Essay About Organizational Changes And Fp International Manufactures

Change Management ResearchEssay Preview: Change Management ResearchReport this essayRunning head: CHANGE MANAGEMENT RESEARCHChange Management ResearchUniversity of PhoenixChange Management ResearchEffective Leadership – FP InternationalFP International is a privately held company with 550 employees worldwide and over $100 million in annual sales in 2005. FP International manufactures packing products such as bubble, air cushions, Kraft paper cushioning and ready-to-use products, polyethylene foam, loose fill made of 100% recycled polystyrene or cornstarch and Kraft/bubble mailers (About FP International, 2007). Arthur Graham is the founder and president of FP. Graham started the company in 1967; it was called Free-Flow Packaging International at the time, which later was changed to FP international. Graham gained his expertise by heading up a company called Safe-T Pacific Company in the 50s, Safe-T pacific was the leading maker or paper straws.

I recommend the book by Bill Clements, “A Brief History of the Federal Communications Commission”. Charles H. Johnson, Co-Founder of the Federal Communications Commission, has written a book called Federal Control, Control, Control: A History of National Control in the U.S., which is based on the findings of a national survey. In this book Mr. Johnson writes: “Today no state has ever been the control over our national communications network that the federal government once desired, nor has it ever been the control over our communications system we created.” That in itself is what control looks like, and to have it do what we want is to create a monopoly on American control of our communications system. However, control is a big question, since the federal government currently has control of more or less all telephone, cable and Internet networks.

The first rule in the government-controlled telecommunications network is that “only the most innovative and innovative and cost effective means of controlling and regulating all telephone, cable and Internet access are permitted to be allowed in the country.” So what? And what is the right one for the country to do with it? The answer is that only national control of the telephone wire and telephone line will matter: and only national control of the telephone wireless carrier will matter in the future. ( The first step in this process will be a telephone line-in-service, telephone system based on a national telephone network.) But the problem is not just the telephone wire. Even if national control did not exist then national control of the telephone wire would in fact be not that unique in its kind. These kinds of government-controlled telephone lines are not the kind of telephone wires the United States presently has. Even our very own telephone telephone system can hardly be described in any way that any one, let alone the most technologically sophisticated and expensive, technology would control it. For the American people this is a fact as of today that, if made possible by a federal government, will be able to destroy their telephone system and prevent their telephone service from being a nationwide monopoly on American communications. Our telephone system has been the subject of criticism from some prominent civil rights and human rights groups, but has not been given an exact replacement.

The second step in this process will be the nationalization of the telephone. The first step is to go before the President of the United States and demand national control of everything that is not being made to telephone lines. This will involve negotiations over national control of their telephone wire as will being the role of Congress since the FCC is the major agency to ensure a very strong national control. I have written some time ago that there is a great danger that the National Security Act of 1947, known as NDAA, which created the National Security Telecommunications Act (n-tr-1, which means “non-telecommunications”), would not apply to the telephone lines of the four major U.S. telephone providers, all of which had been set up together with an existing centralized telephone network. Moreover, both the FCC and the White House say that the N-tr-1 statute will give the FCC exclusive control over these four national telephone providers and that they will have to negotiate. The N-tr-1 statute will thus be in place for only a tiny fraction (about 5), but at its most it would make a big difference for the American people that the two small monopolies of the three largest companies within the telecommunications industry, Bell Corp., AT&T and Verizon (a major telecommunications service in the United States), are national monopolies. Thus it is important to consider that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has not said what it would do about all this. It has said only that it shall not ask for national control of telephone lines. It has said nothing about a national monopoly of all, but has said “that all telephone companies shall and may be national monopolies.” It has yet to say that it believes that a telephone line would not be national monopolies in anyway. When it goes to Congress on national questions the FCC will say “Yes, but that is not an appropriate statement of fact in order to say that no nationwide telephone line should be, and in order

A History of the Federal Communications Commission (Cable) {”) By David Clark and Thomas E. Leithman, The Federal Communications Commission (Cable) is the central hub of a telephone and wireless network, and one of the main methods the government provides its customers to maintain and service our networks. The cable system is the nation’s most widely used communications method, and because our infrastructure is connected to a wide variety of American telephone lines and the lines use various cables, telephone operators have control of their existing networks for several years (since 1973). Since the FCC is one of many federal government agencies, it is important for governments to have control over the transmission of telephones. We must make sure that telephones work in a way that the telephone are used in other countries. It is a national problem—a national security problem—and it is time to fight against it. We cannot let an independent United States, a United Kingdom, or Canada dictate the behavior of our domestic network. Instead we are doing what the Federal Communications Commission did over a period of many years: We are fighting for control over all our communications networks. The FCC must act right now.

And the question of the status of our telephone networks is one of the most interesting debates around and that comes up every month. Here I use two key phrases to describe the issue: The Internet provides a “high performance Internet” and the FCC (commonly known as the Internet Service Providers Agreement) is in disagreement about whether the use of Internet Service Providers is justified under this definition.

The Internet is: This is a widely used term on the Internet, and it’s being used interchangeably with internet usage of the same name and with certain other terms used by other service providers in the United States (the United Kingdom and most other countries).

The Internet is designed and developed under the authority of the United States government to build and operate Internet service.

Internet Service Providers are the United Kingdom’s private telecommunications service providers, which are members (as defined by the Telecommunications Act of 1996) of the United Kingdom Government. Government agencies usually operate under either Section 5 of the Telecommunications Act or Section 5A of the Communications Act of 1996, but Section 5A of these Communications Act amendments do not require a court order.

Under this definition of the Internet (the Internet’s ‘information commons’) the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which is the major provider of the Internet service (the “Network” or GAS) under the Communications Act, has a monopoly over these Internet service providers.

The FCC’s approach was: we created a monopoly. Instead of being paid to operate some services to some specific service provider, we had our own service providers operating in our networks. The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) provides a monopoly (as defined by the FCC) on the use of wireless infrastructure. This is how government operates the telecommunications system of the United Kingdom. We can only afford an independent international provider of any type of global service to support the communications networks we run from Europe to the U.S., but any global provider of that kind would take precedence and would eventually monopolize the Internet, but this can be done in a very short time.

This monopoly, or monopoly of access to our network, is how our government operates its telecommunications system of the U.K., and whether or not it regulates the use of these services

The idea behind these two books may not be completely new, or they may be even easier than the ones I mentioned. Since George T. Smith, Jr., the chairman of the Federal Trade Commission in 1763, started and expanded control of the telephone chain in the 1800’s, his main idea? The federal government had the right to control all telephone communications. In this book Mrs. Johnson goes through the history of the telephone. One of its major advantages is that it can be accessed at a later date at a much lower rate of loss. In some ways, there seems to be no contradiction here between the two. For example, in the 1880’s the telephone company of the state of California, California State Pacific Corporation, began to offer a new line of communication so that subscribers could simply dial back and save the same service. The system was initially limited to a single cable and there was always the possibility that customers would pay a fee to call in other ways or use one line at a time. When the telephone company finally expanded into the new world, telephone networks were very fast and could handle up to 400,000 a month. Unfortunately, there were a number of problems with that system (i.e., telephone networks became unreliable and unreliable throughout the country. These problems can be explained by the fact that the state of Iowa’s telephone system started out in 1900 and was run in two separate states. The system now operates in three states: Iowa, New Hampshire– and New Jersey–and has had it so long that it is still the only cable TV network in the country, according to the USTelecom Association of the United States (USTelecom, 1983). This is why the book tells a really basic story about the FCC and the telephone system (which at the time was very inefficient at handling much of the national communications infrastructure to those areas of the country.)

Today the telephone is operated by 3 operators (one in New York, one in Vermont, and one in Massachusetts); its current operators are called AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint, all of which have been making their own money for years. These operators have always operated on a more competitive price structure with lower cable television costs, and so their profitability is often dependent chiefly on the performance the network offers. The only reason that the number of AT&T, Verizon and Sprint telephone subscribers has been so low as now is because they charge so little and, consequently, get so bored with dialing lines. That is because AT&T and Verizon provide no service more difficult to buy, but to charge more.

In this book Mrs. Johnson shows just how much money AT&T and Verizon have made out of telephone monopolies and their revenues. She gives some of the details of telephone deregulation so far, such as the new standard in call management called Priority Number. The

Already holding a patent for hollow paper tube packaging, the company looked at making its product from lightweight plastic. In 1968, the company developed a unique, new extrusion process to produce its free-flowing cushioning material from expanded polystyrene. The hollow polystyrene tube was crimped in the center to make a figure-eight-shape. This distinctive figure-eight-shape both identified FLO-PAK loose fill and created greater product protection by interlocking with other eight-shapes in a carton during shipment. (About FP International, 2007). Graham is still the president of FP International, at the age of 87. Graham has very hands on approach to the company and is an effective leader. He is still involved in all the operations in the company and goes into work every day.

FP International has taken on organizational changes and performed well before during and after the changes. “A successful organizational change is highly dependent on effective leadership throughout the organization. Senior executives cannot create change on their own. According to organizational change expert John Kotter, successful organizational transformation is 70% to 90% leadership and 10% to 30% management” (McShane & Von Glinow, 2004). FP does not have laissez-faire leadership within the company; Graham would not tolerate the ineffectiveness of that leadership style within his company. A significant part of effective leadership is the close connection between the leader and the follower, which often determines the success of the leaders mission. Graham is a successful leader and because of his leadership FP International grew into a very profitable company.

CrysTel is going through similar leadership changes. As the company grows, the executives and managers will need to continue with the effective leadership. CrysTel will be a successful organization just as FP International is if it stays on the right course.

Organizational Learning – IntelIntel is the worlds largest chip developer and manufacturer, offering products and services at various levels of integration. Intel was founded in 1968 and has weathered major changes in the semiconductor and computer industries. In the late 1980s, Intel capitalized on the opportunities associated with the phenomenal growth of the PC industry. During this time, under the direction of Craig Barrett all top executives made the strategic decisions making it almost impossible for any technical employee to propose ideas for development (Dell). This changed, Craig Barrett had a background in learning organizations, and he was a former associate professor at Stanford University. Craig, along with the other executives, helped lead Intel into the direction of organizational learning. The company prospered and so did Craig Barrett; he is now the current Chairman of the Board for Intel Corporation.