Jump to content

User:Bondwang/Hybrid Management

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Terminology

[edit]

A Hybrid organization structure is a completely new organizational structure that combines many organizational structures. On the one hand, hybrid management distributes power to different classes. Through the distribution of power, the potential of human capital is fully utilized, and the enthusiasm of employees is mobilized and more innovative. On the other hand, focus on important strategic plans and major decision-making power at corporate headquarters. In this way, hybrid management forms a hybrid organization with a combination of high concentration and high decentralization.

The company will set up a series of relatively independent departments. All departments are fully empowered and have great autonomy. For example, based on products, customers, and markets, companies will set up independent business units.

In order to achieve resource sharing, companies typically focus on departments with similar functions, such as the personnel department, customer service department, and advertising department. When the superiors delegate tasks, these departments can collaborate and share resources to maximize profits.

The hybrid management uses the expertise of certain special departments to bring together departments with similar functions. A study (Shane, 1996) concluded that all the resources obtained from other sectors were brought together to make the functions of certain close-up departments more complete, emphasizes franchising has a significant and positive effect.[1]

Feature

[edit]

Monika and Viera reviewed prior research about participative management style and provided a qualitative framework for the meaning of management is not to let a group of people suppress another group of people, which distorts the nature of management.[2] The significance of hybrid management is to enable enterprises to carry out social activities more effectively, improve the working environment, meet customer needs, improve the profits of enterprises, and improve the efficiency of work.

Much has been written about management and organization. Bel, Smirnov and Vladimir (2017), for example, points out that: Hybrid management is conducive to enterprises to choose different structures of organization based on the unique needs and business priorities, and has strong flexibility.[3] It can also make quick adjustments based on changes in the external environment and business activities.

On the contrary, the organization of hybrid management is not standardized, which is easy to cause management confusion. There are differences between departments, and there may be problems when working together. It will also be detrimental for the company to establish a corporate image in the world.

Examples of Hybrid Management

[edit]

The application of a hybrid management strategy is critical and appropriate. One of the important features of hybrid management is that it is very compatible and can be related to the outside world at any time. There are some companies that are very independent and they are the best in a particular field. But in the era of big data, the amount of data is large and the types of data are numerous. Those companies with strong independence are the most likely to fail.

In the last 20 years, there have been many failed corporate cases, such as Kodak, Nikon, and Nokia. However, there are some cases worth learning from, such as Apple and Sony, which are successful companies that have completed the transformation. In these companies, the hybrid management model is applied very widely.

Sony

[edit]

Sony executives have made adjustments to this. Sony has transformed from an electronics company into a diversified investment company. The application of the hybrid management strategy enabled Sony to successfully transform.

After 2003, the status of the entertainment sector has improved. In addition to music and movies, Sony has also been involved in the consumer electronics industry such as TV and PS, and has achieved good results.

It found helpful information about Sony’s strategy (Uzumerib, Mustafa, 2000) that meant the rise of Sony in the entertainment industry has also added a dazzling color to Sony's financial statements.[4]

Sony has been a giant in electronics, entering the entertainment industry a few years ago to diversify its business risks. And in the future, Sony will enter more fields when conditions are ripe. Sony has been able to achieve such brilliant results and has been prosperous.[5] One of the important reasons is that Sony is good at management. The application of the hybrid management strategy has made Sony's glory today.

Best practice indicators in management have been identified (Shibata, 1993) that Sony has been able to achieve such brilliant results and has been prosperous.[6] One of the important reasons is that Sony is good at management. The application of the hybrid management strategy has made Sony's glory today.

Kodak

Take the digital camera industry as an example. There used to be a Fortune 500 companies in the world called Kodak. In 1991, Kodak’s technology was 10 years ahead of the world. In an earlier article, it was proposed (Melvin, 2017) Kodak ignored the rise of the Japanese digital industry,[7] Kodak uses film imaging technology, and Kodak's management team only focuses on film imaging technology and how to make a camera that is more perfect. The leader of Kodak has invested a lot of time and people in this department.

Unfortunately, in January 2012, Kodak filed for bankruptcy, Kodak was defeated by digital Nikon, Sony, and Canon. Kodak's technology is very advanced, but Kodak only pays attention to technology, and does not pay attention to enterprise management. In the Kodak World Top 500 enterprises, hybrid management has not received much attention.

Nikon

[edit]

A study examining priming (Aggarwal, Choudhary and Mehrotra, 2018) discovered the reason given is that the rise of smartphones has encroached on the market that originally belonged to digital cameras.[8] In the past few decades, the arrival of science and technology has been vigorously developed, and the electronics industry has also experienced vigorous development.

As a necessities of modern life, mobile phones are no longer a simple communication tool. It takes on many other functions. In addition to making calls, mobile phones are also a camera with excellent performance.

In 2017, the famous digital camera brand, Nikon, closed its factory in China. According to traditional business logic, if Nikon goes bankrupt or is forced to shut down the factory, it should be defeated by Sony, Canon and others. But forcing Nikon to launch China is actually another industry, the smartphone industry.

Nokia

[edit]

When Sony, Canon, and Nikon were still immersed in the joy of digital leadership, they suddenly discovered that the best selling cameras in the world were not Japanese companies, but Nokia. This is a company headquartered in Espoo,Finland. Because each mobile phone is a camera, Sony, Canon, and Nikon have suffered significant losses.

Founded in 1865, Nokia is mainly engaged in the logging industry. Nokia was originally a paper company. The company developed its medium-term business and began to develop rubber and tires.

Aspara, Lamberg, Juha, Arjo and Henrikki (2013) point to the value of studying the Nokia case. In the early stages of Nokia's development, it was a diversified company with a wide range of businesses and very promising companies. However, between 1990 and 1996, Nokia’s business model was transformed. Nokia has developed into a mobile phone manufacturer whose main business is to develop mobile phones and mobile-related businesses.[9]

Apple

[edit]

Apple, which originally made computers before 2000, but because the leaders of the company are full of resourcefulness and determination, they made a major change, the company transformed into a diversified enterprise, and the hybrid management model was applied.

Apple's high management and corporate perception have affected the company's business model, and the company has therefore transformed. Aspara, Lamberg, Juha, Arjo and Henrikki (2013) pointed out that Nokia used to do very well in this area, especially in the 1990s, but then they did not continue to develop, so they were replaced by Apple.[9]

Apple executives made important transformation decisions. The company also has Steve Jobs, who brought glory to the company. He once built the Macintosh Computer, and in the new century, he created a touch-screen smartphone. In September 2013, Nokia was acquired by Microsoft. Kumar (2017) reported that Apple has developed Macintosh computers, IPod, IPhone, IPad and various related electronic products.[10] Product diversification is one of the most important manifestations of hybrid management. Unlike the previous Nokia, after the transformation of Nokia, the product is single, still based on mobile phone production. Apple is completely different, Apple's changing business model is the significant reason why it became the world's richest company in the world.[11]

Robert R. Blake and Jane Mouton Managerial grid model

[edit]

Hybrid management, which was proposed by Jane Mouton and Robert R. Blake, behavioral scientists at the University of Texas at Austin in 1964, in Managing Grid.

The introduction of hybrid management has changed the previous theories, either production-centered or human-centered absolute views. Champenois and Etzkowitz (2017) pointed out that between the two leadership styles of production concern and concern for people, different levels of mutual Combine.[12]

Black and Morton screen out the six elements of decision-making, beliefs, conflicts, temperament, conservation, and effort according to the influence of management coordinate positioning, and give different behavioral expressions for each element for the reader to conduct self-test. This self-test can rule out most unconscious self-deception. With this list, managers can conduct more accurate and objective self-identification.

Black and Morton believe that the various hybrid management methods in reality, despite their existence and reason, do not recognize the integration principle of caring and caring for production, so they must be integrated and transformed with behavioral science theory.[13]

Impoverished Management

[edit]

Poor leaders have no concern for performance and people. They just want to keep their status and have already given up their duties. Usually because they don't have the ability to manage, and they don't have goals and ambitions. This kind of business is a failure, and this kind of leader has no charm. In many developing countries, the leaders of state-owned enterprises are of this type. The second generation of leaders of many familial businesses is also of this type.[14]

Produce-or-Perish Management

[edit]

Authoritarian leaders are more concerned about performance, less concerned with people, and authoritarian. They have no fresh individuals in their eyes. Only the lower-level employees who need to complete production tasks are only concerned with performance indicators. They just want to keep their status and seek greater profits. Many political leaders are of this type.

Middle-of-the-Road Management

[edit]

Small citizen leaders are neither focused on production nor on caring for people. Their management style is moderate and does not set too high a goal. Companies can get a certain morale and appropriate output, but not excellence. Usually they are limited by their personal ability, but they are very clear about their ability to know their own limits, the majority of them are middle-manager's perspective.[15] This kind of management style is very common, but this is the favorite management style of most employees. Employees have their own free time, and the superior department does not assign a lot of tasks to them.

Country Club Management

[edit]

Club-style leaders care less about performance and care more about people. They strive to create an environment where everyone can relax and feel friendship and happiness. But they don't care about the company's performance, profits and goals. Usually they are limited by their personal ability. Even if they want to develop their performance, it is difficult to achieve great goals. But they are very concerned about developing interpersonal relationships. Although they have limited ability, they are very motivated and they will contribute to the company. Many leaders in the human resources department are in this style of management.[16]

Team Management

[edit]

Ideal leaders are concerned about performance and people. They are excellent leaders who can bring about productivity and profit improvement, and enable employees to achieve career success and wealth.[13] This type of leader is very capable, good at using people, and at the same time very ambitious. They are very good managers. As can be seen from the concept, Team management is the best style of managing a company.

Effects

[edit]

In the above theory, Robert R. Blake and Jane Mouton divide the management into five different types based on the level of focus of the leader's performance on the leader's attention to people. But this is only a theoretical template. It is not a perfect one. The enterprise that exist in real life are complex and changeable. Practice is the sole criterion for testing truth. Many real-life companies do not meet the theories of Robert R. Blake and Jane Mouton. Management grid theory provides a theoretical framework for management behavior. The management activities in reality are not the five types of forms mentioned above, but a hybrid form. Management is a very complicated science. Brandl, Kagerer and Reinhart (2017) believed that different levels of personnel, different corporate departments, different industries, there are certain differences in the content and focus of management.[17]

Disadvantages

[edit]

However, the hybrid management model also has many shortcomings. As its advantages describe, many independent departments of the enterprise, but the functions of different departments are different.[18] If the organizational structure is not perfect, it is difficult for managers to grasp the direction of the company and easily cause management. Chaos, and often due to organizational damage, is irreparable. There are great differences between the various departments set up by the company. If resources and tasks cannot be allocated reasonably, it will be very unfavorable for coordination and cooperation, and it is not conducive to establishing a complete corporate image in the world. If the company develops very well, it will also cause monopoly of the enterprise, which is not conducive to the development of other companies. Especially in the later stage of the company's development, it will create price monopoly and commodity monopoly, which is unfavorable to consumers.

Advantages

[edit]

In addition, the hybrid management model has many advantages, because the company itself has many independent departments, they can protect themselves, supply themselves, do not need to obtain resources from other external companies, the company has great autonomy, and can protect the company to get the most Profit, the goal has been achieved. In addition, it is flexible and can be flexibly adjusted according to the company's goals and the objects of the company's services. Huang, Pan and Liu (2017) pointed that although the various departments of the company have different functions, they can share resources.[19] It found helpful information about hybrid organizations (Van Der Lugt, Dooms and Parola, 2013) that in the face of competition and challenges, a new strategic analysis, followed by strategy, evaluation and implementation, when the situation is necessary and appropriate, it can concentrate all the company's information resources and strengthen the functions of a particular department.[20] Companies with hybrid management models can vigorously develop international projects because they have strong adaptability to the external environment.

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Shane, Scott A. (February 1996). "Hybrid Organizational Arrangements and Their Implications for Firm Growth and Survival: A Study of New Franchisors". Academy of Management Journal. 39 (1): 216–234. doi:10.5465/256637. ISSN 0001-4273.
  2. ^ Rolková, Monika; Farkašová, Viera (2015). "The Features of Participative Management Style". Procedia Economics and Finance. 23: 1383–1387. doi:10.1016/s2212-5671(15)00391-3. ISSN 2212-5671.
  3. ^ Bel, By Roland; Smirnov, Vladimir; Wait, Andrew (January 2018). "Managing change: Communication, managerial style and change in organizations". Economic Modelling. 69: 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.econmod.2017.09.001. ISSN 0264-9993.
  4. ^ Sandersona, Uzumerib, Susan, Mustafa (20 January 2000). "Managing product families: The case of the Sony Walkman". Research Policy. 24: 761–782.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  5. ^ Shibata, Takashi (August 1993). "Sony's successful strategy for compact discs". Long Range Planning. 26 (4): 16–21. doi:10.1016/0024-6301(93)90053-i. ISSN 0024-6301.
  6. ^ Melvin, W. Scott (March 2018). "Anatomy of change: a Kodak moment". Surgery. 163 (3): 485–487. doi:10.1016/j.surg.2017.11.001. ISSN 0039-6060.
  7. ^ Hale, Sophie E; Edwards, Colin (2002). "Comparison of film and digital hemispherical photography across a wide range of canopy densities". Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. 112 (1): 51–56. doi:10.1016/s0168-1923(02)00042-4. ISSN 0168-1923.
  8. ^ Aggarwal, Ashish; Choudhary, Chetna; Mehrotra, Deepti (2018). "Evaluation of smartphones in Indian market using EDAS". Procedia Computer Science. 132: 236–243. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2018.05.193. ISSN 1877-0509.
  9. ^ a b Aspara, Jaakko; Lamberg, Juha-Antti; Laukia, Arjo; Tikkanen, Henrikki (2013). "Corporate Business Model Transformation and Inter-Organizational Cognition: The Case of Nokia". Long Range Planning. 46 (6): 459–474. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2011.06.001. ISSN 0024-6301.
  10. ^ Kumar, Rajesh (2017), "Wealth creation—A case analysis of Apple", Strategic Financial Management Casebook, Elsevier, pp. 175–197, doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-805475-8.00006-9, ISBN 9780128054758, retrieved 2018-11-09
  11. ^ Lazonick, William; Mazzucato, Mariana; Tulum, Öner (2013). "Apple's changing business model: What should the world's richest company do with all those profits?". Accounting Forum. 37 (4): 249–267. doi:10.1016/j.accfor.2013.07.002. ISSN 0155-9982.
  12. ^ Champenois, Claire; Etzkowitz, Henry (2017). "From boundary line to boundary space: The creation of hybrid organizations as a Triple Helix micro-foundation". Technovation. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2017.11.002. ISSN 0166-4972.
  13. ^ a b Son, Changwon; Sasangohar, Farzan; Camille Peres, S.; Neville, Timothy J.; Moon, Jukrin; Sam Mannan, M. (2018). "Modeling an incident management team as a joint cognitive system". Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 56: 231–241. doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2018.07.021. ISSN 0950-4230.
  14. ^ Savage, Jan; Scott, Cherill (2004). "The modern matron: a hybrid management role with implications for continuous quality improvement". Journal of Nursing Management. 12 (6): 419–426. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2834.2004.00511.x. ISSN 0966-0429.
  15. ^ Lampaki, Antonia; Papadakis, Vassilis (2018). "The impact of organisational politics and trust in the top management team on strategic decision implementation success: A middle-manager's perspective". European Management Journal. 36 (5): 627–637. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2018.07.005. ISSN 0263-2373.
  16. ^ Lin, Li; Abetti, Pier A. (2012). "Entrepreneurship in China during the transition from state ownership to free market: case study of a woman entrepreneur (1994 to 2010)". International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management. 16 (3/4): 137. doi:10.1504/ijeim.2012.051938. ISSN 1368-275X.
  17. ^ Brandl, Felix J.; Kagerer, Moritz; Reinhart, Gunther (2017). "A Hybrid Innovation Management Framework for Manufacturing – Enablers for more Agility in Plants". Procedia CIRP. 72: 1154–1159. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2018.04.022. ISSN 2212-8271.
  18. ^ Svensson, Per G. (November 2017). "Organizational hybridity: A conceptualization of how sport for development and peace organizations respond to divergent institutional demands". Sport Management Review. 20 (5): 443–454. doi:10.1016/j.smr.2017.03.004. ISSN 1441-3523.
  19. ^ Huang, Jin-Song; Pan, Shan L.; Liu, Jie (2017). "Boundary permeability and online–offline hybrid organization: A case study of Suning, China". Information & Management. 54 (3): 304–316. doi:10.1016/j.im.2016.08.002. ISSN 0378-7206.
  20. ^ Van Der Lugt, Larissa; Dooms, Michaël; Parola, Francesco (2013). "Strategy making by hybrid organizations: The case of the port authority". Research in Transportation Business & Management. 8: 103–113. doi:10.1016/j.rtbm.2013.06.005. ISSN 2210-5395.
[edit]


Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Bondwang/Hybrid_Management&oldid=867989321"