HR People, Organizations and Management - Case Study Example

HR People, Organizations and Management Contents Sr. # Topic Pg Introduction 2 2. Comparison of approaches to teamwork and team working 3 3.Comparison of Organizational Structure and Design 7 4. Comparison of Cultures 8 5. Conclusion 9 Bibliography 9 1. Introduction Managing comprises of one of the most essential and inevitable of all human activities. Organizational management is a more important aspect, which may help the managers in achieving the organizational goals through effective co-ordination of its staff and the top management. The manner in which managers govern complex organizations decides their ultimate fate, i.e. whether they are able to achieve the organizational goals with minimum hassles or whether they have to face various difficulties in doing so. This paper seeks to assess the manner in which some managers in two different organizations achieve success or face failure, and how the management theories and philosophies are implemented; what kind of management theories are adopted by the managers to govern their day to day activities; how are teams formed and what governs their decisions related to team building; what type of organizational culture, structure and design is followed by the two organizations under study and whether they are effective in achieving their ultimate goal. It concludes with the observation that managers in present times, must adapt to the modern environment which on account of the advent of technology has largely redefined job roles and hence the organizational cultures as well. In order to attain success it is inevitable for the management to appreciate the new and modern styles of management which are less autocratic and more liberal in nature, and which promote an atmosphere of mutual trust and admiration, thus giving the employees an amiable work environment, which eventually contributes to their success. 2. Comparison of approaches to teamwork and team working According to Burgoyne & Reynolds (1997): “Management learning theory has been strongly influenced by the humanistic ethic of adult education” (Pp. 12). This entails that the humans as adults can be liberated to govern their own actions, through imparting of adequate and appropriate knowledge. It advocates the proposition that individuals can be appropriate trained in such a manner which allows them enough scope for self development, and encourages self governed learning. The modern approaches to team building are based on the concept of openness, trust and honesty which ensures a better working environment and higher returns to the organization. The differences in team working as well as team building between Safe Mint UK Ltd and DSL are listed below: Composition of teams: There is a huge difference between the manner in which teams are formed in Safe Mint and DSL. The teams in Safe Mint are formed of 5 groups comprising of 60 members each. These five teams are supervised by 3 supervisors who are in charge of managing all operations of the teams. There are 3 project managers who are responsible for material distribution and project targets. The teams in DSL on the other hand are temporary and last only till the duration of each individual project. There are no supervisors unlike in Safe Mint and the teams are self governed and self administered. Approach to team working: Autonomy V Autocracy There is also a huge difference in the manner in which the teams at both these companies function. The teams in Safe Mint have a highly autocratic work culture where they are governed and supervised by managers while the teams in DSL enjoy an autonomous environment where they are free to make their own decisions and shoulder responsibility for their own decisions. Although in both the cases, the teams are working towards the same goals - that of overall organizational development by accomplishing organizational goals and objectives, the team working styles are largely different. In DSL the employees are perceived as working towards a same goal rather than as working in a group and hence more emphasis is given on the outcome and / results of such a group effort rather than on the group itself. While in case of Safe Mint, the emphasis is more on managing the groups rather than focusing on attainment of organizational goals. More time, money and effort is spent on managing the groups by hiring supervisors and managers, rather than leaving the members to manage their individual tasks. The team-work in DSL unlike that of Safe Mint, is based on the concepts of flexibility, versatility, multi-tasking and motivating the team members by giving them the authority to take critical decisions which are beneficial to the attainment of organizational goals. Hence the employees feel more motivated and develop the notion of trust among the employers and employees, which further helps in increase in productivity and improved quality of work. Approach to team building: Conventional V Contemporary There are various approaches to team building, all of which have ultimately one underlying goal, that of improving the productivity of the organization. Safe Mint UK Ltd follows the goal setting approach, whereby the teams are formed with the objective of achieving the desired target or goal, usually of higher productivity or sales. The targets are generally strategic in nature and focused on accomplishing organizational goals and objectives rather than on individuals working in such teams DSL on the other hand, follows the Interpersonal approach to team building which is based on the ideology that in order for teams to function better and in an effective manner the interpersonal relations between the team members must be improved. An interpersonally competent team functions better and can achieve the ultimate organizational goals – that of higher productivity and economic gains. Hence the focus is more on choosing the right mix of individuals based on their competence and personalities so that they can gel well with the other team mates and function collectively for the betterment of the organization. Furthermore, the approaches of team building are also largely different in the two companies. In Safe Mint the teams are formed on the basis of conventional approach while in DSL the teams are formed on the basis of contemporary approach. According to Millward, (2005) “The traditional process theories of the team rely on the assumption that there is only one type of team characterized by collocation, longetivity and stability and that there are absolute qualities of the effective team such as cohesiveness, which are directly linked with success” (Pp. 289) Safe Mint follows this highly traditional approach where the teams are fixed and no changes are made in the composition of the members. DSL on the other hand, follows the highly contemporary style, whereby the team members belong to different geographical locations, sometimes even on different continents, and are based in all four of its offices. The team members are scattered and communicate with each other via their blackberries, emails, as well as video conferencing. The emphasis is not on geographical proximity, but more on finding the right mix of employees who can work effectively together based on their individual personalities as well as skills, required for the project. Although the virtual teams which are relatively weak in terms of replicating the work structure of the traditional teams, they communicate effectively via computer mediated communication networks and achieve the same, and at times higher, profitability, thus successfully satisfying the fundamental organizational objectives for which such teams are formed in the first place. 3. Comparison of Organizational Structure and Design The organizational structure of a company can be defined as: “a framework which holds the various functions together according to the pattern determined by managers a pattern suggesting order, logical arrangement and harmonious relationships” (Banerjee, 1984, Pp. 109) The organizational structure designates the levels of hierarchies, the number of departments, as well as the span of control held by managers and supervisors who are in charge of various departments. Organizational Structure: The organizational structure of Safe Mint is highly bureaucratic in nature where there are highly organized departments which are rigid, the communication – highly formal and the organization – less flexible; whereas the organizational structure in DSL is informal, where there are no fixed departments, no hierarchies, the communication is free-flowing and highly informal in nature and the employees have the freedom to interact with their superiors anytime and anywhere they want. Organizational Design: The organizational design of Safe Mint is that of Classical or Machine Bureaucracy where there is division of labour which is based on clearly defined job roles and routine tasks; a well-defined hierarchy comprising of a formal hierarchical structure where there is a lower office which is under supervision and control of manager having a higher authority and designation; the existence of formalized rules and policies, detailed and specific job descriptions implemented to ensure uniformity; highly centralized work culture where decision making is reserved for the top management and employees have very little or no control in decision making processes. DSL on the other hand has a free form design where there are no fixed departments, the employees are in charge of their own activities, they are not supervised and in fact work on self-governed self-administered policy whereby they are afforded the liberty of taking their own decisions as well as accepting responsibilities for the same. The work culture is open and flexible and the communication channels are highly informal in nature where employees at all levels are free to communicate with their absolute seniors anytime they feel necessary. 4. Comparison of Cultures The performance of organizations is strongly associated with the organizational culture as can be seen in the two cases discussed below. The organizational culture in Safe Mint is hierarchical which is largely similar to the bureaucratic organizational structures which are defined by stability and control. The emphasis is laid on following the pre defined patterns and rules with regard to authority and decision making. There is a clear demarcation between job roles of that of employees and their superiors. DSL on the other hand follows the clan culture wherein there is a complete absence of pre defined policies and structures and the communication between employees and their superiors is free flowing and easy. The employees in such organizations take pride in their association with the company and the company in turn ensures better salary and entrusts responsibility to them for taking their own decisions. The members are given full freedom to take decisions regarding their projects but at the same time they are also held accountable for any mistakes, and hence encourage better participation ultimately leading to higher productivity. 5. Conclusion An organization is a system which functions with the collective effort of the management as well as the employees. Hence it is important for the management to work in better coordination with their human resources by establishing rapport between them and encouraging them to participate in the decision making process, which will build trust among the employees. Such trust can go a long way in ensuring a harmonious work environment where all the employees will work with the sole motive of achieving the organizational goals and objectives. The distrust among employees almost invariably leads to clashes between them and the top management leading to negative consequences such as strikes and absenteeism. These problems can be resolved by implementing proper leadership roles, effective team building and through appropriate organizational structures. An organization which affords its employees enough freedom and incorporates trust in them, is more likely to achieve overall success – both in terms of higher employee productivity as well as higher profits. Bibliography Banerjee, M., (1984). Organization Behaviour, Allied Publishers Beyerlein, M. M., Johnson, D. A., Beyerlein, S. T., (2000). Team Development, Emerald Group Publishing, Pp. 22 - 26 Burgoyne, J. G., Reynolds, M., (1997). Management Learning: Integrating Perspectives in Theory and Practice, SAGE Publication Millward, L., (2005). Understanding Occupational and Organizational Psychology, SAGE Publication Palmer, S., (1998). People and Self Management, Elseiver Publications, Pp. 22 - 26 Kelley, K., (1992). Issues, Theory, and Research n Industrial / Organizational Psychology, Elsevier Publication, Pp. 118 – 122 Read More