views to "individual managers". These individual managers would be specialized in a given area. They would listen to the subsidiary managers and discuss their individual situations. The discussions would be limited to a one day (10 hours) discussion session in order to limit problems of continuous debate. Based on the discussions, each individual manager would recommend their analysis to the primary manager. The primary manager would have the ultimate say in all international matters, but his decision would be weighted on the advice of the individual managers.
The individual managers would include a manager for import and export efficiency in order to maximize firm import and export profits, foreign market disputes, firm structure (3 smaller managers would work under him, one for Europe, one for Asia, and one for Canada and Latin America), technology efficiency and transfer, and marketing. Simply put, the subsidiary managers would report to the individual managers who would report to the primary manager. Written job descriptions would also need to be handed out and written by Forrest Behm in order to specify his exact desires. This would be done only initially until the Behm was comfortable in how the managers were working.
This process would allow for all members to contribute their views and would also allow the firm to release firm policy changes.
In the vast world of glass, three artists have made a great impact on the way we see the medium as an art form. These three artists, Tapio Wirkkala , Gianni Toso, and Henry Halem have helped to pioneer new methods and ideas in this complex industry.
Cooper Industries has been expanding through diversification since 1996. Cooper’s requirements to acquire a company has three major components. The target company must be:
Outsiders wondered how each company’s internal changes would affect their endless competitive battle in the industry. The case illustrates how global competitiveness depends on the organizational capability, the difficulty of overcoming deeply rooted administrative heritage, and the limitations of both classic multinational and global models.
Similarly, in a case like this, divisions amongst leadership are also necessary in order to run an effective team. It would be near to impossible to prepare such a big group together at once under the oversight of one sole figure of authority. When I asked Craft about his thoughts on the division of leadership he responded with ,
Input is encouraged from everyone based on the idea that employees doing the work are directly responsible for the success of the company. Management has final decision-making authority on all matters.
The Company observes the practice of decentralization where the responsibility and authority in all decision-making for the divisions’ operations lie in its respective division managers, except those relating to overall company policy.
Corning is a decentralized company currently being plagued by both external and internal threats, such as market uncertainty and poor communication and planning systems. The company has just recently started to recover from a large layoff in 1975, which reduced worker job confidence. The Houghton family has a preference for an informal workplace with an ambiguous leadership style that contradicts the formal and strict resource allocation system designed for their international strategy. The current strategy being employed differs with the owner’s philosophy, which is important, since the President must buy into the plan to understand and communicate it effectively. This miscommunication creates goal incongruence, which is exemplified by the confusion of corporate divisions about whether they should be focusing on reducing cost or being an innovator. Also, each officer has been described as having work that overlaps, showing no focus and a lack of efficiency. The fact that each of the over 150 businesses groups have to write up a resource allocation request and business strategy creates the issue of finding time to read each report.
Each plant comprises a number of small; multi-skilled; flexible; collaborative and self-managed teams instead of functional departments with specialised functions (e.g. legal, finance or human resources etc as in a conventional system). These teams have the decision-making power over all plant-specific business functions including capital allocation, expenditures, strategic planning and plant design. This bottom-up decision making process emphasises the trust the company places in its employees and is very effective in decentralizing the power base, consequently, involving every employee in being responsible for the performance of the company not just the CEO.
The organization has had to ensure that it has retail stores in many countries globally and website options in more than 100 countries. The company further enhances access of online stores in more than 37 countries which is accessible all the time and people are able to access the services regardless of their location. Globalization further affects the organization in the sense of international market management which requires it to engage in strictly global decision making. The organization’s production networks have been geared to enhancing global competition (Lüsted, 2012) .The Company is further good when it comes to seizing the opportunities available in global market. For the organization to find efficient as well as cheap means of production, it has to bargain hard so as to allow its contractors to have low profits. This mostly is consequential to the suppliers cutting corners with the use of cheap
BR was sold to Delta Foods in 1996 for US $2 billion. At this time, it was one of the largest fast-food chains in the world generating sales of US $6.8 billion. DF purchase of BR brought in a new cultural paradigm. DF is an individualistic, aggressive growth company with brands they believe are strong enough to support entry into new overseas markets without the need for local partnership. The DF strategy is one of direct acquisition and JV’s were not part of their strong suit. DF strategic implementation is based on hiring local managers directly or transferring seasoned managers from their soft drink and snack food divisions. The DF disdain for JVs is clearly reflected by their participation in only those JVs where local partnering was mandatory (e.g. China) to overcome regulatory barriers to entry. JVs had been the predominant strategy for BR which was unlike the DF outlook. Terralumen’s strategy was misaligned and out of sync with the DF strategy. This was unlike the complementarity that existed with BR’s strategy. This misalignment began to affect the JV relationship that had worked well with BR in the initial years. The failure of Terralumen and DF to recognize this fundamental cultural difference between their operational strategy styles i.e. Individualistic and Collectivism leads to their inability to proactively create steps for better alignment in the early period after acquisition, creating uncertainties and difficulties for both corporations. There is a lack of communication and virtually absence of trust between two new partners. DF appeared to be flexing its muscles in the relationship and using a more masculine approach compared to Terralumen’s more feminine approach. Both the corporations are strategically involved in a complex situation where they appear reluctant to address the issues at stake and move ahead together. The DF strategy of
In my opinion, firms can minimize or manage the bumps, hurdles, or conflicts by setting up a meetings every time the firms needed to. Also by sharing the reports to minimize any risks and find a solution. Also by updating each firm by the other part activities will minimize the
The Foodcorp is a big organization of more than twenty thousand employees. The structure should help the organization achieved established goals and objectives. Therefore, the appropriate structural design is very crucial. The performance and the efficiency of the organization can be enhanced through specialization and appropriate division of labor. Foodcorp used a matrix structure but the management style of Foodcorp seemed to be a one boss arrangement. Information and decisions directly comes from the top. As we can see from the chart, group members report and communicate primarily with president. In my opinion, this style will work best in a simple organization, but not for a big organization like Foodcorp. If it relies too much on the president, the employees might face with many problems such as delays and bad decisions. Finally, Foodcorp may suffer from its structure. In my ...
Access to resource - One of the reasons to collaborate is to take advantage of resources. For example, an inter-company collaborates to place a product in the market where one compa...
Ensign PC 2004, ‘A resource based view of interrelationships among organizational groups in the diversified firms’, Strategic Change, Vol. 13. pp. 125-137.
Organizational structure within an organization is a critical component of the day to day operations of a business. An organization benefits from organizational structure as a result of all it encompasses. It is used to define how tasks are divided, grouped and coordinated. Six elements should be addressed during the design of the organization’s structure: work specialization, departmentalization, chain of command, spans of control, centralization and decentralization. These components are a direct reflection of the organization’s culture, power and politics.