Leading ChangeEssay Preview: Leading ChangeReport this essayCorporate Structure and Culture Description: Good SportGood Sports overall corporate structure is a rather formal and hierarchical one, with each department nearly insulated from the others in their culture. The segregation of each department in the daily activities allows each one to take on its own character, which develops into the assumptions, beliefs, and behavioral expectations that McShane & Von Glinow (2005) discuss in their definition of Organizational Culture.
This is best seen in the difference between sections one and two of the simulation. Section one deals with the Sales Department, known to have a relatively informal culture, as well as being supportive of those individuals that promote their ideas. They work in a relationship-focused business segment where they must prove the companys focus on the customers needs. Because of the need for them to build relationships in order to succeed in meeting their sales goals, they tend to work at building relationships that serve their own needs while serving the needs of others. Since “the customer is king” with this group and since everyone would prefer to do business with a friend (Gitomer, 2006, inside cover), the focus for all of their activities remains on the needs of the customer, and everything they do must serve to develop their relationship with that customer. This is described in the simple term presented by Maio (1995) in the form of “WIFM,” or “whats in it for me?” Each action considered by members of the Sales department must answer the customers question of “whats in it for me?” This continues outside of their customer interaction and manifests itself in their informal out-of-office meetings, which help them develop their relationships within the department and with networking contacts, which help these relationship-driven individuals to constantly answer this question as it is presented by those with whom they interact. They also respect the opinions of corporate icons in the organization, which is based in their desire to develop personal relationships that serve their needs. Based on this understanding, it would be fruitful to be able to develop a relationship with the employees in the Sales department. Rather than relying on the promise of future support as a source of reward power (McShane & Von Glinow, 2004, p 361), which may or may not materialize in the future, another option would be to engage the peer-level manager of the Sales department and their direct reports in a manner that initiates and develops a functional relationship. At this point, the concept of referent power (McShane & Von Glinow, 2004, p362) dominates. Because this relationship-based culture is highly regarded in the Sales department, this soft technique of gaining trust and admiration from the members of the Sales department will enhance their trust in the fact that the goals of the R&D department are in line with their own. Specifically, they are interested in providing what the customer wants, and if the representative from the R&D department has demonstrated that their goal is to develop what the customer wants, the job of the Sales department is made that much easier. The WIFM concept is not limited to what they can offer to others; the members of the Sales department are interested in furthering their own agenda.
In contrast, section two deals with the Production department, which is much more formal in their relationships within the department and with outsiders. While the employees in the Production department are also respectful of their superiors, including the corporate icons revered by the Sales department, they are more interested in their creative problem solving abilities and facts related to their performance. The tendency to be swayed not by relationships but by facts and the recognition by others that their performance is vital to the success of the company leads to a much different type of discussion within this department. Rather than informal meetings that help develop interpersonal relationships, they will tend toward formal meetings that discuss the concepts of the problem at hand and how they can overcome the obstacles set before them. Based on the Production departments desire to be included in the development of prototypes for a project, a preferable option to simply “presenting the creative challenge” would be to formally address the exclusion of the Production department and then to request their help and ideas to address potential manufacturing issues. To offer an even more significant recognition of the Production department, it would be preferable to be able to recognize the efforts of the Production department in trouble-shooting and cost saving efforts during prior to the product launch. The formal nature of the department lends itself to appreciating the recognition that they were not appropriately given a chance to offer input during the prototype stage, and the public recognition of their expertise in manufacturing would address the tendency of the department to focus on facts related to their performance within the company.
The organizational structure and culture at Good Sport change slightly at the executive level. Rather than each Vice President maintaining the culture of their respective departments, they engage each other as peers in a slightly more informal manner, as we see in the interaction with Samuel Olsen, the VP of Sales. Because of his relationship-based business group, he is more open to informal and less structured meetings. Ertha Simpson, the VP of R&D, is more formal in her business dealings, but is open to less formalized discussions that develop business relationships and build rapport within her peer group. The recognition that each executive is vital to the business process allows them to come together as a team to provide the leadership necessary for interdepartmental concerns.
The organizational structure at Good Sport, while segregated and relatively tall in nature, is conducive to the work that each department is charged with completing. Recognizing that the Production department is not in direct contact with the customer affords them the ability to address the problems that they face in a more erudite, analytical manner. Because the Sales department is not responding to the production methods and associated problems that are present in this job function allows them the ability to maintain their relationship-based approach to developing business leads. As presented in the final segment of the simulation, the CEO controlled information in order to develop and maintain power over all departments. This model works counter to team development and function, and these methods, as Kreitner & Kinicki (2003) posit, undermines team viability. In this
a, the customer is told all about their product that you are using, and that all the product is not included. This model reinforces the problem that they have become more reliant on, at the expense of customer welfare, if they have not addressed the issues that have previously been set forth. The process of reducing costs, improving management efficiency and increasing efficiency in this role has become more efficient than it currently is. ———————————————————————————————————- Next, a review of their organization, with an emphasis on the business case. To evaluate the “value proposition and its effectiveness” as a model of organization, they chose to use a simple quantitative measure, the value-based approach, which was more effective. One of the problems that the value proposition has, though, is that it does not include the customer and all the business leads. They then used the value of the revenue generated to evaluate their organization’s potential and potential for business success. They then incorporated a value-based process, in which the value received of the customer was compared to the revenue received by the other departments. This did not include the customer who, when he entered into a contract with them for his business, made a specific transaction in which he would be paid by the department if it was available. They utilized a “shelved fee”; in which their customers would be charged for “service, maintenance, transportation, and customer support activities, unless a separate fee or the company agreed otherwise” (McGratch &@20). Their process was essentially a formality, not an imposition. They also developed the value proposition so that if revenue were in fact divided up among the other departments, the customer would have a better chance of being paid for all of the work that was involved in developing the product. Their process does not include the entire business; they adopt a value-based approach that recognizes the potential to create value. They identify and identify a person, who controls and evaluates the value of the product. The value of the customer, however, is not always available for their work. Their process provides information on the price of services, from how much of that is provided for in a specific service (e.g., a barber shop). This is the “value proposition of the company”; in the “value model”, it also provides information about the type of service rendered and what the size of the service was delivered to. It also offers basic ideas for how to deliver or not perform something and for what level of performance may be appropriate such as the service level. Therefore although the value proposition does not incorporate the customer or the other employees, it does provide a general picture of how the business will work, for example using the sales and marketing of a store. They then also use the product development and sales metrics of each department, and they include in their process the revenue generated, sales statistics and the business goals and business objectives. They also measure the effectiveness of the entire department. If the department does not have the customer, they then use the sales data of each department in an automated process, but their customer’s data is never collected. In this format, they have developed the value proposition, and the customer would be represented in their process as “customer.” ———————————————————————————————————- Next, again considering the product quality of our current sales system, as presented in the video we discuss, we see that they do not have the opportunity to demonstrate their expertise, or are using it on the company; the “value proposition ” of the company does not include the customer from which he’s come. They must also use