Managing Organizations Structure Case of Mcdonalds

MANAGING ORGANIZATION'S STRUCTURE Managing the Organization's Structure; McDonald's case study McDonald's represents the biggest fast food chain in the world, with its key products being burgers, soft drinks, French fries, desserts and shakes. Increasing health consciousness and trends against obesity have called attention to the company, which, by all accounts, has contributed majorly to rapid growth of obesity in its customers. Foods marketed by the company (all fast foods, in fact) are unhealthy, being loaded with salt and fat, and having minimal nutritional value (About McDonald, 2015).

The organization I work in shows the following scores, based on the McGinty/Moss survey: It has a deliberative traditional culture Questions 6-10: It doesn't portray a stable/established culture Questions 11-15: It has an urgent or seat of the pants culture The question category 1-5, which labels my company's culture as traditional showed the most number of 'true' responses in the McGinty/Moss 'true/false question' survey. This score is in agreement with my general expectations; most of my company's staff members are young and well-educated.

Management has always preferred younger candidates in their hiring process, as they bring fresh ideas to the company, while endorsing existing systems that are efficient. Furthermore, younger personnel are characterized by greater productivity and profitability. Meanwhile, management keeps up a consistent and constant stream of correspondence with company employees. Abnormal competition among young employees is also explicitly seen; this has previously resulted in huge and costly staff turnover.

Staff members, overall, did not feel sufficiently acknowledged and older members felt the presence of newcomers was harming their career (About McDonald, 2015; Kraut, 1996). Organizational culture is defined in McNamara's book, Field Guide to Leadership and Supervision, published in 2000, as an organization's personality. The author further writes that one can view company culture in the form of a system that may be divided into numerous categories. Of all the categories McNamara (2000) enumerates, in my opinion, my organization depicts a 'Baseball Team' corporate culture.

Staff members are accorded ample autonomy and their abilities are well-recognized and appreciated. Their skill sets make them highly in demand, and they find it easy to get a job anywhere. This sort of organizational culture can be viewed among high-risk, fast-paced industries, like advertising and investment banking (Kraut, 1996; Cameron & Quinn, 2006; McNamara, 2000). Organizational leaders usually have a good idea about their respective firms' cultures.

However, their understanding is only limited to theory and they fail to employ their knowledge of this culture to learn from it, and successfully drive the organization through it. Different employees within a company may view its culture from completely different perspectives. This distinction in staff views is more marked as one goes from top to bottom in the organizational hierarchy. For instance, the CEO may think his company is quite formal, highly-focused, and efficient.

In contrast, an employee at the reception desk may feel the company is unsystematic, chaotic, and even impolite, at times (Kraut, 1996; Cameron & Quinn, 2006). Key recommendations to enable proper assessment of company culture by a leader: 1. Knowledge must be gathered on the main kinds of corporate cultures; several research works enumerate various kinds of culture. 2. The leader must then define his/her company's culture, based on what he/she hears and sees.

(This stage must not be clouded by personal views and thoughts.)This can be achieved by answering the questions listed below. a. Which kind of people are apparently accepted, and who aren't? What feature in these two sets of people brings about this distinction in acceptance? b. What are the types of behaviors that bring rewards? (E.g., getting along, accomplishing tasks, etc.) c. What is management's key focus? Successes? Issues? Crises? Or other aspects? d.

What is the nature of the firm's decision-making process? Is all authority in the hands of one person alone? Or does management discuss issues and come to a consensus? Does the organization make any decisions or not? (Cameron & Quinn, 2006) It must be borne in mind that what the company claims to value (say, team-building, resourcefulness, originality) and what it actually values (say, individuality, conformity) might not be closely aligned. Such a difference is quite often seen in companies.

After acquiring an understanding of this difference in theory and practice, one can communicate it to other management members. One of the ideal instances when such differences can be dealt with and corrected is during creation of organizational values statement, in the course of strategic planning (Jacobides, 2007). Typologies are interesting, in theory, for several reasons.

Due to the complexity of their nature, configurational claims entrenched in typologies accept organizations' inter-dependent and intricate nature, wherein competitive edge and fit often hinge on complementarities and associations between different characteristics rather than a solitary attribute. For an empirical assessment of the abstract approach taken here, I have utilized the general organizational structure typology, which is possibly.