The Concept of Work Improvement - Case Study Example

Organisational Behaviour and Negotiation Name: Institute: Detailed Comparison between Work Design and Performance Appraisal Papers Introduction The globalization concept as highlighted in work design paper has had extraordinary significance on worker expectations as well as priorities of the organization. Without doubt, I concur that the globalization wherein they progressively more operate in. A critical reflection of Walton (2000) paper, highlights changes in the place of work thanks to globalization, and dispersed fables on implementation of work design. Unlike Walton (2000) paper in work design paper, which is mainly based on Work Innovations, Oberg’s (1972) paper in performance appraisal paper is more fascinating and enlightening with regard to performance appraisal. Even though I concur with almost all concepts presented in Work design and performance appraisal papers, a number of points counter my viewpoint, and so I will present a number of recommendations for improvement with regard to performance appraisal. Discussion The concept of ‘work improvement as mentioned in work design paper connotes the nature of work life, work restructuring or merely work design. Therefore, I tend to believe that the work nature within an organizational environment, do not inevitably connote the same thing. Evidently, Walton (2000) offer a comparatively little attention to the way in which the broader occupational and organizational context can have an effect on work design as highlighted in Morgeson et al. (2010) study. This is regrettable given that enormous bodies of literature such as that of Morgeson et al. (2010) have established that work roles are susceptible to a range of related elements, which points out that context is helpful in either constraining or enabling development of work design facets. The context as mentioned by Morgeson et al. (2010) can have an effect on the relationships between diverse results as well as features of work design, given that certain contexts could reward or support different personal needs and behaviors. Walton (2000) fails to elaborate how the relationship between context and work design can take up various likely forms: for instance, contexts that heighten the work design positive effects on individual outcomes, contexts that support more positive features of work design, or Morgeson et al. (2010) discussed contexts that boost the adverse effects of poor work design. Considering Walton’s (2000) analysis of work design, the missing analysis of occupational context concept makes it hard to comprehend the consequential type of context that illustrates the broader organizational setting that employees carry out their work with the common objective of realizing their individual benefits, such as rewards as mentioned in Oberg’s (1972)paper. On the contrary, whereas the work context concept may have deepened Walton’s (2000) analysis, it is apparent that he utilised only three contextual factors in his analysis: the effect of organizational structure, technical systems, as well as organizational climate on work design. This connotes that in spite of avoiding utilizing the phrase context; Walton accredited the conceptual effect of context in the outcomes of work design. As indirectly mentioned by Winston’s (1972), employees have varied expectations of work design, and so people will time and again exhibit differences in their expectation and preferences on the structures of work. As clearly stated in the performance appraisal paper, organizations together with the management must concentrate on training managers on how to successfully make use of performance appraisals. This as indicated by Oberg’s (1972) can be achieved through setting clear goals that are in line with actual practice in attempt to improve organizational behavior and performance. As much as we all agree with Oberg’s (1972) sentiments that performance appraisal is still a significant tool for success of any organization, we should also concur that it has been disappointing and ineffective in a number of instances. Oberg (1972)further points out that the main reasons why performance appraisals become unsuccessful is for the reason that organizations often choose generally from a broad array of appraisal methods devoid of thinking about which method is suitable for a certain appraisal objective. Basically, methods of, performance appraisal have their own mixture of benefits and shortcomings. Performance appraisal paper presents a clear explanation on how to make use of different methods of performance appraisal for certain goals interchangeably; this piece of information is exceedingly enlightening. I concur that for managers to supervise their workers more closely as well as to train successfully the critical incident appraisal method is ideal for this reason. But still, I do not agree with Winston assertion that when supervisors become skilled of performance standards they can be in a position to do away with bias. Bearing in mind that critical incident method is slow, hence more challenging to improve its definite implementation. Oberg’s (1972) failed to theoretically prove how performance standards need the input of both workers and the managers so as to successfully develop standards that are mutual, attainable, and measurable, and which exemplify the behavior of the organization. However, unlike Watson (2000), Oberg’s (1972) paper presents clear-cut recommendations such as motivating workers through providing feedback on their performance so as to improve productivity. Conclusion In conclusion, the two articles work design and performance appraisal article are fascinating and enlightening, and from my reflective analysis, I concur with the concept of making use of various performance appraisal techniques for certain appraisal goals. As argued in the performance appraisal article this will allow managers to steer clear of the common drawbacks found in all appraisal method by integrating their strengths to function well in the best organizational objective or situation. Even so, this single-handedly does not assure the efficiency and success of a performance appraisal program. With regard to work design paper, arguments such as Walton (2000) failure to elaborate the contextual facet of their use and rather, concentrating on differentiating them is somewhat informative. As argued in the paper, work designs offer basic way through which persons can accomplish their role needs or satisfy their necessities as they bring changes that are facilitative in the accomplishment of worker and organisation’s expectations. Suggestion presents such as Walton must have utilised the context concept to act as the base of his work design aspects are worthwhile. References Morgeson, F. P., Dierdorff, E. C., & Hmurovic, J. L. (2010). Work design in situ: Understanding the role of occupational and organizational context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2-3), 351–360. Oberg, W. (1972). Make performance appraisal relevant. Harvard Business Review, 50(1), 61-67. Walton, R. (2000). Work innovations in the United States. Harvard Business»`. Review, 57, 88-98. Read More