Ford and Toyota Manufacture - Case Study Example

Running Head Ford & Toyota Ford and Toyota Step 2 Part A The significance of environmental and contextual factors has been long acknowledged inshaping human strategy, and in the ability of the company to realize these strategies. Employee relations reflect concerns and expectation of employees, positive climate and organizational issues. The growth of the concept of a strategic approach to employee relations can be attributed to rapid environmental changes that have taken place over the last two decades. These environmental influences operate at a general level, and at a more specialized level concerned with the organization's own significant environment. Design elements of an effective employee relations program involve coach and counseling, analysis of employees concerns, effective communication and interaction strategies and performance management. In both companies, Ford and Toyota, these strategies play a crucial role allowing the companies to create positive climate and morale, maintain high productivity levels and effective performance (Mullins, 2004; Toyota Home Page, 2007; Ford Home Page, 2007). In both companies, the aim of coaching and counseling is to focus heavily on helping employees develop skills and abilities, and in the process provide the supervisor with an excellent opportunity to recognize workers for improved performance. If managers are to really succeed at coaching and counseling, they must be in close working relationships with their employees. The managing coach and counselor will almost continuously monitor employee performance in order to help the employee make appropriate performance adjustments (Mullins, 2004; Toyota Home Page, 2007; Ford Home Page, 2007). When workers see the nature of this relationship with the coach/counselor, they sense that performance is going to be measured and likely measured precisely. Employees expect praise for learning and performing well, an upgrading in task assignments as the coach /counselor spots improvement, and eventual freedom, or autonomy, at work as they prove themselves. The existence of a quality person serving in a coach /counselor role relative to the worker helps convince the worker that performance improvement will not go unrecognized and, therefore, unrewarded. Employees concerns influence employee relations and require careful analysis of the companies' management. Fears and threats should be eliminated in order to improve corporate morale and performance. Job security really depends on employee performance, not on length of service or length of employment contract, for example. If employees and the organization are not productive, success for the organization will not be realized. Employees can be sensitized to the contingency relation between performance and organization survival by pointing out the numerous dramatic cases of organizations that have failed to boost worker productivity and performance, in light of growing competition, and have subsequently had to close their doors. Emphasis can be placed on the performance-job security link by granting long-term employment contracts, or such things as guaranteed annual income, only to those whose performance deserves these arrangements (Robbins, 2004). Effective communication and interaction ensures effective performance and high morale. In both companies, people are taught how to avoid feelings of inferiority and how to stand up for what they believe in. Communication and training almost invariably helps increase one's confidence level (Robbins, 2004). Self-image building can come in various forms, most of which are beyond the scope of this book--but may involve something relatively simple like getting workers to improve their physical appearance through better dress and grooming. The philosophy of Ford and Toyota is that employees must sense that performance pays off, that it will yield desired positive outcomes. The stronger the perceived correlation between performance and desired rewards (positive outcomes), the stronger the motivation. To sense a strong performance-reward correlation, one must sense that rewards are received on a performance contingent basis. One must get high rewards for high performance and low rewards for low performance. One must not feel that rewards are experienced independent of performance. One of the overriding conclusions of the effort-net return model of motivation is that you do not just simply provide the employee with valued rewards-rewards matched to his or her needs, to motivate (Mullins, 2004; Toyota Home Page, 2007; Ford Home Page, 2007). Career development planning model includes the following issues; opportunity awareness, decision-making and planning, implementing plans, self-awareness. In Ford and Toyota, one of the goals of employee relations management is ensure effective job design and practical application of current HR policies. This part of the model ensures job satisfaction and high motivation of the staff. The use of opportunity awareness as a developmental tool, rather than merely one which audits performance is a feature of these organizations. Employee voice is strong, with the exception of Ford where two-way communication has not traditionally been effective. Self-assessment exercises are strongly encouraged, and it is here that targets can be reassessed, and particular developmental needs identified in the light of changing circumstances. Employees must be allowed to depart from established routines. In Ford and Toyota, the procedural justice of the decision-making process affects the relationship between senior management and lower-level employees and so influence their receptiveness to organizational initiatives (Mullins, 2004). Process fairness has been shown to affect outcome satisfaction, commitment, trust, and social harmony. In consequence, managers devoted a great deal of time not only to discussing problems and identifying areas for improvement, but also to giving feedback. This occurred not only in formal meetings, but also on an ongoing basis, day-to-day in some cases. This informal process helped to create new organizational values by correcting and reinforcing behaviors and attitudes. Part B. In Toyota, employee relations programs are influenced by and depended upon performance management and rewards, job design and motivation. In Ford, a special attention is given to training programs, reward systems and self-development policies. There are some differences between the firms on the incorporation of human resource issues into performance objectives. Toyota has human resource activities formally stated within managers' performance objectives. Ford managers consider successful implementation of personnel polices to be an 'important' or 'very important' factor in their own performance appraisals. In Ford, through training people are taught that their ideas and values are just as good as anyone else's. Toyota recognizes that employees must see a good reason for training and know that there are benefits to it (Mullins, 2004; Robbins 2004). The main similarity between Ford and Toyota is that they use reward system and fair compensation as the main tools of motivation and high productivity. If rewards are contingent on performance, employees have to know it in order for the rewards to be motivational. And casual awareness is not enough. Armstrong (2003) underlines that if an organization's rewards are only slightly or moderately contingent on performance, it may not be enough to make the employee fully realize that performance does make a difference. In Ford and Toyota, employees have an awareness threshold, and the rewards one experiences must be highly enough dependent on performance to break through this threshold. In the eyes of the employee, the rewards associated with high performance must be significantly greater than the rewards associated with low performance (Armstrong, 2001). In terms of employee relations, Toyota management states hat employees must sense that goal systems in which they might participate, other than the priority work assignment goal system, hold little promise for providing much satisfaction (or for minimizing dissatisfaction) at significant effort levels in those systems. The real motivation problem is often one of effort distribution, not one of eliciting high effort from the employee but rather one of allocating the effort elicited. Workers frequently exert high aggregate effort but not all in a highly relevant direction (Armstrong, 2001; Robbins 2004). If a large portion of an employee's limited effort capacity is to be allocated to priority work assignments, other goal systems must not siphon off significant amounts of effort. One must not be drawn in too many directions to get the job done. Motivation problems of direction are perhaps more widespread in Toyota. The information mentioned above show that in Ford and Toyota, loyal employees see performance as the means of fulfilling or realizing their commitments. They see performance as an obligation. They see performance as a means of helping the organization succeed. Organizational success is translated to personal success and, thereby, causes personal satisfaction. Employees derive automatic satisfaction from performance because they see performance as a key means of helping the organization, and providing such help is a rewarding and satisfying experience. References 1. Armstrong, M. (2001). Human Resource Management. 8th edn. Kogan Page. 2. Ford Home Page (2007). Retrieved 29 September 2007 from www.ford.com 3. Mullins, L.J. (2004). Management and Organizational Behaviour. 3 d Edition. Financial Times/ Prentice Hall 4. Robbins, S. (2004). Organizational Behavior. Prentice Hall. 11 Ed. 5. Toyota Home Page (2007). Retrieved 29 September 2007 from www.toyota.com Read More