Page 262 -

228 PART 3 • STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION

frequently by U.S. businesses because firms are pursuing strategies that add new products,
customer groups, and technology to their range of activities. Out of these changes are
coming product managers, functional managers, and geographic-area managers, all of
whom have important strategic responsibilities. When several variables, such as product,
customer, technology, geography, functional area, and line of business, have roughly equal
strategic priorities, a matrix organization can be an effective structural form.

Some Do’s and Don’ts in Developing Organizational Charts
Students analyzing strategic management cases are often asked to revise and develop a
firm’s organizational structure. This section provides some basic guidelines for this
endeavor. There are some basic do’s and don’ts in regard to devising or constructing orga-
nizational charts, especially for midsize to large firms. First of all, reserve the title CEO for
the top executive of the firm. Don’t use the title “president” for the top person; use it for the
division top managers if there are divisions within the firm. Also, do not use the title
“president” for functional business executives. They should have the title “chief,” or “vice
president,” or “manager,” or “officer,” such as “Chief Information Officer,” or “VP of
Human Resources.” Further, do not recommend a dual title (such as “CEO and president”)
for just one executive. The chairman of the board and CEO of Bristol-Myers Squibb, Peter
Dolan, recently gave up his title as chairman. However, Pfizer’s CEO, Jeffrey Kindler,
recently added chairman of the board to his title when he succeeded Hank McKinnell as
chairman of Pfizer’s board. And Comverse Technology recently named Andre Dahan as its
president, chief executive officer, and board director. Actually, “chairperson” is much
better than “chairman” for this title.
A significant movement began among corporate America in mid-2009 to split the
6
chairperson of the board and the CEO positions in publicly held companies. The move-
ment includes asking the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq to adopt listing rules that
would require separate positions. About 37 percent of companies in the S&P 500 stock
index have separate positions, up from 22 percent in 2002, but this still leaves plenty of
room for improvement. Among European and Asian companies, the split in these two
positions is much more common. For example, 79 percent of British companies split the
positions, and all German and Dutch companies split the position.
Directly below the CEO, it is best to have a COO (chief operating officer) with any
division presidents reporting directly to the COO. On the same level as the COO and also
reporting to the CEO, draw in your functional business executives, such as a CFO (chief
financial officer), VP of human resources, a CSO (chief strategy officer), a CIO (chief
information officer), a CMO (chief marketing Officer), a VP of R&D, a VP of legal affairs,
an investment relations officer, maintenance officer, and so on. Note in Figure 7-6 that
these positions are labeled and placed appropriately. Note that a controller and/or treasurer
would normally report to the CFO.
In developing an organizational chart, avoid having a particular person reporting to more
than one person above in the chain of command. This would violate the unity-of-command
principle of management that “every employee should have just one boss.” Also, do not have
the CFO, CIO, CSO, human resource officer, or other functional positions report to the COO.
All these positions report directly to the CEO.
A key consideration in devising an organizational structure concerns the divisions.
Note whether the divisions (if any) of a firm presently are established based upon geogra-
phy, customer, product, or process. If the firm’s organizational chart is not available, you
often can devise a chart based on the titles of executives. An important case analysis activ-
ity is for you to decide how the divisions of a firm should be organized for maximum effec-
tiveness. Even if the firm presently has no divisions, determine whether the firm would
operate better with divisions. In other words, which type of divisional breakdown do you
(or your group or team) feel would be best for the firm in allocating resources, establishing
objectives, and devising compensation incentives? This important strategic decision faces
many midsize and large firms (and teams of students analyzing a strategic-management
case). As consumption patterns become more and more similar worldwide, the divisional-
by-product form of structure is increasingly the most effective. Be mindful that all firms