Large businesses with output that meet the international market face stiff competition from their rivals in the 21st century. There are two important factors posing serious challenges to such giant operators; globalization and human resource dynamics put companies like AIG, GMAC Goldman Sachs and GE on the cutting edge against rapid changes caused by a variety of factors in the market. This brief analysis evaluates the case of GE in the article entitled “Can GE Still Manage”. The article presents diverse views of competent managers from different companies on the training models of GE. The analysis invokes
The bottom line
As echoed by GE management, both strategies and training models of GE arguably depict myriad limitations on its sustainability and suitability in the 21st century. Based on its current model and management strategies, this analysis provides appropriate projections for the adaptability of GE to future inventions and innovations in various fields, including its own. This is the bottom line of this analysis.
First, we assess the basis of the company’s management in response to the question posed by the article with close reference to its general content. Then we focus on the necessary changes the organization requires in order to operate efficiently.
The cost implications of all efforts aimed at repositioning GE institutions in the future also account for the company’s fundamental appraisal strategy. In as much as possible, GE needs to adopt revised management principles that would keep it in the leading group of corporate institutions with intellectuals serving as real-time think-tanks rather than merely following trends already generated in the world around them (Brady, 2010, p. 5).
Some of the justifications pointed out in the article for pursuing the bottom line include the following. So far, the company still boasts its old fashion models in a new crop of professionals. Technological factors have changed. However, the company’s training program still omits the growing changes. Considering the view that GE enjoyed prestigious operation as the world’s sixth-largest company when the Lehman Brothers went under receivership, the company’s dynamic capability and key competencies in the United States show an extremely diversified investment in both rural and urban environments.
Given that, GE graduates complete their programs and immediately commence work as GE staff deployed in various branches clarifies the observation that the company controls a huge market share in the US and abroad. Despite the fact that GE’s approach to management is training biased, the company inculcates its business culture in the leaders, across the various departments in a very simple and straightforward manner. Therefore, the company’s strength lies in its bid to cash in on mass uniform production with a human sense. Bound by the regional powers of its trained professionals, GE boasts training about 180, and top business leaders in the world (Magee, 2009, p.158).
Proof of evaluation
Amidst the global recession, General electric that claims training the best leaders (managers) in the world suffered together with other firms. The writer is quick to point out that the best leaders who are graduates of GE training institutions failed to keep the company against a looming crisis that led to a dramatic reduction in the size of its operating capital. Besides, its net worth declined to $200 billion estimated as its half in the previous years.
The managers trained by the company took longer years compared to their counterparts in other corporate-sponsored institutions. Therefore, lack of the models compatible with the current systems in other successful company’s in the world is in itself a sign of weakness. Besides, it is rather unjustifiable that to realize that companies like GE that emphasize the development of new ideas as well as support for innovation blame its failure on the employees rather than the organization’s methods. Therefore, the value of GE’s investment in its employees through developing their imaginations and putting actual products in the market demonstrates the strength of the company to fix wages and salaries that attract qualified professionals. GE can still manage to go through the meltdown turmoil and emerge as a market leader provided it keeps to its recent adjustments.
Most managers observing GE training and hiring follows a systematic way that ensures accountability and transparency contributes to more shared knowledge. The result of this progress leads to mutual trust between the company and its employees. GE stands to benefit enormously from new approaches that target limiting the roles of the company’s CEO by strengthening the lateral scale of productivity. This aspect of management aims at improving the ethics within the company. Therefore, it allows departmental relations to necessary for managers to conduct their functions efficiently (Brady, 2010, p.4).
It is imperative to learn that GE nurtures innovation and creativity as stipulated in its mission. Therefore, frequent meetings organized by the CEO must focus on training with new models. The flexibility of GE provides for appropriate modifications in organizational decision-making at the time when it is necessary. GE always accepts ideas from people that have strong insights into specific challenges experienced in the workplace.
This tradition follows from its founder’s concept of hard work in serving employees and customers. Similarly, GE qualification relies on basic operational activities that draw views of business leaders from various in New York and beyond. By spending more than a billion dollars in training young graduates, the company qualifies for measurable assessment of its performance in this age as it takes care of vacuums likely to arise due to a problem or another affecting its workers.
Certainly, the company possesses adequate human resources including those who are under training. In the face of legal and industrial changes, GE qualification comprises of the talented workforce that challenges key facets of America’s micro-economic needs from both theoretical and practical perspectives. Various leaders generally agree that the company can compete internationally for long periods with imperative hierarchical structures. On the other hand, there are many who also oppose such views on the basis that they do not reflect current methods of management (Stelter, D & Rhodes, 2010, p.128)
Evaluation action plans
The company acknowledges the need to create within its structures new offices that shall conduct appraisals. The plan to set an age limit for the board members may appeal to the younger and ambitious generation who are eager to implement their ideas. However, the company must take precautions such that it does not get rid of older managers completely as their wisdom is still profoundly important to the organization’s progress. Since GE has made consistent concrete steps toward revising its model, prospective clients and business leaders’ anticipation is retractable through improved growth traits in all the five areas that the company’s targets seek to address. External focus, imagination and expertise are some of the most sensitive areas that GE ought to give emphasis (Magee, 2009, p.158).
The inability of the world’s most respected business professionals to forecast the economic crisis and its impact on companies like GE perhaps is a clear indication of the blurred judgmental skills of the world’s top management authorities. Consequently, integrating new methods of training in its frameworks would undoubtedly result in more efficient and effective business leaders. Besides, this would along the way in developing leaders with traits like those that clear thinking and inclusiveness more embedded in their functioning.
Frequent meetings are set to get the formal need to ensure proper accounts of GE monitoring and evaluation pacts of team building while emphasizing on individual’s improved performance. In as much as GE maintains rigorous training of managers to adapt tools for the exclusive running of companies with a huge turnover, the company needs to recognize that offering training to nondeserving individuals curtails the company’s objective to give training as an ideal investment (Brady, 2010, p.4; Magee, 2009, p.162).
Through its dedicated business professionals, GE’s success when pegged on the huge number of its affiliates may yield that defends the company and the industry against the volatile world market. In the end, its challenges covert to newer opportunities that allow it a ceiling in the market once again. In addition, sleepovers designed to create a forum for recaps of knowledge already gathered have the moral implication to make the prospective leaders more loyal to the company. For the performance of the company, discussions involving actual accounts of the company inspire confidence in the students thereby causing malleability in their future operations.
Brady, D. (2010). Can GE Still Manage? Bloomberg BusinessWeek. 1-6. Web.
Magee, D. (2009). Jeff Immelt and the New GE Way: Innovation, Transformation and Winning in the 21st Century. New York: McGrawHill Professional.
Stelter, D., & Rhodes, D. (2010). Accelerating Out of the Great Recession: How to Win in a Slow-Growth Economy. New York: McGrawHill Professional.