Marks and Spencer used to be structured under a Functional or U-Form design which works by breaking the company into departments like operations, marketing, finance, human resources, and research and development. This design works well with smaller companies but with bigger companies there is too much information for the top manager to handle and deal with. This is exactly what happened to Marks and Spencer. In 1991, Sir Richard Greenbury took over Marks and Spencer for seven years and structured the company to fit the Functional design. He made the company very aristocratic and rigid where by “Head office knows best” (The Economist). This created an atmosphere where by the company focused on their products instead of focusing on their customers. Although Marks and Spencer grew and made huge profits within this time, in 1998 their profits fell very quickly and sharply. Marks and Spencer closed a chain of stores which they owned in Canada and rumours were spreading that they would also close two chains of stores which they owned in the United States. The combination of Marks and Spencer’s quick expansions and the aristocratic rule had definite visible implications on Marks and Spencer’s well-being. The combination of Marks and Spencer’s aristocratic rule and structure just couldn’t handle everything that was going on. Another one of Marks and Spencer’s weaknesses stemmed from their heavy reliance on inside promotions. The company would hire college students and have them work their way up the ladder. Very rarely did the company hire outside candidate for senior positions. This prevented outside innovations from coming into the organisation. Reformed StructureIn 1998 Marks and Spencer needed to do something drastic because it was losing out on its market share and their reputation was going down the tubes. The company decided it was time to restructure. The new structure of Marks an...
