Lack of Trust in Management by Employees at S-Marts Brisbane Branch - Case Study Example

Lack of Trust in Management by Employees The lack of trust in management by employees at S-Mart’s Brisbane branch Introduction As part of S-Mart Company that deals in online retail of computers and software, there is a growing concern with regard to the mistrust that employees have against the management at the Brisbane branch. In order to keep the company on track in terms of improving innovation among employees at the workplace, it is important for the management group at the Brisbane branch to explore the key issue that is creating the mistrust. At present, the leadership centralised and decision making in the company is a preserve of the management. This means that the input from employees in improving innovation at workplace is thoroughly scrutinized prior to being approved by the management. In addition, the company has a philosophy of closely supervising employees’ work. However, it is important to note that, any company that focuses on innovation needs to give their employees the freedom to explore their talent and also be included in the decision making process meant to change S-Mart business prospects. A centralised leadership in an organisation has its merits and demerits. While this type of leadership or management is vital in maintaining a grip on employee’s effort at the workplace, it is susceptible to arbitrary decisions by the management. This often creates conflict between the management and employees in times of effecting changes in an organisation (Hastings, 2011). Being a member of the management group that has been tasked with looking at the issue of mistrust in management at our Brisbane branch, I decided to hold a meeting with some of the experienced employees of the Brisbane branch to understand where the mistrust is emanating . In this regard, I was guided by the belief that the employees who have worked at the Brisbane branch for a long time have a clear understanding of the issues affecting employees. In addition, new workers in the Company often rely and learn from older workers. This means that their behaviour at workplace is shaped by what they observe from workers who have stayed with the company for a longer period. From my conversation with the workers that I consulted, it was clear that employees were not happy with the management’s handling of promotions and the type of leadership emphasised by the company (Hastings, 2011). Analysis of the issue Where management is centralised, those in the top leadership often make decisions that affect other employees within an organisation. This type of management may have setbacks, especially for a company that maintains a focus on innovation. This is because, employees are subjected to work on projects that are approved by the management and not their own initiatives that can also contribute significantly in improving a company’s business prospect in a competitive environment. In addition, a centralised of managing a company can also lead to the management being obsessed with the status quo (Mahajan, Bishop, & Scott, 2012). This creates a situation where, the management is reluctant to effect changes on how a company is managed. On another note, there is likelihood for the management to favour other workers when it comes to promotions or approving projects implemented by workers to improve innovation in the company. This not only creates mistrust, but can also lead to conflicts between the management and workers who feel they are being short-changed in favour of other workers (Mahajan, Bishop, & Scott, 2012). Further, close supervision also makes workers uncomfortable and impacts negatively on their performance. In most cases, rather than allowing employees to explore their talent, they are restricted to work on projects approved by the management. Further, close supervision also leads to employees not trusting their ability and fear of being reproached by the management. This tends to create a situation whereby workers lose trust in management because they are not sure whether their work is often subjected to scrutiny by the management (Kelloway, Turner, Barling, & Loughlin, 2012). S-Mart is a company that retail their products online and as such, workers are required to use the internet more often. However, close supervision from the management creates an environment where workers are afraid of those in command. This is because situations may arise where employees are suspected of using the internet for other purposes not related to their assigned tasks. In instances where those in management do not like certain employees, this could be a reason to terminate their employment (Kelloway et al., 2012). However, it should be noted that the nature of the S-Mart’s business might require consulting clients through medium such as social networking. As such, in a closely supervised environment, the workers are bound to lose trust in management because they are denied freedom to contribute their own input geared at improving their performance. In addition, where project approvals are the preserve of the top management, situations may arise whereby the management wants to be seen as the key contributors to the company’s progress and not the junior staff. This leads to employees being demoralised and lose trust in both their ability and that of the management to support their effort towards improving the company’s performance (Mishra, Boynton, & Mishra, 2014). With regard to promotions, mistrust may arise as a result of the management favouring those who they see as not being a threat to their position at the top. This often leads to a situation where inexperienced employees are promoted at the expense of more experienced workers. In this regard, S-Mart may not realise significant growth and improving innovation among workers without allowing space for workers to explore their talent and participate in the decision making of the company. In addition, an autocratic type of leadership practiced by the management can lead to abuse of power, especially among leaders not interested in effecting change in the company. As a result, S-Mart Company and in particular the Brisbane branch needs to shift to a more democratic leadership that provides employees with an equal opportunity in developing their skills at Brisbane branch. As a result of an emphasis on a centralised structure and autocratic leadership, the lack of trust in the management at the Brisbane branch has worsened because employees feel their needs are ignored. In order to nurture the lack of trust in the management by employees, there is a need for the company to adopt a behavioural approach rather than a classical approach that ignores the worker’s motivation and behaviour (Mishra, Boynton, & Mishra, 2014). Behavioural management theory In relation to the problem situation at Brisbane branch, this model can effect change since it emphasises a humanistic approach to work. In this sense, improving trust among employees require the management to develop an understanding of employees’ behaviour at workplace. While developing such an understanding, the management needs to look at issues such as how to motivate workers, deal with conflicts, their expectations and other group dynamics geared at improving productivity at the Brisbane branch. Further, the management should not view employees as people who need close supervision, but regard them as people who can be nurtured to work under minimum supervision. In this light, trust will exist between the management and employees since they will have the freedom to explore their talent and improve the company’s productivity (Gillespie & Dietz, 2009). In addition, the space for employees to explore their talent can only be achieved if the company decides to decentralise its organisational structure. This allows workers to not only work in groups, but also trust their judgement and that of their team leaders since there is cooperation between the management and junior staff. Managing 100 employees from a central command is not easy since the management may not be in a position to capture the needs of all employees. As a result, adopting a decentralised structure is crucial in ensuring that every individual is given an opportunity to raise his or her concerning within the company. This plays a role in coming up with a decision that is acceptable to every worker as a result of a consultative process between team members and the management of the company. On the other hand, a decentralised structure also limits cases of favouritism and promotions are often approved based on merit and recommendation by team members. A humanistic approach will also play an important role in motivating workers to improve productivity. This is because the management will be in a position to relate positively to the junior staff in terms of understanding their needs or expectation at the workplace. In addition, where the employees are given the opportunity to participate in the decision making of the company, this will demystify the lack of trust in the management by employees (Kannan-Naarasimhan & Lawrence, 2012). When the management understands the needs of employees, it is easier to make changes without affecting the performance or employee’s trust at the workplace. This is because understanding employee’s behaviour at workplace allows the management to make informed decisions. Most firms that focus on a classical approach often neglect the employee’s needs and this creates an environment where there is a lack of trust in the management .This is because, some decisions tend to favour the management’s interest, and in particular, those interested in maintaining the status quo. As such, the company can deal with the mistrust by decentralising its management structure and emphasising on understanding employee’s behaviour as a measure to improve employee involvement in workplace (Thomas, Zolin, & Hartman, 2009). Recommendation In dealing with the issue of mistrust in the management by employees, it is important for the management to shift from a centralised structure to a decentralised structure. This would allow employees to work in groups and share their skills geared at improving innovation at workplace. In addition, there is less supervision since the management will focus on other important matters affecting the company. Improving innovation and employee trust in management at S-Mart will depend on the leadership style that the company adopts. In this sense, a participative leadership style is ideal because everyone is involved in the decision making process. Secondly, understanding worker’s behaviour plays an important role in coming up with mitigation measures to improve cooperation between the management and junior staff. Where the management is able to take care of the worker’s needs, there will be no mistrust, productivity will improve and the company will achieve its objective of improving innovation at workplace. References Gillespie, N., & Dietz, G. (2009). Trust repair after an organisation-level failure. Academy of Management Review, 34(1), 127-145. Hastings, R.R. (2011). Study: employees trust in leaders has declined, HR Magazine, 56(9), 15. Kannan-Naarasimhan, R., & Lawrence, B. (2012).Behavioral Integrity: How Leader Referents and Trust Matter to Workplace Outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(2), 165-178. Kelloway, E.K., Turner, N., Barling, J., & Loughlin, C. (2012).Transformational leadership and employee psychological well-being: the mediating role of employee trust in leadership, Work &Stress, 26(1), 39-55. Mahajan, A., Bishop, J.W., & Scott, D. (2012).Does trust in top management mediate top management communication, employee involvement and organisational commitment relationships? Journal of Managerial Issues, 24(2), 173-190. Mishra, K., Boynton, L., & Mishra, A. (2014).Driving employee engagement: the expanded role of internal communications. Journal of Business Communication, 51(2), 183-202. Thomas, G.F., Zolin, R., & Hartman, J.L. (2009). The central role of communication in developing trust and its effect on employee involvement. Journal of Business Communication, 46(3), 287-310. . Read More