Recent orders
Organizational Changes in Structure
Organizational Changes in Structure, Decision-Making Process and Control Mechanisms: A Case study on Olivier Surveying Company
Students Name
Corse title; course code
Instructor’s name
Date
Organizational Changes in Structure, Decision-Making Process and Control Mechanisms: A Case study on Olivier Surveying Company
Introduction
OSC, based in Prahran, in Melbourne’s inner south-east, was founded in 1995 by Larry Olivier who is also the owner and the managing director of the company. The company started with a single employee and it has managed to grow into a business with 19 employees. OSC’s success is based on its culture and reputation for high-quality work and reliability. Larry handles almost every aspect of the organization, including client relationships to contractual negotiations, staffing, work assessment, employee performance reviews, pay allocation, discretionary bonus decisions, administrative arrangements, frequent site visits, and almost every other aspect of the company. Al-Romeedy (2019) found that it is essential for the growth of any company from its inception to offer quality and be reliable and have an organized structure of working, decision making, and control mechanisms that ensure all the qualities needed by the client. The objective of this case study is to apply theories to analyze the company’s organizational structure, its decision-making processes, and control mechanisms applied. Specifically, the report is interested in comparing both the pre-2015 and the post-2015 organization, looking at the reorganization that led to company-wide changes. The changes will then be observed against theories relating to the company’s organizational structure, its decision-making processes, and control mechanisms applied.
Overview of Roles
Larry Olivier is a competent surveyor, one whose name is well known in the construction sector. His skills in the field have made the company grow gradually from a startup to a well reputable firm. He is assisted by his wife in decision making and all other employees report directly to him.
Organizational Structure Pre- and Post-2015
Organizational structures are one of the most important elements of an organization in its quest to achieve its objectives and goals. San Cristóbal, Fernández, and Diaz (2018) define an organizational structure as a framework outlining the way different activities are directed so as to attain the organizational goals including responsibilities, rules, and roles, and the reporting format. Essentially, an organizational structure enables the flow of information between various levels of the company. OSC, by 2015, had 19 employees. Özşahin and Yürür (2018) found that an organizational structure is put in place to ensure that an organization retains focus and efficiency. Successful structures define the job of every employee and describe how it fits within the whole organization’s system.
Organizational structure basically takes either a centralized or a decentralized overall structure. Conventionally, organizations use a centralized leadership system that defines the chain of command (Kaufmann, Borry, & DeHart‐Davis, 2019), for example the military as an organization where every role is clearly stipulated and a hierarchy of subordinates and superiors being very specific and well enforced. The roles of each organizational member is clearly defined and the subordinates responsibilities default to a guiding structure from the superiors. In contrast, a decentralized system delegates decision-making and daily operations decisions amongst the top, middle, and lower-level management. The role of such a structure is to help an organization’s top executive to focus on major decisions. The systems approach, as presented in Tronvoll, Barile, and Caputo (2018), considers an organization as a system composed of a set of interrelated and mutually dependent sub-systems. This means that the organization consists of components linking processes and goals. This is very important in linking all the processes of the company for the greater good of the organization.
Organizational Structure Pre-2015
Except for the administration assistant, every other employee (including the senior registered surveyor, two senior project surveyors, CAD specialist, three junior surveyors) reported directly to Larry. Ideally, the company was run as a small company. According to Özşahin and Yürür (2018), the organizational structure chosen by a business creates a reporting hierarchy that aids in the increasing of effectiveness and efficiency of business operations, including decision-making, daily running, customer relations, and every other job related to an organization. While different small organizations operate in variant methods, research conducted by Kaufmann, Borry, and DeHart‐Davis (2019) found that there is no one-size-fit-all strategy that can be applied to create efficiency and effectiveness. OSC’s organizational structure runs through Larry as the focal point of every activity, decision making, and includes some technical aspects that would traditionally be left out to niche experts.
In the administrative theory by Henry Fayol, several principles of management are mentioned including planning, organizing, and training, commanding, and coordinating functions (Edwards, 2018). The theory asserts that coordination through structure and decision making ensure that every process of the organization is conducted as per the overall shareholder expectations. OSC’s structure aligns with a centralized functional organizational structure. In this structure, Waruwu et al. (2020) mention that a more bureaucratic framework is employed to break up an organization based on the workforce and its specialization. This system applies to a majority of the small and medium sized companies. The firm, in the functional/bureaucratic framework, is divided into small departments based on specialization. The functional structure is intended to create focus for employees since they have a common goal to work towards. Larry’s leadership uses a centralized and bureaucratic system of decision making that divides employees according to their specialization and role. Due to the small size of the company with a total of 19 employees, the structure is yet to be fully defined. However, it is already clear that every decision is run through Larry, including issues that could easily be solved by senior surveyors in the firm.
Post-2015 Reorganized Structure
After the 2015 reorganization, Larry changed from having all the 19 employees directly reporting to him to have on 5 direct reports. As part of the reorganization, two new roles of supervising surveyors were formed in order to assist in overseeing daily surveying work. All surveyors in the field reported directly to the supervising surveyors. Additionally, each supervising surveyor had a responsibility to schedule junior surveyors to projects, handling emerging enquiries from the staff and liaising with clients. They also continued with their technical work on their projects. Noel, a senior licensed surveyor’s role was shifted to the provision of technical support to the supervising surveyors and the junior surveyors. He also gained a new advisory role with Larry in decision making regarding the new markets. The new structure chosen by OSC is as presented in the chart below.
After the reorganization, OSC employed a hierarchical organizational structure. In this structure, employees were grouped and assigned to a supervisor. OSC’s new structure grouped employees together using their functions and roles and the services they provided. Han and Ko (2019) term this structure as a pyramid because of the multiple levels it has and the authority levels displayed. The pyramid thins the higher it goes as more employees report to only a few managers at various levels. The benefits of this structure to the top management is that authority was more clearly defined, enabled Larry to free up more time to work on other projects, and solved the issue of reduced delegation caused by Larry’s involvement in every major firm activity. The new structure changed the reporting format at OSC leading to better teamwork and increasing trust on employees to do the right thing. The reorganized structure changed how employees handled problems, reducing the need to always consult Larry in every situation to foster the development of other employees and increased promotion opportunities.
Decision-Making Processes and Control Mechanisms Pre- and Post-2015
The social-technical approach highlights the role of an effective decision-making structure. In this approach, the organization is seen to be a whole composed of social systems, the technical system, and its environment (Gibreel & Hong, 2017). The theory models how the firm interacts with these elements through its structure, culture, control mechanisms, and the decision-making structure to create a balance.
Pre-2015
Pre-2015, Larry made all the decisions in the company including technical and the non-technical aspects of work. He interacted with clients and made all decisions in a very closed centralized and highly bureaucratic structure. His control mechanism was firmly held on bureaucratic control mechanism involving direct influence of the top management on actions of all sub units. Again, Larry practiced cybernetic control by focusing on outputs to measure up to his culture of reliability and top quality. In his capacity as the founder and senior management, he performed long term strategic decision making. Reid and Sanders (2019) describe strategic decisions as those that are complex, made by senior decision makers in an organization, and involves directing the long term direction of an organization. For example, the decisions on staffing, employee roles, customer relations, strategic firm direction, and the type of culture to adopt were all a part of Larry’s mandate as the CEO.
Post-2015
Post-2015, decision making took on a different stance. A lot changed in terms of the power Larry had on daily activities. He now delegated some of the medium-term and short-term decisions to his managers 1 level lower than him. The control mechanism remained unchanged. It was still held on bureaucratic control mechanism involving direct influence of the top management on actions of all sub units and a cybernetic control that focused on outputs to measure up to his culture of reliability and top quality. The new process included a more tactical and operational decision-making structure. After the reorganization of the organization to delegate more tasks to middle managers, Larry was only left to make the long-term strategic decisions. Tactical decisions including medium term, les complex tasks were left to the five managers reporting to Larry. Additionally, the new structure modified the decision-making structure to have the five assisting Larry make all day-to-day decisions on simple processes and routines. This new decision-making structure allowed Larry to make less decisions and to free up more time to focus on the strategic direction of the organization.
Changes in the Organizational Structure, Decision-Making Processes and Control Mechanisms after AGAS Acquisition of OSC
Now that OSC is part of a larger national organization, AGAS, new changes are expected. After being acquired by the Australian Geospatial and Surveying Company (AGAS), a new organizational structure emerged. In a divisional structure, every geographical zone and region reported to a regional manager. Different operations reported to leadership roles that were made up of regional managers headed by a CFO. On top of the already existing hierarchical structure at OSC, the new AGAS now required Larry to report to the regional heads. These changes are reflective of a growing organization. According to Lagstedt and Dahlberg (2018), the contingency or the situational approach theory recognizes that organizational systems are interrelated as seen in the acquisition of OSC by AGAS and how the process of structuring, decision-making, and controlling are all interrelated. This explains that a particular environment requires a particular system while a different environment also required different organizational relationships for the effective working of the organization, as seen in the way the changes occur pre- and post-2015 and later after the acquisition.
After the acquisition, the same structure was adopted, with Larry moving lower on the decision-making ladder to become part of the middle management for AGAS. However, there were critical changes as Larry no longer held the power to make long term decisions. He moved to making medium- and short-term decisions on behalf of the company. His supervisors were now only required to make operational decisions. Directive directions from the regional heads were the new senior management making strategic decisions on behalf of the CEO who would give approvals. Larry moved into middle management in line with other branch heads, making tactical and medium-term decisions. Other individuals reporting to Larry would only make operational decisions. This structure is very effective in facilitating better and informed decision-making in organizations. It allows the input of employees on the ground and enables information to flow both ways from bottom to top and vice versa.
The acquisition freed up Larry’s busy schedule allowing him to focus on contributing more ideas to the firm regarding how to capture the market in Tasmania and Victoria. The control mechanism adopted after the acquisition involved a go/no-go structure. In this structure of control and decision making, every decision was tested before implementation to ensure that it conformed to the preconditions set by the parent company AGAS. Additionally, a post-performance control mechanism was adopted with a focus on ensuring that effective practices were adopted where applicable.
Conclusion
From the above discussion, pre- and post-2015 changes saw Larry’s OSC change significantly in terms of the structure, decision-making processes, and control mechanisms. Larry gave up a lot of decision-making power after 2015 to free up more time and to allow his company to grow. The previous structure of the business was working though it required a lot of time from Larry. The company growth increased responsibilities which called for the re-organization of the company. After the acquisition, the same happened, leading to a new organizational structure, a more effective decision-making process and control mechanism. Overall, all these changes worked positively enabling both individual and professional development of employees against the internal changes in the organization.
References
Al-Romeedy, B. S. (2019). Strategic Agility as a Competitive Advantage in Airlines–Case
Study: Egypt Air. Journal of the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels-University of Sadat City, 3(1), 1-15.
Edwards, R. (2018). An elaboration of the administrative theory of the 14 principles of
management by Henri Fayol. International journal for empirical education and Research, 1(1), 41-51.
Gibreel, O., & Hong, A. (2017). A Holistic Analysis Approach to Social, Technical, and Socio-
Technical Aspect of E-Government Development. Sustainability, 9(12), 2181.
Han, Y., & Ko, E. (2019). The effects of hierarchical organizational structure and performance-
based human resource system on climate of silence and selfish silence behavior. Korean Journal of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 32(4), 473-494.
Kaufmann, W., Borry, E. L., & DeHart‐Davis, L. (2019). More than pathological formalization:
Understanding organizational structure and red tape. Public Administration Review, 79(2), 236-245.
Lagstedt, A., & Dahlberg, T. (2018). A Contingency Theory Motivated Framework to Select
Information System Development Methods. In PACIS (p. 46).
Özşahin, M., & Yürür, S. (2018). The effect of organizational structure on organizational justice
perceptions of employees. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 7, 440-453.
Reid, R. D., & Sanders, N. R. (2019). Operations management: an integrated approach. John
Wiley & Sons.
San Cristóbal, J. R., Fernández, V., & Diaz, E. (2018). An analysis of the main project
organizational structures: Advantages, disadvantages, and factors affecting their selection. Procedia computer science, 138, 791-798.
Tronvoll, B., Barile, S., & Caputo, F. (2018). A systems approach to understanding the
philosophical foundation of marketing studies. In Social dynamics in a systems perspective (pp. 1-18). Springer, Cham.
Waruwu, H., Asbari, M., Purwanto, A., Nugroho, Y. A., Fikri, M. A. A., Fauji, A., … & Dewi,
W. R. (2020). The Role of Transformational Leadership, Organizational Learning and Structure on Innovation Capacity: Evidence from Indonesia Private Schools. EduPsyCouns: Journal of Education, Psychology and Counseling, 2(1), 378-397.
Organizational Change A Review of External and Internal Pressure
Organizational Change: A Review of External and Internal Pressure
Name
Institution
Course
Date
Organizational Change: A Review of External and Internal Pressure
Introduction
An organization is a social system. Every aspect of the organization has an impact on the others. – in other words, there are so many interconnections between components that whatever happens at one point is relayed to another. This interdependence exists not just between the components and organizational units, but also with external environment. Whenever an institution operates, these links and interconnections get entrenched, and the organization eventually becomes more systematized and balanced. The entire system can be said to be in balance. Every shift in an organization’s external environment, including changes in demands of customers, competitiveness, governmental monetary reforms, and so on, necessitates adjustments in its internal structure. Therefore, the organization theorist making these claims is accurate. Forces from the outside pressuring a company to change force the management to make adjustments or risk falling behind the competitors. The paper seeks to address the factors that lead to organizational change, both external and internal.
Environmental pressures, according to Daft, are what drive the demand for organizational reform. Technological changes, political laws, changes in social attitudes, and shifting marketplaces are all examples of environmental factors. These environmental influences are considerably more widespread in current times than they had been previously, necessitating a higher rate of change to adjust to (Haveman, Russo, & Meyer, 2001). Organizational change takes place as a response to ever-changing surroundings or as a reaction to a present crisis event from a passive standpoint. A more proactive attitude, on the flip side, is that it is prompted by a gradual management. Moreover, whenever the business has just witnessed a shift of executive authority, organizational transformation is very visible (Haveman, 2001). As a result, both the internal and external environments can influence organizational change. Management teams within the corporations, on the other hand, seek to create stress for stabilisation. Managers prefer to structure their business operations in a predictable pattern that they and others in the institution are familiar with. Most managers believe that in the face of change, stability must be fostered in order to support familiarity. Others argue that a management’s capacity to steady a company during times of upheaval is crucial to its success. Those inside the corporation emphasize the value of stability, believing that it will limit the recurrence of threat, despite the influences that can push change being visible all around the company’s perimeter. Among the most important parts of proper management is transformation. Individuals, people, and institutions engage in the adaptation process of transitioning from their existing situations to a preferred one in response to the changing internal and external variables that modify present reality.
A company’s internal environment consists of activities, circumstances, individuals, systems, processes, and situations that are normally under the organization ’s control. The goal statement, organisation characteristics, and management style are all aspects that are commonly connected with an institution’s internal atmosphere. As a consequence, corporate operations, choices, and personnel attitudes and behaviors will all be impacted by the internal environment. Adjustments in style of leadership, purpose, or culture can have a massive effect on an organization’s performance (Aswathappa, 2005). The outside environments of an organization are elements that happen outside of the company that affect change within the company and are, considerably part, outside of the organization’s control. External elements that drive organizational change include consumers, competitors, the market, technologies, social and political situations, and resources. Despite the fact that the external environment exists outside a company, it can have a substantial influence on its ongoing operations, organizational development, and long-term viability.
Internal causes of organizational Change
The strategic choice to transform the way one carries out business or the structure of the firm itself causes a lot of change initiatives. Adjustments in goods or services, shifts in governance structures, and changes in business size and composition are three basic forms of scheduled internal organizational transformation, whilst unplanned institutional reasons of transition involve improvements in employee demographics, people are concerned with long-term functioning of business, and competency gaps.
Change in Products or Services
Organizational transformation is necessitated by a premeditated choice to reform the company’s line of business (William, 2005). A corporation that has made a name for itself in the cosmetics industry may wish to branch out into wellness as well. This choice to take the company in a new path and add a new, customized service would necessitate a significant level of organizational transformation. There would be a need for new equipment and materials, as well as new people. In other words, the firm’s anticipated choice to shift its service line needs organizational transformation.
Pressure
Upper management puts pressure on a firm’s administrators to reform (for instance, to improve coordination, define objectives, and prioritize). Pressure to improve the organization’s primary work (that is, the production and manufacture of products and services) originates from the engineering side of the company; from the bottom up (Jones, 2004). The dual-core organizational paradigm is based on this concept. Numerous companies, particularly moderate ones in terms of size, may well be marked by possible conflicts of interest between the technical and administrative cores, each of which seeks to restructure the corporation to suit its very own entrenched interests. Which side generally comes out on top? According to studies, the answer is determined by the company’s structure. Organizations that take a mechanical rather than organic approach to implementing (that is, those that are extremely formalized and regimented) are much more effective in implementing administrative transformation. The administration core’s considerable amount of influence allows for administrative modifications to be implemented.
Changes in Administration System
Even though a corporation may be built to respond to outside rivalry, government interference, and economic forces by changing its principles, rewards system, objectives, and managerial style, it is also typical for administrative system modifications to be systematically meticulously planned. An aspiration to enhance efficiency, improve the image of an organization, or obtain a political influence privilege within the business may motivate such shift.
Performance Gaps
Among the most common phrases is “If it is not broken, do not fix it,” and as such, one ought to be familiar with one of the most powerful sources of unexpected internal transformation in corporations, that is, performance gaps (Martins, 2011). A stagnant line of products, dwindling profit margins, and revenues that fall short of company targets are all explanations of shortfalls between observed and forecast organizational levels performance. Unanticipated data regarding bad performance is one of the few factors that forces reforms within organizations. In general, corporations stick to a successful strategy and adjust when they underperform; in other terms, they adopt the win-stay/lose-change principle. Matter of fact, an achievement gap has been identified as one of the primary variables driving innovation process in various research. Those businesses that are better equipped to initiate change in the face of unforeseen economic downturn are considered successful.
Changing Employee Demographic
Also, within our generations, the makeup of the labor has changed significantly. Women now make up a larger percentage of the workforce than it has ever been. At the junior and intermediate management levels, an increasing number of females with professional expertise are entering the corporation. Further to these factors, the workforce population is aging. Several former governments and the public personnel are now working in the private industry, resulting in a shift in worker demographics. The workforce is growing increasingly diversified as the economy opens up and internationalization takes hold.
External causes of organizational Change
Introduction of New Technologies
From slide rules to computers, technological advancements have influenced how businesses work. Senior engineers and scientists, for instance, will likely be able to describe the manner in which their occupation was radically affected in the mid-1970s, after their ubiquitous plastic slide-rules were replaced by sophisticated portable electronics (Shani & Noumair, 2017). Only a ten years later, advanced desktop minicomputers replaced calculators, revolutionizing the way papers are produced, sent, and stored in a workplace. Siemens (Germany), for instance, built the globe’s first paperless workspace over a couple of years ago. For example, in the automobile sector, in which a substantial portion of design and production is automatic and IT based, manufacturing facilities have witnessed a considerable increase in the usage of computer-automated technologies and robotic systems in recent years. Generally defined, technological changes have several major consequences for corporate design. First and foremost, the use of technology has had apparent consequences on the structures of companies on the basis of mechanization. Mechanization allows a company to increase its productivity and effect without reducing its workforce (for instance, client money transfers a day at a bank, cans of beans processed hourly in a plant). As job functions are becoming harder to comprehend and synchronize, whilst the staff themselves are becoming more skillful and professional, “upskilling” of staff mostly decreases the quantity of individuals controlled by supervisors at the next hierarchy level, altering the structure of the company. And hence, while mechanization decreases the number of operators, the number of longitudinal levels in the company may not reduce correspondingly, changing the shape of the company. All of these cases illustrate how technological advancement has changed the way individuals perform their professions.
Information Technology
One of several greatest revolutions happening in the corporate sector currently is the usage of informational technology. During the early years of computing’s utilization in the office, it struggled to meet the expectations of enhanced productivity which was used to get people to utilize it. Not only was the hardware and software technologies outdated, but the consumers were also poorly prepared. Nowadays, nevertheless, this is no longer the case.
Advancements in Information Processing and Communication
Even though people now take for granted commonplace events like television broadcast and phone calls over long distance, these were formerly considered exotic fantasies. Of course, with the current advanced satellite transmission networks, fiber-optic cables traversing the globe, faxes, mobile cellphones, videoconferencing equipment, and such, corporations can connect with one another and their customers more easily than it has ever been. One important element to remember is that as methods of communication advance, so do prospects for corporate growth and progress.
Government Regulation
Regulation from governments is among the most primary triggers of unanticipated organizational changes (Westover, 2010). The manner in which corporations must function change quickly when the economy opens up and different governmental rules regarding delicensing, complete or partial convertibility of the currencies, and so on are enacted. These actions have a significant impact on how businesses are done in corporations. With much more international competitors in the market place, companies must discover means and mechanisms to conduct their enterprises securely and productively.
Economic Competition in the Global Arena
Nearly every day, somebody somewhere invents a superior product– or at the very minimum a less expensive version. As a consequence, businesses should frequently compete to keep their market share, publicize more efficiently, and make items at a lower cost. Economic competition is forcing companies to transform, but it also requires them to transform effectively if they are to stay afloat. Rivalry can grow so heated at times that the parties concerned would be much more efficient if they bury the hatchet and unite together. This ‘If you can’t beat them, join them’ logic was behind the proposed collaboration involving fierce competitors Apple Computer and IBM in 1991, which one financial expert labeled “the deal of the decade.” Even though rivalry will always be critical to the success of organizations, it now emanates from all over the world. Even as cost of transporting resources around the universe has decreased, the industrialized countries have ended up finding themselves having to compete for market dominance in the global market.
Conclusion
In general, successful corporate transformation is more than just an adjustment process; it also necessitates adequate management skills. Nevertheless, there exist a slew of issues to think about if one wants to make a successful adjustment. As a consequence, the factors of transformation are the outcomes of strategic planning, that are often followed by various difficulties that force a company to adapt its capabilities to react to shifts from both the exterior and within the firm.
References
Aswathappa K. (2005). Organisational Behaviour’, Himalaya Publishing House, New Delhi.
Daft, R. (2013). Organization Theory & Design. 11th ed. Mason: South-Western.
Haveman, H. A., Russo, M. V., & Meyer, A. D. (2001). Organizational environments in Flux: the impact for regulatory punctuations on organizational domains, CEO succession, and performance. Organization Science, 12, 253-273.
Jones, G. R. (2004). Organization Theory, Design, and Change. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Martins, L. L. (2011). Organizational change and development. In APA handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology, Vol 3: Maintaining, expanding, and contracting the organization. (pp. 691-728). American Psychological Association.
Shani, A. B., & Noumair, D. A. (Eds.). (2017). Research in organizational change and
development. Emerald Publishing Limited.
Westover, J. H. (2010). Managing organizational change: Change agent strategies and
techniques to successfully managing the dynamics of stability and change in organizations. International Journal of Management and Innovation, 2(1), 45-50. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/89071538?accountid=12085
William.W. (2005). Causes of organisational change in the morden world, McGraw Hill
Publishing Company, New York
Organizational Behaviour A Case Review of When You Are Stuck Working with a Slacker
Organizational Behaviour: A Case Review of When You Are Stuck Working with a Slacker
Name
Institution
Course
Date
A. Key Lessons from the Case Study
From the case study, When You’re Stuck Working with a Slacker, there are several things that one can grasp in relation to organizational behaviour and working with different people having distinct personalities within the working environment (Knight, 2021). In line with the modern systems theory, the key lessons from the case study include the fact that a small change or decision in one area of the organization will lead to another larger or variable change that would impact the organization (Cioruta and Coman, 2019). The case study also point to the fact that organizations operate as open systems within a dynamic equilibrium (Sijan et al., 2019). This calls for a need to keep adapting and readjusting to the changes that occur in the environment.
First and foremost, every workplace environment is different from the other. Even though they may have certain similarities, each corporation is made up of diverse individuals, leading to distinct personality groups. For example, JD.com and Taobao are both giants in the Chinese e-commerce sector, yet their companies are distinctively unique. Whereas every company is different, there are some commonalities that can be described as a “typical” modern work experience (Aswathappa & Reddy, 2009). Recognizing personal characteristics is essential for forecasting behaviour and figuring out how conditions affect people. JD.com follows a different strategy compared to Taobao or Alibaba.
Secondly, identifying somebody with distinct personal characteristics might be useful in some contexts. Interpersonal relationships with opposing personality might make it difficult for each individual to view things from a distinct point of view. Different personality characteristics are vital in the workplace for developing a multicultural environment where innovation and different ideas can flourish (Cross & Carbery, 2018). At the same time, its critical to surround oneself with individuals that one shares basic values, views, and objectives. If one is normally optimistic but chose to associate with pessimists, then s/he will most certainly develop pessimistic attitudes. This kind of toxic character feature can have a negative impact at work.
The third lesson is that recruiting workers with their personal traits in mind (via behavioural-based interview questions, personality tests, and so on) can contribute to a more inclusive and cheerful workplace. COVID-19 has forced companies like Taobao to rely more on their workforce in terms of interacting with the customers without the traditional supervision structure. Thus, identification of personal characteristics that are important to the organization has been a major lesson from the case study. While personal characteristics and other personality factors are significant, we must remember that conduct is influenced by both the person and the environment. Certain circumstances bring out the best in individuals, and a terrible employee in one field may transform into a stellar performer in another.
B. Ways the Module has Helped in Understanding Organization BehaviorThe module has helped me comprehend organizational behaviour and its relevant strategies to work with different individuals within the organization. In the long term, utilizing personality characteristics to establish task forces and groups can be immensely helpful (Nuckcheddy, 2018). Diversity is important for survival, as it has been seen from the previous modules. Simultaneously, bringing together like-minded people can significantly boost effectiveness and cooperation. Using personality characteristics and test results to shape teams can aid in the formation of a harmonious group. It is indeed important to remember, though, that monitoring someone’s personality several times can give one a better understanding of how they operate. It really is critical to use newly discovered information and observations to reorganize team dynamics. Personal qualities by themselves are insufficient to predict the behaviour. Circumstances also play a major role in defining how someone will behave.
Particular situations and contexts can have a positive or negative impact on an individual’s day. A usually happy person could become more negative relying upon the situation. A typically pessimistic individual, on the other side, may have seemed to be more optimistic (Butler & Rose, 2011). So, how did this happen? One must have had both successes and setbacks in his or her life, and whether s/he actually realised it or not, they almost certainly influenced the way s/he operated and shaped his or her character during that time. It is human nature for emotional responses and personalities to change in response to different events in of lives. Even if people are unaware of what others are going through, it is logical to assume that particular events in everyone’s lives have an effect on their personalities.
The module has also helped me comprehend in acknowledging folk’s behaviour in the workplace is critical to a firm’s proper management. Clearly, a variety of factors play a part in determining this behaviour and its overall organisational implications. It is essential to have a model that arranges and streamlines the aspects involved in order to comprehend the roots and attributes of these variables (Wood et al., 2019). The straightforward identification of organization inputs and outputs is the initial aspect of the model. Corporations, in other words, get inputs from the outside world in the shape of capital, raw materials, manpower, societal or government backing, and so on. Organisations also have or produce specific results, such as (1) organizational goal achievement, (2) group performance and efficiency, and (3) personal efficiency and development. As a result, businesses and the individuals who work in them are always in flux, absorbing and converting inputs from the environment and delivering those changed inputs in the form of final products and services, stockholders’ equity, employee wages, and so on. In a nutshell, it really is a dynamic system.
C. Suggestions to Change a Situation and Attain Effectiveness in the Organization
There are a number of ways that one can deal with slacking co-workers. One of them is ignoring their conduct and stopping making excuses for them. The majority of individuals have a difficult time dealing with lazy people since they feel obligated to cover for their shortcomings. And besides, one worries about his or her co-workers and doing high-quality work. One would not want this one slacker to pull the rest of the team down and jeopardize the group’s outcome (Rao, 2010). So, one jump in and take care of things, but this is the incorrect reaction. This consumes one’s important time and energy, which might negatively impact own productivity. However, one will also be teaching the slacker that his or her behaviour is not only tolerable, but also insignificant. They do not have to cope with any negative consequences. In essence, they can get away with their negative behaviours. Disregard the slacker’s poor performance if it is not adversely affecting personal task. It may sound harsh, but one already has enough to worry about without attempting to change or hide for one’s co-workers’ negative conduct. Allow the dirt to fall wherever they may for this individual.
Have a department or team-wide policy on performance. One cannot know exactly what is going on in the lives of others unless they inquire. If an individual is not keeping their word, it may be essential to figure out what the issue is. By conversing with the slacker, one can make the slacker aware of the consequences of his or her actions. Discuss the repercussions and see if causes can be figured out. Undoubtedly, some slackers are simply unmotivated. Others, on the other hand, may be unaware or mired in wasteful, ineffective systems. One might be able to make some suggestions to help the problem. A courteous, professional dialogue, inconsiderate of the motivation, can put the colleague on alert. They will be aware that their actions are unsatisfactory.
References
Aswathappa, K., & Reddy, G. S. (2009). Organisational behaviour (Vol. 20). Mumbai:
Himalaya Publishing House.
Butler, M., & Rose, E. (Eds.). (2011). Introduction to organisational behaviour. Kogan Page
Publishers.
Cioruţa, B., & Coman, M. (2019). From Classical Systems Thinking to Modern Dynamic
Systems Theory: beyond the definitions and conceptual delimitations. Hidraulica, (3), 76-85.
Cross, C., & Carbery, R. (2018). Organisational behaviour: an introduction. Bloomsbury
Publishing.
Knight, R. (2021). When You’re Stuck Working with a Slacker. Harvard Business Review.
Retrieved 26 October 2021, from https://hbr.org/2021/05/when-youre-stuck-working-with-a-slacker
Nuckcheddy, A. (2018). The effect of personality on motivation and organisational
behaviour. Psychology and Behavioral Science International Journal, 9(2), 1-5.
Rao, P. S. (2010). Organisational behaviour. Himalaya Publishing House.
Šijan, A., Karabašević, D., & Rajčević, D. (2019). The importance of the general system theory
for the modern world. Trendovi u poslovanju, 7(2), 87-94.
Wood, J., Zeffane, R., Fromholtz, M., Wiesner, R., Morrison, R. R., Factor, A., & McKeown,
T. (2019). Organisational behaviour: Core concepts and applications. John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.