Discuss Organisational Structure of News Corporation within the Human Resources Management (H.R) forums, part of the PUBLISH / UPLOAD PROJECT OR DOWNLOAD REFERENCE PROJECT category; Organisational Structure of News Corporation : News Corporation (NASDAQ: NWS, NASDAQ: NWSA, ASX: NWS, ASX: NWSLV), often abbreviated to News ...
| ||Thread Tools||Display Modes|
Organisational Structure of News Corporation
Organisational Structure of News Corporation - February 5th, 2011
Organisational Structure of News Corporation : News Corporation (NASDAQ: NWS, NASDAQ: NWSA, ASX: NWS, ASX: NWSLV), often abbreviated to News Corp., is the world's third-largest media conglomerate (behind The Walt Disney Company and the Time Warner Company) as of 2008, and the world's third largest in entertainment as of 2009. The company's Chairman & Chief Executive Officer is Rupert Murdoch.
News Corporation is a publicly traded company listed on the NASDAQ, with secondary listings on the Australian Securities Exchange. Formerly incorporated in South Australia, the company was re-incorporated under Delaware General Corporation Law after a majority of shareholders approved the move on November 12, 2004. At present, News Corporation is headquartered at 1211 Avenue of the Americas (Sixth Ave.), in New York City, in the newer 1960s-1970s corridor of the Rockefeller Center complex.
Fox News Channel & Fox Telev...
Europe & Asia
Marketing & Corporate Affairs
Advisor to the Chairman
Corporate Affairs & Communic...
Web Application Development
Europe & Asia
CTO & Technlogy
Compliance & Ethics
Executive compensation. I’ve seen hundreds of executive compensation structures and only a handful actually did a good job of rewarding behavior consistent with the company’s business goals and shareholder interests. In other words, the primary tool for driving accountability, well, doesn’t. It’s sad, really.
Strategy du jour. Besides spreading corporate-wide chaos, the biggest negative impact of strategy du jour - constant changes of direction based on limited data - is that there’s no way to hold anyone accountable because too many variables are changing at once.
Meeting ARs with no owners, dates, or next steps. It took a few decades but finally, most managers know to assign ARs (Action Required) at meetings. And yet, they haven’t learned that those ARs also need to have owners, dates for completion or next steps, etc. More often than not, there’s no follow up whatsoever.
Project metrics. Executives say they want accountability, but when it comes to coughing up a few bucks to measure the success of a project, more often than not, they baulk. Even if they do fund metrics, they’re often an afterthought, poorly executed, and nobody follows up.
Global or international operations. All-too-often, international operations are not held accountable for expense and revenue lines. When the numbers are good, everyone - including the regional execs and those with functional or business responsibility at corporate - claim responsibility. But when the numbers are in the tank, everyone points at the other guy. In reality, nobody’s accountable.
Matrix organizations. While matrix organizational structures have proven to be highly effective in big companies with broad product lines, accountability is still a huge challenge. Somehow, when you make two managers accountable for the same goal, even when they’re perfectly aligned, they can end up pointing fingers at each other.
Overlapping responsibilities. As I described in the intro, CEOs are often unwilling to clearly identify staff responsibilities, although I’m at a complete loss to understand why. Whether it’s revenue, P&L, market share, or even marketing, you’ll often get two executives claiming responsibility for the same function or metric and that makes accountability very tricky.
Dysfunctional board oversight. The reason why our government has three branches is to provide checks and balances. And even then, the system allows for a shocking lack of accountability. It’s the same in the corporate world. So when board directors rubberstamp everything put in front of them, that means no checks and balances and zero accountability.
Annual performance reviews. For mid-level managers, annual performance reviews often do more harm than good by sending mixed messages, reinforcing CYA behavior, or even downright promoting sugarcoating and BS.
Sacred cows and pet projects. There are plenty of ways to break every accountability model, but when all else fails, some execs will resort to the sacred cow, aka pet project. It doesn’t matter how much it costs, how it performs, or even if it performs at all, it’s invulnerable to all attempts at accountability.
Last edited by bhautik.kawa; July 19th, 2016 at 12:03 PM..
|area of hrm, career development, career management, career path, career planning, company in us, ethics in hr, hr policies, hrm of us company, hrm practices, human resource management, induction process, job evaluation, job rotation, organisational structure, organization development, organizational culture, orientation process, performance appraisal, personnel management, recruitment process, staffing process, strategic hrm, structure of us company, training development|
|Related to Organisational Structure of News Corporation|