Bottling it Through Not Bottling it - Term Paper Example

Bottling it Through Not Bottling it Four Main Types of Culture Charles Handy described four types of culture that are common in many organizations. A culture is an important aspect in determining the efficiency of an organization. Culture denotes all the norms, beliefs, practices, rules, values and ideals that an organization esteems and holds. A culture helps an organization get its activities going. Each organization has a unique culture that works best for it. Some organizations may have multiple sets of cultures evident in their behavior. Cultures may exert positive or negative effects on an organization depending on the practices, belief systems and behavioral patterns of the culture. One of the main types that Handy described is the role culture (Bhattacharyya, 2010:58). In this culture, each employee in an organization has a title that describes his or her job. The basis of this culture is the fact that an organization comprises a set of various roles that must flow in a logical manner, making sure that the activities of the organization run efficiently. Each individual in the organization has a set of job responsibilities and requirements that define the company’s expectations from the individual. It is worth noting that these responsibilities match the field of expertise of the individual. Within the role culture, communication occurs via memoranda that address each of the job titles. Role cultures require effective management and clear-cut definitions of what the organization expects from a job title and job evaluation. Moreover, this culture presents a situation whereby the level of authority depends on the current job titles. The second type of culture is the task culture. This involves the formation of focus groups that comprises members with certain talents and resources. The organization assigns a task or project to each of the focus groups. This type of culture requires that the team function closely, handling the problems in their project and easing the difficulties that are beyond individual scope (Bhattacharyya, 2010:58). The focus groups often have team leaders rather than managers. Although it proves quite expensive, it can produce remarkable results if there is cooperation in each team. In this culture, the organization pays a high level of attention to its tasks. The third main culture that Handy described is the person culture. In this culture, organizational terms may not come into use. On the contrary, this culture comprises professionals working as individuals. These individuals have a lot of experience and expertise and the organization addresses them in accordance with the level of expertise. An administration team serves the professionals making their work easier. For these professionals to take up a certain task, persuasion, bargaining and influencing are the key approaches used as opposed to management in other cultures. The fourth type of the culture described by Handy is the power culture that operates in a centralized mechanism. Its metaphorical representation is in the form of a spider’s web. This translates to the fact that those closest to the core of the culture have a higher level of influence. Moreover, the boss of the organization finds a way of influencing the views of the workers through his enthusiasm. There is a lot of trust in this culture and those who share the same values with the boss are likely to be at more ease. Cultures and Sub-cultures Existing in Ecobot before the Changes The company had a negative culture prior to the changes implemented to improve its standing. The negative culture meant poor leadership and management skills. The organization had multiple behavioral patterns and practices that served to taint its reputation. A technological culture existed in the company and this was why the company concentrated on investing in machinery in a bid to ensure that they operated in a cost-effective environment. The concentration on being cost-effective without maximizing on the potential of human resources was threatening to bring the company down. The workers felt alienated from the activities of the organization because communication lacked. Moreover, the company was performing poorly in the market. In addition, a bureaucratic sub-culture existed with those at the top having the most responsibilities. The authority in the organization then narrowed down to the lowest level. Each rank in the hierarchy had different roles to play but due to a lack of effective communication, the bureaucracy was proving dysfunctional. Only those in the highest ranks made decisions while the opinion of the other lot did not matter. About a dozen people made the critical decisions of the company. Down the hierarchy were about 80 managers with the responsibility for the 600 factory workers. The workers did not receive any form of information concerning the goals of the factory, a factor that contributed to a great number of de-energized people (Greene, & South-Western Cengage Learning, 2012: 281). Characteristics of Three Generic Management Styles Generic management is an integration of styles that enable an organization to manage both internal and external needs and fostering dynamism while making complex processes easier. Through the application of generic management, an organization can confidently expect success and sustainability in its cooperate development. One of the management styles used in generic management is the consultative style. This style presents the managers with an opportunity to solicit ideas from his subordinates. The entire workforce has the responsibility of contributing positively to success of the organization. The basis of this leadership style is the fact that a manager lacks the capacity to know everything that defines the existence of the organization. The manager can benefit greatly by hiring staff who can solicit the opinions of the employees. Since employees have an understanding of the organization’s ground, the manager can get a vast understanding of the organization before making any decisions. In generic management, this style can help satisfy the internal needs of the organization. The second management style used in generic management is the democratic style. The most outstanding feature of this style is the openness through which ideas flow from one individual to another (Greene, & South-Western Cengage Learning, 2012: 282). Each individual in a group can have the opportunity to sit at the table with others and share ideas concerning any issue arising in the organization. The style befits an organization that takes nothing for granted or constant but rather considers dynamism as a key pre-condition to success. The manager’s responsibility entails facilitation and fostering of a conducive sharing environment. Laissez Faire management style can also find good use in generic management. In this style, the managers only provide direction and guidance to the employees, but present them with the space to handle tasks in the way they deem right. When taken positively by the employees, it can provide a very good front for the employees to become leaders (Robbins, 2009:67). Individual autonomy and creativity is of use in this type of management. The manager also takes the responsibility of handling the questions that arise in the course of work. Management Approaches Suitable for Improving Employer-Employee Relationship One of the management approaches that can help improve employer-employee relationship is participatory management. Granting the employees an opportunity to participate actively in making decisions in the organization can make them feel appreciated as people and not objects. Managers who allow employees to contribute build a level of trust between themselves and the employees. The manager should also ensure that there is a good flow of information to the employees and accept feedback (Griffin, & Moorehead, 2012: 315). A listening attitude will motivate employees to voice out their concerns and this serves to strengthen their relationship with the employer. Moreover, a performance-reward management approach can help maintain a healthy relationship between employers and employees. This will entail according each employee an individualized pay that matches his skills, expertise and commitment. Moreover, the manager should manage performance and devise reward schemes that motivate the exemplary performers (Martin, 2009:56). Collective bargaining in matters related to pay and other aspects of the job can help the employees to appreciate their value in the organization and this will foster a healthy relationship with the employer. Management Attitudes and Styles that Contributed to Negative Culture at Ecobot Prior to the change that occurred, Ecobot adopted an autocratic management style. The leaders made decisions without the consultation and involvement of the employees (Greene, & South-Western Cengage Learning, 2012: 282). The situation was complex because the workers felt alienated from the activities of the organization and lacked awareness of the decisions that the leaders at the top were taking. As expected, the decisions made did not reflect the opinions of the factory workers. The leaders did not appreciate the human resource value that the people held. This factor contributed to the declining performance because people lacked commitment towards organizational goals. In addition, the leaders did not portray a listening attitude. No channels existed that ensured any flow of feedback from the employees up the hierarchy. They could not air their grievances and considered themselves as objects. Communication was very poor and the managers preferred to sign and fill in forms rather than listen to the employees. Lack of communication destroyed any trust that had ever existed and the people considered Ecobot a nasty working experience. This affected their performance very adversely. The management’s focus was machinery and they did not invest in the potential of the people. The line managers lacked any form of training that would equip them with skills of getting the people engaged, which is very important as Jackson, Schuler, & Werner highlighted. (2011:238). The 600 factory workers lacked any motivational and empowerment programs that would help them grow individually. Ecobot lacked the skills required for fostering generic management that would strike a balance between their internal and external factors and this translated to numerous complains. The Change at Ecobot For any change to occur at Ecobot, it needed to start at the top. The highest position in the company’s hierarchy diagnosed the negative culture at Ecobot and realized the need for change in organizational culture, management and subcultures. As Kotter highlighted, the top leader can serve to initiate change (2012:1). On noticing that he could not handle the heavy task alone, he sought to bring a human resource expert into the picture. They worked hand in hand to define new values that could help Ecobot. The first priority included formation of focus groups to solicit ideas and feedback from the people (Denhardt, Denhardt & Aristigueta, 2012: 157). The leaders sought to get the people engaged and bring their skills, expertise and commitment into the organization. They initiated different programs of training to the line managers and the employees in order to keep them motivated. All the changes involved human resource management with all the leaders adopting a listening attitude and new management styles to foster a healthy relationship with the employees. Other programs introduced measures of corporate social responsibility served to make employees proud of the company. It is evident that a negative culture can bring down an organization. However, on diagnosis, the organization can make efforts of initiating a positive culture in the organization. A change in culture will require the leaders to adopt better management styles, attitudes and approaches. The value of the human resource to any organization is very critical and the organization can adopt management styles that tap the potential of human resource to the organization. Bibliography Bhattacharyya, D. K. (2010). Cross-cultural management texts and cases. New Delhi, PHI Learning Ldt. Denhardt, R. B., Denhardt, J. V., & Aristigueta, M. P. (2012). Managing human behavior in public and nonprofit organizations. Los Angeles, Sage Publications. Flamholtz, E., & Randle, Y. (2011). Corporate Culture the Ultimate Strategic Asset. Palo Alto, Stanford University Press. http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=692447. Greene, C. L., & South-Western Cengage Learning. 2012. Entrepreneurship: Ideas in action. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning. Griffin, R. W., & Moorehead, G. (2012). Organizational behavior: managing people and organizations. Mason, OH, South-Western/Cengage Learning. Jackson, S. E., Schuler, R. S., & Werner, S. (2011). Managing human resources. Mason, Ohio, South-Western. Kotter, J. 2012. The Key to Changing Organizational Culture. Accessed on 8th Feb 2013 from http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkotter/2012/09/27/the-key-to-changing-organizational-culture/ Martin, J. 2009. Human resource management. Los Angeles: SAGE. Robbins, S. P. 2009. Organisational behaviour: Global and Southern African perspectives. Cape Town: Pearson Education South Africa. Read More