netrashetty
Netra Shetty
Organisational Structure of American Apparel : American Apparel (AMEX: APP) is the largest clothing manufacturer in the United States.[4] It is a vertically integrated clothing manufacturer, wholesaler, and retailer that also performs its own design, advertising, and marketing. It is best-known for making basic cotton knitwear such as T-shirts and underwear, but in recent years it has expanded—to include leggings, leotards, tank tops, vintage clothing, dresses, pants, denim, nail polish, bedding and accessories for men, women, children, babies and dogs.
President
Dov Charney
Director
Mark Samson
2
Director
Mark Thornton
Director
Keith Miller
Director
Allan Mayer
Director
Lyndon Lea
3
Director
Robert Greene
3
Director
Neil Richardson
4
Acting President
Thomas Casey
CFO
Adrian Kowalewski
2
Manufacturing
Martin Bailey
Legal & Secretary
Glenn Weinman
Management Change
This principle is not even new to any organization. However, what is new in this is how an organization implements strategic procedures for a management change. The process of reengineering is very significant in this issue.
Reengineering or designing the organizational structure is important in the sense of making a management more capable, competitive, and adaptable to the needs of the current time. In the scientific management theory, this is not explicitly shown, however, the emphasis on the need of redesigning the structural form of an organization is an option given by the scientific management. In the new realm of organizational structuring and designing, the business process reengineering is being summoned in order to make over the management. These changes will only occur when the process or reengineering successfully implemented.
However, the radical overhauling of the management or of any organizational structure may affect the continuity of the business process. Nevertheless, management change is necessary for an organization to be effective and more competitive.
Functional structures
Early organizational design divided enterprises into relatively simple parts, splitting them into defined activities such as production, marketing or personnel. (...) functional organizations have the advantage of being simple to understand with clear lines of command, specified tasks and responsibilities. Staff can specialize in a particular business area such as production or marketing and follow well-defined career paths. This is equally true of human resource specialists who can develop expertise in specific areas such as employee relations or reward management. (...)
There are also major disadvantages to functional structures. People managers have to tread carefully because this form of organization is prone to interdepartmental conflict, often degenerating into 'them and us' tribal warfare. Coherence and good communication are particularly hard to achieve between virtually independent functions
Historically, the conception and idea of transformational leadership is attributed to James MacGregor Burns in 1978 where he mainly relates it to the field of politics (Bass 1998). From politics, TFL was extended to various fields including organisational psychology and management. It is acknowledged that this type of leadership is the extension of transactional leadership (Bass 1998). Transactional leadership is popularly described by two major components: contingent rewards and management by exemption (Smith et al. 2004). While transactional leadership are reward-based (the achievement of goals is linked with rewards), TFL extends this practice by inculcating commitment, stimulating change, and achieving performance from both leaders and followers. Meanwhile, many leadership-related authors have their own sets of definitions but the common variables in their definitions are the strong emphasis on high levels of motivations and commitment in achieving organisational objectives. The works of Bernard Bass from 1980s up to the early 1990s are frequently adopted in defining concepts related to transformational leadership. Bass’s ideas on transformational leadership are bounded on four key tenets: idealized influence (charismatic leadership), inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Bass 1996). These principles are discussed in the subsequent sections of this report. In earlier studies, Avolio (1999) define TFL as a leader’s process of stimulating change on followers particularly on their beliefs, values, capabilities, and motives with the main objective of raising organisational performance beyond self-interest. It is also identified as a type of leadership that is engaged to change (Eisenbach et al. 1999). According to Yukl (2002), TFL is the process of developing commitment among followers towards the achievement of organisational objectives and shaping cultural conventions in line with the organisational strategy. The general idea of TFL is derived on the intention of motivating followers to reach maximum productivity and achieve organisational goals instead of serving individual or selfish interests
President
Dov Charney
Director
Mark Samson
2
Director
Mark Thornton
Director
Keith Miller
Director
Allan Mayer
Director
Lyndon Lea
3
Director
Robert Greene
3
Director
Neil Richardson
4
Acting President
Thomas Casey
CFO
Adrian Kowalewski
2
Manufacturing
Martin Bailey
Legal & Secretary
Glenn Weinman
Management Change
This principle is not even new to any organization. However, what is new in this is how an organization implements strategic procedures for a management change. The process of reengineering is very significant in this issue.
Reengineering or designing the organizational structure is important in the sense of making a management more capable, competitive, and adaptable to the needs of the current time. In the scientific management theory, this is not explicitly shown, however, the emphasis on the need of redesigning the structural form of an organization is an option given by the scientific management. In the new realm of organizational structuring and designing, the business process reengineering is being summoned in order to make over the management. These changes will only occur when the process or reengineering successfully implemented.
However, the radical overhauling of the management or of any organizational structure may affect the continuity of the business process. Nevertheless, management change is necessary for an organization to be effective and more competitive.
Functional structures
Early organizational design divided enterprises into relatively simple parts, splitting them into defined activities such as production, marketing or personnel. (...) functional organizations have the advantage of being simple to understand with clear lines of command, specified tasks and responsibilities. Staff can specialize in a particular business area such as production or marketing and follow well-defined career paths. This is equally true of human resource specialists who can develop expertise in specific areas such as employee relations or reward management. (...)
There are also major disadvantages to functional structures. People managers have to tread carefully because this form of organization is prone to interdepartmental conflict, often degenerating into 'them and us' tribal warfare. Coherence and good communication are particularly hard to achieve between virtually independent functions
Historically, the conception and idea of transformational leadership is attributed to James MacGregor Burns in 1978 where he mainly relates it to the field of politics (Bass 1998). From politics, TFL was extended to various fields including organisational psychology and management. It is acknowledged that this type of leadership is the extension of transactional leadership (Bass 1998). Transactional leadership is popularly described by two major components: contingent rewards and management by exemption (Smith et al. 2004). While transactional leadership are reward-based (the achievement of goals is linked with rewards), TFL extends this practice by inculcating commitment, stimulating change, and achieving performance from both leaders and followers. Meanwhile, many leadership-related authors have their own sets of definitions but the common variables in their definitions are the strong emphasis on high levels of motivations and commitment in achieving organisational objectives. The works of Bernard Bass from 1980s up to the early 1990s are frequently adopted in defining concepts related to transformational leadership. Bass’s ideas on transformational leadership are bounded on four key tenets: idealized influence (charismatic leadership), inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Bass 1996). These principles are discussed in the subsequent sections of this report. In earlier studies, Avolio (1999) define TFL as a leader’s process of stimulating change on followers particularly on their beliefs, values, capabilities, and motives with the main objective of raising organisational performance beyond self-interest. It is also identified as a type of leadership that is engaged to change (Eisenbach et al. 1999). According to Yukl (2002), TFL is the process of developing commitment among followers towards the achievement of organisational objectives and shaping cultural conventions in line with the organisational strategy. The general idea of TFL is derived on the intention of motivating followers to reach maximum productivity and achieve organisational goals instead of serving individual or selfish interests
Last edited by a moderator: