Thursday, August 21, 2014

Executive Management Case Study: Procter and Gamble


FACTS OF THE CASE

The CEO of Procter &  Gamble, Edwin Artzi, will soon retire and the board of directors planned on considering John Pepper and Durk Jager  to lead P&G into the 21st century. However, the two men wouldn’t talk to each other. Pepper believed in a consultative approach to management, while Jager was aggressive with an eye toward quick result. Each was highly critical with each other. Who should the board promote?

Jager was a native of the Netherlands who had worked oversees until 1990. Some believed he needed more experience in the United States. Nevertheless, he spoke six languages, had turned around P&G’s business in Japan and made some highly successful strategic decision.

Pepper was known for his popular personal style and broad experience than any major successes. He performed acts of generosity, was free with compliments, and did not need to use fear and toughness to lead. However, his critics said Pepper was indecisive and slow to act. He constantly consulted employees and tried to reach agreement among all concerned.

P & G faced several important strategic decisions, including the development of an overall plan, and whether to stick to its basic businesses, such as detergents and toothpaste, or to pursue opportunities in cosmetics and pharmaceuticals. If Pepper became chairman, he was expected to preserve most P&G’s businesses and add more jobs. If Jager became chairman, he would demand quick results, get rid of weak businesses, cut costs and eliminate jobs.

 
PROBLEMS

1) If you were a member of the board of directors who have been applying your knowledge in a Learning Organizations, who do you think can lead the company into the 21st century challenges and why?

2) If you were an employee of the company, who do you think has the better option between the two executives who can give better opportunities for entire P&G workforce and why?

3) Is it possible for one person to manage with the strengths of the other executive, and to minimize the weaknesses of each & how?

 
objectives

1)     to know and evaluate who can lead the Procter and Gamble company applying the knowledge in Learning Organizations;

2)     To assess the performance of John Pepper and Durk Jager who can give better opportunity for the entire P & G workforce; and

3)     To know the possibility for one person to manage with the strengths of the other executive, and to minimize the weaknesses of each.


AREAS OF CONSIDERATION

1)     Procter and Gamble Company -  the CEO will soon retire
 
2)     John Pepper – one of the executives considered to be the next CEO. He is known for his consultative approach.

3)     Durk Jager – one of the executives considered to be the next CEO. He is known to be aggressive with an eye toward quick result.

4)     Workforce – will be directly affected of the change in CEO

 
SOLUTION

1)     In a way those who work in a learning organization are “fully awakened” people. They are engaged in their work, striving to reach their potential, by sharing the vision of a worthy goal with team colleagues. They have mental models to guide them in the pursuit of personal mastery, and their personal goals are in alignment with the mission of the organization. Working in a learning organization is far from being a slave to a job that is unsatisfying; rather, it is seeing one’s work as part of a whole, a system where there are interrelationships and processes that depend on each other. Consequently, awakened workers take risks in order to learn, and they understand how to seek enduring solutions to problems instead of quick fixes. Lifelong commitment to high quality work can result when teams work together to capitalize on the synergy of the continuous group learning for optimal performance. Those in learning organizations are not slaves to living beings, but they can serve others in effective ways because they are well-prepared for change and working with others.  Considering the given premise, it is John Pepper who can lead the company into the 21st century challenges.

2)     One of the specific contributions of organizational development is its focus on the humanistic side of organizations. There are no true learning organizations at this point. However, some of today’s most successful organizations are embracing these ideas to meet the demands of a global economy where the value of the individual is increasingly recognized as our most important resource.  Below is the Hackenman Model that shows how consultative approach is effective in a company:


Given the above discussion, I would rather choose John Pepper because of his long-term benefit for the company workforce and the company itself.

3)     It is possible for one person to manage with the strengths of the other executive, and to minimize the weaknesses of each. A number of writers have studied teams, looking for the characteristics that make some successful. Larson and La Fasto (author of Teambuilding books) looked at high performance groups as diverse as a championship football team and a heart transplant team and found eight characteristics that are always present. They are listed below:
                                       a.       A clear, elevating goal
                                       b.      A resultsdriven structure
                                       c.       Competent team members
                                       d.      Unified commitment
                                       e.       A collaborative climate
                                       f.       Standards of excellence
                                       g.      External support and recognition
                                       h.      Principled

How does a group become a highperformance team? Lippitt maintains that groups operate on four levels: organizational expectations, group tasks, group maintenance, and individual needs. Maintenance level activities include encouraging by showing regard for others, expressing and exploring group feelings, compromising and admitting error, gatekeeping to facilitate the participation of others, and setting standards for evaluating group functioning and production.

Lippitt defines teamwork as the way a group is able to solve its problems. Teamwork is demonstrated in groups by: (a)”...the group’s ability to examine its process to constantly improve itself as a team,” and (b) ”the requirement for trust and openness in communication and relationships.” The former is characterized by group interaction, interpersonal relations, group goals, and communication. The latter is characterized by a high tolerance for differing opinions and personalities.


REFERENCES

The Fifth Discipline, by Peter Senge, Doubleday, 2006

Learning Organizations, eds. Sarita Chawla and John Renesch, Productivity Press, 1995

 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Shell of My Heart