Chatroux - Company Culture and Workforce Main Motivating Factors - Case Study Example

Student Name: Tutor: Title: Business Report Course: Executive summary This report analyses the case study of Chatroux which is a subsidiary of an Australian company, Auskunft AG. Chatroux is experiencing a management challenge after the replacement of director of production. The changes made by his replacement are a source of concern to many employees leading to one quitting his job as a technician. The director of production is informed about the impact of the changes being introduced by Dr. Barfuss and asks him to respond to the allegations. Barfuss is disappointed that his good intentioned were wrongly misunderstood. The introduction gives a brief history of the problem and guides the reader on what to expect in the main report. The main report has four parts that discusses the challenges and gives recommendations for improvement. The first part discusses important characteristics of the company’s culture, the second part details the motivating factors of the workforce, the third part explains why he workforce did not appreciate Dr Barfuss approach and the final part gives the recommendations on what has to be done to improve implementation of change in the organization. The report concludes with a brief mention of the important points in the conclusion part. Table of Contents Executive summary 2 Table of Contents 2 Introduction 4 Question 1 4 Key characteristics of company culture at Chatroux 4 Question 2 6 a) Workforce’s main motivating factors at Chatroux 6 b) Why employees were less enthused by Barfuss’s management approach 7 Recommendations 9 Conclusion 10 References 12 Introduction Chatroux is a French company that was acquired by Auskunft AG which is based in Australia in 2013. Chatroux was established in 1902 and specializes in printing high-quality paper-based documents. The company is headed by President Directeur General (PGD), M. Jacques Giraud. The company is established on a strict hierarchical management that encourages top-down communication. A problem develops when the Production Director, M. Legris resigns on health grounds and is replaced by Dr Barfuss. Dr. Barfuss introduces changes in the management style at the organization that does not augur well with the rest of the employees. The workforce is used to a centralized and hierarchical kind of structure while Dr Barfuss introduces participative and decentralized type of leadership that encourages consultation. These changes bring challenges to the employees. This report discusses the culture at Chatroux, motivating factors at the company, challenges of Dr. Barfuss management and gives recommendations for successful implementation of the change process at the organization. The conclusion provides a brief recap of the main points. Question 1 Key characteristics of company culture at Chatroux Douglas McGregor’s Theory X and Y can best explain some of the happening at Chatroux. Theory X assumes that workers are naturally unmotivated as well as dislike working, and this encourages a style of management that is authoritarian. According to McGregor the management has to actively intervene in order to get things moving (Jones, 2008). The style of management has an assumption that workers do not like work, avoid responsibility, have to be controlled, threatened and forced in order to deliver; need to be supervised throughout and have to be enticed in order to produce results. This the view held by the former manager, Legris. He always seen in the production area to make sure the workers were doing the right thing. Legris always called workers in the office to tell them what the problem was and not to ask them what they thought. Legris provided direction, solution and informed the workers what they needed to do. Legris was some sought of a dictator as explained by Aznavour in his letter. X-types of organizations tend to be top heavy, with supervisors and managers required at every step to control the workforce (Conklin, 2011). In the large scale production environment X Theory management style may be need and cannot be avoided. This a fact that Dr. Barfuss did not recognize while introducing changes at Chatroux. Chatroux just like most French organizations is highly centralized, managed through a strict hierarchy characterized by top-down communications and operate on functional lines. Workers get communication from the top management and implement them. The type of communication that exists at Chatroux is top-down where the workers expect instructions from the managers and supervisors. Participation style of management is not encouraged. The management style and control at Chatroux was inclined towards theory X where management is usually authoritarian and centralized control is retained (Conklin, 2011). Legris had unparalleled knowledge about the business and made decisions without consultation. His style was task-oriented and he engaged in social relations on a paternalistic basis. The workers looked upon him like a father figure for direction whenever they were unsure of anything. The communication was also task-oriented and workers expected to meet their obligation without question. Question 2 a) Workforce’s main motivating factors at Chatroux Theory X organizations work on the basis of ‘carrot and stick’ basis. Performance appraisal is an integral part of the general mechanism of control and remuneration. Theory X managers are usually result-oriented and hence productivity and meeting for targets is rewarded (Jones, 2008). Another motivating factor at Chatroux is close supervision and tight control. The employees expect to be supervised and direction provide to them in order for them to work efficiently. A technician, Jean Le Mesurier, resigned because he was unable to come up with new ideas as requested by Dr Barfuss. The workforce has been used to receiving instructions and not giving suggestions on how to improve production. The workforce is also motivated with independence at the workplace and not having to be involved in lengthy decision-making sessions. Human motivation comprise of the Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Maslow is a widely applied theory of motivation. Abraham argued that human beings have a constantly growing inner drive which has great potential. According to Maslow’s theory workers are motivated by unsatisfied needs. The needs are arranged from the most basic to the most complex found on the highest level of the pyramid (Kunitz, 2011). The needs named in ascending order include physiological needs, safety needs, social/love needs, self-esteem, recognition needs, and self-actualization. Self-actualization are on the highest level while physiological needs are on the lowest level and include things like sleep, food and water. Only unsatisfied needs are capable of influencing behavior while satisfied need do not. Legris gave the workforce a sense of belonging and was a father-figure that motivated the employees to work hard for the good of the organization. Participative type of management was not a motivation since their needs were well met through a centralized system where the final decisions was made by the top management and communicated to them (Marinak & Gambrell, 2008). The work experience and expertise of Legris was another source of motivation to the workers. Legris knew what should be done and sometimes overruled the employees and told them brusquely what they had to do. He appeared authoritarian but his style yielded results. b) Why employees were less enthused by Barfuss’s management approach The employees were less enthused by Barfuss’s management approach because they were inclined towards theory X type of leadership while Barfuss emphasized on the McGregor’s theory Y. Dr Barfuss is inclined towards McGregor’s theory Y of management. Theory illustrates a participative style of management that is normally decentralized as envisioned by Dr. Barfuss (Conklin, 2011). Theory Y assumes that employees love work, are self-motivated and creative; and enjoy working with greater responsibility. Theory Y assumes that employees take responsibility and are motivated to fulfill organizational goals; employees seek and accept responsibility and require little direction, employees consider work as natural part of life and are innovative to solve problems at the work of place. This was the perception of Dr. Barfuss as he introduced changes in the organization. He introduced participative style of management where he encouraged delegation of duty, teamwork as well as joint decision-making. The employees were used to receiving orders from the executive while participative management style involves employees in decision making but normally retains power to implement decisions. Employees under theory X tend to experience specialized but often repetitive work. It is common in production like the case of Chatroux. In theory Y work is organized around wider areas of knowledge and skill, and employees are often encouraged to develop expertise and come out with suggestions for improvement (Sahin, 2012). Workers at Chatroux were not used to this participative way of management. They complained that they spent as a lot of time in meetings than working. Many hours were lost in discussions but no concrete decisions were arrived at from these sessions. The workers were not happy with being given the responsibility for the success or failure of the company. The employees were only concerned about their area of specialization and expected the management to play its part (Miner, 2015).  The previous manager, Legris, provided a clear direction on how things should have been done or get done. The departments received instructions and implemented them without there being need for their own suggestions. Changes have to be introduced gradually. Dr. Barfuss started by introducing changes in the entire organization. The employees were against the approach because they were not involved before its launch. The employees were excluded in the new approach but required to participate fully in its implementation. The implementation of the new approach was rapid and sudden hence taking the employees by surprise (Hayes, 2014). The employees complained that they used much time in discussions as opposed to working. The employees viewed Barfuss as a stranger who had no moral authority of introducing a new style of management without fully consulting with the rest of the organization. Some of the employees had more experience and were older than Dr. Barfuss and hence felt demeaned for not being consulted in introducing the new management style. Legris had allowed the workers to work without expecting them to come up with ideas for improvement. The workforce was not ready for application of theory Y within the organization and enjoyed supervision of the senior managers. Recommendations It is never to later and Dr. Barfuss can turn things around. It is important to fully understand the organizational culture of a company before introducing any changes. Changes introduced in the organization without having change agents from within the organization are bound to fail. Change can be introduced when there is gradual implementation and members of the organizations are involved through various departments. Organizational change is spearheaded by agents of change (Murphy, 2009). The agents of change are members of the organization like supervisors who are educated on the importance of the chance and given the responsibility of convincing the rest of the organization to adapt. Dr. Barfuss seemed to be forcing the participative style of leadership to people who did not understand it hence leading to some feeling dissatisfied. In replacing M. Legris, the parent company Auskunft resorted to a management exchange. Although Legris replacement had taken French courses in Marseilles, he did not understand the national culture in France that impacted on organizational culture like the centralized-management style (Hayes, 2014). The organization should have gone for someone who understands the organizational culture at Chatroux. Dr. Barfuss tried to implement a foreign culture at Chatroux without consulting widely. Changing to participative style of management requires sensitizing the members on the importance of consultation. The cross-border acquisitions have to consider the national culture and values of subsidiary companies. Leaders should not be imposed without fully involvement of the local management of the organization. Dr. Barfuss should have used heads of department to communicate to other employees on the need for change and why it was important to Chatroux (Anderson & Anderson, 2010). The worker saw it as time wasting and much talk with little work. Employees need time to adjust to anything new in the organization. Change can be introduced in phases in the organization by starting with individual departments. Dr. Barfuss is still very young and some of the supervisors can plot to rebel against his good intentions. Dr. Barfuss has to start by creating a good relationship with supervisors and other managers to earn their trust and confidence before he embarks on introducing anything new in the organization. The change agents have to win over the rest of the members once they understand what the champion of change expects from them. Dr. Barfuss can use some of the old and experienced managers at Chatroux as agents of change to convince the rest of the organization to adopt it (Anderson & Anderson, 2010). Introducing change without wide consultation with old and experienced members of an organization can be met with resistance. Conclusion Chatroux case focuses on the impact of change management in an organization. It shades light on the importance of corporate culture and the impact of national culture on the organization. Proper consultation has to be done prior to implementation of any change regardless of how noble it may appear to the champion. Change can be undermined if workers do not understand how they are involved and its importance to the organization. Chatroux was inclined hierarchical type of management with top-down communication. Dr. Barfuss did not take time to understand how the workers felt before introducing the new style of management. He thought he was giving the workers an opportunity to be more creative and come up with excellent ideas. However, the workers were used to receiving the final instructions from the management and viewed the participative type of leadership as a waste of time in endless discussions. Consequently, they were not about Dr. Barfuss approach. Barfuss had to look of a way of introducing change gradually and involving the key members of the organization. References Anderson, D. and Anderson, L.A., 2010. Beyond change management: How to achieve breakthrough results through conscious change leadership. John Wiley & Sons. Conklin, T.A., 2011. Theories of Motivation. In Stories to Tell Your Students(pp. 58-59). Palgrave Macmillan US. Hayes, J., 2014. The theory and practice of change management. Palgrave Macmillan. Jones, I. 2008, The Human Factor: Inside the CIA's Dysfunctional Intelligence Culture, New York: Encounter Books Kunitz, S., 2011. Theories of Motivation, Textbook of Psychoanalysis, p.39. Marinak B.A. & Gambrell, L.B., 2008, Intrinsic Motivation and Rewards: What Sustains Young Children's Engagement with Text? Literacy Research and Instruction 47, 9-26. Miner, J.B., 2015. Organizational behavior 1: Essential theories of motivation and leadership. Routledge. Murphy, J. 2009, Inner Excellence, McGraw-Hill. Sahin, F. 2012, The mediating effect of leader-member exchange on the relationship between Theory X and Y management styles and effective commitment: A multilevel analysis, Journal of Management and Organization, 18(2). Read More