Organizational Planning Today vs. 25 Years Ago

Introduction

Nowadays, planning for organizations makes use of the most recent technologies. In the corporate world, and particularly in the current economy, plans may change swiftly. Businesses may now rapidly and effectively prepare and alter plans as needed thanks to improved technology that was not accessible 25 years ago. Planning used to be done verbally and on paper in the past. Due to the need for modifications in plans, the procedure was lengthy, and the change took longer to execute (Daft, 2020).

Discussion

Even while every period has its obstacles, planning in an organization today is very different from what it was 25 years ago. Planning used to be more solid, and social media and the Internet’s effect on information flow did not exist. Insufficient knowledge was both a benefit and a drawback, making it more difficult to monitor and assess trends and new rivals (Daft, 2020). The modern company is faced with considerably more complicated issues, which call for complicated answers. Planning considerations now have a completely different character as a result of the introduction of all new technologies. There was not as much uncertainty as there is now 25 years ago.

It can be seen that financial planning has never been this challenging, but organizations may utilize a variety of strategies to prepare for probable financial difficulty. Although these kinds of technologies may have been around 25 years ago, they were not as widely available or helpful as they are now. Translation of the organization’s vision into objectives, missions, and action plans is part of strategic planning (Christensen et al., 2020). Future possibilities and dangers to the company are analyzed as part of this form of planning. Financial and strategic planning tools have never been more valuable or available than they are now. The same is true for succession planning and contingency planning.

In a world of such fast change and ongoing crises inside organizations, planning is even more crucial. Preparation will enable the business to react to these fast changes more effectively and prevent an internal catastrophe. Environmental planning and forecasting, which enable organizations to respond quickly to change, are essential aspects of business in times of crisis and financial instability (Daft, 2020). The organization will fail if there is no organizational planning. All forms of organizational planning are intended to prepare the organization for change and anticipate how to handle any possible crises that may develop.

In order to deal with a chaotic environment, changing the scope of an organization is not only a practical approach but also a highly viable one. To maintain the organization’s competitiveness, managers make decisions on which industries to engage in, which markets to penetrate, and which suppliers, banks, workers, and locations to utilize (Christensen et al., 2020). The firm will gain a great deal by shifting away from unsuccessful areas and toward profitable ones. If doing so means maintaining business operations, changing an organization’s domain is a feasible response to a dangerous environment (Daft, 2020). All firms are impacted by the ongoing technological advances, as was already said. It is what propels transformation across all facets of the business. If a domain change to enable this leaves the doors open, then it is something to consider. Businesses need to remain competitive to continue in business.

Nearly every company that has been able to maintain profitability has had to alter its line of business in order to survive a dangerous climate. Some of the most lucrative and prosperous businesses in the whole world have risen to prominence by consistently reinventing themselves (Christensen et al., 2020). An example of a company that has recently changed its business is Dunkin’ Donuts, which refocused from selling only donuts to operating as a coffee shop. Such changes were provoked by high competition from other establishments that offered a much larger range of goods and created a threatening environment (Raj, 2021). Later, the company also changed its name to remove the word Donuts, indicating that the organization’s focus had shifted.

The most sophisticated form of an international organization is the transnational model. This reflects both the tremendous organizational complexity brought on by the presence of several varied divisions and the organizational coordination enabled by the presence of systems for integrating multiple components (Daft, 2020). The transnational model aims to concurrently attain global effectiveness, local reaction, and global learning, as opposed to developing capacity in only one of these areas (Christensen et al., 2020). Rules and regulations are rarely spelled out in writing and applied arbitrarily in learning organizations, which are a looser, more adaptable sort of organic organization. The transnational approach builds a highly developed worldwide organization by combining features of both mechanical and organic design (Daft, 2020). A transnational strategy is a course of action in which a firm chooses to operate across national boundaries and invests in abroad operations and assets, connecting them to all the nations in which the company works. The transnational business strategy combines two main objectives such as local responsiveness and a high level of international integration (Daft, 2020). Companies carefully study the local market in which they operate as part of a multinational strategy.

In a sizable international company, a transnational model might function quite effectively. Worldwide, international corporations really stand to gain the most from the transnational model (Christensen et al., 2020). Large networks of international corporations often arrange their subsidiaries in such a way that they cover as many countries as possible. In this way, they are able to benefit greatly from local markets and increase their production capacity (Senge, 2006). Such holdings can use the transnational model as it provides many of the benefits of innovation and business advancement. Multinational businesses with a high level of global integration often have a head office and a centralized management team that controls all worldwide activities (Daft, 2020). This demonstrates how the transnational model will function admirably within a big international company. The transnational business model is optimal for international companies as it provides rapid response and global learning.

Conclusion

Biblical worldviews and ideals are applicable in these circumstances. The Bible contains several scriptures that discuss how important planning is. As the book of Proverbs mention, “The plans of the diligent will certainly lead to wealth, but whoever hastens comes only to poverty” (Proverbs 21:5). This verse demonstrates the need for planning, particularly for an organization that wants to prosper. The Bible also states in Proverbs that “the Lord determines a man’s paths, but the heart plans his way” (Proverbs 16:9). This demonstrates that even though people may establish plans, they do not guarantee fulfillment unless they are approved by the Lord. Even though individuals may have alternative ideas, if it is God’s will, the Lord will bless them if people carry them out because He knows what is best for them. These Biblical principles are aligned with organizational planning and constitute a valuable approach that should be taken into account.

References

Christensen, T., Lægreid, P., & Røvik, K. A. (2020). Organization theory and the public sector: Instrument, culture, and myth. Routledge.

Covenant Christian Coalition (Ed.). (2019). King James Bible. Covenant Press.

Daft, R. L. (2020). Organization theory & design (13th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Raj, A. S. (2021). Dunkin’Donuts fails to wow the Indian guts. Journal of Marketing Vistas, 11(1), 1-8. Web.

Senge, P. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. Doubleday.

Cite this paper

Select a referencing style

Reference

AssignZen. (2024, September 12). Organizational Planning Today vs. 25 Years Ago. https://assignzen.com/organizational-planning-today-vs-25-years-ago/

Work Cited

"Organizational Planning Today vs. 25 Years Ago." AssignZen, 12 Sept. 2024, assignzen.com/organizational-planning-today-vs-25-years-ago/.

1. AssignZen. "Organizational Planning Today vs. 25 Years Ago." September 12, 2024. https://assignzen.com/organizational-planning-today-vs-25-years-ago/.


Bibliography


AssignZen. "Organizational Planning Today vs. 25 Years Ago." September 12, 2024. https://assignzen.com/organizational-planning-today-vs-25-years-ago/.

References

AssignZen. 2024. "Organizational Planning Today vs. 25 Years Ago." September 12, 2024. https://assignzen.com/organizational-planning-today-vs-25-years-ago/.

References

AssignZen. (2024) 'Organizational Planning Today vs. 25 Years Ago'. 12 September.

Click to copy

This report on Organizational Planning Today vs. 25 Years Ago was written and submitted by your fellow student. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly.

Removal Request

If you are the original creator of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on Asignzen, request the removal.