Daimler Ag and Chrysler

1. In what ways did the cultures of the two companies differ? What do you think the terms innovation and entrepreneurship meant to Chrysler make use ofees? What about to Daimler employees? In 1998 when German industrial monster Daimler-Benz AG merged with American automobile manufacturer, Chrysler Corporation, Daimler Chrysler came into existence. This merger didnt result for the heroic picture that was expected after this merge. It was thought that this merger would create a global economy non only amongst two of the earthly concerns greatest economy but to a fault capturing the market in various part of the world.Whereas, underneath this view there were many issues, which were tangled in this merger of totally two different cultures. Daimler-Benz was an aggressive firm, which believed in hustling every possible way to make its company the government issue end-to-end the world. But, Chrysler was on the other hand an easy going and slow build firm which believed in the produ ction and flexibility of operation. At DaimlerChrysler, differences in pay systems and decision-making processes caused friction amid senior management, while lower level employees fought oer issues such as dress code, prep being hours and smoking on the job.Language also became an issue. While most managers on the Daimler side could speak some English, non all were able to do so with the fluency needed for in force(p) working relationships. Also, only a few Chrysler managers had any knowledge of the German language. For Chrysler innovation means to Look forward for smart changes, converting ideas into profit, Passion of designing, developing and mental synthesis greatest cars and For Daimler innovation means more analytical, more long-term looking, more technology-minded. 2. compare and contrast the two companies validational structures.What challenges do you think these different structures created? coordinate of Daimler Structure of Chrysler 1) The company had tradition al intrusive bureaucratic structure 1) It open a matrix management structure for the senior managers. 2) There were issues between the middle and lower management levels. 2) Many of the traditional vice presidents were replaced with throng who not only had functional expertise but who were able to work together. 3) Significant level of streamlining and restructuring was needed. 3) Each vice president under the new structure had to create Mutual dependencies among them. Chrysler management had bulldozened its traditional functional organization structure. It created platform for the whole organization, assigning all functional to one of phoebe bird teams,large,car,small car,minivan,truck or jeep. In significant changes at Daimler due to Lack of prim organization structure many employees left organization and many of the pile working for century old company were unable to keep yard or keep track of changes going on around them. 3.What issues do you think the different leade rship styles of the three DaimlerChrysler leaders (Schrempp, Eaton, Stallkamp) created? SCHREMPP He believed in the creative side, to find an optimal solution, according to him, its the arguments which count. However, for him leadership means at some stage you have to summarize the arguments and make a decision. ratiocination is not a matter of committee, you have to take responsibility. Debate is not forever. Speed is a competitive factor. Its better to have 80% than to cargo deck for 100%. At some places I found him a inexorable leader which causes the lack of unity among employees.EATON Eaton historically is more willing to hark to the opinions of others and delegate authority, which should admirer create a culture of teamwork and consensus building at Chrysler. Em great powering lower level managers to make more decisions removes the fear of being overridden by the CEO, and develops confidence. Emphasizing teamwork and empowering more people within the organization will hel p to shift the companys focus to designing and building the best automobiles in the world. STALLKAMP The number two American executive director behind Eaton has played a cay role in melding the German and U. S. perations since the combination of Daimler-Benz and Chrysler Corp. Stallkamp, who was president of the former Chrysler Corp. , was impute with pioneering a new system that involved suppliers earlier in the vehicle development process. The result was lower costs and improved relations. 4. Assess Stallkamps power base as head of integration and president of Chrysler. What strategy did Stallkamp employ to achieve integration between Daimler and Chrysler? As a president Stallkamp did so well as 1. He was self effacing and having the ability to generate consensus. 2. He put great efforts on quality improvement. . For him, Chrysler was a argument and its constitution was very important and he believes in bringing the analogous ethnics into business as he has in his personal life. 4. He tried to check something new to increase gross revenue. 5. He was always ready to accept challenges. 6. He focused on cost saving and improve marketing. Quality problems are rarely with one part of the corporation. The problem is usually the process. He gets design, engineering, procurement, sales and manufacturing working together to solve the problem. He identifies more with real-life customers accelerate the answer time whenever a problem occurs.He also meet with all the executive vice presidents, to make sure they are all on the same team and are working on common goals. 5. What would you have through differently? Why? What should Stallkamp do next? According to me, Stallkamp has done up to his maximum ability, but still he should also do spare-time activity 1. Put some more efforts to reduce the culture mismatch. 2. Connection between lower upper management should be improved, by enhancing organization structure. 3. murder of a system where individual can put h is views. 4. Policy operation process improvement. 5. Put some efforts to improve the skills of existing employee.