| Organisational Structure Essay, Research Paper
Organizational Structure
The Coca-Cola Company has made a lot of changes in the last year with the structure of their company from top management to the employees at the bottom of line in terms of power in the company. In years past the Coke Company has had more of a centralized organizational structure. After Doug Ivester was pushed to resign as chairman and CEO of Coke the organization really changed the way that they ran things. Many of the most powerful people the company was tired of Ivester s cramped management style of leadership and became concerned about his future at the company. When Doug Daft took over as chairman and CEO of the Coca-Cola Company the organizational structure really changed from the centralized type of structure to the decentralized type of structure within the Coke Company. Doug Ivester was running the show by himself and was unwilling to take advice from others and this was apparent when Doug Daft came in to replace him as CEO. The centralized style of management in the past had been everyone in the main branch in Atlanta. All areas of the business from foreign affairs in different countries and matters in the states were all centralized out of the Atlanta building. After daft took over as CEO He decided that the company would be better run if there were more of a decentralized form of management put into place. Presently there are more top executives out in different countries where coke has gone into so that the Coca Cola Company as a whole will benefit all over the world. The employees even up to the top executives can see the difference and can see the purpose and direction that the company is going in. A good CEO or any top executive to be successful has to be able to handle crises and let the people who are working for you know that they are important at all levels of the company and allow everyone to see a purpose and importance in their jobs. While Ivester was still in charge of the Coca-Cola Company he neglected to many things that the company really lived and died from. 90% of Coke s business was in the hands of powerful bottling companies and this balance of power as well as personal relations must be maintained to run a successful corporation. Daft with the new decentralized organizational structure has given the employees more control to concentrate on the important and necessary concepts to keep the company moving in to the next century.
Culture and leadership Feasibility
The cultural and leadership aspects of the Coca-Cola Company have changed along with the major changes in the organization structure. As the company changed their managing structure they have put people in high management positions in all parts of the world where the Coca-Cola Company has put in their products. They have put high ranking managers in countries where there is a high knowledge of how the country culture is different from that of the United States. This allows Coca-Cola to put forth more time and effort where it is needed around the world to further the company’s dominance in the soft drink industry. By enacting a decentralized organizational structure Coca Cola has been able to put people in the most suitable leadership positions around the world and here in the United states that will help the Coca Cola Company grow and become even more dominate in the future. Coke has found out through time that it is better to have an open mind to suggestions from more than just the top dog at the company and it has and will help them to have a stronger organization as well as a more profitable company.
Financial Requirements
When the Coca Cola company wants to put a new product on the market, buy out another company, implement new technology, or spend money in any other area there are four ways that the company can go about doing so. Coca-Cola can use profits from sales, sell stock, borrow money or issue bonds. They can use any of these resources to come up with the money that they need to further the company. In the last six months Coke has gone out and put a lot of money in the furthering of the company in many different ways. In January Coke went out and invested into a coffee firm to expand their drink lineup. They bought out a company called Planet Java to compete with Pepsi who had already invested in a Java company the year before. Toward the end of January Coke also started a new production line of a lemon cola. They are putting out a line of lemon soft drinks in both diet and regular forms. The lemon drink is going to be a non-carbonated drink and the Coca Cola Company will also be competing against Pepsi Cola in this line of beverages. Coca-Cola early in the year also started a joint venture with the Nestle Company to start a line of health drinks. All three of these new drinks have been put in place to help Coca-Cola expand the company’s dominance in the beverage market. Early in February Coke also invested overseas in China’s national soccer league. They announced a sponsorship deal in both the men and women’s soccer league. This investment is going to last over the fifteen years and is going to cost the Coca-Cola Company millions of dollars over that time. These are just some of the different ways that the Coca-Cola Company implements their financial resources in different areas and different technology.
All major corporations are always looking for new ways to implement new technology to better the company in the public eye. The environment is and will always be an important aspect of today’s society. Coke has a social responsibility to make sure that they are producing their product in a safe and environmentally sound manor. The company can and should always be looking for better and more efficient ways to bottle and package their products. One good idea would be for the company to try and invent and produce a biodegradable bottle that would be better for the environment. The company also needs to make sure in the meantime that they advertise to their consumers the importance of recycling in today’s society. Any large corporation like Coke has a social responsibility to give back some of what the consumers have given to them.
|