The paper " Acme and Omega Electronics " Is a great example of a Management Case Study. In the current times, competition between businesses operating in similar industries is on the rise. This is due to the great urge to increase turnovers, which in most cases translates to higher profitability levels. Hitt (2010) indicates that strong competition between businesses leads to the delivery of high-quality products and services at a reduced cost. In the field of consumers’ electronics, competition between major players has been fierce as the companies concerned seek to have an increased market niche.
However, in countries, such as the United States, competition between various electronics companies can be dated back to the 1950s, when the country experienced an increased need for electronic equipment owing to raised technological development. This paper will carefully evaluate the organization structures of Omega and Acme Electronics after they became separate business entities in 1955. A. The issues Background on Omega and Acme Electronics After reading the case of “ the Paradoxical Twins Acme and Omega Electronics” I have clearly understood that both firms produce the same products as well as services.
Initially, the two firms were owned by Technological Products of Erie, situated in Pennsylvania. The firm was later sold to Cleveland manufacturers that did not have any interest in electronic divisions of the Technological Product, hence sold the two plants to different investors. One plant was renamed as Omega Electronics, while the other as Acme Electronics. The two become close competitors, owing to the fact that, they operated in the same region and had approximately the same capital base. From the case study, one can see that John Tyle, the president of Acme Electronics was an extremely tough going person and is portrayed as an autocratic person because Acme only has one communication channel.
Contrary to this, Jim Rawls, the president of Omega electronics, highly believed in consolations, on any given issue, thus making sure that the views of all employees were taken into account (Cartwright, 2006). As a result of this, teamwork was evident in Omega, an aspect that saved on time and resources of this company. From the case study, it’ s clear that both firms had the same organizational structures, prior to being sold to different investors, which forced the two companies to develop their own policies and procedures to maximize their output.
After separation, Acme retained the original management as well as promoted the general manager to become the firm’ s president. The firm has well-defined organization structures and decisions regarding the company’ s progress are taken by the top management, which does not consult the manufacturing departments. The figure below indicates the organizational structure of Acme Electronics. President Vice President Vice President Controller Vice President Marketing Operations Personnel Plant Manager Production Industrial Mechanical Electrical Drafting Purchasing Shipping & Engineering Engineering Engineering Quality Control (Daft, 2009) From the figure, one can conclude that the management of Acme has a well-defined authority and responsibilities.
On the other hand, Omega hired a new president as well as upgraded the existing personnel within the firm. The firm lacks an organizational structure, as they believe that the organizational chart is an artificial barrier to effective communication channels within the business. Therefore, they have adopted a participative style of leadership and lacks clear job responsibilities and authorities (Rogers, 2000).
Ash, G. (2002). Cultural Contexts and Scientific Change in Psychology. American Psychologist, 47(2), 198–207.
Cartwright, R. (2006).Thirty Years of Mergers and Acquisitions Research: Recent Advances and Future Opportunities. British Journal of Management 44(6), 220–239.
Daft, R. (1999). Leadership: theory and practice: Texas: Dryden Press.
Daft, R. (2009). Organization Theory and Design. Texas: Cengage Learning.
Hitt, M. (2010). Strategic Management: Competitiveness & Globalization, Concepts. CA: Cengage Learning
Jones, G. (2009). Organizational Theory, Design, and Change. New York: Prentice Hall.
Paliwoda, S. (2007). Back to first principles. International Marketing: Modern and Classic. Paris Pearson Prentice Hall.
Repenning, N. (2002). A Simulation-Based Approach to Understanding the Dynamics of Innovation Implementation. Organization Science, 13(2), 109-127.
Robey, D. (2006). Designing organizations. New Delhi: Indiana University.
Rogers, C. (2000). Barriers and gateways to communication. Boston: Harvard Business Review.
Shanas, E. (2009). The American Journal of Sociology Through Fifty Years. American Journal of Sociology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press) 50 (6), 522–533.
Straub, T. (2007). Reasons for frequent failure in Mergers and Acquisitions: A comprehensive analysis. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitätsverlag.
Yanouzas, J. (1999). The Dynamics of organization theory: gaining a macro perspective. Los Vegas: West Pub. Co.