abhishreshthaa
New member
Human Resource Management of Walt Disney Company : The Walt Disney Company (NYSE: DIS) (commonly referred to as Disney) is the largest media and entertainment conglomerate in the world in terms of revenue.[5] Founded on October 16, 1923, by brothers Walt Disney and Roy Disney as the Disney Brothers Cartoon Studio, the company was reincorporated as Walt Disney Productions, Ltd. in 1929, and became publicity-traded as Walt Disney Productions in 1938. Walt Disney Productions established itself as a leader in the American animation industry before diversifying into live-action film production, television, and travel. Taking on its current name in 1986, The Walt Disney Company expanded its existing operations and also started divisions focused upon theatre, radio, publishing, and online media. In addition, it has created new divisions of the company in order to market more mature content than it typically associates with its flagship family-oriented brands.
The company is best known for the products of its film studio, the Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group, today one of the largest and best-known studios in Hollywood. Disney also owns and operates the ABC broadcast television network; cable television networks such as Disney Channel, ESPN, and ABC Family; publishing, merchandising, and theatre divisions; and owns and licenses 11 theme parks around the world. The company has been a component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average since May 6, 1991. An early and well-known cartoon creation of the company, Mickey Mouse, is the official mascot of The Walt Disney Company.
Expatriation is a multifaceted phenomenon influenced by individual and organizational factors. Individual factors are expatriate managers’ competencies, motivation, attitudes, beliefs and values, while, the parent and local companies’ approach to expatriation in aspects of preparation, planning, training and support are the organizational factors (Mendenhall and Kuhlman, 2001, p. 121). Shell is one of the companies that foster a high level of expatriation (Cameron, 2002). Shell has a long history of expatriate employment because it is fundamental to the nature of the company. Shell believes that expatriate staffs in all the businesses contribute to the growth and success of the company especially through the combination of competences and expertise of local staff and expatriate staff.
According to Fenwick and De Cieri (1995) and Hitchcock (1992), performance management is the process of transforming strategic objectives into action, monitoring progress, and rewarding results. Definitions of performance management as a holistic, or integrated, strategic approach, thus extending the concept beyond performance appraisal, are now in common use. For example, a process for establishing shared understanding about what is to be achieved, and approach to managing and developing people in a way which increases the probability that it will be achieved in the short and longer term (as cited in Fenwick, De Cieri and Welch, 1999).
Foreign subsidiaries and joint ventures are structured and managed much like their parent companies, but usually both have expatriate and local managers, making the management of the performance of international assignees more complex and difficult than with domestic operations. Performance management system (PMS) is a critical component in the development of international management. International performance management plays an important role in performance feedback, individual job assignments, development planning and identification of training. In the global context, performance management encompasses three processes to which international PMS relies: defining performance, facilitating performance and encouraging performance.
Organizational design can be defined as the “process of managing the organizational structure” (Wagner
and Hollenbeck, 1998). The organization’s structure is not only a tool for managing the workforce but
also a means of communicating priorities and responsibilities, enabling management to focus
employees’ and stakeholders’ attention on particular aspects of the business (Davenport and Beck,
2002). Organizational design should support strategy implementation, facilitate the flow of work,
permit effective managerial control, and create reasonable and measurable jobs (Nadler and Tushman,
1992).
According to Galbraith (2003), the problem of organizational design occurs when there are many
employees in a number of specialist groups, which need to be integrated around the completion of a
global task.
CGIAR Centers seek to have staff from different scientific disciplines, as well as those from financial,
administrative, and technology support functions, working collaboratively on identifying key research
problems, attracting donor funding to have these tackled, and delivering the necessary research products.
Often, overlaying this is a move by Centers to decentralize functions geographically (in varying degrees)
to regionally located offices. Many Centers have turned to various types of matrix organizations and the
formation of multidisciplinary teams to facilitate this collaboration.
In “strong” matrix management structures, resources are managed by function or discipline; managers
work on projects managed by program managers.
Pitagorsky (1998) notes that, while project and program managers (PMs) and functional managers
(FMs) are in the business of keeping their organizations happy and healthy, their relationship is often
competitive and antagonistic. Conflict between PMs and FMs is often rooted in problems with the
organization's structure, particularly, role definition, incentive/compensation, reporting hierarchies, and
lines of communication. Pitagorsky identifies the need for stability in program/project resourcing
promised by functional managers, and defining program/functional manager roles as important elements
in minimizing problems with matrix management.
There is no universal best way to design an organization–the structure should flow from the missions
and strategies of the organization itself (Nadler and Tushman, 1992). Given the dynamic environment
in which CGIAR Centers operate a periodic review of the organizational design is desirable. This
review should consider (as-is and as-could-be) such factors as
•
•
•
•
•
•
flexibility of the organization to adapt to financial or technological change
internal and external client service orientation
empowerment of staff with a view to drawing out their energy and creativity
ability to attract high-performing staff
knowledge sharing within the organization
opportunities for cost reduction based on fewer layers of management and better alignment of
accountability and responsibility within the organization
opportunities for economies of scale through internally shared services, outsourcing and co-sourcing.
The company is best known for the products of its film studio, the Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group, today one of the largest and best-known studios in Hollywood. Disney also owns and operates the ABC broadcast television network; cable television networks such as Disney Channel, ESPN, and ABC Family; publishing, merchandising, and theatre divisions; and owns and licenses 11 theme parks around the world. The company has been a component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average since May 6, 1991. An early and well-known cartoon creation of the company, Mickey Mouse, is the official mascot of The Walt Disney Company.
Expatriation is a multifaceted phenomenon influenced by individual and organizational factors. Individual factors are expatriate managers’ competencies, motivation, attitudes, beliefs and values, while, the parent and local companies’ approach to expatriation in aspects of preparation, planning, training and support are the organizational factors (Mendenhall and Kuhlman, 2001, p. 121). Shell is one of the companies that foster a high level of expatriation (Cameron, 2002). Shell has a long history of expatriate employment because it is fundamental to the nature of the company. Shell believes that expatriate staffs in all the businesses contribute to the growth and success of the company especially through the combination of competences and expertise of local staff and expatriate staff.
According to Fenwick and De Cieri (1995) and Hitchcock (1992), performance management is the process of transforming strategic objectives into action, monitoring progress, and rewarding results. Definitions of performance management as a holistic, or integrated, strategic approach, thus extending the concept beyond performance appraisal, are now in common use. For example, a process for establishing shared understanding about what is to be achieved, and approach to managing and developing people in a way which increases the probability that it will be achieved in the short and longer term (as cited in Fenwick, De Cieri and Welch, 1999).
Foreign subsidiaries and joint ventures are structured and managed much like their parent companies, but usually both have expatriate and local managers, making the management of the performance of international assignees more complex and difficult than with domestic operations. Performance management system (PMS) is a critical component in the development of international management. International performance management plays an important role in performance feedback, individual job assignments, development planning and identification of training. In the global context, performance management encompasses three processes to which international PMS relies: defining performance, facilitating performance and encouraging performance.
Organizational design can be defined as the “process of managing the organizational structure” (Wagner
and Hollenbeck, 1998). The organization’s structure is not only a tool for managing the workforce but
also a means of communicating priorities and responsibilities, enabling management to focus
employees’ and stakeholders’ attention on particular aspects of the business (Davenport and Beck,
2002). Organizational design should support strategy implementation, facilitate the flow of work,
permit effective managerial control, and create reasonable and measurable jobs (Nadler and Tushman,
1992).
According to Galbraith (2003), the problem of organizational design occurs when there are many
employees in a number of specialist groups, which need to be integrated around the completion of a
global task.
CGIAR Centers seek to have staff from different scientific disciplines, as well as those from financial,
administrative, and technology support functions, working collaboratively on identifying key research
problems, attracting donor funding to have these tackled, and delivering the necessary research products.
Often, overlaying this is a move by Centers to decentralize functions geographically (in varying degrees)
to regionally located offices. Many Centers have turned to various types of matrix organizations and the
formation of multidisciplinary teams to facilitate this collaboration.
In “strong” matrix management structures, resources are managed by function or discipline; managers
work on projects managed by program managers.
Pitagorsky (1998) notes that, while project and program managers (PMs) and functional managers
(FMs) are in the business of keeping their organizations happy and healthy, their relationship is often
competitive and antagonistic. Conflict between PMs and FMs is often rooted in problems with the
organization's structure, particularly, role definition, incentive/compensation, reporting hierarchies, and
lines of communication. Pitagorsky identifies the need for stability in program/project resourcing
promised by functional managers, and defining program/functional manager roles as important elements
in minimizing problems with matrix management.
There is no universal best way to design an organization–the structure should flow from the missions
and strategies of the organization itself (Nadler and Tushman, 1992). Given the dynamic environment
in which CGIAR Centers operate a periodic review of the organizational design is desirable. This
review should consider (as-is and as-could-be) such factors as
•
•
•
•
•
•
flexibility of the organization to adapt to financial or technological change
internal and external client service orientation
empowerment of staff with a view to drawing out their energy and creativity
ability to attract high-performing staff
knowledge sharing within the organization
opportunities for cost reduction based on fewer layers of management and better alignment of
accountability and responsibility within the organization
opportunities for economies of scale through internally shared services, outsourcing and co-sourcing.
Last edited by a moderator: