Comparative Case Study: Organizational Structure, Culture, And Management Styles Free Writing Sample


This comparative case study delves into two distinguished companies’ organizational structure, culture, and management. The first case takes a look at focuses on a success story, while the second explores an organizational failure. By reading these elements, the paper targets to understand their effect on the corporations’ achievement or failure. Additionally, the case take a look at will explore the HR strategic making plans, recruitment and selection strategy, and overall performance/expertise control techniques employed by means of each corporation. Based on the analysis, guidelines might be proposed for the use of concepts from the sphere of Organizational Behaviour and Human Resources (OBHR). It is essential to realize the organizational structure and subculture because they set the degree to which paintings are coordinated, selections are made, and shared values and ideals are. Additionally, an agency’s management processes and style tremendously affect worker conduct, engagement, and performance. We can determine their connection to the employer’s success or failure with the aid of assessing these additives. Moreover, the paper will look into the mode of conversation and employee interaction inside each business enterprise. Effective communication channels and interactive collaboration contribute to a positive painting environment and efficient knowledge sharing. By exploring those elements, we can verify how personnel engages, proportion thoughts, and contribute to the employer’s dreams. Furthermore, the case take a look at will look at the HR strategic making plans, recruitment and selection approach, and performance/expertise management strategies employed with the aid of the corporations. These elements are essential for attracting, growing, and retaining top expertise. Understanding how HR practices align with the organizational desires and way of life sheds mild on their impact on typical organizational achievement or failure (Hamlin & Patel, 2020).

Case Study 1: Success Story – Netflix

Organizational Structure and Culture:

Netflix, a global streaming giant, boasts a flat organizational structure. It prioritizes agility, flexibility, and innovation. Decision-making authority is decentralized, empowering personnel in any respect degree to take ownership and make independent selections. The tradition at Netflix is characterized by using freedom and obligation, emphasizing man or woman’s overall performance and excessive agreeableness. Employees are given the autonomy to manipulate their work schedules and are endorsed to take calculated dangers (Mier & Kohli, 2021).

Mode of Communication and Employee Interaction:

Netflix fosters a subculture of open communication. Employees are encouraged to proportion thoughts, collaborate, and provide comments. The agency leverages advanced generation systems for seamless conversation and promotes transparency via regular updates and town corridor meetings. Employee interaction is casual, emphasizing cross-purposeful collaboration and teamwork. The company also promotes a lifestyle of comments, with common performance critiques and open talk between employees and bosses (Markham et al., 2019).

Leadership Style and Management:

Netflix follows a transformational management style, encouraging leaders to encourage and encourage personnel. Leaders empower their teams, sell creativity, and force innovation. Management at Netflix focuses on results instead of strict adherence to traditional regulations. Managers act as coaches, providing aid and guidance even as nurturing an excessive-performance lifestyle. The company values information-driven selection-making and encourages personnel to use insights and analytics to power business outcomes (Jaworski, 2021).

Impact on Success:

The flat organizational shape and way of life of freedom and obligation have significantly contributed to Netflix’s fulfillment. This structure permits rapid choice-making, promotes innovation, and enables adaptability inside the fast-paced streaming enterprise. The management style fosters worker engagement, creativity, and an experience of possession, using a subculture of continuous improvement. By empowering employees to make decisions and take dangers, Netflix has been capable of living ahead of the opposition and continuously disrupting the amusement enterprise (Souza & Romero, 2021).

HR Strategic Planning and Talent Management:

Netflix’s HR approach emphasizes attracting and maintaining top talent. The recruitment and choice technique specializes in figuring out those who align with the organization’s way of life and values. The organization locations a robust emphasis on variety and inclusion, recognizing the significance of various views and experiences. Performance control is based totally on a “keeper take a look at,” which evaluates whether the employer could combat retaining every worker. Talent management is pushed by providing growth opportunities, fostering a learning culture, and presenting aggressive compensation programs. Netflix additionally emphasizes selling from the inside and developing its personnel careers thru tailor-made improvement packages (Stewart & Brown, 2019).

Case Study 2: Organizational Failure – Kodak

Organizational Structure and Culture:

Kodak, a former chief within the photography enterprise, had a hierarchical organizational structure. Decision-making authority was centralized, and there was an inflexible chain of command. The subculture changed into characterized by using a focal point on balance, adherence to methods, and resistance to change. Kodak’s success in the film generation caused complacency and a loss of willingness to conform to the digital revolution (Shibata et al., 2022).

Mode of Communication and Employee Interaction:

Kodak depended on top-down conversation, proscribing employee involvement in selection-making. Interaction among personnel became ordinarily structured, and pass-functional collaboration changed to minimal. There needed to be more effective communication channels, which hindered the float of records and understanding sharing inside the company. Employees had confined opportunities for open communication and imparting remarks (Habersang, 2019).

Leadership Style and Management:

Kodak observed a traditional, bureaucratic leadership style emphasizing regulations and tactics. Managers focused on maintaining control and enforcing compliance. The corporation needed more proactive management, and there needed to be more innovation and an entrepreneurial mindset among leaders and personnel. Kodak’s management needed to be more active in recognizing and adapting to rising technology and market tendencies (Shih, 2016).

Impact on Failure:

The hierarchical shape and resistant lifestyle contributed to Kodak’s downfall. The lack of agility hindered the company’s ability to evolve to emerging technology and convert purchaser choices. The transactional management style stifled creativity and restrained worker engagement. Kodak’s management needed to recognize the disruptive capability of virtual pictures and underestimated the speed at which the industry could evolve (Shih, 2016).

HR Strategic Planning and Talent Management:

Kodak’s HR approach needs to be aligned with marketplace tendencies and purchaser needs. The recruitment and choice method centered on traditional qualifications instead of innovation and flexibility. Performance control lacked a focus on employee development and boom. Talent control is needed to become aware of and nurture potential leaders, leading to a lack of innovation and competitiveness. Kodak’s HR practices no longer encourage the acquisition of new capabilities or foster a tradition of non-stop gaining knowledge (McMillan & Overall, 2017).


  • Foster an Agile Organizational Structure: Both organizations can benefit from adopting a flatter structure, selling decentralized selection-making, and empowering employees to innovate and reply fast to market modifications. This can allow quicker decision-making and higher edition to industry disruptions.
  • Develop a Culture of Innovation: Encourage a lifestyle that embraces creativity, threat-taking, and non-stop mastering. This may be accomplished through projects like go-useful collaboration, devoted innovation time, and recognition of progressive thoughts. Organizations should create mechanisms for personnel to proportion their thoughts and make contributions to the innovation method.
  • Nurture Transformational Leadership: Leaders must inspire and motivate employees, promote worker engagement, and create a culture of agree with and empowerment. Leaders should inspire open communique, offer mentorship, and help employees in their professional boom and development.
  • Align HR Strategies with Organizational Goals: Enhance recruitment and choice tactics to discover individuals who align with the agency’s culture and values. Develop complete performance management structures that target worker improvement and growth. Organizations must prioritize skills management and succession-making plans to identify and increase future leaders.
  • Embrace Technology for Communication and Collaboration: Implement modern communique gear to foster obvious, open, and efficient employee communication. This includes virtual collaboration platforms, information-sharing systems, and assignment management gear. Organizations need to put money into training personnel to efficaciously use those technologies and sell a culture of digital literacy.


The comparative analysis of organizational shape, culture, and management styles within the case research of Netflix and Kodak highlights the colossal impact those elements have on organizational success or failure. By adopting pointers based totally on OBHR principles, companies can enhance their effectiveness, employee engagement, and adaptability in a dynamic business environment. A lifestyle of innovation, transformational leadership, and aligning HR strategies with organizational dreams can assist corporations in thriving and continuing to be aggressive in an ever-changing market.


Habersang, S., Küberling‐Jost, J., Reihlen, M., & Seckler, C. (2019). A process perspective on organizational failure: a qualitative meta‐analysis. Journal of Management Studies56(1), 19-56.

Hamlin, R. G., & Patel, T. (2020). Toward an emergent Asian behavioral model of perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness: a cross-nation comparative analysis of effective and ineffective managerial behavior of private sector managers in India and South Korea. Human Resource Development International23(3), 259–282.

Jaworski, B. J. (2021). Netflix: Reinvention across multiple time periods. AMS Review11(1-2), 180-193.

Markham, A., Stavrova, S., & Schlüter, M. (2019). Netflix imagined affordances, and the illusion of control. Netflix at the Nexus. Content, Practice, and Production in the Age of Streaming Television, 29-46.

Mier, J., & Kohli, A. K. (2021). Netflix: reinvention across multiple time periods, reflections, and directions for future research. AMS Review11, 194-205.

Shibata, T., Baba, Y., & Suzuki, J. (2022). Managing exploration persistency in ambidextrous organizations: Case of Fujifilm and Kodak. R&D Management52(1), 22-37.

Souza, I., & Romero, F. (2021, September). Strategic Innovation Management at Netflix: A Case Study. In European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship (pp. 955-R28). Academic Conferences International Limited.

Comparing The Origins And Implications Of Two Waves: Original One During The 1960s And Contemporary Movement Sample College Essay

In his article The Revolt of the Black Athlete, Douglas Hartmann has compared the origins and implications of the two significant waves of athletic activism. The two waves are the original one of the 1960s and the more contemporary movement. In this case, Hartman utilizes different scenarios and perspectives to compare the two waves, where they share common aspects on some occasions while differing on other occasions in terms of cultural, political and social forces that shaped the two movements.

There are various perspectives in which Hartmann compares the two waves. For instance, the waves are compared regarding social issues like police brutality and racial gaps in income earning and education. The comparison between the two waves is also based on culture and the political energy that shaped the two movements. Like the activists of the 1960s, today’s activists are well-informed, reflective and deliberate in responding to and addressing the social issues affecting individuals on the streets and in communities in the United States. Some of the social aspects addressed by the 1960s activists and the present-day activists are police brutalities, racial gaps in education, and healthcare settings, gaps in income earning, profiling, and hateful gender. Like the activists in the 1960s, the present-day activists raise their concerns to the community, public leaders, and other non-sport organizers and activists. As the activists of the 1960s did, contemporary activists speak against racism and discrimination directed at people of colour. For instance, “tennis player James Blake’s experience with the police brutality comes to mind” (Hartmann 8). Although there are similarities between the original wave of the 1960s and the present-day wave, numerous aspects portray the differences between the two movements. In this case, the present-day wave seems to demonstrate significant improvement since the case of racism and discrimination have reduced compared to the cases in the 1960s when police brutalities kept increasing.

One of the primary significant differences between the two waves is that in the 1960s, there was not much involvement and support for the white teammates, owners, managers and coaches. However, the involvement and support of these groups are higher today, where coaches, managers and owners stand with their players despite their race or originality. Indeed, the white players have emerged to support their teammates to achieve free speech and the right to political expression (Hartmann 10). Today, the sporting elites and leaders have become more supportive of Black athletes than in the past.

The contemporary movement is also different from the original movement of the 1960s since politicians, public opinion leaders and the reports have been using athlete and sports activism to organize their campaigns and mobilizations. In this case, athlete sports have been instrumental in shaping the political powers of various leaders compared to the past, when any politician ever used the original movement, public opinion leaders or reporters to mobilize people during their organizations or movements (Hartmann 13). An example is when President Trump used the threats of athletic protest to reshape his base. This means that the contemporary wave is used in shaping the political aspect, which was not used in the past.

In conclusion, Hartmann has described the perspective of the original wave of the 1960s and the contemporary movement. The two movements share common perspectives on some points. However, they differ at other points. Both movements raised concerns to the public leaders and other non-sport activists regarding their voices against discrimination and racism. This shows that the original wave of the 1960s was against racism and discrimination, like the present-day movement, which is also against racism and discrimination. The two waves have some differences in that the contemporary movement has coaches, white players, managers and owners supporting their teammates to have their voices heard.


Hartmann, D. (2019). The Olympic “Revolt” of 1968 and its Lessons for Contemporary African American athletic activism. European Journal of American Studies14(14-1).

Contrasting Goals, Financing, And Staffing For International Operations Sample College Essay


The paper compares a serial entrepreneur’s past successes to her present thinking of starting a social company. We analyze this potential social enterprise’s worldwide ambitions, finance, and personnel. Social businesses operate differently from regular entrepreneurs since they emphasize social impact above financial success. Global social entrepreneurs must understand these differences.


The serial entrepreneur’s previous ventures and the potential social company vary in intent and effect. Unlike entrepreneurs’ past businesses, social enterprises prioritize social or environmental effects above profit growth and market domination. The social enterprise’s overseas activities may focus on sustainable development, social issues, and positive change (Cardella et al., 2021). Unlike profit-driven firms prioritizing shareholder returns, social enterprises employ commercial tactics to promote sustainable social change. The social business prioritizes social and environmental objectives above short-term profits and market share, understanding that financial success may lead to great social consequences.

The social enterprise’s global sustainability aims are comprehensive. It involves using environmentally friendly and resource-conserving corporate methods. The social business promotes renewable energy, waste reduction, and ecologically responsible manufacturing. Fair work policies, community assistance, and marginalized empowerment are all part of the company’s mission (Cardella et al., 2021). The company prioritizes ethical sourcing and fair salaries to increase worker well-being and reduce poverty. The company also addresses worldwide societal issues. The company uses its resources and experience to improve education, healthcare, clean water, and housing. It works with local communities, NGOs, and governments to find and implement effective, sustainable solutions. The company hopes to inspire others to emphasize social impact and change society by concentrating on it.


Serial entrepreneurs often used venture money, private equity, or bank loans to finance their enterprises. Social entrepreneurs use creative finance solutions that support their objectives. The prospective social entrepreneur might pursue impact investment, crowdsourcing, grants, and collaborations with charitable groups or impact-focused investors (Castellas, Ormiston, & Findlay, 2018). These alternative finance solutions help ethical entrepreneurs get cash without compromising their mission. Social companies must balance money and social objectives when funding worldwide operations. Navigating global financial institutions and finding investors or partners that share the organization’s objectives and are devoted to good social impact are required (Cardella et al., 2021). Social businesses may use novel finance strategies and strategic relationships to raise funds for worldwide expansion while keeping faithful to their goal.


Staffing considerations for international operations in a social enterprise present unique challenges compared to previous ventures. While skill sets and knowledge are still important, social entrepreneurs value people passionate about the organization’s social goal and understand the local environment. Social companies target business-savvy people who are dedicated to social impact. The combination helps worldwide enterprises navigate varied cultural, economic, and social environments. Social firms must hire employees that are passionate about their cause (Castellas, Ormiston, & Findlay, 2018). These people want to improve the world more than money. Social firms promote teamwork and shared values by hiring mission-aligned personnel. These employees’ dedication drives the organization’s social impact and sustainable development objectives.

International social companies must understand the local environment. Each nation’s cultural, economic, and social characteristics affect commercial and social efforts. Thus, social companies must recruit local experts. Local expertise helps them manage foreign operations, adjust tactics to local conditions, and develop strong stakeholder connections. Social firms hire local talent for worldwide operations in addition to experts (Cardella et al., 2021). The technique empowers and develops communities by tapping into local knowledge and networks. Social companies create cooperation, trust, and community ownership by hiring locals. Local personnel can overcome cultural and linguistic obstacles and assist the organization and community in communicate.

Challenges and Opportunities

International social enterprise activities provide unique problems and possibilities. These include negotiating complex legal systems, adjusting to cultural differences, creating trust with local stakeholders, and sustaining impact-driven efforts. However, social entrepreneurs may harness international collaborations, information exchange, and collaborative networks to enhance their influence and promote global systemic change (Cardella et al., 2021). Social firms entering foreign markets must navigate complicated regulatory regimes. Each nation has its commercial, tax, employment, and social policies. These frameworks demand careful study, legal competence, and flexibility to adapt techniques to local settings. Foreign social businesses also face cultural differences. Culture affects consumer behavior, societal standards, and corporate operations. Social companies must understand the local culture to personalize goods, services, and communications. It involves tailoring marketing, communication, and product offers to target audiences to ensure that impact-driven projects are well-received and meet local needs. International enterprises must trust local stakeholders (Castellas, Ormiston, & Findlay, 2018). Social businesses must work with local communities, governments, non-profits, and others. Open communication, honoring local traditions, and a real commitment to social and environmental objectives build trust. Local stakeholders’ participation in decision-making and legitimacy boosts the social enterprise’s long-term effect.

Another area for improvement is sustaining impact-driven efforts. Social companies need sound business strategies that deliver social and financial results. It requires scalable solutions, enough financing, and good monitoring and evaluation tools to track success and adjust policies. Social companies may develop sustainably and reach new populations. Social firms have worldwide prospects despite these difficulties. Social companies may adapt successful models by exchanging information and best practices with international partners. International networks may boost the social enterprise’s effect and reach through resources, experience, and money (Castellas, Ormiston, & Findlay, 2018). Globalization also lets social entrepreneurs address structural challenges. Their worldwide presence may influence legislation, global debates, and social and environmental action. Global collaboration between social entrepreneurs, governments, companies, and civil society groups can create a more equal and sustainable world.


Starting a social company with worldwide operations requires major objectives, finance, and workforce adjustments. Social companies seek social impact and financial viability, requiring creative funding. Staffing methods increasingly include skill sets and team members’ enthusiasm and loyalty to the social objective. Serial entrepreneurs must understand these contrasts to use their skills in global social entrepreneurship to make an impact. The change requires a comprehensive strategy combining financial viability, social impact, and a team driven by common values and purpose. Entrepreneurs may use their expertise to solve global problems by embracing these trends.


Cardella, G. M., Hernández-Sánchez, B. R., Monteiro, A. A., & Sánchez-García, J. C. (2021). Social entrepreneurship research: Intellectual structures and future perspectives. Sustainability, 13(14), 7532.

Castellas, E. I. P., Ormiston, J., & Findlay, S. (2018). Financing social entrepreneurship: Impact investment’s role in shaping social enterprise in Australia. Social Enterprise Journal, 14(2), 130-155.