What email address or phone number would you like to use to sign in to Docs.com?
If you already have an account that you use with Office or other Microsoft services, enter it here.
Or sign in with:
Signing in allows you to download and like content, and it provides the authors analytical data about your interactions with their content.
Embed code for: New PROJECT WORK NEW (4)
Select a size
1.1 Background to the study
Corporate planning is important for organizations to assess the degree to which their mission has been achieved and take necessary actions to achieve it (Franklin, 2011).Corporate planning is a backbone support to corporate management and it is a major process in the conduct of strategic management. Corporate planning has become a standard part of management thinking and practice in the business world and it has become the standard practice of large numbers of organization (Stone, Bigelow and Crittenden 1999).
The first and perhaps most obvious benefit of corporate planning is the promotion of corporate thinking, acting, and learning (Stirling, Kilpatrick and Orpin 2011).
Corporate Planning can be understood to be the framework guiding the choice which determines the character and direction of the organization. These choices would incorporate all the activities of an organization, its markets, products or services, growth potential resource allocation, return on investment etc. It goes without saying that strategic framework must also address fundamental issues such as resource base, infrastructural constraints, appropriate level of technology and material input. It is within the context of the above variable that the firm must then address fundamental issues like what it wants to be (i.e. its goals or objectives) and how does it want to arrive at its specified destination.
The organization ability to answer these questions will involve some measure of vision concerning the social and economic environment in which it operates, as well as some elements of long-term planning as to the operational requirements by which it will reach its destination.
In the majority of organization in Nigeria, planning is the most important management tool for performance and for organizations to perform well, resources must be well utilized and customers well served. To achieve such ends, all of an organization’s human and materials resources must be well utilized in the right way and the right time to create high quality products at minimal cost.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Planning is unarguably a herculean task, but it becomes much more daunting in an uncertain socio-political and economic environment for which Nigeria represents today. The nation’s perennial power problem, combined with other institutional inadequacies, is exerting inflationary pressures on organizations, which are passing the high costs of producing good and services on to the consumers. The uncertain environment and price escalation in Nigeria has negatively affected the demand for other goods and services and business activities. Going by this, it is imperative for any organisation to plan corporately in other to be able to survive the unpredictable terrain of business.
For any organization to survive, there is need to understand what corporate Planning entails and why it is essential in an organization; how corporate plans are put in place and achieved through the process of corporate planning: and to know the obstacles in corporate planning and how to overcome these problems.
Corporate planning is often cited as the most critical of the management functions in determining the overall long-term survival of the business entity. Managers are taught in business schools and in management seminars that planning is critical to the success of an organization in meeting its goals and objectives.
However, the specific relationship of the corporate planning function to the profitability and performance of the business entity is uncertain. It is of great challenge to organizations to provide a quantifiable analysis of the planning / performance relationship, taking into consideration the potential influences of managerial, organizational, and environmental characteristics.
Corporate planning can become merely a costly fad, not very useful and even disillusioning. The implication of the above assertion is that not all organization that plan eventually reaps the desired benefits.
However, most planning failures arise from their inability of managers to truly understand the planning and to implement it well. Problems have been identified in the planning process. For instance, insetting objectives, organizations find it difficult to involve employees, shareholders, customers etc. closely related to this is the issue associated with the likely environment different variables and events.
Finding answers to the above research problems is the main trust of this study.
1.3 Aims and Objectives
It is against the research problems highlighted that the following objectives are arrived at.
The objectives of the study are:
To determine the relationship between effective corporate planning and organizational performance.
To examine whether effective corporate planning enhances employee’s performance in an organization.
To evaluate the corporate planning process in the organization
To access the impact of corporate planning on company productivity and turnover.
Relevant Research Questions
What is the relationship between effective corporate planning and organizational performance?
What is the impact of effective corporate planning on employee performance in an organization?
What is corporate planning and what are its challenges?
What is the impact of corporate planning on company productivity and turnover?
1.5 Relevant Research Hypotheses
H01: Corporate planning does not significantly affect organizational performance
H02: There is no significant relationship between corporate planning and employee performance
1.6 Scope and Limitations of the Study
This study focused on the corporate planning and organizational performance as it relates to the activities of Cadbury Nigeria Plc.
Several problems are being envisaged to be encountered during the cause of this study. Some of these problems are that respondents might not treat the questionnaire as important documents and tools for a research work, Time constraint, and difficulty in retrieval of questionnaires from the respondents, getting vital information from the employees and management of the case study and inadequate materials.
Despite all these challenges, the efforts were made to archive the objective of this project.
1.7 Significance of the Study
This study will contribute to the understanding and development of corporate planning management in Nigeria. Empirical and practical contributions to organizations who intend to practice corporate planning on the activities of their organizations will be suggested.
This study will improve and contribute to knowledge in corporate planning activities in Cadbury Nigeria Plc.
This study will help business schools in their attempts to develop managers and employees in the area corporate planning.
This study will also enable us ascertain the effect corporate planning on organizational performance.
1.8Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following terms shall be defined thus:
Corporate Planning: This is the process of drawing up a cause of action intended to be carried out in future by particular individual with specific means (resources) to achieve specific objectives (end) at a specified time, at a given cost and given benefits under defined control and monitoring system.
Strategic Planning: This is defined as planning which recognizes the environmental forces which the organization contends with in the long run, so as to ensure that planning will be carried out with satisfying allocation of resources.
Corporate Strategic Planning: is a
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/process.htmlprocess of determining
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/goal.htmlgoals to be achieved in the foreseeable
Corporate Value: The
http://www.investorwords.com/3455/operating.htmloperating philosophies or
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/principles.htmlprinciples that guide an
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/conduct.htmlconduct as well as its
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/relationship.htmlrelationship with its
Corporate Appraisal: Corporate appraisal is a study of the company’s internal strengths and weaknesses; and threats and opportunities in its business environment (e.g. the changing mature of market, competition, technology, legislation etc).
Brouthers, K. D., Andriessen, F &Nicolaes, I. (1998).“Driving blind: Strategic decision-making in small companies”.Long Range Planning, 31(1), 130-138.
Franklin, P. W. (2011). Relationship between Strategic Planning and Nonprofit Organizational Performance. Ph.D. dissertation, Capella University, United States. Retrieved August, 2011, from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No.3440040).
Kelmar, J. H., &Noy, S. (1990). Perceptual differences in small business strategic planning. Paper presented at the Growing Small Business - Proceedings of the 5th National Small Business Conference, Toowoomba.
Mazzarol, T. (2004). Strategic management of small firms: A proposed framework for entrepreneurial ventures. ‘Paper presented at the 17th Annual SEAANZ Conference - Entrepreneurship as the way of the future’, Brisbane, Queensland.
Stonehouse, G., & Pemberton, J. (2002).Strategic planning in SMEs – some empirical findings. Management Decision, 40(9), 853-861.
Stone, M. M., Bigelow, B., and Crittenden, W. (1999). Research on strategic management in nonprofit organizations: Synthesis, analysis, and future directions. Administration and Society, 31(3), 378-423.
Stirling, C., Kilpatrick, S., and Orpin, P. (2011).A psychological contract perspective to the link between non-profit organizations’ management practices and volunteer sustainability. Human Resource Development International. 14(3), 321–336.
In both the academic literature and the business literature the process sequence, its formal organization and strategy implementation in practice have been described as difficult areas. Farrell (2002) argues that most organizations see planning as a separate activity from management’s prime responsibilities and duties. Management focus is described as top-down and start-to-finish; commitment to planning is absent. Furthermore planning is described as an internal battle ground for interdepartmental conflicts; negotiations and bargaining take place to achieve organizational peace until the next planning session”.
Corporate Planning can be understood to be the framework guiding the choice which determines the character and direction of the organization. These choices would incorporate all the activities of an organization, its markets, products or services, growth potential resource allocation, return on investment etc. It goes without saying that strategic framework must also address fundamental issues such as resource base, infrastructural constraints, appropriate level of technology and material input. It is within the context of the above variable that the firm must then address fundamental issues like what it wants to be (i.e. its goals or objectives?) and how does it want to arrive at its specified destination.
2.2 Theoretical framework of the study
2.2.1The Concept and Theory of Planning
Planning is a very important function of management, for without some plan for what it must do, no organization is likely to be very effective and successful (Boyd and Reuning-Elliott, 1998).
Planning implies that managers think through their goals and actions in advance. Their actions are usually based on some method plan or logic, rather than on a hunch. (Boyd, 1996).
Plans give the organization its objectives and set up the best procedure for reaching them. In addition, plans permit the organization to obtain and commit the resources required to reach its objectives, members of the organization to carry on activities consistent with the chosen objectives and procedures; and the process toward the objectives to be monitored and measured, so that corrective action can be taken if progress is unsatisfactory (Miller and Cardina, 1998).
The first step in planning is the selection of goals for the organization. Then, objectives are established for the submits of the organization, its divisions, departments and so on. Once the objectives are decided upon, programmes are established for achieving them in a systematic manner (Franklin, 2011).
Plans give purpose and direction to the organization, deciding what needs to be done, when and how it needs to be done, and who is to do it.
2.2.2 THE BASIC STEPS IN PLANNING
According to Kuser (2006), Planning can be condensed into four basic steps. These four planning steps can be adapted to all planning activities, at all organizational levels.
THE BASIC STEPS IN PLANNING
Develop a set of actions
Define the present situation
Determine aids and barriers
Establish the goals
Source: Kuser, (2006)
STEP 1: ESTABLISH A GOAL OR SET OF GOALS
Planning begins with decisions about what the organization or submit wants or needs without a clear definition of goals, organizations spread their resources too broadly identifying priorities and being specific about their aims enable organization to focus their resources effectively.
STEP 2: DEFINE THE PRESENT SITUATION
How far is the organization from its goals? What resources are available for reaching the goals? Only after the current state of affairs is analyzed can plan be drawn up to chart further progress, Open lines of communication within the organization and between it submits provide the information-especially financial and statistical data necessary for the second stage.
STEP 3: IDENTIFY THE AIDS AND BARRIERS TO GOALS
What factors in the internal and external environments can help the organization reach its goals? What factors might create problem? It is comparatively easy to see what is taking place now, but the future is never clear. Although difficult to do, anticipating future situations, problems and opportunities is an essential part of planning.
STEP 4: DEVELOP A SET OF ACTIONS
The next step is to determine the set of actions to be taken. This involves formulating policies and strategies for the accomplishment of desired results. The responsibility for laying down policies and strategies lies usually with management. But, the subordinates should be consulted as they are to implement the policies and strategies. Alternative plans of action should be developed and evaluated carefully so as to select the most appropriate policy for the organization.
STEP 5: GOALS
This involves execution of plans. Once the preparatory work of analyzing, determining and calculating is finished, the most important step is implementing the recommendations to ensure your goals are reached.
2.2.3 The Concept of Corporate Planning
Planning is essential for the long term survival of any business organization as it helps to determine the most profitable way to allocate, limited resources (money, time, material etc.) among competing ends. To be effective, such planning should be part of a formal on-going process that critically examines the nature and future of the organization. Aggressive, competition and rapid change necessitate an ongoing awareness of the prevailing environment and opportunities. Planning allows management to reduce risk and take advantage of opportunities as they arise Mazzarol, (2004).
Long-term/Strategic Planning is a management function which is approached on a wide range. It is the process through which manager formulate the company mission establish goals and objectives, identify opportunities and threats, and design strategy to achieve the desired objectives. The business plan is the output of the process. A good business plan serves as a guide for management to evaluate the company’s current situation and design strategies for the future. A good business plan is thus a road map to the future. It indicates where a company is headed (Boyd, 1996).
The planning function, approached on a wide front, includes the formulation of company objectives, adoption of company strategies and monitoring the results achieved. This consideration and evaluation of overall business strategy and planning of long term operations (more particularly, in an atmosphere of change) has resulted in the development of corporate planning.
Corporate Planning is a systematic and disciplined study designed to help identify the objective of any organization or corporate body, determine an appropriate target. (Boyd, 1996).
Corporate Planning, a tool of strategic management is one of the techniques, appropriate for overcoming problems poised by strategic change. Presently, the aviation industry in Nigeria, For instance, has been affected by a plethora of strategic changes. Aviation stakeholders and experts have witnessed the deleterious effect of distress in the aviation system which has changed the approach to aviation operations to survive these trying times therefore, the aviation industry need to refocus and embrace the concept of Corporate Planning (Boyd, 1996).
Corporate Strategic Planning is a
http://www.investorwords.com/9809/future.htmlfuture. It consists of: (1)
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/assumptions.htmlassumptions about the future
http://www.investorwords.com/1639/economic.htmleconomic, technological, and
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/environment.htmlenvironments. (2) Setting of goals to be achieved within a specified timeframe. (3)
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/SWOT-analysis.htmlSWOT analysis. (4) Selecting
http://www.investorwords.com/10249/main.htmlmain and alternative
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/achieve.htmlachieve the goals. (5) Formulating, implementing, and
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/monitoring.htmlmonitoring the operational or tactical plans to achieve interim objectives
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/core-values.htmlCore values are usually summarized in the
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/mission-statement.htmlmission statement or in the company’s
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/statement.htmlstatement of core values.
2.2.4 Establishing the Corporate Objective or Objectives
The evolution of a corporate mission statement leads to the setting of corporate objectives. An objective is an end goal towards which all activities should be aimed. Corporate objectives are those which are concerned with the firm as a whole. They outline the expectations of the firm. The Corporate Planning is concerned with the means of achieving the objectives.
The determination of corporate objectives is a reiterative process. The objectives are being refined constantly o from time to time with the advent of new information. Objectives are needed in every area where performances and results directly and virtually affect the survival and prosperity of the company. Objectives in these key areas should enable the management:
To organize and explain the purpose and direction of the business in a small number of general statements about goals.
To test the validity of these goals as a mean of achieving the corporate purpose
To predict behavioral pattern
To appraise the validity of decisions about strategies and budgets (by assessing whether these are sufficient to achieve the stated objectives).
To assess and control actual performance (Peacock, 2004).
2.2.5Types of Corporate Objectives
Financial: Profitability return on capital employed, return on shareholders’ equity, return on trading assets employed, earnings per share etc.
Market Position: Total market share of each market segment, growth of sales customers or potential customers, what markets should the company be in etc.
Product Development: To bring in new products, develop a product range; spend money on research and development etc.
Technology: To acquire the latest technology in equipment for production and computers, to improve productivity and reduce the cost per unit of output etc.
Employees and Management: To pay employees a wage above the industry’s average, to provide job satisfaction and career development, to train employees in certain skills, to reduce labour turn over.
Organization: To create an organization where much authority is delegated and employed, lower and middle management have a greater degree of participation in planning and decision making.
Public Responsibility: To acknowledge the social responsibility of the company to protect the environment and support their local communities. There is a hierarchy of objectives. (Peacock, 2004).
2.2.6Characteristics of Good Corporate Objectives
According to Peacock (2004), certain basic characters distinguish good objectives from wishes. Good objectives must possess the following qualities:
They must be specific and clearly stated.
Their achievement must be measurable or verifiable.
They must be realistic and attainable.
They must specify period of achievement.
They must include intermediate objectives that will facilitate the attainment of the major objectives.
They must be modern and up to date.
They must be ranked according to relative importance.
Although, there are different ways of setting about the task of Strategic (corporate) Planning, the key to a successful long-term plan is Corporate Appraisal (Peacock, 2004).
Corporate appraisal is a study of the company’s internal strengths and weaknesses; and threats and opportunities in its business environment (e.g. the changing mature of market, competition, technology, legislation etc). Together these studies are known as SWOT analysis (strength, weaknesses, opportunities, threats analysis).
This analysis forces managers to critically appraise the quality of specific individuals’ skills, firm products, marketing policies and the company’s past operating performance. It serves as the basis for designing new strategies that emphasize strengths, overcome weaknesses, take advantage of opportunities or counter threats (Vicere, 1995).
2.2.8 Internal appraisal: strength and weakness analysis
The internal appraisal seeks to identify shortenings in the company’s present skills and resources and secondly, to identify strengths on which the company can build its expansion.
A company undertaking a strength and weakness analyses will endeavor to consider all main areas of the company so that there is no weak line left unidentified.
According to Kotler (2009), strengths consist of areas within the company that provides an inherent advantage over competitors. They may arise from corporate image, the characteristics of the company’s personnel, the company’s financial soundness, product line or quality of facilities, implicitly; management can take advantage of these perceived strengths in their marketing plans as well as by reassigning product responsibilities and developing new products.
According to Kotler (2009), Weakness consists of areas within the company that need significant improvement or restructuring. In many instances, this information can be obtained by customer/consumer survey. Weak areas may be the opposite side of the factors listed under strengths. Management must determine how to overcome these weaknesses which may involve product, personnel and marketing changes.
Strengths and weaknesses must be analysed in each of the functional units of the company like marketing production, finance and general administration, research and development in terms of its management ability, personnel skills, systems and organizational capabilities and resources and equipment. Kotler (2009),
There is a danger in over-stressing weaknesses and under-estimating strengths identifying strength and taking advantage of them in formulating strategies offer the most promise. For example in internal appraisal, one might consider information in the following areas:
a. Marketing: The fate of new product launches success or failure of advertising campaign.
b. Products: Profit margin and overall profit contribution price elasticity of demand products
c. Distribution: Delivery services standards geographical availability of products
d. Research and Development: The costs of R &D benefits of R & D in new products new variations on existing products
e. Finance: Availability of short term and long term funds, cash flow contribution of each products.
f. Plants and equipment: Valuation of all assets Location of land and buildings, their value, area, use, length of lease, current book value.
g. Management and staff: Age spread, succession plans, training and recruitment facilities
h. Business management (organization): Organization structure, Communication links
i. Raw materials and finished goods stocks: the sources of supply Number and description of items
The purpose of the analyses is to express qualitatively and quantitatively, which areas of the business have strengths to exploit and which areas have weaknesses which must be improved. Although every areas of the business should be investigated only the areas of significant strength and weakness should warrant further attention. Strengths and weaknesses show up inherent potentials. Kotler (2009),
EXTERNAL APPRAISAL: OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS ANALYSIS
According to Humphrey Albert (2005), An external appraisal is required to identify profit making opportunities which can be exploited by the company’s strengths and also anticipate environmental threats against which the company must protect itself.
Managers should make a priority list of external opportunities that will potentially provide a competitive advantage to the company. It is necessary in decide:
What opportunities exist in the business environment?
What is their inherent profit making potential?
What are the internal strength/weaknesses of the company and is it capable of exploiting the worthwhile opportunities while still achieving its stakeholder objectives?
What is the comparative capacity profile of competitors? Are competitor better placed to exploit these opportunities?
What is the company’s comparative performance potential in this field of opportunity?
The opportunities might involve development, market development, market penetration or diversification. It should be noted that no realistic opportunity should be ignored.
Managers should also make a prioritized list of all external threats confronting the company.
It is necessary, hence to decide;
What threats may arise to the company and its business environment?
How will competitors be affected?
How will the company be affected? Does it have strength to deal with the threat or do weaknesses need to be corrected so as to survive the threat? Are contingency strategies required?
External areas which should be investigated (at local, national and international levels)
Economic: Unemployment, government rates, fuel (availability and costs) the level of wages and salaries), the growth and decline of industries and suppliers, general investment level, total market behavior for products, total customer demand, world production exchange control etc.
Government: Legislation, taxation incentive, investment grant, government policies on environmental protection through FEPA and standards through Standard Organization of Nigeria (SON), political attitude and political upheaval.
Competitors: Possible competitor’s action in the future and their comparative strengths and weaknesses, deciding whether the company is under threat of a takeover by any other company. A comparison of internal strength and weakness and potential buyers is needed.
Technology: Technology changes must be forecasted so as to identify the possibility of new products appearing or cheaper and quicker means of production or distribution being introduced.
Social: Social attitude will have a significant effect on customer demand and employee attitude.
The internal and external appraisals will be brought together so that potential strategies can be identified.
2.2.8 Corporate Planning and Productivity
Corporate planning is of great importance for the existence of any organization. Because tomorrow is uncertain, and companies must plan in order to avoid those uncertainties.
Drucker (1998), in his classical study stated the effect of not planning ahead on companies when he said that, “but tomorrow always arrives”. It is always difficult and then the mightiest company is in trouble if it has not worked on the future. It will have lost distinction and leadership. All that will remain is a big company overhead.
It will neither control nor understand what is happening not having dived to take the risk of making the new happen; its performance took the much greater risk. Corporate planning is productive if organizations attain efficiency is the optimal use of resource to achieve organizational goals. Efficiency of plan is measured by its contribution to the purpose and objective, offset by the cost and other factors required in formulating and operating it.
A corporate plan is said to help organization to know where they are going, where they are coming from and how to get where they want to go. We subscribe to the theory of environmental turbulence and this means that companies have to plan ahead to keep up the trend of events. These companies have prepared to overcome this turbulence.
According to Anao (2002), preparedness is a continuous alertness, followed by a resolute effort to accomplish those things which are deemed necessary to be able to tackle the challenges of tomorrow. They need to look ahead of time, envisage what might happen in future and find out any obstruction to the achievement of their stated objectives. The effect of not planning ahead is a risk that even the largest and richest company cannot afford to take and even the smallest need not take.
There is a saying that too many cooks spoil the soup. Corporate planning will make for orderly operation because it tends to coordinate individual units with the central plan, which leads to effective performance of the activities within the organization. A unit with poor planning ability will not perform well.
Specialization makes for perfection, individual operation unit relies expensively on perfect planning thereby leading to consistency of standard and give operating unit more time to concentrate on their specialized operating area. This invariably leads to effectiveness and efficiency of operation on productivity thereby increasing the profit of the organization. Independent planning leads to hazard and uncoordinated productivity.
2.2.9Theory of Corporate Planning
Corporate planning is the use of information to assess one's current situation relative to possibilities of the future. Information is central, and corporate planning literature is more or less based entirely upon it. Fast, accurate and objective information is the central core of planning, whether it is local or international. This information can be internal, such as the use of personnel, coordination among departments and psychological models of motivation. It can also be external, where markets, government policies, prices and supply all converge into a plan of action. The internal and external elements are not separate, but form, in reality, one set of plans for corporate stability (Baudura, 1996).
Portfolio-based strategies are very common and effective. What lies at the root is the identification of assets that can be usable and effective both in current and future situations, and to identity what sorts of holdings will be more (or less) useful in the future. The rise of Hedge Funds has made the diversification of portfolio management absolutely central in corporate and investment strategy. The real purpose in a portfolio strategy is to reallocate resources quickly to face rapidly changing situations, and again, here, information is central.(Baudura 1996)
High Share Strategies
Specifically for large concerns, high share strategies are based on dominating a mass market. The products are normally standardized, and based around the constant flow of new products and new features that function with the standard equipment. Research and Development is central here, as are joint ventures. In these cases, the high cost of market entry acts as a safety valve for any problems in corporate strategy. The ultimate goal is to remain the standard in the field.
Niche strategies are for smaller firms. Rather than standardization and market domination, niche strategies center on the advantages of specialization. Alliances with other firms become important, especially as smaller, specialized firms sell their products to the larger firms. For example, niche electronic firms must constantly be allied with the larger firms, such as automotive giants, to maintain their electrical systems. Therefore, comparative advantages, as well as the centrality of complementary goods, are important to maintaining a strong niche strategy.
All the above centers on the twin ideas of perception and problem-solving. New developments must always be anticipated, and plans for quick adjustments must be in place for immediate execution. Current problems and issues, whether internal or external, must be seen over time, as problems change as external circumstances change. The
http://www.ehow.com/careers/job of the corporate planner is to turn liabilities into assets, something important especially to the niche firms, who are more vulnerable than the larger standard names in the market.
Especially for niche strategies, specialization is a highly vulnerable approach. A successful niche company will attract larger firms attempting to enter the same market. For example, in the early 1980s, Harley-Davidson was a niche company, specializing in heavy, big motorcycles, while the Japanese were specializing in smaller, faster models. But Harley's success brought Yamaha and Honda to begin building big bikes, nearly putting Harley out of
http://www.ehow.com/business/business, had not President Reagan intervened and protected the American firm. In addition, niche firms specializing in different types of complementary technologies also face problems with obsolescence and irrelevance as the standard firms change products. The niche strategy seems to be always at the mercy of the larger players. But these are pieces of information that are at the center of corporate planning (Baudura 1996)
2.2.10CORPORATE PLANNING PROCESS
Corporate planning is planning for the whole organization. Planning involves skill of anticipating influencing and controlling the nature and directions of change in an organization.
2.2.11 Models of Strategic Planning
There is no one perfect strategic planning model for each organization. Each organization ends up developing its own nature and model of strategic planning, often by selecting a model and modifying it as they go along in developing their own planning process. The following models provide a range of alternatives from which organizations might select an approach and begin to develop their own strategic planning process. Note that an organization might choose to integrate the models, e.g., using a scenario model to creatively identify strategic issues and goals, and then an issues-based model to carefully strategize to address the issues and reach the goals.
According to Becker (1994), the following models include:
Model One - “Basic” Strategic Planning
This very basic process is typically followed by organizations that are extremely small, busy, and have not done much strategic planning before. The process might be implemented in year one of the nonprofit to get a sense of how planning is conducted, and then embellished in later years with more planning phases and activities to ensure well-rounded direction for the nonprofit. Planning is usually carried out by top-level management. The basic strategic planning process includes:
1. Identify your purpose (mission statement) - This is the statement(s) that describes why your organization exists, i.e., its basic purpose. The statement should describe what client needs are intended to be met and with what services, the type of communities are sometimes mentioned. The top-level management should develop and agree on the mission statement. The statements will change somewhat over the years.
2. Select the goals your organization must reach if it is to accomplish your mission - Goals are general statements about what you need to accomplish to meet your purpose, or mission, and address major issues facing the organization.
3. Identify specific approaches or strategies that must be implemented to reach each goal - The strategies are often what change the most as the organization eventually conducts more robust strategic planning, particularly by more closely examining the external and internal environments of the organization.
4. Identify specific action plans to implement each strategy - These are the specific activities that each major function (for example, department, etc.) must undertake to ensure its effectively implementing each strategy. Objectives should be clearly worded to the extent that people can assess if the objectives have been met or not. Ideally, the top management develops specific committees that each have a work plan, or set of objectives.
5. Monitor and update the plan - Planners regularly reflect on the extent to which the goals are being met and whether action plans are being implemented. Perhaps the most important indicator of success of the organization is positive feedback from the organization’s customers.
Model Two - Issue-Based (or Goal-Based) Planning
Organizations that begin with the “basic” planning approach described above often evolve to using this more comprehensive and more effective type of planning. The following table depicts a rather straightforward view of this type of planning process.
Summary of Issue-Based (or Goal-Based) Strategic Planning
1. External/internal assessment to identify “SWOT” (Strengths and Threats) 2. Strategic analysis to identify and prioritize major issues/goals. 3. Design major strategies (or programs) to address issues/goals 4. Design/update vision, mission and values (some organizations may do this first in planning).
5. Establish action plans (objectives, resource needs, roles and responsibilities for implementation) 6. Record issues, goals, strategies/programs, updated mission and vision, and action plans in a Strategic Plan document, and attach SWOT, etc. 7. Develop the yearly Operating Plan document (from year one of the multi-year strategic plan)
8. Develop and authorize Budget for year one(allocation of funds needed to fund year one) 9.Conduct the organization’s year-one operations. 10. Monitor/review/evaluate/update Strategic Plan document. Model Three - Alignment Model
The overall purpose of the model is to ensure strong alignment among the organization’s mission and its resources to effectively operate the organization. This model is useful for organizations that need to fine-tune strategies or find out why they are not working. An organization might also choose this model if it is experiencing a large number of issues around internal efficiencies. Overall steps include:
1. The planning group outlines the organization’s mission, programs, resources, and needed support.
2. Identify what’s working well and what needs adjustment.
3. Identify how these adjustments should be made.
4. Include the adjustments as strategies in the strategic plan.
Model Four - Scenario Planning
This approach might be used in conjunction with other models to ensure planners truly undertake strategic thinking. The model may be useful, particularly in identifying strategic issues and goals.
1. Select several external forces and imagine related changes which might influence the organization, e.g., change in regulations, demographic changes, etc. Scanning the newspaper for key headlines often suggests potential changes that might affect the organization.
2. For each change in a force, discuss three different future organizational scenarios (including best case, worst case, and OK/reasonable case) which might arise with the organization as a result of each change. Reviewing the worst-case scenario often provokes strong motivation to change the organization.
3. Suggest what the organization might do, or potential strategies, in each of the three scenarios to respond to each change.
4. Planners soon detect common considerations or strategies that must be addressed to respond to possible external changes.
5. Select the most likely external changes to effect the organization, e.g., over the next three to five years, and identify the most reasonable strategies the organization can undertake to respond to the change.
Model Five - “Organic” (or Self-Organizing) Planning
Traditional strategic planning processes are sometimes considered “mechanistic” or “linear,” i.e., they’re rather general-to-specific or cause-and-effect in nature. For example, the processes often begin by conducting a broad assessment of the external and internal environments of the organization, conducting a strategic analysis (“SWOT” analysis), narrowing down to identifying and prioritizing issues, and then developing specific strategies to address the specific issues.
Another view of planning is similar to the development of an organism, i.e., an “organic,” self-organizing process. Certain cultures, e.g., Native American Indians, might prefer unfolding and naturalistic “organic” planning processes more than the traditional mechanistic, linear processes. Self-organizing requires continual reference to common values, dialoguing around these values, and continued shared reflection around the systems current processes. General steps include:
1. Clarify and articulate the organization’s cultural values. Use dialogue and story-boarding techniques.
2. Articulate the group’s vision for the organization. Use dialogue and story-boarding techniques.
3. On an ongoing basis, e.g., once every quarter, dialogue about what processes are needed to arrive at the vision and what the group is going to do now about those processes.
4. Continually remind yourself and others that this type of naturalistic planning is never really “over with,” and that, rather, the group needs to learn to conduct its own values clarification, dialogue/reflection, and process updates.
5. be very, very patient.
6. Focus on learning and less on method.
An important aspect of the managerial revolution of the past four decades has been said to be the tremendous interest in planning by all forms of enterprise such as business, government, educational institutions and others. The importance of planning in areas such as factory operations has been stressed many years earlier. For instance, production managers discovered early that without planning, their mistakes showed up within days, as production line came to a halt because of a misfit part or the absence of a needed component. The idea of organization planning had been conceptualized as far back as the 1940. Planning is fundamentally choosing and planning problems arise only when an alternative course of action is discovered. As such, Goetz saw planning as being inextricable linked with decision-making. But Koontz (1990) conceives planning to be much more than essentially decision-making. According to him, planning presupposed the existence of alternatives, and that there are very few decisions for which some kind of alternative does not exist. They state further that planning is deciding in advance what to do, how to do it, when to do it, and who is to do it. As the most basic of all managerial functions, planning involves selecting from among alternatives, future courses of action for the enterprise as a whole and for every depart mental goals and determining ways of achieving them. The authors argue that planning must involve an open-system approach to managing. This is because planning cannot be taken in a vacuum. Rather, it must consider the nature of the future environment in which planning decisions and actions are intended to operate. Stoner (1992) offers that planning is a process that does not end when a plan is agreed upon rather, it must be implemented. Also at any time during the implantation and control process, plans may require modification to avoid becoming useless or even damaging Stoners argument therefore, implies that decisions must be made at many points in the planning process. For instance, managers must decide which predictions in such areas as the economy, and the actions of competitions are likely to be most accurate. They must also analyze organizational resources and decide how to allocate them to achieve their goals most effectively.
2.2.13Planning and Environmental Turbulence: Theory and Evidence
The literature Interest in strategy as an area of management study followed the diffusion of strategic planning ('long-range planning') among large companies during the 1950s and 1960s. Articles on long range planning began appearing in the Harvard Business Review during 1956-61 (Ewing, 1996; Wrap, 1997; Payne, 1997; Platt and Maines, 1999; Quinn, 1991) and by 1965 the first systematic, analytically based frameworks for strategy formulation appeared (Ansoff, 1995; Learned, 1995). Empirical studies of corporate planning practices included, in the United States, Cleland (1962), Henry (1997), the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology (1996), Ang and Chua (1999), and Capon, Farley, and Hulbert (1997); and in the United Kingdom, Grinyer and Norburn (1995). As strategic management developed as an area of academic study, interest in companies' strategic planning practices waned. By the 1980s empirical research in strategic planning systems focused upon just two areas: the impact of corporate planning on firm performance and the role of strategic planning in strategic decision making. The first area spawned many studies but no robust findings. Ramanujam and Camillus (1996: 347) observed: 'The results of this body of research are fragmented and contradictory,' while Boyd's (1991) survey concluded: 'the overall effect of corporate planning on performance is very weak. The second area of research explored the organizational processes of strategy formulation. Longitudinal studies of strategy formation (Mintzberg and Waters, 1992) identified a process of emergence that bore little resemblance to formal, rational, strategic planning processes. Corporate-level corporate decisions emerged from complex interactions between individuals with different interests and different perceptions. The resulting debate pitted the advocates of systematic, rational analysis (Ansoff, 1991; Goold, 1992) against those who favored the empirical validity and normative merits of emergent processes (Mintzberg, 1991, 1994a). The contribution of both areas of research has been limited by lack of empirical investigation of the phenomenon itself. Planning-performance studies relied upon largely superficial characterizations of strategic planning practices based mainly upon questionnaire data.
2.3 Empirical evidence
2.3.1Corporate Planning and Performance
The relationship between firm corporate planning efforts and firm performance received considerable attention. However, despite the large number of studies examining this relationship, the results have been inconclusive, with findings ranging from positive relationships to no relationships to negative relationships.
Several researchers have attempted to understand these contradictory findings. Armstrong (1992) published one of the first such papers. His analysis of 14 studies generally supported the hypothesis that formal planning was useful but, noted that there were “serious research problems” with the studies. He was very much concerned with the lack of description or definition of the corporate planning process provided to the study subjects. He concluded that “without a description of the planning techniques, it is not possible to assess the value of planning in a scientific manner”.
Pearce, Freeman and Robinson (1997) also concluded that the evidence that formal strategic planning enhances a firm’s financial performance is “inconsistent and often contradictory.” They had concerns about the methodology’s limiting impact on the researchers’ ability to understand the effect of corporate planning on performance. Their conclusions were based on a review of the results of 18 papers which examined the relationship between formal strategic planning, using a definition similar to Armstrong (1992) for corporate planning, and organizational performance. They were concerned about the “lack of consistent definition” of strategic planning, how the strategic planning construct was “measured”, and the “impact of corporate context “and the factor of business size. Venkatraman and Grant (1986) noted that there is no widely accepted definition of strategy and that the inability to measure the strategic planning construct has hindered research attempting to identify substantive relationships between independent and dependent variables. Boyd (1991), based on the results of his meta-analysis of 21 studies published between 1970 and 1988, including 29 samples and 2,496 organizations concluded that there were modest positive correlations between strategic planning and financial performance.
However, he was concerned with the significant measurement errors in these studies and concluded that this most probably resulted in an underestimate of the true strategic planning–performance relationship. However, one significant work, Miller and Cardinal (1994), seemed to put the issue to rest: they concluded that “Planning was found to be strongly and positively related to growth in studies in which industry effects were controlled, an informant source of performance data was used, planning was defined as not requiring written documentation and the quality of the assessment strategy was high”. (Miller & Cardinal, 1994, 1660)
A study by Sarason and Tegarden (2003) focused on the configuration theory and firm’s resource based view to understand the relationship between corporate planning and the firm’s performance. Their findings also provide partial support for a positive relationship between corporate planning and performance. However, they concluded that this relationship is moderated by organizational stage of development and that it is beneficial to early stage firms. The underlying premise for these conclusions are based on the development competitive advantages provided by the structure and the future thinking incorporated into the strategic process and the nun-sustainability and erosion of these advantages in late stage firms, whose processes are more prone to limitation.
2.3.2 Strategic Planning and Organizational Performance
Empirical evidence points to the coexistence of formal and informal strategic planning processes. Most large companies maintain some form of formal strategic planning. Bain & Company's annual survey of business techniques consistently identifies strategic planning as the most popular and widely utilized of any management tool (Rigby, 1999), while studies by the American Productivity and Quality Center (1996a, 1996b) report features of strategic planning systems among leading-edge U.S. corporations. Yet most strategic decisions appear to be made outside of formal strategic planning systems. Analyzing 1087 decisions by 127 Fortune 500 companies, Sinha concluded: 'the overall contributions of formal strategic planning systems are modest' (Sinha, 1990: 489). In unstructured and fast-moving contexts, strategies tend to emerge: Mintzberg and McHugh (1995) identified a 'grass roots' process of strategy formulation, while Burgelman's study of Intel's exit from DRAM chips (Burgelman, 1994, 1996) pointed to the smooth and timely adaptation to external change that resulted from unplanned decision processes forming an 'internal selection mechanism. Evidence of the impact of environmental turbulence upon strategic planning is limited. Cross sectional studies have produced inconsistent findings. Longitudinal evidence is fragmented, but more consistent: in response to increasing environmental turbulence, strategic planning systems have changed substantially from the highly formalized processes of the 1960s and 1970s. Business Week's (1996: 46) proclamation that 'strategic planning is back with a vengeance' acknowledged that 'it's also back with a difference.' Details of how strategic planning systems have been adapted to increasingly unstable, unpredictable business environments are sparse. Descriptions of strategic planning practices are available for some com panies, e.g., General Electric (Aguilar, Hamer mesh and Brainard, 1993; Slater,1999), Royal Dutch/Shell (De Geus, 1997), MCI (Simons and Weston, 1990), and Power Gen (Jennings, 2000), while Wilson (1994) provides more general evidence on changes in strategic planning practices. Overall, the evidence points less to a decline of strategic planning' (Mintzberg, 1994), than to fundamental changes in the ways in which companies undertake their strategic planning. Investigating these changes in companies' strategic planning practices is likely to require richer data than that used in most prior studies. Boyd and Reuning-Elliot (1998) observed that researchers have represented strategic planning. However, despite their finding that 'strategic planning is a construct that can be reliably measured through seven indicators: mission statement, trend analysis, competitor analysis, long term goals, annual goals, short-term action plans, and on-going evaluation' (Boyd and Reuning Elliot, 1998: 189), even multiple indicators may fail to recognize the characteristics of overall strategic planning configurations and their links with other processes of decision making and control.
Aguilar, FJ, Hamermesh RG, Brainard CE. (1993). General Electric Co.: 1984, Case 385315. Harvard Business School: Boston, MA.
Armstrong, J.S. (1996): The value of formal planning for strategic decisions: Reply, Strategic Management Journal, 7, 2, p. 183-185.
Ansoff, HI. (1991). Critique of Henry Mintzberg's the design school: reconsidering the basic premises of strategic management'. Strategic Management Journal 12(6): 449-462.
Ang JS, Chua JH. (1999). Long-range planning in large United States corporations: a survey. Long Range Planning 12(April): 99-102.
Anao, G.O (2002). Corporate planning system characteristics and organizational effectiveness in Australian small-scale firms. Irish Journal of Management, 23(1), 23-51.
Becker, A.A (1994) Management and Planning, a propeller for organizational performance, Journal of College of Management Goteburg University, vol 11, pg 23-34, Plymouth Macdonald and Even Publication limited.
Baudura, A. (1996) Principle of behaviour modification New York: Harncourt and Minister,
Boyd BK. (1996). Strategic planning and financial performance: a meta-anal performance: Journal of Management Studies 28: 353-374.
Boyd BK, Reuning-Elliot E. (1998). A measurement model of strategic planning. Strategic Management Journal 19(2): 181-192.
Burgelman, B.C (1994), Management for Productivity, a textbook 2nd edition pg 76-89 New York,John wile and sons Publication limited.
Burgelman, F.A(1996), Management and Organizational Behaviour, 2nd pg 227-36, edition New York, Wiley and sons Publication limited.
De Geus, C.H (1997) Bass in Leadership, Psychology and Organizational Behaviour, a textbook 2nd edition, pg 88-89, New York Harper and Brothers Publication.
Drucker, P.F (1998) The Theory and Practice of Management, a broader perspective, 4th edition, pg 98-114, New York Press
Ewing, DW. (1996). Looking around: long-range business planning. Harvard Business Review 56(4): 135-146.
Farrel and Associates (2002), Mastering Change and Planning for the Future. An Introduction to the Concepts of Strategy Management and S3 Analysis,
Franklin, P. W. (2011). Relationship Between Strategic Planning and Nonprofit Organizational Performance. Ph.D. dissertation, Capella University, United States. Retrieved August, 2011, from Pro Quest Dissertations and Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No.3440040).
Humphrey, Albert (December 2005). “SWOT Analysis for Management Consulting” SRI Alumni Newsletter (SRI International)
Jennings, L.F (2000). Models and Tools for Strategic Planning. New Dimensions for Institutional Research, 123, 129-138.
Kelmar, J. H., &Noy, S. (1990). Perceptual differences in small business strategic planning. Paper presented at the The Growing Small Business - Proceedings of the 5th National Small Business Conference, Toowoomba.
Kotler, G. J (2009), Impact of effective Planning on Organizational Performance, Journal of International Management, vol 3, pg 33-47, New York Double day Publication limited.
Koontz, H.O, Donnell, C and Weibrich, H (1990) Management in broader perspective, Management of Multidisciplinary study, Tokyo Macgraw Hill Publication limited.
Kuser, J.P (2006), Strategic planning and organizational performance: an investigation using the balanced scorecard in non-profit organizations. Ph.D. dissertation, Capella University, United States. Retrieved August, 2011, from Dissertations and Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No.AAT 3311386).
Mazzarol, T. (2004). Strategic management of small firms: A proposed framework for entrepreneurial ventures. Paper presented at the 17th Annual SEAANZ Conference - Entrepreneurship as the way of the future, Brisbane, Queensland.
Miller CC, Cardinal LB. (1998). Strategic planning and firm performance: a synthesis of more than two decades of research. Academy of Management Journal 37: 1649-1665.
Mintzberg, H. (1994). The fall and rise of strategic planning.Harvard Business Review, 72, 107-114.doi:10.1225/94107
Peacock, M.K (2004), "The Value of Formal Planning for Strategic Decisions: Reply," Strategic Management Journal, 7, 183-5.
Pearce II, J.A., Freeman, E.B. and Robinson, R.B. (1987a): The tenuous link between formalstrategic planning and performance, Academy of Management Review, 12, p. 658-675.
Rigby, O.P (1999): Management by Objective, a system of Managerial Leadership, textbook, 3rd edition pg 32-41, Pitman Publiching, Odiorne, the human side of Management, San Diego California University associates.
Ramanujam V, Ramanujam N, Camillus JC. (1996). Multi objective assessment of effectiveness of strategic planning: a discriminant analysis approach. Academy of Management Journal 29(2): 347-472.
Rigby, D. (1999). Management Tools and Techniques. Bain: Boston, MA.
Romanelli E, Tushman ME. (1994). Organizational trans formation as punctuated equilibrium. Academy of Management Journal 36: 701-732.
Sarason, S.K and Tegarden, T.D (2003). Quantitative and qualitative research in the built environment; application of mixed research approach. Work Study, 51(1), 17-31.
Stoner, C.R. (1993): Planning in small manufacturing firms: A survey. Journal of Small BusinessManagement, January, p. 34-41.
Stone, M. M., Bigelow, B., and Crittenden, W. (1999). Research on strategic management in nonprofit organizations: Synthesis, analysis, and future directions. Administration and Society, 31(3), 378-423.
Stirling, C., Kilpatrick, S., and Orpin, P. (2011). A psychological contract perspective to the link between non-profit organizations’ management practices and volunteer sustainability. Human Resource Development International. 14(3), 321–336.
Venkatraman, H.R and Grant, C.C (1996). Corporate planning-firm performance linkage: Empirical investigation from an emergent market perspective. Advances in Competitiveness Research, 15(1/2), 15-26.
Vicere, O.R (1995), "Managing the Planning Process: A Field Study of the Human Side of Planning,” Strategic Management Journal, 3, 105-18.
This chapter is concerned with the procedures employed in data and information gathering and processing for the purpose of this study. The chapter is designed to describe the methodology used in the study.
3.1 Research design
Descriptive research is concerned with the description of data and characteristics about a population. The goal is the acquisition of factual, accurate and systematic data that can be used in averages, frequencies and similar statistical calculations. Descriptive studies seldom involve experimentation, as they are more concerned with naturally occurring phenomena than with the observation of controlled situations.
3.2 Population of the Study
The population of this study constitute of respondents drawn from staff of Cadbury Nigeria Plc.
The case study comprises of one thousand one hundred and sixty seven (1167) employees.
3.3 Sampling, Procedure and Sampling Size
The sample size of 100 respondents will be randomly selected from the various departments of the case study used to represent the whole staff.
A simple random sampling technique will be adopted in selecting the sample size to give the whole employees an equal chance of being selected.
3.4 Data collection instrument and validation
Questionnaire will be formulated and distributed for collecting data for this study. The questions will be administered personally to the respondents to fill and after they have been filled and collected for data analysis. The questionnaire is structured with close ended question for the use of analysis, and to aid the respondents in answering the questions.
Open-ended questions are those questions that will solicit additional information from the inquirer, while closed ended questions are those questions, which can be answered finitely by “Agree or Disagree” Also known as dichotomous or saturated type questions. Closed-ended questions can include presuming, probing, or leading questions. Close ended structure will be used in administering this questionnaire.
The first sections, contains the bio-data of the respondents, such as demographic information, that is, their age, sex, status and number of years spent with the organization.
The questionnaire contains questions that have to do with the subject matter.
The nature of the questionnaire to be used is five point scales namely: strongly greed [SA], agreed [A], undecided [U], disagreed [D], strongly disagreed [SD].
3.5 Method of Data Analysis
The data from the study shall be analyzed using SPSS version 15 and the result shall be interpreted accordingly using Chi-square analysis of research hypothesis.
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS INTERPRETATION
This chapter explains the analysis and interpretation of the data obtained in the field survey for the study. The information presented and analyzed was obtained from the questionnaires administered. The hypotheses were tested and the result of the analysis provides the basis for findings, conclusion and recommendations in this study.
4.1 Analysis of Questionnaire Items According to Research Questions
This section of the analysis and results is concerned with responses to the research questions as contain in the survey questionnaire. It begins with the analyses of respondents socio-demographic data after which the responses to the main items of the research questions are analyzed and interpreted.
Respondents’ Demographic Data
Table 1: Distribution of Respondents by Sex
Source: Field Survey, (2014)
Table 1 shows that 58.5% of the respondents were males and 41.5% of the respondents were females. This also indicates that there were more male employees who were willing to provide answers to items on the administered questionnaire.
Table 2: Distribution of Respondents by Age
Table 2 shows that 24.5% of the respondents were between 20-30 years, 52.1% of the respondents are between 30-40 years, 13.8% of the respondents were between 41-50 years and 9.6% of the repsondents were 51 years and above. This is an indication that majority of participants in this study were between 30-40 years.
Table 3: Distribution of Respondents by Marital Status
Table 3 shows that 36.2% of the respondents were single, 56.4% of the respondents were married, 7.4% of the respondents were divorced. Majority of the respondents were married. This is an indication that the organization’ working policy and environment encourages marriage, work-life balance and family relationship.
Table 4: Distribution of Respondents Staff Level
Table 4 shows that 57.4% of the respondents were senior staff, 42.6% of the respondents were junior staff. Majority of the respondents were senior staff.
Table 5: Distribution of Respondents Working Experience
Table 5 shows that 22.5% of the respondents had been in service below 5years, 43.6% of the respondents had been working from 6-10years, 21.3% of the respondents had been working from 11-20years, while 9.6% of the respondents had been in service from 20-30years. This shows that majority of the respondents who had been in service were from 6-10years.
Table 6: Distribution of Respondents by Educational Background
Table 6 shows that 17% of the respondents had SSCE, 41.5% of the respondents had HND/BSc, 29.8% of the respondents had MSc/MBA, 11.7% of the respondents had ICAN/NACCA. Majority of the respondents had university education.
Table 7: Corporate Planning Significantly Affects my Organizational Performance.
Table 7 shows that 52.1% of the respondents Strongly Agreed, 35.1% Agreed, 9.6% can’t decided, 2.1% Disagreed, while 1.1% Strongly Disagreed that Corporate planning significantly affects their organizational performance. This shows that majority of the respondents Agreed that Corporate planning significantly affects their organizational performance.
Table 8: There is a Significant Relationship between Corporate Planning and Employee Performance in Most Organizations.
Table 8 shows that 42.6% of the respondents Strongly Agreed, 46.8% Agreed, 5.3% can’t decided, 4.3% Disagreed, while 1.1% Strongly Disagreed that there is a significant relationship between corporate planning and employee performance in their organizations. This shows that majority of the respondents Agreed that there is a significant relationship between corporate planning and employee performance in their organizations.
Table 9: Well Formulated and Implemented Corporate Planning have Impact on the Organization Performance
Table 9 shows that 50% of the respondents Strongly Agreed, 46.8% Agreed, 1.1% can’t decided, 1.1% Disagreed, while 1.1% Strongly Disagree that there is a well formulated and implemented corporate planning and have impact in their organization. This shows that majority of the respondents Agreed that there is a well formulated and implemented corporate planning and have impact in their organization
Table 10: There is a relationship between corporate planning and organizational effectiveness
Table 10 shows that 43.6% of the respondents Strongly Agreed, 50% Agreed, 3.2% can’t decided, while 3.2% Disagreed that there is a relationship between corporate planning and organizational effectiveness. This shows that there is a relationship between corporate planning and organizational effectiveness.
Table 11: Planning is very important for ensuring smooth coordination and objective attainment
Table 11 shows that 51.1% of the respondents Strongly Agreed, 42.6% Agreed, while 6.4% can’t decide, that there Planning is very important for ensuring smooth coordination and objective attainment. This shows that majority of the respondents Agreed that there Planning is very important for ensuring smooth coordination and objective attainment in their organization.
Table 12: Corporate Planning is not independent of corporate strategy
Table 13 shows that 35.1% of the respondents Strongly Agreed, 58.5% Agreed, 3.2% can’t decided, while 3.2% Disagreed that Corporate planning is not independent of corporate strategy. This shows that majority of the respondents Agreed that corporate planning is not independent of corporate strategy in their organization.
Table 13: Management tend to shy away from the use of corporate planning as a tool due to its high cost of operation
Table 13 above shows that 27.7% of the respondents Strongly Agreed, 60.6% Agreed, 9.6% can’t decided, 1.1% Disagreed, while 1.1% Strongly Disagree that Management tend to shy away from the use of corporate planning as a tool due to its high cost of operation. This shows that majority of the respondents Agreed that Management tend to shy away from the use of corporate planning as a tool due to its high cost of operation in their organization.
Table 14: corporate planning significantly affect organizational productivity
Table 14 shows that 47.9% of the respondents Strongly Agreed, 41.5 % Agreed, 6.4% can’t decided, 3.2% Disagreed, while 1.1% Strongly Disagree that Corporate planning significantly affect organizational productivity. This shows that majority of the respondents Agreed that Corporate planning significantly affect organizational productivity in their organization.
Table 15: Correlates of leadership empowerment (authority, training, confidence, responsibility, technology, reasonable autonomy resources) etc influence corporate planning
Table 15 shows that 27.7% of the respondents Strongly Agreed, 57.4 % Agreed, 10.6% can’t decided, 3.2% Disagreed, while 1.1% Strongly Disagree that Correlates of leadership empowerment (authority, training, confidence, responsibility, technology, reasonable autonomy resources) influence corporate planning. This shows that majority of the respondents Agreed Correlates of leadership empowerment (authority, training, confidence, responsibility, technology, reasonable autonomy resources) influence corporate planning in their organization.
Table 16: corporate planning is not a basis for control in an organization
Table 16 shows that 35.1% of the respondents Strongly Agreed, 53.2% Agreed, 6.4% can’t decided, while 5.3% Disagreed that corporate planning is not a basis for control in an organization. This shows that majority of the respondents Agreed that corporate planning is not a basis for control in an organization.
Table 17: my organization gives priority to planning programme
Table 17 shows that 45.7% of the respondents Strongly Agreed, 44.7 % Agreed, 4.3% can’t decided, 3.2% Disagreed, while 2.1% Strongly Disagree that organization gives priority to planning programme. This shows that majority of the respondents Agreed that their organization gives priority to planning programme.
Table 18: planning improves managerial functions especially in goal formulation
Table 18 shows that 71.3% of the respondents Strongly Agreed, 24.5% Agreed, 3.2% can’t decided, while 1.1% Strongly Disagreed that planning improves managerial functions especially in goal formulation. This shows that majority of the respondents Agreed that their planning improves managerial functions especially in goal formulation.
Table 19: planning enhances organization’s relationship towards its mission
Table 19 shows that 51.1% of the respondents Strongly Agreed, 45.7% Agreed, 1.1% can’t decided, while 2.1% Disagreed that planning enhances organization’s relationship towards its mission. This shows that majority of the respondents Agreed that their planning enhances organization’s relationship towards its mission.
Table 20: past experience help more than formal planning
Table 20 shows that 47.9% of the respondents Strongly Agreed, 42.6% Agreed, while 9.6% can’t decided, that past experience help more than formal planning. This shows that majority of the respondents Agreed that their past experience help more than formal planning.
Table 21: the employees of this organization are usually sent for training on effective planning programme
Table 21 shows that 48.9% of the respondents Strongly Agreed, 43.6% Agreed, 5.3% can’t decided, while 2.1% Disagreed that the employees of their organization are usually sent for training on effective planning programme. This shows that majority of the respondents Agreed that their organization sent them for training on effective planning programme.
Table 22: corporate planning is related to profit performance of an organization
Table 22 shows that 52.1% of the respondents Strongly Agreed, 42.6 % Agreed, 1.1% can’t decided, 3.2% Disagreed, while 1.1% Strongly Disagree that corporate planning is related to profit performance of an organization. This shows that majority of the respondents Agreed that corporate planning is related to profit performance of an organization.
Table 23: If corporate planning is related to organization turnover
Table 23 shows that 42.6% of the respondents Strongly Agreed, 51.1% Agreed, 5.3% can’t decided, while 1.1% Disagreed that corporate planning is related to organization turnover. This shows that majority of the respondents Agreed that corporate planning is related to organization turnover.
Table 24: There is a significant relationship between corporate planning and strategic planning
Table 24 shows that 31.9% of the respondents Strongly Agreed, 64.9% Agreed, 1.1% can’t decided, while 2.1% Disagreed that there is a significant relationship between corporate planning and strategic planning. This shows that majority of the respondents Agreed that there is a significant relationship between corporate planning and strategic planning.
Table 25: culture and types of decision influence an institutional/organizational context to enable effective corporate planning
Table 25 shows that 28.7% of the respondents Strongly Agreed, 61.7% Agreed, 7.4% can’t decided, while 2.1% Disagreed that culture and types of decision influence an institutional/organizational context to enable effective corporate planning. This shows that majority of the respondents Agreed that culture and types of decision influence an institutional/organizational context to enable effective corporate planning.
Table 26: corporate planning can affect financial performance, employee, clients, customers, environment and other stakeholders on small business
Table 26 shows that 28.7% of the respondents Strongly Agreed, 64.9% Agreed, 3.2% can’t decided, 2.1% Disagreed, while 1.1% Strongly Disagree that corporate planning can affect financial performance, employee, clients, customers, environment and other stakeholders on small business. This shows that majority of the respondents Agreed that corporate planning can affect financial performance, employee, clients, customers, environment and other stakeholders on small business.
4.2TEST OF HYPOTHESIS
Ho1: There is no significant relationship between corporate planning and organization performance
Ho2: There is significant relationship between corporate planning and organization performance
Result: Table 27 shows the results of the Chi-square analysis of research hypothesis one, it is discovered that the Chi-square calculated cal value of 96.213 is greater than Chi-square tabulated tab value of 3.841 at one degree of freedom and significant level of 0.05. Based on this result, the null hypothesis (Ho) is rejected while the alternative hypothesis (H1) that “There is significant relationship between corporate planning and organization performance” is hereby accepted.
These findings are expected and are consistent with other studies conducted in the West and other industrialized nations (Nakata and Nakehiro 2002; Stedham and Yamamura 2000; Stedham 2000; Lumpkin & Tudor 1990). Results are also relatively consistent with the Nigerian managerial environment. Environment Results of the mean comparison and Pvalue-test between corporate and organizational performance indicate that corporate planning is highly significant.
Correlation results also show insignificant relationship exists between corporate planning and employee performance, while significant relationship exists between corporate planning and profit performance.
Corporate planning is synonymous to planning and objective attainment.
These variables could influence modalities for planning in an organization.
The test of hypotheses indicates that there is a statistical association between corporate planning and employee performance. Also:
There is a statistical association between corporate planning and employee performance.
Education was significant in explaining corporate planning and organizational performance. There were more literate people amongst the respondents in Cadbury plc.
From the respondents ’bio data, it shows that 64% of them are senior staff and 54% are junior staffs. 61% are male while 59% are female.
19.2% of respondents have spent between 1-5 years in the organization, 28.2% of them spent 6-10 years, 24% have spent 11-20 years and 22% of respondents have spent between 21-30 years.
SUMMARY OF FINDING, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter encapsulates the summary of all the preceding chapters in the study (including the findings.), the recommendations and the conclusion. Their steady impressive growth in the quite of many others with interrupted debit balance generated the concern for investigation and corporate planning was found to be the magic.
5.1. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The study examined the issue critically in the light of prevailing less developed economic environment and considered the following issues.
There is a relationship between corporate planning and organizational effectiveness in their organization
Planning is very important for ensuring smooth coordination and objective attainment in their organization
Management tends to shy away from the use of corporate planning as a tool due to its high cost of operation in their organization.
Corporate planning significantly affects organizational productivity in their organization.
Planning improves managerial functions especially in goal formulation
planning enhances organization’s relationship towards its mission
Corporate planning is related to profit performance of an organization
Planning has been discovered to be a function that has no substitute, it is so fundamental to the survival; growth and profitability of the organization that is worth its salt or intend to be worth, it salt faithfully embark on it. It is also necessary for organizations that has come to market to stay and survive and does not intend to be a passive and manipulative variable m the economic environment is conducive and competitive for them but failed to appropriated this and capitalize on it.
The owner's managers were contended with short run returns and Pseudo confidence. It was not long before they faced the consequence of their negligence and complacency and become historical date in statistics.
Moreover, some organizations that claimed to have it do really understood its technicalities. What most organizations call corporate plans is more than operational planning, but corporate planning is more than this, it is a formal systematic managerial process, organized by responsibility, time and information to ensure that operational planning, project planning and strategic planning are carried out regularly to enable management direct and control the further of the enterprise.
Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation and Nigeria Security Printing and Minting Company? Others have basically been habitual failures and losers. These organizations do not plan and base their operation on committee reports, studies and examinations. The recent government or current government have changed the operational autonomy and efficiency of these organizations, it is also hope that they would soon embrace the ethics of corporate planning. These long-range plans allow organization to make decision with reasonable margin for the unpredictable occurrence and specific allowance for risk.
At the national level, there is comprehensive or development planning which is an effort by government to accelerate the pace of economic development in the Country. It aims among several others to enlarge the productive base on the economy, develop the infrastructure base and produce the conducive environment for the company wide planning of individual companies.
Corporate planning aids successfully effectively and efficient discharge of other managerial function that make up the process. Organizing is done in line with the corporate planning. The resources are being organized to carry out the task and objectives as enumerated in the corporate plan leading or directing is guided by corporate planning and lastly controlling which is a means of checking up in order to make sure that performance is what is wanted and that results are satisfactory is based on planning.
This corporate plan results are evaluated in order to asses and regulate work in progress and complete. Therefore corporate planning is very effective to the successful and efficient accomplishment of management process.
The responses obtained from the respondents shoed that corporate planning process and implementation are being embarked upon with grate zeal and not be treated with levity. Managers should have a planning policy which will spell out both the short and long term plan of the organization. This enable them to achieve the target set. The workers contributions are being recognized by the management and adequately motivated. This undoubtedly is accountable for their stability and operational efficiency. The following recommendations are made for improving effectiveness and efficiency in organizations.
The operational managers should adhere to the ethics of management and ensure sound relationship between the top-level managers and managed worker.
There should be mutual cooperation between the workers and the management in order to ensure effective performance. Communication through unit leads should be made more effective.
The process can be improved upon the encouraging staff with more incentives.
The opinions of the junior workers should be continually sought an also incorporate members at all level, for easy realization of corporate planning objectives.
The process should also be made more participative. More emphasis should be placed on environment and resources analyses in future exercise.
Interpretation: The above result is an indication that corporate planning is significantly predicted organization performance.
5.4 Suggestions for Future Research
Future research can be designed to overcome the limitations encountered in the current the research. The following are some guidelines for further research in the area of strategic management in nonprofit organizations.
To get better understanding of corporate planning practices, the future study needs to incorporate some additional variables and be examined for cross industries, private sector, non-profit organizations, and small medium enterprises.
Future research needs to consider strategy content and additional constructs such as vertical integration and operating environment
Further research can examine and analyze the impact of different corporate planning models on improving nonprofits performance effectiveness.
Finally, another fruitful area of research would be the association between strategic planning policies and ownership structure.
Aguilar, F.J, Hamermesh, RG and Brainard, C.E. (1993). General Electric Co.: 1984, Case 385315. Harvard Business School: Boston, MA.
Armstrong, J.S. (1996), ‘The value of formal planning for strategic decisions’ StrategicManagement Journal, 7, 2, p. 183-185.
Ansoff, H.I, (1991), and Critique of Henry Mintzberg's the design school, reconsidering the basic premises of strategic management'. Strategic Management Journal 12(6): 449-462.
Ang J.S, Chua J.H, (1999). ‘Long-range planning in large United States corporations: a survey’. Long Range Planning 12(April): 99-102.
Baudura, A. (1996), Principle of behavior modification New York: Harncourt and Minister,
Boyd B.K, (1996). Strategic planning and financial performance. ‘a meta-anal performance’ Journal of Management Studies 28: 353-374.
Boyd B.K, and Reuning-Elliot E. (1998), A measurement model of strategic planning. Strategic Management Journal 19(2): 181-192.
Brouthers, K. D., Andriessen, F &Nicolaes, I. (1998). “Driving blind: Strategic decision-making in small companies”.Long Range Planning, 31(1), 130-138.
Ewing, D.W, (1996). looking around: long-range business planning. Harvard Business Review 56(4): 135-146.
Farrel and Associates (2002), Mastering Change & Planning for the Future. ‘An Introduction to the Concepts of Strategy Management and S3’
Franklin, P.W, (2011). Relationship between Strategic Planning and Nonprofit Organizational Performance. Ph.D. dissertation, Capella University, United States. Retrieved August, 2011, from Pro Quest Dissertations and Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No.3440040).
Kelmar, J.H, and Noy, S. (1990), Perceptual differences in small business strategic planning. ’Paper presented at the The Growing Small Business - Proceedings of the 5th National Small Business Conference’, Toowoomba.
Koontz, H.O, Donnell, C, and Weibrich, H. (1990), Management in broader perspective, Management of Multidisciplinary study, Tokyo Macgraw Hill Publication limited.
Mazzarol, T.(2004), Strategic management of small firms: A proposed framework for entrepreneurial ventures. ‘Paper presented at the 17th Annual SEAANZ Conference - Entrepreneurship as the way of the future’ Brisbane, Queensland.
Miller C.C, Cardinal L.B, (1998). Strategic planning and firm performance, ‘a synthesis of more than two decades of research’. Academy of Management Journal 37: 1649-1665.
Mintzberg, H. (1994), the fall and rise of strategic planning. Harvard Business Review, 72, 107-114.doi:10.1225/94107
Pearce II, J.A., Freeman, E.B. and Robinson, R.B. (1987a): The tenuous link between formal strategic planning and performance, Academy of Management Review, 12, p. 658-675.
Stone, M. M, Bigelow, B., and Crittenden, W. (1999). Research on strategic management in nonprofit organizations: Synthesis, analysis, and future directions. Administration and Society, 31(3), 378-423.
Stonehouse, G., and Pemberton, J. (2002), Strategic planning in SMEs – some empirical findings. Management Decision, 40(9), 853-861.
Stoner, C.R. (1993), Planning in small manufacturing firms, A survey. Journal of Small BusinessManagement, January, p. 34-41.
Stirling, C, Kilpatrick, S, and Orpin, P. (2011), A psychological contract perspective to the link between non-profit organizations’ management practices and volunteer sustainability. ‘Human Resource Development International’. 14(3), 321–336.
Ramanujam V, Ramanujam N, Camillus J.C, (1996), Multi objective assessment of effectiveness of strategic planning, a discriminant analysis approach. Academy of Management Journal 29(2): 347-472.
1Further research can examine and analyze the impact of different corporate planning models on improving nonprofits performance effectiveness.
Romanelli E, Tushman ME. (1994). Organizational trans formation as punctuated equilibrium. Academy of Management Journal 36