Organization and behaviour

TASK 1

1.1 Compare and contrast the organizational culture and structure of both ford and Monsanto

Organizational culture and structure have huge impact on the functioning of the organization. The ford and Monsanto is successful in their own business. For is the successful car company which is headquartered in US. Initially, the organization used line organizational structure as in this structure there is a direct relationship between different levels of the firm. In past, ford concentrated on the performance of each department. Departments were given the goal and they have to accomplish it. In case of doing marketing of the car, the marketing department made the strategy has they were the people who were responsible for it (Wilson, 2014). The culture which was followed in ford was the role culture. Different power was given to the individual according to their position. In case of department, the head had the power to give the task to their subordinates. But after the team based structure, the organization structure and culture was changed. The structure which was adopted by the company after team based approach is the divisional structure. All the team is based according to their expertise. Every team has different goals and they focus on their particular aspect. Task culture is the culture which Ford is following in the company. According to this culture, every team is given particular task and they have to fulfil them. This has made the work easier and now because this they are planning to expand their business in the other segment.

The Monsanto is the agriculture biotechnology company which manufacture many products. Because of this organization India came know many things. The main this which is manufactures is the modified crop seed which is useful for the farmers. Before the team based structure, this company used hierarchical structure. In past, the business was small so all the work was done by few individual and according to their position they were assigned work as well as authority. The culture which was followed was person culture; every individual is liable for the work and had the power to take decision. But now as the company has been expanded it has transformed their work to team based work. Now the structure which is followed in the organization is project based culture (Phillips and Gully, 2011). This is beneficial for the company because every project is dealt by different individual because of this they are able to manufacture more of the products. The culture which is adopted by the organization is the task culture as according to the task every employee has been assigned roles and responsibility and they have to accomplish in the given period of time.

1.2 Analyze group based structure and the culture which exists in the organization

Organization structure and culture is developed to enhance the performance of the organization and to meet the objectives and vision and mission effectively. Both the organization has changed their working into the team based working, so its impact on the functioning is both positive as well as negative. In case of ford, first changing the structure had created resistance in employees as they have become comfortable with the structure which was followed in organization Warner, 2014). In this initial time it lowered down the performance of human resource. But after some time it had positive impact because of the task culture, performance of the employees were measured effectively by the company. This was reason as company thought to expand its business in different segment.

In case of Monsanto, after team based structure the authority of giving orders on the subordinate was diluted. According to the project, every team has a different leader. But the positive impact on the performance was that their productivity was enhanced and because of the team a strong culture was build between the members of the team. According to the power the decision making became fast it helped the organization in successfully implementation of strategy (Brunsman, DeVore and Houston, 2011).

1.3 Factors which influence the behaviour of individual

There are several factors which affect the behaviour of the individual especially when they are working in a team to achieve the objective. Both the company is following the team based structure so the factor which impact the behaviour are:

Capabilities and skills of the employees- At the time of working in a team, behaviour of the members are influenced by the skills which is having in the other team member. In case of ford, the team members get inspiriting from other individual skill which has helped them to make the performance effective and even because of this they try to learn from other. But this have impacted negatively in the Monsanto organization, it has created jealously among the employees as the performance is measured in terms of the work (Phillips and Gully, 2011.).

Diversity- In case of team based culture; the employees are of diverse nature and belong to different culture. Because of the diverse culture and the nationally, the behaviour of the employees and it gives rise to discrimination. This scenario has been witnessed in the Monsanto organization. The scientists who makes product are of different nationality. This impacts the behaviour of employees and it impact negatively on the performance (Carnall, 2007).

TASK 2

2.1 Identify the leadership followed before and after team based working

Leadership is very important for the organization. Every organization is successful if they have good leaders. The work of the leaders is to guide the employees to achieve the company’s goal as well as objective. In case of ford which is a car manufacturing company the style which was followed previously was the autocratic leadership style. This style the individual have the power to guide the employees and the human resource are not involved in the decision making process (Kozlowski, 2009). It was beneficial when the competition was very high and the company has to compete with other organization. To implement the strategy quickly, this leadership style worked well. But the company saw dissatisfaction among the employees, so after team based working the leadership style which is followed by the organization is the democratic style. Now the workers are involved in every decision making process which are taken by their department. This has increased their decision making skill and had made them more confident (Leadership styles, 2015).

On the other hand, Monsanto which is an agriculture biotechnology company it in the past followed laissez-faire leadership style. In the past, there were few employees so there was no one to supervise their work (Gonos and Gallo, 2013). All the employees were responsible for their work. This leadership style was successful because the human resources were highly skilled. But with the business expansion the quality of recruitment declined and every employee needed a supervisor to manage their work. After team based working the leadership style followed in the company is transactional style (Adler and Gundersen, 2007). In this style, the goals are set for the employees and they are allotted some time to finish the task. This style has increased the productivity of the corporate and has made the company more profitable.

2.2 compare and contrast the nature of managerial authority and the functions of management

Organizational theory is very significant in guiding the management and helps them in functioning of the organization. The organization theory which followed in the original copy centres Inc. is the scientific management. In which the emphasis is given on increasing the productivity and efficiency of the organization. They have trained the employees to use the computer and have motivated them so that their productivity could be increased. The scientific management stresses on the training of the work and this is done by the company. With the help of organizational theory they have taken step to increase the productivity of employees (Halepota, 2005). The theory which was adopted by Ford Company was the division of labour, after the down turn the employees developed the team and helped in meeting the goal of the organization. All the work was divided according to the expertise and even they even asked the ideas from the assemble line workers and the also helped them. In this case, emphasis was giving on the achieving the goal not on increasing the productivity.

In case of Monsanto the managerial authority focused on the team work and all the team members were given the power to take the decision. The function of the management was to guide them regarding the goals of the organization. Even because of this, the management level was reduced from 7 to 4 (Phillips and Gully, 2011). The strategy which is followed by the Monsanto organization is entirely different from the above theory.

2.3 Different approaches to management

In case of Ford and Monsanto, both are using the team approach for achieving the organizational goal and objectives. After making the team they have become more profitable as the work which was done by the individual is not that successful as compared to working in a team. In the initial stage they were focusing on the traditional, they have adopted t traditional method by now they are using the team approach which has helped them to create a new product easily. It has created a better position in the market by using the team approach. They are making new products with the help of the team. Even, Monsanto also adopted the team approach as they took their own decisions which were previously taken by the management. Team approach has changed the position of the firm as they are now achieving safety levels. The employees in original copy centres work alone and the company has given all the amenities to them. Because of this approach of management they have become very hard worker and also give extra time for the working which has assisted company to develop competitive advantage. This approach is different from Ford and Monsanto (Dulewicz and Higgs, 2005).

TASK 3

3.1 What leadership style is followed in the original copy centres

The leadership style which is followed in the company is motivated the employees of the organization. According to this only the company has become successful its operation. The leadership style followed in this organization is democratic leadership in this style every individual has the authority to take the decision. This has motivated the employees and they work hard to achieve the goals of the company (Emery and Barker, 2007).  They can give ideas to the management regarding any problem arising in the company. They are free to use the laptops and the management trust the employees. but in case of recession, when the difficult time come, the firm can adopt the transactional leadership in which the employee has to achieve the target and according to this they will be provided with reward or the punishment if they have done anything wrong. This will be suitable because if another style is adopted then they may leave the organization which will not be good for the company. The motivation level may get down but the company has to manage the employees (Halepota, 2005).

3.2 By using the Herzberg theory of motivation and vroom expectancy theory motivate the employee

Herzberg focuses on two factors which cause job satisfaction and the other which causes job dissatisfaction. The original copy centre to focus on the factors which causes satisfaction among the employees they are basically increase in pay, recognition at the time of recession. The factors of job satisfaction are workplace environment etc. so the company should overcome these factors. With the help of this, the employee can be motivated to work.

Vroom theory is basically the expectancy theory in which emphasises is given on the rewards which are given by the organization to the deserving employees. This can be useful in motivating the employees of the original copy centres as in the recession time they will require motivation through rewards so that they will feel motivated to remain in the organization (Webb, 2007).

 3.3 Usefulness of both the theory to mangers in Ford and Monsanto

Both these theories are very helpful in motivating the staff of both companies. The economic downturn was seen by the Ford and at that time only, the managers made their team and achieve their goal.  For the achievement they can be provide with the reward by the management. In this case they can use the vroom expectancy theory. For the Monsanto, they can use the Herzberg theory, the employees can be motivated by providing them the factors which make the employees satisfied and avoid the factors which create dissatisfaction among the human resource (Cummings and et. al., 2010). In this case, they have made teams have but still there are some areas in which they need improvement. So, it is important for this organization to motivate the employees who are resistance to change so the organization can function effectively and profitably. These two theories can be adopted by both the organization for being successful.

TASK 4

4.1 Identify different types of groups and suggest reason for different types of behaviour

In the organization, the group are made for some of the specific purpose. Every group is given different task and they have to perform the task to accomplish the goal for the organization. Basically the there are two types of group one is the formal group and the other is the informal group.

Formal group- The organization form this group for the purpose to complete the task. Generally, the individual who are involved in the task based group are expertise in different field. To achieve the sales target, the group is made and the individual has to meet the target (Men and Stacks, 2013). The behaviour of the workers in this type of group is professional and the communication which is done is also formal.

Informal group- This group is not formed by the organization. They are made according to the interest of the employees who are working in the organization. Mostly the employees who have formed the group are for similar interest. These groups are beneficial for the company because it makes the environment friendly (Taber, 2010.).

4.2 Factors leading to effective teamwork and the threats involved in continuing team based working

There are several factors which help in building the effective team and achieving the goals effectively. In case of Monsanto which is an agriculture company it is important to effectively achieve the goal. The factors responsible for effective teamwork are:

Leadership- the leadership followed in the company should be effective and the leaders should be capable to resolve the issues which arise at the time team working. With the effective leadership, employees can easily make decision regarding the problem which is faced by the group members (Brunsman, DeVore and Houston, 2011).

Communication process- The communication process should be clear. Monsanto makes chemical so it is important to communicate properly so that no issue arise at the time of manufacturing the product. If anything goes wrong then it can be harmful for the employees as well as the consumers (Warner, 2014). Effective communication will create transparency which is necessary in teamwork.

There are several threats which are involved if the company continues its team based working. The major threat in the team based working is discrimination between the employees are witnessed which create problem within employees and further affect the performance of human resource. Another threat which is seen is sometimes teams which are made are not capable to meet the target (Carnall, 2007). So then the organization has to shuffle them it takes time and employee’s takes time in adjusting with the new employees.

4.3 Impact of technology on both Monsanto and ford in the team working

There is both negative and positive impact of technology on the team working. As there are many competitors of Ford Company so it has to use technology to upgrade its system and make car according to the needs and preference of the user. Another advantage is that, technology makes the work easier for the teammates as they can connect with their members when they are far off (Adler and Gundersen, 2007). This assist in saving time and because of technology they have to put less manpower to accomplish the task.

In case of Monsanto, it is a research agriculture organization so for them technology is must as without the use of them they cannot manufacture product.  The advantage of technology in team based working is that, with the help of technology the task is divided appropriately and the disadvantage is that the employees do not use their full skill as they are dependent on the technology this makes them less efficient which hinders their performance (Taber, 2010).

CONCLUSION

From this report it can be concluded that, team work has provided aid to both the Ford and Monsanto Company and made them profitable. Both the organization is now developing their new products with the help of the team.  But in case of original copy centres they have given emphasis on the motivation and according to that only they have increased the productivity of their employees. Organizational theory and the approaches of management both are different in all the companies but still they are successful in selling their product.

REFERENCES

• Adler, N. J. and Gundersen, A., 2007.International dimensions of organizational behaviour.
• Brunsman, B., DeVore, S. and Houston, A., 2011. The corporate strategy function: improving its value and effectiveness. Journal of Business Strategy. 32(5). pp.43–50.
• Carnall, C., 2007. Managing Change in Organizations. Financial Times Prentice Hall.
• Cengage Learning. Cummings, G. G. and et. al., 2010. Leadership styles and outcome patterns for the nursing workforce and work environment: a systematic review. International journal of nursing studies. 47(3). pp.363-385.
• Dulewicz, V. and Higgs, M., 2005. Assessing leadership styles and organisational context. journal of Managerial Psychology. 20(2). pp.105-123.
• Emery, C. R. and Barker, K. J., 2007. The effect of transactional and transformational leadership styles on the organizational commitment and job satisfaction of customer contact personnel. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communication and Conflict. 11(1). pp.77
• Halepota, H. A., 2005. Motivational theories and their application in construction. Cost engineering. 47(3). pp.14-18.
• Kozlowski, S., 2009. Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations. Taylor & Francis.
• Le Breton-Miller, I. and Miller, D., 2014. Temporal considerations in the study of family firms: Reflections on “the study of organizational behaviour in family business”. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 23(5). pp. 669-673.

UPTO50%

Avail The Benefit Today!

To View this & another 50000+ free

Enter Email

Submit