肯德基的结构和文化和方式的一个重要的评估
发布时间：2016-03-25 10:16
Introduction 介绍
肯德基在中国有两个主要目标：第一，满足客户的需求，使产品的营销公司（米勒；2004）。因此，肯德基五战略以实现这些目标。他们注入公司特色开发新产品；通过再开放几个餐馆迅速扩大；发达的物流网络；训练有素的员工服务于客户，专注于所有权而不是特许经营（马上shelman，2011）。There are two main objectives for KFC in China: first, tomeet the customers’ needs and then make the products well by marketingtheir company (Miller; 2004). Therefore, KFC made five strategies in orderto achieve these goals. They infused the company with Chinesecharacteristics by developing new products; expanded quickly by openingmore restaurants; developed a logistic network; trained the employees toserve the customers and focused on ownership rather than franchising (Belland Shelman, 2011). When making strategic decisions in China, since thepolitical and social factors are comparatively stabile, incrementaldecisions process model can be useful. This model tells about thestructural sequence of activities undertaken when seeking for solution to aparticular problem (Daft; 2004). Using this model, decisions are made byidentification phase, development phase and selection phase. As a result,it is always effective because authorization is routine so it can simplifythe problem by contemplating marginal changes (Daft; 2004), and it canminimize the risk of mistakes because policy formed from many smalldecisions(Boddy; 2011).In addition, this decision making model can makethe organization decentralized so that the team-level debate andbrainstorming can be achieved (Slotegraaf and Atuahene-Gima; 2011). KFC inChina is a huge food chain so strategic decisions are made frequently sodecentralize the decision making process can accelerate the update processof strategic decisions to cope with the uncertainty. Due to the mangersalways uncertain about the consequences of their decision, the wholedecision can be divided into some small decisions such as adding a new foodrecipe and opening a new restaurant in the west China to reduce the risk.
It is also effective for KFC because the routine can be followed whenmaking similar decisions. However, there are some deficiencies ofincremental decision making process. Firstly, it lacks flexibility whenonly considering marginal changes (Boddy; 2011). Because most strategicdecisions take place over an extended period, it is very common for theappearance of new alternatives. The other deficiency is decisioninterrupts. When something unsatisfactory happens, the organization have togo back to see whether the problem is worth solving (Daft; 2004). What ismore, in the selection phase, the judgment is mainly from the personalexperience so that bias can not be avoided (Kahneman, Lovallo and Sibony;2011). So, in order to make effective strategic decisions, it is better forthe organization to minimize the bias and implement incremental innovation.
Kahneman and Lovallo (2011) suggested that the most straightforward way todetect bias and minimise its effects is to review recommendations fromsomeone else and determine whether to accept or reject it. This is alsosuitable for KFC in China market.One suggestion may be effective in onearea but not effective in another, so share the suggestion and judgment isa useful method. Ettlie and Bridges (1984) suggested that incrementalinnovation can be achieved by concentrating on technical specialists andmaking the organization more structural complexity, formalization, anddecentralization. KFC is always making product innovation to fit Chinesetaste in order to support its strategy of localization. In order to achieveits radical strategy in China, the KFC is mainly dominated by a missionculture, which is emphasised on a clear vision of the organization’sstrategies such have an expansion in market share. The organization’sculture is better fit for its dominant structural approach that iscentralized by using job specification, have strict hierarchy and taskforces. This practice poses pressure on the managers to demonstrate theirmanagement skills in a short period so that higher turnover can beachieved (Hill and Jones; 2006). Under this culture, the organization canachieve a high level of competitiveness and profit- orientation (Daft;2004). However, the drawback of this culture is that the employee loyaltywas lost. Yilmaz and Ergun (2008) hold the view that the managers shouldbalance between the culture traits of involvement, consistency,adaptability and mission to achieve organization effectiveness (Hill andJones; 2006). Khan (2010) argued that the organization should perceiveculture into two aspects: the functional value and rational value, so themission culture to some extent ignores the rational value. KamaluddinandRahman (2011) also argued that the interaction between relational capitalwith consistency and mission culture is important to the organization.Therefore, in long run, the KFC should form good relationship bycoordination in order to achieve employee and customer satisfaction.
According to the radical strategy and high performance culture of KFC inChina, perhaps the vertical functional structure with horizontal linkagesis the most suitable one. Vertical integration can increase the value-addedmargin because the control over raw material and outlets is increased andthe market transaction costs can be reduced (Riahi-Belkaoui; 1998). In thefunctional structure, activities are grouped together by common functions(Daft; 2004). The main benefit of this structure is that it allows economicsof scales (Daft,2004) so KFC in China can expand quickly, keeping highprofit. Also, this structure can have clear career paths and specializationleads to high standards and efficiency (Boddy; 2011). On the other hand,this structure isolates from wider interests, damages promotion prospects(Boddy; 2011), causes hierarchy overloads, leads to poor horizontalcoordination and hampers innovation (Daft; 2004). In the changingenvironment, innovation is of vital importance, so Binyamin and Carmeli(2010) suggested that structuring of HRM processes in an organizationenables the employees to exhibit creativity in the workplace. Slotegraafand Atuahene-Gima (2011) argued that horizontal linkage can be enforced bysetting up cross-functional new product development team. Lafond, Jobidonand Marie-Eve’s research (2011) pointed out that multifunctional structurehave obtained a better performance score than functional structure byachieving coordination effectiveness and frequency of communications.
Overall, vertical functional structure is effective for KFC in Chinesemarket because it is integrated, capital intensive and economic although there are problems such as staff-line conflicts. Therefore, theKFC in China use functional hierarchy with horizontal linkages to reinforcethe coordination and teamwork. Management plays an important role indeciding the corporate strategy, structure and culture. Singh (2011) holdthe view that the interplay of organizational structure, culture, learningand knowledge management plays an important role in organizationalinnovation so the managers should better coordinate these factors. Nadkarniand Barr (2008) suggested that strategic varies across industry context andtied to the managerial cognition. For KFC, it has tall structure and thedecision making is centralized to achieve economic scale. The role ofmanagement is mainly hierarchy rather than coordination. The benefit ofthis management model is that it can find acceptable solution quickly.However, it needs more skilled managers to make accurate reaction to copewith the changing environment and relies more on the top managers(Boddy;2011). When considering the culture of the organization, it requires themanagers to consider the role of culture in the organization (Thomas;2005). Wang (2011) argued that corporate ethical values can be achieved bydesigning and implementing philosophy –oriented practices in amission-driven culture. Therefore, ethics are well managed to guide thedecisions of KFC in China because its moral has impact on its globalcommunity, social responsibility and corporate identity.
Conclusion总结
According to the KFC’s radical strategy in China, incremental decisionmodel is an effective way to achieve its goals because it can reduce therisks and form the routines to increase efficiency. However, negotiationmust be increased to reduce bias and incremental innovation can beencouraged by the organization to increase formalization, anddecentralization. The mission culture enables the organization achieve highprofit but low loyalty of the employees so in long run, relationshipmanagement is important for the organization to achieve satisfaction. Thevertical functional structure can help the organization reinforce hierarchyand control to make the job standardized, but horizontal linkage is alsoimportant and can be achieved by coordination and team work among differentfunctional departments.The managerial cognition plays an important role inbalancing the organization’s strategy, structure and culture.
References:文献
Apte, U. M. and Reynolds, C. R. (2005) Quality Management at Kentucky FriedChicken,Interfaces, May/Jun95, Vol. 25 Issue 3, p6-21.
Bell, David E. andShelman, Mary L. KFC's Radical Approach to China, Harvard Business Review,Binyamin, G. and Carmeli, A. (2010) Does structuring of human resourcemanagement processes enhance employee creativity? The mediating role ofpsychological availability, Human Resource Management, Nov/Dec2010, Vol. 49,Issue 6, p999-1024.
Boddy, D. (2011) Management: anintroduction, fifth edition, Prentice Hall: London.
Daft, R. L. (2004) Organization theory and Design, seventh edition,South-Western College: New York.
Ettlie, J. E.; Bridges, W. P. and O'Keefe, R. D.ORGANIZATION STRATEGY AND STRUCTURAL DIFFERENCES FOR RADICAL VERSUSINCREMENTAL INNOVATION, Management Science, Jun84, Vol. 30 Issue 6,p682-695.
Hill, C. W. and Jones, G. R. (2006) Cases inStrategic Management, seventh edition, Houghton Mifflin Company: Now York.
Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Apr2011, Vol. 46 Issue 4, p713-725.
Kahneman, D. and Lovallo, D.andSibony, O.(2011) BeforeYou Make That Big Decision...,Harvard Business Review, Jun2011, Vol. 89Issue 6, p50-60.
Kamaluddin, A. and Rahman, R. A. (2010) The ModeratingEffect of Organization Culture on Intellectual Capital and OrganizationalEffectiveness Relationships, Proceedings of the International Conference onIntellectual Capital, Knowledge Management & Organizational Learning, 2010,p584-595.
Khan, N. and Wahab, S.A.(2010) Investigating Structure Relationship from Functional and Relational
Lafond, D. ;Jobidon, M.andAubé, C.(2011) Evidence of Structure-SpecificTeamwork Requirements and Implications for Team Design,Tremblay, Sébastien.Small Group Research, Oct2011, Vol. 42 Issue 5, p507-535.
Miller, P. W. (2004) Quick Service Hits China, ChinaBusiness Review, Jul/Aug2004, Vol. 31 Issue 4, p18-28.
Nadkarni, S.andBarr, P. S.(2008) Environmental context, managerial cognition, andstrategic action: an integrated view, Strategic Management Journal,Dec2008, Vol. 29 Issue 13, p1395-1427.
Nov2011, Vol. 89 Issue 11, p137-142
Riahi-Belkaoui, A. (1998) The Impact of the Multi-divisionalStructure on Organizational Slack: The Contingency of DiversificationStrategy,British Journal of Management, Sep98, Vol. 9 Issue 3, p211-217.
Singh, S. K. (2011)Organizational Innovation as Competitive Advantage during Global Recession,
Slotegraaf, R.J.andAtuahene-G.K.(2011) Product Development Team Stability and New Product Advantage: TheRole of Decision-Making Processes, Journal of Marketing, Jan2011, Vol. 75Issue 1, p96-108.
Thomas W. J. (2005) A framework fororganizational virtue: the interrelationship of mission, culture andleadership, Business Ethics: A European Review, Oct2005, Vol. 14 Issue 4,p367-378.
Value to Behavior Intention: The Role of Satisfaction and RelationshipCommitment, International Journal of Business & Management, Oct2010, Vol. 5, Issue 10, p20-36
Wang, Y. (2011) Mission-Driven Organizations in Japan: ManagementPhilosophy and Individual OutcomesJournal of Business Ethics, Jun2011, Vol. 101 Issue 1, p111-126.
Yilmaz, C. and Ergun, E. (2008) Organizational culture and firmeffectiveness: An examination of relative effects of culture traits and thebalanced culture hypothesis in an emerging economy, Journal of WorldBusiness, Jul2008, Vol. 43 Issue 3, p290-306.
本文编号：37439
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/wenshubaike/lwfw/37439.html
