Watson Engine Components and H&M Consulting - Case Study Example

A critical and comparative analysis of Watson Engine Components and H&M Consulting with respect to how the both organizations operate and manage itself It is interesting to note right at the beginning of the analysis that both organizations have evolved from two distinctive backgrounds leading up to their present day business operations. While Watson Engine Components was formed as an independent family owned business, the formation of H&M Consulting was a result of a tactical business merger of two consulting firms in the year 1989. Thus it is understandable that both the business operations would have certain differences in their approach and outlook towards working. To what extent and in what specificity the businesses differ would be analysed in a critical and comparative way in the next parts of this report. Understanding the structural and design differences of the organizations. The importance of an organization’s structure is not only in defining the firm’s formal reporting relationships, procedures, authority, control and decision making process but it also works effectively as a tool of implementing strategy. The organizational structure plays an important part in defining how the work is done and by whom it is done, how managers work and also define the accountability of individuals within the organization (Hitt et. al, 2009). Various organizations can implement different forms of organizational structure in accordance to their strategic goals and objectives. The major types of structure that are widely used across most organizations can be put into 4 categories: The Functional Structure, The Divisional Structure, The Matrix Structure and the Horizontally linked structure. The functional structure groups people of similar set of skills together under a department managed by an individual having knowledge of such skills. The Divisional Structure is rather concerned with putting together a group with similar abilities required for various works or departments across the organization. The Matrix structure brings together a group of people from an already existing department to work in another function where their set of skills may be useful, besides working in their pre designated department. Under the Horizontally linked structure the organizations group its workers depending upon the activity and processes it puts in place to offer its services (Wheelen & Hunger, 2010). Putting together the understanding of the above theories of organizational structure and looking at the two organizations of the case study, a distinct difference can be seen of how both organizations are set up and working. Watson Engine Components looks to be working on a stricter approach of the Functional Structure whereas H&M Consulting is inclined more towards a Matrix Structure. However one can also argue that while catering to different projects with different set of skills through a networked structure it implements more than a single organizational structure to enhance its performance. This thought is also put forward by C.W. Fontaine who says that often organizations with tens of thousands of people, implement different organizational structures to benefit different parts of the organization. (Fontaine, 2007) The criticality of such structural differences It is not only important to understand what differences lie between two organizations, but is also important to fully evaluate why such difference exist and what are the resulting effects on both. In the case of Watson Engine Components, the impact of being formed as a family business has probably played a decisive role in setting the organization structure and working policies. More so the business operates within a single type of production and engages a substantial level of blue-collar workers who are highly unionised. These issues probably have not escalated in a single day but working over a period of time under a certain structure has definitely made the organization heavily hierarchical. This coupled with lack of communication between employers and employee has resulted in high levels of power distance within the organization. But on the other hand, H&M Consulting is seen to be enjoying a high level of employee participation in management that is aligned to the organization’s mission. A high level of highly skilled and well-qualified employees could also be one of the factors behind H&M being able to implement strategy well through its structure. Employees understand their roles within the structure and have managers who are well coordinated and well communicated in either ways of the structure that helps the organization deliver on its goals and deadlines. This however should not be a reflection that functional structure is not a successful organizational strategy to implement. The possible reason for Watson Engine Components being in operational difficulty can be due to how they operated under that structure, keeping power concentrated on few hands, overlooking employee ideas and having lesser accountability of individual work. The importance of teams and team working Modern day science and technology has evolved and upgraded so much that it is has become difficult for one brain to grasp it all. It takes bigger and greater efforts in groups to generate big ideas and put them into implementation. This, organizations have realized and hence they have started putting more and more emphasis on groups, team working, cohesiveness and inter personal relationships (Larson & LaFasto, 1989). The perception of organizations towards teams has also changed. Teams are now considered cross-functional, cross cultural and even virtual who hold tremendous importance to the success of organizations (Parker, 2008). However success is not guaranteed just by creating teams of a certain number of people. The effectiveness of a team is highly dependent upon the focus of team members on their objectives and regular reviews of the team and its method of working. At the same time it is also necessary to understand that teams are composed of individuals who are possibly different from each other and have varied social, emotional and human needs. Thus it becomes important to choose the right members for a team that could work together and look out for each other in times of crisis (West, 2003). Such importance towards teams and individuals is evidently visible from the work culture of H&M Consulting. It is promoting learning and development amongst its employees to achieve professional excellence and has its core missions set in such order that it does not overlook employee satisfaction and fulfilment. This evidently means that the company is concerned about keeping its employees motivated and wants to retain its manpower for longer periods of time. In the case of Watson Electrical Components, although there is proper segregation of teams and each knows its role, there seems a lack of co-ordination between the teams. Employees seem less motivated and there happens to be a strong level of attrition, that too over skills that are in shortage. What is right for one and where is the wrong for the other? Evidently it appears that while one firm seems to be doing the right things, the other firm seems to be in a difficult position due to some wrong decisions or rather lack of right decisions. H&M seems to have its employees motivated, enjoys professional excellence and delivers on time and is amongst the top 20 firms. It’s more than just co incidence or luck that the organization is doing all the right things. It means the management is clear about the future goals and objectives, it has the right managers in place doing the right things and most importantly the company has implemented the proper strategies through properly recruited people for achieving success. They have successfully aligned the organization’s goals to the employee’s and the result is showing. But on the other hand, where did Watson Electrical Components go wrong? One can say that maybe the family’s intention to maintain hierarchy within the business led to such a situation where the power got concentrated among a few hands. There is negligence on the part of authorities as some employees are over worked and some are under worked. Suggestions and ideas of a certain manager are being overlooked over a long period of time. Interaction is not being encouraged amongst employees or teams and neither is there any mention of training programs being put into place for enhancement of skills of employees. Inter department liaison is done through directors which hampers communication and interaction and there are lack of effective communication channels between the various business functions as well. Not exactly the best of places the organization has created to work in. Leadership and Management The concept of management, though relatively new, has evolved to become a very important criterion for all organization. It not only helps organizations to do things in a better way but also helps in focussing on various aspects of the business through proper planning and making proper utilization of its resources. It defines the structure of control within an organization, whether centralized or de-centralized. It helps organizations focus on its core areas, developing employees and their skills and also leadership qualities (Drucker, 1997). Management is not about having power and ordering employees to perform tasks but it involves a broader area of not only making sure the work is done but also making sure that the employees are motivated towards doing their work without any wastage of resources. Proper Management requires organizations to have the right leaders and right resources for the leaders to work with (Gold et. al). All the above can be seen in the case of H&M Consulting, where they have put in place a management process that defines every bit of work within the organization. Employees are put in autonomous groups to be able to deliver on professional excellence by taking real time decisions. The leaders are well connected to employees via proper communication channels and employee empowerment is encouraged. H&M puts in place a core set of values, which is aimed not only towards business goals but also focuses on quality, respect and ethical behaviour in work. Watson Engine components, on the other hand seem to have come to a position of lack of proper management. There, is a high level of attrition, organization is struggling to get new order and even supply on current orders. There is an upcoming change in top management and even middle level managers are open to shifting job in case of a better offer. This clearly indicated that somewhere the organization has failed to implement proper managerial techniques and also failed in the process of leadership, let alone develops it. The Issues that matter Not only is there a lack of proper management within Watson Engine Components but the managers seem to be distanced from organizational goals and difficulties. The HR manager passes on the blame for high absenteeism to respective supervisors citing motivation issues, the top leader is more interested in moving in to his new house and the one who is going to take over is concerned more with gaining the authority. Lack of practice of employee participation has resulted in authorities being concentrated amongst a few hands who have started taking things for granted. Lack of dynamism in foreseeing future and not being proactive has had its effect on Watson Engine Components, which is now faced with the situation of unfinished work and simultaneously a shortage of workers. This is very much different in the case of H&M consulting who faces no such grave threats as faced by Watson Engine Components. H&M is focussed on moving ahead with their performance excellence and business strategies however Watson Engine Components have to focus on resolving their internal struggle with managing if they are to work towards working as an engine component supplier in the future. The fact that H&M Consulting has expanded its operations to more than 120 counties with above 13000 in man power while Watson Engine Components face grave threats from competitors as well as internal attrition shows how better and effective H&M’s management activities has been. The Effects of Organization Culture and its Consequences The work culture of any organization is a key element to how the organization works and how it is perceived to work from the outer world. The culture of an organization has become a very interesting topic of study among academics as it can vary greatly not only between geographical borders but also between different business verticals and dimension (Black, 2003). One of the earliest and most pioneered studies on organization culture by Geert Hofstede defined the differences in 5 parameters: Power Distance, Individualism, Gender Difference, Uncertainty Avoidance and Long term Orientation. These differences are not only a reflection of the differences in national culture but are also a representation of differences in strategic approaches of businesses in different spheres of work. He also went on to describe and relate how each difference affected the working of an organization and how difficulties could arrive for organizations when dealing with other organizations with different culture (Hofstede, 1984). Over the years the organization culture has expanded to a sphere of study that academic feel defines the way employees behave within an organization and how inter-personal relationships phase out within a certain framework. Often organization work culture is an object of attraction for employees to work within a certain organization. The better the work culture, more are the possibilities for that organization to have happy and motivated employees towards delivering their best. The existing work culture tends to be a big factor for evaluation of organizations, especially for most female employees whose priorities include a safer and healthier work culture. In the case study it is very much evident that H&M Consulting has a far superior work culture as compared to Watson Engine Components. The difference can be seen in areas such as Worker’s Participation in Management, team working, leadership capabilities and even employee services. The differences in Culture of both Organizations Power Distance and Masculinity seem to be the biggest differences in culture between the two organizations. Structurally where H&M Consulting has allowed autonomous groups and teams to cater to professional excellence, power distance is huge between the employees of Watson Engine Components. The culture there seems to let the top level acquire all the power and lets the middle and lower level to work under strict guidelines, and in doing so, the organization has come to a position where individual concerns are more important that the organizational perspective. Employees do not align themselves to organizational objective and it is resulting in high levels of attrition. Watson Engine Components also seems to have a more masculine work culture, as women employee’s complaints of topless pictures of women are put to deaf ears and passed away as considering it a bit of fun for male employees. Even the HR Manager seems to neglect the concern of the female employees that leads to the simple conclusion that the organization’s culture is predominantly male oriented. Such issues are grave concerns for organizations as it may eventually escalate to issues of harassment of female employees at work. The fact that such concerns are being ignored also brings forth the mentality of manages who hold power and may think that they can decide and implement decisions of their choice without being answerable to anyone. Such has eventually led to Watson Engine Components’ hierarchy suffering from lack of accountability. It should look at H&M Consulting who have put together an healthy working culture and environment for its employees through proper communicative channels, employee empowerment, delegation of authority and proper accountability. Conclusive Summary This case study is an apt example of how organizations can differ from each other in areas of structure, management, working, culture and leadership. It shows how big a difference can exist between the organization’s successes if the above-mentioned areas are not properly looked after. It brings forth the fact that an organization’s success is not only dependent on it employees but a large amount of importance should also be give on how organizations treat their employees. Watson Engine Components are struggling because they have not been proactive about the dynamism of the future and they are still expecting to continue their business operations on a strict hierarchy. They have given no importance to newer concepts of employee management and business strategies, which is eventually making them more vulnerable to failure and lesser business opportunities. The distinctive difference with H&M Consulting is in the way they have approached their business. H&M Consulting has created a proper framework for its operations, clearly defining the organizational objectives, vision and mission and its core set of values which it expects each of its employees to follow. This is a much more sophisticated method of management with emphasis on the relevant areas of that are crucial to its success. It promotes learning, allows empowerment, encourages and develops leadership, has an unbiased approach to all it employees which has resulted in employees being motivated towards their work and aligning themselves to the overall organizational objective. Professional excellence has been promoted and employees work towards achieving the benchmark standards that has resulted in the organization being among the top 20 firms to work in UK. References Black, R. (2003). Organizational Culture. USA: Universal Publishers. Bush, T. (2003). Theories of Educational Leadership and Management. London: Sage Publications. Drucker, P. F. (1997). Management: Tasks, Responsiblities and Practices. Oxford: Butterworth-Heineman. Fontaine, C. W. (2007). Organization Structure: A Critical factor for Organizational Effectiveness and Employee Satisfaction. USA: North Eastern University. Gold, J., Thorpe, R., & Mumford, A. (2010). Handbook of Leadership and Management Development. England: Gower Publishing Company. Hitt, M. A. (2009). Strategic Management. USA: Cengage learning. Hofstede, G. (1984). Cultures Consequences. London: Sage Publications. Larson, C. E., & laFasto, F. M. (1989). Team Work. London: Sage Publications. Mabey, C., & Lees, T. F. (2008). Management & Leadership Development. London: Sage Publications. West, M. A. (2003). Effective Team Work: Practical Lessons from Organization Research. UK: Blackwell Publishing. Wheelen, T. I., & Hnger, D. (2010). Strategic Management & Business Polcy. India: Pearson Prentice Hall. Read More