-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Management transformation? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter mmmm.
- Start date
Haier is a good example of a business whose management was radically transformed from traditional/bureaucratic to contemporary management, a framework that replaced their previous formal hierarchy, under which everyone working there is directly accountable to customers, which is a policy the company describes as “zero distance”. Here is a link to an article by Harvard Business Review for more information about this radical change in management style:
hbr.org
I hope this helps!
The End of Bureaucracy
While most business leaders recognize that bureaucracy squashes initiative, risk taking, and creativity, it continues to thrive. In a complex global environment, it’s seen as a necessary coping mechanism. Many look to start-ups for an answer. But the most promising solution may have emerged in...
hbr.org
I hope this helps!
Thankyou, I'll check it out. Also what is the best way to find such sources/example, because I've tried finding an example of a business whose management transformed from traditional to contemporary, but was having difficultiesHaier is a good example of a business whose management was radically transformed from traditional/bureaucratic to contemporary management, a framework that replaced their previous formal hierarchy, under which everyone working there is directly accountable to customers, which is a policy the company describes as “zero distance”. Here is a link to an article by Harvard Business Review for more information about this radical change in management style:
The End of Bureaucracy
While most business leaders recognize that bureaucracy squashes initiative, risk taking, and creativity, it continues to thrive. In a complex global environment, it’s seen as a necessary coping mechanism. Many look to start-ups for an answer. But the most promising solution may have emerged in...
I hope this helps!
No worries, if I'm performing a simple Google search, I try not to write too much into the search bar. Instead, I type in a few words expressing what I'm searching for. In this particular case for example, typing "businesses that abolished bureaucracy" or "business that changed from bureaucracy" will result in this article being displayed as the first result. I may also use the same approach if I'm seeking scholarly/academic sources.
Do you know of any businesses/companies who used a traditional/bureaucratic management and failed? or any sources on it
I don't think there are many businesses that failed solely due to a traditional/bureaucratic management approach. This is because bureaucratic management is an approach that can actually work. It's just that there has been a focus on shifting to a more participative approach from several businesses due to the benefits associated with an approach of the sort. Bureaucracy can sometimes constitute a complication to another issue that the business is already facing, eventually leading to its failure. A good example of this is Kodak, which paid the price of failing to adapt to rapidly changing technology. Its failure to recognise the importance of the need to embrace change in such a fast-changing business environment was linked to its bureaucratic approach. The following explains it quite well:
Kodak, Bureaucracy and Digital Imaging
Kodak, Bureaucracy and Digital Imaging - Download as a PDF or view online for free
Of course, you should stick to scholarly sources if required and you can definitely find information relating to Kodak's failure within academic sources.
I hope this helps!
@jimmysmith560 Hi again, sorry for keep on bothering you, but I had one more question. If an organisations' management style is bureaucratic, does it mean that they don't want change? Because one source said that "GM is too bureaucratic and unable to adjust to changing markets" so was wondering if within bureaucratic management, they dislike change. and if this is the case, why aren't they able to adjust to changing markets.
Bureaucracy in business refers to a hierarchical organisation or a company that operates by a set of pre-determined rules. In a large business, there are typically several diverse functions that need to be performed by specialised sub-institutions that report up the management chain.
If an organisation's management style is bureaucratic, that does not necessarily mean they don't want to change. It's more about recognising change as a need in order to satisfy business goals that drive organisations in changing to a participative management style. However, it is usually those businesses that choose not to adapt to change that fail, as evidenced by the Kodak example I gave above, and also the GM example you provided. The Haier example I gave in my initial reply is a good demonstration of the fact that just because a business adopts a bureaucratic approach doesn't necessarily mean that business is opposed to change, with Haier recognising the need for a shift to a more participative approach and effectively applying this change.
I think that generally, within bureaucratic management, change might be perceived negatively, particularly from the perspective of business owners/executives, who feel that constantly changing business practices/strategies can eventually lead to a decrease in executive power in comparison with the rest of the stakeholders, because, with respect to this particular topic, participative management is a management style that requires the cooperation of both employees and managers, meaning the more united they are, the more powerful they are as a team.
I hope this helps!
Thankyou very much for your helpBureaucracy in business refers to a hierarchical organisation or a company that operates by a set of pre-determined rules. In a large business, there are typically several diverse functions that need to be performed by specialised sub-institutions that report up the management chain.
If an organisation's management style is bureaucratic, that does not necessarily mean they don't want to change. It's more about recognising change as a need in order to satisfy business goals that drive organisations in changing to a participative management style. However, it is usually those businesses that choose not to adapt to change that fail, as evidenced by the Kodak example I gave above, and also the GM example you provided. The Haier example I gave in my initial reply is a good demonstration of the fact that just because a business adopts a bureaucratic approach doesn't necessarily mean that business is opposed to change, with Haier recognising the need for a shift to a more participative approach and effectively applying this change.
I think that generally, within bureaucratic management, change might be perceived negatively, particularly from the perspective of business owners/executives, who feel that constantly changing business practices/strategies can eventually lead to a decrease in executive power in comparison with the rest of the stakeholders, because, with respect to this particular topic, participative management is a management style that requires the cooperation of both employees and managers, meaning the more united they are, the more powerful they are as a team.
I hope this helps!
No worries, all the best!
seremify007
Junior Member
If you're asking this stuff because you have a business studies exam/assignment/etc, you're better off sticking to the tried and tested case studies rather than trying to find your own IMO.
Hey, it was for a group report for uni where we had to use a real-life example and had to use scholarly articles