Managing People at Work - Assignment Example

Running head: Manage people at work. Student’s name Institution Course Professor Date Question 1 I think jealousy and the need of not wanting to be controlled caused Deborah to react in this manner. She was jealous that despite Melinda just being an employee of the Housing Industry Association (HIA) for only two years she had been promoted to a position that is above her. To be her manager in the same department despite the fact that she has been serving the company for the last fifteen years. It is that she felt that she was overlooked and a junior co-worker given to be her manager together with the other four workers. Deborah has used to doing what she wanted for the last 15 years in her position of office manager. This was because no other manager was above her who used to control her directly. Introduction of the post of executive support manager together with its responsibilities of supervising roles and responsibilities of the HIA’s general staff made her to be threatened. She knew she will no longer come late to work, leave earlier from work or take long lunch breaks has she has been used to be doing. The new structure meant that she would no longer have her way due to introduction of various policies. These two factors contributed to her verbally aggressively accusing Melinda, talking negatively about her, criticising her and even behaving negatively to workers who did agree with her stand towards Melinda. I think this reaction was not justifiable. I think Melinda was promoted due to her skills, knowledge, educational skills or abilities despite being just an employee for the company for just two years. Deborah may have been an employee for the company for those many years but she might not be having the necessary capacity in terms of skills, education, knowledge or abilities to undertake the responsibilities accompanying this new post. Organisations use performance evaluation culture in attaining performance advantage, Cooper (1998). This strategy might have been used to promote Melinda. Deborah has been an indiscipline worker of the company for long and it is not justifiable for her to feel threatened. She has been working less than the contracted hours and she might be among those who contributed to the introduction of the changes in management structure. Reacting so was not justifiable given Melinda was performing her leadership and managerial roles in a professional manner. She even went further to socialising with Deborah and explaining the situation to her. Question 2 Melinda took a bold step in explaining her situation to Deborah in order to create good relationship with her. This was despite Deborah’s unwillingness to solve her problems with her. She took some of her social time to meet with her that was a sign of humility. This was effective managerial and leadership skills as explained by Hajdini (2010). She clearly explained to her, her role in the new post and the reason that made it impossible for a person holding such a post to grant her special treatment given how other workers will react. Melinda should have gone a step further by holding a joint meeting for the five staff members she was leading. They could jointly discuss the issue as a united team and come up with a binding solution to the problems. This could also have helped her in forging the team vital for the achievement of the company’s goals and objectives. In the meeting, she could have explained the various set rules, roles and responsibilities required for each of the member for them to achieve the organisation targets. The change in working hours was supposed to be discussed in the meeting for all members to understand that it was the change introduced by the company but not Melinda. Communication among the team members was very vital for the achievement of set goals; by calling a joint meeting this was enhance able. Communication enables all members to understand what was expected from them in the team. The other members could have also contributed in providing solutions for their differences. According to Hill and Jones (2009), communication creates responsibility awareness and gives room for the enforcement of team-based innovations. Melinda could not have told Deborah that she wanted to show David that she was the right person. This may have angered her more given the fact that she was unhappy with her appointment. She could have told her more about her responsibilities and what was expectable by the company from them for the jointly achievement of the company’s objectives. Question 3 Organisational change is stressful to both the team leader and the team members. It is stressful for the team members to adjust to the introduced changes and the management structure while the leader gets stress in implementation of the change to achieve improved performance in the organisation. There are various stressors for organisational members experiencing change in workplace. People may exhibit fear and anxiety over such matters like job security, employment levels, loss of job satisfaction, different wage rates, loss of individual control over work and changes to working conditions (Mullins, 2005). Some of these stressors as depicted in the case study included the following: Fear of being controlled- Organisational change may come with restructuring of the management system of the organization with some new structures introduced while others eliminated. For instance, in this case study, there was the introduction of the post of executive support manager. Workers like Deborah fear the introduction of such changes due to personal reasons and fear of introduction of tough policies that may change their usual way of conducting business. Fear of introduction of more working hours- Organisational change sometimes comes with introduction of more working hours. Workers sometimes resist the introduction of change since they do not want to work more hours than they have used to. In this case study, for instance, workers were forced to work more hours for the first three months after the restructuring in order to provide support for the senior management since the introduction of the changes across the organisation. Both the team leader and the organization members were usually stressed due to more working hours. Need for more learning- Introduction of changes in organisations may demand that members of the organisation learn more on the implementation of the duties or roles newly introduced. This is due to the change in normal duty performance. Members may be required to undergo either on the job or off-job training. In this case study, Melinda was stressful with keeping the pace with the workload as well as learning performance of the new roles. Resistance from junior workers- Junior workers who do not want organisational change sometimes resist its implementation. Resistance of the change by team members is usually a challenge to the team leader entitled to lead its implementation. Melinda had the challenge of undertaking the new roles given the resistance she received from former co-workers who were now her juniors. Question 4 A wide range of factors influence and affect organizational behaviour. They are dependent on individual differences that are constrained by culture. Some of these factors are: Power distance between those in leadership and employees- This shows the level of inequality in the organisation. There may be either a large or a small gap between those in leadership and the workers. The power distance determines the way subordinates and the other members of staff air the opinions and grievances to the leadership of the organisation. For instance, with shorter power distance Melinda could have quickly communicated the persistent problem with Deborah to the leadership of HIA Company. However, with high power distance their problems could remain persistent for long period. Uncertainty avoidance-This is the organisations members’ tolerance to ambiguity in their duties. Members with high uncertainty avoidance levels are mainly resistant and fear implementation of changes in their areas of work. This people do not support implementation of changes and in many times prefer to continue carrying out their duties in traditional and familiar methods. On the other hand, societies with low uncertainty avoidance are open and supportive to implementation of changes and innovations. They are in many times risk takers and prefer operating under laws and regulations. Culture of individuals’ influences level of uncertainty avoidance and this is reflected in the levels of innovativeness, Bohlander & Snell (2009). Deborah showed high uncertainty avoidance. She was reluctant to be part of the introduced changes feeling threatened by Melinda’s appointment and the restructured leadership. She was unlike low uncertainty avoidance members who liked set laws and policies. This made her to negotiate with Melinda to grant her special treatment, which she refuses to compromise rules and regulations for her. Decisiveness in decision-making and implementation- Members’ behaviours are influenced by the strictness in the company rules formulation and their implementation. Decisive leadership will ensure there is confidence even in difficult situations so long as members are on the right. Changes in leadership decisiveness and effectiveness also determine the direction of team effectiveness. Companies with participatory leadership structures in many occasions realize successful implementation of its programs and organizational changes. Organisational behaviours are largely determined by the culture practices of individuals. The organisation leadership and the general stakeholders should put in place necessary measures to accommodate the diversities in order to realize increased performance of the organisation. Reference Bohlander, G. &. (2009). Managing Human Resources, 15th ed. London: Cengage Learning. Cooper, C. (1998). Theories of organizational stress. London: Oxford University Press. Hajdini, I. (2010). Innovation Management: The Leadership Role of the CEO. Case Studies: Yahoo and Google. GRIN Verlag. Hill, C. &. (2009). Strategic Management Theory: An Integrated Approach. New York: Cengage Learning. Mullins, L. J. (2005). Management and organisational behavior. Harlow, England ; New York: Prentice Hall/Financial Times. Read More