Abstract
The success of any particular company is dependent on a number of factors which are vital and key in the operations of the company. While there are many sectors involved in the running of a company, it is important that the leadership of the organization try to ensure that all the sectors are operational. For instance, every department in a company should work together as a team in order to achieve the goals and missions of the company. If each department works on its own, then company will have few chances of achieving its missions. This paper will analyze one company of interest in relation with another company in the same field. For instance, the paper will analyze the different legal, social, and economic environment of the two chosen companies and how the environments affect the operations of the companies. Also, the paper shall provide an in-depth analysis on the different managerial and leadership styles in the respective companies.
Different companies have different rules and regulations that govern their operations. Companies have different operational and managerial dynamics that determine how a company shall be run. My company of interest is Portland Inc. The company deals with the manufacture of cement which is used in construction projects. The company that shall be compared and contrasted with Portland is Savannah cement which is a competitor of Portland Inc. They both manufacture cement although they have diverse operational conditions. First, the two companies have different legal environments. A legal environment is the code of conduct which defines the legal boundaries where business is done. In Portland Inc., there are commercial agreements; these are the conditions agreed by different parties and contain clauses which create the basis for the rights and liabilities of the different parties involved. There is also an employment contract between employees and employers of a company. Savannah cement, on the other hand, is a limited liability partnership. This partnership exhibits the different elements of partnership and corporation. It also has employment contracts between employees and the employer (Dahlsrud, 2008). Savannah cement also has an insolvency law which applies to both corporate and personal debtors. The social environment is another factor that is evident in the two companies. Portland Inc. has different and diverse cultural characteristics. Different cultures and beliefs are acknowledged in the company. People from diverse origins and political/social orientations are made to interact. The management ensures that all the workers and employees are treated equally. Savannah cement, on the other hand, is characterized by very few cultures because most of the workers are of Asian origin. The two companies are also affected by the economic environment. Both companies are driven by the urge to make much profit. Portland Inc. appreciates that the output of employees is dependent on the treatment of the workers (Dahlsrud, 2008). Therefore it pays worker well unlike Savannah which treats employees with little concern.
Both companies are driven by the culture of maximizing profit while reducing the operational cost of producing the product. The two companies also strive to produce quality cement which meets all the needs of standard cement. However, for the last three years, the performance of Portland Company has been on a positive trend unlike Savannah which has been experiencing turmoil in its operations. Both companies advocate for integrity and honesty in the operations. While Portland cement believes in co-prosperity, Savannah cement advocates for change. Both companies have different promotion policies. In the case of Portland, promotion is based on the achievement and output of an employee. On the hand, Savannah cement promotion is based on the duration that a person has served in the company. In addition, promotion in Portland is bases on the ability of a person to handle a higher post and work under pressure. Both companies apply strategic decision making processes in their managements (Pearce, 2000). Both of them have missions and objectives which they aspire to achieve within duration of time. Unlike Savannah Inc., Portland cement encourages employees to create their personal goals which they desire to achieve within a period of time. In terms of the decision making process, Portland Inc., is all inclusive and seeks the opinions of all employees before implementing the decisions. On the other hand, Savannah cement’s decisions are made and implemented by the managers without consulting the opinions of the juniors. The two companies use different management styles. Portland Inc uses a participative style which tries to build a commitment and consensus with its employees. Savannah uses authoritative style which has an objective of providing long-term directions and visions for its employees. The two companies also have different leadership styles. Portland uses a democratic leadership style which seeks to improve the relationship between the company and its employees. Savannah cement uses the coercive style which demands immediate compliance from employees (Pearce, 2000).
In addition to monitoring the operations of their companies, the management of both companies uses the SWOT tools effectively to their advantage. They both understand their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. However, Portland Inc seems to be more determined to utilize its opportunities while Savannah seeks to do away with the threats (Peters, 1985). There are different communication styles within the two companies. Portland uses the assertive/dominant style which straddles a fine line between domineering and dominant. Savannah, on the other hand, uses an aggressive communication style. This is an assertive communication which has been stretched to the pathological extreme (Peters, 1985). The two companies also uses different operation strategy framework. The one for Portland is organization while that of savannah is policies framework.
In terms of the four functions of management, it is evident that although both are trying, there is still much to be achieved. The four functions are: planning, organizing, controlling, and leading. Although a company may be vibrant in one of the functions, it is lacking the other function. This implies that the companies ought to come up with strategies which ensure that they practice effectively the four functions (Kotter, 2008). For instance, Portland Inc is vibrant in three functions except controlling. Its leadership style is so engaging that employees might feel that they can do whatever they please. On the other hand, Savannah cement lacks the organizing and planning functions within its leadership. The managers of both companies have strong points within their respective organizations. For instance, the leaders have good planning techniques, organizational knowledge, good communication skills and proper delegation of duties to employees, confident decision-making, and flexibility, among others (Finkelstein, 1996). The companies need to improve in different areas of management. Like stated above, Portland needs to improve its controlling function while savannah needs to improve its organization and planning functions.
References
Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate social responsibility and environmental management, 15(1), 1-13.
Pearce, J. A., Robinson, R. B., & Subramanian, R. (2000). Strategic management: Formulation, implementation, and control. Columbus, OH: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
Peters, T. J., & Austin, N. (1985). A passion for excellence. The leadership difference.
Kotter, J. P. (2008). Force for change: How leadership differs from management. Simon and Schuster.
Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1996). Strategic leadership: Top executives and their effects on organizations. South-Western Pub.
