Sunteți pe pagina 1din 5

Introduction:In the competitive world, the strategic management keeps a vital role to maintaining the objectives and goals

of an organization. Todays every organization follow different strategy to survive and accomplish to their goals. If we see there are many companies have different experience of success or failure due to their strategic management. The main focus of this assignment is to understand and correlate the theories of strategic management which is relevant in the corporate world. The failure or success of an organization is dependent on how well an organization manages its strategy in the competitive edge. There are many aspects which have very important role in the strategic management of an organization. The given case Fisons: The Fall from Grace shows the problems faced by the company which operating in a wide range of industries such as pharmaceuticals, horticulture and scientific equipment. This case shows how strategic management plays an important role in an organization. In this case the company Fisons was a very successful company but later it done some mistake in its strategy such as ignorance of its stakeholders, mislead of corporate governance and unawareness of corporate social

responsibility. In the case of Fisons, the ignorance of stakeholders was a huge mistake did by the company because the stakeholders of any organization have always the important factor for business, without their approvable no one company can run successfully. A company can have different types of stakeholders which can affect the company by their action, so an organization should take care of them. It is not always possible to satisfy every stakeholders but a company should keep resources to meet their satisfaction and should listen their claim and their suggestion because these things can keep company to meet its long term goal. In the case of Fisons, the company had ignored all the above mention points. This case also shows why an organization should keep distance with disputes and always try to minimize these type of negative factors because this can be a cause for downfall of the organizations value and can also affect organizations the share value which can create financial problem.

Case Analysis:
The case is all about a UK based company known as Fisons which was a conglomerate of some different types of businesses such as Pharmaceuticals, Scientific Equipment and Horticulture divisions. During 1980s the company was doing very well and got a massive market share in their businesses. Report of many analysts showed that Fisons was a well skilled and best managed company in these particular sectors, its pharmaceuticals division known as asthma and anti-allergy drugs Specialist Company as well as its scientific equipment division was the largest non American supplier to the world and has largest turnover division among all Fisons divisions. Their success made the companys top management in very relax and they were fearless about Fisons future, due to this they became arrogant to outer the companys matter. Even though they didnt take care about stakeholders and started handling them unrespectable manner. The company doing its business concerning only getting profit and the management didnt think about what was going on outside of the company, there was many issues in the news related the company such as environmental related, companys arrogant behavior and most question raised about its peat cutting activities. They violated many rules and regulations related to the environment, even though they didnt allow to the outsiders to visit the companys site where peat cutting was happening. These all things made companys reputation down and get the stake holder annoyed about the companys management so the value of the company decreased day after day and company got financial crises. The Food and Drugs Association (FDA) also get worried about the company. External and Internal stakeholders: This case is based on importance stakeholders, what stakeholders can do for an organization it might in favor of organization or against. If we talk about stakeholders there are mainly two types of stakeholders, 1. External stakeholder, they are investor from outside of the organization. The company Fisons always avoids these types of stake holders in decision-making while they have huge amount of share in the company. If the company lost their belief, it will take company in problem as Fisons did.

2. Internal stakeholder, they are investor inside of the organization. They have also important role in the company but rarely do they have huge amount of share in the company (Bourne & Walker, 2005). In the company Fisons problem occur in some internal stakeholder, they become very faithful about companys future so they ignore every aspects of external stakeholder. While making the strategy of any company every aspect should be minded. The power should be in excellent hand and before taking any decision the role of stakeholders should be given as a priority. Stakeholder power matrix: Stakeholder power matrix can help to understand the relationship between an organization and the stakeholders; it can also help to determine the interest level of the stakeholder in decision making process of the company (Thompson, Strickland, Gamble, & Arun, 2006). Level of Interest Low Low High

P O W E R

Minimal Effort

Keep Informed
(Conservationist)

Keep Satisfy
(SYPA)

Main Players
(FDA, Royal society)

High

If we see the case in shareholder matrix, the Main Player segment has high power and high level of interest such as US Food and Drugs Administration, Prince of Wales and others come in this segment. The company could not make such strategies that keep these groups in confidence. The Keep Satisfy segment has high power and low level of interest; in this case South Yorkshire Pensions Authority is the major player. The reason, why Fisons fell down? If we talk about this contest there are many questions come to the picture. The main thing was that the management team know everything related to the present scenario that was happening at that time and could be going to the future, they could easily find that but they didnt even think about. Why a well managed company couldnt recognize that. Is that company performed well in the past due to any miracle? I personally think that the success let their mind in utopia. No one company can survive in the market which cant be ready for changes because Changing is the law of nature no one can escape with touched it (Robbins, 2005). As well as the environment related issue is the very relevant thing about every aspect, its ignorance make ones down definitely (Holdsworth, 2001). One more major mistake did by the company that was ignorance of stakeholder and financial investor. Finance is the eye of any company because without proper maintaining it business cant run longer. As well as the trustworthiness and transparency of an organization play very important role as consumer point of view because once a company lost the value of its brand it is very difficult to survive in the market. Fisons didnt recognize these things that why it fail in every aspect. Once it got downfall started they couldnt stop it. So my suggestion would be in these situations that the company should take stakeholder and financial investor in belief and starting get improvement what they did in the past as well as forecast the future what would be going to happen, and change the old strategies that made in this bad situation. Might be it takes time but keep patience (Sadler, 2003). When John Kerridge stapped down and Patrik Egan became new executive chairman, the company was in very bad situation. If we talk about the view of Patrik about company, he has identified many things that did wrong by the time of Kerridge. He said that company should concentrate on improving the relationship with its stakeholders such as institutional investor and city. As mention in the case that the company was not exposing the data to the investor or public, should expose the information what they want, due to do this company can make some credibility in the market which company dont have at that time. It is very difficult task to make

the companys glory back but applying some strategic decision that can improve companys reputation gradually (Hall, 2008). At the time of Kerridge the company focused to keep relation only with non financial stakeholders rather than financial stakeholders, so in this situation company should try to make good relationship with its financial investors and should follow the norms and regulation of FDA. As the mention in the case that company has legal right to peat cutting and still being the largest in this sector but some environmental problem is occurred so company should try to keep itself dominating through satisfy all the norm that are being the problem for the company to run in past (Mathur & Alfred, 2008). As well as company got SSSI norm that no other players have, so it should remove those entire barrier that creating problem for doing efficiently. If we talk about the resources that company have, are not allocating very well and these are the companys core-competency area so company should try to allocate with special attention because competitor keeping an eye on this to take advantage these mismanaged situation.

Key Finding and Conclusion:


After discussing the case, there are many faults did by the company in the term of strategic management. The company focused only in short term profits and did not understand the importance of stakeholders. The company ignored the governmental and legal issue which is very important factor for any organization (Hill & Jones, 2007). For any organization, the vision and goal should be very clear. The stakeholders of any company is the most valuable assets, their interest and opinion keep very importance. So, the company should take the stakeholders views and opinion into the consideration of every possible claim that can make stakeholders confidence in the company (Bourne & Walker, 2005). If we see other related issue, the environmental movements was in its peak at that time i.e. 1990s (Hall, 2008). The protest against the company was not so much high but the time was bad and the managers of the company did not take it seriously.