What Management Style Works Better and Why - Assignment Example

?Marketing Table of Contents Task 3 Task 2 6 Task 3 9 Task 4 11 Reference List 14 Task Analyze the issues arising from a hierarchical structure and Taylorist methods of production at Hawk Car Company. What theories explain the changes made? Why were they more effective? Answer Taylorism is the scientific management theory that evaluate and blends workflow of the employees. The theory is proposed by Frederick Winslow Taylor, Father of Scientific Management. Its main objective is to improve economic efficiency giving emphasis on labour productivity. The production efficiency methodology explains the method that breaks every action or small tasks into very simpler forms which can be evaluated easily and can be taught. The four principles of the theory are: 1) maximize individual skill and minimize job learning period, 2) design work, matching it to the workers, 3) monitor the performance of the worker and ensure that they are using the right method of working, 4) replace the thumb rule and in that place use the scientific method of work study (Sapru, 2013). Hawk Car Company initially adopted the Taylor method which brought them a lot of problems which are follows: The theory gave importance to productivity and profitability as a result there aroused exploitation of employees in the company. Taylor emphasized on the functional foremanship which says that one employee has to report to a number of managers and thus it loosens the unity of command which can create chaos and confusion in the organization. The employees at Hawk Car company suffered from the same problem The method elaborated by Taylor is mechanical in nature and it laid emphasis on efficiency of the work generated. He failed to take in to account the human element and considered workers as robots. Thus, Hawk Car Company assembly managers failed to understand the difficulties that are faced by the employees but concentrated on the efficiency of the work produced by the workers. The organizational hierarchical structure refers to that structure where an entity is subordinate to another single entity. The decision making process implemented here is in top down approach and the structure thus formed resembles a pyramid. The process of decision-making starts at the top and each layer of the authority have the power to rule the next layer. This explains that the person who is at the top of the pyramid is the person to whom every person in the organization has to report (Nelson and Campbell, 2008). In case of Hawk Car Company, it used a hierarchical organizational structure where the workers on assembly line have no authority to give any suggestion to the design and running of the production line. The chain of command of the production department was such that the effectiveness of operation rested on how the people performed at each level and how they report to their assembly line managers. The scope of biasness may arise and the managers who are not open to feedback from employees create further communication gaps. As a result the workers in the Hawk Car Company lost interest in their work and were highly dissatisfied. The number of absenteeism increased as a result the production was affected. The hierarchical organizational structure can create too much distance between the leaders of the organization and the employees. When there is too much authority in one hand, power dominates. As a result the employees feel low to work efficiently in the organization as their work is not valued by the management. The employees at the Hawk Car Company faced the same situation. The decision making process in this structure is directed from the top level as a result the employees have little say about the work they are assigned. They are not given the opportunity to express their own idea and process of doing a work. As a result they became less involved with the work they are doing. The employees of Hawk Car Company had no right to make any changes to the work process even if it is needed. Working in an assembly line is very difficult for the employees as it restricts the communications at different levels of an organization. The theory which explains the changes taken in the company is the System Theory. The theory elaborates that all the elements in an organization are inter connected and change in one variable may have impact on the others. It emphasizes on the fact that organizations are open systems that continuously interact with the external environment. The changes that are made in the Company are effective since the changes gave the employees job satisfaction. Their hard work are valued and respected in the new system. The management consulted with the employees and made changes in the production process of manufacturing cars and even made needed changes in the working environment of the workplace. Task 2 McGregor suggested two management styles according to which managers regarded the work potential of their employees. Examine McGregor’s Theory in the light of the management styles before and after the changes. Which management style worked better and why? Answer Douglas McGregor, a social psychologist, proposed two contrasting theories on human motivation i.e. Theory X and Theory Y. It explains the human behaviour at work: one being negative (Theory X) and the other being positive (Theory Y). There are few assumptions to each of the two theories. Assumptions of Theory X: An employee does not like to work and tries to escape the work assigned to him whenever possible. Since an employee is reluctant to work he is persuaded or warned to do his work and even punished to make him do his work. In this case a close administration is required by the manager. Job security seems to be the top criteria for many employees and thus they have no ambition. Employees do not like responsibilities and does not even want to adopt change. Assumptions of Theory Y are the following: Work is natural play for the employees. Employees are eager to take responsibilities and are motivated to fulfil the objectives that are given to them. Employees do not need much direction. Rewarding and satisfying job results in employee commitment and loyalty to the organization. Employees have the capabilities to rectify their problems at work. Thus it can be deducted from the assumptions of the two theories that Theory X reflects pessimistic view of the worker’s nature and performance at work and Theory Y reflects an optimistic view of the worker’s nature and performance at work. Theory Y is more valid than Theory X and thus is used by many organizations. The theory supports the creation of new environment in the organization where the employees are self-directed. McGregor believed that if the management makes the employees understand that actions are needed for the betterment of the company and also for the long term betterment of the worker then the workers will work in harmony. Theory X encourages tight control and administration. It implies that the employees are unwilling to do changes assigned by the organization. Thus the theory does not support innovation. McGregor thinks that Theory Y managers are more inclined towards making a bond of trust among their employees than the managers of Theory X and thus the former contribute to the development of human resources. Human resource development is a very important aspect of a company. Development of human resource refers to the managers interacting with the subordinates openly, minimize the communication gap between the manager and employee and developing a comfortable environment in which subordinates can cultivate and use their abilities. Hawk Car Company has followed Theory X before change which created a lot of problem for the employees as well as the management. The management took traditional types of technology and job design and did not adopt the recent changes in the industry. The workers were reluctant to work as result absenteeism increased and the production process suffered (Kochan, 2002). The company after consultation with the workers adopted changes which is innovative and encouraged the employees to work conveniently. The workers worked in team and thus were assigned individual responsibilities. The workers were then motivated to fulfil their objectives and do their assigned work without mistakes. They were encouraged to correct their own problems and thus they got confidence in working. The overall working environment for the employees changed and thus motivated them to give their best to the organization. Theory Y worked better for the organization since it gave positive contribution to the organization (Kopelman and Prottas 2008). Task 3 Various motivation theories – both content and process – can explain the improvement in the motivation of the workforce after the changes at Hawk Car Company. Carry out an in-depth analysis of the changes supported by motivation theories to explain the effects on employees in the company. Answer The heart of motivating employees lies at giving them what they really desire from work. When that is given to them, the company expects more from the employees such as service, productivity and quality. Motivation helps the employees to achieve their goals, give positive contribution, make the power to change and build within them self-esteem and helps them to cultivate their talent (Adair, 2006). There are five main theories of motivation that have led to the understanding of motivation. They are Maslow’s need-hierarchy theory, Vroom’s Expectancy Theory, Herzberg’s two-theory, Adam’s equity theory and Skinner’s Reinforcement Theory. The theories that can explain the improvement in the motivation of the work force after the changes in Hawk Car Company are Maslow’s need-hierarchy theory, Vroom’s Expectancy Theory and Herzberg’s two-theory (Robins, 2009). Maslow identified that employees have five levels of needs. These are physiological need, safety need, social need, ego and self-actualizing need. He argued on the fact that before going for higher level of needs, lower level of needs of the employees should be satisfied. Herzberg categorized motivation in to two factors: motivators and hygiene. Motivators or intrinsic factors are recognition of the work and achievement from the work which produce job satisfaction. Hygiene or extrinsic factors are the job security and the pay that produces job dissatisfaction. Hygiene factors are necessary to make sure that an employee is not dissatisfied. Herzberg argued that the extrinsic feature of work (the hygiene factor) could not offer a basis of motivation for employees but it is a source of dissatisfaction and thus does not support people. It should be seen as the necessary prerequisite to allow the motivator factors to influence people’s motivation (Loiseaau, 2011). Vroom’s theory elaborates the fact that an employee’s effort lead to performances and good performances lead to rewards. Rewards can be positive or negative depending on the performance of the job. Positive rewards will motivate the employees (Elding, 2005). In the case of Hawk Car Company, the three theories play an important role in explaining the improvement of motivation of the employees in the workplace. The change in the whole system of work gave the employees the opportunity of career development as production workers and they were promoted from the shop floor to senior position in the company. Thus, the company has worked on and revised its motivator factors as job satisfaction is a key point in such case. The company provided the workers with good working condition which is the basic need of every worker, they are even provided with special facilities like a separate entrance to the workshop for them, changing room as well as the employees were provided with coffee room and sauna. The workers are provided with the benefits like lengthy paternity and maternity leave and time of study for further higher education. This explains how the different levels of need of the workers are improved by the company (Lindner, 2008). The workers were provided with good wages, which were increased by bonus for high quality of performances. These benefits motivated the workers to give their best performances in the company and also encouraged them to earn more bonuses in the future. This explains Vroom’s Theory which enlightens the fact that good performances lead to rewards. The quality control of the manufacturing process was also improved where cars were checked throughout the production process. The employees were divided into different teams and each team examined its own work before the car passed to the next team. Thus the workers are motivated to work in a process and thus lead to a good production process. Task 4 Contrast the advantages and disadvantages of team work with individual work. What effects did teamwork have on the workers in Hawk Car Company? Explain these effects further using theories both about teamwork and about other aspects of the organizational behaviour. Answer Team can be made up of three or more people coming from different departments or same departments within the organisation. Team members recognize the areas the individuals are expert in and then plan accordingly to achieve the team’s goal. The following are the advantages of teamwork over individual work: In a team there is less job stress on an individual and have shared responsibility. Teamwork is also rewarding as the success probability is high. Whereas individual work is complex and the responsibility is concentrated on one person only. Teamwork increases the quality of work in the organisation and improves working environment. It also increases communication between the employees of the organisation and gives positive solution to the problems that arise in the course of work. But in case of individual work the performance is dependent on only one individual and if he fails to perform well the organisation faces problem. Disadvantages of team work over individual work are the following: In a team, one can work hard to achieve a target set to the team and the others can just escape work. This shows unequal contribution of the members of the team. In case of individual work this problem does not appear. In a team work there can be clashes of ideas between the different members of the team and it affects the decision-making process. This problem does not arise in case of individual work since there is one single individual taking his own decision. A team can take a longer time to perform an assigned work compared to an individual since team as to go through a number of processes such as member selection etc (Stephens, 2009). In case of Hawk Car Company team work gave positive contribution to the company. Each of the team members examined their work before the work passed to the next team at the next stage. The individual operators were informed about the faults they did in their work by writing their mistakes in the notice board in the team’s area. If the faults are frequents and critical then the operator is taken to the car he has operated in and then his mistake is pointed out. The positive result of the process is that the mistakes are handled carefully and the employees are not humiliated nor treated unfairly (Jacobides, 2006). Teamwork is important to analyze the development of the successful working relationship among the employees. It is a regular process which needs significant time and talent. Effective teams are worthwhile which is created by the individuals of the team by respecting co-members of the team. To cooperate as a team requires trust. The form of teamwork is task specific (Larson and LaFasto 2005). Team members with higher ability contribute most to a team when other members are also of high ability. Informing and managing a team is important to consider not only for individual’s technical skills, experience and knowledge but also their ability to co-ordinate (Brooks, 2006). Team members of high ability contribute most to a team when other members are also of high ability. However, in forming and managing a team, it is important to consider not only individual’s technical skills, knowledge and experience but also their ability to co-ordinate actions and the interpersonal qualities. Group is defined as the collection of individuals who undertake a common task and become mutually dependent in their performance and cooperate with one another to encourage its achievement. Informal group and the formal groups are the two types of groups. Formal groups are created by an organization to carry out specific task. These groups are formally structured and are arranged for a division of work. Informal groups are formed by the employees themselves and they do not have any formal structure. Reference List Adair, J., 2006. Leadership and motivation. London: Kogan Page. Brooks, I., 2006. Organisational behaviour. New Jersey: Pearson Education Ltd. Elding, D., 2005. Modelling Employee Motivation and Performances. [online] Available at :< http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/11/> [Accessed 6 July 2013]. Jacobides, M., 2006. The Inherent Limits of Organizational Structure and the Unfulfilled Role of Hierarchy. [online] Available at: [Accessed 6 July 2013]. Kochan, T., 2002. Beyond McGregor’s Theory Y: Human Capital and Knowledge-Based Work in the 21st Century Organization. [online] Available at :< http://mitsloan.mit.edu/50th/pdf/beyondtheorypaper.pdf> [Accessed 6 July 2013]. Kopelman, R. and Prottas, D., 2008. Theory X and Theory Y. [online] Available at: < http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/40604607?uid=3738696&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21102143750703> [Accessed 6 July 2013]. Larson, C. and LaFasto, F., 2005. Teamwork: what must go right / what can go wrong. New York: Sage Publications. Lindner, J., 2008. Understanding Employee Motivation. [online] Available at :< http://www.joe.org/joe/1998june/rb3.php> [Accessed 6 July 2013]. Loiseaau, J., 2011. Herzberg’s Theory of Motivation. [online] Available at :< http://academia.edu/901041/Herzbergs_Theory_of_Motivation> [Accessed 6 July 2013]. Nelson, D. and Campbell J., 2008. Understanding organizational behaviour. Connecticut: Cengage Learning Inc. Sapru, R., 2013. Administrative theories and management thought. Delhi: PHI Learning Pvt. Limited. Stephens, R., 2009. Organisational behaviour. New Jersey: Pearson Education Ltd. Read More