Case ID: 910M12     Author: Dennis Walter    Subject: Human Resource Management Price $ 45

Lundbeck Korea Case Study Analysis

Solution ID: 10272     Words: 2077

Lundbeck Korea Case Abstract

In 2005, the VP of Lundbeck, which is a Danish native central nervous system (CNS) pharmaceutical company, needed to determine how to strategize for Lundbeck Korea - the subsidiary that showed the highest potential. Over the short period, since it came into operation - steered by the country manager and the Asian regional manager, the Korean subsidiary had achieved more than its introductory goals and had developed further. The VP wanted t would o formulate a reporting system and managerial team that would create a connection between the Korean local demand that would lead to the growth of the subsidiary and the strategy followed by Lundbeck for skill-focused development, speed, integration, and results. While its emphasis lay on Lundbeck Korea, the case also sheds light on the struggles that Lundbeck underwent in the process of globalization in Asia since the last two decades. Throughout that period, the company has expanded from arranging for licenses only to grounding its national subsidiaries. This case brings forward the pragmatic and forceful issues that arise between utilizing local managerial knowledge and implementing a corporate plan of action that has been chalked out for the core global company. Furthermore, it demonstrates not only the significance but also the problems that arise when one is sensitive to local managerial aims and styles whilst in the process of implementing an international corporate culture. Download Lundbeck Korea Case Study Analysis in Word Doc, Ppt or in PDF file with excel solution.

Lundbeck Korea Case Excel Calculations

Lundbeck Korea Case Questions Answers

What type of organizational structure would best fit Lundbeck Korea? Why?

How do Anderson, Jun and Rajar each understand the situation? What are the strengths and weaknesses of their positions?

What are the opportunities and threats in either changing or staying on course?

How should any change (or decision not to change) be managed for the good of all parties?

What is the trade-off between local sensitivities and promoting a global corporate culture?