netrashetty
Netra Shetty
Organisational Structure of AGCO : AGCO Corporation (NYSE: AGCO) is an agricultural equipment manufacturer based in Duluth, Georgia, USA. As a leading global manufacturer of agricultural equipment, AGCO offers a full line of tractors, combines, hay tools, sprayers, forage and tillage equipment, which are distributed through more than 2,700 independent dealers and distributors in more than 140 countries worldwide.
2
CEO
Martin Richenhagen
4
Director
George Benson
2
Director
Herman Cain
3
Director
Gerald Shaheen
3
Director
George Minnich
2
Director
Hendrikus Visser
4
Director
Curtis Moll
4
Director
Luiz Fernando Furlan
Director
Gerald Johanneson
2
Director
Wolfgang Deml
2
Director
Tom LaSorda
2
CFO
Andrew Beck
EAME & EAPAC
Gary Collar
North America
Robert Crain
South America
Andre Carioba
Engineering
Garry Ball
Executive Development
Norman Boyd
Sales, Marketing & Product
Randall Hoffman
Human Resources
Lucinda Smith
Manufacturing & Quality
Hans-Bernd Veltmaat
Materials Management
David Caplan
Strategy & Integration & Inf...
Hubertus Muehlhaeuser
Legal & Secretary
Debra Kuper
However, this theory derives from the problem in the level of production and workforce. Taylor descriptive illustration of the status of work done by a workman insufficiently and ineffectively produce high quality products and the production level is low. He then suggests that in order to solve the problem of “soldiering” or “hanging it out” among the workmen, organizations should devise an effective and systematic management scheme in order to avoid such behavior among workmen. Hence, the emphasis on giving a “maximum prosperity on employees and the same with the employers” is the best medication to invoke.
According to Michael Freeman (1996), scientific management, though, in this contemporary setting is no longer used a s a term, however, various elements of the theory is customized in accordance to the need and context of a certain organization. Its doctrine is still useful today, due to a constant updating, and revising of the theory depending on the current need. In Freeman’s journal, he cited the constant revision made by the Scientific Management Society or Taylor society in order to adapt to the demands of the current time. The four principles were revised and justified by Harlow Person namely, Management Research, Standards, Control, and Cooperation.
PRODUCT DEPARTMENTALIZATION.
Large, diversified companies are often organized according to product. All the activities necessary to produce and market a product or group of similar products are grouped together. In such an arrangement, the top manager of the product group typically has considerable autonomy over the operation. The advantage of this type of structure is that the personnel in the group can focus on the particular needs of their product line and become experts in its development, production, and distribution. A disadvantage, at least in terms of larger organizations, is the duplication of resources. Each product group requires most of the functional areas such as finance, marketing, production, and other functions. The top leadership of the organization must decide how much redundancy it can afford.
CUSTOMER/MARKET DEPARTMENTALIZATION.
An organization may find it advantageous to organize according to the types of customers it serves. For example, a distribution company that sells to consumers, government clients, large businesses, and small businesses may decide to base its primary divisions on these different markets. Its personnel can then become proficient in meeting the needs of these different customers. In the same way, an organization that provides services such as accounting or consulting may group its personnel according to these types of customers. Figure 2 depicts an organization grouped by customers and markets.
2
CEO
Martin Richenhagen
4
Director
George Benson
2
Director
Herman Cain
3
Director
Gerald Shaheen
3
Director
George Minnich
2
Director
Hendrikus Visser
4
Director
Curtis Moll
4
Director
Luiz Fernando Furlan
Director
Gerald Johanneson
2
Director
Wolfgang Deml
2
Director
Tom LaSorda
2
CFO
Andrew Beck
EAME & EAPAC
Gary Collar
North America
Robert Crain
South America
Andre Carioba
Engineering
Garry Ball
Executive Development
Norman Boyd
Sales, Marketing & Product
Randall Hoffman
Human Resources
Lucinda Smith
Manufacturing & Quality
Hans-Bernd Veltmaat
Materials Management
David Caplan
Strategy & Integration & Inf...
Hubertus Muehlhaeuser
Legal & Secretary
Debra Kuper
However, this theory derives from the problem in the level of production and workforce. Taylor descriptive illustration of the status of work done by a workman insufficiently and ineffectively produce high quality products and the production level is low. He then suggests that in order to solve the problem of “soldiering” or “hanging it out” among the workmen, organizations should devise an effective and systematic management scheme in order to avoid such behavior among workmen. Hence, the emphasis on giving a “maximum prosperity on employees and the same with the employers” is the best medication to invoke.
According to Michael Freeman (1996), scientific management, though, in this contemporary setting is no longer used a s a term, however, various elements of the theory is customized in accordance to the need and context of a certain organization. Its doctrine is still useful today, due to a constant updating, and revising of the theory depending on the current need. In Freeman’s journal, he cited the constant revision made by the Scientific Management Society or Taylor society in order to adapt to the demands of the current time. The four principles were revised and justified by Harlow Person namely, Management Research, Standards, Control, and Cooperation.
PRODUCT DEPARTMENTALIZATION.
Large, diversified companies are often organized according to product. All the activities necessary to produce and market a product or group of similar products are grouped together. In such an arrangement, the top manager of the product group typically has considerable autonomy over the operation. The advantage of this type of structure is that the personnel in the group can focus on the particular needs of their product line and become experts in its development, production, and distribution. A disadvantage, at least in terms of larger organizations, is the duplication of resources. Each product group requires most of the functional areas such as finance, marketing, production, and other functions. The top leadership of the organization must decide how much redundancy it can afford.
CUSTOMER/MARKET DEPARTMENTALIZATION.
An organization may find it advantageous to organize according to the types of customers it serves. For example, a distribution company that sells to consumers, government clients, large businesses, and small businesses may decide to base its primary divisions on these different markets. Its personnel can then become proficient in meeting the needs of these different customers. In the same way, an organization that provides services such as accounting or consulting may group its personnel according to these types of customers. Figure 2 depicts an organization grouped by customers and markets.
Last edited by a moderator: