Discuss the implementation levers of Structure and the Forms (Functional, Multidivisional, Matrix, Network, and Partnerships and Franchises) of Organizational Structure.

Implementation levers are very important as they can be used to build a solid strategy. Crittenden and Crittenden (2008) argue that the use of appropriate levers of implementation is the pivotal hinge in the development of the organization (p. 301). Carpenter and Sanders (2008) identify the three major implementation levers as structure, systems and processes, and people and rewards (p. 242). However, the most talked about in business seems to be the structure. I think of structure as the foundation upon which businesses are built. A strong structure should reflect a strong company.

According to Carpenter and Sanders (2008), organizational structure is the framework that management has devised to divide tasks, deploy resources, and coordinate departments (p. 242). When I think of our firm and how we’ve managed to establish structure while working together in StratSims, it is clear to see how we divided obligations and worked collaboratively to allocate our resources. I think we worked very well together in spite of our lack of expertise in the automobile industry.

Some of the forms of organizational structure mentioned in the text include: functional structure, multidivisional structure, matrix structure network structure, and partnerships and franchises (Carpenter & Sanders, 2008). Functional structure revolves around function-specific activities and I don’t imagine there is much flexibility with this model as it seems very narrowly focused. A multidivisional structure is more flexible in terms of larger firms. Multidivisional structures improve returns on investment for unrelated-diversified firms, to which these firms also reduced their risk on returns (Hoskisson, 1987). As seen in Exhibit 8.4 displaying a framework much more conducive to multiple projects and teams or units, we can see how the multidivisional structure can be beneficial to a firm. However, one challenge of such a structure that firms will need to work hard to avoid, is the competition between these units or divisions. Firms will also need to manage duplicating similar functions that could be handled more efficiently (Carpenter & Sanders, 2008).

The matrix structure is more of a mix between functional and multidivisional structure. Additionally, it provides flexibility by making it possible to organize teams around specific projects, products, or markets (Carpenter & Sanders, 2008). The network structure works to see that small, semiautonomous, and potentially temporary groups are brought together for specific purposes (p. 246). The drawback for this structure is that, due to the semi-autonomy and external linkages of the structure, there is potential for confusion and ambiguity (p. 246). Lastly, partnerships and franchises are also considered forms of organization structure. Partnerships are the preferred structure of choice since it seems to make more sense that everyone gets a piece of the pie so to speak. In contrast, a franchise structure turns over the management responsibility to the franchise. The reason some may choose this structural method is to increase rapid growth and also rely on the franchise to foot the costs of capital (Carpenter & Sanders, 2008).

Discuss how The Balanced Scorecard can be used to gauge the success with which implementation levers are aligned with strategic objectives using the Strategy Map (Exhibit 8.7, page 249).

The balanced scorecard can be seen as a summary of the goals and objectives in the strategic management process (Carpenter & Sanders, 2008). Management must find a way to condense the tangibles and intangibles as a form of measurement to gauge these objectives (p. 248). Carpenter and Sanders (2008) support developing a strategy map to link all performance metrics to the firm’s strategy. Managers must also attempt continuous and dynamic strategy by disseminating key features of strategy and stipulating responsibilities for executing it and then linking the strategy with the financial budget (p. 249).

In StratSim, one common mistake is to focus on “bottom line” (Carpenter & Sanders, 2008). If I’m being honest, we have been so focused on being the most valuable and preferred vehicle brand on the market that we made moves regardless of cost. Now that we’ve made some drastic moves to our manufacturing and technology, I think it’s time we really hone in on the problem areas of our scorecard and improve it, even if only a week left.

References

Carpenter, M.A. & Sanders, Wm., G. (2008). Strategic management: A dynamic perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Crittenden, V.L. & Crittenden, W.F. (2008). Building a capable organization: The eight levers of strategy implementation. Business Horizons, 51(4), 301-309. Retrieved from https://www-sciencedirect-com.library2.csumb.edu:2248/science/article/pii/S0007681308000335

Hoskisson, R. E. (1987). Multidivisional structure and performance: The contingency of diversification strategy. Academy of Management Journal 30(4), 625-644. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.library2.csumb.edu:224…