Evaluation of New Decision Making Process

Question: Write a Report on Strategic Management. Answer: Problem of Corning Corning Inc is a company that is famous for its innovation strategy. The company has applied innovation for its strategic growth in the market. The company is considered itself as a leading company in United States. It is seen that the company is struggling in maintaining its innovation strategy in the company. Apart from development of the company, it has faced many issues related to the strategic management and in the research development department. The CEO of the company has invested in many segments randomly. Initially, it has faced success in the investment of the different sectors. It is seen that after the financial crisis in the market, the prices of the stocks has collapsed, the company is running on loss while the price of the products such as optical fibre was going down (Ashkenas et al., 2015). Too much of investment in the different verticals of business in the same time along with the financial crisis is the reason of the loss of the company in the market. However, th e company is focused on innovation strategy. For coping up with this situation, Corning is developing strategies of innovation. The case study illustrates the fact that the expenditure of the company has increased more than the revenue it is earning from the market. The telecom market crashes drastically while resulting into dramatic drop of income of Corning Inc. The growth opportunities of the company are hindered by the tough market conditions (Goetsch Davis, 2014). It has been mentioned in the case study that the company has gained a reputation as a leading materials company. However, the year of 2002 was not in favour of the company. Due to some adverse decisions in the perspective of investment and the financial crisis in the market both the expected price of the products of the company in its different business segments and the stock prices. Apart from that, many people are leaving the organization. The loss of the company is $5.4 billion with a lay off over 12,000 employees. It can be said that, the effect of wrong decision making is responsible for many wrong strategic decisions within the company. Innovation strategy implementation is considered as the process of growth of business. But the process of implementation is the way that can lead the path of success and path of the failure of the company. Innovative ideas when used properly in the particular field are responsible for the success of the company in terms of revenue generation and strategic business growth (Guadalupe, Li Wulf, 2013). The cause of lay off employees is due to poor organizational structure. Many employees are not ready to accept the innovation culture and the organizational structure of Corning Inc. The organization structure is of matrix organizational structure. It can be said that due to the lack of communication between the senior management and junior level management the problem has been occurred. The CEO of the company has a team that will focus on the different issues faced by the employees. It results in sometimes biasness. The communication gap is the main cause of the bad employee relations. It leads to misunderstanding of the innovation culture and organization culture of the company among the mind of the employees. It leads to many cut off of the employees (Rushton, Croucher Baker, 2014). Changes in Corning Apart from that, it can be said that the different members of the strategic decision making committee has taken wrong decisions in the perspective of investment in the different business verticals of the business. It is the reason of the difference of opinion in the decision making of the senior management in the perspective of expanding the business vertical in the market. It can be said that the company has not conducted extensive market research about the external market conditions in the sector of the market. The market research will help the company in forecasting the market conditions. External market conditions are also responsible for the success of innovation strategy applied by the company for its business growth (Cavusgil et al., 2014). When the company is running in loss, then there are conditions that may arise the misconception of the employees regarding the vision and mission of the company. Many employees lose trust from the company when the stock prices have fallen d own and the products of the company are not sold at all. Lose of trust of employees to the company is a negative impression for the company itself in terms of productivity and the reputation in the market (Armstrong, Taylor, 2014). It is seen that the former CEO of the company Ackerman has implemented strategies in the company that has been considered as the strategies for immense success. He starts the culture of innovation. Organization structure of the company is based on the centralized structure. For mitigating the issues of the company regarding the loss incurred by it in the market, the theoretical frameworks of change management are implemented. The senior management of the company is now focused on the formation of new structure of management that focuses on the issues of the employees within the organization (de Waal Kourtit, 2013). The change management strategy of the organization can only be successful only when the people associated with the formation of the changed strategies mitigate the hindrances of the employees. It is a difficult task of addressing the issues of all employees regarding the innovation culture and the change of the pattern of investment of the company in the different busines s verticals. The theoretical frameworks of Lewins change management model can also be implemented in order to avoid the hindrances of the employees of the organization (Albers, Wohlgezogen Zajac, 2016). However, it can be seen that few employees are not comfortable with the new management structure of the company. Hence, it can be said that the company is not very successful in bringing the change in management in the field of improving the employee relations. The new management of the company is successful in maintaining the uniqueness of the innovation culture. The love of technology of the employees is the main cause of the satisfaction of the employees to work in the company. It is the effect of the new management structure of the company. The new structure provides 25% on the personal performance of the compensation of the employees (Lu, Liang, Shan Liang, 2015). Apart from that, 25% compensation is being selected for group performance, 50% is being set for the corporate perf ormance. A balance of resource between the developing business of the company and the existing resources of the company is maintained by the new structure of organizational development. However, it can be said that a team of growth and strategy council is being developed in order to mitigate the issues of the employees as well as the strategic decision making ream of the company so that they can take right decisions in the right moment (Kelley, Cranor Sadeh, 2013). The role of the GSC management team is to control the activities of the innovation team and the management council so that they can only focus on the robust performance of the robust and balanced innovation team and the performance of the employees. The team is focused on the establishment of the best practices regarding the innovative programs of the company (Pettigrew, 2014). The new management structure follows annual meetings with the employees while putting emphasis on the different types of the issues in the resear ch and development team, the innovation team and the strategic management department of the company in order to improve the strategic planning of the company and the usage of technology in the different business verticals of the company. The consent of the stakeholders are also considered in this aspect (Shepherd Rudd, 2014). Pros and cons of organizational structure Organizational structure is an important aspect in an organization in order to maintain the administrative structure. Structure of an organization is important while defining a hierarchy within the organizational context. It will define the work function, job, function, reporting pattern of the organization. Organization structure is defined as the activities of the organization in coordination, task allocation, supervision of the different management levels in accomplishing towards the organizational goals (Van Solinge Henkens, 2014). Organization structure is considered as the viewing glass of the organization or it can be described as the perspective where the employees associated with it can see the environment of the organization. Enterprises are considered as a clustered entity. Depending on the nature of the goals and objectives of the organization, the structure of the enterprise will determine the various modes where it performs and operates. Organizational structure of a c ompany can affect the organizational action into two different ways (Trianni, Cagno Farn, 2016). The structure will provide a foundation where the routines of the company rests and standard operating procedures. Secondly the structure will determine the employees while participating in decision-making process of the various operational department of the organization. The views of the employees at varied levels of organization will help in shaping the structure of the organization. It can be said that there are different types of organizational structures such as divisional structure, matrix structure and functional structure (Zsambok Klein, 2014). However, the case study portrays that organizational structure of Corning is very well defined in nature. It can be said that the different levels of management are responsible for maintaining operational procedures of the company. The company is divided into sub divisions where the general managers are responsible for running the business. The centralized research of the company usually reported to the CTO of the company. The chief operational officer of the company is the head of the every department of the company. It can be said that the operational head of Corning depends on innovation. Innovation is considered as the main aspect of success of the company in its all types of department of the company (Ford Richardson, 2013). The centralized research and the organization is depended on the matrix structure of the organization. The case study illustrates that the solid reporting structure and the dotted line of reporting within the organizational context. It can be said that matr ix structures are followed by the organization that have many projects and have a system of dual reporting. This in the long term helps in maintaining an added personality which will impose an undue pressure on the employees of the organization. It can be said that organization structure of Corning is a pure matrix form of organization (Snyder Diesing, 2015). After the CEO, there are CAO, CTO, COO, Chief of Staffs, CFO, and Chief Strategy Officer. These officials are categorized into four levels such as management committee, GSC, CTC and operations committee. It can be said that the company runs on innovation. Innovation is flowing through the different forms of the organization structure. The different types of innovation strategy flow from various departments of Corning Glass. The different strategic business unit of the company runs the business using this form of organization structure. However, it can be said that there are pros and cons of matrix form of organization structur e that will be discussed in the following (Cameron Green, 2015). Matrix organizational structure is a complex form of organizational chart that will define complex organizational structures which will emphasis creativity, efficiency, and innovation. The areas of communication are clear and crisp in the matrix shaped structure of the company. However, a matrix structure does not involve any departments and divisions. It will focus on different types of hierarchy that contains various levels of communication channels inside the company. Employees of Corning Glass in different subsidiary units are responsible for doing their own projects and they can assemble a team who is responsible for working for the project in the team (Goetsch Davis, 2014). Matrix organizations sometimes organized in the customers to different groups of the company who are responsible for the different sets of customers to it. It can be said that the different types organizational chart is more simple in structure than the matrix organizational structure. The traditional organ izational structures of functional organizational structure, hierarchical organizational structure, divisional organizational structure, etc are more simple than matrix structure. There are different departments associated with Corning Glass that leads to success (Hayes, 2014). The main advantage of matrix organization structure is to allow a better understanding of the structure of organization where different levels of the company is ready to answer more than one department authority. The multiple departments of the organization are responsible for sharing their authoritative responsibilities. It can be said that matrix organization structure of Corning Glass is the most effective way while presenting the communication (Slocum et al., 2016). It can be said that apart from having advantages, there are disadvantages of the matrix structure of organization. The cons of this structure are conflict, psychological stress, cost and inefficiency. The structure of Corning Glass is dynamic in functions and form. The team members in many circumstances lack stability in the project life cycle. The ability of the individual in order to adapt with the other employees of different departments sometimes leads to conflict. Lack of stable relationships between the members of the groups is responsible for creation of a psychological stress (McNeil, Frey Embrechts, 2015). It will finally lead to the lower productivity of Corning Glass. The different organizational structures sometimes do not represent a clear relationship between the lines of authority and the responsibilities among the members of the Corning Glass. The inefficiency of the multiple managers in terms of maintaining a cross-functional team is the main problem of Corning Glas s while maintaining the management system within various strategic business unit of the company. The cross functional teams are often not working according to the orders from the senior authority. It is the reason of the dissatisfaction of the customers of the Corning Glass (Rosemann vom Brocke, 2015). It is responsible for the loss of Corning Glass in the market. The operational inefficiency and the increased cost in the research and development department of the company is also a cause of the mismanagement of the matrix organizational structure of the company. Evaluation of new decision making process Decision making in an organization is defined as the process of selection of a process or an approach among the alternatives present in the market or in the organization. Decision making is useful management approach that is utilized by successful business managers for carry forward of their business in the market. Decision making is also important for the managers of different managerial level in order to take decisions regarding the problems faced by the employees of the organization. Managerial functions like organizing, planning, controlling and directing are determined through the decision making process (Martinelli Milosevic, 2016). The significance of decision making process in Corning Glass can be categorised under few categories such as pervasive function, indispensable component, evaluation of the managerial function, selection of the best alternatives, establishment of policies and plans, successful business operations, etc. Decision making in Corning Glass by the senior managers are sometimes essential in every level of management. The top level of management in the company usually takes the consent of the COO, CFO of the various strategic business units of the company. The members of the board have been following a particular form of decision making from the very beginning. Change is necessary with due course of time. It can be said that the decision making process of the company is not changed to the competitive nature of the market. The innovative strategy used by the company in terms of business development at some point of time does not work properly that causes the loss incurred by Corning Glass. The strategic management department of the company are not able to make their choices in the new style of management they are using in the organizational structure of the organization (Langley et al., 2013). It is earlier discussed that Corning Glass is using matrix organizational structure that is respon sible for expanding the business at a time in many parts of the world. However, there are demerits too. The company is responsible for not prioritization of the various important events that are essential for the business development of the company. The decision making system of the company will have a particular strategy of involvement of different employees of varied management levels. The management structure before the change of the CEO and after the change of the CEO becomes different (Marcella Rowley, 2015). It can be said that decision making process is a time consuming process. The management of the company must have to understand and believe about the decision of the team of the company. Decision making of Corning Glass is an inseparable part of the business and management structure. The company is in challenging condition in order to increase the business of the company the problem of decision making has been arising. The business model of the company is very proactive. However, with the due course of time, the business model is not working properly. The program managers have a lot of responsibility on their shoulders for making the success of the project (Rosemann vom Brocke, 2015). Hence, it can be said that shared responsibility is the cause of success of Corning Glass in the business expansion that leads to huge profitability. The confronting growing number of the strategic business units of Corning Glass is responsible for the psychological stress and conflict among different l evels of management in the company. The businesses of Corning are growing and there is a miscommunication between the different types of managers of the company. The Companys top management is responsible for making all the decisions of the company related to all departments of it. The company must have to follow participative leadership or situational leadership in order to select the best alternatives out from the brains of the employees (Trianni, Cagno Farn, 2016). It can be said that employees are the resource of the company. Without the employees, a company cannot run of its own. It can be said that in few perspectives, the top management of Corning glass must incorporate employees from all levels of management especially from middle level management and junior level management. It is the junior level employees who are actually working with other clients and customers. They are the people that actually face the problems and issues in the market. Hence, they have to be involved in the decision making process of the company regarding different business decisions. In this way, top managers of Corning Glass can avoid the miscommunication between the different levels of managers (Van Solinge Henkens, 2014). The junior workers in different operational departments of the various strategic business units of the company felt that their positions in the company are not important. They are not given any priority and importance by the senior managers of Corning Glass. Hence, a system of chaos and psychological stress is being created among this group. The senior managers often face difficulties in solving the different issues related to the selection of best alternatives of different problems. It can be solved only when the senior operational managers like chief operational officer, chief financial officer, CEO, CTO, etc. can include different managers of different strategic business units of the company to make a good decision regarding any product development or solving any queries of the customers and the clients (Kelley, Cranor Sadeh, 2013). In this way, Corning Glass can evaluate the best possible alternatives based on the situation and time. The organizational sustainability and process can occur to the company only when the participative leadership is followed by the leaders of the Corning Glass. In this way, participative form of leadership can help in achieving organizational goals and success in the organizational context (Marcella Rowley, 2015). New changes and strategic direction of the company Change management is a slow process and an obvious process that needs to be implemented in the due course of time to implement the latest trends in market in the business verticals. The case study of the Corning Glass in the beginning depicts the fact that the operational procedures of the company follow matrix organizational structure. It is earlier discussed that the different types of organizational structure have benefits and disadvantages. It is said that the following matrix organizational structure, the company is facing issues in the organizational structure. It is discussed earlier in the study that the decision making process of Corning Glass is also not up to the level in order to meet the demands of the customer and the clients because of lack of involvement of the junior level employees (Trianni, Cagno Farn, 2016). The cons of matrix organizational structure are also prevalent with the due course of time. It is seen that the innovation is the essence of success of the d ifferent types of business achievements in the company. In the beginning, during the financial crisis and the crash of the market, the profitability of the company is low. It has almost turned to be half of the profitability before the market crash. The company has faced many downturns such as during the early 2000s, there are many employees who have left the company. Almost 70% of the employees had left Corning Glass. Earlier the company has an employee strength of 24,800 employees (Van Solinge Henkens, 2014). It has seen the face of global leadership in order to expand the business in different parts of the country. However, due to the addition of new people in the company due to its expansion of different strategic business units in the parts of the country, the aspect of conflict, miscommunication, and psychological stress between the employees of various managerial levels are occurring. The centralized decision making is also responsible for the creation of psychological stres s of the junior employees. The strategic decisions of the company including allocation of the resources are a problem faced by the officers of the operational departments of the company. The centralized decision making in the innovation process is the core aspect of success of the business of Corning Glass (Marcella Rowley, 2015). The organizational structure is causing a political tension among the different types of managers of the organization rather in the strategic business units. To recover the company, as a new CEO of the company, the process of change management will have to be introduced not only in the headquarters of the company but also in the different strategic business units of the Corning Glass. The process of change management implementation is a long term process. It requires effort of convincing the employees of Corning in order to accept the change the new CEO want to introduce within the organizational context. The change is related to flat organizational structure. The decision is taken while conducting a survey among the employees of the company at various business division offices (Ford Richardson, 2013). The research among the company has resulted in the support of flat organization structure. The result is that employees want priority in their own field of work. Many employees complain about the conflict that they are facing in their departments due to lack of communication between the senior management. However, it can be said that the s enior employees are comfortable with the current matrix style of organizational structure. Therefore as a new CEO of the company the implementation of the new structure of organization. Flat organization structure is different from that of matrix structure. Flat organization structure involves different types of levels of communication among the different types of managers of the organizational level. Communication is important in the different organizational level as they will relate to the solution of different types of issues faced by the junior executives and the frontline employees of the company (Snyder Diesing, 2015). However, on the implementation of the flat structure, hindrances can be occurred. Hindrances must be avoided in order to make a smooth flow of the organizational structure. However, the clear communication between the different levels of employees will be the key area of success of the different strategic business units of the company. Innovation concept must b e conveyed to the managers and the executives so that they can be implemented in a way to serve customers queries and issues (Van Solinge Henkens, 2014). However, it can be said that decision making process of Corning Glass must be changed into participative form of decision making where the involvement of employees are to be essential while meeting the demands of the customer. Earlier, the junior employees are not included in the meeting and different sectors of the meeting. It can be the reason of the decline in the profit of the company. Apart from that, the employee relations will also be improved in order to get better performance from them while satisfying clients needs. Participative leadership is always related to the different types decision making of the company in its various strategic business units (Ford Richardson, 2013). The different employees irrespective of their position in the company feel their importance in the management while providing the senior management the best solutions regarding product improvement and product development. The change management process in the company definitely brings positive impacts o n the profitability of the company. References Albers, S., Wohlgezogen, F., Zajac, E. J. (2016). Strategic alliance structures: An organization design perspective.Journal of Management,42(3), 582-614. Armstrong, M., Taylor, S. (2014).Armstrong's handbook of human resource management practice. Kogan Page Publishers. Ashkenas, R., Ulrich, D., Jick, T., Kerr, S. (2015).The boundaryless organization: Breaking the chains of organizational structure. John Wiley Sons. Cameron, E., Green, M. (2015).Making sense of change management: a complete guide to the models, tools and techniques of organizational change. Kogan Page Publishers. Cavusgil, S. T., Knight, G., Riesenberger, J. R., Rammal, H. G., Rose, E. L. (2014).International business. Pearson Australia. de Waal, A., Kourtit, K. (2013). Performance measurement and management in practice: Advantages, disadvantages and reasons for use.International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,62(5), 446-473. Ford, R. C., Richardson, W. D. (2013). Ethical decision making: A review of the empirical literature. InCitation classics from the Journal of Business Ethics(pp. 19-44). Springer Netherlands. Goetsch, D. L., Davis, S. B. (2014).Quality management for organizational excellence. Upper Saddle River, NJ: pearson. Goetsch, D. L., Davis, S. B. (2014).Quality management for organizational excellence. Upper Saddle River, NJ: pearson. Guadalupe, M., Li, H., Wulf, J. (2013). Who lives in the C-suite? Organizational structure and the division of labor in top management.Management Science,60(4), 824-844. Hayes, J. (2014).The theory and practice of change management. Palgrave Macmillan. Kelley, P. G., Cranor, L. F., Sadeh, N. (2013, April). Privacy as part of the app decision-making process. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(pp. 3393-3402). ACM. Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H., Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Process studies of change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow.Academy of Management Journal,56(1), 1-13. Lu, J. W., Liang, X., Shan, M., Liang, X. (2015). Internationalization and performance of Chinese family firms: the moderating role of corporate governance.Management and Organization Review,11(04), 645-678. Marcella, M., Rowley, S. (2015). An exploration of the extent to which project management tools and techniques can be applied across creative industries through a study of their application in the fashion industry in the North East of Scotland.International Journal of Project Management,33(4), 735-746. Martinelli, R. J., Milosevic, D. Z. (2016).Project management toolbox: tools and techniques for the practicing project manager. John Wiley Sons. McNeil, A. J., Frey, R., Embrechts, P. (2015).Quantitative risk management: Concepts, techniques and tools. Princeton university press. Pettigrew, A. M. (2014).The politics of organizational decision-making. Routledge. Rosemann, M., vom Brocke, J. (2015). The six core elements of business process management. InHandbook on business process management 1(pp. 105-122). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Rushton, A., Croucher, P., Baker, P. (2014).The handbook of logistics and distribution management: Understanding the supply chain. Kogan Page Publishers. Shepherd, N. G., Rudd, J. M. (2014). The influence of context on the strategic decision?making process: A review of the literature.International Journal of Management Reviews,16(3), 340-364. Slocum, R., Wichhart, L., Rocheleau, D., Thomas-Slayter, B. (2016).Power, process and participation: tools for change. London, UK: Intermediate Technology Development Group (ITDG) publishing. Snyder, G. H., Diesing, P. (2015).Conflict among nations: Bargaining, decision making, and system structure in international crises. Princeton University Press. Trianni, A., Cagno, E., Farn, S. (2016). Barriers, drivers and decision-making process for industrial energy efficiency: a broad study among manufacturing small and medium-sized enterprises.Applied Energy,162, 1537-1551. Van Solinge, H., Henkens, K. (2014). Work-related factors as predictors in the retirement decision-making process of older workers in the Netherlands.Ageing and Society,34(9), 1551. Zsambok, C. E., Klein, G. (2014).Naturalistic decision making. Psychology