The Organizational Behaviour in LIPC Integration Plc - Case Study Example

UNDERSTANDING MANAGEMENT   By Location The Organizational Behaviour in LIPC Integration Plc Introduction “Organizational Behaviour is the study of the behaviour of individuals or groups of people in any given organization” (Smith, Farmer & Yellowley 2012, p. 2).It is however interesting how organizations lack behavioural departments as they have for instance, I.T departments, Finance Departments but a few. In context, LIPC has within itself three departments; the design department, fabrication department and Assembly department. Besides its interest in an individual’s behaviour within an organization, Organizational behaviour is also immensely interested in the structures of a given organization and how exactly they operate. Smith, Farmer & Yellowley (2012) Assert that organizational behaviour is interesting, complex and at times even unpredictable as each individual in an organization is unique. This translates to the fact that given a similar incident in an organization each person is likely to react very differently and uniquely. This is where the role of management kicks in and referring to Smith, Farmer & Yellowley (2012) it is necessary for the management in place to acknowledge individual differences in its work force making an attempt to ensure that these differences are integrated with the organizational goals. Organizational goals should not always take priority as they could lead to demotivation and demoralization of employees. Structures that oppress or frustrate the employee could result in overall under-performance of the entire organization. LIPC went ahead and integrated a performance- related payment system after being advised by CIPD (Professional work-based assessors).This system works in such a way that the employees as LIPC will be automatically paid and rewarded on the basis of individual grade and level of performance in the organization. This has so far resulted in mixed reactions among the employees as each department has its own grievances and opinions regarding the system. the Design department which feels that they are being underpaid considering their level of talent and creativity, The fabrication department is flourishing at the moment and are at the top of their game since the system was adopted and the assembly department is suffering greatly especially since their services could easily be replaced if they keep complaining. Theories Applied in LIPC The design Department The workIn the Design Department requires a certain level of expertise and skills, thus the management irrespective of feeling that the work and creations of the department belong to LIPC also feels that they cannot acquire new staff with an equal or more level of talent. This department is against the performance- related pay system as it does not justify the work- load and intellectual creativity they bear thus giving them less and demeaning rewards. The management has time and again tried to negotiate with the department but have failed terribly. The theory in perspective is the Human relations theory; as the management feels sort of desperate as this department merely does perform a good job and losing them will only cost the organisation a whole lot more. Thus the management has even negotiated with the team but to no avail trying to probably soothe them into adopting the system. However, these are skilled people thus management needs to change the theory; they should apply the classical theory precisely the administrative theory. With reference to Smith, Farmer & Yellowley (2012)the Administrative theory describes management functions as planning, coordinating, controlling, commanding and organizing. Therefore, by all means the management knowing the importance of this department should plan to have them as consultants just as CIPD advised them or much better remove them from the performance- related pay sytem. Alternatively, in accordance to the administrative theory the management may encourage Worker participation by asking the department to suggest what they would like as well as set up common goals with the department. This will save the organization from losing such a skilled team while at the same time ensures the department’s needs are met. The Fabrication Department This department has greatly improved since the performance- based pay and reward system was implemented.. The theory in play is the contingency theory as the performance- based system is currently acting as a contingency that has pushed the workers in the fabrication department to perform extremely well in terms of high-productivity. Smith, Farmer & Yellowley (2012) point out that the contingency theory often attempts to explain the determinants of the effectiveness of a firm; these determinants include performance, consumer satisfaction and also financial and non-financial measures. In this department, however, performance has greatly improved and is likely to continue improving which is in line with any organization’s goals. This department will continually put in long working hours, consistency and dedication especially because the management has assured them of getting training as an incentive in the performance based pay system; this something they earnestly want thus will work completely hard to attain it.Therefore, there is no need for the management to stop applying this theory in this particular department as the workers are greatly benefiting the organization in general. The Assembly Department This department has to be the most challenged in all the above; first and foremost the functions it performs requires little or no training whatsoever thus replacement is not far from reach. More so, the workers here have had no increment to their pay since the system was incorporated, thus are requesting for more flexible hours and frequent short breaks to permit them to refresh so as to enhance their productivity. The management opposes this and is ready to relocate this department’s duty to a low cost country abroad. The theory in play is none other than bureaucracy as the management here is reflecting power and authority by passing threats of firing all the workers in the department; therefore, the workers are pushed to a place where they have no option but to keep working regardless of how frustrated they feel. If anything, they do not want to lose their jobs as they are easily replaceable unlike those in the design department. However, there is a need to change the application of this theory. CIPD (the professional work based assessors) have advised the management to stop passing such threats as in the long run the workers will be unproductive as a result of demoralization. The theory to apply is human-relations as according to Smith, Farmer & Yellowley (2012) satisfied workers will do a far much better job than dissatisfied ones; these workers are asking for a coffee break to improve on productivity this should count for something. Furthermore in human relations-theory, Leadership is more considerate paying attention to the daily tasks that workers indulge in; this department’s work is repetitive thus could get monotonous and boring the management needs to bring this into perspective.The human relations theory says that Jobs need to be designed in a manner that is not dehumanizing but in a way that allows people to attain their full human potential.There is a need to shift to human relations theory. This will enhance productivity in the department while at the same time enhance productivity and the overall success of the organization. An Evaluation on LIPC The commonalities and differences of interest across the departments in LIPC; the design department holds the pluralist aspect as it has no interest in organizational goals and thus is being persuaded by management to adopt the pay system through negotiations. The Fabrication department is more Unitarist as it supports the management’s incorporation of the pay system and is even co-operating to get more incentives. Finally the Assembly department seem to come from a radical perspective as they have not achieved any extra pay in comparison to the fabrication department. They feel there is inequality as the fabrication department is doing too well while they are not. I would recommend that the management is more Unitarist especially in the Design and the Assembly department as they also affect and impact on productivity at the end of the day thus there is a need to come up with common goals as opposed to the current pluralist in design department that will only harbour continuous conflicts based on pay and radical in assembly department that emphasizes on individuality so as to outdo each other. The departments can be allowed to voice their grievances by decentralization of authority wherein decisions are not just made by the management but employees are involved as well. When decision-making is delegated downwards employee will manage to make choices that are in line with organizational goals while at the same time those that do not oppress them as the case in the assembly department. In conclusion organizations are influenced by the structures they have put in place, the individuals or groups that work within them. Organizational behaviour should be given attention as it does help in improving the effectiveness and efficiency in an organization especially where management is concerned.Management and employee relationship should be worked on as it appears to harbour organizational success. “Matching the two (organizational and individual goals) is not always easy and is sometimes referred to as organizational dilemma” (Smith, Farmer & Yellowley 2012, p. 6). Irrespective of the challenge, management can do a better job at securing employee productivity without oppression. Bibliography Smith, P, Farmer, M & Yellowley, W, 2012 Organizational Behaviour, Hodder Education, Abingdon. Read More