netrashetty
Netra Shetty
Organisational Structure of Union Pacific Railroad : The Union Pacific Railroad (reporting mark UP) (NYSE: UNP), headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska, is the largest railroad network in the United States. James R. Young is president, CEO and Chairman.[3][4]
UP's route map covers most of the central and western United States west of Chicago and New Orleans. As of December 31, 2008 UP operates on 32,012 miles (51,518 km) of track, of which it owns outright 26,171 miles (42,118 km).[5] Both numbers represent the highest amount of any railroad currently operating in the United States.[6][7] It has achieved this size as a result of purchasing a large number of other railroads, notably the Missouri Pacific, Chicago and North Western, Western Pacific, Missouri-Kansas-Texas, and the Southern Pacific (including the Rio Grande). Currently, Union Pacific owns 26% of Ferromex while Grupo Mexico owns the remaining 74%.
UP's chief railroad competitor is the BNSF Railway, which covers much of the same territory.
President
James Young
Director
Erroll Davis
Director
Charles Krulak
Director
Andrew Card
Director
Thomas McLarty
Director
Michael McConnell
Director
Steven Rogel
Director
Michael McCarthy
Director
Judith Hope
Director
Thomas Donohue
Director
Archie Dunham
Director
Jose Villarreal
CFO
Robert Knight
Sales & Marketing
JK
Operations
LF
Operations
DD
Corporate Relations
Robert Turner
CIO
LT
Human Resources
BS
Legal
MH
Planning & Administration
CE
Continuous Improvement
DM
External Relations
MR
Purchasing
JO
Taxes
BG
Treasurer
MSJ
Control & Accounting
JT
Labor Relations
William Turner
Employee Ownership
The ideal type of organization where democracy can work is one that is wholly owned by its employees. In this case, the purpose of the business is precisely to serve the needs of the employees because they are the owners. Naturally, employees, being owners, must have a say in how the business is run. This is no different from a sole proprietorship in principle. The sole owner of a corner grocery store would clearly be the one to call the shots in how that business is run. Large organizations owned by thousands of people, who are also its employees, must similarly be given a say in how the business is managed.
Where Organizational Democracy Cannot Work
The problem with organizational democracy is that most large businesses are owned by shareholders, not by the employees. If we agree that the owners of a business have the primary right to say how the business will be run, then this principle must apply to shareholders for those businesses that are owned by them rather than by employees. In such companies, top executives are representatives of the shareholders. Employees are effectively full time suppliers in such businesses, not owners. To let employees vote on who should be the next chief executive or on strategic decisions would be a violation of the rights of the real owners. This idea would actually violate a fundamental principle of democracy: that we should be free to manage and dispose of our property as we see fit.
Applicable Aspects of Democracy in Business
What is the kernel of useful truth in this idea? How can we reap the benefits of allowing employees to have a greater say in their companies, without the absurdity of trying to set up a full blown democracy? The use of the word “democracy” creates a problem because it implies allowing employees to vote on fundamental issues or on executive selection.
However, it is a great idea to include employees in deciding HOW things should be done. When top management makes a strategic decision, there are often many ways of executing the strategy. In these cases, employees are more likely to buy in to a specific implementation plan if they own it, if they have helped to develop it. But this is simply what has always been called participative decision making or participative management. But making decisions on a participative basis in a team will never be fully democratic because the manager must always reserve the power to overrule any decision made by, or with, employees that is not supportive of shareholder interests or which puts them at risk. The problem with the word “democratic” is that it implies “majority rule” and no business that is owned by shareholders can be run this way.
Encouraging participation in decisions is an excellent tool for employee motivation, but the idea of organizational democracy is untenable and fundamentally confused in the context of shareholder owned businesses.
UP's route map covers most of the central and western United States west of Chicago and New Orleans. As of December 31, 2008 UP operates on 32,012 miles (51,518 km) of track, of which it owns outright 26,171 miles (42,118 km).[5] Both numbers represent the highest amount of any railroad currently operating in the United States.[6][7] It has achieved this size as a result of purchasing a large number of other railroads, notably the Missouri Pacific, Chicago and North Western, Western Pacific, Missouri-Kansas-Texas, and the Southern Pacific (including the Rio Grande). Currently, Union Pacific owns 26% of Ferromex while Grupo Mexico owns the remaining 74%.
UP's chief railroad competitor is the BNSF Railway, which covers much of the same territory.
President
James Young
Director
Erroll Davis
Director
Charles Krulak
Director
Andrew Card
Director
Thomas McLarty
Director
Michael McConnell
Director
Steven Rogel
Director
Michael McCarthy
Director
Judith Hope
Director
Thomas Donohue
Director
Archie Dunham
Director
Jose Villarreal
CFO
Robert Knight
Sales & Marketing
JK
Operations
LF
Operations
DD
Corporate Relations
Robert Turner
CIO
LT
Human Resources
BS
Legal
MH
Planning & Administration
CE
Continuous Improvement
DM
External Relations
MR
Purchasing
JO
Taxes
BG
Treasurer
MSJ
Control & Accounting
JT
Labor Relations
William Turner
Employee Ownership
The ideal type of organization where democracy can work is one that is wholly owned by its employees. In this case, the purpose of the business is precisely to serve the needs of the employees because they are the owners. Naturally, employees, being owners, must have a say in how the business is run. This is no different from a sole proprietorship in principle. The sole owner of a corner grocery store would clearly be the one to call the shots in how that business is run. Large organizations owned by thousands of people, who are also its employees, must similarly be given a say in how the business is managed.
Where Organizational Democracy Cannot Work
The problem with organizational democracy is that most large businesses are owned by shareholders, not by the employees. If we agree that the owners of a business have the primary right to say how the business will be run, then this principle must apply to shareholders for those businesses that are owned by them rather than by employees. In such companies, top executives are representatives of the shareholders. Employees are effectively full time suppliers in such businesses, not owners. To let employees vote on who should be the next chief executive or on strategic decisions would be a violation of the rights of the real owners. This idea would actually violate a fundamental principle of democracy: that we should be free to manage and dispose of our property as we see fit.
Applicable Aspects of Democracy in Business
What is the kernel of useful truth in this idea? How can we reap the benefits of allowing employees to have a greater say in their companies, without the absurdity of trying to set up a full blown democracy? The use of the word “democracy” creates a problem because it implies allowing employees to vote on fundamental issues or on executive selection.
However, it is a great idea to include employees in deciding HOW things should be done. When top management makes a strategic decision, there are often many ways of executing the strategy. In these cases, employees are more likely to buy in to a specific implementation plan if they own it, if they have helped to develop it. But this is simply what has always been called participative decision making or participative management. But making decisions on a participative basis in a team will never be fully democratic because the manager must always reserve the power to overrule any decision made by, or with, employees that is not supportive of shareholder interests or which puts them at risk. The problem with the word “democratic” is that it implies “majority rule” and no business that is owned by shareholders can be run this way.
Encouraging participation in decisions is an excellent tool for employee motivation, but the idea of organizational democracy is untenable and fundamentally confused in the context of shareholder owned businesses.
Last edited by a moderator: