The paper "C & C Grocery Stores" is a perfect example of a business case study. A lot has been debated concerning the organization structures. However, there are two significant reasons why the hypothesis has not constantly fit the truth. Although this thought is useful, it does not mention how organizations can in reality change their structure to enhance productivity. C & C grocery stores in the past operated under one goal strategy. They were dedicated to customer satisfaction and service. The store's functional goals were realized and the chain has had more than 200 stores operating under its name.
For many years general operations for C & C have been excellent and stable. Unfortunately, staff development and modernization and change were not given more emphasis and it started to show. Richard (2009) claims that the contingency efficiency strategies are anchored in looking at which divisions of the organization managers regard as most vital to measuring. The report analyses the reasons why C & C’ s organizational structure to live up to its expectation. 2.0 How Organizational Structure Affects C & C Grocery Store Performance The existing structure at C& C appears to be correlated to the internal process strategies.
The internal process strategies look at internal events and evaluate efficiency by pointers of internal effectiveness and health. This is shown in the case by the explanations of the responsibilities of different stakeholders in the organization. After examining and analyzing C& C Grocery Stores it is evidently observed what type of business they are and how they can improve their business practices in the future. After all, they have to understand and react to the 21st-century concerns to thrive in today’ s fast-changing and competitive setting (Richard, 2009 p 137).
A business merely maintaining its origins and how it has been carrying out business in the past years is a procedure for disaster. In most parts of my report, I will talk about a SWOT analysis and how C& C Grocery Stores' structure affects its performance.
Daft, R 2013, Organization Theory and Design, London, South-Western College Pub.
Daft, R., Jonathan, M & Hugh, W 2010, Organization Theory and Design Cengage, London, Learning Business Press.
Hedberg, B., G. Dahlgren, J and Olve, N 1999, Virtual Organizations and Beyond: Discover Imaginary Systems, Chichester, John Wiley & Sons.
Herold, D. M., Fedor, D & Caldwell, S 2007, Beyond change management: A multilevel investigation of contextual and personal inﬂuences on employees’ commitment to change, Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, p. 942–951.
Jacobides., M 2007, The inherent limits of organizational structure and the unfulfilled role of hierarchy: Lessons from a near-war, New York, Organization Science.
Lim, M., G. Griffiths, and Sambrook, S 2010, Organizational structure for the twenty-first century. Presented at the annual meeting of The Institute for Operations Research and The Management Sciences, Austin.
Robbins, S & Judge, T 2007, Organizational Behaviour, 12th edn. London, Pearson Education Inc.