Polaris company
Defining the stages at which Polaris achieved an impressive success in promoting its products to the target audience, one must mention the fact that the company broke new grounds in the scale of the facilities that it was going to provide.
Indeed, when considering the impact that the company made on the very concept of a publicly traded company, one will have to agree that Polaris’s breaking ground “on a 77,000-square-foot plastic injection molding facility” (Stotts, Shrader & DeMarie, 2010) did set the bar for the rest of the companies quite high.
As far as the companies mistakes are concerned, the competition with the Japanese motorcycles should be mentioned. It would have been better for the company to come up with a unique design that would help the audience distinguish the product among the rest of brands.
One could argue, however, that these were not the scale and impressiveness of the changes made to the image of a publicly traded company that made Polaris famous, but the decisive and rather risky decision to expand into the global market (Polaris global review, n. d.). The failure to incorporate the latest technologies into the design of the new motorcycle, in its turn, can be viewed as the next most significant defeat.
Corporate Governance Mechanisms: Examples
With the advent of globalization and the emergence of the global market, the need for a range of enterprises to expand has emerged. A company is capable of not only improving its production process and attracting more customers with the help of expanding its business and acquiring new companies, but also integrate a better insurance system into its financial framework, thus, creating a more reliable insurance strategy to rely on.
As a result, the need for the corporate governance as the tool for supervising the work of different affiliates of the company emerges. However, the corporate governance process is fraught with a range of difficulties, the key one being finding the balance between a loose coordination of the actions taken in the affiliates and a strict supervision, which does not allow the company’s departments to have enough room for making local financial decisions.
Locating the point of balance between the two extremes is very complicated, and only few companies have succeeded in this task. Among these companies, Google, Apple and General Motors must be mentioned (Google’s stock split irks governance experts, but is the right move, 2012). It is remarkable that each of the companies has conjured a unique approach towards executing the corporate governance.
For example, Apple prefers to put the satisfaction of its stakeholders at the top of its priorities list. Google focuses on the significance of acquisitions, and GM prefers executing its influence through the committee of directors, who choose the avenues to address specific issues.
Creating a board of members, who are responsible for making the decisions that define the further course of the company’s development is a rather good idea, since a range of economic, financial and political factors must be evaluated to pass the judgment regarding a specific situation.
One must admit, though, that the approach undertaken by Apple, where the concepts of laissez-faire leadership are acceptable, the most adequate method of corporate governance. Since evaluating the factors necessary to make a decision for a specific department is practically impossible for the company’s headquarters, it is most reasonable to leave minor decisions to the heads of the affiliates
Reference List
Google’s stock split irks governance experts, but is the right move (2012). Web.
Polaris global review. Web.
Stotts, M. L., Shrader, C. B., & DeMarie, S. M. (2010). Victory: the new American motorcycle celebrates its first decade on the road. Web.