Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
For decades, the managerial style at General Motors followed the traditional perception. There were many elements which made those at GM believe that this style would continue to drive long lasting success within a competitive marketplace. Essentially, this style focuses on ensuring some profit margin always because the bottom line was placed above other important demands, like those from the consumer. Short-term cost focus was thought to better ensure a quick profit turn around. The traditional perception also views the financial staff as the power brokers, because they were the ones who created the bottom line an interpreted financial performance, which is essentially the driving force to profit margins in this traditional system that GM thought would ensure future success. It also features indirect management to better deal with larger workforces. Management focused on over viewing floor performance, not inspiring it,...
GM managers also thought the traditional perception would benefit the company because of the focus on individual performance would motivate individuals to strive to work harder in order to beat their competition. This allows competitions to drive up employee performance, which was then rewarded through monetary rewards and differentiated treatment based on dress code and parking privileges. However, eventually, managers at GM began to see Toyota's team driven system and highly developed organizational culture to foster productivity as more appropriate for a new marketplace.
References
Husar, Michael A. (1991). Corporate culture: Toyota's secret, competitive advantage. Technical Liaison Office.
Manzoni, Jean-Francois & Barsoux, Jean-Louis. (1998). The set-up-to-fail syndrome. Harvard Business Review.
Kaizen is so engrained in the Toyota culture and the corresponding House of Quality that internally when planned results are not achieved it is considered more of a failure of process and execution (Gong, Wang, Lai, 2009). This is where the TPS varies significantly from American-based approaches to managing variation in results and failure to attain results as well. The Kaizen approach systematically analyzes why a process did not
Ayers (2000, p. 4) describes a supply chain as "Life cycle processes supporting physical, information, financial, and knowledge flows for moving products and services from suppliers to end-users." A supply chain can be short, as in the case of a cottage industry, or quite long and complex as in the manufacture, distribution, and sales of automobiles. In fact, the automobile supply chain has its origin in the mining of the
A large body of literature has treated many different aspects of these influences on Asia, Europe and the United States (Busser & Sadoi, 2003). The importance of the study relates to the current trends taking place in Libya where aggressive steps have been taken in recent years to normalize relations with the international community. For example, Libya opened up its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction to international
Creating Organizational Value through the Integration of Information Technology: A Management Perspective Change Management and the Construction of a Receptive Organization Transformational and Participative Leadership A Decentralized Organizational Culture Effective Utilization of Resources Simulations Performance Monitoring Systems Risk Management and Support Strategies When considering the ever-changing and highly competitive global landscape of business today, firms must stay at the cutting edge of their respective fields in order to sustain profitability in the long-term. With the current exponential growth
The proclivity to pass blame between organizational members also suggest an internal cultural shortcoming rooted in an unwillingness to take responsibility for planning failures. This is an unnecessary conflict which is derived from the onus on planning failure and the clear incapacity of the organization to rebound in its wake. This perspective and reality go hand in hand. So may we observe this from an article regarding Toyota's ongoing struggles
By making autonomy, mastery and purpose a critical part of their culture, IBM has aligned with a critical lesson learned of working in high performance cultures, and that is to create ownership of tasks and roles (Levin, Gottlieb, 2009). The most difficult and riskiest organizational change strategy is r-creation. This involves moving into new markets with new products, significantly changing the culture of an organization in the process. It is