Organisational Structure Of Procter 3h5x5a

3301842 Zhangbin

Organisational Structure of Procter & Gamble

1

3301842 Zhangbin

2

Introduction Procter & Gamble is a Fortune 500 American multinational corporation headquartered in Downtown Cincinnati, Ohio that manufactures a wide range of consumer goods (Wikipedia 2010, Procter & Gamble). Procter & Gamble (P&G) is America’s biggest maker of household products, with at least 250 brands in six main categories: laundry and cleaning (detergents), paper goods (toilet paper), beauty care (cosmetics, shampoos), food and beverages (coffee, snacks), feminine care (sanitary towels) and health care (toothpaste, medicine). P&G’s famous brands include Ariel, Pantene, Head & Shoulders, Fabreze, Sunny Delight, and Oil of Olaz. About half of P&G's sales come from its top ten brands. P&G also makes pet food and PUR water filters and produces the soap operas Guiding Light and As the World Turns (Corporate Watch, n.d. Procter & Gamble). So what has made P&G become what it is today? The answer is multiple but apparently its organisational structure has played an important role, which has necessitated this study.

3301842 Zhangbin

3

P&G’s Structure An organisation is a consciously coordinated social entity, with a relatively identifiable boundary, that functions on a relatively continuous basis to achieve a common goal or set of goals. And organisation structure defines how tasks are to be allocated, areas of responsibility and authority, who reports to whom, and the formal coordinating mechanisms and interaction patterns that will be followed (Robbins & Neil Barwell 2002, pp.6-7).

So far, a great number of theorists have developed their theories as to the classification of the organisation structure. According to Duncan (1979, cited in Bartol et al. 2006, p.196), organisation structure is also called departmentalisation which is defined as grouping individuals into units, and units into departments and larger units to achieve organisational goals. Different patterns of departmentalisation are called organisation designs. Functional, divisional, hybrid and matrix are four common departmentalisation patterns. Functional structure is a type of departmentalisation where positions are grouped into functional (or specialization) areas. In other words, positions are combined on the basis of similarity of expertise, skill and work activity. Divisional structure is a type of departmentalisation, with positions grouped by product, service or market similarity. Hybrid is a form of departmentalisation with both functional and divisional structure elements at the same management level (Draft 1998, cited in Bartol et al. 2006, p.202). Matrix structure is a type of departmentalisation which superimposes divisional horizontal reporting relationships onto a hierarchical functional structure (Miles & Snow 1992, cited in Bartol et al.2006, p.204). Thus the structure is both functional and divisional at once. There are two chains of command, one vertical and one horizontal.

3301842 Zhangbin

4

P&G has undertaken many structural changes over the past century, but that discussed in this study is the current structure of P&G. The main structure, partial organisation structure and specific structure of P&G are shown in Figure 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3.

Figure 1.1 (Corporate culture: Strength in Structure, P&G)

3301842 Zhangbin

Figure 1.2 Partial organisation structure of P&G (MIKOŁA J JAN PISKORSKI & ALESSANDRO L . SPADINI , Procter & Gamble: Organization 2005(A) pdf, p.9)

5

3301842 Zhangbin

Figure 1.3 Organization 2005 Structure, 1999 (MIKOŁA J JAN PISKORSKI & ALESSANDRO L . SPADINI , Procter & Gamble: Organization 2005(A) pdf, p.15)

6

3301842 Zhangbin

7

Global Business Units (GBUs) Global Business Units were responsible for product development, brand design, business strategy and new business development. In total, there were seven GBUs (represented by the ellipsis) each with complete profit responsibility, and benchmarked

against

focused

product-category

competitors.

Each

operated

autonomously focusing on a different product category, such as Fabric and Home Care or Tissue and Towel (see the middle section of Figure 1.3). Each GBU was led by a president, who reported directly to the CEO and was a member of the global leadership council that determined overall company strategy. At a GBU level, Vice Presidents of Marketing, R&D, Product Supply, New Business Development, and functions such as IT implementation reported to the GBU President (see the middle section of Figure 1.2 ). The new business development function of GBUs was managed separately from the rest of the GBU.

Market Development Organizations (MDOs) Market Development Organizations (MDOs) were designed to take responsibility for “tailoring the company’s global programs to local markets and for using their knowledge of local consumers and retailers to help P&G develop market strategies to guide the entire business.” In total, there were seven MDOs represented by the ellipsis (see the top part of Figure 1.3). Unlike the GBUs, they did not have complete profit responsibility, but were instead compensated on sales growth. Each MDO was led by a president who reported directly to the CEO and, like the GBU presidents, sat on the global leadership council.

Global Business Services (GBS) The third leg of the new organizational structure, Global Business Services (GBS) unit was given an ambitious plan to standardize, consolidate, streamline, and ultimately strengthen business processes and IT platforms across GBUs and MDOs

3301842 Zhangbin

around the world. GBS was organized as a cost center. The head of GBS reported directly to the CEO, but was not a member of the global leadership council. As shown in Figure 1.2 and Figure 1.3, corporate new ventures president, chief financial officer and other presidents or officers make up the functional structure, while seven MDOS and GBUS who are responsible for different areas and different products make up the divisional structure. Thus the structure is both functional and divisional at once, so P&G’ organisation structure should be a matrix structure as per the classification of organisation structure.

Contingency Factors of P&G’s Current Structure The mostly adopted theory in deciding an organisation’s structure is contingency theory. This viewpoint argues that appropriate managerial action depends on a situation’s parameters. The best structure for a firm was seen to depend on contingency factors such as strategy, technology, size and environment (Bartol et al.2006, p. 219). Miller (1986; 1998, cited in Bartol et al. 2006, p.220) matched strategies with appropriate structures. And in of his theory, P&G’s strategy is similar to innovative differentiation which is to distinguish one’s products and services from those of competitors by leading in complex product or service innovations. As in P&G’s case, it has diversified its products into many types (cleaners, shampoos, toothpaste) and into hundreds of brands. A matrix structure fits with an innovative differentiation strategy. Another factor determines P&G’s current structure is partly owing to technology. Woodward (1958; 1965, cited in Bartol et al. 2006, p.221) found three different technology types often predicted structural firm’s practices, and P&G should be of continuous-process production that makes products of liquids solids or gases through a continuous process. Therefore, by Woodward’s theory, P&G should have low formalization and centralisation. It is known for sure that size has played a critical part in the formation of P&G’s

8

3301842 Zhangbin

9

current structure. As organisations grow, departments and levels need to be added, and structures grow more complex. With functional forms, this drives a change to divisional structure (Astley 1985; Cullen, Anderson & Baker 1986, cited in Bartol et al. 2006, p. 222). As organisations grow, decentralizations increases. This is probably due to the rules and regulation guiding lower level decision making (Robbins 1990, cited in Bartol et al. 2006, p.222). Burns and Stalker (1961, cited in Bartol et al. 2006, p.223) studied the effects of environment on organisation structure. They found different structural characteristics, depending on whether the environment was stable with little change or unstable with rapid change and uncertainty. P&G has been classified as a downstream company, originating as a marketer distributor (Galbraith, 1991, cited in Leadership & Organisation Development Journal. Vol. 15. No.2, 1994, pp.24-28). Downstream companies, like P&G, have multiple products and multiple markets. They are also customer oriented and concerned with tailoring their products to meet target market needs. Thus they need to be more flexible and adaptable than traditional manufacturing companies (Leadership & Organisation Development Journal. Vol. 15. No.2, 1994, pp.24-28). In highly unstable and uncertain environments, by contrast, firms had more organic characteristics, decentralized decision making, few rules and regulations, with hierarchical considerable delegation between levels, which is also applicable to P&G.

Another Perspective to Analyze P&G’ s Structure Henry Mintzberg (1983, cited in Stephen P. Robbins & Neil Barnwell, 2002, p.111) argues that there are five basic parts to any organisation. They are defined as follows: 1. The operating core—employees, who perform the basic work related to the production of products and services. 2. The strategic apex—top-level managers,who are charged with the overall responsibility for the organisation. 3. The middle line—managers, who connect the operating core to the strategic apex. 4. The technostructure—analysts, who have the responsibility for effecting certain

3301842 Zhangbin

10

forms of standardization in the organisation. 5. The staff—people who fill the staff units that provide indirect services for the organisation.

Any one of these five parts can dominate an organisation and where each dominates, a different organisational form emerges. Moreover, a given structural configuration is likely to be used depending on which part is in control. As a result, there are five distinct design configurations and each one is associated with the domination by one of the five basic parts.

After comparison P&G’ structure with Mintzberg’s theorem, we can draw a conclusion that P&G should be of machine bureaucracy with a horizontal divisional structure. The machine bureaucracy has highly routine operating tasks, formalised rules and regulations, tasks that are grouped into functional departments, centralized authority and a decision making that follows the chain of command. And the divisional structure is a set of autonomous self-contained units, each typically configured as a machine bureaucracy. The dominant part of the divisional structure lies with middle management. They report to, and are istered by, a central headquarters. (Stephen P. Robbins & Neil Barnwell, 2002, p.114-117) In P&G’s case, the functional departments are engineering, financial, human resources, technology and other departments, and divisions are seven MDOS and GBUS which perform different function and are in charge of different regions and different products.

What Makes P&G’ Current Structure Stand Out? The market and industry P&G lies in have determined P&G’s present structure, as P&G must focus on two things, one is means (processes) in order to make excellent product quality and minimize the cost, the other is ends (outcomes) to yield profits and satisfy the shareholders, stakeholders, customers and so on. And this structure overtly has its manifold merits than P&G’s former structure, mainly are as follows: First it created a clear balance between these two key dimensions – customer focus

3301842 Zhangbin

11

and product focus; second it presented a unified sales for customers that is focused on sales growth of all products; third the product-category business units with profit and loss responsibility have full control over their key functions; and fourth the service functions and corporate functions formed a third and fourth dimensions in matrix structures over the two key dimensions. The new structure is a four-dimension front-back hybrid matrix with a top leader, a coordination council to define priorities and solve disputes, matrix leaders, and subordinates with the need to coordinate and balance four influences structure as shown in Figure1.2. The routines and policies that had created problems to the proper functioning of the matrix organization also streamlined and adapted to the new structure. A single business-planning process was created whereby all budget elements could be reviewed and approved tly by the various matrix leaders (Ronald Jean Degen, 2009, pp.34-35).

Examination of Organisational Effectiveness Centring around organisational effectiveness, there have appeared diverse approaches trying to measure it, the most common ones are the goal-attainment approach, systems approach, strategic-constituencies approach and the balanced scorecard approach. First the definition of organisational effectiveness must be presented despite that effectiveness is conceptually complex. Organisational effectiveness can be defined as the degree to which an organisation attains its short-(ends) and long-term (means) goals, the selection of which reflects strategic constituencies, the self-interest of the evaluator and the life stage of the organisation (Stephen P. Robbins & Neil Barnwell 2002, p.87). (1) The goal-attainment approach states that an organisation’s effectiveness must be appraised in of the accomplishment of ends rather than means. Put another way, it should be judged by whether it has achieved what it set out to achieve, rather than how it got there. Popular goal-attainment criteria include achieving profit

3301842 Zhangbin

12

objectives or meeting budgets, achieving certain quality outcomes, helping a certain number of disadvantaged people, attaining health objectives or winning a sports competition. Goal attainment approach allows for better concentration on and dedication to certain objectives of an organisation and easier assessment of its performance because the number of goals of the organisation is usually small and countable. (2) Systems approach is to evaluate an organisation’s effectiveness by its ability to acquire inputs, process the inputs, channel the outputs and maintain stability and balance. Systems models emphasise criteria that will increase the long-term survival of the organisation, such as the organisation’s ability to acquire resources, maintain itself internally as a social organisation and interact successfully with its external environment. Therefore, systems approach has such advantages: it allows managers to make decisions that will benefit the organisation’s long-term health and survival rather than short-goals; besides, the systems approach increases the manager’s awareness of the interdependence of organisational activities; moreover, systems approach has higher applicability where end goals either are very vague or defy measurement. (3) Strategic-constituencies approach proposes that an effective organisation is one that satisfies the demands of those constituencies in its environment from which it requires for its continued existence. This approach is similar to the systems view, yet it has a different emphasis. Both consider interdependencies, but the strategic-constituencies view is not concerned with all the organisation’s environment. It seeks to appease only those in the environment who can threaten the organisation’s survival—that is, the strategic constituencies. Strategic-constituencies approach enables managers to decrease the chance that they might ignore or severely upset a group whose power could significantly hinder the organisation’s operations as well as to modify its preference ordering of goals as necessary to reflect the changing power relationships with its strategic constituencies (Robbins & Barnwell, 2002, p. 81). (4)Balanced scorecard approach seeks to balance the various demands on the

3301842 Zhangbin

13

organisation with its capabilities by use of balanced scorecard. The balanced scorecard encomes four basic components or perspectives that any organisation needs to consider: financial perspective, customer perspective, internal business perspective and innovation & learning perspective. The first advantage of the balanced scorecard is that it brings together in a single report many areas of importance to an organisation’s competitiveness. Second is that the scorecard acts to guard against suboptimisation. Third it also has the advantage of involving a reasonably wide range of managers and stakeholders in the process of nominating what is important for the organisation. After introducing the four current approaches to examine the organisational effectiveness, a question that what is the appropriate approach for the assessment of P&G’s organisational effectiveness needs to be answered. Because of the complexity and vastness of P&G’s structure and a demanding environment where it operates, goal attainment, systems, strategic-constituencies approaches are all inappropriate for the assessment of P&G’s organisational effectiveness. The P&G’s management must look into every perspective and identify just a few goals for each of the four perspectives and reach the final decision which should be balanced in of every perspective rather than contributing to one particular perspective.

Inherent Structural Problems and Better Option Though P&G has started its restructuring plan since 1998 and gone to as far as today, there are still some inherent structural problems. As its matrix structure has added a layer of category managers, brand managers and service staffs to a functional hierarchy, costs grow. Also, matrix designs can also encourage group decision making until groups make even minor decisions, which can seriously erode productivity. Finally, while a matrix can adapt to change, this can be slow if have poor interpersonal skills, or senior management tries to keep control (Bartol et al. 2006, p. 206); in other words it means slow responsiveness and low flexibility. Could there be a better option for P&G? Boundaryless structure may be the answer. A contemporary

3301842 Zhangbin

14

organisational design is the idea of the Boundaryless organisation, an organisation whose design is not defined by, or limited to, the horizontal, vertical or external boundaries imposed by a predefined structure. Also named as “barrier-free” organisation by Gregory G. Dess et al.(1995, pp. 7-20), a Boundaryless organisation enables a firm to bridge real differences in culture, function, and goals to find common ground that facilitates cooperative behaviour. Boundaryless organizing is to remove vertical boundaries through such structural approaches as cross-hierarchical teams (which include top-level managers, middle managers, supervisors and employees) and participative decision-making, the hierarchy is flattened. Managers can remove horizontal boundaries by using cross-functional teams and organizing work activities around work processes instead of around functional departments. And external boundaries can be minimized or eliminated by using strategic alliances with suppliers, or value chain management customer-organisation linkages. Ideally, through all these restructuring, P&G can streamline its work activities so that it can respond quickly to the tumultuous and fast moving marketplace.

Conclusion Through this study, we have looked into the P&G’s organisation matrix structure and how does its structure facilitate the achievement of its goals and to some extent, this structure is effective. However, in a context of complex, rapidly changing and highly competitive global environments, an organisation has to adapt quickly in order to take advantage of opportunities that arise anywhere in the world. And the need for rapid innovation cannot be ignored as well. So turning to a boundaryless structure which has higher environmental responsiveness may be a better option for P&G.