|
留学生课程作业SWOT分析写作参考-戴姆勒-克莱斯勒合并+SWOT分析。本文是一篇留学生SWOT Analysis写作范文，主要内容是讲述长期以来，并购一直是企业发展的一种既定形式，旨在提高企业在一系列领域的实力。是一篇符合国外大学课程作业格式要求的范文。 戴姆勒（Daimler）和克莱斯勒（Chrysler）合并背后的逻辑显而易见，纽鲍尔（Neubauer）等人详细阐述了这将有可能使该公司成为国际汽车巨头，而不仅仅是欧洲大陆的汽车巨头。此外，两家公司都认为，从长远来看，它们各自规模太小，无法在全球范围内发起挑战。克莱斯勒同意合并，并相信合并将带来更大的繁荣。1998年，戴姆勒斥资380亿美元以横向合并的方式收购了克莱斯勒。留学生课程作业提出这种强大合并的优势是巨大的，Gaughan认为合并的主要好处是协同效应、价值创造和竞争优势。迪士尼和皮克斯的合并象征着这些好处，巴恩斯表示，自2006年以来，迪士尼的股票在2008年上涨了28%，收入流继续大幅增长。这两家公司采取了统一的方法，利用他们的专业知识来提高产品质量。1988年，戴姆勒在全球排名第17位，克莱斯勒在全球排名第25位，合并无疑将提升合并后公司的价值，同时也将利用规模经济，使公司实现利润最大化，增加股票价值。整体的总和预计将大于两部分。该合并被称为“平等合并”，两家公司的专业知识将结合在一起，打造出高质量的适销对路产品。下面是留学生课程作业SWOT分析写作范文的全部内容，供参考。 
Mergers and acquisitions have long been an established form of corporate development to increase the strength of a business in an array of areas. The logic behind the Daimler and Chrysler merger was obvious, with Neubauer et al (2000) elaborating that it would potentially make the company an automobile powerhouse internationally and not just in mainland Europe. Furthermore, both companies felt that they were individually too small to challenge on a global scale in the long term. Chrysler were in agreement and believed the merger would generate enhanced prosperity. In 1998 Daimler paid $38 billion to takeover Chrysler in a horizontal merger (The Economist, 2000). The advantages of such a formidable merger are massive, with Gaughan (2007) believing that the primary benefits of a merger are synergy, value creation and competitive advantage. The merger of Disney and Pixar has symbolised these benefits with Barnes (2008) indicating that since 2006 Disney’s stock rose by 28% in 2008 and revenue streams have continued to increase substantially. The two firm’s adopted a united approach, utilizing their expertise to increase the quality of their products. With Daimler ranked 17th and Chrysler 25th globally in 1988, the amalgamation would undoubtedly boost the value of the combined company, whilst also exploiting economies of scale which would allow the company to maximise profits, increasing share value. The sum of the whole was anticipated to be greater than the two parts. The merger was claimed to be a ‘merger of equals’ where the expertise and knowledge of the two companies would be combined to forge high quality marketable products. In reality this was not the case with Daimler thrusting their authority over Chrysler by installing German executives into senior positions within Chrysler. The scale of the failure of the DaimlerChrysler merger was illustrated when Daimler sold Chrysler to Cerberus for $7.8 billion in 2007, an astounding loss on what they had invested for Chrysler. Jensen and Ruback (1983. P.43) stated that “on average target shares increase in price from 16% to 30% around the date of the tender offer”. This does offer reasoning for why Daimler incurred such a loss. However, the issues are much more complex than this simple explanation. Jensen and Ruback (1983) believed such direct action was critical for corporate control. Sudarsanam and Mahate’s (2006) research would support this claim as they identified that hostile takeovers in nature tended to produce higher returns than a friendly takeover. From this aspect such a strong action was recommendable to achieve control. Johnson and Scholes (2000) believed a SWOT analysis was an effective method isolating the opportunities gained from a merger. Indeed such an analysis portrayed that the merger would allow massive market power growth, value creation and competitive advantage. A SWOT analysis in regards to the merger has been created below to illustrate the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the merger.
事实上，戴姆勒通过在克莱斯勒内部安排德国高管担任高级职位，将其权力强加给了克莱斯勒，但情况并非如此。2007年，戴姆勒以78亿美元将克莱斯勒出售给Cerberus，说明了戴姆勒-克莱斯勒合并失败的规模，这是他们对克莱斯勒投资的巨大损失。Jensen和Ruback指出，“平均而言，目标股票的价格在要约收购之日左右从16%上涨到30%”。这确实为戴姆勒遭受如此损失提供了理由。然而，这些问题比这个简单的解释要复杂得多。Jensen和Ruback认为，这种直接行动对公司控制至关重要。Sudarsanam和Mahate的研究将支持这一说法，因为他们发现，实质上敌意收购往往比友好收购产生更高的回报。从这一方面来看，建议采取如此有力的行动来实现控制。Johnson和Scholes认为SWOT分析是一种有效的方法，可以隔离从合并中获得的机会。事实上，这样的分析表明，合并将带来巨大的市场力量增长、价值创造和竞争优势。下文对合并进行了SWOT分析，以说明合并的优势、劣势、机会和威胁。
Daimler and Chrysler Merger SWOT Analysis 戴姆勒和克莱斯勒合并的SWOT分析
Strengths 优势
Savings through economies of scale 通过规模经济节约
Large corporate brands 大型企业品牌
Increased capital strength 增加资本实力
Competitive advantage through size 通过规模获得竞争优势
Weaknesses 劣势
Difficult to control and direct such a large organisation 难以控制和指挥如此庞大的组织
Two diverse cultures (European & American) to infuse 要注入两种不同的文化（欧洲和美国）
Different customer bases 不同的客户群
Opportunities 机会
Entry into new markets (Particularly Asia) and market expansion 进入新市场（尤其是亚洲）和市场扩张
Innovation through combined expertise 通过综合专业知识进行创新
Potential to become a dominant market leader 成为主导市场领导者的潜力
Threats 风险
Such a large merger can be high risk to the existence of both companies 如此大规模的合并可能给两家公司的存在带来高风险
Newly formed DaimlerChrysler lacks any corporate identity, customers may not align with it 新成立的戴姆勒-克莱斯勒缺乏任何企业身份，客户可能不会认同
Cultural Differences 文化差异
Matsumoto (1996, p.16) defined culture by stating that “culture is the set of attitudes, values, beliefs and behaviours shared by a group of people, but different for each individual, communicated from one generation to the next”. In contrast to the thought of Jensen and Ruback (1983) the ousting of management violated the long established culture within Chrysler, which in turn was the catalyst for the cataclysmic failure that was the DaimlerChrysler merger (Neubauer et al, 2000). Employees resisted the European style which caused great conflict and tension between the two organisations. Incidentally, this compromised the communication process, resulting in poor products and disappointing sales in relation to the size of the merger. Pritchett (1997, p.7) identified “a failure rate of 61% in acquisition programs, with failure defined as not earning a significant return”. This was very much the case for DaimlerChrysler, with the BBC (2000) reporting a record low share price of $42.79 from a high of $108 in 2000 for the company. Just two years into the merger performance was plummeting. The BBC (2000) also revealed that in contrast the ‘merger of equals’ the Daimler chairman, Jurgen Schrempp actually viewed Chrysler as a division of Daimler and not as a partnership. As eluded to above, Schrempp directed Chrysler as a European company by replacing Jim Holden, the Chrysler president with Dieter Zetsche. Forcing this European style programme of change was greatly contested and fuelled disengagement from staff at Chrysler. Through Schein’s (2010) theory of ‘The Organisational Iceberg’ it is clear to isolate culture as an area which can be one of the most challenging barriers to introducing change. Schein (2010) attributed culture as part of the informal organisation which influences values, beliefs and conflict. If this is not confronted then attempt to integrate change will become extremely difficult (Senior and Swailes, 2000). Gertsen et al (1998) proposed that this fierce resistance to change was due to the fact that employees emphasise cultural differences to demonstrate their distinctiveness and social identity.
松本对文化的定义是：“文化是一群人所共有的、但每个人都不同的态度、价值观、信仰和行为的集合，由一代人传播到下一代”。与Jensen和Ruback的想法相反，管理层的罢免违反了克莱斯勒内部长期确立的文化，而这反过来又是戴姆勒-克莱斯勒合并这一灾难性失败的催化剂。员工抵制欧洲风格，这在两个组织之间造成了巨大的冲突和紧张。顺便说一句，这损害了沟通过程，导致产品质量差，与合并规模相比，销售额令人失望。Pritchett确定“采办项目的失败率为61%，失败被定义为没有获得显著回报”。戴姆勒-克莱斯勒的情况就是如此，英国广播公司报道称，该公司的股价从2000年108美元的高点跌至创纪录的低点42.79美元。合并仅仅两年，业绩就直线下降。BBC还透露，与戴姆勒董事长“平等合并”相反，Jurgen Schrempp实际上将克莱斯勒视为戴姆勒的一个部门，而不是合伙企业。正如上文所述，施雷姆普通过用迪特尔·泽奇取代克莱斯勒总裁吉姆·霍尔顿，将克莱斯勒定位为一家欧洲公司。迫使这一欧洲式的变革计划受到了极大的质疑，并加剧了与克莱斯勒员工的脱节。通过Schein的“组织冰山”理论，很明显将文化隔离为一个领域，这可能是引入变革最具挑战性的障碍之一。Schein认为文化是影响价值观、信仰和冲突的非正式组织的一部分。如果不正视这一点，那么整合变革的尝试将变得极其困难。Gertsen等人提出，这种对变革的强烈抵制是由于员工强调文化差异以展示其独特性和社会身份。
Hofstede’s (2002) ‘Cultural Dimensions Theory’ found that culture within different organisations was influenced by which country they resided in. He developed the dimensions of national cultures which consisted of the power distance index, individualism versus collectivism, uncertainty avoidance index, masculinity vs femininity, long term orientation versus short term orientation and indulgence versus restraint. Hofstede (2002) found that these dimensions all varied in organisations depending on what their national identity was. From this it is clear to appreciate the huge problem of attempting to amalgamate a European and an American culture as there are so many variables. Daimler was very rigid and bureaucratic with Chrysler in contrast being much more informal. Daimler and Chrysler by their very cultures were incompatible, stressing the need for an effective change management programme. Haslam and Ellemers (2005) believed that there was positive correlation between the level of employee’s social identification towards the organisation and performance. It is apparent that a key reason for DaimlerChrysler’s drop in share price in 2000 was due to many of Chrysler’s employees seeing little association with themselves and their counterparts of Daimler. The companies in isolation varied in so many ways. For instance Daimler had a brand image of being a high end luxury brand while Chrysler was a low end cars and trucks manufacturer. These contrasts meant defining the very identity of the merger was plagued by paradox’s which meant both employees and customers failed to connect to DaimlerChrysler. Daimler had instilled a great emphasis on the operational and business synergies of the merger, seemingly ignoring the implications of culture.
霍夫斯泰德“文化维度理论”发现，不同组织内的文化受其所在国家的影响。他提出了民族文化的维度，包括权力距离指数、个人主义与集体主义、不确定性回避指数、男性气质与女性气质、长期取向与短期取向以及放纵与克制。Hofstede发现，这些维度在组织中都有所不同，这取决于他们的国家身份。从这一点可以清楚地看出，试图融合欧美文化是一个巨大的问题，因为有太多的变量。相比之下，戴姆勒对克莱斯勒的态度非常僵化和官僚作风，更为不拘一格。戴姆勒和克莱斯勒在文化上是不相容的，强调需要一个有效的变革管理计划。Haslam和Ellemers认为，员工对组织的社会认同程度与绩效呈正相关。很明显，2000年戴姆勒-克莱斯勒股价下跌的一个关键原因是，许多克莱斯勒员工认为自己与戴姆勒的同行几乎没有什么关联。孤立的公司在很多方面都有所不同。例如，戴姆勒的品牌形象是高端奢侈品牌，而克莱斯勒是低端轿车和卡车制造商。这些对比意味着，定义合并的身份本身就受到悖论的困扰，悖论意味着员工和客户都无法与戴姆勒克莱斯勒建立联系。戴姆勒一直强调并购的运营和业务协同效应，似乎忽视了文化的影响。
Human Resource Management 人力资源管理
The investment decision is one that is integral to any success of the allocation of capital by a company. Pike et al (2012) stated that the “investment decision is the decision to commit the firm’s financial and other resources to a particular course of action”. With culture being the predominant factor of the DaimlerChrysler merger’s demise, the HRM policies of the chairman at any given time were equally responsible. Daimler had envisioned lucrative rises in profit yet they failed to invest in a strategic human resource management process which would introduce the desired change in an effective manner (Gaughan, 2005). Schuler and Jackson (2001, p.239) attributed the importance of HRM to the interpretation that “companies today need to be fast growing, efficient, profitable, flexible, adaptable, future ready and have a dominant market position”. HRM is critical to implementing these factors which the DaimlerChrysler merger had lacked greatly, providing evidence as to why in the 21st century specifically that they crumbled. The transition of management and integration must be done in a systematic and people orientated approach (Schuler and Jackson, 2001). The HR issues associated with mergers can be categorised into two unique phases;
投资决策是公司资本配置成功的关键。Pike等人表示，“投资决定是将公司的财务和其他资源投入到特定行动过程中的决定”。由于文化是戴姆勒-克莱斯勒合并失败的主导因素，董事长在任何时候的人力资源管理政策都同样重要。戴姆勒曾设想利润会有利可图的增长，但他们未能投资于战略人力资源管理流程，该流程将有效地引入预期的变革。Schuler和Jackson将人力资源管理的重要性归因于这样一种解释：“今天的公司需要快速增长、高效、盈利、灵活、适应性强、为未来做好准备，并拥有主导市场地位”。人力资源管理对于实施戴姆勒-克莱斯勒合并中严重缺乏的这些因素至关重要，这为为什么在21世纪它们会崩溃提供了证据。管理和整合的过渡必须以系统和以人为本的方式进行。与合并相关的人力资源问题可分为两个独特的阶段；
Pre-Merger: Involves an analysis of the cultural differences and other issues such as the impact on employee morale. This stage reinforces the need for human resource planning as such an analysis would demonstrate major challenge. Solutions to such difficulties would be to modify the recruitment and development process whilst introducing specific appraisal systems. The protracted difficulties would be allocated an effective change management plan by the HRM department. However, Daimler critically undervalued this crucial aspect of a potential merger, which would have long term effects as explained.
合并前：包括分析文化差异和其他问题，如对员工士气的影响。这一阶段加强了人力资源规划的必要性，因为这样的分析将显示出重大挑战。解决这些困难的办法是修改招聘和发展过程，同时引入具体的考核制度。人力资源管理部将为长期存在的困难制定有效的变革管理计划。然而，戴姆勒严重低估了潜在合并的这一关键方面，正如所解释的那样，这将产生长期影响。
Post-Merger: The reality of the impact of the merger on HR related areas is revealed at this stage. The diverse HRM practices can unsettle staff, with Chrysler’s staff resenting the European style of management, resulting in high levels of intransigence. Such emotional reaction diverts staff focus away from productivity, contributing heavily to laboured performance. The workshops devised by Daimler were not extensive enough to combat the massive cultural gap.
合并后：现阶段揭示了合并对人力资源相关领域影响的现实。不同的人力资源管理实践可能会让员工感到不安，克莱斯勒的员工对欧洲式的管理方式不满，导致高度的不妥协。这种情绪反应将员工的注意力从生产力上转移开，严重影响了员工的工作表现。戴姆勒设计的研讨会不够广泛，无法消除巨大的文化差距。
It is imperative that strategic HRM is implemented to adjust a company’s HRM strategy to that of the business strategy. For example Cisco has a culture constructed around risk taking and ambition. If they find that a protracted merger does not embody these values then they will refuse to force their culture on to a company, abandoning the prospect of the merger, such is the scale of problems which culture can present. There was also serious contemplation of separate headquarters such was the dismal level of communication between the two firms. Directions need to be from a centralised power source who is respected with Handy (1993) suggesting that this was the ideal way to assume control and maintain effective decision making. Chrysler’s flat structure when compared to Daimler’s hierarchical structure made it extremely difficult to initiate any HRM directives as both companies had different ways of doing so. The post-merger stage caused unprecedented difficulties for the merger as a result of little pre-merger analysis being undertaken. The cross-cultural differences were allowed to manifest into a massive concern with both Schrempp and Zetsche underperforming in their roles as chairmen of the merger. They distinctly did not commit their resources to developing training programmes which would have aided the alignment of Chrysler’s staff to that of the overall vision of Daimler.
实施战略性人力资源管理是为了将公司的人力资源管理战略调整为业务战略。例如，思科有一种围绕冒险和雄心壮志构建的文化。如果他们发现长期的合并没有体现这些价值观，那么他们将拒绝将自己的文化强加给一家公司，放弃合并的前景，这就是文化可能带来的问题的规模。也有人认真考虑设立单独的总部，这就是两家公司之间令人沮丧的沟通水平。方向需要来自中央电源，Handy认为这是承担控制和维持有效决策的理想方式。与戴姆勒的层级结构相比，克莱斯勒的扁平结构使得启动任何人力资源管理指令极其困难，因为两家公司的方式不同。由于很少进行合并前分析，合并后阶段给合并带来了前所未有的困难。跨文化差异被允许表现为对Schrempp和Zetsche作为合并主席表现不佳的巨大担忧。他们显然没有将资源投入到制定培训计划上，这些计划本可以帮助克莱斯勒员工与戴姆勒的整体愿景保持一致。
Tannenbaum and Yukl (1992) firmly contested that staff training was an area which should be reviewed regularly to ensure staff are being trained in accordance with the strategy of this business. Daimler did initiate HRM policies, but there was a lacking in depth. Regular staff appraisals and cross cultural learning days would have been methods of narrowing the gap between culture (Tannenbaum and Yukl, 1992).
Tannenbaum和Yukl坚决反对员工培训是一个应定期审查的领域，以确保员工按照该业务的战略接受培训。戴姆勒确实启动了人力资源管理政策，但缺乏深度。定期员工评估和跨文化学习日本来是缩小文化差距的方法。
Conclusion 结论
From analysing the development and subsequent failure of the DaimlerChrysler merger it is abundantly clear that HRM’s involvement in the change management process is integral. To overcome cultural issues, a tailored strategic HRM policy must be implemented such is the formidability of cultural factors. Daimler failed to realise just how potent the resistance of change can be and that as explained, originates from the informal structure of a company. It is undeniable that the Daimler and Chrysler merger had the potential to dominate the automobile industry due to their individually established size and profit margins. However, it was a mammoth failing as the two companies in reality were never able to amalgamate into a single corporate identity. AOL and Time Warner was a similar failing with the $164 billion deal eventually resulting in Warner’s stock diving by 80% (Bewkes, 2010). AOL’s problem was that they did not anticipate that wireless internet and other relevant technology would revolutionise the broadband industry. They failed just like Daimler to analyse their threats and assess whether such a merger was of value. The Daimler and Chrysler merger was only a failure because Daimler underestimated the power that culture can forge. Strictly speaking, the merger for both companies was disastrous due to the stark culture gap, but equally so, this challenge was not managed effectively by the relevant departments. Perhaps the collapse of this huge merger can be embodied by Daimler’s chief of passenger cars, Juergen Hubbert who is quoted as saying “we have a clear understanding: one company, one vision, one chairman, two cultures” (The Economist, 2000). Reference List 参考文献
Barnes, B. (2008) Disney and Pixar: The power of the prenup. The New York Times.
BBC. (2000) DaimlerChrysler shares hit new low. mistake-in-corporate-history-believes-Time-Warner-chief-Jeff-Bewkes.html
Gaughan, P.A. (2005) Mergers: What can go wrong and how to prevent it. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Gaughan, P.A. (2007) Mergers, acquisitions and corporate restructurings. 4th ed. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Gertsen, M.C., Soderberg, A.M. and Torp, J.E. (1998) Cultural dimensions of international mergers and acquisitions. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Handy, C. (1993) Understanding organizations. 4th ed. England: Penguin Books.
Haslam, S.A. and Ellemers, N. (2005) Social identity in industrial and organizational psychology: Concepts, controversies and contributions. International review of industrial and organizational psychology, 20 (1), pp.39-118.
Hofstede, G. (2002) Cultures consequences: Company values, behaviours, institutions and organizations across nations. 2nd ed. Great Britain: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Jensen, M. and Ruback, R.S. (1983) The market for corporate control: The scientific evidence. Journal of Financial Economics, 11 (4), pp.5-50.
Johnson, G. and Scholes, K. (2000) Exploring corporate strategy. Harlow: Pearson education.
Matsumoto, D. (1996) Culture and psychology. CA: Brooke/Cole.
Neubauer, F., Steger, U. and Radler, G. (2000) The Daimler/Chrysler merger: The involvement of the boards. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 8 (4), pp.375-387.
Pike, R., Neale, B. and Linsley, P.M. (2012) Corporate finance and investment: decisions and strategies. 7th ed. Great Britain: Pearson Education
Pritchett, P. (1997) After the merger: The authoritative guide for integration success. Texas: Pritchett and Associates, Inc.
Schein, E.H. (2010) Organizational culture and leadership. 4th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schuler, R and Jackson, S. (2001) HR issues and activities in mergers and acquisitions. European Management Journal, 19 (3), pp. 239-253.
Senior, B. and Swailes, S. (2000) Organizational Change. 4th ed. Edinburgh: Pearson Education Limited.
Sudarsanam, S. and Mahate, A.A. (2006) Are friendly acquisitions too bad for shareholders and managers? Long term value creation and top management turnover in hostile and friendly acquirers. British Journal of Management, 17 (1), pp.10-17.
Tannenbaum, S and Yukl, G. (1992) Training and development in work organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 43 (2), pp.339-441.
The Economist. (2000) The DaimlerChrysler emulsion. 留学生课程作业总结从分析戴姆勒-克莱斯勒合并的发展和随后的失败可以清楚地看出，人力资源管理参与变革管理过程是不可或缺的。为了克服文化问题，必须实施量身定制的战略性人力资源管理政策，这就是文化因素的可塑性。戴姆勒未能意识到变革的阻力有多大，正如所解释的那样，这种阻力源于公司的非正式结构。不可否认的是，戴姆勒和克莱斯勒的合并由于其各自确定的规模和利润率，有可能主导汽车行业。然而，这是一个巨大的失败，因为这两家公司实际上从未能够合并成一个单一的企业形象。AOL和时代华纳也同样失败，1640亿美元的交易最终导致华纳股价暴跌80%。AOL的问题是，他们没有预料到无线互联网和其他相关技术将彻底改变宽带行业。他们没有像戴姆勒一样分析他们的威胁，评估这样的合并是否有价值。戴姆勒和克莱斯勒的合并只是一个失败，因为戴姆勒低估了文化可以塑造的力量。留学生课程作业提到从严格来说，由于明显的文化差异，两家公司的合并是灾难性的，但同样如此，这一挑战没有得到相关部门的有效管理。也许这一巨大合并的失败可以体现在戴姆勒的乘用车主管Juergen Hubbert身上，他被引用说“我们有一个明确的认识：一个公司，一个愿景，一个董事长，两种文化”。 本站提供各国各专业留学生作业写作指导服务，如有需要可咨询本平台。
|
