WORK AND ORGANISATION SYSTEM (BM0 6506)
CRITICAL ANALYSIS REPORT ON CHANGING NATURE OF WORKFORCE COMPOSITION
VICTORIA UNIVERSITY
ASSIGNMENT 1
SUBMITTED BY : JESICA TAMANG
SUBMITTED TO: Dr Lovasoa Andriamor
STUDENT ID: S4575797
SEMESTER: FIRST
DECLARATION: Hereby, I Declare that this work is true copy of original work done by me.
May 2017
Introduction
Scientific management theory, Bureaucracy theory, human relation development theory are some of the examples of approaches used in the management of working place in the early period of industrialization . Nowadays, managers are more contingent in nature. The change in components of business environment forces managers to adapt suitable changes so that they can exploit opportunities from changing environment, otherwise risks of uncertainity brought by such changes is very high which will lead to business failure. Nokia Mobile which was once a market leader in the world , is now almost nowhere in the market because it failed to predict the changes and act accordingly. Therefore, Changing nature of workforce composition today is part of such changes invited inherently by the system of change and development itself, otherwise business will fail.
The major focus of our work here is to emphasize on the ‘People’ here . People, who are armies of the company are predominantly both the target and victim of any changes in component of business environment because at the end of the day tasks gets carried out by them. The major reasons for changing nature of workforce composition are intense global competition, job migration, due to outsourcing and offshoring, highly interpendent national economies, constantly emerging computer and information technologies, new forms of organisations and shifting demographics.( Schermerhorn, Hunt & Osborn, 2005)
The focus of this report is to identify the major drivers and the implication of changes in workplace upon employees and managers.
1. Key Issues of changing Workforce composition and Engagement
The transformed organization can be viewed in terms of five complex interacting key issues : networked( virtual company), team based flat, Flexible, diverse and global organization (Ancona, Kochan, Seully et al , 2004)
Networked/ Virtual Company:
New technologies have led to a new information and knowledge based economy. In this context, technology has changed the work environment, where organisations have become increasingly complex and competitive. Namely, the technologically induced a ‘virtual’ environment has resulted in the adoption of new organisational structures and work skills and practices. On the one hand, the workplace increasingly requires employee to work in teams, collaborating across companies, communities, and continents. These changes and the new organisational structures have also made an impact on role of managers and their management styles. ( Mirjana, Radovic & Marcovic, 2014)
Flat and team based
Flatter structures have become options for organisations for reasons including improvement of communication, enhancement of job satisfaction, and reduction of management cost. (La Rooy & Gerard 2012). The decision making power, infomation control which used to be exercised by top level earlier, have been pushed downward towards front line employees because small number of autonomous teams can quickly respond to change than large hierachies.
Flexible.
It is difficult for companies to rely on rigid rules and bureaucratic model to cope with the changes, so flexible structure is an emerging structure.Recent research in the United Kingdom indicates that workers want more autonomy and flexibility. Based on extensive interviews of thought leaders, business leaders and the general public, researchers from a leading British think tank found in a project for Orange, a UK telecom company, that workers ‘want an experience of work that aligns with their values. They want a workplace forged in the image of their identities, not a workplace that tries to define .
Diverse
New organisations accommodate diversity of perspectives, approaches, career paths and incentive systems, people and policies within its boundaries and to respond and increasingly diverse array of external Cosntituentices and stakeholders.( Ancona, Kochar, Senalty et, al, 2005).
CHANGES FOR WORKPLACE ENGAGEMENT
Getting workforce engaged is a major challenge of managers today in such changimg environment. In my opinion, in next 5-10 years, following changes can be more visible:
‘ Slimmer organisations .
‘ Replacing current technology by smart Technology.
‘ Office at homes.
‘ Less crowded work place.
Level of job engagement will be more at risks. The employees are likely to be replaced by smart technology leading to slimmer organization structure. Because of intensed networking, working system, jobs could be more feasible from homes. This may not produce healthy employee- employer relationship in longer term. Employees may switch the company. Managers will face more challenges in getting the employees loyal and stick to the company.
WORKFORCE AND MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Hirschman (1970), argued that employees can respond to deterioration in three possible ways: exit, voice and loyalty. The unwanted change will have positive effect on exit and negative effect on job loyalty.( George, et all 2003) found that the mixed workforce invite more responsibilities upon permanent workers without any additional compensation. This increases work stress on permanent employees and also level of job insecurity. Managers decision about how to implement workforce blending often have negative consequences for permanent employees.
In older working environment, employees received guarantee of their jobs for future (Singh 1998). In new working context, employees no longer gain secure jobs in return for offering loyalty, but exchange ‘exibility and hard work for simply having a job. These changes have resulted in altering the traditional employee-employer relationship , trust, loyalty commitment and long-term relationship (Herriot et al., 1997). On the otherside, Companies need members who are supportive of organisational goals (Angle and Perry, 1981). Positive employee behaviours that go beyond delineated role requirements (Katz and Kahn, 1978) are considered essential for organisational survival (Fukuyama, 1995).
Therefore major changes now should be driven towards focusing on concepts of Psychological contract and Person-job fit model. Job satisfaction, feeling of belongingness, appreciated and work commitment produces high level of job engagement in employees ( Gardener, 2008).
Conclusion
Diversity is the double edge sword that brings benefits such as knowledge sharing as well as bad outcomes like conflict and fights among different groups (Kulkarni, 2015; Pieterse et al ;2011). Infact Diversity stimulates people to pay attention to difference which makes intergroup people hard to gain belonging feelings or mutual cooperation (Ashforth and Macl, 1989 ; Byme, 1972). Managers in such changes, face greater challenges of managing work behaviour and maintaining the expectations of both employee and employer. This shortcoming can be achieved by application of Inclusive management concept ( Tanget al , 2015)
REFERENCES
Schemerhorn, John R. Jr., Hunt, James G., Osborn, Richard N,2005. Organizational Behaviour. 9th ed. United States of America: John wiley and Sons.
G., D, 2004. Managing for the Future: Organizational Behavior and Processes. 3. Cengage Learning
Radovic, marcovic, Mirjana, 2014. Economics Employee Competency and managerial issues. Virtual Organisations, 4/1, 287-290
.
La Rooy, Gerard, 2012. Executive Managementin Flat organsiations. Human Resourcs, 17/1, 18-19.
George et al, (2003),’ Happy Together ?How Using Non Standard Workers Affects, Exit, Voice And Loyalty Among Standard Employees: Academy of Management Journal, Vol 46, no 4, P 475-485
‘Antecedents and consequences of relational components of the new psychological contract’, by Cavanaugh, M. and Noe, R., Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 20, pp. 323-340
Herriot, P., Manning, W. and Kidd, J.M. (1997), ‘The content of psychological contract’, British Journal of Management, Vol. 8, pp. 151-62.
Angle, H.L. and Perry, J.L. (1981), ‘An empirical assessment of organizational commitment and organizational effectiveness’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 26, pp. 1-13