The objective of this paper is to analyse the business strategies and organizational structure of different multi-national organizations. This analysis will help illuminate the understanding of corporate strategies and their proper implementation tactics.
IBM not only functions on the global scale but also creates the lifestyle of global relevance and significance. With IBMs eagerness to improve internally and provide services to other enterprises, it can be placed in the cell of high local responsiveness and low global integration. The Toyota Corporation reveals relevance and consistency in the course of its corporate performance as far as its corporate strategy demonstrates a high level of global integration. Thus, Toyota can be placed in the transnational strategy (T) cell of the IR framework (The Economist 2009).
Huawei as a leading global ICT provider is primarily focused on the global integration as well, but in terms of collaboration and not business merger and acquisition. Therefore, it can be placed in M cell. The global strategy of Google is dominated by the merger and acquisition operations of the company. Over the last decade, Google has acquired more than 130 different enterprises including the prominent ones, such as Android, Motorola, and YouTube. For this reason, Google can be rated high on the level of global integration, and therefore, can be placed in the T cell (Businessweek 2005). The approach of Samsung is to expand its business expertise by developing more skills within the company. The company has consistently followed the path of smart choice, and therefore, should be highly regarded in terms of local responsiveness, and lowly regarded in terms of its global integration.
Toyota follows a matrix organisation structure as its core competency is divided efficiently into a variety of models and classifications. The matrix organizational structure of the company can be considered to be strong as one project manager is assigned to one project. As the company manufactures a variety of cars, each car, in terms of their features and prices, has a dedicated streamline of the production process and a dedicated project manager. IBM follows a decentralized management style as the authority of decision-making is divided among regional and departmental managers. IBM computer devices are spread all across the world, but they differ in their material use, programming language, and a number of other software and hardware features. These specifications are decided by the country project managers, and not by a single decision-making department or the companys CEO (Galbraith 2009). Google does not follow a strong, but a balanced matrix structure, as its services of Google Cloud Computing and Game Store are still the secondary services of the company, and do not have their dedicated project managers. Samsung Electronics, on the other hand, follows a bureaucratic matrix organizational structure to streamline its multiple projects running simultaneously. Huaweis organizational structure can be regarded as divisional based on their IT services, which it provides according to the technology infrastructure of the particular country (Shtub & Karni 2010).
For Toyota Company, strong flagship relations would exist between its several partners, including Toyota seat manufacturer, IT vendors and other partners who are equally benefited by the car sales of Toyota. IBM may have strong flagship relations with Microsoft as the operating system used in IBM devices is developed by Microsoft Corporation. IBM and its business partner have signed contract according to which it will only deal with Microsoft for its operating system requirement (Miller 2011).
Android is owned by Google, which is used as the operating system in all latest Samsung Smartphones. For this reason, flagship relations are apparent between these two entities. Huawei has recently signed a contract for collaboration with the cellular service provider of VimpelCom. Both companies were in quest of business expansion in China and other Asian countries; this collaborative relationship has allowed them both to share mutual benefits (Sahota 2012).
For Toyota to improve its core competitiveness, it should follow the clan-oriented market culture. This culture will enable the company to create strong bonds with its employees, who can give their constructive feedbacks for the companys growth and advancement in the automobile field. IBM is currently competing in one of the fiercely competitive market of computers and laptops. It is one of the prominent names in the industry, and therefore, should follow the market-oriented culture to stay competitive and improve its adaptability to the changing technology. Samsung has a diverse product range, with its Smartphones being the core revenue generator for the company. For this reason, the company has to adopt the adhocracy-oriented culture in order to stay dynamic and deal appropriately with the fast-paced business environment.
Google has followed the clan-oriented culture from the very beginning, and it has proved effective for the company. The friendly and open culture practiced in the company is essential to imitate a homelike environment for its employees so they can think like ordinary users and address problems from the users end more deliberately. Huawei should follow the hierarchy-oriented culture in order to centralize its management style. The culture will not only help in speeding up the decision-making process of the company, but will also enable the management to strengthen the internal control and external dealings (Tharp 2009).
As a subsidiary manager, I would implement the zero inventory and standard operating procedures (SOP) for companies in the transaction-strategy cell. Such strategies will help these companies to assess the performance quality of their internal departments and those who provide resources to the company. For IBM and Huawei, which fall in the multi-domestic strategy cell of the IR framework, lean manufacturing strategies will be beneficial. The implementation of this strategy would help these companies further improve their internal resources and strengths, and eliminate procedures that are augmenting their product or service expenses (Manghani 2011).
It can be concluded that the organizational culture and values differ with the vision and core objectives of the company. A number of companies follow the bureaucratic cultural model and rely primarily on their internal skills. On the contrary, global integration and a clan-oriented culture have also served to be the ground stones for success of many innovative organizations. Therefore, organizational success mainly depends on the implementation strategy rather than the adopted business models.