Frameworks of Entrepreneurship

Frameworks of Entrepreneurship Introduction: In the minds of masses, entrepreneurs are placed as solo heroes who after putting a brave fight against all the odds of business world became successful. Traditionally, all theories touted entrepreneurship as an individual act but problems like scarcity of finances, inadequacy of skill set and competitive market forces gave way to a new era in entrepreneurship more commonly termed as Team Entrepreneurship. Objective: The concept and theoretical foundations in this field are still in the stage of infancy. This paper is an attempt to explore the concept of Team Entrepreneurship, trace the definitions and identify the conceptual framework on the basis of the researches done in the field. Findings: Diverse opinions regarding team-building mechanisms, composition and dynamics of the entrepreneurial teams have been observed from the literature. The study also identified the multiple facets in which the entrepreneurial team exists. A conceptual framework depicting the phenomenon of creation and operation of entrepreneurial teams have been developed. Conclusion: Team based entrepreneurial ventures have proved to be successful provided an effective organizational model is developed for its sustenance. Researches have shown a considerable success rate for team ventures especially undertaken at SME level. Global slowdown has significantly highlighted the importance of risk sharing in business ventures. Team entrepreneurship can be considered as the most viable and effective mode of venturing in the present and future scenario given its benefits of sharing of resources, skills, and above all financial risks. INTRODUCTION Management and its practices in the present era has experienced major paradigm shift and one of the most prominent shift is the change in the philosophy from individual excellence to team excellence. Team players rather than solo stars are what companies look for while recruiting people. Performance is judged more specifically on the criterion laid down for the team as a whole. An innovative project these days may not be the baby of a single individual but the soul child of a team. This swing jump from solo show to the band of performers can also be observed in the case of entrepreneurship. Since the seminal work of Birch (1979), many studies have focused on small firms (as their rate of growth can frequently appear more dramatic than that achieved by larger organizations). For a long time it has been a great myth that entrepreneurship implicitly describes the battle of a lonely hero against economic, governmental and social forces (Cooney Bygrave, 1997). Lot of research work could be found where entrepreneurs were identified as individual business founders(Gartner, 1985; Hofer Sandberg, 1986; Carland, Hoy, Boulton, Carland, 1984; Olson, 1987, but team entrepreneurship as an area of study is a more recent phenomenon (Ensley et al., 1999: Kamm et al., 1990). However, over the past 15 years, team entrepreneurship has received increased attention. Based on research conducted from the inside of a fast-growing firm, Alex Stewart shows that entrepreneurship is both collective, a team-based activity and individual, a leader-made creation. It is arguable that despite the romantic notion of the entrepreneur as a lone hero, the reality is that successful entrepreneurs either built teams about them or were part of a team throughout. For example, when one considers the success of Apple Computers, the name of Steven Jobs immediately springs to mind. However, while Jobs was the charismatic folk hero and visionary, it was Steve Wozniack who invented the first PC model and Mike Markkula who offered the business expertise and access to venture capital (Sculley and Byrne, 1988). DEFINING TEAM ENTREPRENEURSHIP In the early 90s scholars (eg Kamm et al 1990, MÃ ¼ller-BÃ ¶ling and Heil 1994) explored a very important but almost undiscovered field in the entrepreneurship research namely team entrepreneurship.The studies on team ventures are scarce, they often lack a theoretical background or fail to even provide a proper definition of the researched object. Due to this lack of research it has become a real tough proposition to get a comprehensive definition of team entrepreneurship. Some researchers argue that this lack of definition and theoretical framework leads to the contradictory and some times even confusing empirical results in the field of Team Entrepreneurship. Team entrepreneurship does not view the process of entrepreneurship as a preserve of the individuals rather it is seen as a capability and attitudes whereby individual skills are integrated into, group or team, becoming partners in the businesss future evolution.This collective capacity to innovate becomes something greater than the sum of its parts. Ensley, Carland, Carland (1998), combine elements from other definitions found in the literature and establish three conditions which identify an individual as member of an entrepreneurial team: they have either (1) jointly established a firm, (2) a financial interest in, or (3) a direct influence on the strategic alignment of the venture. The most frequently employed definition is that by Kamm et al. (1990), who suggested that an entrepreneurial group is two or more individuals who jointly establish a business in which they have equal financial interest. These individuals are present at the pre-start-up phase of the firm, before it actually begins making goods or services available to the market. However, two substantive elements of this definition are subject to disagreement: (1) the inclusion of the term equal financial interest, where a more open interpretation of financial interest is required instead, and (2) the focus on pre-start-up, because an individual could possibly become a team member at any point in the maturation of the firm. The definition should additionally concentrate on new venture creation rather than on team development within an established organization. An entrepreneurial team be defined as two or more individuals who have a significant financial interest and participate actively in the development of the enterprise. The purpose of significant financial interest is in recognition of the fact that only sporadically would all partners have equal financial interest. However, the question of what constitutes significant remains undefined and should only be considered within a specific context. The intent of the phrase participate actively was designed to eliminate sleeping or silent partners (i.e. those who invest capital but do not involve themselves beyond seeking a return on their investment). Moreover, the definition excludes venture capital firms, banks, and other investment institutions since it is only concerned with individuals. A final point of note to the definition is that it was with regard to the development of the enterprise. This acknowledges the dynamic nature of the enterprise and accedes to the prospect that team membe rs can join (or leave) at any stage of the maturation of the firm. Therefore, the definition is not restricted to pre-start-up but embraces the concept of entrepreneurial teams as fluid and evolutionary. Leon Shjeodt developed another comprehensive definition of entrepreneurial team as a team consisting of two or more persons who have an interest, both financial and otherwise, in and commitment to the ventures future and success; whose work is interdependent in the pursuit of common goals and venture success; who are accountable to the entrepreneurial team and for the venture; who are considered to be at the executive level with executive responsibility in the early phases of the venture, including founding and pre-start up; and who are seen as a social entity by themselves and by others. This definition again brought forward that such team are not necessarily created as pre-start-up rather can be formed at the later stages. Interdependence of the team members for venture performance and accountability are also incorporated alongwith the identity of entrepreneurial teams as a social entity. FORMATION AND COMPOSITION OF ENTREPRENEURIAL TEAMS Research has shown that teams start a significant number of new ventures, or a team is created within the first years of start up (Kamm, Shuman, Seeger, Nurick, 1990; Watson, Ponthieu, Critelli, 1995), the quality and composition of the team is a critical determinant of organizational performance (Glick, Miller, Huber, 1993; Hambrick, 1994). According to Cooper and Daily (1997), an entrepreneurial team is more than a group because it involves a shared commitment to the new venture, but they stop short of defining what shared commitment is. Katzenbach (1997) suggests that what must be shared is the accountability. Eisenhardt and Schoonhovens (1990) contribution in defining entrepreneurial team considered: a group of people holding full-time executive positions at the time of founding. Whereas Leon Schjeodt emphasised that it is not necessary to be in the pre-start up or founding phases of the venture to be a part of the entrepreneurial team. It is possible for a person to be considered a part of the entrepreneurial team if the person is brought into the venture in the early phases to help establish the venture. The composition of the entrepreneurial team refers to the collective characteristics of its members (e.g., Banter Jackson, 1989). Entrepreneurial teams are most effective if they balance their skills, knowledge, and abilities as Cooper and Daily (1997) suggest. Heterogeneity in the entrepreneurial teams composition is needed for the team to achieve a high level of effectiveness and venture performance. TMT functional heterogeneity increases the likelihood of strategic change (Lant, Milliken, Batra, 1992; Wiersema Bantel, 1992), increases strategic consensus (Knight et al., 1999), and enhances performance (Bunderson Sutcliffe, 2002), but it can also create cognitive and affective conflict (Amason, 1996; Kamm Nurick, 1993; Miller, Burke, Glick, 1998). Despite this conflict, research suggests that heterogeneous TMTs perform better because their ability to leverage multiple perspectives improves their decision making (e.g., Miller et al., 1998 Simons, Pelled, Smith, 1999). Demographic diversity does not play a very significant role in team formation and composition. Sanjib Chowdhury(2005) suggests that demographic diversity is not important for entrepreneurial team effectiveness, whereas the team process variables positively influence team effectiveness. He also identified that the diversity in terms of gender, age and functional background does not contribute to the team-level cognitive comprehensiveness and team commitment Another aspect of composition is time and its affect on the team. As mentioned earlier, it was found that effects of diversity, especially for demographic characteristics, within the entrepreneurial team decreased over time as the ET engaged in lengthy discussions and solved disagreements and complex problems (Glicket al., 1993; Harrison, Price, Bell, 1998) Two principles of team formation dominate the strategic management literature on teams, although most research concerns the upper echelons of established firms, rather than startups (Forbes et al., 2006).First, a rational process model of team formation emphasizes selecting members based on pragmatic instrumental criteria, such as complementary skills or work experiences. From this viewpoint, competency should shape team formation so that new ventures possess the capabilities needed to manage complexity and growth. Second, a social psychological model emphasizes the interpersonal fit between team members and the need for smoothly functioning group processes. Many scholars have pointed to the important role that social and emotional support play in affecting human behavior (Thoits, 1984). For example, positive social relations within a team can create a supportive context within which people are encouraged to undertake innovative actions. The two sets of principles are not mutually ex clusive. Within the constraints of interpersonal attraction, teams can still search instrumentally for members. Similarly, within the constraints of resource-based needs, teams can still choose people who are attractive. SUSTAINING TEAM ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN AN ORGANIZATIONAL ENVIRONMENT Setting up of an entrepreneurial venture jointly is one aspect but sustaining entrepreneurial groups poses a big challenge. When educated, skilled and dynamic individuals join hands for a venture in the entrepreneurial capacity then firms must assure that their organizational environment is closely matched to their heterogeneity of mental models (e.g.,diversity of ideas and entrepreneurial skills) at all levels, especially at upper-level management. However, an organization composed of individuals with very similar perceptions of the potential services from firms resources and the competitive environment is likely to have a truncated set of productive opportunities. In team entrepreneurship, the team can be as effective as the creative inputs provided by its members, which can expand and be enriched when members learn from each others diverse ideas, perceptions, and expectations. Also, with the inclusion of complementary skills in the team, the cooperative entrepreneurial team can ty pically overcome the limitations of its individual members (Barnard, 1938). An informal organization culture is required to encourage continuous resource learning through interactions in teams. Under conditions that inhibit creative thinking, entrepreneurial experimentation, and risk taking, human resources are likely to function substantially below their full entrepreneurial capacity. It is of utmost important that an environment be created to avoid stifling of creativity of individuals that mar many firms. Individuals must have freedom and opportunities in order to imagine different services of resources, to deploy individual entrepreneurial capital, to renew the firms unique productive opportunity set, and to mobilize invisible assets (Itami Roehl,1987). Individuals are not only allowed to think creatively, but are also encouraged to voice their creative ideas and visions about new product ideas and novel ways to utilize resources. An entrepreneurially stimulating environment provides individuals with resource flexibility and slack for calculative experimentation (Barry, 1991; Dobrev Barnett, 2005; Mosakowski, 1997), which helps mobilize the cognitive assets of the firm that are in the form of heterogeneous mental models. Resource learning and organizational learning involve taking risks, making mistakes, and experimenting with novel solutions and ideas. Pervasive fear of failure and punishment instilled in employees does not belong to entrepreneurial environments, as it can severely constrict risk- taking and resource learning (McGrath McMillan, 2000). Besides seeking creative thinking, effective entrepreneurship requires investments in ideas and rewarding entrepreneurial thinking and experimentation both at the individual level and at the team level. An effective allocation of inducements to encourage entrepreneurial efforts requires recognition of the diversity of individual needs, as some individuals are more interested in material benefits while others are more motivated by social benefits and entrepreneurial engagement. Furthermore, the element of time as a scarce resource (Mahoney, 2005; Mosakowski,1993) deserves special attention in entrepreneurship research because developing a productive opportunity set for the firm requires personal (tacit) knowledge of the firms material and human resources, which can only be developed over time as entrepreneurs interact and experiment with the firms bundle of resources. Importance of time management is also be attributed to the diverse mental inputs as the entrepreneurs need time and place to think and function together to produce synergistic cognitive outcomes. KEY ATTRIBUTES OF TEAM ENTREPRENEURSHIP Based upon the review of researches done on the definitional and compositional aspects of entrepreneurial teams some of the key factors of team entrepreneurship can be identified as follows: Entrepreneurship is no more a lone action. Team based approach is required to lead to fast growth. One of the major forces that led to the evolution of team entrepreneurship is the entry level barriers that confronted small firms. To overcome the restrictions imposed by large firms on entry, many Small and medium sized firms formed themselves into teams. A jointly established business by a group of individuals as well as any individual joining the firm at a later stage in the entrepreneurial capacity comes under the preview of team entrepreneurship. That would mean a team formed for new venture creation where all members will be founder member/ a person joining the founder team at a later stage/ teams formed within an enterprise for entrepreneurial ventures. Within an organisation, entrepreneurial teams may exist at different levels. Top management teams (TMT), corporate entrepreneurship, shop-floor entrepreneurship etc are such teams that are created within the organization for innovation and creativity. Entrepreneurial groups do not incorporate passive or sleeping members. Active participation in strategic, managerial and operational level is warranted. Only that individual can be considered as a member of entrepreneurial team who bears direct influence on strategic areas of the venture. Need for personal risk taking is reduced as team entrepreneurship marks sharing of financial interests. Sharing may or may not be equal but a significant financial interest in the venture is required by the individual to be a member of entrepreneurial team. Pooling of financial resources and sharing of financial risks are the key drivers for team ventures. A diverse skill set is available in an entrepreneurial team. Individual limitations are overcome and synergic effects can be observed very lucidly. The individual knowledge, capabilities and attributes get integrated into a team hence leading to success of the venture. Issues of group dynamics need to be addressed in team entrepreneurship. Issues related to control, ownership, role; responsibilities etc need to be handled at the very outset to avoid problems at later stage. Too many contributing minds can pose a problem as well. Diversity in terms of demography, culture, skill set, knowledge and experience etc at one hand may be the strength of the team but if not taken care of may lead to dysfunctional conflict among the teams. Informal social interaction, friendship, time for discussions, respect for individual opinion and team opinion being given the highest regard, creative environment are some of the factors that may keep the dysfunctional conflicts at bay and might be helpful in sustaining such teams. Innovation and creativity are the key ingredients of entrepreneurial teams. Innovative thinking and creativity in decision making will keep the individuals with entrepreneurial instincts bound in a team. Brain-storming of new ideas, creative methods of working and creating and innovation of new modes, techniques or project as team provide thrill for such individuals and may be may be instrumental in key the team together and performing. FORMS OF ENTREPRENEURIAL TEAMS The team phenomenon in entrepreneurship is visible in many forms , Johannisson has observed two different perspectives in identifying existence of group entrepreneurship First perspective regards teaming up of individuals as the way of initiating and organizing the entrepreneurial process and second perspective is group entrepreneurship as regards the outcome of entrepreneurial processes. Family Business: Family Businesses are operated by and for families with the intention of keeping the firm within the family after succession. Members of the family run their business collectively hence represent an image of group entrepreneurship. Partnership: Partnership refers to teaming up of individuals for venturing into some common business. In that context partnership gets associated with group entrepreneurship. Co-operatives: Cooperatives offer a formal structure with joint ownership and control and hence visibly represents the group entrepreneurship. TMT: Top management teams can either be the founder teams of new venture or teams created within an organization for leadership role. Virtual organisations: It is a mode of organizing where independent partner firms put in a joint effort to materialize the promises carried by the leading firms products to its customers. The challenge is to make the customer perceive the virtual organisation as a whole.(Johannisson 2002: 18). Extrapreneurship: For Daval (2002), it materializes by the development of a new entity by an employee when he leaves his firm, helped in taking this step by his former employer. Extrapreneurship is now more commonly adopted by a group of employees leaving their respective organisation and joining their skill set to start new venture Shop floor entrepreneurship: Shop floor entrepreneurship refers to the concept of self-organising groups and teams created for entrepreneurial purposes by employees at shop floor level. According to Johannisson (2002: 19), Sweden and other Scandinavian countries have a long tradition of self-organising in groups on the shop floor (in contrast to intrapreneurship that usually focuses middle-management). Corporate entrepreneurship: Johannisson (2002) seems to refer to intrapreneurship here (The intrapreneur, operating a quasi-independent venture within the corporation as an arena for entrepreneurship. Corporate Entrepreneurship (CE) is the process by which individuals inside organisations pursue opportunities without regard to the resources they currently control (Stevenson, Roberts, and Grousbeck, 1999) Intellectual Entrepreneurship Johannisson et al. (1999) have introduced the notion of intellectual entrepreneur to depict those people who mobilise their intellectual capabilities in an entrepreneurial career. Community entrepreneurship: Johannisson and Nilsson (1989) have introduced the notion of community entrepreneur to capture persons who use personal networking to mobilize internal as well as external resources to promote local venturing processes. FACTORS AFFECTING TEAM ENTREPRENEURSHIP To create a conceptual framework of team entrepreneurship on the basis of available inputs on entrepreneurial teams, the factors affecting such teams at different stages of team formation, composition and sustenance dynamics have been identified. Entrepreneurial teams can be formed either at prestart-up stage and/or at post start up stage .New ventures, partnership firms, extrapreneurship specifically fall under the category of pre-start-up teams, corporate entrepreneurship and shop floor entrepreneurship come under the category of post start-up teams and TMTs, family businesses, cooperatives, virtual organizations, intellectual entrepreneurship etc can either be forms as pre start up or post start up teams. Forms of entrepreneurial teams can also be viewed from the aspect of level of management at which such teams operates. For that purpose TMTs are formed at top level, corporate entrepreneurial teams at middle level and shop-floor teams at operational level. Regarding the team comp osition, issues as to why team is required and who can be the part of the team need to be addressed. As is obvious by now, the rationale behind creating a team rather than functioning solo is sharing of resources, skills, risk, knowledge etc an effective entrepreneurial team may be composed of individual with wide knowledge, skills and competencies. Such individuals must not be averse to risk and experimentation. Creativity and innovation should be the drivers of such individuals. Sustenance of such teams require a great deal of managing group dynamics. Diversity in demography and cultural may not be instrumental in enhancing performance but can be a deterrent if not handled well. Variable mental inputs and variable degree of creative and innovation instincts may also give rise to conflicts.Figure 1-1 tabulates all the factors affecting team entrepreneurship FACTORS AFFECTING TEAM ENTREPRENEURSHIP TEAM FORMATION* TEAM COMPOSITION TEAM DYNAMICS As per joining of team members: Resource-sharing Risk-sharing Complementary skill set Enriching knowledge and competency base Experience Experimentation Risk-seeking Innovation Creativity Social interaction Diversity in skills Diverse mental inputs Demographic heterogeneity Interpersonal relations Cultural diversity Time Diverse appetite of creativity Diverse cognitive needs Pre-start-up teams: New venture teams, Extrapreneurship, partnership family business, cooperatives, virtual organisations etc Post-start-up teams: TMTs, Corporate entrepreneurship, Shop-floor entrepreneurship, cooperatives, family business, virtual organisations etc As per levels of Management Strategic level: TMT Tactic level: corporate entrepreneurship Operational level: shop-floor entrepreneurship *forms of teams are not mutually exclusive CONCLUSION As again the notion of entrepreneurship being a solo act, several researchers have proved that the present is the era of teams. No person is equipped enough to build an empire all by himself. No conqueror has won the battle alone, no CEO can run a company without a team. Team based entrepreneurial ventures have proved to be successful provided an effective organizational model is developed for its sustenance. Researches have shown a considerable success rate for team ventures especially undertaken at SME level. Another notion of entrepreneurial team being the team of founder who start a new venture has also been proved lop-sided. Existence of entrepreneurial teams can be traced in various forms and at multiple levels. This paper was an attempt to bring together the knowledge created by many researchers but may suffer from many limitations. The studies considered for the review are not exhaustive and hence the findings may also not be exhaustive. A lot of further research need to be d one on the topic because team entrepreneurship is going to be the buzz-word for the future. Global slowdown has significantly highlighted the importance of risk sharing in business ventures. Team entrepreneurship can be considered as the most viable and effective mode of venturing in the present and future scenario given its benefits of sharing of resources, skills, and above all financial risks. *Assistant professor, GNIMT, Model Town Ludhiana

Proctor and Gamble – Strategic Management Case Study

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Proctor and Gamble (P&G) over its journey of about 175 years has become one of the world’s largest consumer goods Company with sales of nearly $80 billion and a net profit of about $10 billion. P&G has a presence in more than 180 countries with brands that accumulate to in excess of $25 billion. The company has achieved success by creating high quality brand recognized products that are sold on multinational level.It enjoys one of the largest brand names in household products like Pampers, Gillette, Tide, Ariel, Downy, Pantene, Head  &  Shoulders, Olay, Oral-B, Crest, Dawn, Fairy and Always and segments like household care, beauty, grooming, and personal health care. Although, P&G has world renowned brands, P&G needs to adopt strategies that enable it to maintain its competitive advantage over its rival. Consumer Goods industry where P&G operates has matured reaching the consolidation stage and competition amongst rivals is intense.P&G has many strategic options create competitive advantage over its rivals such as further market penetrations by rebranding its current line of products and selling them at a lower price. Another option for P&G is to expand in the emerging markets by collaboration or alliances with local businesses in various geographical regions. Lastly, P&G can specialize in skin care/beauty segment of consumer industry. P&G can provide consumers with products that are made with natural ingredients as trend in health and wellness is growing along with providing specialized products for men.INTRODUCTION P&G is a part of a competitive industry, and as such faces very stiff and fierce competition from its rivals. The competition faced by the company is virtually on every front like, market share, product line up, innovation of new products, R&D for new and existing products. It has witnessed a drop in market share and revenue from the developed market and but sustained appreciable performance in the developing markets.Th is report provides a thorough internal as well as external analysis of P&G, identifies its mandate, along with certain strategies that would help it increase its profitability, profit growth and sustain its competitive advantage in both developed and developing markets. The limitations of this report are due to the fact that it primarily relies on the information and facts as presented in Case 27, Proctor & Gamble: The Beauty/Feminine Care Segment of the Consumer Goods Industry.External references were also used and information was sought from the Proctor & Gamble Company 2012 Annual Report and the Proctor & Gamble website. COMPANY OVERVIEW Procter & Gamble was founded in 1837, by William Procter and James Gamble, who laid the foundation of P&G by initially making and selling soap and candles. By 1879, founders of P&G developed Ivory soap and established their own laboratory, and by 1935 the company established another factory in the Philippines after its acquisition of the British soap manufacturer, Thomas Hedley & Sons.In January 2005, P&G announced an acquisition of Gillette, forming the largest consumer goods company and placing Unilever into second place. At present, Procter & Gamble sells more than 300 leading brands, such as Pampers, Tide, Pringles, Ariel, Downy, Pantene, Head  &  Shoulders, Olay, Cover Girl, Pantene, Crest, Duracell, Secret, Folgers, Hugo Boss, Mr. Clean, Oral-B, Old Spice, Clairol and Zest. The company markets its products through mass merchandisers, grocery stores, membership club stores, drug stores, high-frequency stores, department stores, perfumeries, pharmacies, salons, and e-commerce.It markets its products to over 160 countries, and operates a total of 115 plants in more than 80 countries all over the world. Procter & Gamble’s headquarters are located in Cincinnati, Ohio and it employs more than 98,000 employees worldwide. Off late, the company’s performance has dwindled as the company has been shuffling its strategy and has not been able to keep competitors at bay (Chung, 2012). Recently the company’s Board has unanimously accepted CEO McDonald, who had joined in July 2009, as the one who would plan and head the company’s turnaround of performance (Chung, Jul 2012).As such the company has adopted a multi-fold strategy to cut costs by a big chunk and bring up new and innovative products to shore up sales and profits. Example being the fact that â€Å"the company will launch at least nine new products in the next four months, many of them priced at a premium to generate higher profit margins† (Monk, 2012). MANDATE The mission of the company is to â€Å"provide branded products and services of superior quality and value that improve the lives of the world’s consumers, now and for generations to come†.And this would automatically generate value for all its stakeholders in form of higher sales and returns. The vision of the company is to be recognized as à ¢â‚¬Å"the best consumer products and services company in the world†. P&G has kept is vision powerful and yet pretty clear. This vision of the company is simple enough be easily comprehended by all its stakeholders. The core values of the company rotate around the consumers, its brands and its employees. These values are leadership, ownership, integrity, passion for winning and trust.The company, through all its core values, has tried to address the fact that they seek to work and deliver a trust to their consumers with the help of their employees, who are expected to work with leadership and ownership and must have a passion for winning so that they can together work to strive to achieve the vision of the company. Just like the vision of the company, the core values also are very clear and straight forward that define the reason for the existence of the company. P&G’s stakeholders are its customers, shareholders, employees, uppliers and communities in which it operates. P&G’s customers are the ones who ultimately use the products and given the fact that the industry is highly customer oriented and demand driven. The shareholders invest in P&G’s shares providing the company with capital and the company rewards them by consistently creating and increasing the shareholder value. Proctor and gamble employees worldwide are considered its most important asset who are the back bone of this giant corporation, they expect ethical treatment along with fair wages and good working conditions.Another important stakeholder of P&G is its suppliers whose organizations heavily rely on the business agreements with P&G, and the businesses who sell and distribute P&G products. Also, different communities all over the world from Cincinnati, Ohio to the many communities around the world who are provided with jobs, employee education, stability and who pay taxes because of Procter & Gamble. EXTERNAL ANALYSIS 1. Competitive Rivalry: The industry that P&G op erates in is highly competitive and it has emerged as one of the leaders in the industry.This industry has five major competitors and has reached the stage of consolidation. Due to industry consolidation, changes made by one company forces other competitors to react and follow suit. This increases rivalry and might lead to price wars. The demand for beauty and personal hygiene products is on the rise due to many factors such as; the growth in the economies of developing world has improved the standard of living of people in those regions; men are becoming more interested in beauty and skin care; and also due to the growing demand for products made with natural ingredients and raw materials.This increase in demand and potential for growth has provided stability in the industry. 2. Threat of New Entrants: Five major competitors in this industry have captured most of the market share through economies of scale and brand loyalty. The wide range of products in major competitor’s p ortfolio makes it extremely difficult for the new entrants to compete and gain any significant market share. Potential entrant would require an enormous amount of capital for manufacturing alongside a huge budget for marketing activities, R&D, supply/sales channel in order to compete at the same level as major competitors.This creates a very high barrier to entry in the industry that makes the threat of new entrants, very low for the industry. The patents held by the company on various products also act as barriers to entry. 3. Bargaining Power of the Buyers: Businesses in this industry rely heavily on its buyers to generate a considerable portion of revenue. Buyers of this industry are mainly distributors like Walmart, Macy’s, Target etc. These distributors buy in large quantities which increases their buying power allowing them to bargain lower prices.As a result, over exposure of sales to any single buyer could pose a serious threat to this industry if competitors do not h ave their own customized distribution network. 4. Bargaining Power of Suppliers: There are almost no substitutes for raw materials being used in products manufactured by this industry which is a cause of concern. Suppliers seem to enjoy high bargaining power but the sheer size and quantities purchased by major competitors in this industry tends to scale back the supplier power as competitors can move towards vertical integration.Hence, the buying power of suppliers is medium. 5. Threat of Substitutes: There are no known substitutes for this industry which places the threat of substitutes at a very low level. Macro Environment The raw materials used to manufacture products in various segments of Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) industry are regulated by governments in many countries. There is a risk that currently used raw materials may be considered potentially dangerous and therefore restricted in their use due to the increase in health consciousness especially in western markets. Product testing can take months even years before getting an approval for consumption and during this time regulations can change preventing a product from ever being introduced to the market resulting in large R&D expenses which may never be recovered. Social forces can have an effect on this industry such as the desire for organic products as consumers become concerned that chemicals currently being used can cause long-term health ailments like cancer and skin diseases.Men are also fast becoming more interested in beauty and hygiene products and populations in developing countries are also turning towards beauty and personal hygiene products as their living standards improve. The future for this industry is bright with potential for growth but for some companies this can be a threat if they fail at product innovation and strategizing their business as per the changing trends. Technological changes such as exponential growth in internet and ecommerce provides a great platform to th is industry to market its products directly to target demographics and also to raise awareness of personal hygiene.On the internet, there is a massive potential to target consumers based on their web searches, previous online purchases, etc. Advancement in technology can also help this industry’s distribution systems such as emergence of real-time inventory systems allows inventory levels to be replenished on time and prevent excessive inventory on-hand in factories or warehouses. The reduced barriers to international trade give companies in the industry the opportunity to expand into various regions of the world. Many regions like China, India, and South America are opening up to the world providing an excellent opportunity for expansion.However, the reduced barriers to international trade can also be considered a threat if international companies expand into home bases such as Europe and North America which will in turn give rise to the local competition. INTERNAL ANALYSIS P&G is the industry leader because of its ability to maintain a competitive advantage over its rivals resulting in higher than average profitability. P&G has many resources that contribute towards gaining and maintaining competitive advantage over the rival. One ofP&G’s main strength is its strong financial position which allows it to acquire other companies. P&G has acquired Gillette boosting its competitive advantage over its rivals as Gillette mainly caters to Men which is growing market. Strong financial position also allows P&G to incur high R&D costs i. e. in excess of 2. 2 billion dollars. P&G is constantly investing in product innovation and improving its current line of products. The company over the past many years has successfully launched and managed new products.As such, P&G has the ability to push for innovation and ensure faster commercialization than any of its competitor in the industry. This investment in improving brands and innovation also promotes brand l oyalty. P&G operates in various segments of FMCG industry such as Personal hygiene, Household care, and Beauty. This variety of products offerings from P&G caters to almost all demographics; throughout different ages, genders, countries and cultures. P&G operates in various regions across the globe and has successfully managed to establish itself as a leader in these markets across many segments.This diverse range of product offerings along with its operation in various geographic regions allows P&G to reel through the recessions in the economy and maintain its profitability. Any slowdown in the economy of anyone region or segment is countered by growing economy and segments in other regions. Also, type of products offered by P&G are considered to be recession proof as they considered to necessity such as soaps, shampoos, personal health products etc. P&G derives its strengths from its various capabilities. First of all is that P&G has the marketing of its products in the industry.T his enables P&G to convince its consumers to buy products and also keeps them up to date with new products as well as about any improvements in the current line of products. P&G also has an efficient distribution system which allows it to distribute its products in various region of the globe at a lower cost than its competitors. P&G also collaborates with distributors like Wal-Mart, Target etc. to keep supply chain functioning efficiently. This allows restocking of shelves at distributors much easier as it provides real time data to P&G as stock levels deplete.This allows P&G to save costs associated with huge inventories and warehouses. Also, P&G owns and operates almost 115 manufacturing facilities across 80 countries around the globe. This is a great asset of the company which provides it with the capability of saving on cost of shipping products from one region to another. All these sets of co-related resources and capabilities allow P&G to save on costs and provide high qualit y products at a reasonable people which in turn has generated above average profits in the industry making P&G the industry leader.Along with strengths, P&G also has certain weaknesses and threats that can offset its competitive advantage and affect its profitability. In the current global down turn commodity prices across the globe are increasing due to transportation costs associated with higher oil prices. This will force P&G to raise prices on many of their products which might affect market share because some consumers may switch to cheaper low quality products. This is further exacerbated by the fact that switching costs for consumer are quite low between the competitors in many segments of this industry.While P&G has great collaboration with Wal-Mart, which allows it to maintain an efficient supply chain management but this is also one of the weaknesses of P&G as Wal-Mart is its number one buyer as considerable amount of P&G sales are accounted to Wal-Mart and followed by oth er major retailers like Target, Zellers, etc. This provides buyers with immense buying power and any decrease of sales at any of the top customers can affect P&G effecting its revenues and subsequent profitability.P&G is also exposed heavily towards the matured markets of Europe and North America. STRATEGIC OPTIONS Further Market Penetration – In this strategy, P&G should increase market penetration its current skin care and personal hygiene segments. P&G should look towards in its customer base and specifically targeting low income consumers in mature markets. P&G can achieve economies of scale in its current product mix by rebranding such as packaging or size/volume of the product. This way P&G will be altering its existing products at a low fixed cost.By harbouring this strategy, P&G will be able sell its products at a cheaper price and increase its revenue and subsequent profits. This is low risk strategy because P&G has managed to achieve strong brand recognition and cus tomer loyalty so P&G does not have to incur huge marketing costs in order to introduce its products to the market. P&G already and effective supply chain management and it has good relationship with mega distributors like Wal-Mart, Target etc. so it will be much easier for P&G to introduce these rebranded products to consumers.Furthermore, P&G has a strong financial position which is essential in case the strategy fails to garner expected results. Further Market Penetration| Arena| All markets where P&G currently has a presence| Differentiator| Price, Quality| Vehicles| Rebranding, marketing| Staging| Rebrand products in different packaging with less volume quantities| Economic Model| Sell rebranded products at lower price to the low income consumers| Pros| Enhances existing capabilities and resources Low Risk| Cons| Short to medium term solutionBrand loyalty is scarce in consumers looking for lower priced products| Table 1There are some drawbacks in this strategy which must be cons idered such as the lack brand loyalty in low income consumers. Low income consumers tend to prefer products that are competitively priced so if another competitor implements the same strategy they can take away P&G’s market share. Hence, this strategy is only viable from short to medium term. Global Expansion in Emerging Markets – P&G derive most of its revenues from matured market of North America and Europe where market has reached the saturation point and revenue growth is stagnant.Unlike the mature markets, emerging or growth markets have a lot of potential for growth and there is a lot of market share up for grabs. As P&G looks to gain greater share in the developing countries, it needs to adjust its planning according to the demographics of such country i. e. ethnic groups with different skins, hair types etc. As P&G already has a strong set of products, it must be relatively easier for P&G to penetrate into emerging markets especially in terms of brand recogniti on, mass market presence, and brand loyalty.P&G can avail this opportunity by introducing quality products based on the specific needs of the local population or by acquisition of businesses who produce such products. This strategy would help P&G in the long run as it would allow P&G in keep its revenues up during the economic downturns in mature markets as sales in emerging markets will offset the recessions in the mature markets. Rules and regulations vary country to country so some countries can have stringent rules for Multi-national Corporation to protect its local businesses.Global Strategic Alliance or collaborations with local businesses will enable P&G to expand in to the local market in areas such as China, India or South America. The extensive knowledge of consumers, market trends, laws and regulations that Partner Company brings to the table can be considered an excellent distinctive competency. Global Expansion in to emerging Markets| Arena| Emerging Markets| Differenti ator| Price, Quality| Vehicles| Collaborations (Global strategic alliances), Acquisitions,| Staging| Collaboration with local businesses and then move towards acquisition of the same. Economic Model| Provide quality product at reasonable price to consumers in the emerging markets| Pros| Great long term potentialDiversification through operations in various regions which provides an opportunity to keep revenues up during recession in one region| Cons| High risk involved in collaboration/acquisitions along with the instability of economic growth in emerging marketsCompany can lag behind in innovation| Table 2 P&G should select it partner carefully in emerging markets keeping in mind the risks associated such as rules, regulations etc.P&G must form a structure where the share, responsibilities of each party is clearly defined along with contingency plans to mitigate various risks involved. P&G should protect its trade secrets and product formulas so manufacturing facilities must have s eparate units, and PG should also get all its patents recognized in the region where it will operate. Some of the cons of this strategy are embedded with the collaborations with local businesses and the instability in the emerging markets.Also, P&G will essentially be rebranding most of the products it sells in mature markets along with selling some products of its partners which means there will be less spending on R&D and company might lag behind in innovation of new revolutionary products. Differentiation in Beauty/Skin Care Segment – In this strategy, P&G will offer unique and innovative products that address special needs of various market segments and demographics such as products with natural/organic ingredients, products for certain demographics such as men, ethnic groups etc.Beauty/skin care segment of consumer goods industry is growing as consumers are more interested in grooming themselves with better products and growing trends in health/wellness. P&G can create a competetive advantage by specializing in products made for men and products made with natural/organic ingredients. This strategy will require acquisition of products or spending in R&D to innovate such products in house. This will also require aggressive marketing and branding of such products to introduce them to the consumer.These products must be priced at a premium price based on the advertising costs, acquisitions and R&D spending. Many features of the products along with quality will offset and justify the higher price for such products. With continuous R&D spending over time, advancement in technologies and increasing competition, prices will eventually reduce. If P&G is able to acquire or create new line of specialized products which caters to certain market segments or demographics, it will be a competitive advantage for P&G over its rivals.Differentiation in Beauty/Skin Care Segment| Arena| Mature Markets first and move into growth/emerging markets| Differentiator| Select ion, Quality| Vehicles| Acquisitions, Signalling| Staging| Acquisitions of major business involved in organic and men beauty/personal hygiene segments| Economic Model| Sell specialized products targeting certain customers with premium prices i. e. organic products| Pros| Leverages existing resources and capabilitiesLong Term potential| Cons| High Risk with acquisitionsHigh costs associated with R&D spending| Table 3This strategy has some disadvantages as well such as it requires a lot of capital investment either for acquisition or R&D to create new products. REFERENCES Mockler, R. J. (2007). â€Å"Procter & Gamble: The Beauty/Feminine Care Segment of the Consumer Goods Industry† In C. W. L. Hill & G. R. Jones, Strategic Management: An Integrated Approach, 6th Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Chung, J. (2012). â€Å"P&G's Board ‘Unanimously Supports' CEO McDonald† Retrieved from http://online. wsj. com/article/SB10000872396390444464304577534930564069566. tm l Mo nk, D. ( 2012) â€Å"Procter ; Gamble planning nine new product launches† Retrieved from http://www. bizjournals. com/cincinnati/blog/2012/09/procter-gamble-planning-nine-new. html Annual Report (2012) Retrieved from http://annualreport. pg. com/annualreport2012/files/PG_2012_AnnualReport. pdf P;G History (2012) Retrieved from http://www. pg. com/translations/history_pdf/english_history. pdf P;G Purpose, Vision and Principles. (2012) Retrieved from http://www. pg. com/translations/pvp_pdf/english_PVP. pdf

All About the French Expression Avoir une faim de loup

Expression: Avoir une faim de loup Pronunciation: [ ah vwah roon feh(n) deu loo] Meaning: to be ravenous, famished Literal translation: to have a wolfs hunger Register: informal Notes The French expression​ avoir une faim de loup indicates great hunger. Its a bit like the English expression to wolf something down, except the approach is different: avoir une faim de loup describes how you feel, while the English expression indicates what you might do when feeling that way. Avoir une faim de loup and its synonyms can be translated by any of these English equivalents: to be able to eat a horse (I could eat a horse!)to be (absolutely) famishedto be ravenousto be ravenously hungryto be starving, starved Example Je nai pas pris mon petit dà ©j ce matin, du coup jai une faim de loup  !Translation: I didnt have breakfast this morning, so Im starving! Synonyms avoir lestomac / le ventre creux—literally: to have an empty stomachavoir une de ces faims—literally: to have one of those hungersmourir de faim (je meurs de faim)—literally: to be dying of hunger (Im dying of hunger)​ More Expressions with avoirFood in French

Analysis Of Siegfried Sassoon s The Great War

Throughout history, many individuals would have never thought a horrific war would occur, which was World War 1 (The Great War). Many men was picked to fight during this war, they thought that it was going to be an easy journey. However it did not end up going in the right direction, so it took a left turn based on seeing fellow soldiers die before your eyes, the weather was always wet and muddy, and multiple firearms always pointing at each other. Before the men began their journey into booby-traps of the war, many individuals encouraged them that fighting in the war was fun. However, it was far from fun: many soldiers fought in trenches, many became shell shock, and many saw the world in a much more horrific view when returning back home. A famous poet, Siegfried Sassoon, wrote an outstanding poem, which explained how soldier’s mindset before entering the war was encouraged by an authority figure. According to the poem ‘They’ it states, â€Å"The Bishop (author ity) tells us: ‘when the boys come back/ they will not be the same† (1-2). This statement means that the Bishop is trying to say that after the war, men will be real men. These soldiers went into the war singing or humming songs, but they soon realized the war was pure evil. Sassoon believed that the individuals fighting in The World War, tried to overcome pain with the mystery of God. So, the make belief journey presented to these young men was extraordinary happy, then the truth started to unravel. During the war,Show MoreRelatedAnalysis Of Wilfred Owen s Poem Dulce Et Decorum Est1692 Words   |  7 Pagesdominant World War One ideologies of militarism and nationalism. You will find that this poem is a great example as it defies the dominant values and beliefs of war in Britain. Wilfred Owen Let’s discuss the poet. Wilfred Owen was one of the leading voices of the first world war. In January 1917, Owen was deployed but he was innocent to the realism of war. In April, he sustained shell-shock during active service, which led to his return to Britain. While being treated at the Craiglockhart War Hospital