Challenges in Organizational Design - Essay Example

?Question Explain the challenges confronting managers and employees with respect to organizational design and work design. Analyse using theory andevidence. (20 marks) Organizational design and work design is an aspect of theory and reality that has a direct correlation to the day to day activities of many different stakeholders. As a function of seeking to answer the question of how the challenges confronting managers and employees with respect to organizational design and work design might be, the following analysis will focus specifically upon the ways in which past representations of organizational design represent both positive and negative externalities. Through examining an understanding these externalities, the reader can come to a more warmed understanding with respect to the ways in which it integrates with the needs of the respective stakeholders in question. Firstly, in seeking to understand the means through which organizational design. Impact upon the stakeholders, it is necessary to consider scientific management and the means through which this theory represents both positive and negative externalities (Knox & Walsh, 2005). Firstly, even though scientific management has been widely criticized by those seeking to understand different approaches to organizational design and theory within the past several decades, it nonetheless bears useful levels of understanding with respect to the way in which stakeholders can integrate with one another and maximize the level of efficiency that they ultimately are responsible for providing to the firm. As such, scientific management is oftentimes been defined as the following, the provision of a direct incentive system, a scientific training of workers, the creation of science or individual responsibilities, the division of work duties between managers and workers, and ensure that work is done in a timely and efficient manner (Perrow, 1979). However, even though each of these determinants is useful in helping to maximize efficiency of the given entity/firm, it is ultimately impossible to engage the personal realities of the individual stakeholders based upon these previously mentioned determinants. In short, even though the scientific approach is effective in helping to promote an integrated understanding of the way in which work should be delineated between stakeholders of the organization, it is so completely incapable of dealing with the dynamics of interpersonal communication, diversity, and a litany of other factors that it is widely discredited and unable to speak to all of the needs of a given organization. Further compounding the level of quantitative analysis and the overall paucity of qualitative measurement, Taylor’s theory of scientific management is focused upon maximization of output while diminishing the overall quantity of input. Naturally, this is oftentimes done as a means of affecting a positive level of profitability within the firm/entity. However, such an approach does not factor in the way in which any type of employee need it might be represented that would require an alternate approach be engaged * Breton & Wintrobe, 1986). As can quickly be realized from a brief analysis of industry within the past, scientific management has been utilized as a means of taking advantage of workers, providing horrific working conditions, and losing sight of the fact that a given firm or business entity is ultimately responsible for ethical standards in the treatment of its employees and its consumers. As such, the reforms of the progressive era further underscore the fact that even though scientific management, and the approaches that engages, can be useful in certain situations, following this wholeheartedly and applying it strictly throughout the entire business environment is ultimately harmful to the level of growth, profitability, and success that a given firm might hope to exhibit. Similarly, even though the issues that have thus far been elaborated upon with regards to scientific management are profound, another approach that could engender a degree of threat to the firm/business entity is what can be defined as a bureaucratic management. Within this particular format, the management engages by a strict set of rules or policy, manages through a hierarchy that is enforced and represented throughout the firm, trains and specializes each employee as a means of maximizing productivity, and rules are stable and oftentimes immutable (Sahdev, 2004). Although the employee is not disregarded in the same extent that he/she might be within the scientific method, the approach that is oftentimes wrongfully utilized within the bureaucratic management style is the fact that an inflexible and ultimately on dynamic system of management is placed over many nuanced situations that might otherwise be able to speak to the specific needs of the organization and the employee at the same time. In short, what has been presented within these two specific approaches is indicative of the pitfalls and failures that many managers seek to engage as a function of creating a design for their management or workflow within a given organization. As such, management and the individuals in charge of key decisions within any given entity must be mindful of the unique nuances of their particular industry as a means of formulating which design and theory might be best towards maximizing the efficiency of the work process, providing for the safety and security of the workers, and positively reinforcing aspect of culture throughout the firm. Although only to specific theories have been presented in this brief analytical response, these are indicative of some of the major and most regularly used pitfalls that management is responsible for engaging (Adler & Borys, 1996). As has been reference previously, even though aspects of these respective theories are applicable in key situations, it should not be understood that they are categorical and must be engaged in their entirety in order to make a positive difference within the firm or business entity in question. By analyzing the unique requirements that a firm has, understanding the expectations that employees/stakeholders will have, in seeking to craft a business model that will ensure future profitability and success, the individual manager and employee must understand that a nuanced approach is likely to differ between companies based upon the product or service that is being offered. In this manner, delineating a one size fits all plan is something that cannot or should not be engaged and is best left up to the decision makers of the firm to determine based upon the individual needs that they represent. Question 2 Organizational mergers present both opportunities are challenges. Drawing on your knowledge of organizational culture and organizational change, use theory and evidence to analyse both the opportunities and challenges related to attempts to change organizational culture. In doing so, explore the implications for managers. (20 marks) Even a cursory level of focus upon organizational culture reveals the fact that mergers between two firms that represent distinctly different cultures presents a certain level of challenge and opportunity to the business or firm in question. What can clearly be denoted is that organizational culture is one of the most difficult aspects of the business process to change. This is of course due to the fact that human beings are by very nature change and risk averse; oftentimes seeing cultural change as tantamount to failure and possible loss of position, status, or indeed even their job. But as a function of examining this particular question, it is the hope of this author to the reader will gain a more informed understanding with respect to the way in which culture can be seen as a primary determinant with regards to whether or not organizational mergers will be effective and the means through which stakeholders within the merger can seek to provide something of a coalescence between competing cultures in order to maximize the efficiency of their respective branches of oversight. Firstly, with respect to the opportunities that mergers and organizational integration with respect to culture can provide, it must be understood that best practices can exist within even one of the most inefficient and unprofitable firms within the market. For instance, if a large multinational conglomerate was to acquire a somewhat struggling local service or product provider, this particular entity might well the failing on many metrics of the business process; however, they may represent the best practice of being able to positively integrate with the consumer’s needs and provide a high level of customer support. As such, this high level of customer support would represent a cultural best practice that the multinational conglomerate would wish not only to preserve but to integrate into their own culture over time. By much the same token, the local entity, which is previously been referenced, could stand to benefit from many of the business practices that the multinational conglomerate has chosen to make and has Incorporated into their culture. For instance, these could include, but would not be limited to, the range and extent to which the multinational conglomerate is able to reduce business costs by careful and effective strategic planning. In this way, the analyst can readily denote the fact that something of a two-way street exists with regards to the way in which cultural best practice can be shared between emerging entities. Conversely, negative influences can be shared between merging firms and unless the process is overseen and reviewed, these can be communicated between the respective branches and come to be represented throughout the newly combined entity. Whereas a great deal of emphasis has been placed upon the means through which positive cultural coalescence can improve the overall Outlook for a particular business entity, the approach that should be focused upon specifically is the means through which the negative outcomes of competing cultures can be reduced so that stakeholders within the process can experience a maximum level of benefit. The implications for managers that must be understood as a result of this threat and opportunity that has been defined, must necessarily be contingent upon the manner by which an overview and strategic analysis of the individual components of a potential merger should be viewed and understood prior to any action taking place. Special committees and individual reviews by management professionals can help to define and determine what aspects of these firms would best be promoted and what aspects or particular undercurrents within the culture could be phased out and limited over time. Such an analytical process obviously takes time and cultural change is not something that is amenable to shifting overnight. However, without such an oversight or general level of strategic analysis of the cultures of both firms prior to any integral action being taken place, the ultimate risk of cultural pollution and negative externalities from the shared cultures of two or more firms is exponentially increased (Westaby, 2004). From the perspective of the individual manager, a level of oversight must be engaged with respect to the way in which the work was being performed previously and the means through which an integration of new cultural dynamics has affected the work within the relevant time period in question. As such, in order to identify the means through which further efficiency and improvements can be made, it will be necessary for the stakeholder/manager to ensure that rapid change and the integration of additional policies or cultures is not something that threatens his/her own workgroup. Finally, a further understanding with regards to attempting to change organizational culture must be integrated. Although a strong desire necessarily exists for managers and decision-makers to attempt to meld the culture of an organization to their specific needs and/or desires, history has proven that such an approach is ultimately ineffective and only serves to distance the effective management of such an individual from their stakeholders. A far better approach would be to realize that rapid changes and forced cultural shifts cannot be engaged by a single manager but must be co-opted by the entire group should be appreciated. Even a brief historical review of mergers and culture from the recent past denotes the fact that the most effective mergers were those that not only saw that the potential to increase profitability existed between the two firms but those that noted that a cultural similarity between the respective entities provided for a system by which the overall likelihood of cultural coalescence was maximized. Bibliography Adler, P. S. and B. Borys (1996). 'Two Types of Bureaucracy: Enabling and Coercive'. Administrative Science Quarterly. 41(1): 61-89. Breton, A. and R. Wintrobe (1986). 'The Bureaucracy of Murder Revisited'. Journal of Political Economy. 94(5): 905-926. Knox, A. and Walsh, J (2005). 'Organisational flexibility and HRM in the hotel industry: evidence from Australia'. Human Resource Management Journal. 15(1): 57-75. Perrow, C. (1979). Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay. 2nd edition, New York, Random House, chapter 1. Sahdev, K. (2004). Revisiting the survivor syndrome: the role of leadership in implementing downsizing. European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, 13(2), 165-196. Westaby, J. (2004). The impact of outplacement programs on reemployment criteria: a longitudinal study of displaced managers and executives. Journal of Employment Counseling, 41, 19-28. Read More