Innovative and Competitive Strategies of Pepsi Company and SEEK Limited - Case Study Example

Pepsi Company By: Name: Tutor: Affiliate Institution: City: Date: Pepsi Company Introduction In writing this report I have chosen Pepsi Company because I consider this company as very innovative. Besides, Pepsi has managed to remain competitive despite the high completion in the market especially from is main competitor, Coca-Cola Company. In the report, I have compared Pepsi Company with SEEK Limited and prepared analysis concerning the organizational culture, leadership, innovation ethics, and CSR. What can be learned from the analysis is discussed and the recommendations that can be adopted by both the organizations. A conclusion is provided concerning the mode of venturing that can be used to advantages and the role of leadership in the organizations. Overview of the company PepsiCo is an American corporation that has been dealing with snacks, food and different types of beverages with its headquarters in New York. It operates in the food and beverage industry where the industry has been considered competitive. The company has around 263,000 employees globally (Aladwani, 2001). The company has realized the role played by the human resource in the process of achieving competitive advantages in the industry. It has been competing with Coca-Cola has been considered as the main competitor (Cummings & Worley, 2014). The company some competitive human resources strategies that are very competitive in the market that has made the company the recognized in the market. The employees of Pepsi Company are motivated to work towards improving the performance of the company. As a result, they have been working towards ensuring that the company products are of high quality to ensure customer satisfaction. Comparison and analysis The organizational structure of the Pepsi Company has been changed for many times to address the conditions which are changing from day to day in the global market. The recent organizational structure of the Pepsi Company highlights the Companies` goal of expanding its market in global wide, and also leading in the market. The both mission and vision of the Pepsi Company are clearly indicated in the aims of their Company. On the other hand, SEEK limited mission has been focusing on ensuring a strong portfolio of making positive effects on a global scale. Innovation has been the major strategy that has been employed in the company to ensure quality services to the customers (Dowling, 2003). The strategic policies which are employed by Pepsi Company, in the expansion of their global market, where it`s organizational structure manifests their organizational structure which offers support towards the international growth. Unlike SEEK company, Pepsi has been adopting transformational leadership where a delegation of duties has formed part of the organizational culture. The employees are encouraged to make different decisions on their own hence assisting in enhancing their creativity. The system and the kind of a design of motivational strategies of the company can be defined by its organization structure that has been promoting employee engagement (Martin & Frost, 2011). Moreover, the components of a business and the interaction of these components in aiming to achieve its mission as well as the vision are also defined in the organizational structure. In the case of the Pepsi Company, the purpose of the organization structure here is to help this Company in controlling its expansion in the global world, by putting into consideration the crucial differences that exist in the global market conditions (Alvesson, 2012). The features of the organizational structure in the Pepsi Company are mostly based on the ways used by the Pepsi in maximizing its control of expansion in the market, but still thriving on internationally. The organizational culture of SEEK company has been geared towards ensuring that there is workplace diversity. The management of the company has been embracing the diverse talents existing among the employees where the company has been working towards ensuring that the employees are motivated through recognition. On the other hand, Pepsi Company has an organizational culture that embarks of developing the talents of the employees primarily focusing on improving their talents (Lussi, et al. 2012). Features of PepsiCo’s Organizational Structure were initially hierarchical but the management has introduced changes aiming at ensuring efficient information flow. As a result of the change in organizational structure the communication has improved. On the other hand, SEEK Company organizational structure has remained hierarchical causing some challenges in ensuring sharing of information between the management and the employees. Also, Pepsi Company has ensured division of the market, which has been the main feature which actually characterized the organizational structure of the Pepsi Company. Moreover, the market division mostly depend on two variable and which are; geography and business too. In accordance with the variable of the business, the Company of Pepsi retains only two global division of the market which are; the Frito-Lay and the other one is the division of Quaker Foods (Frank, 2003). On the other division of geography, the Pepsi Company has various divisions for America and also in the Europe region. Some of the market divisions in the organizational structure of the Pepsi Company include; Latin America Foods, Quaker foods, and also the PepsiCo Americas beverages among others. The corporate groups in the organizational structure of the Pepsi Company, refers to this characteristic as the basic business functions. The purpose of these functional groups in this Company is to ensure that the policies and the strategies are fully controlled and also implemented accordingly (Naranjo, et al. 2011). The functional groups are always headed by the Executive Vice President. Some of the main functional groups of the Pepsi Company include; Global Categories and Operation, Human Resources, and also Global Research and Development among others. The global hierarchy of Pepsi Company usually offers assistance in some areas such as monitoring, governance, and also control at the global level (Hartnell & Kinicki, 2011). This characteristic in the organization structure of the PepsiCo usually reduces the differences from the policies and strategies of the Company. Similarities existing between Pepsi Company and SEEK Limited The major similarities that do exist between the two companies are associated with the way the tow companies do manage change through minimizing resistance. They both minimize resistance through ensuring that the various stakeholders are engaged in the process of formulating the training programs. Besides, considering the organizational culture of these companies that do promote communication managing change has proved to be easy. The employees can be involved in the process of formulating the new strategies that need to be used in the process of ensuring that the employees can support the change implementation process (Todnem, 2005). Communication has proved to be important tool in the process eliminating the possible resistance in the two companies. This is because through communication the reasons and effects of change can be communicated to various stakeholders. Communication strategies employed by the companies Pepsi Company and SEEK Limited have few management layers that have proved to be important in the process of improving communication between the management and the employees. The communication that is applicable to Pepsi Company and SEEK Limited is organizing a meeting of both the shareholders and the employees to communicate the change (Thurlow, 2014). This communication strategy can be crucial in ensuring that the employees and the shareholders are given the opportunity to give their suggestions concerning the change was taken (Lukas, Whitwell & Heide, 2013). The communication plan in the two companies does entail calling a different meeting for the employees and the shareholders, where the reasons and the benefits of the change will be communicated. Learnings From the comparison I learnt the benefits and reasons of ensuring that the employees are trained in the process of ensuring successful implementation of strategies of an organization. The following are some of the benefits of motivating the employees through training and engagement. I learnt that training the employees can be crucial in the process of ensuring that the employees have the necessary skills that can assist them in keeping pace with the changes. The current market has been chain due to the technological advancements that have been taking place in the market. Besides, I realized that training assists in adopting innovation in the organizational operations (Caldwell, Chatman & Doerr, 2014). From the comparison in realized that training is essential for ensuring that the employees can offer services that are of high quality that can meet the needs of the customers. Besides, the operations in the market have been changing hence it is essential to continue updating the skills of the employees to offer high-quality services (Dowling, 2003). Recommendations There are two strategies that I do recommend for the two companies in the process of ensuring sustainable change management and ensuring that they remain relevant in the industry despite the increased competition (Davenport, 2014). Engagement of the stakeholders: Engagement is crucial in ensuring that the change management in Pepsi Company is sustainable. This is because through engagement the possible resistance from the stakeholders can be eliminated hence ensuring that they support the implementation process (Burns & Vaivio, 2001). Motivating the employees: motivation ensures that the employees are motivated to ensure successful implementation of the change strategy. This can be crucial in ensuring that the employees are committed to ensuring the success of the change strategies formulated (Yuksel and Mryteza, 2009). Conclusions Pepsi Company and SEEK Limited have ensured innovative and competitive strategies in operations making them remain relevant in the market. The relevance of the employees in the industry is very important in making the companies competitive in the industry by offering services that can compete better in the market. However, Pepsi Company is better suited for the venture because of its position in the market. The competitive advantages of Pepsi Company can be associated with the HR policies that have been focusing on the ensuring that the employees are committed to achieving the set objectives of the company. The management of the management has ensured that the working environment is conducive to ensure that the employees a productive. Besides, Pepsi Company has been very innovative where it has ensured that it differentiates its product eliminating the possibility of substitution. Through innovation, it has been able to meet the needs of the customers better making it achieve competitive advantages in the industry (Cummings & Worley, 2014). The internal operations of Pepsi Company have ensured that there is efficiency making it able to offer competitive products in the market and ensure competitive prices in the market. Unlike SEEK company, Pepsi has been focusing on ensuring that the working conditions of the employees are improved without considering the needs to make sure that the employees are trained on the most effective and efficient ways of operating. It has been keeping pace with changes hence ensuring that it is competitive in the market where it has been adopting the most competitive strategies. References Aladwani, A. M. 2001. Change management strategies for successful ERP implementation. Business Process management journal, 7(3), 266-275. Alvesson, M. 2012. Understanding organizational culture. Sage. Burns, J., & Vaivio, J. 2000. Management accounting change.Management accounting research, 12(4), 389-402. Anderson, D., & Anderson, L. A. 2010. Beyond change management: How to achieve breakthrough results through conscious change leadership. John Wiley & Sons. Caldwell, D. F., Chatman, J. A., & Doerr, B. 2014. The Promise and Problems of Organizational Culture CEO Personality, Culture, and Firm Performance. Group & Organization Management, 39(6), 595-625. Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. 2014. Organization development and change. Cengage learning. Davenport, T., 2014. Big data at work: dispelling the myths, uncovering the opportunities. Harvard Business Review Press. Dowling, G. R. 2003. Developing your company image into a corporate asset. Long range planning, 26(2), 101-109. Frank, M.S., 2003. The essence of leadership. Public Personnel Management, 22(3), pp.381-389. Hartnell, C. A., Ou, A. Y., & Kinicki, A. 2011. Organizational culture and organizational effectiveness: a meta-analytic investigation of the competing values framework’s theoretical suppositions. Journal of Applied Psychology,96(4), 677. Lukas, B. A., Whitwell, G. J., & Heide, J. B. 2013. Why do customers get more than they need? How organizational culture shapes product capability decisions. Journal of Marketing, 77(1), 1-12. Lussi, A., Megert, B., Shellis, R.P. and Wang, X., 2012. Analysis of the erosive effect of different dietary substances and medications. British Journal of Nutrition, 107(02), pp.252-262. Martin, J., & Frost, P. 2011. The organizational culture war games. Sociology of organizations: Structures and relationships, 315. Naranjo-Valencia, J. C., Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. 2011. Innovation or imitation? The role of organizational culture. Management Decision, 49(1), 55-72. Thurlow, R 2014, Australia’s SEEK to buy JobStreet in $524 million deal. The Wall Street Journal.   Todnem By, R. 2005. Organisational change management: A critical review.Journal of change management, 5(4), 369-380. Yuksel, U. and Mryteza, V., 2009. An evaluation of strategic responses to consumer boycotts. Journal of Business Research, 62(2), pp.248-259. Read More