Identification of Different Structures and Cultures within the Creative PR Company - Essay Example

?Creative PR Case Study Table of Contents Task 3 1 Identification of Different Structures and Cultures within the Company 3 2 Implication of These Structures 4 1.3 Advantages and Disadvantages of Various Structures and Cultures 5 Task 2 7 2.1 Identification of Different Approaches to Management 7 2.2 Explanation of Managerial Power, Responsibility and Delegation 7 Task 3 10 3.1 Applying Motivation Theories to Understand Results of Each System in Creative PR 10 Task 4 12 4.1 Role of Team and Team Building in Organisation 12 4.2 Applying the Role of Team and Team Building in Creative PR 13 References 15 Bibliography 18 Task 1 Creative PR is a public relation company that was established by John Williams and Caroline Brown. Eventually, Margaret Sinclair and Fred Foster also joined them to establish the organization in the market during its developmental phase. According to the case scenario, the new employees were also motivated to become all-rounders pertaining to diversified work areas in Creative PR, which indicates to an informal culture in the organisation (Morgan, 1997). To be noted, such a structure is often argued as effective in the initial or foundation period of a business, as it helps in its proper functioning even with a limited number of human resources (Williams, 2008). Having knowledge about various specialized works enabled the employees to handle different situations efficiently. Such diversity in the workplace also enables the employees to manage their operations efficiently with minimum or no dependency on departmental structures making every individual efficient enough to take care of the given responsibilities (Lunenburg, 2012; Morgan, 1997). 1.1 Identification of Different Structures and Cultures within the Company The organisational structure being followed was basically flattened and flexible in Creative PR. Each staff working within the organization developed reasonable competencies pertaining to all these key areas. In relation to the flexible organisational structure it represents the ability of an organisation to reactively embrace the change pertaining to its prevailing environment (Kirikova, n.d.). However, a theoretical perspective to the scenario revealed that due to the flattened work structure, employees used to be out of the work place for longer hours. This open structure and culture provided motivation to the employees in terms of diversified job responsibilities, but also added to perplexities within the organisational structure regarding the continuous interchange of job roles (Lunenburg, 2012; Morgan, 1997). Although the defined work culture proved beneficial in facilitating organisational development during the initial performance, considering the later challenges and need for expansion, Williams and Brown were planning to change the prevailing organisational structure and culture in a more organised manner, applying a multi-layered matrix framework (Aguilar-Saven, 2004; Miles & et. al., 1978). Subsequently, Williams and Brown decided to follow the ‘Adhocracy’ organisational culture (Lunenburg, 2012; Morgan, 1997). 1.2 Implication of These Structures In relation to the open or flattened structure, as was applied and favoured by Sinclair and Foster, the case study reflects that socially there was a close relation between the management and the staff members that contributed to the mitigation of these limitations by developing a cohesive work culture within the organisation. As per the case scenario, major clients of the company were also involved in company celebrations, which contributed to a good reputation of the firm adding efficiency to its way of operations. Clients used to participate in the parties and get impressed by the interpersonal association existing between the management and staff members gaining confidence on the employees who had continuous interaction with them. As a result of this particular organisational culture the morale of the employees were also identified to be high that further augmented the efficiency of the organisation in delivering effective services to its clientele (Lunenburg, 2012; Morgan, 1997). On the other hand, Williams and Brown planned to implement a matrix organisational structure focusing on the notion of adhocracy workplace culture. Theoretically, this type of organisational structure is basically followed to solve differentiated problems emerging within the organization. A matrix organisational structure represents a complex and dynamic managerial framework with distinctive roles and responsibilities assigned to the staff at different hierarchical levels to facilitate a systematic channelization of innovative ideas required during effective reconstruction of an organisational structure (Aguilar-Saven, 2004; Miles & et. al., 1978). Arguably, it is often acclaimed that such an organisational structure helps in obtaining better managerial control on the organisational operations, which proves to be of great aid in implementing as well as managing change within the organisational culture in its growth phase (Burns & Wholey, 1993; Smith & et. al., 1985). Based on these considerations, it can be affirmed that supposedly, the application of a matrix structure will offer the company a more systematic way of operations and management efficiency to overcome its challenges likely to be witnessed in its currently passing growth phase. 1.3 Advantages and Disadvantages of Various Structures and Cultures From a critical point of view, both the forms of organizational structure and culture are likely to have certain advantages and disadvantages to ensure better organizational functioning. For instance, Sinclair and Foster were more leaned towards the flexible form of the organisational structure. Contextually, flexibility within the organisational structure provides decent and an energetic working environment. According to Morgan (1997), organizations following the flexibility structure usually avoid unnecessary regulations and policies that are quite likely to pose a negative impact on the morale of the employees. The major aims and objectives of such type of organisational structure are commonly learnt as converting the stressful work into an entertaining rather than a stressful aspect for the employees. This accelerates the competencies and the motivational power of the employees, which ultimately affects their productivity in a positive manner. Contradictorily, too much freedom given to the employees might result in declination of their commitment pertaining to a flexible organisational structure. Moreover, without the monitoring of the supervisors, there is likely to emerge loyalty issues within such organisations (Morgan, 1997; Jones, n.d.). Again, considering the proposition of Williams and Brown, it has often been observed that organizations incorporating the adhocracy structure in a matrix form have to face challenges pertaining to risk management. As analysed, the implementation of such organisational structure do not involve any prior planning. This further leads to challenges during implementation of policies associated with the organisational objective and increases potential risks to be faced by the organisation in keeping with the client’s expectations. Conflicts, inconsistency and uncertainty are other few challenges, which the management faces when applying the adhocracy organisational structure (Morgan, 1997; Jones, n.d.). On the other hand, such a structure also assists in mitigating perplexities and challenges like inefficient use of resources to a substantial extent by formalising the workplace culture with set values and norms. Offering better control to the management, this type of organisational structure and culture rewards a more fruitful mechanism to manage organisational change, which is most required during the growth phase of the organisation (Burns & Wholey, 1993; Smith & et. al., 1985). Task 2 2.1 Identification of Different Approaches to Management In the Creative PR Case study, two different management styles are identifiable. Williams and Brown, for instance, can be observed to follow a strict and directive way of management style. Under the purview of their management style, the job responsibilities are supposed to be clearly defined. The staff members being involved in the work activities are also expected to be informed about their project handling responsibilities as well as organisation’s expectations from their productivity. According to the theoretical perspective this form of organisational structure attempted to formalise the entire operational process of the organisation based on which, Williams and Brown intended to monitor efficiently the activities of the employees (Choi, 2007; Jurgan, 2004; Gastil, 1994). On the contrary, Sinclair and Foster aimed at allowing the employees to take their own decisions and work freely with minimum monitoring. They supported the total freedom of the employee to handle their projects and clients. This management style ensures energised work activities of the employees. Moreover, under the purview of such management style, employees are observed to enjoy and have fun while working reducing stress led challenges within the workplace (Choi, 2007; Jurgan, 2004; Gastil, 1994). 2.2 Explanation of Managerial Power, Responsibility and Delegation As mentioned by Shell (2002), democratic management style represents the framework that is likely to promote sharing of the delegated responsibilities and facilitate continual consultations among employees. The basic characteristics of the democratic management styles incorporate the seeking of consultations by the managers from employees. Furthermore, in such a form of management style, the leaders effectively delegate their responsibilities amidst the employees. Another important feature of democratic leadership is that the management derives feedbacks on the outcomes related to the initiatives freely taken by the employees and the persisting working environment within the organisation. The responsibilities of the mangers pertaining to the democratic style involve open, two-way communication. Taking into consideration the role of communication as a crucial factor, it is the responsibility of the managers to maintain an accuracy and timeliness pertaining to this aspect. Moreover, it becomes notably beneficial for the mangers to derive important information from the employees and have an invisible control on the workforce (Jurgan, 2004). Correspondingly, it is the responsibility of the mangers to maintain the flow of network amidst the democratic style of management effectively. Another vital responsibility of mangers is to organise and coordinate their responsibilities as well as those bestowed on the employees accordingly. Additionally, the managers must ensure the capability of employees to comprehend a better understanding about the existing hierarchy of the entire network, its strengths along with weaknesses when following a democratic style of organisational structure (Choi, 2007; Jurgan, 2004; Gastil, 1994). A management following a democratic style principally improves the productivity and efficiency of the group resources. In order to steer the staff members voluntarily, deadlines are also designed by the management. This idea initiates the employees to put greater effort in meeting up the standard expected. However, as in common instances, a democratic organisational structure can increase chances conflict within the decision-making process, due to the involvement of employees in almost a boundary less manner, it is often considered to be one of the crucial responsibilities of the leader to frame fixed guidelines, to be unambiguously conveyed to the employees so that they are aware of their role, its significance in organisational performance and the expectations that the management has from them. Concerning the democratic leadership style, there exist certain advantages and dis-advantages. By implementing this style, a positive working environment flows within. Moreover, this style initiates creative thinking of the manager and also fosters reduction in chances for office politics. Eventually, it also reduces the risks of employee turnover. On the contrary, it poses danger pertaining to ‘Pseudo participation’. Moreover, this type of management style basically becomes lengthy. Eventually, this standard style makes it a boring process and hinders the decision-making efficiency of the company to substantial extent (Choi, 2007; Jurgan, 2004; Gastil, 1994). In consideration with the theoretical perspective authoritarian or autocratic management style, the leader retains the power and the decision-making authority. In this leadership style, while taking decisions, the manager ignores taking into consideration the employees’ suggestions and viewpoints relying on their thought process efficiencies and ideas. Furthermore, in such leadership style, the employees are strictly ordered to follow the set rules and regulations pertaining to the organisational operations. It has been ascertained that such kind of leadership style can motivate the employees by providing rewards and recognitions based on their performances. A vital characteristic of the autocratic management style is that the managers hold the sole authority and power to make decisions. Another important feature reveals that the manager are often criticised to be least concerned about their development and usually prefers to do only the given work by utilising the skills of the workforce. Application of the autocratic management style reduces the stress of the employees by accelerating their monitoring operations. Moreover, it also improves the operations pertaining to the logistic department especially, which by principle requires one-way transactions. Organisations incorporating autocratic management style ensure faster decision-making process. Nevertheless, the adverse outcomes pertaining to this particular leadership style is that the manger usually perceived lower leadership skills. Furthermore, it has been ascertained that in autocratic leadership style, the employees steadily become dependent over the managers that hinders their overall competencies and in the long-run, inhibits their motivation to work for the organisational betterment owing to their perceived lack of significance in organisational decision-making (Choi, 2007; Jurgan, 2004; Gastil, 1994). Task 3 3.1 Applying Motivation Theories to Understand Results of Each System in Creative PR As identified from the Creative PR case study, the management can be examined to have splits into two variants. Both the team of directors intend to execute their own way of management style and motivational theories. Motivations therefore act as a medium to accelerate the employee’s skills and competencies, which ultimately can ensure successful accomplishment of the desired goals (Gagne & Deci, 2005; Weiner, 1985). For instance, Williams and Brown prefer following the autocratic management style unlike Sinclair and Foster. As per the autocratic management style, the employees are intended to work under strict supervisions of their managers and follow the defined set of rules and policies. Therefore, in such a strict monitoring, motivation in the form of rewards and recognition are required to be provided to the employees so as to make them feel valued and convey organisational support in accordance to their performances. Thus, rewards based on the performance can be distributed among the employees in the form of perks and incentives. Moreover, in autocratic leadership style, promotion in the organisational hierarchy is treated as a reward based on the report of performance appraisal. Additionally, extrinsic motivational concept is also intended to be followed by Williams and Brown as per the case study facts. In extrinsic motivation, the performance is kept as the base for measuring the outcomes of operations being executed by employees both in the individual and group levels. On the other hand, in intrinsic motivation, awards are provided for excellent performance; whereas, punishments are imposed for their misbehaviour. In accordance with the case scenario under the management of Williams and Browns, the employees are therefore likely to follow set rules and policies. Illustratively, the workforce was planned to be assigned with dedicated work, which hindered the inherent skills of the employees but directed them to attain the desired outcomes (Extension Journal, Inc, 1998). As compared to the management style of Williams and Browns, the other team of Sinclair and Foster enjoys parting freedom to the workforce. In correspondence to the facts presented in the case scenario, this team usually prefers nurturing a flexible organisational structure. Concerning the flexibility of an organisation, this particular approach can ensure higher productivity and enhanced skills among individual employees. Under the management of Sinclair and Foster, the employees were allowed to take decisions of their own. As a motivational factor, whenever the project used to get over, a party was held. This party also involved clients, which offered better customer relationship advantages to the company and augmented the level of employee satisfaction to a considerable extent. Intrinsic motivational concept was applied in case of the flexible management style. The workforce used to enjoy their work as it was driven by interest. The employees were also observed as quite enthusiastic as there was no external pressure upon them and they were free to apply their skills and competencies aiming at continuous development (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Graham & Weiner, n.d.). Task 4 4.1 Role of Team and Team Building in Organisation In the contemporary scenario, the role of team and team building is non-negligible. The primary and one of the fundamental roles of a team is to ensure proper execution of organisational operations, while the managerial notion of team building focuses on developing commitment and coordination amid the team to work for common goals in the betterment of the overall organisation. Likewise, it can be argued that team and effective team building also acts as a determinant to the success potentials of any organisation (Kirkman & et. al., 2004). Correspondingly, igniting a common set of values and aligning personal goals of the team members with that of the organisation’s is often supposed and stated to be a major challenge for organisational leaders in the contemporary business environment, given the diversity observed within the workplace. Moreover, motivating employees in the most effective way also tends to ensure the successful channelization of the developed team and its orientation. Altogether, designing a working team that would work towards the organisational goals in a committed manner becomes a major challenge for the leaders in organisations (Sundstrom & et. al., 1990). In precise, building efficient teams based on these principles ensures better strategic decision making within the organisation and thus, augments its success potentials in today’s competitive environment, facilitating change adaption and productivity in an all-inclusive manner (Korsgaard & et. al., 1995). 4.2 Applying the Role of Team and Team Building in Creative PR Based on the facts revealed through the case scenario of Creative PR, it was observed that the management team of the organisation had split into two owing to the differing viewpoints of the members. Both the group of leaders intended to practice differentiated team building efforts. The role played by the team subsequently posed a different scenario after the change within the organisation. Before the change in Creative PR, it was expected from the employees to be all-rounder, which assured that in the absence of one employee, the other members were capable enough to handle the specialised work. Considering that Creative PR was a small organisation with a scarce of resources, this system assisted it in building a cohesive team and also aided in the effective use of the available resources. However, as the staff member used to spend more time outside the office in handling the client as well as because interchange of job roles were observed at frequent intervals, team building and mitigation of perplexity had become a severe challenge. Nevertheless, by building up a close bond amidst the management and the employees, these challenges were dealt by Sinclair and Foster. Sinclair and Foster also emphasised on building effective customer relationship along with enhancing the level of employee morale by valuing their achievements (WHO, 2007). Considering the team’s role and team building after the change, posed a many challenges and framed a completely different scenario within the organisation. The team of Williams and Brown imposed a clear line of the responsibilities upon the employees. They preferred stated rules and regulations, which the employee were bound to follow in order to enrich the organisational process in a systematic way. They basically laid down the office procedures in a systematic manner. The activities were further arranged accordingly in a clear pattern. The team used to work under the strict monitoring of the management. This procedure and team building efforts created substantial hurdles in the development of the employees’ competencies. Thus, this particular team believed in rules and regulations as a work procedure and team building strategies were to provide rewards and recognitions to the employees (Nazzaro & Strazzabosco, 2009). References Aguilar-Saven, R. A., 2004. Business Process Modelling: Review and Framework. Int. J. Production Economics, Vol. 90, pp. 129–149. Burns, L. R. & Wholey, D. R., 1993. Adoption and Abandonment of Matrix Management Programs: Effects of Organizational Characteristics and Inter-Organizational Networks. The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 106-138. Choi, S., 2007. Democratic Leadership: The Lessons of Exemplary Models for Democratic Governance. International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 2. Iss. 3, pp. 243-262. Dolan, T. E., 2010. Revisiting Adhocracy: From Rhetorical Revisionism to Smart Mobs. Journal of Futures Studies, Vol. 15, Iss. 2, pp. 33-50. Extension Journal, Inc, 1998. Understanding Employee Motivation. Journal of Extension. [Online] Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1998june/rb3.php [Accessed 22 November, 2013]. Gastil, J., 1994. A Definition and Illustration of Democratic Leadership. Human Relations, Vol.47, No. 8, pp. 953-975. Graham, S. & Weiner, B., No Date. Theories and Principles of Motivation. Chapter 4. [Online] Available at: http://www.unco.edu/cebs/psychology/kevinpugh/motivation_project/resources/graham_weiner96.pdf [Accessed 22 November, 2013]. Jones, G. R., No Date. Organisational Theory Design and Change. Pearson International. Jurgan, W., 2004. Democratic Leadership. Sage Publication, pp. 331-338. Kirikova, M., No Date. Flexibility of Organizational Structures for Flexible Business Processes. Department of Systems Theory and Design, pp. 1-8. Kirkman, B. L. & et. al., 2004. The Impact of Team Empowerment on Virtual Team Performance: The Moderating Role of Face-to-Face Interaction. The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 175-192. Korsgaard, A. & et. al., 1995. Building Commitment, Attachment, and Trust in Strategic Decision-Making Teams: The Role of Procedural Justice. The Academy of Management Journal Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 60-84. Lunenburg, F. C., 2012. Organisational Structure: Mintzberg’s Framework. International Journal of Scholarly, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 1-8. Miles, R. E. & et. al., 1978. Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process. The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 546-562. Morgan, G., 1997. Images of Organisation, 2nd Ed. SAGE, pp. 356-359. Nazzaro, A. M. & Strazzabosco, J., 2009. Group Dynamics and Team Building. Hemophilia Organization Development, pp. 1-18. Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L., 2000. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic De?nitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, Vol. 25, pp. 54-67. Shell, R., 2002. Management of Professionals, Revised and Expanded. CRC Press. Smith, K. G. & et. al., 1985. Top Level Management Priorities in Different Stages of the Organizational Life Cycle. The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 799-820. Sundstrom, E. & et. al., 1990. Work Teams: Applications and Effectiveness. American Psychologist, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 120-133. WHO, 2007. Team Building. Responsibilities of Team Leader. [Online] Available at: http://www.who.int/cancer/modules/Team%20building.pdf [Accessed 22 November, 2013]. Bibliography Boyce, B., No Date. Journal of the American Society for Information Science (JASIS). American Society for Information Science. [Online] Available at: http://dlib.org/dlib/july00/07JASIS_TOC.html [Accessed 22 November, 2013]. Loiseau, J. W., 2013. Types of Leadership Styles. Academia. [Online] Available at: http://www.academia.edu/474807/Types_of_Leadership_styles [Accessed 22 November, 2013]. Warrick, D.D., 1981. Leadership Styles and Their Consequences. Journal of Experiential Learning and Simulation, pp. 155-172. Read More