Organizational Theory and Behavior by Marisa
Friday, April 29, 2011
Rsponse to the article: "Interrelations Among a Channel Entity's Power Sources: Impact of the Exercise of Reward and Coercion on Expert, Referent, and Legitimate Power"
This article was published in the Journal of Marketing Research in February of 1986 by John F. Gaski, a professor of Marketing at Notre Dame. This article was of particular interest to me because I can atest to its findings based on me work experience. The article is an emperical study based on the Ravenand French framework (5 bases of power). It examined the relationship between the use of coercive and reward power and their affect on legitimate, referent, and expert power. The study found that when managers use coercive and reward power, it actually hurts and undermines legitimate, referent, and expert power. At my job, I feel as though my managers ONLY use coercive and referent power. It has created a bad environment as people do not like or respect the management team, they lie to get away with things for fear of getting in trouble, and they are not committed or dedicated to the job because they do not feel valued. I enjoyed this article because it re-iterated what I already believed and what we learned in class. Our book discusses the 3 reactions to power from employees: committment, compliance, and resistance. Employees who are committed are highly motivated by requests that are important to the leader, is dedicated to the organization and applies great effort. Employees who are compliant simply do what they need to do to get by; they don't go the extra mile and are not especially motivated by management or exert extra effort. Those who are resistant reject or fight the manager's wishes. The book discusses a framework introduced by Gary Yukl; the framework points out that when managers exercise coercive power, committment is very unlikely, compliance is possible, and resistance is likely. When reward power is exercised, committment is possible, compliance is likely, and resistance is also possible. This framework supports the findings from the article and thus it can be concluded that exercising reward or coercive power should not be used regularly and should be the last resort. The other forms of power will be much more beneficial to the organization
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Response to Stacy's post "Employee's Attitudes"
In Stacy's post, she mentioned that in an article she found, the researchers labeled the 5 most common reasons for negative employee attitudes as:
-excessive workload
-concerns about leadership effectiveness
-anxiety about job and financial security
-lack of challenging work, boredom, frustration
-insufficient recognition
When I read these reasons, I identified with all of them and can understand why they are the most common reasons for negative attitudes from employees. I think it all goes back to what my Professor adamantly stressed in my first management class: that managers must never forget that their employees are their biggest assests. Managers should be aware that negative attitudes from their employees result in a hostile work environment and will ultimetly affect productivity, therefore, keeping employees happy is extremely important. In other words, managers should use the human resource appraoch to management. This means that they must understand that their employees are capable and willing to make genuine contributions. People want to feel useful; they want to feel like they are significant and that they can make a difference. They also want security and to be treated with respect. When this doesn't happen, they feel undervalued, frustrated, unmotivated, and will therefore exhibit poor performance. Managers must remember this if they are going to create a lasting, profitable, organization and must remember that their employees are their biggest assets!
-excessive workload
-concerns about leadership effectiveness
-anxiety about job and financial security
-lack of challenging work, boredom, frustration
-insufficient recognition
When I read these reasons, I identified with all of them and can understand why they are the most common reasons for negative attitudes from employees. I think it all goes back to what my Professor adamantly stressed in my first management class: that managers must never forget that their employees are their biggest assests. Managers should be aware that negative attitudes from their employees result in a hostile work environment and will ultimetly affect productivity, therefore, keeping employees happy is extremely important. In other words, managers should use the human resource appraoch to management. This means that they must understand that their employees are capable and willing to make genuine contributions. People want to feel useful; they want to feel like they are significant and that they can make a difference. They also want security and to be treated with respect. When this doesn't happen, they feel undervalued, frustrated, unmotivated, and will therefore exhibit poor performance. Managers must remember this if they are going to create a lasting, profitable, organization and must remember that their employees are their biggest assets!
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Response to the case "Justice for Walmart Employees" a the end of chapter 14
At the end of chapter 15, this case regarding Walmart Workers, particularly women, is introduced. The case explains the lawsuit brought against Walmart, accusing it of discriminatory practices. Apparently, women are paid less than men and are not promoted nearly as much as men. Women make up 2 thirds of Walmart's workforce but only 1 third of management. They are also receive far fewer promotions despite their higher performance ratings and seniority. To stop this, a lawsuit has been brought against Walmart. However, Walmart is delaying the lawsuit for as long as it possibly can and creating ridiculous obstacles to keep the lawsuit from going to court. Its practices are questionable to say the least.
According to chapter 15, Walmart is violating several forms of justice. First, since women perceive to be getting paid significantly less than men, and Walmart employees in general are paid way below the poverty line, it can be argued that Walmart is lacking distributive justice. This means that rewards and other valued outcomes are not distributed fairly. In addition, because Walmart is making it nearly impossible for women to carry out a class action lawsuit, it is also lacking procedural justice. This means that the way Walmart is carrying out their prodecures and arriving at certain outcomes is not fair. Lastly, Walmart is violating interpersonal justice because they are not treating their employees fairly by paying them so much less than other companies and by not providing adequate benefits or wages.
Although Walmart may be getting away with a lot of their unjust practices, they are constantly receiving negative attention. Managers must be aware that violating these bases of power will result in huge negative repercussions, and perhaps even lawsuits as in the instance of Walmart.
According to chapter 15, Walmart is violating several forms of justice. First, since women perceive to be getting paid significantly less than men, and Walmart employees in general are paid way below the poverty line, it can be argued that Walmart is lacking distributive justice. This means that rewards and other valued outcomes are not distributed fairly. In addition, because Walmart is making it nearly impossible for women to carry out a class action lawsuit, it is also lacking procedural justice. This means that the way Walmart is carrying out their prodecures and arriving at certain outcomes is not fair. Lastly, Walmart is violating interpersonal justice because they are not treating their employees fairly by paying them so much less than other companies and by not providing adequate benefits or wages.
Although Walmart may be getting away with a lot of their unjust practices, they are constantly receiving negative attention. Managers must be aware that violating these bases of power will result in huge negative repercussions, and perhaps even lawsuits as in the instance of Walmart.
Response to the case "Heading Off a Permanent Misunderstanding"
This case was particularly interesting to me because I find myself doing what Mindy Martin did, all the time-that is, I make an assumption about someone else by over analyzing their behavior and jumping to conclusions. In this case, there wasn't actually a conflict. According to our textbook, a conflict only exists if both parties perceive it to be a conflict. Since Al Sharp did not think there was a problem and had no idea what was wrong with Mindy, the situation did not constitute a conflict. Instead, it was a miscommunication. Mindy was clearly a little nervous, upset, and insecure about not getting the promotion but it was because she was not given all the facts. This situation could have been avoided if she had been included in the discussion, or simply been given some feedback regarding the decision. Instead, she was kept in the dark and not made aware of why she had not received the promotion. If Sharp or Attridge had explained to her earlier on, the whole misunderstanding could have been avoided. However, Mindy could have also made an attempt to find out for herself. Instead, she jumped to conclusions and made assumptions that were not true. She should have asserted herself and asked Attridge or Sharp why she was not given the promotion. In conlclusion, I think the entire misunderstanding could have been avoided if either parties had made more of an effort to communicate and get the facts straight. Had Attridge not stepped in, relations between the two may have gotten so bad that one of them decided to quit their job, others in the office could have been affected by their hostility, and productivity could have suffered as a result.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Response to "Teams at Evans RV Wholesale Supply and Distribution Company"
For this case, there are a few mistakes Alex has already made in developing a team-based organization. First of all, this type of decision is not one that can be made quickly, if fact, the planning should take place in two phases: making the decision and preparingfor implementation. Before making the decision, Alex should have discussed it with top management to establish the leadership for the change, developed a steering committee, and conducted a feasibility study. These steps are neccessary to ensure that the work processes within the company are condusive to team use, that the employees are willing to work in teams, and if managers are willing to learn and apply a hands-off managerial style. Alex should have addressed these issues before reaching his decision and then prepared for implementation. This includes: clarifying the mission, selecting the site for the first work team, preparing the design team, planning the transfer of authority, and drafting the preliminary plan. Alex should have taken all of these steps before deciding to switch to a team-based organization.
If I were a consultant for Alex, I would advise him to go back and go though all of these steps and to then decide if he still wanted to swith to a team based-company. During the preparation for implementation, I would suggest to him that he develop a mission statement that expresses the purpose of the teams and summarizes the long-range benefits he hopes to gain; this must also be consistent with the company's strategy. It should also set the parameters and boundaries within which the change will take place.
Next, I would tell Alex he needs to advise his steering committee to decide where the first team will be implemented. The best site is one that includes workers from multiple jobs, one where improving performance is feasible,and one where the workers are open to the change.
After the mission statement has been developed and the initial sites have been chosen, I would tell Alex to advise his steering committe to set up the team that will design the other teams. This team should be a select group of employees, supervisors, and managers who will work out the staffing and operational details to make the teams perform well. I would stress to Alex that considering the composition of the teams is one of the most important decisions throughout this process.
Next, I would advise Alex to transfer authority from managers to team members. this step can take up to several years and is the most imperative and difficult part and is basically a cultural change for the company.
The last step I would advise Alex to take is to write a tentative plan for the initial work teams. This plan is used as a map throughout the transformation and will act as a guiding force. It should recommend a process for selecting people who will be on the first teams, describe roles and responsilibilites for those who will be affected, explains the training that will be needed, specifically identifies which work processes will be involved, and lays out a schedule for the next two to three years.
As a consultant I would stress to Alex that this change should not be taken lightly and the entire organization needs to be prepared for this change.
If I were a consultant for Alex, I would advise him to go back and go though all of these steps and to then decide if he still wanted to swith to a team based-company. During the preparation for implementation, I would suggest to him that he develop a mission statement that expresses the purpose of the teams and summarizes the long-range benefits he hopes to gain; this must also be consistent with the company's strategy. It should also set the parameters and boundaries within which the change will take place.
Next, I would tell Alex he needs to advise his steering committee to decide where the first team will be implemented. The best site is one that includes workers from multiple jobs, one where improving performance is feasible,and one where the workers are open to the change.
After the mission statement has been developed and the initial sites have been chosen, I would tell Alex to advise his steering committe to set up the team that will design the other teams. This team should be a select group of employees, supervisors, and managers who will work out the staffing and operational details to make the teams perform well. I would stress to Alex that considering the composition of the teams is one of the most important decisions throughout this process.
Next, I would advise Alex to transfer authority from managers to team members. this step can take up to several years and is the most imperative and difficult part and is basically a cultural change for the company.
The last step I would advise Alex to take is to write a tentative plan for the initial work teams. This plan is used as a map throughout the transformation and will act as a guiding force. It should recommend a process for selecting people who will be on the first teams, describe roles and responsilibilites for those who will be affected, explains the training that will be needed, specifically identifies which work processes will be involved, and lays out a schedule for the next two to three years.
As a consultant I would stress to Alex that this change should not be taken lightly and the entire organization needs to be prepared for this change.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Response to Professor Johnson's Post: 100 years After the Trianlge Factory
There are no words that could possibly describe how upsetting and shocking this video was. Just as upsetting as the events that were shown and discussed in the video, is the fact that nowhere on television or mainstream news was this mentioned. As tragic and devastating as this is, one would think that EVERYONE in America should be made to watch this clip from democracy.org. It comes as no surprise to me that the repercussions of our unaware, materialistic, capitolist, and flat-out selfish country, are plaguing the developing world. People in America seem to have no idea that everything we own, eat, wear, and touch, came from a place that we know nothing about, where people are forced into the kind of labor discussed in this video. The lack of knowledge, and care about those who have and are still suffering so that Americans can continue to live easy and convenient lives, is heartbreaking. I will never understand how the corporations such as Abercrombie, the Gap, etc...can proceed with such little value for human life. We in America have it so incredibly easy and yet we forget that one of the main reasons we lead such priviledged lives is because we have exploited other countries. Until there is structural and governmental change, and until our society as a whole changes, nothing will change. We forget the the clothes on our back, the shoes on our feet, the food we eat, was made somewhere else by somebody. Until people start to care and demand legislative change, I don't think anything will change. I think the exploitation that results from American corporations outsourcing to other countries is a direct result of American values (or lack there of). We always want the most for our money, the best deal for the cheapest, and we want everything right away. This comes at a cost, maybe not to us, but to humanity. This video by democracy.org is truely tragic and depressing and yet not many Americans seem to notice or even care about the damage that globalization has brought about.
Question: What can be done about this situation? Do you think anything can be done? Should there be laws and restrictions regarding labor for American corporations?
Question: What can be done about this situation? Do you think anything can be done? Should there be laws and restrictions regarding labor for American corporations?
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Communication and Facebook
As a communications major, facebook is a topic that is frequently discussed and came up a lot at the end of chapter 11 in our textbooks on Communication in Organizations. Facebook has created a revolution in the communications field. It has enabled people to connect and communicate with people all over the word instantly. It has also greatly affected the business world. Businesses are using it to look up prospective employees and to advertise and promote their products. Although I may be alone in my beliefs, I personally think Facebook has hindered communication in several ways. I think although people might be communicating more with people that they normally would have, this type of communication is really unauthentic and depersonalized. I also think its an illusion-by this I mean that I think people try to portray themselves or intend to have others see them in a way that is not really accurate. Through Facebook, peple try to emulate themselves how ever they wish to be seen; but this might not be very truthful. People form opinions about others based on snapshots of their lives through pictures and status updates, but this may not be who they actually really are. I also think that Facebook can misconstrue words. Since Facebook lacks verbal inflections, tone of voice, and facial expressions, many statements can be ambiguous and therefore people may interpret them differently. Also, it can allow people to formulate opinions and ideas about other people based on pictures and statuses that are not an acurate protrayal of who they really are. In short, although Facebook has opened up a lot of communication, it has also brought with it many obstacles. I too, have a Facebook, but I never post my status and rarely comment on others to avoid confusion and to remain private. However, I have found myself forming opinions of others through Facebook. Although I think there are a lot of uses for Facebook, such as keeping in touch and up to date with people you may not get a chance to talk to or see o na regular basis, I feel that Facebook should be used with caution and people should try to be subjective when looking at it, and remember that it is not an accurate portayal of who people really are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)