| Course | LDR-4220 Leadership in a Global Environment |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 3 |
| Paper type | Module 3 case study: the organizational challenge |
| Length | About 554 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Thomas Edison State University |
| Program | Bachelor of Science in Organizational Leadership |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for LDR 4220 Module 3
Redrawing the Map Is Not Enough: Procter and Gamble's Organization 2005 and the Global Matrix
Student Name
Bachelor of Science in Organizational Leadership, Thomas Edison State University
LDR-4220: Leadership in a Global Environment
Mentor Name
Month Day, Year
Redrawing the Map Is Not Enough: Procter and Gamble's Organization 2005 and the Global Matrix
Introduction
Bartlett and Beamish (2011) describe the organizational challenge of the transnational company as building an organization that can balance global efficiency, local responsiveness and learning. Many companies tried to solve this with formal matrix structures in which managers report to both a product and a geographic boss. Bartlett and Ghoshal (1990) argued that such structures often fail because companies change their organization charts without changing the attitudes and relationships that make a matrix work.
The Case
In 1999 Procter and Gamble began a reorganization called Organization 2005. For decades the company had been organized largely by country, with country managers controlling products, marketing and profits in their markets. The new structure created global business units organized by product category, such as fabric care and baby care, with responsibility for product development and profits worldwide, and market development organizations organized by region, responsible for selling to retailers and adapting marketing to local conditions. Shared services handled functions such as accounting and IT globally. The goal was faster innovation and quicker global launches. The reorganization coincided with a period of missed earnings targets and a falling share price, and Durk Jager, the chief executive who led it, left in 2000 after about eighteen months in the role. His successor, A. G. Lafley, kept the new structure but focused the company on its core brands and on making the structure work.
Why Structure Was Not Enough
The reorganization moved thousands of people and changed reporting lines across the company at the same time it launched new products. Managers who had controlled their markets now shared authority, and many were unsure who decided what. Bartlett and Ghoshal (1990) warned that a matrix creates dual reporting, conflict and confusion unless managers share a common vision, trust one another and have processes for resolving disagreements. They argued that companies should build the matrix in managers' minds before building it on the chart. Organization 2005 changed the chart quickly and the minds slowly.
Making the Structure Work
Under Lafley, the company kept the global business units and market development organizations but invested in the processes and relationships that made them work: clearer decision rights between the two sides, joint planning between category and regional leaders and a renewed emphasis on consumer understanding. Galbraith (2000) argued that global organizations must design not only structure but also processes, rewards and people practices that support it. The later stability of P&G's structure suggests the design was sound but its introduction was too abrupt.
Lessons for Leaders
First, structure is a tool, not a solution; capability lies in processes and relationships. Second, the pace of change matters: changing everything at once overwhelmed the organization's capacity to adapt. Third, leaders must clarify who decides what, because dual reporting without clear decision rights produces conflict and delay. Fourth, a new leader can preserve a sound design while fixing how it was implemented.
Conclusion
Organization 2005 aimed at the right goal, an organization able to innovate globally while serving local markets, but it relied too heavily on redrawing the organization chart. Its early troubles confirm Bartlett and Ghoshal's warning that a matrix must be built in managers' minds first, and its later recovery shows what investing in processes and relationships can accomplish.
References
Bartlett, C. A., & Beamish, P. W. (2011). Transnational management: Text, cases, and readings in cross-border management (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1990). Matrix management: Not a structure, a frame of mind. Harvard Business Review, 68(4), 138-145.
Galbraith, J. R. (2000). Designing the global corporation. Jossey-Bass.
What the LDR 4220 Module 3 instructions ask for
The third case study addresses the organizational challenge of global management. Expect to analyze how a company structured itself to meet global strategic demands, including matrix or hybrid structures, and why structural change succeeded or struggled. Use concepts from the readings on structure, processes and organizational capability. Focus on the reasons behind the outcome, such as decision rights, pace of change and culture, rather than on the structure itself. End with lessons for leaders responsible for global organizations. Reorganizations are well documented in the business press and in case collections; use those sources, and the textbook's chapters on organizational capability, to explain what happened. Be careful with dates, titles and causes, and avoid attributing a company's results to a single decision.
Inside the LDR 4220 Module 3 example
The paper opens with the organizational challenge and the classic warning about matrix structures. A section summarizes the reorganization, its timing and the change of chief executive. A section uses the matrix argument to explain why the structure caused disruption. A section shows how the company later made the structure work, supported by research on designing global organizations. The paper ends with four lessons and a conclusion that connects the early troubles to the later recovery. The analysis keeps the formal structure and the processes behind it separate, which is the module's central distinction. The later stabilization is included so the case is not judged only by its troubled start. Each lesson is stated as something a leader can do differently.
LDR 4220 Module 3 rubric: what earns full marks
The reorganization case is graded on getting the facts right, using organizational design concepts correctly and explaining causes rather than listing events. Papers that distinguish formal structure from the processes and culture that make it work show understanding of the module's central idea. Explaining both the initial difficulty and the later stabilization demonstrates balanced judgment. Lessons that address pace, decision rights and capability connect the case to the leader's role. Mentors also value a paper that explains organizational concepts in plain language, such as what dual reporting means for a marketing manager in one country. Accurate citation of Bartlett and Ghoshal's article on matrix management, and of research on organizational design, supports the analysis.
LDR 4220 Module 3 help: mistakes that cost marks
Students lose points by describing a structure without explaining its effects, by blaming one person for an organizational outcome or by ignoring what happened after the initial change. Others misstate dates or titles. Explain what the structure was meant to achieve. Use the readings to explain why it struggled. Follow the case to its later stage. Check facts against reliable sources. Do not assume a structure failed because results fell; separate the effects of the reorganization from those of the market and of other decisions made at the same time. Show how the company changed course. A free first sample on your own LDR-4220 Module 3 case study is available on request.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Thomas Edison State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More LDR 4220 and Bachelor of Science in Organizational Leadership sample papers
- LDR 4220 Module 1: Case Study: McDonald's in India and the Pull of Local Markets
- LDR 4220 Module 2: Case Study: Netflix's Leap to 190 Countries and the Transnational Strategy
- LDR 4220 Module 4: Case Study: Carlos Ghosn at Nissan and the Global Leader's Mindset
- MAN 3760 Module 2: Application Paper: Three Theories, One Station Manager
- MAN 4150 Module 2: Diagnosis and Resistance Written Assignment
- LDR 3240 Module 1: Application Paper: Tubman and Shackleton as Leaders of Followers
- LDR 4350 Module 2: Module Paper: Midpoint Report on the Onboarding Project
LDR 4220 Module 3 questions, answered
Where can I find a free LDR 4220 Module 3 sample paper?
Procter and Gamble's Organization 2005 reorganization, analyzed through matrix management, is the case study above.
What is a matrix structure?
An organization in which managers report to two bosses, typically one for a product and one for a geography or function.
Why do matrix structures often struggle?
Dual reporting creates conflict and confusion unless managers share a vision, trust each other and have clear decision processes.
What did Bartlett and Ghoshal advise about matrices?
To build the matrix in managers' minds, their attitudes and relationships, before building it on the organization chart.
What was Organization 2005?
Procter and Gamble's 1999 reorganization into global business units, market development organizations and shared services.