Introducation to organisation and management - Assignment Example

?Introduction The two firms that are the of these case studies are really night and day as far as culture and leadership goes. The first casestudy is Watson’s. Watson’s has a hierarchy that is authoritative, which means that employees have little input in decision-making and are really not respected. Management and unions have a toxic history due to a lack of trust. The managing director, Gordon Watson, is man who is stuck, in that he is not proactive, but prefers to keep things the status quo. He is also older and ready to retire, and does not interact with the workers. His underling, Ahmed Khan, however, does seem to have more vision, and he has excellent ideas that would be very beneficial to the company’s productivity. However, he is not being heard by the people higher up in the hierarchy. The same situation is present with the staff, in that they, too, have good ideas, but these ideas are not heard of given respect. The people in the organization do not have fluidity, in that they do not move between different positions, therefore there is little flexibility in fulfilling orders, so part of the staff is overburdened, while others are underburdened. The different departments do not communicate with one another. The staff is having high absenteeism, and there is also high turnover. The Human Resource Manager, instead of trying to find solutions to the high absenteeism and retention, makes excuses and does not take sexual harassment seriously. Consequently, the firm appears to be falling apart. On the other hand, H&M Consulting seems to have it together. Where Watson’s is a dinosaur, in that it refuses to go forward with new technology and ideas, H& M is the opposite, as they use new technology and ideas as their focus. H&M is not hierarchical, and centralized leadership is not strong, as it is composed of groups that have team leaders, and uses technology to coordinate what the different teams are doing. The teams are constantly changing, and constantly going to different projects. All this is not to say that there is not leadership, because there is. Theo Wolf, who is the CEO, is a visionary, his staff respects him, and has been called inspirational. He is communicative with his staff, and is very motivational. He encourages his staff to try new approaches and be proactive with company issues. Its staff is valuable, and learning and development are encouraged. The employees are given autonomy, so that they are responsible for their own development. In short, this organization values their employees, has trusted leadership who creates a shared vision, encourages its employees to be proactive with solutions, and does not have tyrannical leadership. Discussion Examining these two different companies is a study of a difference in organizational culture. The culture is “the coding of values and deeply-held beliefs that mold an organization's decision patterns, guide its actions, and drive individual behavior” (Dauphinais & Price, 1998, p. 190). Culture is also belief patterns that come from group norms, informal activities and values (Ivancevich et al., 2008, p. 503). The culture of an organization is visible to the members and to outsiders as the way things are done(Dauphinais & Price, 1998, p. 190). It is also subtle and invisible, in that it makes up the values, beliefs and attitudes that go throughout the organization. Culture can be an asset, if it is in line with company's vision, thus catalyzing the vision. Or it can be a drawback, hindering the vision if the culture is not so in line and the fit between the culture and the vision is flawed, as the beliefs that permeate the organization propel it to mediocrity, not to greatness. According to Dauphinais & Price, culture and culture change are not triggered from the top down, but from the bottom up and is created by “practical tools such as measures, rewards, and carefully structured people practices” (Dauphinais & Price, 1998, p. 191). The two companies cultures are night and day – Watson’s company culture is toxic, while H&M has a company culture that is very beneficial. Another difference between the two companies is the difference in the company’s vision, and how this vision is shared with the organization. H&M Consulting, when it comes to leadership, has what is known as a shared vision. According to Peter Senge, a shared vision is, or should be, a priority for any organization. The basic concept is that people need to be committed to the organization's vision. Another basic concept is that everybody has individual ideas about the vision of the organization, and all of these ideas are important and valuable and a synthesis of these ideas should be something that the organization should work towards. Senge uses the example of the movie Spartacus when illustrating his point – Spartacus, a slave, was to be turned over to the Roman legion for crucifixion. When the Romans came to speak with the slaves, they asked who was Spartacus, and Spartacus immediately stood up and stated that he was Spartacus. After he did this, every man stood up as well as said that he was Spartacus, and every man was crucified for this. The point that Senge was trying to make was that Spartacus, as a leader, was able to transmit a shared vision to which every slave was committed, and this vision was that they all should be free. Because he was able to do this for his men, they literally would die for him (Senge, 1990, pp. 205-206). So, how does a leader inspire this same sort of loyalty? By creating a shared vision. A shared vision is one that the leader envisions, and every follower envisions the same thing. Each person in the organization has a picture in their heads about this vision, and this vision is in their hearts, a part of each and every person. Each person cares about this vision, and desire to be connected to everybody else in carrying out this vision. In other words, it is not just the leader conjuring up a vision for the organization, and transmitting the vision, essentially imposing his vision on others. It is the leader transmitting this vision in such a way that every member of the organization has the same vision, therefore will be truly committed to make the vision happen (Senge, 1990, p. 206). How this shared vision comes into being, along with ideas on making this happen that are the ideas of other researchers and writers, is the topic of this paper. The first factor in creating a shared vision is by acknowledging the strengths of individual members, and by acknowledging each individual members personal vision of the organization at its best (Senge, 1990, p. 212). Essential to this is composing a team, as opposed to a group. Plenart (1995) tells the story of team building in Malaysia. His team was composed of a mix of Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus who, initially, did not understand one another at all, and there was a great deal of resistance to open communication. Plenart's challenge was to create a team out of these disparate people. He found that, after much time and patience, and much work in avoiding culturally offensive occurrences, the team was strong and vital because of the fact that each member of the team brought a different perspective, and this generated innovative ideas (Plenart, 1995, p. 290). Senge also talks about seven attitudes towards a vision. At the top is commitment – the people in the organization want the vision, and will do whatever it takes to make it happen – even creating new laws or structures to make it happen. Just under that is enrollment – the members of the organization want it, and they will do whatever it takes within the already existing structures and laws to make it happen. Then, under this are the compliance categories. There is genuine compliance, where members of the organization see and understand the vision, and agree with it, but are not really invested in it because they do not really share the vision. But they follow the “letter of law” and do everything that is expected of them and more. With formal compliance, the members of the organization see the benefit of the vision, and do what is expected, but do not go above and beyond the call of duty. Then grudging compliance – the organization members do not see the vision, do not understand it or agree with it, goes along with it because they do not want to lose their jobs. They do what they need to, and no more, and complain about it the whole way. Then, you have non-compliant people – they have the attitude that the vision is not theirs, and they do not want to go along with it, and they don't. Apathy is where people really don't care either way – they are not for the vision, they are not against it, they just want to get their paycheck and leave (Senge, 1990. pp. 219-220). Obviously a manager wants to inspired commitment or at least enrollment in his or her members. According to Senge, there are a few ways to do this. One way is for the manager to be enrolled in the vision as well. Lead by example. An example of managers who do not do this are the managers above who wrote their vision on a sheet of paper and were then done with it, and moving on. They cannot be enrolled in their own vision if they cannot even remember what the vision is. If the leader is not enrolled in the vision, the leader can only sell the vision, not really foster it within the organization members. Another way to inspire enrollment and commitment is to not sugar-coat the vision and not sweep problems under the rug. The leader cannot tell the followers that everything is rosy and downplay the hard stuff. The third way is by allowing the organization members to choose about being a part of the vision. The leader cannot give ultimatums or state that they must accept the vision or else. They organization members must have a choice in the matter, and the leader must create a sense of safety so that they can develop their own sense of the vision (Senge, 1990, pp. 222-223). These concepts apply to H&M. The leader of the company has composed a vision, known by the acronym PRIDE – Progress, Respect, Integrity, Drive and Excellence. He has made the vision the vision of each and every employee by the culture that has been built up, which is one of respect for each employee and what each employee can bring to the table. Each individual’s strengths are acknowledged and celebrated. Therefore, every member of the organization has the same vision, and this vision is reinforced through the culture of the organization that encourages each individual’s talents. And it seems that the employees will die for their leader, like the Spartacus example. On the other hand, Watson’s does not have this shared vision. They actually don’t have any vision, let alone a shared vision. They seem to exist just day to day, without a view of the future. It does not value employees, does not care about what the employees have to say about anything, and there is nothing that encourages any kind of teamwork or camaraderie, which is necessary for a shared vision to transmit itself through the organizational culture. Leadership is different between these organizations as well. This is also related to shared vision. A special kind of leader is able to transmit shared visions in this way. There are two kinds of leaders who have the traits to foster this. One type of leader is the servant leader, who puts aside his or her own self-interest in favor of the interests of those being led. These leaders are altruistic; are able to provide emotional healing to those who fail; are wise, in that they have a good grasp on any given situation that faces the group and knows how to handle these situations; have an excellent ability to persuade others; and understand how their organization impacts society, and are able to use their organization for positive societal means (Barbuto & Gifford, 2010, p. 5-7). Democratic leadership is another style of leader. A democratic leader facilitates conversations, and the staff is encouraged to share ideas and bring forth individual views and debate these ideas. Consensus building is a hallmark of this leadership, as solutions often come through consensus. All member's talents are brought forth and encouraged. The team that is most advantageous to this type of leadership is a team that is composed of bright, talented, professional and motivated team members (Eagly & Johnson, 1990). Another type of leader is the transformational leader, who is able to “enhance their followers performance beyond the personal and leadership's expectations” (Thomas, 2010, p. 9). Transformation leaders are able to “enhance their followers performance beyond the personal and leadership's expectations” (Thomas, 2010, p. 9). Jung and Avolio (2000) state that trust is what makes a transformational leader effective. Trust in the leader is essential to lead through the transitional period, and help the followers overcome their apprehension, and overcome obstacles. They foster this trust by demonstrating concern for the follower's needs, honoring previously made agreements, demonstrating capability in achieving the vision set forth, and by showing that they are willing to sacrifice their own well-being for the good of the organization (Harris, 2005, p. 8). This leader is able to identify each individuals' personal needs; is able to elicit creative and innovative thinking among the led; is able to assist the followers through task that they might have thought to be impossible; and is able to inspire a “charismatic admiration and emulation of the leader” (Thomas, 2010, p. 9). These leaders use a system of punishment, rewards and pre-emptive actions to solve group problems (Thomas, 2010, p. 10). Because these leaders are able to really work with their members, and understand them and assist them through seemingly impossible tasks, these are leaders who will be able to foster shared vision among their organizational members. This is the kind of leader that Theo Wolf is. On the other hand, Watson’s appears to be led with autocratic leadership. This type of leader issues decisions and the workforce is supposed to obey them, no discussion allowed. Employees' opinions are disregarded, and the employees are basically told to “put up or shut up” - follow the directions or risk sanction. While there are many disadvantages to this type of leadership, mainly that employees feel diminished and powerless, this type of leadership is appropriate in some situations. One such situation is where a quick decision must be made (Miller, 2010). Watson’s is the epitome of this kind of leadership, if you can really call what they have leadership. They disregard employees’ opinions, and their employees are basically told to suck it up, no matter what. There is a great deal of uncaring, and the leader seems to have checked out and already looking towards retirement instead of having a vision of the future. Moreover, there is evidently a problem with trust when it comes to Watson’s. According to Strike (2007), trust is essential for building the community. Communities “exist to enable cooperation aimed at the achievement of certain shared goods” (Strike, 2007, p. 17). In communities, cooperation is more important than competition. The success of the community in question is contingent upon how successful the parts of the whole are integrated and successful in their own right - “success of each contributes to the success of all” (Strike, 2007, p. 17). Essential to keeping the community together is solidarity, which means that the community is functioning as a unit, and each member is committed to the goals of the community and the other members of the community. Trust is essential to this process because, when it disappears, solidarity does as well (Strike, 2007, p. 18). Because there is little trust in the Watson’s organization, especially between the unions and management, there is not a way to foster the cooperation that is necessary to be successful, and there is not the sense that the success of one contributes to the success of all. There is no solidarity because there is no trust. On the other hand, H&M seems to have fostered a great deal of trust, as evidenced by the fact that the leader is so beloved by the employees. According to Harris (2005), people are willing to climb any mountain, circumvent any obstacle for a trusted leader. Trust builds commitment. It is “derived from people watching walk after hearing us talk. Trust is invariably spoken with our mouths and travels through our ears, but is is only proven through our eyes. By proving themselves in their follower's eyes, leaders are able to reach the hearts of those they would seek to lead” (Harris, 2005, p. 8). Similarly, Jung and Avolio (2000) state that trust is what makes a transformational leader, such as Mr. Wolf, effective. This is because the transformational leader is often leading through a period of transition, which results in fear, anxiety and frustration. Trust in the leader is essential to lead through the transitional period, and help the followers overcome their apprehension, and overcome obstacles. They foster this trust by demonstrating concern for the follower's needs, honoring previously made agreements, demonstrating capability in achieving the vision set forth, and by showing that they are willing to sacrifice their own well-being for the good of the organization (Harris, 2005, p. 8). Conclusion These two companies are a study in contrast. One company has a toxic company culture, ignores and disrespects employees, does not have a vision, refuses to innovate, ignores sexual harassment, has fostered distrust between management and unions, has authoritative leadership, and makes excuses for problems instead of solutions. Not surprisingly, this company is going down. The other company has a transformational leader, a vision to which its employees are enrolled, listens to its employees and encourages their ideas and constantly produces innovation. This company is flourishing and is one of the top companies in their field. The difference between the two companies is night and day, and shows that vision, respect, and valuing employees are the key ingredients to making a company great. Sources Used Barbuto, J. & Gifford, G. (2010), “Examining Gender Differences of Servant Leadership,” Journal of Leadership Education 2(9): 4-16. Dauphinais, G.W. & Price, C. (1998) Straight from the CEO: The World's Top Business Leaders Reveal Ideas That Every Manager Can Use. York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Eagly, A. & Johnson, B. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. CHIP Documents. Paper 11. http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi? article=1010&context=chip_docs Harris, S. (2005). Changing Mindsets of Educational Leaders to Improve Schools. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education. Ivancevich, J.M., Konopaske, R. & Matteson, M. (2008), Organizational Behavior and Management. York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin. Jung, D. & Avolio, B. (2000). “Opening the Black Box.” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(8): 949-964. Lerbinger, O. (1997), The Crisis Manager: Facing Risk and Responsibility. , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Miller, P. (2010). Leading and Managing People, 4th Ed. Lismore, NSW: Souther Cross University Press. Plenart, G. (1995), World Class Manager. New York, NY: Prima Publishing. Silva, M. & McGann, T. (1995), Overdrive: Managing in Crisis-Filled Times. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Smart, B.D. (1999), Topgrading: How Leading Companies Win By Hiring, Coaching and Keeping the Best People. Paramus, NJ: Prentice Hall Press. Strike, K.A. (2007). Ethical Leadership in Schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Thomas, J. (2010), “Bet You Never Heard of This Leadership Trait,” Journal of Leadership Education 2(9): 1-3. Wright, W. (2010), “The Use of Purpose in On-Going Activity Groups: A Framework for Maximizing the Therapeutic Impact,” Social Work With Groups 28(3): 205-227. Read More