Desk Rules Are Reasonable and Justifiable in the Modern Work Place - Case Study Example

BHP’s Desk Rules Student’s name: Professor’s name: Institution’s name: Date: The Extent to which BHP’s Desk Rules are Reasonable and Justifiable in the Modern work Place In the 21stcentury, survival has become the key factor that drives various undertakings. Decisions too end up being triggered by the need to be relevant in the light of others. In these modern times, the ability to possess the best competitive traits is an advantage not only to an individual but also to companies, organizations, government’s departments and corporations. Companies spend sleepless nights, so to say, devising ways and mechanisms to out their rival companies in winning over the trust and the confidence of their clients. It is therefore, not a wonder that BHP mining company is such a company that has joined this trend. It has it done in such a manner that its Desk Rules has become a Centre of controversial discussions. Some people seem to support the rules. Other people seem to be opposed to the rules. The six Desk rules put forth by the BHP’s CEO, Kloppers, are at the good and the benefit of the company. Regardless of criticisms from various quarters, the rules are practical. In the modern work place, they are practical, reasonable, and they can be justified. BHP in the top of its list of Desk Rules is this rule: “Post –it –notes are to be removed from your monitor.” There are those who believe that this is a very rude form of an etiquette rule particularly in the modern times. How can you fail to leave a note warning the would be intruders from interfering with your computer? What should happen to these people on the occasion that their end up interfering with one’s important contents, setups and other vital details? They seem to suggest that such a rule should not be implemented. However, there is a very strong ground to believe that such a rule is very important. Borrowing a lot of support from a human resource journal, work places in these modern times are becoming more and more revolutionary. They are doing this in respect to how the nature of work is changing. The change of the employees profile, technological impact as well as the need for efficiency in a company are also triggering how a company is approaching its mode of working. Enhanced work designs will ultimately lead to increased work knowledge (Shilpa Khanna, 2008). Employees need not be pressed to compromise their service delivery by putting their self-interests first. Employees should seek to be professional in their work. Writing notes will not only compromise the tidiness of the office environment, but it is an outdated mode of communication in the 21st century. Such a method sounds archaic. Following some out- of-fashion communication skills, where the use of computers has become widely in use, should be abhorred. If employees learn to end their programmes it time before leaving them, the use of notes will not find a thriving place. Employees will also learn to be responsible with what type of business they undertake with their computers. Such a rule is very okay. “Other than workstation identification and first Aid or fire warden’s signage, nothing is to be placed on workstations dividers, walls, or door at any time.” States yet another BHP Desk rule. Those people and those more likely to be victimized by this rule appear to be totally objected to this rule. How can one fail to fall victim of such a rule in a free environment? These people will never stop to challenge the proponents of this rule. However, reality has it that each person would like to work in an environment that is serene. If people continue to hang their belongings at whichever point one feels doing it, will it not discourage customers? Certainly not will and this is why all the walls should be respected for the benefit of all people. Company owners, company employees and customers will all enjoy what a clean working condition can trigger. I do agree with the columnist that knowledge workers need to be connected to other people as much as possible. This may necessitate these knowledge workers to have their mobile phones always on line so that they can make any connection to fellow workmen. In fact, successful office goers are known to be good networkers. However, I would like to differ with this columnist ion condemning the directive that requires workers to put their mobile phones at low volume. I think that the columnist needs to understand some basic concepts of human resource management. Ergonomics of the workplace is a major factor that determines the comfort and motivation of an employee. Yes, the so called knowledge workers are supposed to be innovative. They should be in the forefront in the use of technology at the workplace. However, this should not come at the expense of the other employees. Mobile phones are a major route of technology misuse at the workplace. Not only in terms of the disturbance caused by their ringtones but also due to how employees use the various applications in these gadgets. Due to this, measures have to be put in place to govern the use of mobile phones at the workplace. Ringing tones distract smooth running of activities in offices. This is because they cause distractions to the nearby persons. Some ringtones can not only be a source of embarrassment to the owner of the phone but also to a coworker. This can cause a loss of morale on the worker or a customer waiting to be served in an office. There is no doubt that this can lead to lower productivity of that particular employee or scare such a customer to ever attend that office in the future. A study conducted in the US showed that loud noises originating from phones, speakers or loud speakers are ranked fifth in the list of workplace pet peeves. (Guerin, 2009). The CEO is just but trying to make the workplace to be bearable for workers at BHP. Otherwise, what would happen if everybody was allowed to have his or her phone ring at any loud volume? This will definitely lead to workplace distractions. The environment will not be very good for all workers, not only the knowledge workers. This wills translate to lower productivity. It doesn’t cost anything for a knowledge worker to have his or her phone in silent mode or at a low volume that does not interfere with the working environment. The knowledge workers are in deed the ones who are supposed to be proactive and use their knowledge to ensure that the workplace is bearable to everyone. The issue of clothing placement is a matter of intuition and commonsense more than the application of any knowledge. Yes, being an employee of such a big organization means that one must have gone through some classroom somewhere. It may not be necessary therefore, to follow such a gentleman or a lady to ensure that he does not position his or her clothing on the chairs or on tables. But not a single organization can operate without rules to govern the code of conduct. All people are not the same in terms of their understanding or self control. Everyone is bound to follow the law of least resistance by taking the shortest route always. An employee will put a jacket on a chair that is close to him or her other than walking all the way to the specified position. Proper positioning of clothing is vital in the workplace is important. If not properly placed, clothes can be causes of accidents at the workplace. Some workers also use the technique of hanging a piece of clothe on a chair to indicate that they are around, even when they are far away, a technique to escape workplace without permission. Therefore, the CEO is justified to issue the etiquette directives. When it comes to the issue of snacks or even drinks in the work place, I personally disagreed with the statement that a rule that prohibits them is unreasonable. In fact, such a rule does not in any way show lack of understanding of the requirements of a worker in an organization. It does not even suppress the creativity and performance of a knowledge worker in a given company. The rule stipulated in the memo given out to workers in BHP Company clearly states; “Food must NOT be eaten at your workstation” and “No food that emits strong odors is allowed”. Such a memo is helpful both to the workers and the company at large. To start with, the fact that workers will be taking food and dinks at their workplace can negatively affect other workers. Some foods emit very strong odors. What pleases one person may affect another negatively. As a result, this will affect the throughput of that person. This will eventually lead to reduced output by the company at large. Another affect on foods and drinks in workplaces is the destruction of computers. When worker is taking his/her drink; be it water or other beverages, it may spill over the workstations. Such a situation cannot be ruled out as impossibility. When this happens, the spilled fluid may get it the keyboard, monitor or at worst get into the Central Processing Unit (CPU). The fluid will end up short-circuiting the whole computer which means that the computer will be damaged. In such situations, the company will in turn incur huge loses hence decreasing its productivity. It will be forced to replace the damaged computers. Carrying and taking food at the workplace will create divisions among the workers. There those who will take food in the offices and those who will not be taking food in the office. Such divisions will affect the togetherness and cohesion of workers. The behavior of taking foods in the workplace will make the offices untidy. This will affect the productivity of the workers as they will be forced to execute their duties in unfavorable environment. Someone will have to be hired to make sure that the offices are clean and hence the company will be required to hire more workers. This will decrease their profitability. As confirmed by Ms Stevens, the BHP Billiton representative, the company has dedicated rooms where workers can take lunch together. In these rooms, the workers can socialize and even read newspapers. Thu, the rule restricting workers at BHP from eating at the workstations are well intended should not be taken as an oppressive directive. The desk rule given by Kloppers, BHP’s CEO on iPod and MP3 players cannot either be considered as lack of understanding of the knowledge workers needs at wok. The behavior of listening to an iPod or an MP3 player while working affects the productivity of that worker in one way or the other. First, it means that the worker will not fully concentrate on his/her work. This may have many implications. The worker may end up making silly and fatal mistakes in his work. If its data entry, the worker may enter wrong details. This is attributed to the fact that the human mind in most cases cannot multitask. Wrong details are detrimental to the company. Another affect of listening to iPods and music players while working will affect the attention the work will be playing to the people around him/her. Such will be situations when a fellow worker or even a customer needs to be attended. He will be forced to yell or even knock the worker’s desk to get attention simply because the worker cannot hear over the loud music. Elsewhere, the worker may not hear an incoming call from the office phone. Such will deter effective communication within the company’s premises and the outside world. On the other hand, listening to music while at work has some advantages. According to Gaebler, some cool music while working increases someone’s productivity. The music is said to stimulate the brain and protects one from the work place distractions. (Campbell 2003). Looking at the issue, listening to iPods or MP3 players while working has more negatives than positives. Thus, the directive, “No iPod or MP3 players to be used in the office” given by the company management is to be supported to increase the company’s productivity. This debate is most likely that it can keep on assuming various forms. Another thing is the fact that formulation of the office rules and regulations will cease not. In fact, the question whether policies are good, bad or mediocre should be encouraged to continue. Kloppers’ Desk rules are not the best in the world as far that companies are concerned. But what does a company stand for? Is should seek to render services to the people. This it can do only making various rules and regulations. The fact that Kloppers’ Desk rules are nevertheless effective. Should a company seek to please its employees or serve the customers? The later is to be favored. What other companies should seek in their administration is to involve its employees. This is what Kloppers failed in his formulation of desk rules. Each day will continue accommodating issues surrounding office etiquette. BHP is neither the first one nor the last one. It has just joined the complexities that are inevitable to advancing companies across the globe. What should be in the agenda is the endeavor to scrutinize them whenever these similar topics arise as in this case of Desk Rules of the BHP mining company. The CEO should continue formulating similar rules and regulations to all other departments of the company. They are very practical which if properly followed and adhered by all stakeholders, BHP as a company will propel its fortunes to greater heights. References Guerin, L (2009). Smart policies for workplace technologies: Emails, blogs, Cell phones and more. Berkeley, CA: NOLO Venezia, C, Allee, V & Schwabe, O . 2008, Designing productive spaces for mobile workers: Role insights from network analysis, Information, Knowledge, Systems Management, vol. 7, no. 1-2, pp. 61-75. Pascoe, M. 2011, ‘BHP's desk rules: Kloppers hates clutter’, Business Day, 23 August Campbell, J.D. 2003, The Mozart effect: tapping the power of music to heal the body, strengthen the mind, and unlock the creative spirit, Random House Trade Paperbacks, New York. Davenport, T.H. 2005, thinking for a living: how to get better performance and results from knowledge workers, Harvard Business School Press, Boston. Argyris, C. 1993, Knowledge for action: a guide to overcoming barriers to organizational change, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Sundstrom, E.D & Sundstrom, M.G. 2003, Work places: the psychology of the physical environment in offices and factories, Ashgate, Aldershot. Barrett, E. 1992, leading organizational learning: harnessing the power of knowledge, MIT Press, Cambridge. Bardach, E. 2009, A practical guide for policy analysis: the eightfold path to more effective problem solving, CQ Press, Washington. Mankin, D. 2009, Human resource development, Oxford University Press, New York. Langford, B.Y. 2005, The etiquette edge: the unspoken rules for business success, AMACOM, New York. Dul, J & Neumann, W P 2009, ‘Ergonomics contribution to company strategy’, Applied Ergonomics, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 745-752 Gilmore, S. & Williams, S. 2009, Human resource management, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Read More