Organisations and Behaviour - Egg Company and the Taylor Woodrow Company - Case Study Example

Organisations and behaviour - case study on Egg Company and the Taylor Woodrow Company [Words: 2310] Task The leadership style used in each organization is not standardized, being depended on the conditions in the organizational environment, the goals set and the resources available for the realization of the organization’s strategic plans (Tracy 2013). Moreover, the culture of each organization has a critical role in regard to the choice of its leadership style; for example, organizations where hierarchy is of critical importance, emphasis is given to ‘the organizing and monitoring of employees/ subordinators’ (Cameron and Quinn 2011, p.47) while in organizations based on market culture leaders are particularly effective in ‘motivating and negotiating’ (Cameron and Quinn 2011, p.47). In any case, the performance of employees can highly affect the leadership style, at the point that a leader may have to make changes on his leadership style for responding to the decrease of performance of his followers (Bertocci 2009). In the two companies reviewed in this paper, i.e. the Egg Company and the Taylor Woodrow Company, motivation seems to have a different role in the realization of the organizational objectives. As a result, if different leadership styles are applied their effects on motivation in each organization would be different. In Egg Company, the Scientific Management theory that focuses only on monetary awards, as a means of promoting motivation, and which promotes the idea of punishing employees for not performing as expected could not be applied for the following reason: in Egg Company emphasis is given on supporting and inspiring employees so that they are willing to do their best for perform higher as possible. There is no issue of obliging employees using measures based on punishment. If this theory would be applied in Egg, then the relationship between employees and managers would be destroyed leading to the decrease of employee performance. As for the theories of Maslow and McGregor, that emphasize on the increase of employee motivation by serving specific needs of employees (Maslow), by giving appropriate directions (McGregor) or by feeling satisfied with their role (McGregor), these theories would be not appropriate for Egg. In Egg Company emphasis is given not only on covering employees’ needs but also on inspiring employees, on cultivating the relationship between managers and employees and on promoting employee loyalty. In this way, employees are given their best for continuously improving their performance. If these two theories would apply at Egg, then employee performance would reach a particular level with no prospects, however, for increase in the future. Also, these theories cannot guarantee the standardization of employee performance at high levels. On the other hand, the theory of Mayo based on the team work and the understanding between employee and manager would be the most appropriate for Egg Company. In case of changes in the company’s workforce the specific leadership style would secure the support of employees, a fact that could increase the chances for the success of the attempted changes. In case of changes at the workforce of the second company, the Taylor Woodrow Company, motivation of employees would be also affected, depended on the leadership style chosen. If the Scientific Management theory of Taylor would be used, no particular changes would be reported in the motivation of the company’s employees. This is because in Taylor Woodrow Company there is a different relationship between employees and managers, compared to the Egg Company. This fact is related to the different structure of Taylor Woodrow’s workforce, compared to that of the Egg Company. In Taylor Woodrow employees are dispersed worldwide and work in a variety of departments which cannot be continuously in cooperation when developing the tasks assigned to them. For this reason, setting the performance as a criterion of rewarding in the specific company would not be rejected by employees, even if punishments would be also introduced for failures while executing tasks. In other words, Taylor Woodrow is not highly centralized, as the Egg company and the Scientific Management theory could be applied without severely affecting employee motivation, if changes were initiated in regard to the company’s workforce. From a same point of view, if changes in the firm’s workforce were managed using Maslow’s theory or Herzberg theory, which focus on employees’ needs, then no severely opposition would be expected from employees; in fact, employees would remain motivated even if not at high levels, as if the Mayo theory would have been used instead. Task 2 In Egg Company employee motivation has been based on Mayo’s theory; the particular theory promotes the value of a psychological contract between the manager and employees. Through this contract it is ensured that manager is aware of the needs of the employees but also of their potentials; at the same time, such contract ensures that employees are aware of manager’s expectations from them (Miner 2007). The specific motivational theory can be considered as quite valuable and most appropriate for the Egg Company where the cooperation and the understanding between managers and employees are critical for securing the high employee performance. The tools used by Egg Company for the establishment of the particular motivational theory should be characterized as quite effective: a) specific mechanism, a scheme named as ‘Know Your People’, is introduced so that the manager has the chance to meet with each employee and become aware of his needs and competencies; b) in addition, the goals of the organization have been aligned with employees’ needs and competencies; as a result, the responsibilities of employees are such that the firm’s objectives can be fully met; c) different training schemes are offered to employees according to their needs; in this way, it is ensured that each employee will be fully capable of responding to the demands of his role. In Taylor Woodrow a different motivational theory has been chosen: the Performance Related Pay approach. This approach, which is based on employees’ rewarding according to their performance, as affecting organizational performance has been applied in Taylor Woodrow using a series of standardized criteria for Reviewing Performance. In this way, the credibility of findings is secured and there is no potentials of managers to intervene for stating their view in regard to the performance of employees in their department. The payment of each employee is decided according to his performance in the Performance Review test: the grade 5 is considered as the highest grade of the particular test. The specific system is used both for regular payments and for extra rewards, in case of employees’ exceptional performance. In other words, in Egg Company employee motivation is promoted through a system based on the cooperation and communication between employees and managers while in Taylor Woodrow a system of standardized, objective, criteria is preferred, denoting the lack of close cooperation and trust in the internal organizational environment. Task 3 In Egg Company managers have supported the motivational approaches chosen by emphasizing on the development of their communication with employees. Primarily, managers develop their plans in regard to the works that need to be completed by employees; before distributing roles, managers discuss with employees so that the tasks are assigned to the employees who are able to complete them. The communication between managers and employees is developed in the context of a training program named as ‘Know yourself, know your people’. Following this process managers in Egg Company become aware of each employee’s needs and skills and are able to distribute roles that best suit to each employee. The benefits derived from these motivational practices for the Egg Company are significant: a) the trust of employees to the organization is increased, b) employees are assigned tasks that are appropriate for their skills, a fact that secures the successful completion of these tasks; a high employee performance can guarantee the high performance of the organization. In Taylor Woodrow managers support the motivational approach chosen by participating in the Performance and Development Review Process. During this process, managers set a list with the company’s objectives and the required skills for achieving these objectives. Then, managers have to meet with employees and receive the reports/ documents that the latter have developed in regard to their expectations from their role, their current skills and their training needs. In this way, an agreement for future performance is made between managers and employees; a period is set for the achieving the targets set. After the end of the period, the performance of employees is evaluated by referring to the agreement made between managers and employees. This evaluation is used for deciding the payment and the extra reward, if any, of each employee. In other words, in Taylor Woodrow managers have the role of the negotiator between the company and the employees, at the level that an agreement needs to be developed between the firm and its employees for the achievement of the organizational objectives. This motivational practice has the benefit that can highly motivate employees who value the monetary rewards; however, employees who emphasize on communication and trust would be rather discouraged from performing high. Task 4 Groups can be considered as indispensable part of organizations; in fact, groups it seems that groups ‘exist in organizations of all sizes’ (Anbuvelan 2007, p.317). Moreover, in the context of organizations groups can be either formal or informal; in the first case, groups are initiated by management team for securing the success of critical tasks (Martin 2005). In each organization, group behaviour is not standardized, being influenced by organizational culture and the organization’s internal environment, especially the leadership style (Brooks I. 2009). In the Egg Company there are no formal groups; rather, emphasis is given to the potentials of employees to take initiatives and to discuss with managers, directly, in regard to their concerns and needs. This means that in the particular company a direct link has been established between employees and managers, a fact that denotes an hierarchical organizational structure and not a network structure, where the presence of groups is quite strong. In Taylor Woodrow employees are categorized in groups according to their skills. This means that in the particular company formal groups are part of the organizational strategy. The members of these groups have to follow the terms of their agreement with the employer, as these terms have been developed during the Performance and Development Review Process, as analyzed earlier. This means that the behaviour of these groups is aligned with specific rules, to which employees have offered their consent. In this way, stability across the organization is not threatened, a fact that also guarantees the lack of delays in the completion of the tasks assigned to employees, both as individuals and as members of a specific group. Task 5 There are two key factors that can make a team quite effective: a) creativity and b) unity (Brooks K., 2009). For example, a team is expected to be more effective if its members are able to provide solutions in emergent problems, where no clear options are easy to be retrieved. Also, teams where unity is high are more likely to be effective since conflicts between members will be quite rare. Moreover, there are factors that can severely threat the performance of teams within an organization: a) lack of strong relationships and b) failure in identifying the critical strengths of members (Brooks K., 2009). In the Egg Company creativity is promoted at individual level while emphasis is given to the development of strong relationships between managers and employees. Therefore, the potential role of these factors in supporting or delaying the effectiveness of the firm’s teams cannot be evaluated. As for the Taylor Woodrow Company, there the groups are organized by the firm’s management team; each employee joins a group according to his skills and the role given to him. In the above organization, creativity cannot be developed in the context of the group since members need to respond to their responsibilities as included in their agreement with employer. On the other hand, unity within groups can be high at the level that employees are interested in completing the tasks assigned to them as their performance in these tasks affects their payment. In this context, in Taylor Woodrow, unity can lead to the high increase of team effectiveness even if creativity remains at low levels, mostly due to the fear of employees that they could exceed the limits of their role. On the other hand, in the particular company there are no strong relationships between the members of teams but the impact of this factor could be reduced because of the following fact: in Taylor Woodrow managers identify the strengths of employees and ensure, as possible, that the tasks assigned to them are aligned with their skills. So, the risks from assigning inappropriate tasks to the members of the group are eliminated. Task 6 Egg Company, due to the nature of its industry, is highly based on technology. As explained, Egg Company operates in the banking sector; this means that any failure in communicating with customers effectively or processing/ exchanging information would result to severe organizational losses. In addition, in the Egg Company technology is vital for securing the communication between managers and employees. Reference should be made to specific communication tools, such as e-mails and tele-working (Daft et al. 2010). In other words, for the Egg Company technology is critical for securing the successful development of daily business operations and for keeping communication and cooperation in the internal organizational environment at high levels. Taylor Woodrow operates in a sector where technology is important, but not critical, for developing various organizational activities. Moreover, in Taylor Woodrow emphasis is given to the potential of each employee to respond to his responsibilities, as aligned with the organizational objectives, and not on the communication and cooperation between employees at various levels of the organizational hierarchy. Therefore, technology failures in the specific company would result in less severe outcomes that in Egg Company where such failures would harm the firm’s image in the market. References Anbuvelan, K. (2007) Principles of Management. New Delhi: Firewall Media Bertocci, D. (2009) Leadership in Organizations: There is a Difference Between Leaders and Managers. Lanham: University Press of America. Brooks, I. (2009) Organisational Behaviour: Individuals, Groups and Organisation. Essex: Pearson Education. Brooks, K. (2009) Building the Team: Reducing Costs and Increasing Employee Performance By Building a Team Using Military Principles. Bloomington: iUniverse Cameron, K. and Quinn, R. (2011) Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Daft, R., Murphy, J. and Willmott, H. (2010) Organization Theory and Design. Belmont: Cengage Learning EMEA Martin, J. (2005) Organizational Behaviour and Management. Belmont: Cengage Learning Miner, J. (2007) Organizational Behavior: From theory to practice. New York: M.E. Sharpe Tracy, B. (2013) Motivation. New York: AMACOM Division of American Management Association. Read More