The modern perspectives of effectiveness
The premises on corporate actions seem to have either clear or implied purpose of building managerial efficiency. In fact, the level of effectiveness is an expansive notion characterized by a number of perspectives. These consist of open system, organizational learning, high performance work practices, and the shareholder perspectives. An open system viewpoint may signify an intensely well established and the original approach of thoughts about a corporation.
The perspective sights an organization as a multifaceted life form that lives within a peripheral milieu. For example, McDonald’s restaurants closed system exists devoid of the reliance on an external setting with open system as a permeable association. The corporate assets such as paraphernalia, info, capital, personnel, and reserves come from the peripheral surroundings. Moreover, several managerial sub-systems in a company including the collective dynamics, labor divisions, and procedures are illustrated through the open system standpoint.
The competence and lean management of a company is an inner makeover procedure that makes the quantity of managerial productivity to correspond to its contribution. Effectiveness is therefore high when an organization uses little energy, material, and labor to manufacture various services and merchandise (OBPOE 2008).
In contrast, the organizational learning perspective represents a new economy where knowledge makes the majority of valuable input. Thus, it stipulates that the open system perspective is of an industrial economy with knowledge perceived as the valued input. The perspective holds that the effectiveness of an organization relies on the capacity of obtaining, allocating, utilizing, and hoarding the esteemed intellectual capacity.
This refers to the knowledge management as seen in the Google case where acquisition, sharing, usage, and storage of valuable knowledge augment the organizational effectiveness. Acquiring knowledge transpires once an organization fetches for the imperative information from the external milieu. For instance, through inventive insight, innovative ideas, employing the best talents, and purchasing an intact corporation (OBPOE 2008). The allotment of information in the entire company denotes the division of familiarity. The employees’ tasks are formed into teams as they intermingle and use complicated technologies to support the sharing out of knowledge.
The employment of knowledge in diverse ways to improve effectiveness is dubbed as knowledge utilization. The achievement of this comes with the back up and liberty of workers to try out as well as apply the new fangled knowledge. Hence, these make Google Incorporation to be a true learning organization. The present organization of knowledge at Google Inc limits the organizational learning. Indeed, these require an absorptive capacity to distinguish, incorporate, and utilize the worth of new gen for value added practices.
The association, organizational, and human assets are the corporation’s major supply of awareness or rational resources. The stock of abilities, skills, and knowledge amidst the workers as human capital augments the level of effectiveness through the provision of economic values for the organizations competitive advantage (OBPOE 2008).
The high performance work practices (HPWP) as a perspective embraces organizational effectiveness to integrate numerous activities influencing the prospective of human capital during work. The HPWP identifies particular packages of activities to present organizational competitive advantage. In fact, this is anchored on the fact that the perspective of an open system will in no way determine the most significant sub system features of organizational effectiveness.
The expertise, handiness, and capability constitute the human assets that form the significant basis of a company’s competitive gain. A case illustration is the OB experts who engage in new corporations having employees with little skill than those in the already established organization. Therefore, the human capital is non-substitutable, impossible to imitate, rare, and valuable. The capacity of an organizational flow and effectiveness relies on the performance based on incentive, worker capability, work autonomy, and employee participation. These will improve the commitment to change, organization responsiveness, decision making, and strengthen the employees’ motivation (OBPOE 2008).
Finally, the shareholder perspective reviews how the company activities affect the other respects. In relation to this, the perspective of open systems is personalized through the stakeholder perspective. The latter distinguishes the relations of the stakeholders as dynamic. Therefore, the organizations such as Wal-Mart must comprehend, administer, and gratify the interest of its stakeholders for organizational effectiveness.
The initial three perspectives did not distinguish the significance of the stakeholder very much but rather emphasized on resources and processes (OBPOE 2008). The specific units, institutions, and groups impacted or influencing the practices and aims of a company are the shareholders. The corporate social responsibility, ethics and values will help the organization in its effectiveness. According to OBPOE (2008), this will be possible since the environment and the stakeholders will benefit past the legal and financial obligations as a result of the valued, evaluative, preferred, and stable beliefs relevant to the courses of actions.
The above four perspectives would not apply to a monopoly. The argument is founded on the fact that they advocate for a competitive advantage. A monopolistic environment would not advocate for the sufficiency of knowledge. Actually, this could make it impossible for a society to espouse the fresh information for the enhancement of the economics and social state of affairs. With the rapid changing needs of the consumers, monopoly would not be favorable given that these perspectives tend to campaign for the effectiveness of an organization.
The non-functional schedules, processes, and strategies need to be replaced with various kinds of unlearning which are only possible under the aid of these perspectives. These perspectives actually do not apply to a monopoly case as the monopolistic environment favors the destruction of the base of manufacturing that eventually leads to unethical activities in business (OBPOE 2008).
The mechanistic versus organic organizations structural disparities
The organic or mechanistic organizational quality services depend on their technology, size, and environment. Initially, the structure of organic organization advocates for a joint specialization where workers perform the coordinated job together (Chantal 1). The mechanistic organization however has an Individual specialism, which performs specialized jobs separately.
The organic organization has multifaceted primal teams and taskforces as the incorporating mechanisms while mechanistic organizations have a well-defined hierarchical power with easy mechanisms of integration. Besides, horizontal communication, decentralization, as well as delegation of powers to control work are evident in organic organization. However, the mechanistic organization embraces vertical communication and centralization where decision-making is made at the top.
A capricious procedure of work and an opposite coordination contact are present in organic organization due to the mutual adjustments. However, mechanistic organization employs standardization for the widespread usage of standard working procedures and regulations. The other feature of organic organization is that communication is mostly verbal with written communication being common in mechanistic organization (Chantal 1).
An organic organization has an informal status established on the supposed brilliance whereas an informal organizational status set up on the size of an organization is paramount in mechanistic organization. Lastly, the structure of an organic organization allows for the employee overtime working with execution in deferent capacities given that its system is for teams or individuals. Hence, the latter organizational structure allocates one task to a solitary employee owing to its network position that matches up to the organizational tasks.
The universities such Harvard provide the best example of an organization that uses mechanistic organization structure (Marsden 911). Such an organization has federal authority, activities and processes are formal with specialized functions. Under the organization’s individual assigned jobs, the employees’ works discretely within a chain of command that is definite with decisions kept at the top of management.
Only diminutive interaction is experienced on a daily basis with communication cutting across from the managers to the supervisors to the executives. High documentation comes with strict organizational operating policies and standards. The structure characteristically exercises taut control over workforce and procedures with apparent chain of command in delegating power and responsibilities to evade the divergence from the implemented regulations (Chantal 1).
However, the mechanistic organization’s simple and easy system makes the rapid alterations quite challenging. Thus, the system is very sluggish and stiff to acclimatize to the environmental changing situations. The organizations using this form of structure are not appropriated to the vastly competitive marketplace circumstances like the ones found in the industry of telecommunication. Therefore, structure is no longer appropriate for use in the global auditing corporations that possess skilled experts as it predisposes the organization from being competitive in the market (Chantal 1).
Conversely, the organizations having organic structure like the Google Inc are quite the opposite of mechanistic organizations. The Google Inc organization is typified by uniformity, low level of specialization, and well-decentralized organization (Bennis 2004). There is horizontal interaction and communication between staffs. Thus, when it appears to be obliging, the knowledge inhabits. With respect to decision-making, there is a profusion of both informal as well as formal involvement. The workers distribute input during work as they work in factions with communication between the executives, managers, and employees remaining very open.
Besides, the head-to-head time with the hierarchy of power is flanked with an immense level of oral correspondence in order to tackle the elevated contribution in handy task. Nevertheless, such organizations find it tough to be competitive in that they have unpredictable atmosphere in their settings. The organizations with organic management structure only work properly when the duties are not highly complex or outsized. The structure also needs the integration of human capital with resources for the achievement of the premeditated objectives in order to be competitive in the corporate world (Bombaci 5).
Amalgamation of two unlike managerial cultures
The key approaches used to amalgamate two unlike administrative customs include division, incorporation, deculturation, as well as assimilation. There are circumstances when these strategies may or may not work. Therefore, two diverse corporations might form an effective union through employing suitable approaches even if they considerably have different cultures. When using separation as a strategy for merging cultures, the corporations merging continue to be separate bodies having little swap over the organizational activities or culture.
Separation would work best in circumstances when the amalgamating companies function effectively in different dealings that necessitate dissimilar organizational cultures. However, this strategy may not work well given that a small number of corporations that are obtained remain autonomous for a long period. This could be founded on the fact that the directors engaged in the acquisition of such companies during amalgamation wish to be in charge of their corporation’s decisions (McShane 509).
The second strategy is the integration that is proficient in merging more than two cultures into a new-fangled compound culture. The strategy conserves the original superlative characteristics of culture of the merged companies.
In case the cultures in existence can be improved, integration would then perfectly work. However, when the cultures of these companies comprise of numerous overlapping principles or are feeble, the effectiveness during integration becomes high. Equally, integration best works when the employees of the merging corporations acquire motivation to espouse the dominant and fresh standards after recognizing that the on hand cultures are futile. Various forces that conserve the organizational cultures in existence would make the use of integration happen to be very hazardous and sluggish (McShane 509).
Deculturation as a merging strategy entails practices where the acquiring organization inflicts the culture it posses to the company that is being acquired. It becomes effective under situation where workers of the organization embrace the disposal of cultural and individual principles. This tends to occur due to resistance of the changes transpiring in an organization. The organization acquiring the other inflicts their business and cultural activities and shreds out the reward schemes as well as artifacts propping up the previous culture of the acquired organization (McShane 509).
In fact, a possibility of termination of the employees is frequent once they are unable to adapt to the culture of the acquiring corporation. The deculturation strategy works well when the employees do not discover that the culture of the acquiring organization is not effectively working. The jeopardy of emotional and social clashes augments as a result of the exploitation of this rarely working strategy during amalgamation.
The last merging strategy is the assimilation. The cultural values of obtaining organization seem to be readily cuddled by the workforce of the obtained organization. Assimilation takes place when the culture of the acquiring organization emphases plainly on the distinct and well-built values. McShane (509) claims that it implies that the culture of the acquired organization is dysfunctional and frail. The employees thus look for the other good alternative cultures since the culture of the acquired organizations is weak. This makes cultural conflict to be infrequent with such assimilations.
How to strengthen corporate culture
The organizational leaders need to support and make traditions vibrant regardless of the underpinning accomplishments communicated through cultural objects. Managers can employ several techniques such selecting and socializing new workers, administering the cultural network, sustaining steady labor force, and initiating culturally reliable rewards. Selecting and socializing workers is a better fit for the organizational and individual standards that make it easy for the adoption of organizational culture.
Leaders should recruit employees having suppositions, ethics, and beliefs comparable to those of the organization to strengthen culture (McShane 509). The approach also perks up the loyalty and satisfaction of organizational job to create high-quality fit amid organization and the employees’, thus cultural strength. Equally, socialization in the organization would enable the employees to study the essential social knowledge, estimated behaviors, and principles that will build deep and quick internalization of cultural values.
When managing cultural network, the executives ensure the edification of workers towards up keeping the organizational culture. The organizations fundamental beliefs, values, and assumptions are essentially strengthened via the efficient diffusion of cultural network. The leaders should instigate fresh ceremonies, share their experiences, and hit in the networks of cultures. Furthermore, the managers should use media or company magazines to transmit the cultural beliefs and values for further strengthening. The third approach is sustaining a steady labor force that will help the employees to implant the organizational culture in their psyche.
The approach enables the avoidance of abrupt economization and high turnover that put off the degeneration of organizational culture. Lastly, the establishment of culturally consistent reward systems by managers would make corporate cultures strong once they are compatible with cultural ideals. Hence, the paternalistic culture offers workers the necessary wellbeing programs whereas aggressive cultures offer the incentives based on performance to make the organizational cultures very strong (McShane 509).
Forms of power apparent in Organizations
In any corporation, the capacity to put the authority into effect may denote power. Power has always appeared as social, political, or physical power. It is an important aspect of human civilization. The dynamism of power positively or negatively influences the transaction and decision made by people in commercial perspective. Interestingly, each person has powers despite the differences emerging in the diverse types of powers possessed and the way they are exploited (Dahl 1). An organization may have more than six forms of power. For instance, there are expert, information, legitimate, reward, connection, and coercive forms of powers in an organization.
The expert power originates from personal high quality skill and knowledge. This condition can enable an employee in the organization to exercise his/her powers to the influence other workforces. Gradually, personal skills and knowledge could be natured to become respectable and credible. The expert power becomes advanced provided personal skills and knowledge are accurately situated. In fact, individuals achieve expert power in the context of enhanced knowledge shown during handy assignment compared to other human resources (McShane 1). In various organizational cases, other employees do outrank the individuals possessing expert powers as seen in the technology experts.
The Coercive power may be drawn from workers who are capable of punishing their counterparts. The affectivity of coercive power augments when it is employed strategically and sparingly. Otherwise, coercive power may result in dysfunction and dread, as its use is regular. In an organizational system, coercive power translates into the intimidation of employees with demotions, firing, and, transfers. Thus, due to the fright of losing something, workers are forced to submit to others command (Dahl 1).
The power of reward in an organization emanates from the aptitude of providing rewards to other workforce. It is not mandatory that the reward be inform of money but rather words of honor or better working hours. Rewards become resilient incentives whenever presented strategically. Nonetheless, the employees are negatively influenced if rewards are hazardously given. As a result, rather than emphasizing on the work performance at hand, the employees will focus on reward (Dahl 1).
Lastly, the official rank held by one in an organization instigates the legitimate power. For instance, the employees will comply with the orders from the directors simply because they are superior to them. The legitimate power is no longer effective in that its basis comes from the title instead of respect. This power’s extent is fleeting since an individual can utilize it only when in office. Similarly, the scope of legitimate power is little owing to its strict definition by the held title. Hence, the result of legitimate power may be lack of cooperation.
In this context, the mechanistic organization will commonly have reward and legitimate forms of powers whereas the organic organization would have coercive and expert types of powers. The mechanistic organizations tend to have very certain and stable milieus which make it possible for the managers to use their powers in manipulating or even rewarding the employees. Conversely, organic organizations possess uncertain and dynamic environs that require expert powers that deliver the required knowledge and skill. In the same way, employees are capable of intimidating their counterparts with ill practices like sexual harassment.
The pliable strategy in organizations that experience uncertainty and dynamism is to build up and uphold the organic organizational makeup. This would facilitate the organization to process and dispense knowledge as well as information rapidly. Similarly, mounting and preserving a make-up of mechanistic organization would be an elastic approach for the organizations that undergo stability in their settings. The organization would further be proficient to act in response to changes and counter the habitual workplace changes (McShane 1).
Styles of handling conflict in an organization
An organization is in a position to employ the five styles to handle the conflict that might arise in its setting. These may include Compromising and Avoiding styles that have intermediate as well as low concern for other individuals and self worth respectively. Besides, there is dominating style that makes one to have little concern for other persons but elevated concern for his/her self-engagement.
The Obliging style in contrast has enhanced concern for other people yet diminutive concern for self-efficacy. The last is the integrating style that has an outstanding concern for both other individuals and self-expectations. Similarly, a manager can employ different strategies in an organization through the application of confrontation approaches, initiating unique structure and organizational roles, humanizing practices in the organization, and using style to manage conflict (Rahim 219).
The above five styles of handling conflict actually overlap with the Blake Mouton’s gridiron behavioral styles of leadership. The leaders pay attention to both the production and employees as seen in Blake Mouton’s Sound or Team style of leadership. The same applies to the integration style of conflict handling that has a high attention to both other individuals and self-efficacies. The Compromising style of handling conflict has a medium attention to both the other individuals and self-ideals just like in the Status quo style of leadership.
In the latter case, the mangers give intermediate concern to production and employees who give high performance. Moreover, manager employing Perish Style of leadership has low concern for employees yet high concern for production. This can be compared to the Dominating style of handling conflict that has low concern for other individuals in the organization but high concern for personal interest (Zeidan 84).
In the same way, the Avoiding style that has low satisfaction for both self and other parties’ requirement overlaps with Blake Mouton’s Indifferent or Impoverished style of leadership that provides low concern for both people and production. Finally, the County Club style of leadership provide for a relationship-oriented leader to pay high attention to the people but rather little attention to the production. Thus, it is similar to the use of Obliging style that provides for the leaders to have high attention for others instead his concerns. The five styles of handling conflict have common characteristics with Blake Mouton grid of behavioral leadership (Zeidan 84).
Bennis, Warren. “Google’s Growth Engine: The Secret of Google’s Success is its Way of Turning Talented Engineers into an Extraordinarily Creative Team. But can this Team Survive its IPO?” CIO Insight, 1.39 (2004): 25. Print.
Bombaci, Sebastian. N.d. Management Structures. Web.
Chantal, Duncan 2013. Mechanistic Organization vs. Organic Organization. Web.
Dahl, Diana 2013. Types of Powers in Organizations. Web.
Marsden, Peter. “Organizational Structures: Coordination and Control.” American Behavioral Scientist, 37.7 (1996): 911–929. Print.
McShane, Steven 2000. Organizational Culture. Web.
MSG 2013. Different Types of Power. Web.
OBPOE 2008. Organizational Behavior: Perspectives of Organizational Effectiveness. 2008. Web.
Rahim, Afzalur. “Toward a Theory of Managing Organizational Conflict.” The International Journal of Conflict Management 13.1 (2002): 216-221. Print.
Zeidan, Hania 2009. The Blake Mouton Managerial Grid: Identifying five different leadership styles. Web.