A report on Toyota Motor Corporation
It is through Strategy implementation that an organization actualizes its policies and other means of achieving short-term, middle-term and long-term goals. Probably, the process of implementing an organization's strategy involves personnel from all levels of management. The speed, effectiveness and efficiency with which an organization implements its strategy depend upon many factors; key among them: the organizational culture, the structures and systems in place, and the control function of the organization (Schein, 2004). This report focuses on the case of Toyota Automobiles Company, with special emphasis on how the company’s controls, culture and structure have significantly played a key role in dealing with the internal battle ground; and how such factors have contributed to the attainment of the enviable position the company holds in the automobiles industry.
The organizational culture
Like many Japanese companies, Toyota embraces a Collaborate organizational structure. This structure, which is the opposite of individualism focuses on the concept of teamwork (Tharp, 2009). Within the Toyota Company, the management has over the years encouraged the existence and operation of semi-independent groups. These groups have some degree of decision making powers and can hence determine minor situations. The degree of autonomy with which overseas subsidiaries operate explains why some branches are performing better than others. Also, known as the Clan organizational culture, the Collaborate system embraced by Toyota has significantly contributed to the scandals and consequently to the woes within the organization.
The greatest setback in the History of Toyota was and remains to be the recent recalling of cars that had already been exported, the issue being quality. The clan organizational culture has for well over two decades divided the top management into two: the family and the non family. The otherwise fixable differences exploded to become a disaster this was after it became apparent that there were differences in priority between the warring parties. The family allies within the management were of the opinion that quality should be considered before profits. As they were arguing thus, the company’s chairman and his allies were out making near supernormal profits and compromising quality. Even so the Clan culture has contributed to the achievement of the organizational mission through ensuring continuity of such concepts as Kaizen.
The organizational structure
The Toyota motor corporation applies the organic organizational structure. This is a structure used where the company operates in a relatively aggressive and fast changing environment (Schein, 2004). Arguably, the motor industry is among the most volatile and competitive as far as stiff competition is concerned. Toyota Corporation is among the top three market holders. Most of its brands are top ranking in both the new cars market and the second-hand or used car market. Through this organizational structure, Toyota has achieved quality and creativity through massively differentiating tasks. Differentiation gives the employee time to specialize and come up with the best designs and new models.
Toyota engineers are among the most innovative in the automobile industry.
Toyota has staff of exceptional skill , and it is only these structures that can enable them apply their talent to the fullest. The organic structure has also enhanced interdepartmental as well as intradepartmental dependence and communication. Management gurus argue that in the absence of coordination, no organization exists (Nelson & Campbell, 2012). The organic structure embraced by the Toyota Corporation is behind its achievement of objectives. This is because it allows to a great extent a decentralized system of making decisions. This is catalytic to innovation and has led to many people referring to Toyota as the digital industry’s equivalent of Apple Computers. The fact that Toyota’s structure discourages rigid bureaucratic features has seen the Company become a market leader with tremendous capacity to handle internal problems.
The control function in the Toyota Corporation
According to quality researchers, to attain creativity and innovative ideas in a corporation, there should be no controls at all (Nelson & Campbell, 2012). Arguably, control amounts to management dominance which is a tremendous hindrance to liberal thinking that is actually the foundation of creativity. Even so, the control function of a company is particularly beneficial in establishing coordination among workers and among the various departments. It is through the strong controls embraced and administered by Toyota’s middle level managers that the communication of objectives and long-term perspectives of the company has been achieved. One most striking feature of the Toyota Corporation as far as the control function is concerned is the use of technology. They employ the use of such applications as the Human Resource Information Systems (HRIS), and other Performance Evaluation and appraisal software. This improves efficiency and effectiveness.
Toyota’s top management makes use of the balanced scorecard and the concept of Kaizen in evaluating decision making information and the general performance of the workforce. Kaizen, which means change for the better, is of great importance in the setting of standards. Standards are the essence of control. The control function of the Toyota Corporation also employs such concepts as Total Quality Management in ensuring constant and continuous improvement. The concept and presumption of zero-error forms the basis for total quality management. Toyota president Toyoda Akoda has always emphasized on quality oriented controls. As part of the liberal policy, Toyota employs the idea of delegation. This empowers employees and establishes training grounds for future managers. The well designed controls are no doubt one of the key contributors to the success of the corporation in achieving goals.
Evaluation of the case
A lot can be learnt from the Toyota Case study. Worth noting is the fact that for an organization to achieve its mission and goals it must tie its culture and policies to its mission statement and emphasize focus on the long term strategies and vision (McNamara, 2011). Before electing to go by a particular structure, the top management should first and foremost carry out an extensive research on the rate of change in the industry. A extremely aggressive and highly dynamic industrial environment calls for an organic structure. On the contrary a more stable environment with a few risks and volatilities should select the mechanistic structure. The use of such concepts as Kaizen, Balanced scorecard, and benchmarking, has a great positive impact on the corporation’s ability to achieve its mission (Tharp, 2009).
The ability of a company to achieve its mission is as well determined by the extent to which the management embraces modern technologies and management concepts. The use of computer based management tools increases efficiency and effectiveness and saves time and capital (Daft & Murphy, 2010). Technology is associated with the accuracy. Another thing learnt from the Toyota case is that to win consumer loyalty and survive in a competitive market, an organization ought to focus on quality of the product and not on the profits generated. Customer focus is an integral part of the production process. Contingency planning which entails putting in place measures to handle unforeseen risks and disturbances are of great essence as well. The idea of delegation can be used in an organization that has well established structures and strong controls (McNamara, 2011).
References
Businessmate.Org (2009). Mechanistic Vs. Organic Organizational Structure (Contingency Theory). Businessmate. Retrieved August, 2011, From Http://Www.Businessmate.Org/Article.Php?Artikelid=44
Daft, R & Murphy, J. (2010). Organizational Theory and Design. London. Cengage Learning
McNamara, C. (N.D.). Management Function of Coordinating/Controlling: Overview of Basic Methods. Retrieved August, 2011, From Http://Www.Managementhelp.Org/Cntrllng/Cntrllng.Htm
Nelson, D. & Campbell, J. (2012) Organizational Behavior: Science, the Real World and You. (8th Edition) London. Cengage Learning
Schein, E.H (2004) Organization Culture and Leadership (3rd Edition). New York. John Wiley & Sons
Tharp, B.M. (2009). Four Organizational Culture Types. Haworth White Paper. Retrieved August, 2011, From Http://Www.Haworth.Com/En-Us/Knowledge/Workplace-Library/Documents/Four-Organizational-Culture-Types_6.Pdf
