Operationalization of Management and Leadership Development into Practice - Essay Example

MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT (PART 2) Management and Leadership Development (part 2) Operationalization of Management and Leadership Development into Practice Operationalization is how a given system works and practice is the implementation of that particular system. Therefore, this paper is focused on how leadership and management have been implemented from how it works. Most organizations operate on management with quality and upgrade their programs for various objectives. Results that are successful create significant benefits through achievement of the satisfaction of the customer, improvement of quality of awareness of employees, improvement in performance of the organization and giving support in value chains for partners. The benefits are vital for organizations as a whole, particularly in countries that are developing, where the level of quality is low and require increment in search for effective cooperation in the various organizations. In the due course of implementation, there are many difficulties that are faced by organizations and do fail to practice benefits that are expected from management implementation that is of quality. Relating this to the implementation issue, it is observed that the implementation process is a major determinant of success in the introduction of technology or methods in an organization (Collins, 2001). It can be seen from these studies that acquisition of insights into the implementation process is vital, especially in trying to get a way of transforming the concept of quality management and practice from principles in the course of the organization. The transformation is referred to as implementation of quality management. In accordance, implementation research is required for the effectiveness of organizations. This report provides for operationalization of management and leadership development into practice in manufacturing companies, in Indonesia (Babbie, 2007). Basing on development of concepts and different leadership frameworks, there will be a discussion on operationalization. The operationalization discussion takes into consideration the research raised as an expression that guides relevant subject observation of implementation of quality management. As it is comprised of facts that are observable, it can occur in an analysis level. If related to management implementation, it allows an individual to conceive an organization analysis level. It is mainly focused on how leadership and management of an organization are conceptualized. Automotive Assembly Company (AAC) Implementation process From the time ownership was changed, three factors influenced management implementation process. Firstly, there was a change in the orientation of group that covered both investment decisions and encouragement of individuals’ use of the management system. Here, there was changes, in the in the management guidance for the group. Secondly, in 1997, a relationship of the joint nature with Itochu Corporation and Isuzu Ltd restructured the business pattern and this made AAC the only manufacture. Thirdly, there was an economic, national crisis which made AAC to bring in an efficiency policy to satisfy the new requirement of customers. Being the largest Corporation in Indonesia, AAC had close relation with Japanese partners. This was an influence to the member countries as it introduced unique practices, norms and value (Effron and Ort, 2010). The many corporations they had with Japanese counterparts made them acquire knowledge from different perspectives. For the integration of the practice, value and norms, there was a development of system of management to unite and link resources, identities and capability. This system was referred to as ATQC. There was also an introduction of quality control system by the group. The groups made a team put to practice and encourage companies adhere to the quality assurance. In 1994, AAC received their certification and got support from implementation group and was renewed in 1996. AAC transformed from downward to vertical and finally to cross-functional acts of management in sharing fulfillment of targets and responsibility.in the year 1997, the business of the group was reorganized which affected AAC. In the structure that was revived, AAC solely assembled products; meanwhile the marketing and design activities were left for PM. In the revived structure, AAC’s mission was production of cars that have their specification done by PM. A manufacturing reorganization on facilities was done to which created an assembly line. The reorganization was done by the Japanese engineers, and there were some who stayed back for production monitoring (Barnard, 2002). There was also a corporation with the top management in improving performance and solving the problem. The procedural touch resulted into a difference in production management. For the promotion of flexibility, there was a promotion of bottom up improvement in quality approach via the adoption of defect finder philosophy. Using the approach, the management lined up managing quality that included the obligation of the employees to propose suggestions for improvement. The new structure meant that the employee’s awareness would increase in quality improvement. The development brought effects to the extent of employees’ specialization and provided for manufacturing system that was rigid with a higher extent of formalization and decentralization. One of the results was targeting 2.6 minutes for every car. It was next to impossible. By then, AAC was in the capacity to make a production of a car in 10 minutes. From improvement actions that were intensive, AAC improved on the production time to 4 minutes for a car. The production was at par with the current demand standards (Berelson and Bernard, 1998). After the reorganization, a crisis in money occurred that resulted in severe consequences. The cost of production went up as many parts were imported from other countries. One year later, the production of AAC stopped, and it retained 257 workers for its survival. The group management based the entire implications on production cost to be able to compete in Indonesian market for automotive. AAC re-evaluated the process of production and commenced a program, for reduction of cost and efficiency. The improvement on effectiveness effort was quantified by reducing time, material use and energy required that were combined in a way of reducing production cycle cost and time. In one year period, the management took into consideration that there were feasible proposals and started practicing the improvements that were made in the project. During this level, AAC made recruitment of 150 employees that were experienced. As they had met the set target, the firm was authenticated to resume its full operation. In the year 2000, AAC continued with their cost reduction and efficiency programs. After the achievement of target of production, there was continued optimization of maintenance by top management. Consequently, without reduction of production rate, there was a rationalization of workers’ numbers and reduction of working hours (Barnard, 2002). In the period of survival, further transformations brought change to the orientation of the group by following the introduction of advanced management. Improvement projects that were successful were presented before international seminars with an intention of getting feedback that is advanced from professionals that were non-Japanese. The top management starting with human resource and production also was participanting in international training of management. Consequently, it took into a consideration the strategic management importance and trained its managers. The development made the group change in its system of management decision. This change led to the attention expansion from issues of technical operation that include issues of strategic, managerial attention. In 2001, AAC made a renewal of its system of management to AMS having two objectives in mind. The first objective being consideration of various companies plurality as group wealth and, hence, management system implementation should be stretchable to accommodate the companies’ unique feature. The second objective being for accommodation of new concepts and tools of management, the management system implementation of management should be open. In accordance, autonomous management of every company was expected of them. They were fortified to apply advanced concepts, approaches or tools. The leadership of AAC responded via promotion of improvement of quality beyond technical quality of product. Improvement suggestions were not restricted to an individual’s job but covered problems during organization or external related issues (Boyes, 2011). As the BOD often visit the company, divisions heads took charge of the company’s daily leadership. Comparing them to human resource and finance, manufacturing divisions’ heads held responsibility and authority and hence influenced the style of leadership of the company. With experience of ten years in manufacturing of automotive, the manufacturing divisions’ heads put operating procedures that were standard to the front that set a target that was progressive for achievement in the short run. The authority to make decisions was decentralized. The management style made leaders that were involved with evaluation of performance in the determination of achievement targets. The production report performances were prepared two times a day, as section heads responses were made on the subsequent day. All these were evaluated at the level of management once in a week with the manufacturing divisions’ heads supervision who were alerted of any defect (Bruch and Ghoshal, 2004). Divisions head and manager usually made a decision on the fact of resulting conclusion. As much as the divisions head were exclusively authenticated to decision making, managers are always let to maintain the process of bottom up decision making. A commitment was shown by the top management on quality as they highly appreciated improvements that were successful. Legally, ideas’ of improvement via the systems of suggestion and associated practices were main inputs in the appraisal of employee. Normally, in the monitoring of shop floor, head of division showed direct appreciation. AAC leadership accelerated the diffusion process of vital, continuous improvement idea. Nevertheless, as top management recognized a group, other groups had mixed responses due to inadequate understanding of responsibilities and task. The groups conceived that there are different appreciation levels from the management at the top and this affected group’s coordination. The coordination bore fruits in groups that were in the production section or where there was a common interest shared. However, trust based coordination was tough to realize. Coordination was reached with ease at the level of management. In many occasions, a directive of top down was used in the achievement of coordination, in the lower levels of management (Effron and Ort, 2010). The company’s top management focused on identification cycle, evaluation and process improvement acute to specification of product, delivery schedule and planned budgets. However at the starting stages, what took place were evaluation, identification and adjustment cycles. Most foremen were contented with this manner of the management process. Employee followed operating procedures and standards to think of improvement opportunities. The management process was carried out with no improvement. Suggestions system was submitted every year by employees to review the operating procedure standards (Effron and Ort, 2010). The improvement ideas were not limited to their tasks. Superiors of employees evaluated proposal benefits that were expected for the appraisal of individual performance. With the practice, employees were encouraged by the company to participate actively in innovation and improvement. The employees of lower level have participated although there are no improvements. Improvements ideas of bottom up system resulted to departmental discussions. Occasionally, the discussions involved employees and cross company. The company approved the better ideas in the yearly convention. Manufacturing division produced ideas on improvements that were noted. The operating procedural standards emphasized on the conformation to specifications. The management strongly believed in the philosophy of finding defect that was operationalized via the system of suggestion. For the detection of defects, the process was thoroughly inspected. Under the program, the production management got daily major defects summary and made decisions directly on problems that were anticipated or following day improvement. The department of quality control was accountable for conformal to specification conformation. Besides, the department of engineering was accountable for supervision, evaluation and process improvement. The fact that this could conflict issues, manufacturing division head supervised coordination within the departments. Top management revised the whole process and proposed a revised form of the existing operational procedural standards. After only a trial that is successful, should the revised form be presented to the shareholders and stakeholders? Summary and Recommendation The leadership framework that AAC adopted is top to low level management. Initially, the company is faced by challenges, and, therefore, apply some practices of leadership and management to solve the problem. To start with, the management is done from the top to the bottom level. Then, the leadership is divided in sections in order to improve on quality production. This is because the division creates efficiency as each and every worker is closely supervised and, therefore, accountability is heightened. The leadership also tries to accommodate workers or the employees into the task of management. The employees are involved in the decision making process and, hence, feel like they are part of that company. This makes the volume of products to be increased. Motivation is also evident from inclusion of workers in decision making. The company has also involved each and everyone in the running of the company hence improving the quality of both leadership and management (Boyes, 2011). As in the quality assessment of management result, the limitations yielded a low achievement in the way of people management, resource management and effect on society. The firm worked according to some certain conditions that restricted basic improvements and surpass the current development stage. Besides, the limitations provided an emphasis that improved operational successful. The top management came to know that it was a strategy that was process based for gradual development. The strategy complied with group development strategy which the Japanese influenced intensively (Miles, 2011). The operationalization of research takes into consideration the research raised as an expression that guides relevant subject observation of implementation of quality management. As it is comprised of facts that are observable, it can occur in an analysis level. If related to management implementation, it allows an individual to conceive an organization analysis level. It is mainly focused on how leadership and management of an organization are conceptualized. The leadership of AAC responded via promotion of improvement of quality beyond technical quality of product. Improvement suggestions were not restricted to an individual’s job but covered problems during organization or external related issues. Reference List Armandi, B., Oppedisano, J. and Sherman, H., 2003. Leadership theory and practice: Management Decision,“a ‘case’ in point”. Babbage, C., 1998. Classics in Management: “On the division of labor”. Washington DC: American Management Association. Babbie, E., 2007. The Practice of Social Research. 11th ed. Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadsworth. Barnard, C.I., 2000. The Functions of the Executive. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Barnard, C.I., 2002. Classics in Management: The nature of leadership. Washington DC: American Management Association. Baum, B., 2005. As If People Mattered: Dignity in Organizations. AuthorHouse. Bennis, W. and Nanus, B., 2005. Leaders: Strategies for Taking Charge. New York: Dryden Press. Berelson, E. and Bernard, S., 1998. Content Analysis in Communication Research. New York: Free Press, Management and leadership. Boyes, W., 2011. Managerial Economics: Markets and the Firm. Arizona: Cengage Learning. Bruch, H. and Ghoshal, S., 2004. A Bias for Action: How Effective Managers Harness Their Willpower, Achieve Results and Stop Wasting Time. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Carnall, C., 2007. Managing Change in Organizations. Financal Times Management. Collins, J., 2001. Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap and Others Don’t. New York: Harper Collins. Creswell, J.W., 2009. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Daft, R.L., 2008. The Leadership Experience. Mason, Ohio: Thomson South-Western. Effron, M. & Ort, M., 2010. One Page Talent Management: Eliminating Complexity, Adding Value. Harvard Business Review Press. Miles, S.J., 2011. Assessing the Employee Brand: A Census of One Company. Journal of Managerial Issues, pp.125-59. Weisbord, M.R., 2012. Productive Workplaces: Dignity, Meaning, and Community in the 21st Century. Pfeiffer. Read More