netrashetty
Netra Shetty
Organisational Structure of Procter & Gamble : Procter & Gamble Co. (P&G, NYSE: PG) is a Fortune 500 American multinational corporation headquartered in Downtown Cincinnati, Ohio[3] that manufactures a wide range of consumer goods. It is 6th in Fortune's Most Admired Companies 2010 list.[4] P&G is credited with many business innovations including brand management and the soap opera.
Procter & Gamble is a leading member of the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, a Washington D.C.-based coalition of over 400 major companies and NGOs that advocates for a larger International Affairs Budget, which funds American diplomatic and development efforts abroad
CEO
Robert McDonald
Director
Johnathan Rodgers
Director
Ernesto Zedillo
Director
Rajat Gupta
Director
Patricia Woertz
Director
Kenneth Chenault
Director
Scott Cook
Director
Charles Lee
Director
A. Lafley
Director
James McNerney
Director
Lynn Martin
Director
Margaret Whitman
Director
Ralph Snyderman
Director
Mary Wilderotter
CFO
Jon Moeller
CIO & Global Services
FP
CTO
BB
Brand Building
MP
Customer Business Developmen...
RF
External Relations
CH
Human Resources
MN
Product Supply
Keith Harrison
Legal & Secretary
DM
Diversity & Services
LCH
Beauty & Grooming
Edward Shirley
Health & Well Being
Robert Steele
Household Care
DP
Operations
WG
Treasurer
TL
Control
VS
Hair Care
CdL
Professional Salon, Beauty &...
RJ
Personal Beauty
GD
Prestige Products
HL
Personal Care
Charles Bergh
Baby Care
MR
Oral Care
CP
Family Care
MLFM
Feminine Care
Steven Bishop
Health Care
TF
Fabric Care
JM
Home Care
David Taylor
Duracell
MB
Snacks & Pet Care
John Goodwin
Asia
DH
Central & Eastern Europe & M...
LP
North America
MH
Greater China
DR
Latin America
JU
Western Europe
GC
Wal-Mart
JS
The environment for companies today is anything but stable. Managers
can no longer forecast with certainty the outcome of their organizations.
This has drawn attention to chaos theory, which suggests relationships
between complex systems, including organizations, are nonlinear and
are composed of many choices that create varying effects and render
the environment unpredictable.
In the new environment managers are seeking solutions for today and
the future of their organizations. The learning organization offers hope
for the future as they seek to change key dimensions of their firms in a
chaotic environment.
A comparison of both approaches followed by an example will further
illustrate the purpose of this article.
Traditionally, the most common organizational structure is controlled
through the vertical hierarchy. Decision making comes from top
management and works its way down through the organization.
According to Daft, "This structure can be quite effective. It promotes
efficient production and in-depth skill development, and the hierarchy of
authority provides a sensible mechanism for supervision and control in
large organizations, (29-30). Although this structure may promote
efficiency, in a rapidly changing environment, this type of structure may
become overloaded. Because decisions rest solely with management,
they are not able to respond to changes in the market quickly enough to
succeed.
In the learning organization, structure is more horizontal, and tasks are
created around processes rather than departmental functions.
Furthermore, the hierarchy is considerably flattened, with only a few top
managers in finance and HR functions. Daft says, "Self-directed teams
are the fundamental work unit in the learning organization. Boundaries
between functions are practically eliminated because teams include
members from several functional areas, (30). In a rapidly changing
environment, the structure of a learning organization allows firms to
quickly change and adapt to new market demands.
In traditional organizations, strategy is formulated by top managers of
the firm, which every worker is expected to abide by. Executives use
strategy to guide their organizations through efficiency and
performance. Workers have little or no say in the direction and strategy
of the firm.
Procter & Gamble is a leading member of the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, a Washington D.C.-based coalition of over 400 major companies and NGOs that advocates for a larger International Affairs Budget, which funds American diplomatic and development efforts abroad
CEO
Robert McDonald
Director
Johnathan Rodgers
Director
Ernesto Zedillo
Director
Rajat Gupta
Director
Patricia Woertz
Director
Kenneth Chenault
Director
Scott Cook
Director
Charles Lee
Director
A. Lafley
Director
James McNerney
Director
Lynn Martin
Director
Margaret Whitman
Director
Ralph Snyderman
Director
Mary Wilderotter
CFO
Jon Moeller
CIO & Global Services
FP
CTO
BB
Brand Building
MP
Customer Business Developmen...
RF
External Relations
CH
Human Resources
MN
Product Supply
Keith Harrison
Legal & Secretary
DM
Diversity & Services
LCH
Beauty & Grooming
Edward Shirley
Health & Well Being
Robert Steele
Household Care
DP
Operations
WG
Treasurer
TL
Control
VS
Hair Care
CdL
Professional Salon, Beauty &...
RJ
Personal Beauty
GD
Prestige Products
HL
Personal Care
Charles Bergh
Baby Care
MR
Oral Care
CP
Family Care
MLFM
Feminine Care
Steven Bishop
Health Care
TF
Fabric Care
JM
Home Care
David Taylor
Duracell
MB
Snacks & Pet Care
John Goodwin
Asia
DH
Central & Eastern Europe & M...
LP
North America
MH
Greater China
DR
Latin America
JU
Western Europe
GC
Wal-Mart
JS
The environment for companies today is anything but stable. Managers
can no longer forecast with certainty the outcome of their organizations.
This has drawn attention to chaos theory, which suggests relationships
between complex systems, including organizations, are nonlinear and
are composed of many choices that create varying effects and render
the environment unpredictable.
In the new environment managers are seeking solutions for today and
the future of their organizations. The learning organization offers hope
for the future as they seek to change key dimensions of their firms in a
chaotic environment.
A comparison of both approaches followed by an example will further
illustrate the purpose of this article.
Traditionally, the most common organizational structure is controlled
through the vertical hierarchy. Decision making comes from top
management and works its way down through the organization.
According to Daft, "This structure can be quite effective. It promotes
efficient production and in-depth skill development, and the hierarchy of
authority provides a sensible mechanism for supervision and control in
large organizations, (29-30). Although this structure may promote
efficiency, in a rapidly changing environment, this type of structure may
become overloaded. Because decisions rest solely with management,
they are not able to respond to changes in the market quickly enough to
succeed.
In the learning organization, structure is more horizontal, and tasks are
created around processes rather than departmental functions.
Furthermore, the hierarchy is considerably flattened, with only a few top
managers in finance and HR functions. Daft says, "Self-directed teams
are the fundamental work unit in the learning organization. Boundaries
between functions are practically eliminated because teams include
members from several functional areas, (30). In a rapidly changing
environment, the structure of a learning organization allows firms to
quickly change and adapt to new market demands.
In traditional organizations, strategy is formulated by top managers of
the firm, which every worker is expected to abide by. Executives use
strategy to guide their organizations through efficiency and
performance. Workers have little or no say in the direction and strategy
of the firm.
Last edited by a moderator: