The company structure of Ford and Toyota - Essay Example

Each center was self-sustaining with its own functional staff, planning group, etc" (Multi-Project Management 2005). Ford has poorer teamwork which influences productivity and efficiency of work. In Ford, leadership is centralized with one person while in Toyota leadership is potentially shared among members (Toyota Home Page, 2007). In Ford, the group's purpose is set in response to organizational directives; also, the group measures its effectiveness by individually meeting the stated objectives.

In Toyota, the group's purpose is set in response to both organizational directives and a shared group mission, and the group produces one collective work product (LaFasto and Larsen, 2001). The structure of both companies is defined as a 'lean enterprise system'. Mass production is organized around smaller units and subgroups. Both Toyota and Ford have matrix organizational structure. The decentralized decision-making that exists is likely to be more rapid, more efficient in the choice and pricing of new products and processes, more perceptive in the recognition of opportunities emerging from technological and market trends, and more accurate in its assessment of the competence of specific firms to explore these opportunities.

In both companies, it is possible to distinguish functional and product departmentalization. Product departmentalization is organized around product lines. Functional departmentalization is organized around such unites as finance and marketing, technology and HRM (human resources management). In both Toyota and Ford, the product is the result of a large measure of collective effort (LaFasto and Larsen, 2001). In addition to each member's individual accountability, the group also has mutual accountability.

In Ford, the small group is a subsystem within the larger organization. As such, it is subject to the same forces as the larger system. The behavior of one group member affects all of the others. Influencing behavior carries beyond the face-to-face meeting. Individual members interact "off-line" in settings other than meeting rooms (Stacey, 1996). The main forms of work coordination include informal and formal communication, and standardization. There are no great differences between Toyota and Ford, because of the nature of business and production processes.

Standardization is achieved through rules and procedures, work requirements and production standards (Goris et al 2000). The systems approach to organization and management also gives recognition to the importance of groups in influencing behavior at work. Span of control is a vital part of both organizations. In Ford, a manager supervises about 8-10 employees while in Toyota a manager controls 7-8 employees. As professional decision-making is decentralized, the centre keeps control through a new regime of regulation, performance management and quality control.

Tactics and organizational politics depend upon corporate and national culture (Gleason, 1997). In Toyota, Japanese management style and national traditions have a major impact on politic and tactics. The tactics and organizational politics are based on ideas of strict codes of values and collective will of the groups. Direct cooperation and support from the top are the main tactics utilized by Toyota's management. Ford follows American management style based on