Evolving of Organizational Behavior - Assignment Example

Organizational Behavior (OB) Case Student’s Name: Name of Institution: Instructor’s Name: Course Code: Date of Submission: Background Context Often as organizations develop, they have to undergo certain significant changes in their overall strategies, operational tactics and practices, size of departments, etc. In other words, as organizations evolve in time, both its leaders and employees need to successfully align with the changes experienced. Thus, the management of organization restructuring is a key component of the contemporary workforce, especially in increasingly dynamic workplace and marketplace (Acharya, 2008; Niewiadomski, 2011). Organization restructuring therefore refers to making critical and important decisions on how to either deploy or redeploy talent, or both. In this respect, organization restructuring may involve a number of processes, e.g. changing the priorities of units, enhancing the effectiveness of the organization, addressing reductions of budgets, and initiating and developing new programs (Niewiadomski, 2011). In recent years, many organizations have had to undergo restructuring. This is attributable to several factors, including globalization (which has broadened the market and meant that domestic companies are eyeing the market beyond the borders), technological changes, and economic difficulties (such as the 2008 global financial crisis and the subsequent recession, which has forced organizations/companies to rethink their management strategies), etc. However, it is important to note that organization restructuring is not as easy. Infact, the bigger the company the harder the process. The company size notwithstanding, successful organization restructuring requires certain abilities. The leadership should be able to anticipate misunderstanding and conflict. As the case of Tom Neal will show, besides these factors, there are many factors that make restructuring challenging. Primary Informant Tom Neal, a white male US citizen of Canadian origin, is 37 years old and has been a business professional for the last 15 years. He was born, raised and mostly studied in Ottawa, the capital city of Canada. Upon his graduation from Ottawa Hills High School he joined King Campus, Ontario, for a two year diploma in CPA. It is after this that Tom Neal went to study in the US and graduated with a BA in Business Administration and Management at Boston University. It is during his senior year here that Tom was lucky to get an internship slot at TDC, which he did part time. After this he enrolled for another two-year Masters degree in International Business at the same University. After this, he returned to TDC as a full-time intern for a few months before he was employed on a contract basis. Evidently, Tom’s main focus of study was in relation to business studies, and especially financial matters. His love for business and financial courses can be attributed to both his father and his math teacher at elementary school. Tom’s father worked as an Accountant by profession, and his math teacher at elementary helped him develop interest in math, which became his favorite subject. These two factors contributed to his love for the two, and business finance provides him with both. Tom Neal joined TDC in 1997 as an Associate and has finally climbed the ranks to finally become senior associate at the organization. Holding this position for about 13 years, since October 2000, Tom’s roles and responsibilities has expanded over the years to include clarifying the firm’s financial model and present financial position; conducting research agendas so as to inform the firm’s business or strategic planning process, and identifying market trends, implications and challenges among others. In all the years studying and working in the US, Tom was granted a US citizenship. Setting TDC was founded in 1968. It is a non-profit group that offers research and consultation services exclusively for the non-profit sector. This involves offering management and business skills to the non-profit companies, which helps them to conduct their missions effectively. The company is believed to possess in-depth knowledge of the factors in non-profit sector as seen in the quality of its services. But this is not much of a surprise considering that the organization is not only one of the oldest, but also the biggest companies of its kind. The company’s success is partly attributed to its main business approach, which emphasizes the need for the non-profit sector to align its missions, markets and operations through a critical application of business, management and financial skills. Being an old company, at least considering the year of its inception (1968), the company has had to make certain adjustments so as to cope with contemporary marketplace and workplace climate. Like many other old companies that found themselves caught in a fast changing world, TDC was better prepared in certain areas than others. To its advantage, for instance, the diversity of its services and clientele (e.g. organizations from cultural, arts, education, government, environment and human areas, among others, and located in both the US and New England) means that the organization already had a good understanding of diversity and was therefore well placed to deal with it as an inherent character of globalization. Nonetheless, again like many other organizations, TDC has had to consider restructuring as part of dealing with contemporary business environment. Perhaps as part of dealing with the global financial crisis of 2008, and the subsequent recession, TDC decided to lay off a few employees, which would be done through the reduction of the company’s departments. One of the casualties of the efforts to reduce the number of departments in the organizations was Tom’s department, which was merged with another department. Case Entering TDC in 1997 as an Associate, Tom Neal hoped to make it to the position of Senior Associate. His qualifications worked for him. They were just the right combination for the job. Finally, the opportunity presented itself in 2000 when one of the Senior Associates moved on to fill up a position in another company. Despite the many applications received for the job, Tom was given the best on grounds of his qualifications and- most importantly- on based on the fact that he was already an employee at the company, which means that he understood the workings in the organization and would not need much orientation. Until the time of the merger, which will be described here, Tommy Neal understood his role. His capacity as the senior associate was traditionally known to be answerable to the clients- albeit through the TDC management. Infact, in the advert that called for applications for the post, TDC clearly indicated this obligation of the senior associate to the clients. And to create the picture of the roles involved, the ad emphasized the need for the senior associate to think strategically and holistically about all matters relating to the client, e.g. organization and markets (TDC, 2011). True to this definition of roles and responsibilities, Tom Neal initially (until the merger) dealt directly with the clients, at times collaborating with some of the clients’ staff members in developing business plans for the clients. In other words, the senior associate did not ‘exactly’ work for the TDC, but for its clients. The said merger involved the infusion of the Tom’s department into the overall Human Resource department of the organization. In other words, while Tom could initially deal with clients directly, and even ‘own’ them, the merger has changed that. This apparent change in roles in responsibilities is partly attributed to the fact that the new department does not seem to operate on any clearly defined job descriptions. Almost every person working in the new department is of the same level (which is not even defined) and are doing more-or-less the same tasks. Despite having asked about the title of his new position, and what exactly it entails (i.e. job description), the management has not been forthcoming. However, this is not the only situation that alarms Tom. On top of this, the manager has since assigned four other employees to be the leaders of the teams in the department. But much to the chagrin of Tom, these team leaders, despite having the same qualifications as Tom, have been given the power to evaluate him and conduct the performance appraisal upon which Tom’s promotion depends. Tom’s worry is not the appraisal per se, but the fact that there is so much at stake (career development) to be put in the hands of one with no more qualification than his own. Considering the relationship he has had with the company, and having spent 15 years, all his career years there, it is easy to understand Tom’s fears, dissatisfaction and growing mistrust. Looking at this situation, a number of factors surrounding the restructuring come to light. There is miscommunication, especially since it is apparent the post-restructuring context has taken people by surprise. In other words, the employees, including Tom, were not informed of what the restructuring would involve and what to expect. But even worse is the fact that the organization does not really seem to know and understand the consequences of the restructuring. Actually, the management seems to be surprised by the situation as much as Tom and other employees are. This shows that the management did not have a vision for the restructuring and a clear plan to realize it. Theoretical Framework As already stated above, an organization does face dynamism and ever-changing pressures within the ecosystem in which it operates (e.g. emerging market trends and spaces, stronger demands necessitating cost controls, etc). Thus an organization, in order to boost its competitiveness, may respond by restructuring in an effort to streamline its operations. According to Acharya (2011), although restructuring, viewed from a cause-effect dimension, may seem as the best response to changes in both internal and external business stimuli, it does not necessarily equate to improved performance or competitiveness. In fact, they may cause more disruptions and confusion. As such, restructuring has attracted much skepticism. The skeptics argue that restructuring may only be superficial without necessarily setting in motion real changes in human behavior and management. Acharya (2011) equates this to the analogy of ‘old wine in a new bottle’. For example, the restructuring may simply involve developing a new organization chart rather than – as we see in the case of Tom Neal - providing critical and clear definition of new interfaces, positions, roles and responsibilities. The potential failure of restructuring may come true if the organization is not properly geared towards supporting the processes it aims to implement. Therefore, before an organization embarks on restructuring, it must first of all understand its expectations and what it hopes to achieve in and through the process. This involves ensuring that the internal climate or processes can accommodate the changes inherent in restructuring. The organization must also prepare its communication base so as to sensitize its various stakeholders. In other words, the success of restructuring depends on careful preparation and planning in advance so as to address programmatic needs (which also involves assessing specific needs of the organization and identifying possible options of restructuring), required support services meant to facilitate the achievement of organizational goals, and effective planning of and communication to the workforce (Acharya, 2008; Niewiadomski, 2011; Plus HR Ltd, 2011). In this regard, before undertaking restructuring, the organization should take into consideration a number of factors: Human Resource or staffing factors and labor relations, change management and- already mentioned- communication. a) Communication Before change can finally be implemented, it is important to communicate to the stakeholders (employees, business partners, clients, etc) and let them know about the changes to be conducted, why the changes are not to be implemented (i.e. how important they are), and what effects it will have on the operations of the organization and how critical they are to the organization’s success (Plus HR Ltd 2011; Niewiadomski, 2011). Unfortunately, as we see in the case of study, management may be reluctant to share some information for some reason(s), e.g. fear that certain employees may leave be upset or become unproductive, especially in relation to reducing or eliminating some positions. In the case of study here, for instance, it seems the Senior Associate position is one of those being removed as the new structure steps in, and the management is reluctant to let Tom know about it. However, the fact that the management is not being open to Tom is not helping resolve its fears (quitting, employee being upset or becoming unproductive). On the contrary, it is even making the situation worse. Name Another is already feeling neglected and increasingly lacking trust for the organization. Besides, it largely found that employees respond best to timely and accurate information on the circumstances that face the organization at large as well as specific units/departments. Against this backdrop, it is important that that communication to employees is honest, authoritative, inclusive, timely and responsive (i.e. employees are given opportunities to respond by commenting, asking questions and providing input to the decision makers. Also, the communication should strategically address the circumstances of the restructuring and workforce. In this case, for instance, the management is supposed to have informed employees of the positions that would be eliminated (e.g. the Senior Associate position) and about the new supervisory roles to be assigned to other employees. According to Niewiadomski (2011), employees generally do understand why some positions are eliminated if the management makes it clear. Also, the TDC management should have anticipated that interdepartmental conflicts would accompany the merge, and that the departmental restructuring would cause certain employees- if not all- to worry about their own job securities. The management could have averted such fears, as experienced by Tom Neal, by communicating clearly and completely. The management should also have considered group dynamics. These are related to how individuals in a group get along, i.e. whether they trust each other and work together or not. The communication should also have addressed questions of workload. This relates to work adjustment as a result of the merge. By disclosing all these factors, management can establish an important framework upon which its restructuring process thrives. b) Human Resource or Staffing Factors Like many organizations of its size TDC operates in a diverse and complex employment, regulatory, statutory, and procedural environment. Therefore, it is of utmost importance HRM in planning the changes expected to be initiated in the process of restructuring. This is especially so since restructuring normally- as also seen in this particular case- results in: adding new job positions; reducing or entirely reducing the existing positions; changing roles and responsibilities; or even modifying reporting relationships between the current employees; reduce or lay off some employees. All these situations are grounds for conflict, not only between employees themselves, but also between employees and management and vice versa. Also related to this factor is the issue of labor relations. Reorganizations or restructuring can also affect certain classified staff/employees who are covered by a labor contract. Such a situation may lead to: problems of skimming, which refers to diverting work from a bargaining unit; and obligations over bargaining on issues related to changes on working hours, working conditions and wages. By actively involving the Human Resource department, even hiring other HRM consultants, an organization can avert such problems. c) Change Management Effective management of change can be a very daunting task. This depends on picking an appropriate and relevant framework for change (Carroll & Harrison, 2004). The word ‘relevant’ here is an implied acknowledgement of the fact that different situations require different strategies or variations of a particular strategy. In other words, the same plan may not work in a different context. Therefore, it is important for an organization to consider its own unique circumstances and work towards dealing with this. Ultimately, planning change involves: setting the tone for change, i.e. deciding what should change and creating the right climate for the coming changes; communication, i.e. delivering a single message on the vision for change; and acknowledging positive behavior and rewarding it, i.e. involves both the implementation and sustenance of change, facilitating action and celebrating short-term successes. By understanding restructuring (what it really means and the processes it involves), an organization increases chances of meeting its intended objectives. There are times when restructuring may be confused with re-alignment. But it is important to understand that the two are different, and that difference lies in the complexity and purpose of the activities involved. Restructuring is undertaken to save costs aimed at boosting a weakening business or improving competitiveness in the market. But despite these potential benefits, it is important for organizations to understand the consequences of restructuring, as well as consider all possible side effects on both the work environment and employees. In relation to the circumstances in which Tom Neal finds himself, Acharya (2008) posits that retained employees who have to work in the post-restructuring context are ever wary- and justifiably so- of their organizations’ future. Thus, organizations need to consider all these factors and have comprehensive plan for addressing them for restructuring to be a success. References Acharya, S. (2008). Organizational Restructuring: Challenges & Opportunities. Cool Avenues: India’s Leading MBA Community Portal. Retrieved 15 June 2012, http://www.coolavenues.com/know/hr/subhashini-org-4.php Carroll, G.R. & Harrison, J.R. (2004). Merging Cultures. Retrieved 15 June 2012, http://www.mergers-and-growth.com/media/6821/merger%20paper.pdf Niewiadomski, F. (2011). Business Modernization: innovative and Creative Organizational restructuring. Retrieved 15 June 2012, http://ezinearticles.com/?Business-Modernization:-Innovative-and-Creative-Organizational-Restructuring&id=6588286 Plus HR Ltd (2011). How to Ensure You Reap the Benefits of an Organization Restructure. Retrieved 15 June 2012, http://www.plushr.com/pdfs/Managing_a_successful_organisation_restructure.pdf TDC. (2011). Senior Associate. Retrieved 15 June 2012, http://www.tdcorp.org/employment/senior_associate.pdf Read More