Procter & Gamble: Organization 2005 (A) [Piskorski & Spadini, 2007]
September 25, 2012
Case Discussion Questions
These questions are mainly for class discussion. However, they will also be quite helpful in preparing for the quiz. The possible essay questions for the exam have already been sent in the guidelines for the first exam.
U.S. Divisional Structure in 1955 (Diagram 1) 1. What are the benefits of organizing by product rather than function? By using the product strategy brand managers in the same product division competed in the marketplace but shared access to strong divisional functions. Those transferred best practices and talent across many brands foresting leading edge competencies in the R&D,…show more content… What are the reasons for P&G to have adopted a structure different from the one shown in Diagram 1? Marketing resources are being wasted on internal competition with each brand manager competing with same group of consumers. (-cannibalization) 7. What is the category-level manufacturing director able to do now that would not have been previously possible in Diagram 1? How much authority does he/she have? More authority in terms of sales, manufacturing, finance, R&D, Product development functions when compared to Brand management. Also Category Manager is a decision maker who is responsible for the entire firm’s product line whereas BM acts as independent decision maker and independent entrepreneur within the same firm.
Improves functional strength
Cooperation
Growth of VP
Information sharing
European Category Management in the early 1980s (Diagram 4) Hybrid structure 8. How is this structure different from the structure shown in Diagram 3? To promote cross border cooperation across functions and to shift focus from country management to product category management. Restructured around product categories. Country GM’s were replaced with multiple-country product category GM’s who reported to the division VP’s. 9. What are the reasons for P&G to have adopted a structure different from the one shown in Diagram 3? The model was not effective. Unstandardized and subscale manufacturing operations in each country were expensive and
end ofPergamon
PII:
European Management Journal Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 333–343, 2001 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain S0263-2373(01)00035-4 0263-2373/01 $20.00 + 0.00
The End of Global Strategy
ALAN RUGMAN, Indiana University, and Templeton College, Oxford RICHARD HODGETTS, Florida International University
Recent research suggests that globalization is a myth. Far from taking place in a single global market, most business activity by large firms takes
1
The Fundamental Agency Problem and Its Mitigation:
Independence, Equity, and the Market for Corporate Control
DAN R. DALTON
Kelley School of Business, Indiana University
MICHAELA. HITT
Mays College of Business, Texas A&M University
S. TREVIS CERTO
Mays College of Business, Texas A&M University
CATHERINE M. DALTON
Kelley School of Business, Indiana University
Abstract
A central tenet of agency theory is that there is potential for mischief when the interests of owners and