What would be your diagnosis of what went wrong, as it was described in this case study?
While utilizing the classical approach in this case study, Fayol’s principals of management can be used as an explanatory lens to diagnose what went wrong. My diagnosis of what went wrong in this study is explained through a classical approach, such as how you as employees have economical and psychical needs within industry. Each workers is expected to reach their highest potential while accepting the opportunities given to them within the work environment (Miller, 2015). As we all know, in this given situation, Krys Klear and Glass X has merged together. With everyone having different tasks and different ways of doing them, the merging of these two companies has caused some confusion within the employees. Without organization, planning, arrangement, coordination, and control within the company it has caused a major lack in organization and leadership to where no control seems to be helping employee stay on track of their tasks. Peter, you are taking on the task of showing command towards the employees, by giving out tasks in order to make their jobs structured. Peter has made it known that as a company, everyone will be working together so that the company becomes more profitable. With that being said, working as a team is a huge goal that could allow the company to perform as a branch rather than individually. Peter, as you started monitoring the work practices, you notice target sales were not being met and insisted on applying pressure to employees, such as the ones who weren’t up to speed. (Cockburn-Wooten, Simpson & Zorn, 2010). Now in my opinion, structure seemed to be lacking. Instead of targeting the employees who aren’t up to speed, planning and giving commands would have helped the employees who weren’t up to speed. Such as giving them the specifics as to what they should be working on, rather than general stating that they need to work as a team. Peter, you recalled noticing that Barry and Dave failed to meet standards, and initiated a meeting with each of them individually. Barry was showing his concerns in an angrily manner by shouting at you saying, “you combined windows and doors into one workshop, We’re working together as you asked”. (Cockburn-Wooten, Simpson & Zorn, 2010). Although it may have looking like Dave and Barry were slacking, they were doing as you have asked, to work together. Organizations run accordingly to rules and regulations. If these standards were made clearly from the first day on the job some confusion would have been made clear. Instead of addressing how you want to see the company work as a team, you should have addressed planning and how individuals need to function on their own rather than as a team 24/7. Planning allows employees to look into the future and determine what they should be doing. When planning gets brought into the scenario, employees are more likely to want to achieve those goals which allows them to work harder not only for the organization, but for self-satisfaction. When mentioning that everyone working together is a goal, it makes it known in the wrong way that the employees should form some kind of bond and friendship with their co-workers. No future goals were addressed, none of you managers have given commands in a strictly manner. You need to show control, which ensures the comparison between goals and activities to make sure the company is functioning progressively was not initiated (Miller, 2015). No elements of management were given and therefore the reason for employees failed standards are due to these standards not being met by you all.
2) What would be your diagnosis of what went wrong, as it was described in this case study?
While taking a human resources approach, through Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs theory, it is focused on the employees needs in the workplace. My diagnosis of what went wrong in this case, is that employee’s affiliation needs did not feel as though they were met. The needs of social interaction may have been felt between some co-workers, but they did not feel a strong social interaction with higher levels such as with Peter and Laurence. Peter, I have noticed that you have been getting a sense of achievement, especially from Laurence. The branch has become one of the top performing branches, but with that being said, about 60% of the original staff has left the company (Cockburn-Wooten, Simpson & Zorn, 2010). With this being said, they did not feel as though they were being treated fairly. Having a strong relationship with coworkers and managers allows employees to stay and work towards a company’s goals. Dave and Barry had left because of the pressure you were putting upon them to do their tasks correctly. I believe a better way to approach employees who are slacking is to help them find ways to improve their work within the business. Establishment of relationships was nonexistent when talking to your employees, Peter. Imagine being treated as though your needs do not matter. Old employees should not be resigning because of how they are treated. Esteem needs is also lacking within employees from your end. Not one employee was shown a sign of achievement and accomplishment based on the tasks they have performed. With the staff social meetings that have been formed, it allows employees to receive feedback, have fun, and create a relationship with employees, but the way these meetings are set up it wrong. Having work meetings should be in an office and should be set up in a professional environment. Including alcohol, games, and food does not give employees and managers a sense of professionalism or a centralized focus of the tasks that need to be done. By having such a laid back meeting environment, it tries to make up for the lack of affiliation and esteem needs within the workplace.
3) Why do you advance these recommendations in particular?
The reason why I suggest these recommendations is because, given the classical approach, it was obvious that when going to a new company, you will learn new and different tasks from previous tasks learned at a different company. In order to provide the best work in a business, assertiveness, planning, and arrangement should be given to employees to help them stay on track of the tasks they need to get done. In my opinion, when I am working, I enjoy when there are directions given to me. Without any directions from my managers, I would not know what tasks are to be performed and would be slacking for the rest of the day. With the assertiveness from my managers and a plan for the day, it allows me to help keep the company on track, and set goals for myself that I want to accomplish during my time working for the company. Forming a structure within a workplace is a huge goal that should be met and discussed among managers to keep their employees on track. When there is structure, there is a balance not only within the managers, but that balance reflects upon employees and so forth.
An example from the human resources approach, suggested that managers show more empathy and affiliation towards employees (Miller, 2015). Rather than having an unfriendly, bossy manager, providing a sense of affiliation within the workforce is crucial when wanting employees to stay with the business. When pressure is put upon employees to get the jobs done in a harsh manner, they do not feel as though their feelings, wants or needs are being taken into consideration. Instead of managers constantly driving and forcing more out of workers, a sign of empathy or kind words of achievement would help workers stay on task and want to work harder. It allows workers to not only work better for the company, but work better to improve their overall well-being. By showing a relationship with coworkers and managers it creates relationships which can help build a company to higher ground. Having a job, that is professionally and enjoyable is crucial for companies to succeed.
...(download the rest of the essay above)