Organisation Behaviour Ans Sociology of Work Essays

Organisation Behaviour Ans Sociology of Work Essays Organisation Behaviour Ans Sociology of Work Essay Organisation Behaviour Ans Sociology of Work Essay The two sections of interest from the OBS module are observations into the concepts of organisational culture and scientific management of work design. I will look at the challenges posed to the theories of these areas and use my interaction with my employer (Tesco) to provide concise first person examples. Organisational culture can be seen as a backbone of a company, however as the tangible aspects of it are barely visible it can be hard to derive theories from practice. Looking at the meaning of organisational culture: The culture of an organisation is made up of traditions, habits, ways of organising and patterns of relationships at work(C Molander Winterton 1994), further explained it is the feeling created with an organisation, the climate and energy within the people of the workplace and its environment. It shows focus on the values and norms of how things are done and approached in organisations, the patterns of order and task completion. The are three levels of culture according to Shein (1992), cultural artifacts, values and basic assumptions, with cultural artefacts being the only tangible, visible one, embedding such things as traditions, logos and the type of people within it. The values aspect depicts the group thought and their expectation of the future, this being a covert aspect as it can only be unearthed through detailed investigation. Basic assumptions being even more covert as it entails looking into the actual psyche of the individual, what they believe of the world, (is there such thing as a universal, timeless human truth or reality or do we live in dynamic worlds that are largely of our own making? ) (Joana Brewis 2007, p. 348). There are two underlining approaches to organisational culture that researchers in this field categorise, one is that culture is something that an organisation has and the other is that culture is something that the organisation is. The has approach explains that culture is derived from a set plan, changed and moulded by the managers to a specific degree of freedom and control to achieve the one best way of functioning, Peters and Waterman (1982). This is a mainstream approach and is used by many large companies that try to create a good environment and effective culture. The is approach explains that culture is organic, organisations culture builds from the individuality of the people and physical forces within it, as a process over time, without conscious plan. The first challenge posed for the two theories is distinguishing them within the organisation. The mainstream approach is the most recognised and researched approach, most large companies would desire to use this approach and develop the culture from scratch so that it functions solely for the organisations needs. However even when it does do its best at achieving this, the natural problems that an organisation can encounter may hinder the cultural equilibrium. My evidence comes from my employment with a huge supermarket chain Tesco, as a year long employee of this company and working on many different departments throughout the lower end of the chain. Tesco carries out the has belief similarly, with employing many ways to counter the need for control of culture. A set list of required behaviour titled as expectations is presented to the employee where they have to agree to the terms set. This is an official outlined code of conduct, that categorises the culture of the organisation and expects the employee to abide and follow. This can be seen as a form of cultural engineering (Jackson and Carter,2000, p. p 27-28), narrowing down the range of decisions an employee can choose to reach the required goal. This is also seen as the corporate culture, the official way of doing things, but as in all organisations, there is also the organisational culture, the way things are actually done, this may differ greatly depending on how much control is put upon the employees by the company. Tesco corporately shows great enthusiasm in employing control to create a stable culture where motivation and organisational performance thrives, however many factors can affect the competency of this. In my experience, the relationship with the manager and other employees has a great impact on the shaping of culture and how much it stays constant. If a good relationship with the manager is created, in terms of the expectations from each other such as working at the times asked and working at the times wanted, then no segregation is present, however if problems arise between managers and employees as whole, then a Them and us approach is seen. This is where the employees see the managers as a ifferent entity working for a different goal that is opposite to the one of the employees. This challenge can be seen as a form of sub-culture developing, where the forced beliefs of the organisation no longer play a leading role in the employees psyche but a separate route of thought is created, potentially damaging the company in forms of lesser productivity as of employee de-motivation. Sub-cultures however can be managed, looked at critically to see how they can be brought together to crea te a coherent, functional entity. Brown, 1998, p. 72). Actual theories deriving from the has approach have been extensive, many researchers believe they have found the right way of doing things to get the best organisational performance. Concrete research has been created on the types organisational cultures that exist within modern companies and how, they in their own right, function. Deal and Kennedy (1988) and Handy (1993) developed a comprehensive description of theyre four key categories that fit to range of organisations. First category is named The power culture depicting a type of organisation where the owner is the central source of power, that delegates to lower managers but giving them freedom to their own decisions, to compete for the completion of a task. This is a tough culture where high labour turnover may be present through low moral. The role culture is a type of an organisation that functions on the basis of standardised policies and job descriptions. Tasks of employees would involve only what is required of them, as they were selected solely for the purpose of the job description. This type of culture creates stability for the employer and employees, with constant supply of workers for the tasks in hand for the employer and the safety at the company for the employee, being valued and nurtured to climb up the career ladder. Third culture is The task culture, where the central point of function is the team, required to work together on a project where the completion of the job is the ultimate goal. The final culture is The cluster/person culture is centred around the individual, with freedom to do what the individual wants, to carry out the tasks that perceived to be most important. This culture is largely cited in consulting agencies. Tesco can be seen as a role culture, the tasks of the general employee would be constrained to the guidelines given, each department with its own standardised way of functioning, ultimately set out by the directors. As the link of communication between the directors and the employees are the managers, it can be easy to not fulfil the required guidelines of the directors through misdirection from the manager. Misguidance or no guidance at all would break up the process, giving much emphasis on the importance of a good manager and relationship with that manager for this type of culture to work. As to what the the one best way of cultural organisation is, I turn to Peters and Waterman (1982), they published the most well known and widely spread empirical text on this issue, values of which are still vigorously used in organisations today. The text sets out the eight tenets for an organisation to follow, having A bias for action, being Close to the customer, having Autonomy and entrepreneurship, Productivity through people, being Hands-on, value driven, Stick to the knitting- produce what is good at, Simple form, lean staff flat structure and flexible staff, Simultaneous loose-tight properties- discretion and centralised values. This sets out a standard for a good culture, when carried out effectively, it can be indefinitely seen that the values work and contribute. However such a concise regime of culture can also be damaging, strong cultures can start overlooking their own values or creating a pedantic approach, attention to detail .. turns into an obsession with minutia, rewarding innovation turns to gratuitous invention (Trice and Beyer, 1993, p380). This breakdown can be seen in many large companies including Tesco; as the largest retailer in Britain with profits over four billion pounds, it can be assumed that the culture at Tesco is strong. Underling values of culture have been tried and tested and would include most of the tenets outlined, however it can be seen across the years in the patterns of employment at Tesco that this tight regime to concise values of culture sometimes integrates negative values. At times when demand is high, such as festive periods, they employ a large number of temporary staff, however sometimes they forget to mention that they are temporary. The staff train up and achieve as much as could be expected of them, better than employees that have been working there for longer, showing that their culture functions effectively in nurturing employees. However when festive periods end, demands lowers and temporary contracts run out. Tesco have the right to get rid of all temporary staff in concession to efficiency policies. In doing so they loose out in their own created good employees, almost indirectly create a small negative part of their one best culture. The contradicting approach, and sometimes the reason that the has approach fails is the is approach. It states that leaders do not create culture, it emerges from the collective social interaction of groups and communities (Meek, 1988, p. 459),- the different types of people combine with their own values and assumptions to create their own innovative, coherent culture. As I have explained in some examples of Tescos functions, this natural process of people evolving their own culture within a has approach culture shows presence of the is culture. However as the company is the culture, this includes all aspects of company functions as a contribution to the overall culture. In comparison to the Has theory, Is theorists look at established cultures and evaluate its continuous innovation and how well it does at learning the truce and coping with demands of employed life. (Mills and Murgatroyd, 1991, p 62). The natural progression of a culture is seen in empirical study by Collinson (1988), the investigation concentrated on the way that employees at a lorry truck factory dealt with the mundane lives of a low skilled, low paid and unvalued worker. It showed how the employees developed a joking and teasing atmosphere in their day to day working environment to evoke a sense of pride, as to not frail their macho persona. Collinson claims that this was not a way of showing a resistance to the oppressive system and it did not allow for a basis of belonging, but only showed how they developed a culture to cope, he backs this up with the fact that the workers voted to accept the redundancy payout, with out counteraction, after the factory announce it was closing down. The challenge posed to this conclusion is comprised of my observation of Tescos employees, specifically the temporaries and part time workers. As these types of workers may not consider them selves to be fully emerged in the organisations culture they latch onto any kind of sense of belonging that may be created. One of them being the type of banter cited in Collinsons investigation, thus proclaiming that if there were part time workers in the truck making factory that they may have valued it more as a sense of belonging. The second section of Organisational Behaviour that I will be looking at is the design of work, specifically the classical, scientific and Fordist approaches to creating the structure for employees to be more effective and efficient in. Structure can be concisely but simply defined as the sum total of the ways in which it divides its labour into distinct tasks and then achieves coordination of organisation and structure (Minsberg, 1979, p2). The way in which the factors of revenue and profit creation (employees and environment) are put together to achieve the one best way of operating. This is the classical approach to organisational structure that has been most investigated by Frederick Taylor and Henri Fayol. These classical theorists tried to find a way of replacing the old uncontrolled structures that worked on the rule of thumb to provide a more methodical and systematic approach to work design. Henri Fayol developed fourteen key principles explaining this, which he derived from his experience in turning around a near bankrupt company. (Fayols Principles of Administration) These principles have been summarised by Huczynski and Buchanan (2001, p. 02) into five basic proclamations, that also exist within Tescos structure as I shall examine. First of the principles being Functional division of work- a team for each of Tescos functions exists to work and concentrate on only their own departments and section of work. The next imperative posed is Hierarchical relationships- a clear chain of command exists at Tesco, with team leaders being the lower supervisors of em ployees through to department, store and regional managers. Bureaucratic forms of control- clearly evident at Tesco with the amount of regulations and policies sent down from the head office to set out the set guidance and rules. Narrow supervisory span- as there are is a large amount of managers on shop floor at once it could be seen there is a large supervisory span, however normally only the manager and the team leader would be in control of that departments employees. Finally Closely prescribed roles the roles in each department are filled by a specific type of employee to fit that role, and is constant throughout. The main concern for Fayols theory is that it has little information on the way that the set out principles can integrate. The hierarchical relationships at Tesco can be loose, when the general employee is looking to communicate vertically up the ladder of command, any department or higher member of another department can be contacted. For example this may happen if a label is missing from the shelf, a shelf stacker can go to either a member of Price Integrity or Stock Control, or any manager and team leader of any department to follow up this query. Under Fayol principle of a narrow supervisory span and hierarchical relationships this may not be possible, the shelf stacker would have to look for his manager or team leader to communicate the problem, loosing time and effectiveness of staff. Classical theorists went further to develop this new approach at looking at the operations of a company more critically and how the structure of it relates to the output and performance. Frederic Taylor developed the scientific approach which demonstrates three principles of increasing productivity and efficiency. Frederick W. Taylor, 1911). First principle mentioned is the separation of design and planning work from actually doing it, this involves creating a structure for each function and operation before actually carrying out the operation. Taylors second principle detailed division of labour, sets out the need to have departments that control their own functions and set of employees. The final principle based on observation of working pra ctices, this means to identify the best form of practice, and derive laws and policies to manage this. Taylor also emphasised on monitoring the results of such operations, so that precise management analysis can be made and structure improved where needed. Taylor greatly focused on the need to improve Americas industry efficiency as he thought that insufficiency was present through out the country, in forms of uncontrolled labour and its ultimate output, and to tackle this companies would have to provide Detailed instruction and supervision of each worker in the performance of that workers discrete task (Montgomery, 1989 ). At Tesco, this principle is used, along with many others of Taylors theories, however integration of these principles poses a challenge to the theory. If only a certain route of tasks is trained to that set of employees, then if the employees decide to change roles within the company or try to complete work outside their capabilities, then problems may occur. I gave the example of a missing label on a Tesco shelf, with Tayolors approach of a singular role, the shelf stacker would indeed have to go to a different department or manager to solve his problem. However Ive noticed that Tesco try to provide each employee with as much information about other departments and tasks so that they can solve any problems for them selves. Tesco also allows cross department shifts, so if a department is running low on staff at a certain period, the employees from other departments can quickly fill the gap. This is a innovation to Taylors scientific approach, allowing the organisation to be more flexible when needed. Taylors scientific management can be seen demonstrated in practice and on a large mass production scale by Henry Ford, who used a scientific method of designing production structures, specifically his production line. Incorporating high division of labour rigidly controlled by hierarchical command and detailed guidance. Also simplifying the employees tasks so that they function quicker with out room for thought. Challenge is posed by theorists Harry Braverman The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. Tesco can provide a wide rage of examples of deskilling, for example till workers can be replaced by self service tills, only partially in most stores, but recently fully, as a convenience Tesco store has been opened in England with out any till operators at all. (Daily Mail 22 October 2009) (1974) arguing that through fragmentation rationalisation mechanisation had created a way of making employees more disposable, and easily replaceable. Organisations underlying need to improve on efficiency as the best way of profit maximisation, leads to creating cheaper ways of carrying operations and tasks, ultimately leading to deskilling and separation of mental and manual labour. Reference Books: Knights, D and Willmott. H, (1949, first published in 1916) Introducing Organizational Behaviour Management, London. Molander, C. Winterton, J. (1993/4), Managing Human Resources, Routledge , London. Frederick, W. Taylor, (1911), The Principles of Scientific Management ,New York. H, Braverman (1974), Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. New York. Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco. Peters, Thomas J. Waterman, Robert H. , (1982), In search of excellence: Lessons from Americas best-run companies, New York. Jackson, N, P, Carter, (2000), Rethinking Organisational Behaviour, Essex. Brown, A, (1998) Organizational Culture,Trans-Atlantic Pubns. Deal, T Kennedy, A (1988), Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life, Lodon. Harrison, M Beyer, M, (1993), The cultures of work organizations, Eglewood Cliffs. Meek, L (1988), Organizational Culture: Origins and Weaknesses, Austra lia. Mintzberg, H, (1979) The structuring of organizations: A synthesis of the research, Englewood Cliffs. Huczynski, A. Buchanan, D. (2001), Organizational Behaviour: An Introductory Text (Instructor’s Manual),Prentice Hall. F, W. Taylor, The principles of scientific management, (1998) Norcross. Web: The principles of Scietific managent, (last modified, 2009) http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/The_Principles_of_Scientific_Management Tesco opes first fully self-service store, (2009) thisismoney. co. uk/news/article. html? in_article_id=492247in_page_id=2