Company’s CEO, taking into consideration the financial situation of Sony, the problems with its electronics department ex-profit-generator that appeared to show ‘a lackluster performance’ (Certo & Certo, 245), came to the conclusion to conduct major organizational changes. The company was divided in 4 divisions with a vice-president (VP) responsible for each of them. Now on the top of organizational structure of Sony stand the CEO, who had 4 VP (each responsible for one division) in submission.
Despite the fact that this organizational structure has its advantages, some better results might be achieved in case two more executive VPs would be put between CEO and VPs of departments. Although, lots of variations links between divisions, executive VPs and CEO available, in this case we will stick to the idea that these two executive VPs had an authority over VPs of the particular divisions and that CEO had only them two in submission (see illustration in appendix).
Less sources of information. Because of this organizational change the CEO now needs to focus only on tracking two people, but not four. By doing this he can spend less time on getting reports, analyzing them and making significant observations to make future decisions, but can delegate his executive VPs to be responsible for analyzing all the data and reporting him only the most valuable information. This will give him more free time to focus on general strategic planning in organization. As now the CEO has executive VPs in submission that might be responsible for filtering and analyzing information, he might make more well-thought decision and an overall performance of the company might go up.
More balanced organizational strategy. For this proposed organizational structure, the executive VPs could be in charge of particular divisions grouped, so they might have more well-balanced organizational strategy. For example, VP with a background in marketing and sales can be focused on promotion of