1. Management styles demonstrated and how they have affected the role of manager
Fred Fielder, in his contingency theory, confirms that effective employee performance will be dependent on the good match between the employee and the leader. Leadership success is based on situational factors such as leadership style, the leader’s capacity to lead, and the behavior and competencies of the employees. Leadership styles vary from autocratic, democratic or passive to participative. In Casual Togs Company, the leadership is democratic enough that the leader does not make suggestions for the employees but affirms their choices (Goetsch et al.2014).
Cy had a ‘feel of the situation’ leadership style in his decision-making while he expected the departmental heads to employ a ‘you see fit’ style. He would be in support of any decision made by his subordinates. There was daily feedback to Cy from all departmental heads. This challenged the flow of information, either from juniors to seniors or otherwise. There was also the existence of horizontal communication within the organization, which was working to its disadvantage.
Employees would interfere with the processes of another department, though it does not concern them. The Cy would tolerate the insensitivity of his employee’s right in his office with a number of the employees regarding him as ‘too lenient’. The perception that the roles of each employee were not clear as anyone would descend into your working space made it hard for managers to give guidance as well as supervise the work of their subordinates.
Sol gets a new role as a manager/internal accounting and sales and unshared subordinates under his watch.
Andy’s new assistant doesn’t seem to help him, as the two can’t agree. Sabotage of the new assistant by Andy, who is working with the field salesmen, was adversely affecting the role of the new assistant.
Recruitment of a market analyst who would be able to make any changes as he sees fit would leave the other many managers with nothing to contribute (Johnson et al. 2016).
2. The response of the organizational structure and culture to the changes
Organizational change
We are living in a world where there are daily changes. There are changes in the products, the markets as well as the technology involved in the production and marketing process. Surviving in such an environment will require the organizations to evolve adaptive mechanisms, failure to which the organization becomes extinct (Bosch et al.2016).
Organizational structure
It refers to how information flows from one area to another or the reporting procedures where the subordinate reports to the senior.
With the reduced sales volumes, other times rejection and the return of the products, there was a need to make some structural adjustments within the company. This included the hiring of new staff, assigning staff to a different supervisor, etc. There is evidence to resist structural changes by some employees. The introduction of a new assistant in Andy’s docket suffered a lot of resistance from Andy who felt that the MBA holder was a risk to his job. The opposition was so severe that he had to be absent most of the time from his place of work. This can be confirmed by the declining volumes of sales to the tune of 40 % (Maduenyi et al. 2015).
When the appropriate culture is not embraced before structural changes, there is a tendency for resistance, especially by employees who feel that the change is robbing them of their privileges. This is the opposite of infrastructural change, where more construction is going on, and business units are being deployed in other areas.
3. The role/power of the individuals and groups and how it has developed concerning the environmental changes
Out of the stiff competition, there is an investment in the technology of production where there is the use of other cutters within the production process, which has a bigger capacity, easing manual labor.
There is the production of computer-generated printouts for each day’s sales courtesy of the word of the field salesmen. Now, the president, the vice-president, the sales forecast, regional sales as well as the production managers and the treasurer had a copy, which meant extra work for each and the subsequent increase in the command chain of the sales forecasting manager (Pollack et al. 57).
For each fashion season, there were notable modifications of styles as well as adjustments in quantities.
Andy gets moved together with his former co-worker, Sol Green, into individual glass-partitioned offices. Sol earns a promotion as a manager/internal accounting and sales, and all the subordinates who had previously worked for both Andy and Sol are now under Sol, hence increasing his chain of command and, subsequently, his roles while the chain of command and roles of Andy are reduced (Bosch et al. 2016).
Andy gets an additional staff to help him with his assignments. This is attributed to the poor performance of the company; thus, its economic environment needs to be checked. However, due to academic differences and perspective, Andy and his assistant hardly work together, therefore, the presence, and the contributions of the new employee are not felt. There are more returns to the company to the tune of 40%.
There was the recruitment of a market analyst who was to audit the production and the sales departments to identify the impediments to good sales. He was at liberty to make any changes he felt that were appropriate for the company. To improve sales, some new designers were hired while the regional vice presidents whom the management felt were redundant were laid off, narrowing the immediate chain of command by the company president. Two of the newly hired designers left, and the new vice-president of industrial relations, who had hardly worked for a month, was sacked ( Pollack et al. 62). Andy, Sol and Stan would not speak to each other. Andy began working with a section of the workforce and, therefore, impeding performance. This shaky kind of organizational structure leaves some employees overburdened as some of their former colleagues have exited service, or some of them are not ready to work with each other because of the organizational culture set by Cy.
4. Significant findings following the investigations of Casual Togs Company
Executive Summary
Organizations exist for the people and by the people. The performance of any organization is, therefore, as good as the performance of each as well as all individuals collectively. Organizations are founded in an environment, either internal or external. Both of these environments determine how the organization is going to deal with its clients, both internally and externally. As the environment in which the organization is founded is not static, there is a need for the organization to be alive to this fact so that its ability to navigate its way and thus deliver its mandate. The management styles practiced within the organization, its organizational structure and culture will be very crucial in determining how the organization responds to the change.
Introduction
Casual Tog is a well-to-do company dealing with customers of moderate means in their apparel business. Because of the entrepreneurial spirit of the founder, the company has grown in a big way. However, the disadvantage of this growth has been constant infighting within the different levels of command, which adversely affected the profitability of the business in the long run. Any efforts, including bringing in fresh employees to salvage the company, hit a rock. Most of the old customers left, and the industry had to sink deeper and deeper.
Main Findings
Leadership style- the democratic leadership style Cy was the organization’s undoing. He let people develop a kind of ‘I can do anything’ attitude and failed to realize that the success of the company is intertwined with his leadership style. Democratic leadership style has its limits (Johnson et al. 2016).
Organization structure- there was no proper flow of information. Anyone would speak to any other person, including Cy, at their time of choice. Some employees would like to insubordinate others and fail in their duties because Cy would listen to everybody (Lozano et al. 2016).
Organisation culture- the culture is one where there is no respect for self as well as others. Value for hard work and excellence is not their portion.(Prabhakar et al. 65).
Organizational change management- organizations are living during very volatile times. Any shift in the external environment means a myriad of changes within the internal environment. When the employees of Casual Togs were faced with change, there was immense resistance (Bosch et al.2016).
Conclusion
While employee inputs are variable in an organization, the extent to which they do it should be regulated by the leadership. An organizational structure that enhances the performance of the employee is critical for its growth. There is a need for the right culture within the organization. One that allows the employee to realize their capacities within a friendly environment. Though the world is dynamic, change management should be at the core of every organization.
Recommendations
Organization structure- the structure will be dependent on the business being undertaken. For start-ups, a flat arch structure would work. Companies with many departments will have a functional structure while a firm with varied bosses for the same employee may adopt a matrix structure.
Leadership style- while classical leadership may not work efficiently for many organizations since it advocates for results, it is essential to employ persuasive leadership that endeavors to get a better employee.
Organization change management- since change is the only constant, the organization should enshrine a change management policy. Regulated change with the metamorphosis model will be handy.
Organizational culture- the organization should foster a culture that values diversity and gives space to employees to express their capacities in the best way possible.
Works Cited
Bosch, M., Tavender, E.J., Brennan, S.E., Knott, J., Gruen, R.L. and Green, S.E., 2016. The many organizational factors relevant to planning change in emergency care departments: a qualitative study to inform a cluster randomized controlled trial aiming to improve the management of patients with mild traumatic brain injuries. PloS one, 11(2), p.e0148091.
Goetsch, D.L. and Davis, S.B., 2014. Quality management for organizational excellence. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Guldenmund, F., 2017. Organizational safety culture principles. In Patient Safety Culture (pp. 43-69). CRC Press. Horch, H.D., 2018. The intermediary organizational structure of voluntary associations. Voluntary Sector Review, 9(1), pp.55-72.
Johnston, M.W. and Marshall, G.W., 2016. Sales force management: Leadership, innovation, technology. Routledge
Lozano, R., Nummert, B. and Ceulemans, K., 2016. Elucidating the relationship between sustainability reporting and organizational change management for sustainability. Journal of cleaner production, 125, pp.168-188..
Maduenyi, S., Oke, A.O., Fadeyi, O. and Ajagbe, A.M., 2015. Impact of Organisational Structure on Organisational Performance.
Pollack, J. and Pollack, R., 2015. Using Kotter’s eight-stage process to manage an organizational change program: Presentation and practice. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 28(1), pp.51-66.
Prabhakar, G.V., Reddy, P.R., Savinkina, L.A., Gantasala, S.B. and Ankireddy, S., 2018. Influence of Organizational culture dimensions on Knowledge Management processes in Higher Educational Institutions. International Journal of Knowledge Management Studies, 9(1), pp.51-71.
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
