Diese Seminararbeit behandelt die Frage, warum die multidivisionale Organisationsform (M-Form) für international wachsende und diversifizierte Unternehmen effizienter ist als die funktionale Organisationsform (U-Form). Grundlage der Analyse ist die Theorie von Alfred Chandler, der das Prinzip „Structure follows Strategy“ prägte.
Anhand des Fallbeispiels General Motors wird aufgezeigt, wie das Unternehmen unter William Durant durch eine ineffiziente, zentralisierte Struktur (U-Form) in die Krise geriet. Erst die Einführung der M-Form durch Alfred Sloan ermöglichte eine flexible, dezentrale Organisation, die es GM erlaubte, verschiedene Marken eigenständig und marktgerecht zu führen. Die Arbeit stellt die vier Management-Ebenen der M-Form dar und vergleicht diese mit der U-Form. Dabei zeigt sich: Die M-Form erleichtert strategische Steuerung, fördert Innovation und verbessert das Controlling – insbesondere in internationalen und diversifizierten Unternehmen.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 Chandlers' object of study
2.1 The four companies in focus
2.2 „Structure follows Strategy“
3 The introduction of the M-shape at General Motors
3.1 The brain behind General Motors
3.2 Why did General Motors fail under William Durant?
4 The M-form
4.1 The M-form success at General Motors
4.2 The 4 Management functions of the M-Form
4.3 U-form and M-form in comparison
5 Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
The paper examines the relationship between organizational structure and corporate strategy, specifically addressing why the multidivisional (M-form) structure is superior to the functional (U-form) structure for companies pursuing international expansion and diversification.
- Analysis of Alfred Chandler's "Structure follows Strategy" principle.
- Case study of General Motors as a prime example of organizational evolution.
- Comparison of the operational efficiencies of U-form versus M-form structures.
- Evaluation of managerial functions within decentralized multidivisional enterprises.
- Assessment of how structural shifts influence long-term company performance.
Excerpt from the Book
3.2 Why did General Motors fail under William Durant?
William Durant took over several car manufacturers whose business figures pointed to insolvency in record time, put his stamp on them and gave the acquired companies a new shine. In GM's early days, the focus was on vertical forward and backward integration of suppliers in order to expand and increase production volume. As a result, almost every production site was independent and responsible for itself. Each site had to take care of its own suppliers and there was no communication with the head office, not to mention that the individual production sites didn't communicate with each other and there was no information on costs within the individual units. The integration and coordination of the many autonomous plants was GM's and Durant's main problem at the time (cf. Chandler 1962: 115). A mild recession in the automobile industry and the accompanying decline in sales forced Durant to leave General Motors in 1910.
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: Introduces the strategic challenge of aligning company structure with market environment, highlighting the relevance of Chandler's theories.
2 Chandlers' object of study: Examines Chandler’s research on 19th and 20th-century corporations to understand the necessity of structural adaptation.
3 The introduction of the M-shape at General Motors: Details the rise of General Motors under Durant and the subsequent structural failures that necessitated reform.
4 The M-form: Illustrates the successful transition to the M-form under Alfred Sloan and explains the administrative functions of decentralized units.
5 Conclusion: Summarizes how the M-form enables efficiency and profitability during phases of diversification and market expansion.
Keywords
Structure follows Strategy, M-form, U-form, General Motors, Alfred Chandler, Alfred Sloan, Corporate Strategy, Organizational Structure, Decentralization, Diversification, Performance, Management Functions, Efficiency, Industrial History, Business Administration.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this paper?
The paper examines the critical link between corporate strategy and organizational structure, focusing on how companies can optimize their performance during market diversification.
What are the primary themes discussed?
The core themes include the "Structure follows Strategy" principle, the transition from functional to multidivisional organizational models, and the importance of decentralized management.
What is the primary research question?
The research asks why companies that adopt a multidivisional (M-form) organizational structure generally outperform those utilizing a functional (U-form) structure when facing product diversification.
What scientific method is employed?
The work utilizes a historical case study approach, drawing on Alfred Chandler's organizational theories to analyze the specific turnaround of General Motors during the 1920s.
What does the main body cover?
The main body investigates the historical context of General Motors, compares the administrative characteristics of U-form and M-form organizations, and details the four management functions of a decentralized enterprise.
What are the characterizing keywords?
Key terms include "Structure follows Strategy," M-form, U-form, General Motors, diversification, decentralization, and organizational efficiency.
Why did General Motors initially struggle under William Durant?
Durant prioritized rapid sales growth and vertical integration but neglected necessary administrative control and coordination between autonomous production units, leading to internal inefficiencies.
What role did Alfred Sloan play in the success of General Motors?
Sloan spearheaded the shift from a chaotic structure to the multidivisional M-form in 1924, establishing autonomous divisions while maintaining central strategic coordination via the General Office.
What is the primary drawback of the M-form?
The main disadvantage is the increased cost of management required to oversee multiple divisions, though this is typically offset by significant gains in flexibility and operational performance.
- Quote paper
- Markus Weth (Author), 2023, Why is the multidivisional organisational form (M-form) preferable to the functional organisational form (U-form) ?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1569931
