Running a large company presents a lot of challenges to the administration and management team. Some firms can cope with the pressure, but others fail to do so. The example of management at Peterson Industries leaves some lessons to learn.
In terms of planning, the company gives a seemingly positive example to follow. I was positively impressed by the way in which Peterson Industries planned its process. Having several divisions and branches is a good idea. When the results of different divisions are compared and analyzed, the company may benefit from obtaining different measurements of successes and failures. Also, various branches may have divergent approaches, and the organization may see which one is the most productive. However, this holds true only if the management team is open-minded and ready for discussion. Unfortunately, in Peterson Industries there was no such team.
What concerns organizational and leading features, the company gives a rather negative example. The problems in these two branches clearly teach a lesson of how not to do business. Both the leadership and organizational difficulties at Peterson Industries are concerned with its management.
Thus, I would not approve of such kind of arranging the things if I were running such a firm. It is unacceptable to make all decisions on a one-to-one basis. People need to know that their voice matters. Even if the top manager does not take into consideration the opinions of each employee, he should at least take time to listen to these opinions and give people replies to their questions. The problem with Peterson Industries was that
The problem of resource allocation decisions is probably the saddest lesson from this case study. When the organization is so big and employs so many people, it is unacceptable to depend on cyclical customers only. Managers should come up with ideas on how to enlarge the possibilities and manufacture various things so that the difficulties with one group of customers could not undermine the work of the whole company. The top management team should be strong-willed and determined. When these people allow any ambiguity in their work, the situation turns to worse. In my opinion, management is the most influential constituent in any organization’s work.
Even with small resources and a new manufacturing process, a good manager and leader can make his company profitable and provide people with work and an appropriate salary. Success depends on the manager’s zeal, enthusiasm, and desire to cooperate with the employees rather than merely rule.
Another lesson concerns interpersonal and professional relations among employers and employees. It is good when the managers and workers are on friendly terms. However, it is bad when this friendliness reaches too far. There should definitely be boundaries between people occupying different positions within the company. Since Peterson Industries was situated in a small town where everyone knew each other, there was no social diversification between the workers of the organization and their bosses. I am not trying to say that strict social division is good, but its absence is not a positive thing, either.
All in all, the example of Peterson Industries gives several crucial warnings concerning management. A good manager should not be self-centered and make all decisions by himself. Friendly relationships between colleagues and their employers should have some boundaries. And finally, it is necessary to provide regular monitoring of the company’s productivity so that to prevent heavy losses and predict the most advantageous strategies.