Organizational Culture Comparison - Research Paper Example

? Organizational Culture Comparison Introduction Competition in enterprising industries has brought about companies to show case their organizational structures. For this reason there is the need to address the companies’ visibility in how they exhibit their standards globally. The automobile industry has led to the growth of enormous organizations such as General Motors and Toyota Motors, among others which make the key comparison of their organizational cultures in this article. Organizational Profile General Motors Description General Motors was founded in 1908 and has been a sales dealer of automobiles since 1931. It is the worlds’ largest automobile manufacturer, contributed to the fact that is has over 30 years of experience in the industry. The organization’s headquarters are based at the General Motors Renaissance at Detroit. It conducts its manufacturing processes in over 32 countries with the aid of other partners such as Isuzu Motors, Suzuki Motors of Japan, Fuji Heavy Industries Limited and Fiat Auto SPA of Italy. An East Africa plan t is also based in Nairobi, Kenya that oversees the production of trucks and buses and the marketing of other brands of the GM’s production. It has a working mission statement "G.M. is a multinational corporation engaged in socially responsible operations, worldwide. It is dedicated to provide products and services of such quality that our customers will receive superior value while our employees and business partners will share in our success and our stock-holders will receive a sustained superior return on their investment." It has enabled the company to make its history in the industry twice, as being the only automobile company to trade over 9 million vehicles in one financial year (Stewart et al, 1996, p 107). Organization analysis The success of the company has been forged ahead by the joint ventures that the company has entered in order to establish effective distribution globally. The East Africa plant was formed as a result of this whereby GM Corporation has 57.8%, Industrial & Commercial Corporation-20%, Centrum Investment-17.8% and Itochu Corporation-4.4%. Due to the increased struggle with environmental and internal resources, GM has invented the making of autos that go well with the local operating environments of its customers. This has made the company achieve quality and environmental global standards by being ISO certified (Stewart et al, 1996, p 139). Toyota Motors Description Toyota Motors was founded in 1937 by the Toyoda family. It is the world’s 3rd largest carmaker. Its headquarters are based in Japan, Toyota city. The choice of its locale has been because of the tradition of being a Japanese family business. It has been working under the mission of “To attract and attain customers with high-valued products and services and the most satisfying ownership experience in automobiles.” The organization also has a slogan; Toyota’s motto stipulates to create an affluent society and improve the quality of life through the automobiles. According to Basu (1999), through its progress it managed to establish its Motor Sales across the world by 1957 especially in the U.S.A. Through its mission and motto statements it has aimed at being an excellent company in supporting and donating finances in education, international exchange, environment, art and culture and local communities (Albrecht, 2004, p 210). Organizational analysis Toyota Corporation has been supported by other of its business segments that it has also ventured into. It has also been promoted by the emphasis it has put on the quality of its products to its consumer at reasonable prices. The company’s authority comprising of 58 board members has been the chief decision maker that forms a functional center of its operation processes. Being a family-oriented enterprise has been a weakness, especially in the automobile industry that has shown tremendous growth over the years. This factor led to the company’s bankruptcy and high rate of inflation especially after the Second World War. Due to the internalized competition that it was facing, merging with the Toyota Motor Sales in Japan enabled the company to surpass the high prices of marketing. This even led to the election of the first non-family president of the company (Beverly, 1990, p 75). Results General Motors General Motors’ corporate culture is high performing. It is maintained by a centralized authority responsible for the financial control and the long range strategy of the firm (Beverly, 1990, p 75). The company’s espoused values have been keen at portraying the dominant organizational culture, although the counterculture is also present. Some of these espoused values are respecting authority, fitting into position and being loyal to the firm. These values provide symbiosis of the culture and its counterculture. Distinctive visible forms of language have been created by the company to create its social interaction. A special language or terminologies in the company are used to refer to the executives’ domains and works, reflected in the value of respect of authority (Albrecht, 2004, p 215). The behavior and artifacts of the GM organizational form a relationship into which the employees and management relate along. Different levels of the corporate culture are visible among the employees. Their behavior towards their executives such as, meeting them at the airports after their period of vacation off the organization, driving them and also being their bodyguard everywhere the executives are expected to go. The executives on he other hand were expected to behave in decent fashion, avoid fads and maintain their marriage lives (Beverly, 1990, p 77). The GM’s cultural artifacts are perceived vital in the organization as it depicts an outward reflection of its culture. John DeLorean, once a president of the organization, employed dress codes, decor, physical arrangements and official practices as perquisites to promote any oppositional culture that would develop (Stewart et al, 1996, p 285). The dress code comprised of a dark suit, a light shirt and a muted tie (Beverly, 1990, p 76). The corporate culture of any organization changes with the ongoing changes in the respective industry. In the early 1980’s General Motors lost market share in the U.S automobile industry, due to the manufacture of poor quality cars (Stewart et al, 1996, p 139). The management opted for a cultural change to adopt the Japanese industrial culture. Rushing into this decision, GM cared less about the impact of the culture change to the national environment, but competition from companies and less industrial relations, human resource and strategic management was more important in ensuring success of the company in the industry. In 1982, the organizational culture change at the assembly point in California drove it into disastrous low levels. This became an obstacle to achieve successful organizational practices because labor increased and its management became quite challenging. Productivity, quality and competition also became unmanageable for the authority. This led to the closure of the California plant and the Organization approaching Toyota Motors for a partnership in designing and building a car, under the NUMMI Joint Venture in 1983.This would in turn help to recover GM market, but through the help of the UAW union that oversaw the progress of the venture (Albrecht, 2004, p 214). Changing the organizational culture severely altered the performance of the organization reason behind the closure of the NUMMI in 2009 after GM filed a case of bankruptcy. Financial interests constrained the organization; probably for joining the venture since partners in a joint venture provide capital and other resources to its separate firm managed by its own management team reporting to a board of directors consisting of representatives of the Joint Venture partners (Beverly, 1990, p 77). Toyota Motors Toyota’s corporate culture is deeply rooted in oriental philosophical values and beliefs (Albrecht, 2004, p 211). The values (Confucian) are inclusive of harmony, order and service to others. These values are observed by the authority and employees. A code of conduct was established in the organization’s philosophy to ensure effectiveness of the behavior and artifacts of the management and employees. However, the behavior control in the hierarchy attracted cheat but among the employees, it was genuine and was rewarded by their obedience to the management (Kathryn, 1985, p 321). Toyota Motors built its organizational culture through socialization. It incorporated communication and socialization as managerial tools to monitor the culture. Communication comprised of formal and informal between the managers and employees to create a network of personal relationship. Together with socialization, communication built trust among the company’s managers. It encouraged open communique between the organization members. Communication made it easy to control the behavior of an employee. Efficient socialization among the corporation ensured passage of knowledge and values across hierarchy of the organization. Interaction with the employees made it possible for them and the management to have the same level of value and goals to minimize the occasional difference in the structure of the organization. This was only possible because the organization had a company philosophy “Guiding Principles at Toyota” which promoted diversity in the enterprise (Beverly, 1990, p 79). During the period of crisis at GM, Toyota’s production system was reckoned best in the world. Intercultural relationships made it spread its firm in the U.S. After the effectiveness of the Joint Venture with GM, Toyota was given the opportunity to act as the venture’s operations manager. Toyota used its core espoused values of service to others to teach the U.S Company (General Motors) to meet quality standards by utilizing the supplies and other resources all the way from Japan (Kathryn, 1985, p 308). Despite the effectiveness of Toyota’s corporate culture, manufacturing issues came up from time to time. Customers were witnessed returning the vehicles with problems of faulty parts of the autos. Environmental considerations have not been followed in making of new hybrid vehicles, challenging the environmental culture of its employees, management and customers across the world. The production capacity and human resources have diminished with time despite having many sub-branches across the world. Its managerial structure has been the core problem that has pushed it to the rocks. In addition, the company is facing criticism from all corners of the world but as it reconstructs to improved company culture, a promise has been made to its customers that it will recover with a boom in the automobile industry (Kathryn, 1985, p 312). Comparison In relation to the two automobile companies, a convergence point of view in their organizational culture is witnessed. Due to the pressures that arose from the fuel economy and the restrictions by governments concerning imports of lower income components becoming too rigorous, individual companies could not coordinate to the worldwide automobile strategies. Instead, local competitors banded together to make their respective plants economic in sourcing agreements to provide standardized designs and axles and other common components (Kathryn, 1985, p 316). Therefore, in 1983, the two companies engaged into a Joint Venture, NUMMI, to oversee their existence in the automobile industry. Their principles of marketing and distribution became similar since the Toyota Corporation learnt the techniques from their Japanese counterparts in GM Corporation (Kathryn, 1985, p 321). Despite their concomitance, the two companies differed in a handful of ways n their organizational structures. General motors had a better strategy in marketing their automobiles globally. In 1981, GM combined efforts with Suzuki motors to solve the problematic issues of market and supply, and offered GM successful products. (Kathryn, 1985, pg.320) However, Toyota allied with Nissan Motors (Japan) to avoid the risk of oversees ventures. This attempt made Toyota lag behind from the then growing General Motors. Toyota also suffered a blow due to its managerial organization, a woe that has never occurred to the GM. Despite those negatives, Toyota success was prompted by their company philosophy “Guiding Principles at Toyota”, absent at the GM Corporation. This philosophy has been passed from one generation to another, ensuring continuity in the industry. All the same, ultimately the two companies have contributed to sustainable development in the world’s economy through their proper managed organizational cultures (Beverly, 1990, p 121). Reference list Albrecht, R. (2004). Corporate Cultures & Global Brands. New Jersey: World Scientific. Beverly, D. S. (1990). Case Studies in Organizational Communication. New York: Guilford Press. Kathryn, R. A. (1985). Joint Ventures, Alliances & Corporate Strategy. New York: Beard Books. Stewart, C., Cynthia, H. & Walter, R. N. (1996). Handbook of Organizational Studies. Los Angeles: SAGE publications Ltd. Read More