Management Style Used by ACME - Case Study Example

?Critically Assess the Employee Relations Management Style Adopted by ACME Engineering Introduction: This case study gives opportunities to assess from different viewpoints the structure and organization of a business. The analysis of this case study will be concentrated to critically evaluate the employee relations management style adopted by ACME Engineering. This study consist of management style used by ACME, critically asses why they use this approach and evaluate the amount that this method is made probable because of the changing background of British employee dealings through the “1980s and 1990s” (Green 2007, pp. 148-149). ACME is a sales and a manufacturing operation. This makes us different from other Japanese plants that have will have just a manufacturing operation. This is one significant organizational difference among ACME and further UK Japanese plants. ACME is an industrialized plant and a selling tool. It's also a declaration of commitment to the long term in Europe. “Acme components represent computational elements and data stores of a system. ACME’s managerial style included a mechanistic organization” (Garlan et al. n.d., p. 52). Management Style Used by ACME: ACME follows a classical-scientific method to management with autocratic management style. “Autocratic management style is used when leaders tell their employees what they want done and how they want it accomplished, without getting the advice of their followers. Some of the appropriate conditions to use it are when you have all the information to solve the problem, you are short on time, and your employees are well motivated” (Leadership Styles 1997). The autocratic management style leaves no room to workers payment to the running of the industry, and they are treated quite and impersonally; frequently ignored when they suggest developments for the business. Because the classical-scientific technique relies on every member doing their individual task to contribute to the entire business, the high stages of absenteeism signify that work is not getting done; hence the production of the business will suffer. ACME’s vertical separation, which includes of four stages of control, constitutes the distribution of authority among the organizational hierarchy levels and technologies to provide the organization more control than its activities and projects. “In addition to profit sharing, the executive pay package at Acme should include a stock option plan” (Lawler 2011, p. 248). ACME is extremely centralized. Directors from the top of the class structure have all the control to create the majority of the choices for the organization, and subordinates are probable to follow instructions. Even though, I consider that ACME has founded a high level of formalization and standardization, they experienced complicatedness abiding to their own policies. Employees at ACME use individual specialization, where workers concentrate on one particular work and area individually. “Acme’s top executives were actively looking for managers whose behavior and management philosophy aligned with this new orientation. These efforts reinforced the emphasis on sensitivity to bias and racial stereo types that Bowman had initiated” (Thomas & Gabarro 1999, p. 162). Following are the Managerial Style Structure of ACME. Specialization Type: At ACME, the head retained the single structure of the plant, before it became a divide entity. The managerial structure was well-defined, with high quantity of separation of labor. Each section executed its task separately. Therefore, type of area is individual. Integrating Mechanism: Due to the well-defined, tall ladder of the organization, the basic incorporating mechanism in ACME is Authority. Distribution of Authority: The majority choices were issued from top of the organization down to its lesser levels. Distribution of power was mostly centralized. Standardization of Rules: Most of the works were being done in an already defined method, were orders to create actions which were issued among managers of sectors, which also tell us that policies were standardized in a recognized fashion. “Acme's management did not know why those top performers were so productive and what differentiated them from the rest of the sales staff. Consequently, Acme's hiring practices were hit-or-miss, based upon the gut feeling of the regional managers rather than upon any kind of formal evaluation of candidates for sales jobs” (James 2011). Effect of Management Style on Coordination: The high process of management, and the tall chain of command of the managerial chart, has influenced the way the activities were being completed. The mostly significant effects can be summarized as follows: Little information was conversed amongst the organization’s total and different sections. Lack of motivation, as a number of manager’s voiced. Some inactivity against trying latest methods of work subsisted. Coordination among distributions was not highly sufficient that some vital decisions were incorrectly taken. For that same reason, there were a lot of false starts and failures between new hires in the sales group, which added to the organization’s cost of sales. “ACME developed standards for the selection, training, and certification of leaders of ME programs, which have been maintained” (Hunt et al. 1998, p. 74). ACME’s salary and annual appraisal are straightly connected to payment across a quantity of factors; therefore people get a message both fiscally or else across the table from the director at the evaluation, if not at other periods of the year. Appraisals themselves are founded on anniversary dates. So salary and appraisals raises are taking place across the complete 12 months of the year. ACME required to create the appraisal on individual basis as possible and didn't want to detract from the individuality or personal side of it, irrespective of the realism of undertaking appraisals at a specific point of the year. Critically discuss why they Use this Style: “Employee relationship management” (Employee Relationship Management 2008) in the organization is used to refer the growth of relationship and management among employers and their staff.  There are numerous different matters that can influence satisfaction of the employee, which have a direct effect on productivity of the employee and overall business culture.  “Employee relationship management can be driven by using employee surveys to directly engage your employees in the issues that are most important to them” (Employee Relationship Management is Key Towards Achieving Balance n.d.). Employees relationship management style of the ACME helps to overcome various issues, that are, conflict management, issues related to communication and growth of employees. Managing relations with employees needs dedication, observing and follow-up. It is a process that organizations use to successfully manage every interaction with workers, finally to achieve the aims of the company. The human resources division can play a significant position in this procedure, both in terms of teaching and coaching managers and decision-makings on how to successfully establish and foster relationships with workers and in assessing and examining those relationships to decide whether aims are being met. “Good employee relation signifies that employees should feel positive about their identity, their job as well as about being a part of such a great organization” (Employee Relations – Importance and Ways of Improving Employee Relations 2008). The management style used in the ACME is the “Autocratic management style” (Management Styles n.d.). Autocratic (or authoritarian) managers of the organizations like to create all the vital decisions and intimately manage and organize workers. Managers do not faith staff and simply give instructions (one-way communication) that they suppose to be obeyed. “This approach derives from the views of Taylor as to how to motivate workers and relates to McGregor’s theory X view of workers. This approach has limitations (as highlighted by other motivational theorists such as Mayo and Herzberg) but it can be effective in certain situations” (People – Management Styles n.d.). This particular management style helps to develop the good rapport between employees and employer of the ACME. This style is described by a top-down communication method. All the Information is passed from executives to senior administration to staff, for the reason that most judgment is made at the top. This was the ‘appropriate’ method to carry out business 100 years ago, but in present times, majority of the managers have moved away from this type of management style and have accepted a more paternistic approach. Autocratic management is normally an amalgamation of an occasionally erroneous approach and actions that strengthen this inner attitude or belief. Its opponents are many, but there are conditions wherein healthier performance resulted from autocratic, rather than participatory style management. “While participatory management is the proven and preferred style in business, autocratic management can still function effectively. The workforce may dispute this fact, as they tend to be generally uninterested in their jobs and may be mistrustful of management” (Why Autocratic Management and Employee Teams Usually Don’t Work Well Together 2009). Evaluate the extent that this style is made possible due to the changing context of British employee relations through the 1980s and 1990s. There is much focus in the employee relations in the industrial sector; the much focus is on the management style and the management culture in this field. The focus of the management was given keen priority by the British during the year of 1970 to 1980. By investigating the various kinds of the acts in the management, it was understood that the culture prevailing was to give emphasis on the industrial and the employee relations and the main aim was to concentrate more on the employee relations than on the trade unions; the trade unions usually suppress the employee relations. “What has IR to say about how we might analyze such issues? The employment relationship has two parts, market relations and managerial relations (Flanders 1974). The former is the more obvious. It covers the price of labour, which embraces not only the basic wage but also hours of work, holidays and pension rights” (Edwards n.d., p. 8). Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, in a circumstance of rising union power, company that had previously not accepted a union established the advantageous to do so, so as to suppress administrative center militancy. “The focus on relations external to the enterprise - especially through national/industry level collective bargaining - was initially welcomed to an extent even by employers in several industrialized countries because it reduced (through standardized terms) competitive advantage based on labour costs” (Silva 1997, p. 6). Even though, for practical reasons, employers may have selected to identify unions, and made all attempt to limit union pressure over employment relations inside the workplace. For much of the twentieth century, various employers decided to try to eliminate unions from the workplaces. “As described in change theory, every external threat passes through the internal management system to be integrated in the firm or result.17 Prior to changes occurring in individual organizations, managers observe threats that pose the survival and prosperity of a firm.18 Once these are observed, managers begin to interact with the forces inside and outside the organization through the internal management system” (Adhikari 2005). Employers were positive to make safe greater manage over service dealings within the workplace by identifying officially, the authenticity of shop floor unionism than by demanding to turn off it, somewhat that would only source better interruption. “Performance management clearly exceeds the boundaries of professional or occupational groups. The team and service focus of performance management requires that various staff categories work in unison: doctors and nurses, reception staff and telephone operators are equally important at the time of delivering a user-friendly, quality service” (Dr. Martinez 2000). Such a preparation characterizes the findings and recommendations of the 1975–78 Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers’ Associations, which are well reputed. It was set up to observe the system of service relations in Britain, and to make suggestion for its improvement, given the unfavorable consequence feature of it be held to include on British economic performance, in exacting, ‘wage drift’, inflationary amplify in wages sourced by administrative center bargaining, and the related high level of industrial divergence. “Bearing in mind that governments have played a crucial role in allowing for growing integration in a number of areas, increased interdependence has received a great impetus also from technological innovation, as well as the constant reduction in transportation and communication costs” (Bertucci & Alberti n.d., p. 3). During the 1970s and 1980s, in a background of mounting combination militancy, managers approved a particularly more dominant approach in respect of workplace service relations anyway, in order to include and contain trade union power, and thus implement larger control. Employers were progressively more the major instigators in redesigning the structure of industrial relations in Britain. “Under the traditional system - the Taylorist model - the work was divided into narrow functions with short, repetitive work cycles and the work method is prescribed in detail. However, as noted, this system does not offer sufficient scope for a process of upgrading and innovation, which is essential for quick change and adaptation” (Teamwork and High Performance Work Organisation 2007). Throughout the delayed 1970s and early 1980s, there was a noticeable boost in the reputation of productivity agreements, though there was a variation significantly in the extent, aspects, and outcomes. Possibly, the majority significant function, however, was to indicate the expansion of a further determined and complicated approach to the organization of employment relations inside the British Organisations. Fundamental to reducing the occurrence of multi- employer was bargained through employers’ relations. In exacting, employers progressively required more concentration in increasing control of their own service relations, confident by a process of corporate reorganization and explanation which inspired demand for larger managerial capability and professionalism. Personnel policies were transformed. The various overview of how service associations were supervised in Britain previous to the 1980s, it ought to be obvious that while employers established trade unionism, this replicated a pragmatic reaction to situation, particularly union power, quite than a real belief in the qualities of a pluralist approach. If managers had to contract with trade unions, they try to do so in such a way that it restricted administrative center militancy. Managers may have been indebted to answer fruitfully to the suggestion of increasing union power, but their essentially unitary values normally remain Stable. Reference List Adhikari, R 2005. National Factors and Employment Relations in Japan. Japan Institute of Labour Policy and Training, Tokyo. Available at [Accesses on 11 January, 2012]. Bertucci, G & Alberti, A n.d. Globalization and the Role of the State: Challenges and Perspectives. Available at [Accesses on 12 January, 2012]. Dr. Martinez, J 2000. Assessing Quality, Outcome and Performance Management. The Institute for Health Sector Development, London. Workshope on Global Health Workforce Strategy. Available at [Accesses on 12 January, 2012]. Edwards, P n.d. The Employment Relationship and the Field of Industrial Relations. Available at [Accesses on 12 January, 2012]. Employee Relationship Management is Key Towards Achieving Balance. n.d. EmployeeService.com. [Online] Available at [Accesses on 10 January, 2012]. Employee Relationship Management. 2008. Management Study Guide. [Online] Available at [Accesses on 11 January, 2012]. Employee Relations – Importance and Ways of Improving Employee Relations. 2008. Management Study Guide.com. [Online] Available at [Accesses on 15 January, 2012]. Garlan et al. n.d. Acme: Architectural Description of Component – Based Systems. Computer Science Department. Available at [Accesses on 11 January, 2012]. Green, KC 1999. Prodding the ERP Turtle. Educause Review. Vol. 42. [Online] Available at [Accesses on 13 January, 2012]. Hunt et al. 1998. Marriage Enrichment: Preparation, Mentoring, and Outreach. Taylor & Francis, Inc. Available at [Accesses on 14 January, 2012]. James, G 2011. What Makes Top Performers So Productive? Caliper Corporation. [Online] Available at [Accesses on 14 January, 2012]. Lawler, EE 2011. Strategic Pay: Aligning Organizational Strategies and Pay Systems. Jossey-Bass Publishers. [Online] Available at [Accesses on 14 January, 2012]. Leadership Styles. 1997. Big Dog & Little Dog’s Performance Juxtaposition. [Online] Available at [Accesses on 16 January, 2012]. Management Styles. n.d. Learn Management2.com. [Online] Available at [Accesses on 15 January, 2012]. People – Management Styles. n.d. Tutor2u. [Online] Available at [Accesses on 15 January, 2012]. Silva, SD 1997. The Changing Focus of Industrial Relations and Human Resource Management. International Labour Organisation: ACT/EMP publications. Available at < https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Q2Cm5C8hyV4J:www.ilo.org/public/english/dialogue/actemp/downloads/publications/srsirhrm.pdf+evaluate+the+extent+that+this+style+is+made+possible+due+to+the+changing+context+of+British+employee+relations+through+the+1980s+and+1990s&hl=en&gl=in&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShmnD9PWrUuMKqSHGRmC2DFiZXyEQwm_a_Deix0XOWQUTVJbDRVO29JgUvV8Vf1oJhszJTPK3OagWDadLF2jlqXTDPioBGiWoVp2vmbKlSx-4v0Mrt0ng78aIdoTIcC4xxiuE29&sig=AHIEtbQjcjXenDcbQ7R6FP7oe0Xmi1dd0g> [Accesses on 17 January, 2012]. Teamwork and High Performance Work Organisation. 2007. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Available at < https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:ivq3wuDb31YJ:www.eurofound.europa.eu/ewco/reports/TN0507TR01/TN0507TR01.pdf+evaluate+the+extent+that+this+style+is+made+possible+due+to+the+changing+context+of+British+employee+relations+through+the+1980s+and+1990s&hl=en&gl=in&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi2lc6ufJ2jy8-DSlJXe8RzOlBs52DZ7jlD2YhQ9UA94TEPxU5Kv0pomvFROr6pgN5ebZ78Xjc9hnhrxDZyZ-RKgZnIi-p474TVKD9ytfn3qayqLppmk7N0WjpYM0T-eARFM4gQ&sig=AHIEtbTFhaYmpAL1uxJvN9QctkrLn6lM4w> [Accesses on 16 January, 2012]. Thomas, DA & Gabarro, JJ 1999. Breaking Through: The Making of Minority Executives in Corporate America. American National Standard for Performance. USA. Available at [Accesses on 16 January, 2012]. Why Autocratic Management and Employee Teams Usually Don’t Work Well Together. 2009. Lab Manager Magazine. [Online] Available at [Accesses on 17 January, 2012]. Read More