Management Styles in the Multico - Case Study Example

MULTICO case study - Using theory to support your analysis, examine the management style(s) in this case and their effects on relationships with the workforce in terms of power, resistance and motivation. 1. Introduction The development of corporate activities worldwide has to be based on appropriate strategic planning. However, there are cases where the plans adopted by a firm within the international market are proved to be inadequate for the achievement of the target set. There are many reasons for this failure: limited experiences and competencies of managers is considered to be one of the most important reason for this outcome. On the other hand, there is always the choice of changing existed strategies and developing alternative plans, i.e. of introducing changes that can refer to a variety of organizational sectors. In this context, it is noticed that 'change is a constant in modern working life; since change is inevitable, managers must work to give their staff a sense of control over changing situations' (Rosenberg, 1993, 21). Current paper focuses on the changes implemented in Multico, a firm that operates around the world, especially referring to one of the firm's divisions, the 'DrugDiv'. In this division a series of changes was attempted; these changes involved in the replacement of the firm's (division's) IT systems. Appropriate training was offered to the firm's staff however it seems that there were further more issues that should be discussed regarding the specific initiative of the firm's managers. 2. Main aspects of management styles used in Multico - employees' response In Multico, management decisions focus on the expansion of the business activity and the increase of the productivity of employees. For this reason, a series of changes has been promoted by the firm's managers in order for the firm's operational standard to be improved - technology is the main tool for the achievement of this target. At a first level, it seems that the firm's employees participate actively in all organizational decisions; however when having to implement the above mentioned changes in 'DrugDiv' the firm's managers act without a previous discussion of the issue with employees. This is the main complaint of employees in the specific division of the firm. The implementation of the new IT system has been promoted without the employees to be informed in advance on the attempted changes; even after the implementation of the IT system the employees were not asked to state their view regarding the whole scheme. On the other hand, gradually efforts have been made by the firm's management in order to fill this gap. This effort started in December 1995 when each member of the staff was given a new laptop computer and new software in order to communicate more effectively with the other members of the staff. Apart from that, a database was also provided to all firm's employees (one year after, in December 1996) in order to further support the training of the employees on new systems and to improve the communication and the access of employees to valuable data. The above behaviour of the firm's management team could be evaluated using the relevant literature. In accordance with Eoyang et al. (2001, 5) 'many organization change initiatives start at the top and deal strongly with any resistance from system agents that blocks progress; common ways of responding to resistance include downsizing, restructuring, and re-engineering'. On the other hand, Huy (2002, 31) supported that 'fundamental change in personnel, strategy, organizational identity, or established work roles and interests often triggers intense emotions'. In other words, the way that managers in Multico handle the whole project (implementation of changes in the 'DrugDiv' division of the firm) could have led to severe turbulences within the organization. The above assumption is also supported by Coombs et al. (2004, 491) who noticed that 'managers need to understand how aggressive behaviour may signal organizational problems such as stress, resistance to policies, and feelings of powerlessness and be perceived as functional coping mechanisms for some workers'. In other words, managers in Multico should pay attention to the views of employees regarding the new system, their reactions and their expectations (referring to the changes that would be expected to be done in order for the new system to be effective). It should be noticed that in accordance with a survey made in the workplace (p. 122 of the case study) approximately 50% of the employees claimed that the implementation of the IT system made the work more difficult. We could refer indicative to the comments of one of the firm's employees regarding the whole project: 'If they dropped all the extra paperwork that went along with the computers it would be fine' (p. 122 of the case study). It is also noticed that the firm's human resources manager showed 'indifference towards the departure of experienced reps' (p. 123 of the case study). It is clear therefore that the strategy followed by the firm's managers regarding the implementation of the new IT system should be thoroughly re-examined trying to identify the most appropriate scheme for the achievement of this target: this scheme would be effective if it would refer to the active participation of employees' in all the procedure and the development of communication and cooperation within the organization. In this context, it is stated by Sias (2005, 385) that 'practitioners in troubled organizations (e.g., those with high levels of turnover, low levels of performance and morale) might examine the quality of the supervisor-subordinate relationships in their organizations to determine how that might be detracting from the dispersion of quality information throughout the organization'. In other words, the improvement of knowledge management within the organization could help towards the improvement of the performance of employees within all organizational departments. It seems that the management of knowledge within Multico - and its specific division - needs extensive re-structuring. The communication between employees and managers is poor; there is no effective exchange of info throughout the organization; as a result any strategy designed and applied on the firm's particular departments does not respond to the firm's needs and the skills of employees; the failure of any change attempted should be therefore expected. In accordance with Frenkel (2002, 150) 'workplace relations are both an expression of wider economic, political and social forces and a major influence on the life chances of most adults; these patterns of management-worker relationships vary between societies from highly conflictual to strongly cooperative and tend to change over time'. From another point of view, Poole (1998) refer to the terms of any change attempted in modern organization. In this context, it is noticed that 'when change is needed in an organization it is likely the culture or identity of the organization will be targeted for change; whatever it is called there is an implication that the existing cognitive structures are in jeopardy; the transformed organization, whether it be minor (first-order change) or major (second-order change), will not be the same as its predecessor' (Poole, 1998, 45). Under these terms, the reactions to any change attempted within a particular workplace are considered to be a logical consequence (and a common phenomenon). However, the extension of these reactions (or else resistance) is an issue that should be effectively handled by the firm's managers. The latter should have taken in advance all appropriate measures in order to ensure that the resistance developed in the workplace (referring to a specific effort for implementing change within a particular organization) would be minimized. On the other hand, it is noticed by Greve (1998, 59) that 'organizational change has been considered "as an outcome jointly determined by motivation to change, opportunity to change, and capability to change'. Furthermore, it is supported by Anson (2000, 21) that 'managing organizational change remains one of the most important challenges facing HR professionals today'. In the case of Multico (referring to its division DrugDiv) managers failed to foresee the reactions of employees; the main reason for this failure is the fact that managers in the specific organization did not ask the employees to participate actively in the relevant project. We could refer to the statement of one of the firm's employees - regarding the participation of employees in the attempted change: 'Targeting - no one was asked about it' (page 121 of case study). Furthermore, it is supported by another employee that 'People with experience should be asked about what is being done and how to do it' (page 121 of case study). It is clear from the above, that management decisions in Multico are based on the personal views of the firm's managers; there is no participation of the staff in the whole procedure. It is for this reason that the plans for change implemented in the specific organization failed to achieve the target set by the firm's management team. In accordance with the above, in Multico, the failure of the firm's managers to understand the employees' response towards the attempted change has led gradually to the failure of the project. In this context, we could refer to the view of Bunker et al. (2005, 12) who noticed that 'much of that failure stems from not understanding how to manage the structural side of change and the human dynamic of transition; as a result, instead of a loyal, productive, and enthusiastic workforce, we face employees who are insecure, fearful, and skeptical, and we undermine our progress toward new goals'. The firm's managers should have taken into consideration the fact that employees are those that can support actively the success of any organizational plan; no matter how well designed a specific strategic plan is, if it is not appropriately supported by the employees (for a variety of reasons, including lack of skills, or personal views that are opposite to the attempted change, development of resistance and so on). In this case, the priority of the firm's managers should be to identify the reasons for the development of resistance in the workplace; at a next level they should proceed to the appropriate plans in order to promote employees' motivation that could lead to the improvement of their performance. 3. Conclusion The development of appropriate practices regarding the management of change should be the priority for the managers of all firms within the international market. It is noticed by Cooper (1997, 79) that 'based on partnerships among human resources developers, managers, and peers, the workplace can provide opportunities for team-based learning and growth in basic competencies such as listening; that is, the work environment itself can become a development tool'. On the other hand, Katzenbach (1996, 149) noticed that 'change efforts are often conceived as waves of initiatives that sweep through an organization from the top down, or the bottom up, or both, and flow across functions'. The above views are in accordance with that of Karp et al. (2000, 454) who made clear that organizational resistance 'needs to be recognized, honoured and worked with; it is very important that designers and deliverers of diversity training be aware of the positive aspects of participant resistance'. However, in order for the above target to be achieved, it is necessary that the firm's managers have the appropriate skills/ abilities in order to identify the causes of organizational resistance and propose the relevant solutions. It would be also preferable for the firm's managers to foresee resistance regarding an attempted change; in this way all appropriate measures could be taken in advance; the chances for failure regarding the relevant project would be limited. In this context, it should be noticed that the main reason of the failure of managers in modern firms to achieve the targets set by the corporate plans is their inability to develop an effective scheme of communication with the employees. As a result, any attempted change is followed by a strong resistance and the relevant project has to be abandoned. Regarding this issue, it is noticed by Engel (1997, 23) that 'traditional managers perceive work teams as a threat because work teams are displacing traditional management methods and mind-sets, which bodes ill for managers from the old school'. In other words, managers in modern firms prefer to keep a rather low level of communication and cooperation within the organization; in this way it is believed that their position within the firm is not under risk. The development of employees' views could lead to the improvement of their position within their organization; this is an outcome that would be a threat for the manager of the particular organization. [words 2042] Bibliography/ references Anson, B. (2000) Taking Charge of Change in a Volatile Healthcare Marketplace. Human Resource Planning, 23(4): 21-24 Bunker, K., Wakefield, M. (2005). Changing Workforce: Leading Effectively When Change Is the Norm Canadian Government Managers Discover How to Weather Draconian Layoffs and Budget Cuts by Turning Inward to Become More Authentic. The Public Manager, 34(4): 9-17 Comer, D., Soliman, C. (1996) Organizational Efforts to Manage Diversity: Do They Really Work' Journal of Managerial Issues, 8(4): 470-480 Coombs, T., Holladay, S. (2004). Understanding the Aggressive Workplace: Development of the Workplace Aggression Tolerance Questionnaire. Communication Studies, 55(3): 481-497 Engel, M. (1997) The New Non-Manager Managers. Management Quarterly, 38(2): 22-27 Eoyang, G., Olson, E. (2001). Facilitating Organization Change: Lessons from Complexity Science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Fennell, M.L., Alexander, J.A. (1993) 'Perspectives on organizational change in the US medical care sector', Annual Review of Sociology, 19: 89-112 Frenkel, S. (2002). Workplace Relations: Past, Present and Future. Australian Journal of Management, 27(2): 149-158 Goffee, R., Scase, R. (1992) Organizational Change and the Corporate Career: The Restructuring of Managers' Job Aspirations. Human Relations, 45(4): 363-385 Greve, H. (1998). Performance, Aspirations and Risky Organizational Change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(1): 58-63 Huy, O. (2002). Emotional Balancing of Organizational Continuity and Radical Change: The Contribution of Middle Managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(1): 31-66 Katzenbach, J. (1996). Real Change. The McKinsey Quarterly, 1: 148-153 Martin, B. (2005) Managers after the era of organizational restructuring. Work, employment and society, 19(4): 747-760 Muir, C. (1996) Workplace Readiness for Communicating Diversity. The Journal of Business Communication, 33(4): 475-483 Parks, S. (1995) Improving Workplace Performance: Historical and Theoretical Contexts. Monthly Labor Review, 118(5): 18-32 Poole, P. (1998). Words and Deeds of Organizational Change. Journal of Managerial Issues, 10(1): 45-47 Rosenberg, D. (1993). Eliminating Resistance to Change. Security Management, 37(1): 20-22 Sias, P. (2005) Workplace Relationship Quality and Employee Information Experiences. Communication Studies, 56(4): 375-392 Read More