INTEGRATED they are also able to influence on

                         INTEGRATED
ASSIGNMENT

 

STUDENT NAME: Pratiksha Chandak

Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot

Premium Partner
From $18.00 per page
4,8 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,80
Delivery
4,90
Support
4,70
Price
Recommended Service
From $13.90 per page
4,6 / 5
4,70
Writers Experience
4,70
Delivery
4,60
Support
4,60
Price
From $20.00 per page
4,5 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,50
Delivery
4,40
Support
4,10
Price
* All Partners were chosen among 50+ writing services by our Customer Satisfaction Team

 

STUDENT NUMBER: 3620640

 

E-mail: [email protected] , [email protected]

 

COURSE: BA (Hons) International Business Management

 

MODULE: Managing and Leading SMEs And Strategic Management
Leadership

 

CASE STUDY: Widespace & Hassle.com

 

MODULE COORDINATORS: Abraham Joseph and Andreas Kyriacou

 

SUBMISSION DATE: 10th January 2018

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q1.  Compare and contrast the leadership styles of
Patrik Fagerlund and Julie Coleman (Hassle.com). To what extent, if any, can
they be described as entrepreneurial leaders?

 

 

Leadership is a attractive topic in every
organization including SMEs. The description for leadership does not bring the
same connotation to people. The reason is leadership has different practice, they
are dependent on situations and it is also a very complex thing. But usually
leaders are  present to give direction,
inspiration and to build the team with others by using their personal examples.
In order to gain assistants talent and being able to work with full capacity,
leaders should get employees involved into decision making processes. In this
case leaders’ style should be participative. With the same way they are also
able to influence on their work as one of their tasks, leaders have to define
key functions, such as planning, briefing, controlling and evaluating in order
to achieve tasks and to build team. (Adair 1990)

Adair, (1990) states that, Leaders are a certain kind
of role models for their sub-ordinates; they should exemplify those qualities,
which they expect or require from their sub-ordinates. If leader is acting as a
role model, she or he should have his or her output into a common task, that
way he or she would be leading from the front. However, it might take some time
before a person is accepted as a leader. Personally, character, knowledge and
skills in doing the functions of leadership are measures and recognized by
other personnel, before they accept a person to be a leader. Also an organization
culture influences on a leader’s behavior. There are threats also in
leadership; if one is good in one level, it does not guarantee that one is good
also in some other levels says Adair (1990). Leadership requires unlimited
effort and energy; it is far more demanding than most people presume. In
addition to define leadership Gardner (1990) mentioned that, “Leaders come in
many forms, with many styles and diverse qualities”.

After studying different definitions of leadership
Gary (2006) highlights one definition of House et al, 1999 that “Leadership is
the ability of an individual to influence motivation and enable others to
contribute towards the effectiveness and success of the organization”.

There are different
leadership styles & traits that every person has. Leadership style is the manner and
approach of providing direction, implementing plans, and motivating people. As
seen by the employees, it includes the total pattern of explicit and implicit
actions performed by their leader (Newstrom, Davis, 1993). The first major
study of leadership styles was performed by Kurt Lewin in 1939 who led a group
of researchers to identify different styles of leadership (Lewin, Lippit,
White, 1939). This early study has remained quite influential as it established
the three major leadership styles: (U.S. Army, 1973): 

 

Autocratic Leadership This
style is used when leaders tell their employees what they want done and how
they want it accomplished, without getting the advice of their followers. Some
of the appropriate conditions to use this style is when you have all the
information to solve the problem, you are short on time, and/or your employees
are well motivated. Some people
tend to think of this style as a vehicle for yelling, using demeaning language,
and leading by threats. This is not the authoritarian style, rather it is an
abusive, unprofessional style called “bossing people around.” It has absolutely
no place in a leader’s repertoire. The
authoritarian style should normally only be used on rare occasions. If you have
the time and want to gain more commitment and motivation from your employees,
then you should use the participative style.

Participative or democratic Leadership is where the leader
includes one or more employees in the decision making process, but the leader
normally maintains the final decision making authority. This style involves the
leader including one or more employees in the decision making process
(determining what to do and how to do it). However, the leader maintains the
final decision making authority. Using this style is not a sign of weakness,
rather it is a sign of strength that your employees will respect. This is normally used when you have
part of the information, and your employees have other parts. A leader is not
expected to know everything—this is why you employ knowledgeable and skilled
people. Using this style is of mutual benefit as it allows them to become part
of the team and allows you to make better decisions. Even if you have all the answers,
gaining different perspectives and diversity of opinions normally provide greater
creativity than insularity.As Katherine Phillips wrote, “So as you think about diversity and
its effects in organizations during this tough economic time, recognize that
the most robust practical value of diversity is that it challenges everyone in
an organization. We are more thoughtful, and we recognize and utilize more of
the information that we have at our disposal, when diversity is present. That
is diversity’s true value.”

Delegative or laissez-fair Leadership is where the leader
allows the employees to make the decisions, however, the leader is still
responsible for the decisions that are made. In this style, the leader allows
the employees to make the decisions. However, the leader is still responsible
for the decisions that are made. This is used when employees are able to
analyze the situation and determine what needs to be done and how to do it. You
cannot do everything! You must set priorities and delegate certain tasks. This
is not a style to use so that you can blame others when things go wrong, rather
this is a style to be used when you fully trust and have confidence in the
people below you. Do not be afraid to use it, however, use it
wisely!Laissez-faire (or lais·ser faire) is the noninterference in the affairs
of others.

Entrepreneurs don’t always make the best leaders, and
some leaders are absolutely terrible at being entrepreneurs.

The key difference between the two though is this:

Entrepreneurship is all about a set of skills and
abilities to be as self-sufficient as possible when it comes to
business. Meaning that entrepreneurship is more focused on risk-taking,
recognising opportunities, and the ability to be a self-starter.

Whereas, leadership is about effectively managing the people and resources around you. A great
leader isn’t necessarily focused on being a risk-taker, nor are they required
to be visionaries. All a leader is primarily focused on bringing people
together to execute a common goal.

You can think of is this way.

Entrepreneurs build the ship, leaders are the ones
that have to captain it.

The most successful businesspeople and industrialists
in the world have both these traits. However, you
can have one without the other.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q2. Analyse and evaluate their respective
business models,generic strategies and key resources and competencies.

 

A business
model is an intellectual illustration of a business, be it theoretical,
textual, or graphical of all core connected architectural, co-operational, and
financial provisions designed and developed by an organization presently and in
the future, as well as all core products and/or services the organization
offers, or will offer, based on these provisions that are needed to achieve its
strategic goals and objectives.

Porter’s generic strategies describe how a company pursues competitive advantage across its chosen market scope. There
are three/four generic strategies, either lower cost, differentiated, or focus. A company chooses to pursue
one of two types of competitive advantage, either via lower costs than its
competition or by differentiating itself along dimensions valued by customers to
command a higher price. A company also chooses one of two types of scope,
either focus or industry-wide, offering its product across many market
segments. The generic strategy reflects the choices made regarding both the
type of competitive advantage and the scope.

Bowmans Strategy Clock Is a model which is used
to analyse the competitive position of the company in relation or comparison to
its rivals or competitors.

 

 

 

 

A value chain is a high-level model developed by Michael Porter
used to describe the process by which businesses receive raw materials, add value to the raw
materials through various processes to create a finished product, and then sell
that end product to customers. Companies conduct value-chain analysis by
looking at every production step required to create a product and identifying
ways to increase the efficiency of the chain. The overall goal is to deliver
maximum value for the least possible total cost and create a competitive advantage.

Key competencies are
specific qualities that an organizations recruiters have decided are desirable
for workers to possess. During interviews and assessment procedures, they are
used as benchmarks that appraisers use to rate and evaluate candidates.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q3.Via the use of the cultural web framework
identify the cultural paradigm for both organizations and assess the role
played by their respective cultures in their ultimate success.

Organizational culture is a system
of common assumptions, values, and beliefs, which administrates how people
behave in organizations. These shared values have a strong effect on the people
in the organization and dictate how they dress, act, and perform their work.
Every organization develops and upholds a unique culture, which offers strategies
and restrictions for the behavior of the members of the organization.
Organizational culture consists of an organization’s philosophy, values,
experiences and expectations from its employees. It is also known as corporate
culture.

The cultural web is a demonstration of the taken-for-granted
assumptions, or paradigm, of an organization and the physical manifestations of
organizational culture. The routine behaviours that members of the organization display
both internally and towards those outside the organization make up ‘the way we
do things around here’ on a day-to-day basis. It may provide a distinctive organizational
competence, but can also represent a taken-for-grantedness that can be
difficult to change. The rituals of the organizational life are particular activities
or special events through which the organization emphasizes what is
particularly important and reinforces ‘the way we do things around here’. The
stories told by members of the organization to each other, to outsiders, etc,
embed the present in its organizational history and also highlight important
events and personalities. They tend to cover successes, disasters, heroes,
villains and mavericks. Symbols such as logos, offices, cars and titles can be
a shorthand representation of the nature of the organization. Power structures
are also likely to influence the key assumptions. The most powerful groupings
are likely to be closely associated with the core assumptions and beliefs. The
control systems, measurements and reward systems emphasize what is important to
monitor in the organization. Reward systems are important influences on
behaviours, but can also prove to be a barrier to success of new strategies.
Organizational structure is likely to reflect power and show important roles
and relationships. Formal, hierarchical, mechanistic structures may emphasize
that strategy is the province of top managers and everyone else is ‘working to
orders’. Highly devolved structures may signify that collaboration is less
important than competition, for example. The paradigm of the organization
encapsulates and reinforces the behaviours observed in the other elements of
the cultural web.

 

 

 

Q4. Explain the motives of:

a) Hassle’s founding team in selling the company to
Helping on July 2015?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

b) Helping in acquiring
Hassle.

 

Mergers and acquisitions
(M&A) is the area of corporate finances, management and strategy dealing
with purchasing and/or joining with other companies. In a merger, two
organizations join forces to become a new business, usually with a new name.
Because the companies involved are typically of similar size and stature, the
term “merger of equals” is sometimes used.

In an acquisition, on the
other hand, one business buys a second and generally smaller company which may
be absorbed into the parent organization or run as a subsidiary. A company
under consideration by another organization for a merger or acquisition is
sometimes referred to as the target. 

 

  Hassle.com was in the midst of raising more
funding, following a $6
million Series A round announced just
over a year ago, when Helpling swooped in with an offer to acquire the London
startup wholesale.In a recent video interview with Tech.eu, Hassle.com co-founder
and CEO Alex Depledge put up fighting words, saying that she
didn’t feel threatened by Rocket Internet’s entry into the on-demand home
cleaner market with Helpling, and noting how their strategies fundamentally
differed.But ultimately, Rocket Internet’s deep pockets and the opportunity to
dominate this space in Europe led Depledge and co to sell their company to
Helpling to tackle things together.Helpling certainly has the funds to make
these moves: it has raised just south of €60 million from Lakestar, Mangrove
Capital, Rocket Internet and other investors.Also a factor: in the US, there’s
consolidation brewing with a
pending merger of Handy and Homejoy (which Helpling coincidentally also tried to acquire at one point), so Helpling’s move is
meant to undermine its American rival’s plans to attack Europe before they’re
well underway.It remains unclear whether Hassle.com will live on as a brand, but we
understand its co-founders have committed to staying on board for the time
being.

Update
2: the acquisition has
now been officially confirmed:These complementary strengths of Helpling and Hassle.com will
allow the company to further expand its leadership position in Europe. Together
Helpling and Hassle.com will operate in 14 markets holding
strategic cities such as London, Berlin and Paris. Over the next months, the
company will deploy substantial capital to increase its leadership position
with a clear focus on organic growth.”And with regards to the fates of the
brand and the founders:”Hassle.com will continue to operate under its
established brand. The founding team of Hassle.com will take on additional
responsibilities within the group as global co-founders. Alex Depledge will
assume CEO responsibilities for English-speaking markets, Jules Coleman will
become group CPO and Tom Nimmo will lead the Hassle.com platform as CTO. Accel Partners will
join the board of investors of Helpling.”

 

Hassle.com,
the UK cleaning platform ranked sixth in the 2015 Startups 100 index, has been
acquired by German competitor Helping in a move to create the “clear leader”
for bookable household services.Launched in January 2013 by Growing Business Young Guns Alex Depledge, Jules Coleman and Tom Nimmo,
Hassle.com allows you to find, book and pay for a local, trusted cleaner via
its website – charging a flat rate of £10 for every hour of cleaning.It had
grown to 45 employees and recently expanded into two European cities, supported
by $6m investment from venture capital firm Accel Partners.Its purchase by
Berlin-based Helpling will enable the company to expand further in Europe –
with Helpling having already launched operations in 14 countries – with the
goal to become the “world’s biggest” home cleaning marketplace.Helping, which
offers a comparable service to Hassle, was founded by Rocket Internet, Benedikt
Franke and Philip Huffman in January 2014 and has raised over €56.5m in
investment to date with recent launches in Singapore and the UAE. The deal will
see Hassle continue to operate under its established brand with Depledge,
Coleman and Nimmo taking on roles as ‘global co-founders’ with Accel Partners
joining Helpling’s board of investors.Hassle’s Depledge, who recently
hinted at an acquisition, commented: “It is no secret that
Helpling moves fast. Their ability to scale and raise money is impressive.
This, combined with our ability to build depth in market and user loyalty,
means that together we are a force to be reckoned with.”Our goal from the
beginning has always been to become a global domestic cleaning brand. This
strategic move takes us significantly closer to that goal.”Helpling co-founder,
Franke, continued:”Hassle.com is not only the market leader in the UK and
Ireland, it also has a very sophisticated technology and has built a brand that
people associate with trust, quality and safety.”This partnership combines
Hassle.com’s expertise with Helpling’s international footprint and access to
capital. It creates a very exciting global proposition and makes our combined
company the strongest player in this space”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q5.  Critically
evaluate the developmental strategies pursued by widespace and helping,
indicating how latter’s developmental strategies differ from Hassle.

 

The Ansoff Growth matrix is another marketing
planning tool that helps a business determine its product and market growth
strategy.Ansoff’s
product/market growth matrix suggests that a business’ attempts to grow depend
on whether it markets new or existing products in new or existing markets. The
output from the Ansoff product/market matrix is a series of suggested growth
strategies which set the direction for the business strategy. These are
described below:

Market
penetration

Market
penetration is the name given to a growth strategy where the business focuses
on selling existing products into existing markets.

Market
penetration seeks to achieve four main objectives:

Maintain
or increase the market share of current products – this can be achieved by
a combination of competitive pricing strategies, advertising, sales
promotion and perhaps more resources dedicated to personal selling
Secure
dominance of growth markets
Restructure
a mature market by driving out competitors; this would require a much more
aggressive promotional campaign, supported by a pricing strategy designed
to make the market unattractive for competitors
Increase
usage by existing customers – for example by introducing loyalty schemes

A market penetration marketing strategy
is very much about “business as usual”. The business is focusing on markets and
products it knows well. It is likely to have good information on competitors
and on customer needs. It is unlikely, therefore, that this strategy will
require much investment in new market research.

Market development

Market development is the name given to
a growth strategy where the business seeks to sell its existing products into
new markets.There are many possible ways of approaching this strategy,
including:

New
geographical markets; for example exporting the product to a new country
New
product dimensions or packaging: for example
New
distribution channels (e.g. moving from selling via retail to selling
using e-commerce and mail order)
Different
pricing policies to attract different customers or create new market
segments

Market development is a more risky
strategy than market penetration because of the targeting of new markets.

Product development

Product development is the name given
to a growth strategy where a business aims to introduce new products into
existing markets. This strategy may require the development of new competencies
and requires the business to develop modified products which can appeal to existing
markets.

A strategy of product development is
particularly suitable for a business where the product needs to be
differentiated in order to remain competitive. A successful product development
strategy places the marketing emphasis on:

Research
& development and innovation
Detailed
insights into customer needs (and how they change)
Being
first to market

Diversification

Diversification is the name given to
the growth strategy where a business markets new products in new markets.

This is an inherently more risk
strategy because the business is moving into markets in which it has little or
no experience.

For a business
to adopt a diversification strategy, therefore, it must have a clear idea about
what it expects to gain from the strategy and an honest assessment of the
risks. However, for the right balance between risk and reward, a marketing
strategy of diversification can be highly rewarding.