A critical theoretical and visual analysis of my experience of work - Essay Example

? “A critical theoretical and visual analysis of my experience of work” Introduction An organization becomes what it is as a result of the people involved in its routine operations. Organization culture therefore shapes how new members of an enterprise act both within and outside the confines of such an enterprise. Several people theories have been advanced to explain how organizations function with reference to the prople involved and further guide new members of a firm, on what is expected of them upon joining these enterprises. The following images represent my expreinces at work during an internship. With the help of these images and relevant theories, I will carry out an anlaysis into my experience at work to help explain how people and their behaviours have an effect on the workplace and the organization in general. Source: www.cel.sfsu.edu Conflict (Emotions at work) Any setup with more than one person, whether work or any other, is bound to see a difference of opinion that in the end results into conflict. Both Classical and non classical theorists looked at conflict as one aspect that must be totally avoided because it brings with it imbalance. Contingency theorists on the other hand look at it as inevitable but one that can be properly managed (Miner, 2001). While working as an intern at a research firm, I came face to face with conflict within an organization when there was lack of a clear chain of command in my department and had to take orders from two different people who were equals in the managerial hierarchy. As an intern, I was charged with the task of data capture and preliminary analysis, a task that required guidance and proper directions from my seniors at the department. Often, I would receive conflicting instructions from the two seniors and this left me not only confused, but also demoralized as it became very difficult to know what the right thing was. As a remedy, I resorted to making references to the organization’s operations manual for guidance and making rational judgments in cases where proper procedures were not provided in the operations manual (Bernhard & Glantz, 1992). Contingency theory therefore came in handy in this situation and a reference to studies by Chandler that involved about four major American corporations made a lot of difference. According to Chandler, managers can only be effective if they have the ability to swiftly adapt to changes in their respective environments. He also explained that an organization must be rational, chronological and linear in its actions to be in sync with changes in the environment (Griffin & Moorehead, 2012). I therefore borrowed from this theory and looked as myself as a manager, analyzed my situation and made a decision to draw my references to the operations manual in situations where the instructions from my two managers were in conflict. This decision was informed by my desire to be efficient while keeping a good relationship with my seniors. I was certain that should any discrepancy appear in my line of responsibility, either of the two managers would most likely not take responsibility and would find it comfortable to leave the blame on me. In case such a situation arose, I would clearly find refuge in the operations manual and use that as my defense. An organization should work towards minimizing conflicts by having a clear organization structure that ensures every employee is accountable for both their time and decisions, the roles and responsibilities should not cross to avoid blames and lay emphasis in personal responsibility by managers (White & Bednar, 1991). As Chandler puts it, operations and decision processes should be linear, sequential and chronological to minimize the possibility of conflict. Receiving instructions from two mangers at the same managerial level, like was in my case during internship, was a definite recipe for conflict. Source: liferesolutionsaustralia.files.wordpress.com Groups and Teams The success of an organization is entirely dependant on the input of individuals that are part of a team. While working as an intern at the said research firm, my responsibility was the completion of one process and beginning of another. Data collected through questionnaires were keyed in at my department and a preliminary analysis initiated. This had the implication that the quality of the final report was dependent on the accuracy and consistency of the data we captured. I was therefore as significant to the enterprise as the management since the success or failure of the entire organization was dependent on the degree of competence and professionalism of people at my department. One theory that explains this concept of team work and dependence among employees in an organization is the ‘Systems Theory’. This theory was originally fronted by Ludwig von Bertalanffy, a Hungarian biologist in 1928 and is founded on the concept that all components of an organization are interrelated. The theory further explains that due to this interdependence, changing one variable has an impact on many other variables (Miner, 2001). According to this theory, organizations are regarded as in a state of vibrant equilibrium as it interacts with both itself and the environment. They are therefore open systems that constantly mingle with the environment making people within these organizations an integral part of the dynamism and interaction. Senge (1990) gave a description of systems thinking, as significant in coming to terms with how what we do shapes our reality. In my case at the research firm, I understood that the precision of my preliminary determined the accuracy of final figures presented to the public and the organization’s clients and therefore had to be very diligent in my work. If I was not clear on my contribution to the final product and overall reputation of the research firm, I may not have taken additional time to counter check my entries and ensure they reflect the true picture of the data presented from the various studies. Team effort can therefore be enhanced by having a clear motivational framework that allows every member of an organization to appreciate the impact of their actions and decisions on the total performance of the firm (Sims, 2002). With proper understanding of this, all employees will appreciate their respective input and be more diligent having full knowledge of what their actions can result into (Handy, 1993). My analysis of the situation at the research firm was that of disapproval and lack of knowledge of the contribution by junior staff to the overall performance of the organization. Mid level managers were either deliberately ignorant or genuinely non conversant with the possible impact of inaccuracies at the data entry department on the final reports to the company’s client (Mitchell, 1978). My reason for holding this opinion was informed by the inconsistencies and conflicting instruction I received from my immediate supervisors. If they understood the significance of employees at my team to the organizations overall performance, they would have treated us better and been clearer on their instructions. Due to lack of recognition as significant members of the team, most employees at my department carried out their duties as a procedure leading to discrepancies in final data that necessitated long nights of extra work as the report writing teams tried to reconcile the output of our department in the compilation of final report to the clients. This resulted to lack of cohesiveness both within the departmental team and among departments and each team resorted to the blame game on the other for their miseries and long nights. Conclusion From my experiences at the research firm, it’s clear that an organization is only as good as the character and attitude of those that work within it. The quality of an organization’s products/services is directly proportional to the happenings with its team (Nelson & Quick, 2008). Bibliography BERNHARD, J. G., & GLANTZ, K. (1992). Staying human in the organization: our biological heritage and the workplace. Westport, Conn.: Praeger BERTALANFFY, L. V. (1952). Problems of life: an evaluation of modern biological thought. London: Watts. GRIFFIN, R. W., & MOOREHEAD, G. (2012). Organizational behavior: managing people and organizations. Mason, OH, South-Western/Cengage Learning. HANDY, C. B. (1993). Understanding organizations. New York: Oxford University Press. MINER, J. B. (2001). Organizational behavior: foundations, theories, and analyses. New York, Oxford University Press. MITCHELL, T. R. (1978). People in organizations: understanding their behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill. NELSON, D. L., & QUICK, J. C. (2008). Understanding organizational behavior. Mason, OH, USA, Thomson/South-Western. SENGE, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency. SIMS, R. R. (2002). Managing organizational behavior. Westport CT, Greenwood Press. WHITE, D. D., & BEDNAR, D. A. (1991). Organizational behavior: understanding and managing people at work. Boston, Allyn and Bacon. Read More