High vs Low Performance: A Comparative Study of Companies - Essay Sample

Introduction

Companies' performance could be judged by many components that result in a different interpretation of low or high performance. While some organizations perform better, others suffer from declining risks. Regarding performance, every organization has an exceptional set of situations that makes it described as either successful or unproductive. While it is possible to establish productive concepts for companies, developing scientific research that addresses the comparison of high and low performing companies is essential. The paper uses the case of Samsung as a multi-national company to represent high performing corporations and Nokia as a poorly performing firm. Further, the paper presents a comparative study on high versus low performing businesses.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

High performing businesses often focus on a few differentiating capabilities. In specific, the businesses emphasize on what they do better than other companies. Samsung focuses on elements that are essential to its competitiveness. The corporation ensures an unparalleled risk-based capitalization, constant sound operating performance, and superior risk management. Consequently, Samsung has recorded revenue growth for many years. Further, the company ensures the maintenance of strong growth (Razdan, 2017).

High performing companies often plan for growth. According to Razdan (2017), companies such as Samsung focus on growth approaches to build a competitive advantage. In specific, the companies focus on events that promote the sale of products and services to expand the earned revenue. Samsung delivers innovative communication techniques that enhance business outcomes through continuous advertising capabilities with experts in marketing and special events. On the other hand, Bouwman, Carlsson, Carlsson, & Nikou (2014) are reluctant to enter new markets. Nokia has failed severally in branding its products in the US market due to dependence on operators and contracts. Therefore, Nokia shows that low performing firms are not always ready to enter new markets or expand due to pressure from hindering factors such as politics and competitors.

Additionally, high performing companies usually finds a way of separating themselves from their competitors. A difference is that performing companies offer a sharp focus on consumers and employees. Samsung, as an example of a leading company, focuses on increasing customer loyalty through the establishment of a better employee workforce (Razdan, 2017). Low performing companies fail in strategizing how to separate from their peers. Often, such companies fail to concentrate on their employees and consumers. According to Amato (2015), about 57 % of the failing companies lack adequate measures that enable them to build good relations with employees and consumers.

High performing companies ensure that consumer alignment begins high and runs deep. According to Amato (2015), the behaviors of the management in leading organizations focus on top priorities and best approaches such as involving managers at all levels to support the successful implementation of customer-oriented services. The leadership of high performing companies aims at constructing formal strategies and setting clear goals to ensure customer satisfaction. However, in low performing industries, Bouwman et al. (2014) use the example of Nokia to show how such firms engage in complicated and unclear decision procedures.

Further, as high performing companies ensure customer satisfaction, they put more emphasis on consumer advocacy (Razdan, 2017). Samsung recognizes that satisfaction is the standard for attracting and retaining consumers. In specific, Samsung ensures its customers are highly engaged with the company events. In specific, the company values feedback from the consumers in the form of social media interactions. In the area of social media, Samsung wants its consumers to buy its products and inform their friends about it.

In high performing businesses, customer focus is driven by data. In the contemporary age of evidence-based organizational activities and big data, high performing companies use consumer insights to shape products and services as well as the strategies and decisions to be established. Regarding that, Amato (2015) suggests that high performing companies are 2.5 times more likely compared to lower-performing counterparts in the data collection process that reflects consumer satisfaction. Samsung has continuously ensured the availability of customer data to allow regular assessment of consumer experience (Razdan, 2017). On the contrary, Bouwman et al. (2014) noted that Nokia only spent a fraction of its efforts in basic research.

High performing organization has established technologies that enable the connection of customers. For Samsung's case, the company has established many technologies ranging from social media to customer relationship management (CRM). Additionally, the high performing companies ensure good use or application of technology to better link with consumers internationally. Amato (2015) suggested that 57 % of high performing firms apply the concepts of customer relationship management approximately twice the rate of lower-performing businesses. Razdan (2017) agrees by noting that Samsung has made significant investments in production technology. Bouwman et al. (2014) also claim that Nokia established the use of technologies. However, the consequential failure may be a result of inadequate implementation.

Organizations may perform poorly because of many reasons. The major companies that have experienced poor performance are characterized by unclear or undefined objectives, weak strategies, inadequate resources, and poor communication and marketing. Well-defined organizational goals and techniques are often the starting point for enhancing poor performance. Low performing companies have unclear goals leading to a lack of a necessary framework to drive organizational structure, talent management, budgeting, and strategic planning. Such features make it difficult for low performing firms to continue with quality and consistent work. Additionally, poor performing firms are associated with short-term goals that may include building a consumer base or creating the flow of cash. Contrary to that, high performing companies focus on long-term goals that often involve building a brand, profits, and market share growth. Therefore, as high performing firms obtain direction for decision-making processes and events, their counterparts rely on poor strategies that do not contribute to efficiency.

Additionally, low performing companies fail to attract and retain the resource and talent essential to keep pace with competitors. Therefore, poorly performing companies struggle to achieve results similar to or better than competitors. Consequently, low performing firms experience high turnover from lack of success and negative culture costing businesses in hiring and retaining new employees. In other words, poor-performing businesses lack commitments to support activities that contribute to the success of the organization.

High performing firms such as Samsung have established professional strategies to support its competitive advantage. Poorly performing corporations such as Nokia struggle to find a justifiable strategy for the smartphone market. Leading firms have identified the need for establishing long term strategies that focus on the customer, satisfaction, quality products, and services, as well as profit-making. Unlike low performing businesses, leading firms always aim at becoming the champion of the related industry. As such, poorly performing organizations such as Nokia should adopt strategies implemented by leading telecommunication firms to derive a competitive advantage.

References

Amato, N. (2015). Four traits of high-performing companies. Financial Management. Retrieved from http://www.fm-magazine.com/news/2015/mar/traits-of-high-performing-companies-201512040.html

Bouwman, H., Carlsson, J., Carlsson, C., & Nikou, S. (2014). How Nokia failed to nail the smartphone market. 25th European Regional Conference of the International Telecommunications Society (ITS), Brussels, Belgium, 22-25 June 2014. Research Gate.

Razdan, V. (2017). Analysis of Samsung Electronics' strategy for the period 2014-2017, and development of strategic options for growth and sustainability. Research Gate.