The ultimate outcome of this shift in focus is an enhanced quality of work environment for employees and increased quality of products and services for customers. Because chief executive officers CEOs spend most of their time developing and guiding strategy, their personal goals and values inevitably shape organizational strategy. His vision resulted in Disneyland, which opened in Although Disney died in , his values and vision have continued to shape his company, as evidenced by the completion of his plans for Disney World opened in and Epcot Center opened in Usually how ever a change in CEO is associated with a change in strategy.
Their role in strategy formulation makes CEOs especially important to strategy implementation. First, they interpret strategy, acting as final judges when managers disagree on implementation. Third, CEOs motivate, providing intangible incentives beyond pay or bonuses. Because the head of an organization can be central to its direction and culture, an unexpected death such as that of Muppet-creator Jim Henson can challenge the survival of an organization.
In August , Walt Disney Co. My father had wonderful goals and wonderful dreams, Brain noted. And that was seen in virtually everyone in the company. Explain three reasons why an organisation might initiate change. Explain force-field analysis as a model for understanding the change process 4.
Create an Account and Get the Solution. Log into your existing Transtutors account. Have an account already? Click here to Login. No Account Yet? Click here to Sign Up. Sign in with Facebook. Looking for Something Else? Ask a Similar Question Ask Now. Lets Start. According to the second research topic important similarities and dissimilarities were found out. But, on the other hand, the research objectives were achieved.
As stated [1] leadership and employee forces should be involved in ISO implementation process equally, at the same time for the successful quality systems adoption process it is necessary that the organization was customer and quality oriented. But on the other hand, Georgian SMEs approved, that entirely, leadership forces were not involved in the quality systems implementation process.
Middle managers were responsible for the ongoing processes and the other organizational levels provided technical support. This is in contradiction with the literature, according to the [5] cited in [6] the vital tool for successful ISO implementation is top leadership, as they should provide at least basic knowledge about ISO philosophies and motivate employees.
Leadership forces should be totally involved in the ISO implementation process, they provide examples and commitments that changes are important and that quality system provide vital tools for organizational development. According to the survey, leadership forces in Georgia, are in charge of the changes, but they do not show commitment in the process. Usually, implementation progression is held by the middle management forces and the leadership is only involved in reports.
There were found some dissimilarity in communication process while implementation procedures, as the communication progression should be held between workers, management and leadership as well.
It should be face to face or through intranet, but endless and permitted between all organizational levels. On the other hand, in Georgian SMEs, first line workers usually contact with middle management forces and they are not able to have free communication facilities with the leadership. Companies taking participation in the survey accepted that educational development is a vital tool for the successful ISO adoption process, as well as for the continuous quality improvement.
But on the other hand, some of the business entities are not fond on trainings, as they provide additional costs for an organization. Or, usually they apply for the internal trainings. As it was supposed in the beginning of the research, early adopters had more marketing and sales interest while quality systems implementation process, this is in contrast with the literature, majority of business entities implement ISO tools for marketing tools, do not considering the depth of continuous quality development and TQM philosophy [7] cited [9].
Alternatively, late adopters were interested in quality systems philosophy and they showed commitment to the process. For late adopters it helps to approach new partnerships, for early adopters, they are not aware of it. As the survey found out in early ISO standard adopter companies, they even were not aware about quality systems philosophy and importance, management and leadership forces had no clear knowledge and usage of ISO standards.
Early adopters do not see ISO standards as the protector, late adopters accepted that they had changed the quality paradigm within an organization, but they did not identify any changes on sales and market share, which could be impacted positively by ISO standards. It should be mentioned that, the study was pioneer in the Republic of Georgia. As the same phenomena was not investigated before. Consequently several gaps within the practical and academic literature did not provide possibilities to compare the findings with the studies done before and to extend and develop the survey results.
As the interviews confirmed, ISO certification in most of the companies is implemented for mimetic reasons. Organizations feel secure, while they have documented ISO standards, but on the other hand, as the interviews asserted majority of Georgian companies adopt quality systems, but do not follow the ISO trends. They reject annual internal and external audits. According to the interviews held in all six above mentioned SMEs overall, the following issues were clarified: as the motivational factor of implementing international management aspects was identified quality, marketing tools, potential partnerships locally and globally , international and government regulations export goods in EU countries.
Meanwhile, some of the company representatives could not state clear answers regarding the quality systems adoption factors. In most cases, it was clear, that the implementation process was the responsibility of the middle management; usually, leadership forces were not able to state the key processes regarding the obstacles, the final results or the implementation process itself. Also, first line workers had general information about the ISO quality systems, but they had not got deep knowledge about the TQM philosophy itself.
Survey participant business entities declined, that they experienced any kind of adoption obstacles. Leadership forces, middle managers and even first line workers stated that adoption process was held in due date period, without any additional excesses.
0コメント