Question One: Oracle Corp
In recruiting two Chief Executive Officers (CEOs), Oracle Corp went against the conventional approach of a company’s organizational structure. Usually, organizations use the functional structure where the CEO is in charge of various departments such as marketing, finance, and technology. The heads of these departments report directly to the CEO who makes informed decisions regarding the future of the organization and its interactions with various stakeholders, among them consumers, employees, and suppliers. From this realization, Oracle’s decision to appoint two CEOs introduced an interesting conversation regarding their functions as leaders of the technology corporation. Importantly, many scholars have explored the benefits and disadvantages of delegating leadership duties to two CEOs in the modern workplace. While the approach is mostly used in startups, established organizations that have independent departments that work in close sync may have a ripple effect on the overall performance of the corporation.
Robust Company Decisions
Having two CEOs enables organizations to make informed decisions on a wide range of issues that are likely to affect its performance. For instance, when Oracle appointed Mark Hurd and Safra Catz as Co-CEOs, the decision was viewed as unpopular because of the ability by many individuals to lean towards the impact of any disagreements that would occur at the top (Krause, Priem, & Love, 2015). However, Hurd was delegated to handle sales, service, and global business units while Catz would oversee manufacturing, finance, and legal decisions. From this realization, each of the executive had a well-defined line of work that promoted efficiency in the workplace.
Given the distinction of roles at the top leadership positions, Oracle succeeded in its attempts to create a more focused approach that ensured each executive would handle fewer departments than before. In this case, each CEO would develop an effective method that would yield positive outcomes. From this perspective, the company grew in different dimensions that would have been impossible to accomplish with one top executive. Therefore, the adoption of the Co-CEOs model demonstrated the role of exploring alternative options in leadership to influence the nature of outcomes in the workplace.
Although Oracle’s leadership model worked until Hurd’s death in 2019, there are a few instances where the approach failed to work due to disagreements between the appointed Co-CEOs. Leadership wrangles steer organizations away from their vision and expose them to different scenarios that affect their overall performance. From this realization, company managers should focus on adopting different outcomes that suit their organizational structure and align with their goals.
The Impact of Ellison’s Presence on Company Performance
In many instances, company founders have a deep understanding of the organizational goals and vision, which they translate to other individuals who help them in realizing the desired milestones. In this regard, Ellison’s presence at Oracle Corp prevented different executives from implementing their leadership policies because of the shadow effect on their performance. However, delegating the executive roles to Catz and Hurd created an opportunity for the new leaders to demonstrate their management skills and experience through turning around Oracle’s performance.
Question Two: Seven Minute Workout
Environmental problems differ from one geographical location to another because of the variations influenced by language among other cultural barriers. In this regard, language barrier is an important environmental change that would compel Seven Minute Workout to decentralize its decision-making in its organizational structure to respond to the unique problem influenced by geographical changes. However, aspects such as task complexity and team cohesion can compel the fitness facility to centralize its decision-making process to achieve a common outcome that reflects its vision in the business environment. According to the decision theory, there is a need for modern corporations to identify the environmental changes that interfere with the decision-making process to achieve the desired goals and objectives. For this reason, understanding the various factors that influence different outcomes in the contemporary environment enable organizations to make informed decisions that improve overall organization performance.
Environmental changes are largely influenced by human interference and natural ecological activities that influence the nature of outcomes in the corporate world. In this regard, Seven Minute Workout must develop a contingency plan that accommodates the impact of both processes on its global operational performance. Unlike in the local context where the company leadership can respond to different processes, it is impossible for the organization to fully address issues affecting its global workforce without delegating roles and responsibilities to native employees (Latulippe & Klenk, 2020). From this realization, centralizing the decision-making process will be guided by the need to create team cohesion and overcome issues caused by the complexity of various tasks and responsibilities. This way, it becomes easier for Seven Minute Workout to investigate the approaches that influence outcomes and respond to different challenges interfering with the nature of outcomes in the contemporary society.
It should be noted that decentralization can assume different forms, which influence the nature of outcomes in the corporate world. While one factor can be fiscal, another aspect of environmental change can be triggered by market outcomes, compelling the organization to adopt a series of outcomes that contribute towards the realization of the desired goals and objectives. For instance, fiscal decentralization is achieved when organizations develop policies to accommodate changes caused by decisions made beyond their regional scope. In this case, the parent company is likely to create an environment where expenditure decisions are influenced by the local policies and guidelines that aim at aligning the company performance with the expected outcomes.
Question Three: What CEOs Need to Accomplish Goals
On many occasions, CEOs are expected to wield their authority and utilize their position to influence people’s perspectives towards various outcomes in the contemporary world. Despite the organizational culture in the workplace, top executives are supposed to control the mindset of employees and expose stakeholders to an environment where they can benefit from the company’s position in the business environment. In this regard, leaders should possess certain skills that differentiate them from other individuals in the workplace. These skills and experiences enable CEOs to initiate various changes and policies that respond to emerging problems in the work environment. Visionary leaders guide stakeholders through the process of accomplishing their career objectives and the goals outlined by their employers. For this reason, it becomes easier for organizations to accomplish their vision in the corporate world by empowering their employees and other stakeholders in the business environment.
Company executives are supposed to have foresight to enable them think critically when faced with conflicting situations. Future planning requires individuals to have a good understanding of the different approaches that can be used to respond to emerging situations. Without foresight, it will be impossible for any leader to make informed decisions that enable them to accomplish intended goals and objectives. The different roles and responsibilities assigned to company managers require them to utilize foresight when making decisions. Importantly, this outcome influences the outcomes of events and enables company managers to develop viable solutions that address underlying problems in the workplace (Herawaty & Solihah, 2019). Since not every manager is likely to have foresight as one of their skills, it is recommended that executives should think outside the box to develop a unique outcome that exposes the organization to a competitive spot in the business environment. Likewise, they should spend enough time to evaluate the benefits and disadvantages of embracing certain policies compared to others. Lastly, managers should keep abreast of new developments in the workplace to avoid scenarios where they are unable to solve problems affecting the company performance.
Adaptability is an important skill that differentiates managers in the business environment. On many occasions, organizations are exposed to different scenarios that require the intervention of the top leadership and the adoption of new changes, which complement their position in the corporate world. Without adaptability, it becomes difficult for leaders to develop innovative solutions that equip their organizations with an edge over other industry players in the business environment. Likewise, managers who cannot adapt to the changing corporate world experience a wide range of challenges that influence their decision-making ability. From this realization, adaptability allows company managers to explore the business environment and develop cutting-edge solutions that differentiate their organizations from other industry players. However, many scholars believe that adaptability is influenced by the willingness of leaders to change their mindset on the approaches that can be used to resolve issues. In the same vein, build scenarios and preparing for different outcomes contributes largely to the realization of different aspects that influence success in the business environment.