The paper "Changing Culture and Structure of Marks & Spencer Company " is a perfect example of a business case study. This paper analyses the Marks & Spencer Company in relation to the changing organizational structure and culture. M & S is a supplier of undergarment, foods, home-ware and financial services to British middle and the political class. Days, when the institution used to make profits, is long gone and has been replaced with declining sales and deteriorating market share. Throughout 1990s, statistics indicates that customer satisfaction faced a down-turn of approximately 30%.
This came to be termed as a rollercoaster ride. In an attempt to revitalize the local brand, M & S appointed several Chief Executives including Richard Greenbury et al. Other changes carried out in the organization were: implementation of customer-friendly management structure, an overhaul of the brand to form a new corporate image, relocation of headquarters, and a number of other necessary changes. Changing the culture and structure of M & S Due to poor performance in the 1990s, M & S made a resolution to appoint Luc Vandevelde as the chairman and CEO of the company in the year 2000.
George Davis was subsequently hired as a designer who would develop a new product range with the intention of meeting the needs of customers. Another change in management structure actualized when Stuart Rose was appointed to head clothes store group Arcadia in 2004. The CEO made a decision to refocus on core values and on old women segment that had been neglected for a long time yet they had the potential of contributing to business success (Stokes, 1997).
Stuart proposed simplification, modernization and trimming of expansion for stores. All these adjustments were supposed to bring about effectiveness in the sequence of supply. Simplification of regional management structure to decentralize more responsibilities down to store managers had the effect of increasing the speed at which decisions were made. Changes brought about by Stuart were effective as slow-moving products were cleared out of the distribution chain. Rose recovery strategy contributed to staff motivation since terms and conditions for employment were favourable (Thomson, 2002). Between 2004 and 2005, Rose considered reviewing staff and renegotiating staff contracts.
In return for better financial rewards, employees worked for longer hours covering on weekends and evenings. As a strategy to increase sales, training packages in terms of in-house coaching was included in Rose plan. This had the effect of enhancing staff confidence and sales skills. All these changes yielded positive results that were observable in 2006. The workforce was subsequently offered bonuses for their hard work. Recruitment carried out by the human resource department in July 2006 was necessitated by better financial performance. Recession and world economic down-turn of the year 2008 had an impact on street retailing.
Sales and profits records declined substantially whilst job losses were registered in retail stores and event headquarters. Until late 1990s M & S recorded substantial success. These successes were realized after applying a structured formula to business operations and subsequently establishing important principles that were considered critical to the organization (George, 2000). The paradigm shift led to strategic drift and organization which was to succeed had to change their way of doing business. M & S stores had an indistinguishable arrangement, plan, and guidance among members.
In this case, store managers were not at liberty to deviate from the norms. A study on the company reveals that store managers were restricted on how they related to local customers. Another cultural factor to note is a failure by the company to consider the trends in fashions. Richard Greenbury, a company’ s Chief Executive in 1991 stated clearly how the firm failed in its culture. The CEO mentioned that the company followed absolutely and totally the principles of the business without considering the changing environment.
According to Johnson, (2001), business in M & S was based on long-standing and proven ways of conducting businesses. This phenomenon where a firm adheres strictly to monotonous ways of conducting businesses and hierarchal level strategies played a critical role in sending the business into turmoil.