Toyota Ford Case Study

There are several schools of management thought illustrated in this case. First of all, classical school of management thought is mentioned. During the very first period of time of Ford Motor Company, Henry Ford created a bureaucratic system. He separated company into smaller product groups and functional units. Separation is a feature of classical administrative school. Second, quantitative school of management thought is easily realized as school of management thought in Ford Motor Company. From 1940s to 1970s, in order to focus on the

best ways to design cars, Ford built some quantitative methods. For example, one of Ford’s quantitative methods was computer modeling, which was one of features of quantitative management thought. In addition, system school is the other Ford’s school of management thought. There are a lot of brands which are belong to this company like Ford, Lincoln, Mercury, Mazda, Jaguar, Land Rover, Aston Martin, and Volvo. Moreover, contingency school is illustrated. “Way Forward”, a new plan of Bill Ford was created as a way to take part in global

markets. To create this plan, Bill considered the way of doing thing in the past of company was not suitable in new situation at all. Last but not least, quality school of management is another one. To make better products and services, the leaders of Ford Motor Company have created many plans and made them real Ans 2. As a part of bureaucratic system, separate business into smaller company is innovative. Comparing with giant firm, working with fewer employees, fewer plants, and managers more easily monitor their staffs.

Managers can stay flexible and consider alternatives and fallback positions when attempting to solve problems, meet challenges, and take advantage of opportunities. Using Contingency thinking allows diverse individuals and groups to bring different perspectives and perceptions on every issue. Various approaches allow more room for best fitted solutions to problems. Allowing quality inputs will allow quality outputs. Innovation can better meet the needs for customers. Thinking smaller (or like a small company) could more likely get employees to analyze and

improve existing products or services, more likely to use but yet improve existing tools such as marketing, marketing strategies, consumer feedback to change or improve products, get new outlooks, opinions, and ideas for a better collaboration for new the ideas of potentially new products, expansion ideas, Use existing research to broaden or better future research, recognize past mistakes and ways to avoid them from happening again. Ford saw this “think like a small company” as “Way forward”. This shall give less hierarchy and bureaucracy and more risk taking.