Managerial Structuring in Organization - Report Example

Article Analysis due Article Analysis Introduction In analysing the two articles that are about managerial structuring in organization, it will give evidence about the paradoxes that managers had in the 1980s 1nd 1990s about downsizing and the perceived benefits they thought will follow the layoffs. The first article that is about “the paradox of managerial downsizing”(Littler, 2004), where by it outlines on how the managers in the 1990s thought that flattening and delayering of an organizational hierarchy was able to cut on the costs the organization incurred. The second article is about the “Revenge of the Managers Labour Cost-Cutting and the Paradoxical Resurgence of managerialism in the Shareholder Value Era, 1984 to 2001” (Goldstein, 2012). the article outlines how institutional changes in the 1980s was associated with the shareholder value and how it had opposing views to the ones that managers had about downsizing in the United States. Review of the Articles The first article which is on “the paradox of managerial downsizing”(Littler, 2004), is outlined as follows; It starts with an abstract followed by an introduction of events, sub topics on managerial downsizing, four interpretations of the paradox, the methodology that covers the range of data used, Australian longitudinal data set, sample design, operationalization, national survey methodology, analyses, results that cover the volume of managerial positions supported by a table, administrative intensity, managerial job stability, data on managerial redundancies, how managers are the targets of trajectories of change, topic on continuous downsizing, where managers go after the downsizing. Lastly we have the conclusions that pins down the paradox(Littler, 2004). The second article that is on the “Revenge of the Managers Labour Cost-Cutting and the Paradoxical Resurgence of managerialism in the Shareholder Value Era, 1984 to 2001”(Goldstein, 2012) is outlined as follows; the abstract followed by introduction of the main theme of the article, financial capitalism, managerialism, restructuring, shareholder value, the relationship between the shareholder value and the managerialism through the analysis of the probable effects of shareholder value on the development and growth of managerial earnings and employment. It also outlines the results of the findings of the study and a conclusion that contrast the paradox about downsizing (Goldstein, 2012). The article on “the paradox of managerial downsizing”(Littler, 2004), examines the challenges the middle managers faced in the 1980s as a result of the widespread restructuring that the organizations continued to put into practice. The organization thought that by the reduction of employees in the work force would cut on the costs of the organization in the long run. To the contrary, instead of the number of managerial positions decreasing they increased as a result. The organizations thought that by restructuring, it will lead to fewer management staff resulting to a concomitant disassembling of the traditions and bureaucracies in the career structures(Littler, 2004). The organizations therefore, thought that with this kind of restructuring there would be generation of efficiencies in information coordination, processing, dissemination, effective resource allocation and capital budgeting. This led to the positions of middle managers being scrapped to pave way for these efficiencies that the organizations thought they will achieve. On the contrary to their expectations the positions increased instead in the long run as more employees were given new jobs increasing their number. The second article on “Revenge of the Managers Labour Cost-Cutting and the Paradoxical Resurgence of managerialism in the Shareholder Value Era, 1984 to 2001”(Goldstein, 2012) focuses the effects that shareholder value changes had on the institutional changes in the United States. It shows that there were contradictory effects on the managerialism and managers in the U.S. economy. As a result of financial crisis in the 1980s and 1990s the managers were subjected to mergers, downsizing and computerisation that led to organizations to become mean and lean. Despite this downsizing and restructuring that was brought by the effects of shareholder value capitalism, the number and positions of mangers increased and their compensation doubled. This went contrary to what the firms had thought will be the effects of the downsizing that included cutting on costs and the reduction on the investment on managerial man power(Goldstein, 2012). The article on “the paradox of managerial downsizing” (Littler, 2004), employs a methodology based on survey and longitudinal database of all the possibly large private sectors in Australia in the 1990s. The survey methodology of study is characterised by the following advantages; it is relatively very easy to administer, it is time effective, when conducted remotely it is able to reduce on the dependencies associated with other methods, it is gives room for more questions to be asked, hence giving flexibility in the analysis of the data. With survey method a wide range of data is able to be collected and lastly the method is free from most of the errors that involve other methods. With these advantages the article was able to collect data that was unbiased and free of errors and from a wide range of Australian population that enable a clear analysis of the data and coming to conclusion with the fundamental findings in this study about “the paradox of managerial downsizing”. The survey data was used alongside longitudinal database that helped the researcher to be able to study the dynamic relationships that exist among the variable under study and also model the differences in such a way that the problem of heterogeneity was eliminated. Despite the benefits of the survey method and the longitudinal database used in this study, they are also faced with some drawbacks that affected the data collected and the results of the study after analysis. Some of these shortcomings include; with the longitudinal data one is faced with the problem of designing properly the sampling scheme in order to reduce the possibility of the variables under study leaving before the completion of the study. This is termed as attrition problem. Likewise with the survey method; there is possibility of collecting inaccurate data because the respondents feel that they are not motivated enough to provide accurate data to the researcher. Again the researcher may find out that the people he is collecting the data from do not understand the variables he or she is using hence may get the wrong data for a certain variable. Moreover it is not guaranteed that the data collected is free of errors because the researcher may face the problem of despondence hence having missing values in the data. This problems affect the accuracy of the data that eventually affects the findings of the study. The second article on “Revenge of the Managers Labour Cost-Cutting and the Paradoxical Resurgence of managerialism in the Shareholder Value Era, 1984 to 2001”(Goldstein, 2012), employed a dynamic panel data method to analyse the effects of the strategy of shareholder value on the earnings and employment rate of managers in organisations. It helped to study 59 industries in the United States that were considered as the major ones in the 1990s. The advantage of this method is that is able to reveal new relationships that exist between variables under study and able to highlight new tracks in characters. The method is also flexible and easy to use to collect data. Likewise the method is able to detect if there is any variable under study that has been omitted. On the contrary the method is faced with the problem of being costly in the collection of the data(Goldstein, 2012). From the above deductions it is clear that from the article on “the paradox of managerial downsizing”(Littler, 2004), despite the feeling that organizations will benefit from a layoff, it has been revealed that it actually increases the work force, thus increasing on costs while cutting on the earnings of the organizations. The organizations felt that in the 1980s and 1990s that there was need to layoff middle managers to cut on costs without a prior analysis on the impact that action will have on the work force of the organization(Littler, 2004). On the second article on the “Revenge of the Managers Labour Cost-Cutting and the Paradoxical Resurgence of managerialism in the Shareholder Value Era, 1984 to 2001”(Goldstein, 2012), it is revealed that despite firms laying off middle managers in the 1990s, there was other economic factors like the one under study of the effect of shareholder value capitalism on the managerial earnings and employment. It has been evident that instead of the layoffs leading to reduced workforce, it actually led to an increase that was influenced by the booming economy in the United States. Conclusion This shows that the paradox on managerial downsizing as has been revealed from the two articles is not an automatic way on reducing on the costs of the organizations. Instead organizations should invest on modern technologies to increase on efficiency in the organizations that will ensure that the firms benefit from the workforce they have and train them on modern ways of administration. From the second article it is evident that when a firm lays off a middle manager, it creates a competition from another firm that employs that manager because he had the skills, experience and knowledge about the previous organization. Therefore, firms should have expansion strategies to maintain and employ more experienced staff in order to compete effectively in this fast growing global economy. Bibliography Goldstein, A. (2012). Revenge of the Managers: Labor Cost-Cutting and the Paradoxical Resurgence of Managerialism in the Shareholder Value Era, 1984 to 2001. American Sociological Review, 77(2), pp.268-294. Littler, C. (2004). The Paradox of Managerial Downsizing. Organization Studies, 25(7), pp.1159-1184. Read More