His basic ideas involved getting the best equipment and people, and then carefully scrutinizing each component of the production process. By doing this he was able to find exactly what worked and what did not, essentially, finding the right combination to bring an organization great prosperity and production. Taylor theory was a great success with simple industrialized companies but did fair the same with modern ones.
The philosophy of “production first, people second” has left a legacy of declining production and quality, dissatisfaction with work, loss of pride in workmanship, and a near complete loss of organizational ride (Wallowing, 1993).
It was not until Max Weber expanded Taylor theories that we saw a reduction non diversity and ambiguity in organizations. The focus was on establishing clear lines of authority and control. Weeper’s bureaucratic theory emphasized the need for a hierarchical structure of power. It recognized the importance of division of labor and specialization (Blake & Mosey, 2010).
A formal set of rules was bound into the hierarchy structure to insure stability and uniformity.
Weber also put forth the notion that organizational behavior is a network of human interactions, where all behavior could be accounted for. Weeper’s principles of bureaucracy outlined the best structured of an organization: Each employee in a bureaucracy has specified and official areas of responsibility that are assigned on the basis of competence and expertise. Employees have only a single boss, and this result in an orderly system of supervision and subordination.
Managers use written documents extensively in managing employees. Detailed employment manuals include corporate rules and regulations. Managers of offices, departments, or other groups of workers receive extensive training in their job responsibilities. Managers are expected to use ales that are consistent, complete, and learnable. Organizational theories created by Henry Payola have been used to identify four main features of organizations. These ideals are still used and practiced today by organizations they are: 1 . Specialization.
Organizations should arrange workers by logical groupings, such as place of work, product, expertise, or functional area. 2. Unity of Command. Each organizational member has exactly one direct supervisor. For example, in most accounting firms, a partner supervises a manager who supervises a senior auditor who supervises other auditors 3. Chain of Command. The chain of command specifies the reporting relationship in an organization and generally begins with the chief executive and extends to the lease skilled employee. 4. Coordination of activities. Managers use tools to ensure communication among specialized groups.
The tools may range from formal written directives to informal corporate policies to electronic media (Blake & Mosey, 2010). We can see here that before 1 960 the group dynamic was focused more towards one person speaking and ruling the conversations. This would usually be a manager and the manager would treat the employees like that were a means to n end. The whole dynamic revolved around a chain of command and employees have a job and that job is only to improve the corporation. Organizational behavior at this time was not focused on the human side of group dynamics.
They cared mostly about production and performance (Moorhens, 2010). Moving to more contemporary ideas for group dynamics we see a complete shift to the human side of organizational behavior. In the sass, Douglas McGregor discusses the human side of Enterprise. Here, he introduces us to two contrasting sets of assumptions about human nature. First, we are shown Theory X which were pessimistic in nature and expresses how managers assume that workers have an inherent dislike of work, that workers must be controlled or threaten with punishment to ensure adequate effort, and that workers prefer to avoid responsibility (Kelly, 2000).
On the other side we have managers who believe in Theory Y. They assume that work comes naturally to people and people will work toward their objectives without outside control, and can learn to seek responsibility (Kelly, 2000). McGregor subscribed more towards the ideas of his Theory Y. He believed that managers could accomplish more by viewing his errors as self motivated and committed beings who could be responsible rather than lead by authority. McGregor theories really represent the difference between pre sass and contemporary organizational behavior theories.
Theory X explains that thought process before 1960 and his Theory Y express the new more humanistic approach to leadership through understanding behaviors. Our next job is to understand how these seemingly opposite approaches can be placed into group dynamics. Both theories of organizational behavior have been used throughout the years and both have been successful. However, building teams can be a very challenging task often misunderstood by management. People tend to think throwing random people together to complete a task is an efficient way to build teams.
Theory X subscribers would believe that the team formation isn’t as important as the leader himself. Theory Y would believe that the teams matter and the employees should be able to lead themselves efficiently. Taking a more contemporary approach Chin, Y. , Chin, Y. & Tsar, Y. (2009) discuss eleven types of team competency indicators that relate to building efficient teams. Set clear and measurable goals. Goals need to be real and measurable; the team needs to see a clear path to their completion. This builds interest and motivation in the members. Making assignments clear and ensuring competence.
If things are not clear a whole punch of ugly issues can arise. Work will not be accomplished correctly and the team may even argue based on their own understanding of what needs to be done using an effective decision-making process. This is very important even before the team is forms. Team leaders need to learn and understand differences in the teams so they can lead everyone to the same goals. Establishing accountability for high performance. Basically, high performance standards should generate high performance. Each individual is responsible for their task and should finish it in a timely manner.
Running effective meetings. Meetings should pose clear purpose, goals, structures, discussions, and conclusions relevant to team goals and tasks. Building trust. Trust is absolutely essential in any successful team. Without trust a team cannot function as one unit and complete tasks efficiently. Establishing open communication channels. Another extremely important concept often overlooked. When leaders do not allow open communication they are stopping growth of the team and company. A lack of open and two-way communication channels will likely result in mutual mistrust and misunderstandings in team building.
You also lose out on a great feedback system by not allowing open and free flowing communication. Managing conflict. Lets fact it, conflict happens, it is a fact of team building. How you manage that conflict is the difference between a successful team and a failing team. Creating mutual respect and collaboration. Trust and respect go hand and hand. To build respect we must iris establish trust. After that we can work on mutual respect and then but only then can a team collaborate in the deepest form. Encouraging risk-tasking and innovation. Often, things can get too structured by leaders and that can hinder a team.
Teams are unique in that they bring new ideas and experiences because of the wide array of different members. Sometimes it is best to encourage new ideas and veer often track to better the team and innovate. Engaging in team building. This can be a debilitating issue for any team regardless of the above mentioned ideas (Chin, Chin & Tsar, 2009). These competencies really mirror what McGregor believed himself. Theory Y and the contemporary approach really benefits organizations today we have to understand that knowing behavior trends in our organization can only lead to greater success.
This is never truer than in today’s technologically advanced, Millennial filled work force. For instance, Millennial are looking for a few things in a leader, such as: Mentoring. These workers have a lot of respect for past generations. However, they must be lead by teaching not by dictating. They require a gentle spirit. A loud boss who yells and demands will never get their aspect and will never get them to perform to their potential. They require transparency and authenticity, they will not respond to “do it because I say so”.
Organizations need to understand the difference in generational behavioral theories in order to run a successful business (Rainier, 2014). There is no one size fits all approach to Organizational behavioral theory and group dynamics. The whole idea behind these concepts is that differences exist and we must learn them to be efficient managers and owners. There is nothing more important than understanding why your workers, customers and managers behave a retain way. By understand that you understand how to lead, manage and be successful.
Cite this Case Assignment OT B Essay
Case Assignment OT B Essay. (2018, May 30). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/case-assignment-ot-b/