This Assignment Includes Two Independent Sections: Section 1

This assignment includes two independent sections: section 1 – complement of project & section 2 –

This assignment 3 includes two independent sections: section 1 – complement of project & section 2 – discussion questions. Section 1 = Part 3 of project Questions: Consider the same company ‘Samsung’ that you have already used in assignment 1 & 2 and answer the following questions.

1. Evaluate the performance of the main activity of your selected company (performance of principal product/service). What type(s) of criteria do you use to evaluate this performance?

2. What type(s) of control of employees and production processes is/are used by your selected company?

3. How does the corporation manage the environmental risks?

4. Evaluate the competitive advantage of the corporation on its market. Suggest some recommendations for the managers of your selected company to improve this competitive advantage.

End of the project Section 2 = Discussion Questions. Questions (7 Marks) Discuss the following questions:

1. Is the evaluation and control process appropriate for a corporation that emphasizes creativity? Are control and creativity compatible? Explain. - Max 300 words

2. How can corporate culture be changed? Give examples. Max 250 words

3. How is the cellular/modular structure different from the network structure? Give at least three differences. – Max 200 words

NOTE: NO plagiarism

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

In contemporary business environments, organizations like Samsung operate in highly competitive markets that demand continuous innovation and effective management strategies. Evaluating company performance, control mechanisms, environmental risk management, and competitive advantages provides critical insights into organizational success. Moreover, understanding how evaluation processes align with creative endeavors, the dynamics of corporate culture change, and structural differences informs strategic decisions that enhance organizational agility and market positioning.

Section 1: Evaluation of Samsung’s Performance and Management Strategies

Samsung, as a global leader in electronics and technology, predominantly focuses on the performance of its principal products such as smartphones, semiconductors, and consumer electronics. To evaluate this performance, criteria such as sales volume, market share, profitability margins, product innovation, and customer satisfaction are employed. Financial metrics like return on investment (ROI) and revenue growth, alongside non-financial indicators like brand equity and customer loyalty, serve as comprehensive performance measures (Kim & Mauborgne, 2014).

In controlling employee behavior and production processes, Samsung employs a mix of bureaucratic controls, such as standardized procedures and quality assurance protocols, and output controls, including performance targets and incentive systems (Yam et al., 2012). The company’s supply chain management and manufacturing processes are tightly regulated through rigorous quality controls to maintain high standards, especially critical in semiconductor and electronics production.

Environmental risk management at Samsung involves implementing sustainable manufacturing processes, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and ensuring compliance with international environmental standards such as ISO 14001. The company invests in eco-friendly technology and recycling initiatives, emphasizing sustainable resource use to minimize environmental impact (Samsung, 2022).

Samsung's competitive advantage stems from its extensive R&D capabilities, diversified product portfolio, and strong brand recognition. Its ability to rapidly innovate and adapt to changing technology trends sustains its market leadership. To further enhance this advantage, managers could focus on increasing collaboration with startups to foster open innovation, invest more in sustainable technologies to meet global environmental standards, and diversify supply chains to mitigate risks associated with geopolitical uncertainties (Porter, 1985).

Section 2: Discussion Questions

1. Evaluation and Control in Creative Organizations

In organizations that emphasize creativity, the evaluation and control processes must strike a delicate balance. Traditional control mechanisms, which focus on strict adherence to procedures and measurable outcomes, can hinder innovation. Conversely, creative companies require flexibility to foster experimentation and risk-taking (Amabile, 1996). Therefore, control systems should be performance-oriented rather than process-oriented, emphasizing outcomes like innovative ideas, prototypes, or patents. Encouraging autonomy while establishing clear strategic goals promotes a culture where creativity and control coexist. Studies suggest that flexible evaluation systems—such as peer reviews or innovation metrics—support creative efforts without stifling them (Cameron & Quinn, 2011).

2. Changing Corporate Culture

Changing corporate culture involves deliberate strategies such as redefining core values, leadership modeling, and continuous communication. For example, a company aiming to foster innovation might shift from a hierarchical culture to a more collaborative, learning-oriented one. Google exemplifies this by promoting a culture of openness, experimentation, and employee empowerment through initiatives like '20% time,' encouraging employees to pursue innovative projects (Schmidt & Rosenberg, 2014). Leadership plays a crucial role by demonstrating desired behaviors, aligning policies with new cultural values, and recognizing desired behaviors through incentives. Training programs and internal communication are vital in reinforcing new cultural norms over time (Schein, 2010).

3. Cellular/Modular Structure vs. Network Structure

The cellular or modular structure divides an organization into semi-autonomous units or teams, each responsible for specific functions or products, enabling greater flexibility and innovation (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006). In contrast, a network structure comprises interconnected organizations or units that collaborate externally, often via outsourcing or strategic alliances. Key differences include:

1. Degree of Integration: Cellular structures are internally integrated with clear boundaries, whereas network structures rely on external linkages.
2. Flexibility: Modular organizations can reconfigure internal units rapidly; networks adjust by forming or dissolving external partnerships.
3. Control mechanisms: Cellular structures utilize centralized control within units, while networks depend on trust and contractual agreements with external entities.

These differences influence organizational responsiveness and innovation capacity, with cell structures fostering internal agility and network structures enhancing external collaboration and access to diverse expertise (Sabel & Zeitlin, 2012).

Conclusion

Effective performance evaluation, control mechanisms aligned with creative processes, strategic cultural change, and appropriate organizational structures are vital for maintaining competitiveness in dynamic markets like Samsung's. By integrating technological innovation, sustainable practices, and flexible organizational designs, companies can sustain growth and adapt to evolving industry demands effectively.

References

• Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Westview Press.
• Cameron, K., & Quinn, R. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework. John Wiley & Sons.
• Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2006). Phases of organizational innovation. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 1-34.
• Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2014). Blue ocean strategy, expanded edition: How to create uncontested market space and make the competition irrelevant. Harvard Business Review Press.
• Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. Free Press.
• Samsung. (2022). Sustainability report 2022. Samsung Electronics.
• Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. Jossey-Bass.
• Sabel, C., & Zeitlin, J. (2012). Experimentalism in organization and regulation. In P. H. Zukin & S. P. M. (Eds.), The new politics of the automobile (pp. 111-146). Routledge.
• Yam, K. C., Lo, C. W. H., & Lee, W. B. (2012). Quality management in manufacturing organizations. Springer.