Case Study: Alcoa And Arconic Breakdown

Both companies had done its share of pioneering. BA needs to be reorganized to have shared desires. This resulted in a financial crises and downsizing of employees (Jick & Peiperl, 2011, p. 35).

During the 2001 functional reorganization, three cross-functional business councils were created with the goal of “aligning the organization and driving productivity gains… while ensuring that a customer-mindset remains the company’s focus every step of the way”. These councils continued to expand and improve between 2001 and 2007 (see Appendix 1). The capability to create additional capacity in the form of organization and product expansion for Cisco was the driving force behind the internal governance system. Although this new collaborative system increased and altered previous methods and processes Cisco leaders, management and VP’s were accustomed to, thus acting as a resisting force, the existing culture at Cisco was such to embrace change rather than fight it.

On Wednesday, July 29th, 2015 Alcoa IH department did heat stress monitor in the potrooms at Alcoa Warrick Operations. This monitor is a part of the heat stress awareness program during the summer. Working at the potrooms exposes the workers to physical hazards, such as noise, radiant energy, and heat. Since the pots run at temperatures of about 980 ̊C, there is potential for heat stress hazard and burns from hot electrolytic bath and metal to occur. Workers in potrooms are in hot environments most of the time. Therefore, they are particularly at risk of heat stress since ventilation may not afford sufficient cooling. Workers at the potrooms are working for 12-hour shifts. During this 12 hours, workers are require to do 17 set up carbon which exposes workers to open pot heat 17 times every day. Exposed to heat for that long time will cause a potential heat stress hazard.

Now there are plenty of other major issues that can threaten my role as split department manager. Examples include: change management, employee loyalty, and process management. When it comes to change management, the organizational structure can become a huge issue. In other words, I am referring to the food chain of a health institution (levels of authority). The purpose of an organization structure is to make strategic decisions while also discussing how these decisions are made in the company’s best interest. However, Claire Schwartz says that “there is a rick specifically

Instead of owning individual regions, the team discussed the previous year results and the upcoming year’s decisions together. We still gravitated toward initial biases: Jason gravitated toward marketing decisions, Ingrid spent time on capacity and operations, and Michael worked on the finances. Michael also managed the industry forecasting, keeping in mind major changes by ASF would also affect the Industry numbers.

Is corporate reorganization an available option? If so, how should it be structured? What issues would be associated with this alternative?

The fourth step of Kotter’s process for fruitful change relates to restructuring an organization's vision and strategy. Moreover, leaders pontificate how the future will differ from the past and making the future a reality. At Alaska Airlines, the implementation of this step commenced with executives leading a multi-day strategy session and pondering what the Carlyle Group or Warren Buffest would do? From this meeting, they determined their vision needed modification. To being with, company leaders

While it was foreseen that the company would initially take financial setbacks because of the reorganization, it was not believed that the financial risks would be drastic. However, the impending report that Mr. Elesser has to present to the board will detail a net income that will be nearly 26 million dollars in the red for 2004 (see exhibit 2)3. The blunt force restructuring met resistance on numerous fronts. First of all, the various components of the company did not operate under the same uniformed leadership objectives. Each division was set up to look out for their own interests and markets. When the restructuring plan that focused on a more centralized management process, many of the things that worked for one division did not necessarily work for other divisions of the company. This left some divisions at a severe disadvantage. Another obstacle that worked against the restructuring was the employee unions in which the company had to deal. The unions were not on board with the various downsizing and restructuring methods. In addition, the company had to deal with a couple of different unions which posed a problem with negotiating tactics. Benefit costs were also a significant investment that did not hold up well under the auspice of restructuring.

This study examines how leadership, teamwork, and organizational learning can contribute in making mergers and acquisitions work. Our intention is to identify critical factors and practices needed for merger success. Our research is part of an ongoing project, and builds on previous analysis of merger success/failure in such organizations as Standard Oil, Exxon Mobile, and Time Warner-AOL. In this paper, we turn our attention to the recent merger of Pixar and Disney. In our view, the Disney-Pixar case seems to be a good example of a successful merger in progress. This is demonstrated very clearly by recent box office successes such as Academy Award

As Thompson (2015) has discussed, the world is changing fast and organizations must be flexible in handling changes to be able to thrive well or they may experience dilemmas. In 1997, Apple Company, which almost reached bankruptcy ousted its that time CEO, Gil Amelio, where Steve Jobs replaced him and declared himself interim CEO. Apple that time is experiencing a disruptive change, a change that is radical and immediately happening, in other words unexpected. However, they were able to response to it quickly and prevented the company to hit the very bottom by bringing back Steve Jobs. Jobs had so much idea with him, which the company needed most at that time (Time, 2016).

The company transformation from private equity ownership with an immediate shift of CEO marked new challenges for the company. The company has been going through rigorous changes to keep up with the strong

The company as a whole was performing poorly. This led to a shake-up of executive management in 2006, with Irene B. Rosenfeld installed as chief executive officer (CEO). Rosenfeld had previously worked at Kraft for 22 years before leaving in 2003 to head Frito-Lay North America. In early 2007, Rosenfeld outlined a strategy to turn the company around that included product quality, research and development (R&D), and acquisitions as critical to the future growth of the company. Rosenfeld hired cutting-edge business leaders such as Khosla to help create the strategy that would change the way Kraft Foods Inc. does business.

Recent economic recession and federal budget cut has significantly impacted SAIC’s core business and affected its revenue and growth. Its stock price fell 25% since last September because the shareholders were disappointed with the operation and worried about the future revenue growth and earning. The SAIC management realized that the market has changed; the company’s strategy and focus have to change accordingly. The leadership established a sense of urgency by creating a compelling reason for why changes are needed (stage 1). In July 2009, the board of directors hired a new CEO, Walt Havenstein, to carry out the change process. In the summer of 2010, Hevenstein (the change agent), made a strategy-based change in the corporate leadership structure and personnel (Stage 2). The new strategies had been formulated: to provide mission-oriented solutions for national security, energy, health and other major enterprises serving critical infrastructure needs. The company planned to shift its customer based structure to market reoriented structure, and shift resources to focus on high-growth areas (Havenstein, July 22, 2010). The current organization structures is under regrouping (four groups to three); some units is being dismantled; duplicated departments is being eliminated (Stage 3). In October, 2010, Hevenstein wrote a letter to all SAIC employees stating that “SAIC's

Sambian Partners is an architecture and engineering firm which believes in promoting an environment where the firm’s designers, engineers and client account managers collaborate to deliver top notch designs. The CEO believes Sambian Partners offer a good environment for its people to work and treat people right. The case describes how Sambian is facing a situation where its top talent is quitting. The CEO is surprised by these departures and is working with the firm’s human resource head to get to the root cause of these departures. The management wants to fix the root cause to stop this exodus.

Even with improved operations through cutting offices and unprofitable companies as well as improved financial management, CRC subsidiaries remained separated with little centralized reporting or integration into the corporate strategy. Many of the companies were opportunity driven rather than strategic and the quality of performance assessment, reporting, and management varied significantly across the subsidiaries, making it challenging for managers to see and address each company’s opportunities. Managers were more concerned with hitting yearly benchmarks than long term strategy.