Running Head: Toyota Case Study

1. Toyotas plan for global expansion in 2000 was indeed very forward loo ing and !uite an effe"tive one. T#e t#ree big strategi" !uestions were all answered in t#eir plan. T#ey #ave analysed t#eir present situation$ analysed #ow %u"# %ar et s#are t#ey "an "apture in t#e future and also adopted a gra"eful way of rea"#ing t#e goals. &%prove%ent of t#e "o%pany t#roug# e%ployee i%prove%ent is not only an effe"tive way but also #elps to i%prove t#e brand i%age of Toyota. 'or%ally Toyota Corporation as su"# is #ig#ly "entralised$ t#oug# not verti"al enoug#. T#e depart%ents are pri%arily fun"tional units. So t#ere is slig#t la" of "o%%uni"ation between depart%ents. T#e 'ort# (%eri"an affiliates$ s#ould #ave #ad good "o%%uni"ation pat#ways wit#in depart%ents and also wit# offs#ore "ounterparts. 2. )rgani*ational "ulture refers to t#e environ%ent present in t#e fir% to enable e%ployees perfor% better to a"#ieve organi*ational goals. &n +S Toyota follows %atrix organi*ational stru"ture ,-ason et. (l 200./ w#i"# enables t#e e%ployees to operate wit# relatively good autono%y. T#e e%ployees #ave 0apanese %entors and report to t#e% alone. T#oug# t#is "ulture is suitable for produ"t platfor%s ,environ%ent en"ouraged for new produ"t develop%ents/$ t#ey la" t#e proper "o%%uni"ation "#annels. T#e produ"ts platfor%s #ad essentially dis"ouraged long ter% view ,prin"iple 1/$ defe"t identifi"ation ,prin"iple 1/$ e%ployees growt# ,prin"iple . 2 sin"e t#ey report to 0apanese %entors/ and de"ision %a ing ,prin"iple 13 2 sin"e !ui" fix solutions are preferred in produ"t platfor%s/. 3. 4ro% t#e "ase it "an be understood t#at t#e training re"eived by e%ployees fro% Toyota &nstitute did not #elp in solving Toyotas real world proble%. (lt#oug# Toyota e%ployees did not "onsider t#e proble% serious$ sin"e in t#eir !ueries$ t#ey found t#at t#e "onsu%ers were at fault$ t#ey %ust #ave dealt wit# t#e proble% in a detailed %anner. T#e training %ust be fra%ed in su"# a way so as to a""o%%odate detail proble% identifi"ation

Toyota Case Study and solutions. T#oug# for%ation of a separate !uality depart%ent %ay be unviable$ few e%ployees in ea"# depart%ent %ust be given t#e responsibility for !uality and s#ould be #eld responsible. T#e e%ployees %ay be relu"tant at first$ but proper "entralisation wit# respe"t to !uality alone will #elp Toyota to identify proble%s during initial stages itself.

5. 6lobal diversity in Toyota %eans t#at e%ployees wit# different "ultural ba" grounds %ay be wor ing toget#er. 7ut Toyota usually #as 0apanese e%ployees in t#e top %anage%ent positions$ w#o also a"t as %entor for t#e new e%ployees. 6iven t#ese diverse ba" grounds$ Toyota %ust first orient t#e e%ployees towards organi*ational goals and sub8e"t to Toyota way training. T#e "#allenges fa"ed in su"# situation %ay be$ "#ange in autono%y and responsibility of t#e e%ployees. )rienting new e%ployees to Toyota way is %u"# easier. T#e re"ruit%ent poli"ies s#ould be towards attra"ting younger e%ployees wit# "o%%it%ent to be in Toyota for a long ti%e. 1. 9rin"iple . "orresponds to developing t#e younger e%ployees into leaders. Toyota strongly believes t#at its leaders %ust be aware of all t#e te"#ni"alities of produ"tion$ s#ould be "o%passionate and all:rounders. T#e e%ployees are "ontinuously rotated t#roug# t#e 8obs in different fun"tional depart%ents. T#ey are also given t#e opportunity to parti"ipate in produ"t develop%ent platfor%s$ so t#at t#ey %ay understand t#e i%portan"e of t#eir role in t#e "o%pany ,;urward et al./. T#is is a %ost appropriate setup to develop a su""essor. &f & were dire"tor of #u%an resour"es$ & would support t#is pra"ti"e sin"e internal re"ruit%ents #ave %any advantages. T#e e%ployees %ay not be in a %onotonous 8ob$ sin"e t#e 8obs are rotated a%ong e%ployees. T#is also enables t#e e%ployees to understand all of t#e pro"esses in Toyota. Toyota #as a defined #ierar"#y< t#erefore t#e e%ployees %ay be "ontinuously "li%bing t#e ladder towards leaders#ip. =. Sin"e Toyota pri%arily "on"entrates on produ"t platfor%s to "o%pete and a"#ieve nu%ber 1 position$ it %ig#t #ave been possible for t#e HR depart%ent to analyse t#e

Toyota Case Study e%ployees perfor%an"e t#roug# out"o%e based perfor%an"e appraisal %et#od. T#is is in dire"t "ontradi"tion wit# Toyotas 2000 refor%ation %easures$ as it leaves spa"e for overloo ing t#e !uality aspe"ts. &f & were dire"tor of HR$ & would strongly ad#ere to Toyotas way prin"iples. & would follow be#avioural appraisal %et#od$ as it #elps in %easuring t#e perfor%an"e of e%ployees against t#e benefit for t#e business. Toyotas way results in businesses long ter% benefits$ w#ereas w#en an e%ployee overloo s so%et#ing to a"#ieve results$ it will be "learly refle"ted in be#avioural appraisal. )ut"o%e oriented perfor%an"e appraisals are "o%pletely inappropriate to Toyotas way$ but suits well for produ"t platfor%s. >. & would "#oose "riti"al in"idents and narrative %et#ods to analyse if t#e e%ployees are

following t#e Toyota way. Sin"e t#e proble%s in Toyota are only o""asional$ rest assured t#ere is no s"ope for anot#er situation li e t#is. T#erefore "riti"al in"idents and narrative %et#ods will be %ore appropriate. &n t#is "ase$ a""urate proble% identifi"ation is rendered easy by t#e narrative %et#od and "riti"al in"ident %et#ods. Criti"al in"idents %et#od is %ost appropriate sin"e it allows exa%ination of t#e e%ployees be#aviour during t#e ti%e of "risis and t#e dire"tor %ay be able to give feedba" s about w#at is rig#t and wrong about t#e e%ployees be#aviour. 'arrative %et#od enables t#e e%ployer to give #is views on t#e be#aviour of t#e e%ployees. Referen"es ;urward ?. Sobe $ &&$ 0effrey ?. @i er and (llen C. Aard. B(not#er loo at #ow Toyota &ntegrates produ"t develop%entC. Harvard 7usiness Review. -ason Carpenter$ Talya 7auer$ and 7errin Drdogan$ 200.$ BCase in 9oint: Toyota Struggles wit# )rgani*ational Stru"tureC$ se"tion >.1: 9rin"iples of -anage%ent ,v. 1.1/.