The Relationship between Management and Personal Management Competencies - Essay Example

PART Organizational management principles are considered to be of significant importance for all professionals working in the relevant sector. In order to understand the importance of these principles for the development of both the professionals and the organizations around the world, it is necessary to refer primarily to the general characteristics of these principles and the description of their role within modern organizations. The explanation of the development of management theories through the 21st century will help at a next level in order to understand the changing role of management throughout the decades but also to appropriately evaluate its importance for the improvement of the employees’ and the firm’s performance. At a first level, it should be noticed that there are no standards regarding the principles accepted by organizations around the world in order to regulate their internal and external relations. For this reason, the assumptions made by researchers in the relevant field are not quite the same; they are rather differentiated in accordance with the firms’ needs, their culture and mission but also the social and cultural characteristics of the market involved. Towards this direction, Hennestad (1990) refers to a common inter-organizational phenomenon, the ‘double – bind’, which refers to the relationship between the employees and the management within a particular organization in which the managers’ guidelines are not clear but they rather lead to different assumptions and directions (always referring to employees’ obligations within a specific organization). In this context, it is noticed by Hennestad (1990, 265) that ‘members of an organization are supposedly led, but very often they do not see the way; on the contrary, they are exposed to conflicting management signals and caught in double bind situations; double bind connotes a situation where conflicting messages occur, but where it is vitally important to discern what message is being communicated, and where the individual is unable to comment upon the ambiguity; the result is that the individual is not capable of meta communication and thus incapable of learning about the situation’. In accordance with the above view, the incompetence of a firm’s employees to respond to the needs of a particular situation could be related with the incompetence of the firm’s managers to provide accurate and clear guidelines and directions on a specific issue. As for employees, their efforts to participate actively on all the activities organized by the organization can be delayed due to the lack of appropriate cooperation and coordination with the firm’s leaders. The performance of the firm is very likely to be influenced in this case – a decrease in the organizational profits should be then expected. On the other hand, it should be noticed that the changes taking place in organizations around the world cannot be standardized. In other words, they cannot have standard forms and types; it depends on the type of each organization (i.e. whether it is a small, medium or large enterprise), its position in the market but also its strategic targets. In accordance with Burke (1976) the most common changes in the workplace the last 12 years involve in the following sectors: ‘value shifts, expanded technology and theory, modifications in OD strategy, and a growing legitimization of OD (organizational development) as a field; it is argued that the development of OD has been adaptive rather than deliberate and planned’ (Burke, 1976, 22). Under these terms, the success of the plans applied on the above field (organizational development) cannot be achieved unless a series of specific practices are applied. These practices should focus on the achievement of the following targets: ‘1) OD must become more theory and research-based; 2) OD must develop a new model that will incorporate with its methodology, directions for organization change based on research knowledge; and 3) OD practitioners are needed who (a) know who they are as persons and (b) will practice more OD on the field itself’ (Burke, 1976, p.22). It should be noticed that the existence of the above priorities in a firm’s strategic plan cannot lead to the assumption that the issue of organizational development is appropriately addressed by the firm. It is just an indication that efforts are made by the firm’s managers in order to align the firm’s strategy with the employees’ competencies; rather additional support should be offered to employees in order to increase their skills in accordance with the firm’s needs and the customers’ demands. One of the most important skills of managers in modern organization should be the ability to identify the employees’ emotions regarding a particular task or the firm’s strategic plan in general. The ability of a firm’s leader to communicate effectively with employees at all organizational levels should be considered as a major advantage for the specific leader; in this way the emotions of employees regarding a specific organizational choice could be identified on time and the chances for failure of the relevant effort would be minimized; appropriate measures could be taken by the firm’s leaders in order to avoid the potential damage. Organizational development should focus on the appropriate update of firms’ internal and external infrastructure in order for the organizational targets to be achieved; the decrease of the targets set - so that these targets could be achieved by the firm’s employees - would be a rather inappropriate strategy for organizations around the world. From another point of view, it should be noticed that the ability of a firm to effectively pursue its targets can be differentiated in accordance with the firm’s size. This assumption can be justified by the fact that larger firms can more easily respond to the financial demands of a particular project; small and medium enterprises usually have to wait until the allocation of the necessary funding for the achievement of a specific target. The above assumption is also supported by Ivancic et al. (1998, p.61) who noticed that ‘in order to utilize the unique advantages of larger organizations, these organizations will need to solve the problems created by having large groups of people living in close proximity and managed by multiple managers; no organization should be managed to be "institutional" regardless of its size, but that size alone is not the sole determinant of self-motivated service delivery’. The above researcher has examined a series of residential organizations in order to check their effectiveness regarding the achievement of specific targets; in the long term, a firm of any size can achieve its strategic targets by using the necessary plans in order to align the organizational targets in accordance with the market trends. The results released through the observation of the effectiveness of organizational plans within the residential industry could be used as a basis for the evaluation of any relevant strategic plan. When conducting this task (i.e. alignment of the market’s trends and ethics) with the organizational strategies, the firm’s managers should take into consideration the culture and the principles of the firm (as they are usually presented through its mission statement). In this context, it is suggested by Smith (1994) that ‘the principal impediment to changing an organization’s strategic direction is its existing culture: that is, people’s current beliefs about the limits of what is possible – a process also known as ‘the Merlin Factor’; the leadership tasks faced by executive ‘Merlins are: (1) Co-Invention, (2) Engagement, and (3) Practice’ (Smith, 1994, 67). The above proposed plan of action related with the firm’s leaders can be used in firms of all sizes; the importance in this case is the application of specific guidelines, or else the execution of specific tasks, there is no need to take into consideration other elements, like the market’s trends or the customers’ preferences: organizational targets are set by the firm’s leaders as the main criteria for the development of any strategic plan. Of course, the development of cooperation and coordination between the leaders and the employees within any organization is a prerequisite for the achievement of the firm’s targets. For this reason, appropriate measures should be taken by the firm’s leaders in order to support employees at all levels of firm’s activities (i.e. not only managers but also employees who are working at the latest ‘part’ of the organizational chain). We could refer at this point to the view of Smith (1994, 67) who noticed that ‘changing people’s beliefs about the future can produce extraordinary improvements in quality management, technical innovation, customer service and profitability’. Towards this direction, it has been supported by Paul et al. (2003, 1246) that ‘HRM practices such as training, job design, compensation and incentives directly affect the operational performance parameters, employee retention, employee productivity, product quality, speed of delivery and operating cost’. The above issues are also highlighted by Boxall et al. (2000, 183) who noticed that ‘HR strategies of firms are heavily shaped by contextual contingencies, including national, sectoral and organizational factors; underpinning principles of labour management still have relevance to practice as essential attributes of a firms ability to compete in its chosen markets’. Employees are an important asset for any organization. For this reason, it is necessary that all firms’ strategic plans incorporate – even partially – specific suggestions regarding the potential changes on the firm’s various sectors, including the workplace. Moreover, it is necessary that a firm’s manager has the appropriate skills/ competencies in order to identify the firm’s weaknesses and suggest any necessary plan of action. Under these terms, innovation has been proved to be a required element of any successful managerial initiative. Indeed, Tan (1998, 23) supports that ‘organizations need creativity to adapt to the fast‐changing environment and revitalize itself; in response to this need, managers have invested in various single approaches, such as, creativity training programmes, team‐building, and leadership development to improve creativity; however, managing creativity in organization is a complex problem and thus requires a more integrated approach’. In other words, successful strategic plans are those characterized by innovative techniques, i.e. those that introduce changes within the organizational environment. However, these changes are very likely to face the hostile behaviour of employees at all organizational departments. For this reason, it is noticed by Tan (1998) that each modern organization could be divided into four main parts: ‘culture, techno-structural subsystems, management and people’ (Tan, 1998, 23). Each of these parts/ issues should be appropriately addressed in all attempted organizational changes. Among the above ‘parts’ of the organizational environment, ‘people’ are considered to be the most important element of a firm’s performance. Towards this direction it is stated by Michie et al. (2004, 91) that ‘people and their performance are key to an organizations effectiveness; links have been found to exist between the following organizational levels: a) context (organizational culture and inter-group relations; resources, including staffing; physical environment); b) people management (HRM practices and strategies; job design, workload and teamwork; employee involvement and control over work; leadership and support); c) psychological consequences for employees (health and stress; satisfaction and commitment; knowledge, skills and motivation) and so on’. In accordance with the above, all principles related with organizational management can be used in order to improve the performance of modern organizations. However, because organizational development is difficult to achieved (as it has been proved through the issues presented above) it should be preferable for managers in modern organizations to follow the trends and the ethics of the market in order to ensure that the profitability of the firm is kept at high levels (when a firm’s strategic choices are aligned with the market trends there are more chances for the particular firm to achieve high profits rather than if specific theoretical principles are followed that have no practical value for the improvement of the firm’s performance). It is clear from the issues developed above that in order for firms operating in modern market to achieve a high level of performance, it is necessary that specific rules and principles are followed. In any case, the performance of organizations has been found to be closely related with the performance of persons (employees). In accordance with Hancock et al. (2007, 512) ‘in the age of the so-called ‘expressive organization’ and the ‘aesthetic economy’, for an organization to compete in the global marketplace it would appear that it must perform; this does not refer simply to economic performance, but rather to the idea of performance as a means of affecting both people’s impressions and definitions of reality’. In other words, performance of employees would be taken into consideration when planning a firm’s strategic plans; employees should be regarded as the most valuable asset of modern organizations having the power to distinguish the appropriate measures for the development of corporate activities and the increase of the firm’s profitability both in the short and the long term. For this reason, most of the theories related with the various aspects of organizational operations refer to the relationship between the firm and its employees, as key factors on the firm’s success in its market. PART 2 My work in the built industry has helped me to understand my capabilities but also my weaknesses regarding the demands of the organization in which I work for several years. Up to now, my main priorities (referring to my work in the particular firm of the built industry) have been the cooperation and the communication with the rest of employees. I started working in the specific firm just one year before; however, my experience in the specific sector (having worked on a firm with a similar objective for about 5 years in the past) has helped me to face successfully all challenges related with the specific work. For the future, I have put several targets regarding my performance in the firm: increase of participation in common activities, more flexibility on tasks handled on a daily basis, improvement of performance (effort to achieve a quicker response to the demands of the work) and increase of innovation (proposal of personal ideas that are considered to be valuable for the tasks undertaken). All the above targets are in accordance with the current market trends regarding the organizational environment; theories that have been stated in relation with the performance of employees and its performance on the development of organizations have influenced my personal views regarding my position in the specific organization and my potential role in the future. It should be noticed that through the years several problems have appeared regarding the completion of various tasks – part of my work in the specific organization; however it has been made clear through the study of the relevant literature that employees’ value within modern organization is significant; for this reason appropriate efforts should be made in order for this role to be further developed and sufficiently supported; in other words, personal efforts should be made in order for the position of employees in a particular organization to be improved; in this context, the study of the framework related with the organizational management principles has helped me to understand that – as an employee in a specific organization - my personal and professional development are closely depended on my own decisions and mostly on my participation on the decisions taken within the organizational environment. The support of the firm is valuable towards the achievement of the above targets; for this reason, appropriate highlights should be made (by me as by other employees also) to the firm’s leaders in order to provide the support required. References Burke, W. (1976) Organization Development in Transition. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 12(1): 22-43 Charles E. Smith (1994) The Merlin Factor: Leadership and Strategic Intent Business Strategy Review 5 (1), 67–84 Gilbert Tan (1998) Managing Creativity in Organizations: a Total System Approach. Creativity and Innovation Management 7 (1), 23–31 Hennestad, B. (1990) THE SYMBOLIC IMPACT OF DOUBLE BIND LEADERSHIP: DOUBLE BIND AND THE DYNAMICS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE. Journal of Management Studies 27 (3), 265–280 Ivancic, M., Helsel, W. (1998) Organizational Behavior Management in Large Residential Organizations Moving from Institutional to Client-Centered Care. Journal of Organizational Behaviour Management, 18(2/3): 61-82 Kari Marie Norgaard (2006) People Want to Protect Themselves a Little Bit: Emotions, Denial, and Social Movement Nonparticipation. Sociological Inquiry 76 (3), 372–396 Paul, A., Anantharaman, R. (2003) Impact of people management practices on organizational performance: analysis of a causal model. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(7): 1246-1266 Philip Hancock, Melissa Tyler (2007) Un/doing Gender and the Aesthetics of Organizational Performance. Gender, Work & Organization 14 (6), 512–533 Susan Michie, Michael A. West (2004) Managing people and performance: an evidence based framework applied to health service organizations. International Journal of Management Reviews 5-6 (2), 91–111 Peter Boxall, John Purcell (2000) Strategic human resource management: where have we come from and where should we be going? International Journal of Management Reviews 2 (2), 183–203 Read More