Occupational Health and Safety- Management Theory and Application - Assignment Example

OH&S management theory and application Name Course Institution Professor Date Introduction QUESTION 1: Sources of Conflicts A conflict is a state of disagreement whereby individuals within an organization are not in good terms with one another. The case presented in relation to the Acme Conversions Pty Limited is characterized by certain forms conflicts. The sources of the conflict herein therefore include lack of better working conditions, lack of coordination among different groups, uncoordinated supervisory services, poor supervisory skills, and overemphasis on the interest of organization among others. Lack of better working conditions Conflict at the work site arose due to the fact there were no better working conditions (Kaye 1998, p.38). This is a contributing factor in regards to how the students relate to their work as well as to the rising concerns from employees of Acme Conversions. Poor working conditions at the work site is the factor that pushed forward for the negotiations initiated by the employees. The difficult conditions at the site can be said to have resulted into an internal conflict between acme conversions and the employees hence seen to have facilitated their process of bargain in regards to the site allowance. Students are seen to be quite uncomfortable under the working of the site. They are said to experience increased tension which emanates from the fact that they are forced to perform their tasks repetitively due to the poor work conditions. In addition, the students’ mode of working is dictated by the difficult conditions making the students hustle too much in order to ensure that they do their work and completes it despite the state they are in (Robbins and Judge 2007, p. 552). Their tasks seems excessively demanding as they are forced to work under very tight constrains of time due to the dirt and dust created at the work site. Lack of co-ordination among different groups The parties involved in line with this conflict source are the hired students themselves. The students are seen to have been divided into groups with each having a certain task to execute. There seems to be a conflict as the students perform their tasks. Uncoordinated effort makes people within an organization to interfere with each others work (Robbins and Judge 2007, p.552). The groups involved are those students supposed to clean and those whose task is to paint. The ultimate impact of the conflict between the two groups as regards their performance is sub standard work. Uncoordinated supervisory services There is need for there to be coordinated supervision if certain organizational goals are to be achieved as planned. The two supervisors tasked to manage the manner in which the students performed their tasks are seen to have different views as far as supervision is concerned. They are Ron Corbett and Tom Monalott (Kaye 1998, p. 40). Their different perspectives translate to a conflict between them. Each supervisor has their own way of facilitating the process hence uncoordinated supervisory services which is key hindrance to towards better performance of an organization. Poor supervisory skills There is the existence of a conflict between the students and Monalott. As a supervisor Monalott exercises excessive control over the students. The students like him du to the fact that he does not treat them with respect. Whenever he sees that something is not going well he responds with abuses and this state of affairs greatly discourages the hired students (Kaye 1998, p.56). In response to his wild supervision the students decides to work as they please by wasting time around at work as they execute their tasks. Their reaction slows down the pace of finishing the job. Monalott becomes highly concerned about the situation as job is deemed not to meet the deadline of completion as it had been agreed upon. Over emphasis on the interests of the organization hence overlooking employees’ needs Monalott overlooks the interests of the students in that they need to work under supervision whereby they are being encouraged and motivated to work. He shows greater emphasis and interest on meeting the short deadline of work (Kaye 1998, p. 76). He does not have any concerns about the needs and interests of the students and the fact that their working conditions are not favorable. Lack of courtesy during the management process In regards to this conflict arises between the students and the supervisor, Monalott. This is evidenced by the fact that he watches the students waiting for them to make a little mistake for him to blast them with orders. He also abuses them whenever they are on the wrong. Such behavior hinders effective management process (Montana 2008, p. 265). In as much a situation might be hazardous he seems not to care and does nothing about it apart from just watching for things to wrong. This makes the students dislike him for it indicates a high degree of heartlessness. QUESTION 2: Management Theories Theory X and theory Y are management theories that constitute a variety of qualities through which the management of employees may be facilitated. They are basically management motivational theories. In the case presented Ron upholds the qualities of a manager as it is under theory Y. in the course of his supervision his assumption is that the students are ambitious, as well as self motivated and are capable of exercising self control. He provides a working environment for the students such that they are able to enjoy doing their duties (Nissinen and Vesa 2006, p.45). He directs students in the best way possible explaining to them the most suitable through they can overcome their problems. Ron discusses problems with the students and this in relation to theory Y the students are given the opportunity and proper conditions to accept responsibilities and to exercise self direction and control towards the accomplishment of the set goals of the organization. They students are seen to be highly motivated working under the supervision of Ron with their commitment to their increasing. Ron is quite strategic as far the creation of a positive working environment for the students is concerned. He gives to objectively gives praise to students where it deserves (Nissinen and Vesa 2006, p.32). This way a climate is created for the students where there is trust between them and their supervisor. Ron promotes open communication with his subordinates in a bid to minimize the difference that may exist between the relationships of superiors and their subordinates. This way he is able to facilitate the development of an environment whereby the students are able to work and improve their abilities as well as talent. Through his discussions with the students he enables them to have a sense of belonging with more trust being promoted since they have say in whatever decisions that are made regarding their working. In relation to theory X, Ron does not exhibit any characteristics whatsoever that may indicate that his students are incapacitated in regards to working without any supervision (Nissinen and Vesa 2006, p.38). On the other hand, Monalott’s manner of supervision relates more to theory X. He seems to assume that the students are lazy by nature, can avoid work if given a chance thus necessitating a high degree of supervision. Monalott’s manner of supervision is evidenced by the fact that he takes great control over the work of the students in a bid to ensure that they finish the work on time. He exercises close supervision on the students so that they may not slack around. The same assumption that is upheld by theory X is reflected in the character of the students in that due to the close supervision of every detail of their work they have very little ambition to execute their tasks (Nissinen and Vesa 2006, p. 65). Monalott stresses more on the achievement of the organizational goal that is meeting the deadline of the work which results to him relying on coercion and threat in order to make the students comply with the set rules. The ultimate outcome of such kind of supervision according to theory X is increased mistrust on the side of the students to their supervisor, supervision that is highly restrictive and a working atmosphere that is highly punitive. This is the case with the students working at the acme conversion site. The fact that he watches the students waiting for them to make a little mistake for him to blast them with orders is a clear indication that his main aim is to blame them on belief that is highly upheld in relation to theory X. Such a manner of supervision negatively impact to an organization (Nissinen and Vesa 2006, p. 32). The students in the long run are seen to develop reluctant behavior in their working since they are not motivated. The final outcome is that the work is not completed on time as stipulated under the contract which leads to Monalott being requested to give an explanation in regards to the situation. QUESTION 3a: Organization Culture existing at ACME The organizational structure of acme conversion limited constitutes workgroups and individual task allocations geared towards the achievement of the set goals. The students were dived into group with each being allocated certain tasks to be executed within a specified period. Ron’s supervision style depicts this form of organizational structure. On the other the individual basis task allocation is evidenced by students under MOnalott’s supervision. They were allocated tasks with each being closely supervised to ensure that they produce the desired results. Basically any given organizational structure should facilitate better coordination and supervision for achievement of goals with ease. QUESTION 3b: Health and Safety Management System The health and safety management system that is in existence in the acme conversion pty limited is not that well defined. The system involves the employees and the supervisors developing their own methods coping with hazardous situations. The students are seen to be at greater risk since they did not go through any orientation in relation to safety that they are supposed to uphold while in the working site. A good is Mcllroy situation whereby he risks falling while on top of a ladder. With prior knowledge of how the ladder should be placed he would have not been at risk. QUESTION 3c: Range of Hazardous at Old Factory There is quite a range of hazardous circumstances within the working environment of the old factory. Dirt and dust from the construction site poses greater risk to the health of the students, employees as well as the supervisors. Additionally noise from the construction site posses a great deal as it may lead to ear problems. Such hazardous situation made everyone work under stress. QUESTION 4: Hersey & Blanchards’ Situational Leadership Theory Hersey and Blanchards situational leadership theory characterizes the style leadership in line with the amount of relationship behavior and task behavior that is provided to the followers by a leader (Hersey and Blanchard 2005, Pp.46). In regards to Ron he bears the characteristic of leader in relation to this theory whereby he applies a one-way mode of communication. He defines roles to the students and directs them on what task to do, how to do it, where and when to have it complete. Secondly the theory relates to manner of supervision of Ron that allows for participation of the students through shared decision making on issues that concern them (Hersey and Blanchard 2005, Pp.50). This is seen to be facilitated by how he interacts with the students in trying to find viable solutions to the problems that the students are experiencing at their work site. He maintains high relation ship behavior with the students whereby the students like him and trust him making their supervision quite easier. On the other hand Monalott way of leadership relates to the Hersey and Blanchards situational leadership theory from the perspective of the levels of maturity as identified by the theory (Hersey and Blanchard 2005, Pp.56). In regards to this the theory has it that the style of leadership depends on the person being led. Leadership by Monalott reflects his belief that his subordinates do not have the required skills for the task they are delegated to perform and that they are not able or rather willing to take responsibility for their tasks hence the close supervisory behavior. Secondly Monalott depicts the quality of leadership from the theory in the context that he does delegates a duty then passes the responsibility of executing the task to the students (Hersey and Blanchard 2005, Pp.62). He then watches them monitoring the progress of how the task is being carried out. QUESTION 5: Contingency Management viewpoint and a Transformational Leadership strategy Transformational leadership strategy involves the aspect of the leaders’ actions influencing their followers. This strategy could have improved the condition in the factory since subordinates would follow their superior because they desire to do so (Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe 2001, Pp.127). It strategy relates more to leadership by Monalott. The idea behind it emanates from the emphasis of leaders acting as motivating factors geared towards making subordinates aware of their value and importance of outcomes of tasks as well as activating their personal understanding of self actualization (Kotlyar and Karakowsky 2007, Pp. 40). Secondly with such a strategy the subordinates would be in a position to develop trust on their exemplary leaders hence work with commitment hand in hand with their leaders towards achieving the mission goals of the organization with greater efficiency and effectiveness (Bass, B.M. and Avolio 2002, Pp.50). From the adoption both the perspectives the working conditions of the factory would improve and better results obtained in the end of the duration of work. The contingency management view point stipulate that there is no any right way to do things but what to do is dictated by the complexity of internal as well as environmental contingencies (Lutans 2011, Pp.99). By the factory adopting this strategy it would be in apposition to achieve adaptability and flexibility. This is due to the fact that it would in apposition to develop structure that enhance and promote decentralization (Burns and Stalker 1999, Pp.77). This way the factory would have in a better position to know the best way to follow in relation to ensuring that the work of painting was done and completed ion time. This reflects an improved working condition within the factory. Secondly this strategy upholds the aspect of predictability and certainty. By its adoption there would be procedures and rules in place which would facilitate decision making with ease for routine problems and tasks within the factory (Mohr 2000, Pp.89). With such adoptions in relation to the two strategies the conditions of the factory would be better of. QUESTION 6: Level of Training Concerning the level of training provided to the students they students should have undergone more comprehensive training to have a proper understanding of the systems at the factory and be able to identify potential hazards in the site (Landale 2006, Pp. 78). The acme conversions should have provided fall protection systems to the students and ensure that they were being used appropriately. Also information regarding safety measures in line with carrying out operations with equipments at the work site should have been made available to students. This implies that they should have been trained on how to exercise caution while using equipments. The students should have been trained as well as in regards to how to respond to emergencies within the construction site (Landale 2006, Pp. 80). It should been made known to them of the areas that are risky to be around and asked to avoid them. The same case applies to the use of very delicate equipments that are not meant for them which could turn out to be very risky as far as causing injury is concerned. They as well would have been discouraged to stay away from areas where equipments are under operation (Landale 2006, Pp. 81). In conclusion Inspection of equipment before use is another area of concern that is aimed ensuring that the equipment is fit before its use. This would reduce the risk of students being injured by the equipment. References Alimo-Metcalfe, F. and Alban-Metcalfe, H. (2001). ‘The development of a new Transformational Leadership Questionnaire’. The Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, vol. 1, pp. 1-27. Bass, B. and Avolio, K. (2002). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. pp. 45-55. Burns, T. and G. Stalker. G. (1999). The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock. pp. 77. Hersey, M. and Blanchard, K. (2005). Management of Organizational Behavior. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. pp. 45-66. Kaye, K. (1998). Workplace Wars and How to End Them: Turning Personal Conflict into Productive Teamwork. New York: Macmillan, pp. 36-40. Kotlyar and Karakowsky (2007). Fallinng Over Ourselves to Follow the Leader. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Pp.38-49. Landale, A. (2006). Training and Development. Sydney: Gower Publishing, Ltd, pp.77-82. Lutans, F. (2011). Organisational Behavior. New Delhi: Tata McGraw Hill, pp.99. Mohr, L. (2000). Explaining Organizational Behavior. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. pp. 88-93. Montana, P. (2008). Management. New York: Barron's Educational Series. pp. 265. Nissinen, K. and Vesa, L. (2006). Deep Leadership. Talentum, Finland. pp.122 Robbins and Judge. (2007). Organizational Behaviour. London: Pearson Education Inc., pp. 551-557. Read More