netrashetty
Netra Shetty
Organisational Structure of Chicago Bridge & Iron Company : Chicago Bridge & Iron Company (Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V.), (NYSE: CBI), known commonly as CB&I, is a large multinational conglomerate engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) company. CB&I specializes in projects for oil and gas companies. CB&I operates from more than 80 locations around the world, and as of August 1, 2009, CB&I has a total of approximately 16,000 employees.
2
CEO
Philip Asherman
3
Chairman of the Board
Richard Flury
4
Director
Marsha Williams
2
Director
Michael Underwood
2
Director
Gary Neale
Director
Charles Jennett
3
Director
Larry McVay
Director
Luke Scorsone
Director
W. Kissel
2
CFO
Ronald Ballschmiede
Administration
BB
COO
Lasse Petterson
5
Lummus Technology
Daniel McCarthy
Planning
ER
Operations
JB
CB&I Lummus
JR
Legal
DD
Human Resources & Administra...
DB
Technology Services
SL
Treasurer, CBIC
LR
In some measure, this is indicates substantial sense given that such modes of leadership puts some sort of provisional elements against the ordinary worker. Hence, having the worker restricted to amount of liberty operate improves the possibility of encouraging job dissatisfaction. This frequently submits shoddily for the company given that the likelihood of disintegration in the areas of operation is gamely visible. (Leavitt 1996, 333) It has also been noted that proper communication within the organization is the vital to deal with this dilemma. For instance, Chenier (1998, 557) mentioned that a safe and sound feedback system will be able to please this communication requirements of the company.
The bulk of responsibility is placed on the managers and those who possess leadership posts in the organization, in this case the COO. Lowry (1995, 443) mentioned in his article that the correct execution of management activities in the company has the propensity to be triggered by proper guidance and leadership, all of which finally points to organizational success. This is especially true as maintained in the assertions given by Hersey and Blanchard (1995 in Polleys 2002, 117). They said that the attitude of the leaders in the company is straightforwardly connected to the readiness of the followers. This is a component that intimately looks a lot like the enthusiasm of personnel in the company. (Robbins, Millet, Caccioppe and Water-Marsh 1998, 406) It is given to the leaders to show flexibility on their positions as they will, most unavoidably, come across diverse situations and different responses with reference to the personnel.
2
CEO
Philip Asherman
3
Chairman of the Board
Richard Flury
4
Director
Marsha Williams
2
Director
Michael Underwood
2
Director
Gary Neale
Director
Charles Jennett
3
Director
Larry McVay
Director
Luke Scorsone
Director
W. Kissel
2
CFO
Ronald Ballschmiede
Administration
BB
COO
Lasse Petterson
5
Lummus Technology
Daniel McCarthy
Planning
ER
Operations
JB
CB&I Lummus
JR
Legal
DD
Human Resources & Administra...
DB
Technology Services
SL
Treasurer, CBIC
LR
In some measure, this is indicates substantial sense given that such modes of leadership puts some sort of provisional elements against the ordinary worker. Hence, having the worker restricted to amount of liberty operate improves the possibility of encouraging job dissatisfaction. This frequently submits shoddily for the company given that the likelihood of disintegration in the areas of operation is gamely visible. (Leavitt 1996, 333) It has also been noted that proper communication within the organization is the vital to deal with this dilemma. For instance, Chenier (1998, 557) mentioned that a safe and sound feedback system will be able to please this communication requirements of the company.
The bulk of responsibility is placed on the managers and those who possess leadership posts in the organization, in this case the COO. Lowry (1995, 443) mentioned in his article that the correct execution of management activities in the company has the propensity to be triggered by proper guidance and leadership, all of which finally points to organizational success. This is especially true as maintained in the assertions given by Hersey and Blanchard (1995 in Polleys 2002, 117). They said that the attitude of the leaders in the company is straightforwardly connected to the readiness of the followers. This is a component that intimately looks a lot like the enthusiasm of personnel in the company. (Robbins, Millet, Caccioppe and Water-Marsh 1998, 406) It is given to the leaders to show flexibility on their positions as they will, most unavoidably, come across diverse situations and different responses with reference to the personnel.
Last edited by a moderator: