Organizational Behavior - Abdullatif Alissa Auto - Case Study Example

?Introduction: Abdullatif Alissa Auto. Co. ized GM and Isuzu Dealer, is one of the most successful auto-related companies in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Located in Riyadh, the capital of the KSA (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia), it generates around 22 million dollars from its four branches. However, as with many businesses, the firm could realize an even greater profit increase if it but engaged with a few changes. However, in order to affect these changes, 3 distinct shareholders need to integrate with the changes that will be elaborated upon within this case study. Ultimately, the case study which will be presented herein revolves around the employment experience of I, the statistics that this employment was able to generate, and the levels of interaction between the following 3 shareholders: my coworkers, Mr. Majed, and I. Shareholder 1: The Author As such, these three shareholders all integrated together under the umbrella of the firm in question; however, the job responsibilities and levels of power that each of these represented was distinct. Due to the fact that I was new to the employment process, the level of decision making abilities and overall power over the management process was necessarily limited. However, regardless of the lack of experience, I was tasked with quality of service improvement and set about categorizing some of the main functional areas in which the firm could develop a competitive improvement with relation to how it understood, appreciated, and dealt with its customers. The ultimate levels of interaction that took place with regards to the other two shareholders were mainly concentric upon seeking to implement and understand the means by which consumer needs could be furthered within this context. Shareholder 2: Fellow Coworkers The secondary group of shareholders was of course the other individuals that were working in the firm at the same time that I was seeking to integrate with them. Understanding the key needs that this particular group of shareholders represented is a vitally important component of understanding the ways in which the desired changes ultimately took effect and/or did not take effect. Due to the fact that this group of shareholders was focused upon achieving the goals and metrics of their own departments and individualized initiatives, they were on the whole rather uninterested in seeking to maximize profitability with regards to the given task that I had engaged with. Shareholder 3: Mr. Majed Finally, the third shareholder that is represented within the case study is that of Mr. Majed. As such, he represented the rather intractable and stoic representation of the manager that did not appreciate any type of challenge to authority. In this way he was of course the motivating factor in encouraging the situation into a position that resulted in my ultimate removal from the task that my original manager had placed me over. The interaction that took place was necessarily confined to I and Mr. Majed; with the other employees only playing a fleeting role in the situation due to their general lack of interest in the process or in seeking to change the existing dynamics that existed within the firm. Summary of Incidence: After a small study in the main branch, it was found that here were 350 to 450 customer’s visitors per day. Just, 250 to 300 of them were provided with the service. As result, the firm was losing between 50 to 150 possible customers each and every day. After a discussion of the observations with management, it was recommended that six employees would be hired to assist me in completing the task. What this affected was a type of interaction between my employees and the salesmen. However, three weeks later, my colleagues had a new boss who was of course Mr. Majed. This only occurred after my original manager had gone on vacation and proved to be a turning point with regards to how the entire situation unfolded. Soon thereafter, the dynamic which has been described imploded as Mr. Majed had no desire for either I or my former employees to do anything relating to the salesmen. He said that they should take care of their own jobs with no input from poorly trained and ill equipped individuals. As such, the duties were reduced to only welcoming customers and giving them coupons. After some days, one of the salesmen's supervisors, asked a friendly question. Why have these young men stopped helping us? Majed was quick to respond that the fact of the matter was that these individuals were his employees and not the salesperson’s. As such, the implication was that it was neither the business or the place of the salesperson to inquire with regards to what had become of our previous assignments. Ultimately, this shareholder went directly to Mr. Majed to discuss my colleagues’ feelings. Suddenly, the discussion turned to screams and I was forced to listen to nothing short of a tirade upon how it is not the place of the employee to ever question a procedural decision. At the end, he asked me the following question, “You didn't like my way of management do you?”. I replied that it was my understanding that we work as partners in success and we were ultimately not slaves. This infuriated him and caused him to interject the fact that he never wanted to see my face again; thereby firing me. After two days, and after discussions with the general manager of human resources, I was moved and became the executive secretary of the Department of Human Resources. Then, after my previous manager came back from his vacation, he visited me in my office and told me that he had a feeling that I would have trouble with Majed. Conclusion: Ultimately, the given situation represents something of the perfect storm of the means by which shareholders integrate with one another in a situation in which each one is trying to selfishly maximize their potential within the organization. Although no one is perfect, I am willing to admit that even his own interaction with management was caustic and probably helped to exacerbate the situation further than it otherwise would have. Similarly, the action of the shareholders within the sales department was concentric upon their own tasks and did not take into account the broader picture that should have been integrated with. Lastly, Majed’s jealous means of management meant that no new ideas were allowed to be generated due to the abject fear that he had that such an action would mean his power would somehow be reduced. Ultimately, the situation was born out of the fact that an unclear level of understanding existed between each of the component parts of the organization with respect to how they were to integrate with one another in order to achieve the larger business goal of customer satisfaction as well as increasing overall sales. As a way to solve such an issue, the shareholders involved should be trained and refocused with regards to the fact that no single entity within the business operates independent of the other parts; instead, they are all necessary and required components of what makes the business function and provides the service to the people. Moreover, it can be understood that the hierarchy culture that existed within the firm was a contributing factor for the case that has been shown within this brief paper. Due to the fact that a hierarchy culture necessarily reinforces the roles and responsibilities that the component parts play, these actors can oftentimes become territorial and resistant to change. Such resistance ultimately weakens the organization due to the fact that some of the shareholders are not able to see far beyond that which they are personally responsible for and view the bigger picture. Read More