| || |
Organisational Structure of Amkor Technology -
February 1st, 2011
Amkor Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: AMKR) is a high-tech semiconductor product manufacturer that includes Intel and IBM among its primary customers. Previously headquartered in West Chester, Pennsylvania, United States, Amkor announced on June 3, 2005, that it had moved to Chandler, Arizona. The company has 20,033 employees worldwide and had $1.9 billion in sales in 2004.
With the majority of its factories in China, Japan, Korea, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, and the United States, Amkor is a leading player in the semiconductor industry. It packages and tests integrated circuits (ICs) for chip manufacturers. One of Amkor's product developments is its MicroLeadFrame chip carrier (IC package) technology.
Chairman of the Board
Assembly & Test Product Mana...
Product Management Group
Project overview: Assuming you're a consultant and you have been asked to assess the impact of behavior, attitude, personality of local did Montezemolo (coo Ferrari) on the design, structure and changes in the organization.
1. analyse current development of Ferrari, its structure and design(
draw organization chart).
2. understand the usage of organizational behavior, assess the
personality type of Di Montezemolo based on 5 personality factor.
3. evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the structure and how this affects the behavior of people.
4. assess completely the key factors that contribute to the
organization design, what kind of structure either mechanistic or organic.
5. also assess the organizational culture, organizational changes
taking place with special focus on individual differences, motivation, attitudes and performance.
6. strong focus on relevant competencies.
7. finally the assessment should include a recommendation and
However, with the modern trend toward Flattened Organizational Structure, decentralized decision-making, fewer organizational layers, and more direct access to upper management, the employee is motivated to contribute his voice to matters that affect the entire organization. A flattened structure that permits a wider Span of Control with less supervision and fewer procedural hurdles will enhance and encourage the employee’s autonomous decision making.
As an aside, I will add that most theories of motivation maintain that it’s not money that inspires people to excel in the workplace; rather, it’s the broader opportunity for autonomous decision making, greater personal responsibility, direct contributions to upper-level matters that benefit the entire company, a sense of accomplishment, and so forth. In other words, employees are motivated by the freedom to pursue excellence, both for themselves and for their organization as a whole.
Is it any wonder that more and more organizations are gravitating to flatter, more modern, and more personally rewarding organizational structures?
Some Final Observations
The pros and cons of the various organizational structures are fairly well balanced against one another — There are yet opportunities for personal fulfillment, profit and satisfaction regardless of the organizational path one chooses.
On the flip side, there is for most employees the allure of a secure and profitable career path, a reward that is pretty much assured through commitment to the tall and more traditional organizational structure. We find a greater number of inexperienced workers in the tall structures because they have that longing for a more defined and secure career path. Over time, they learn the ropes, all of their questions are eventually answered, and they prepare themselves for a series of promotions to their ultimate goal within the organization. Tall, multi-level companies are much more stable and predictable, offering the employee a long-term opportunity to “climb the latter to success” through such a series of promotions, providing the employee has the patience and fortitude to toe the line and pursue that particular goal.
True, a fiercely dedicated employee can tread a rather well-defined path to the top in a tall organizational structure, while that path is not nearly so clear nor well-defined within a flattened organizational structure. Naturally, the flat structure has a very low ceiling for promotion, and there is a great deal of heated competition for promotions when they become available.
Even so, the employee of a flat organization is granted much more autonomy, much more control, and many more decision-making opportunities, enabling him to sharpen his managerial skills on a fast track compared to the employee languishing for years in a tall organizational structure. We typically see older, more experienced employees populating a flat structure. These employees may even be specialists in their fields; as such, they don’t require as much direct supervision nor as many rules and procedures to guide them. They bask in the autonomy and personal responsibility of flat structures. In addition, they rub elbows with other diverse and highly experienced specialists who pass on their
A Critical Factor for Organizational Effectiveness and Employee Satisfaction 19
A Critical Factor for Organizational Effectiveness and Employee Satisfaction 20
knowledge in the course of daily interaction, making for a continuous and fast-paced learning environment.
If there is one significant lesson that we can take from this examination of Organizational Structure, it is perhaps that organizations should very carefully weigh their corporate structure options before committing to them — and the same is true for the employee in selecting his working environment. Mounting evidence indicates that employees should very carefully choose the organizations best suited to their individual
Last edited by netrashetty; February 1st, 2011 at 02:54 PM..