One of the things that can be seen with the expansion of the business across the world is that it has alleviated this need for the organizations to make sure that they work towards integration and better synergy among the departments (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2015). Looking at the way things are being done in the “No Name” it becomes clear that it is a global business that is operating in a manner that is not allowing it to make sure that they can combine their resources in a useful manner due to the lack of coordination and synergy among the departments (Ahammad et al. 2016). Furthermore, as the businesses have expanded, it has become important for the businesses to understand the diversity as in the future, it can work as a huge competitive advantage for the business. Then in the industry where the performance management has to be optimum, “No Name”, they have no performance management system that is a big risk as any accident and mishap is going to be enough to destroy the credibility of the organization completely. In this case, it would be seen that what are some of the dimensions that “No Name” needs to work in the large run and how they can create better synergy, higher performance and better quality control staying in their current business environment (Ahammad et al. 2016).
One of the basic issues that are being faced by the “No Name” is that basically they are facing the cultural breakdown (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2015). There is no incentive for standing out and performing to exceed the expectations of the management due to which the complacency has been developed among the people (Ahammad et al. 2016). Even the way communication is carried out, as each of the department is merely concerned about their performance rather than identifying the broader goals and horizons, even though they might be achieving their own KPI’s, the long term organizational development is something that is missing in the organization (Wang & Rafiq, 2014). Furthermore, even though one gets to see lot of “teams” working in the “No Name”, the fact is that they are not working with each other in close coordination as the communication that exists between them is far from ideal. Despite the fact that there are line managers in Australia that are supposed to take lead of the time, e-mails are received from every corner of the world as they are asking for clarity in critical points (Bortolotti et al. 2015). So there is a need to overhaul this working culture (Cameron & Green, 2015). Coming towards the way diversity management is carried out, even though there is a code of conduct that is in place, the way it has to be implemented and executed leaves a lot to be desired at the end user (Van Grembergen et al. 2018). The main problem is the generation gap that seems to have crept in the organization (Cameron & Green, 2015). The seniors have this sense of entitlement towards the others and they are not treating their juniors in an appropriate manner (Valmohammadi & Roshanzamir, 2015). Due to that, the skill enhancement and identification is not carried out. Human resource is also not allowing skill enhancement as there is no training program that can augment the soft and hard skills of the employees at the given time period (Cameron & Green, 2015). The level of organizational discrimination is also needed to be kept in mind to make sure that the competitive edge that people have over each other is harnessed in a positive manner (Bortolotti et al. 2015).
If one looks at the theoretical implication of the way synergy can be increased in the organization, the key thing that is needed to be looked at is that how synergy is perceived (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2015). This theory implies that the synergy is something that is systematic in its nature and the context of the whole process has to be kept in mind when one talks about the way management of the synergy is supposed to be carried out (Schermerhorn et al. 2014). The other thing that is needed to be noted that the integrative definition of this concept is not needed to be taken into consideration (Chang & Lin, 2015). It is about making sure that the description of the systematic process where the different units of the diversified organizations are working and how they are creating value at the first place is one of the key things that are needed to be kept in mind (Chang & Lin, 2015). The application of the grounded theory can be carried out that allows the much more modern interpretation of the concept that can go a long way towards making sure that the synergy can be created in the diversified organization that is working at multitude of levels (Chang & Lin, 2015).
One of the key things that the “No Name” needs to do is to make sure that the shared vision and goals are set for just about every person in the organization (Rosemann & vom Brocke, 2015). At the moment, it feels that there is not a sense of direction that is being followed in the organization (Epstein & Buhovac, 2014). When the goals and the future vision of the organization is defined, it would go a long way towards making sure that people bring the sense of purpose of how they work (Epstein & Buhovac, 2014).
The other thing that is needed to be done is to develop a good leadership program. There are many ways through which it can be done (Epstein et al. 2015). For instance, people who have exceptional set of skills and can contribute at the multitude of levels must be identified and they should be roped for the leadership development program (Reiche et al. 2016). In that way, people would be encouraged to make sure that they work outside their comfort zones and display varied set of skills (Epstein et al. 2015). Then some mentorship programs can also be started to make sure that people who have certain set of skills can be identified (Goetsch & Davis, 2014). The major change though has to be brought towards the value system of the organization. Just going through the motions and placing a code of ethics is not enough (Pulakos et al. 2015). At the moment, there is lack of empathy among the co-workers and one of the reasons that it is happening is due to the fact that the culture that is witnessed in the organization is far from ideal (Goetsch & Davis, 2014). What is needed to be done is to make sure that the when assigning the leadership roles for the team, the adherence to the code of ethics should be given the priority as well as making sure that the level of trust that team members have over each other is increasing. The other thing that is very important is that the younger people, in terms of experience but better skill set should also be given the chance (O’Neill et al. 2016). Not only that, rather than opting for the teams that are working at the single department, the element of cross functionality has to be brought at the larger level to make sure that better synergy is developed among the people (Goetsch & Davis, 2014).
As discussed earlier, the aviation and the airline industry is such that even a single negative headline is going to be enough to completely destroy the image of the organization (Gu et al. 2014). “No Name” is walking on thin ropes at the moment and it is an area of critical importance and at the moment, even though the performance reviews are carried out for the sake of it, they are not adding much value to the large run working of the organization (O’Reilly et al. 2014). The worst part is that the Head office have developed a very stringent approach as far as the way these reviews are carried out as they do not take into account the broader financial and economic factors. It means that that they are not going to be adopting larger industry practices if they keep on doing that (O’Reilly et al. 2014). The concrete policy is not seen when one talk about the way performance management is carried out (O’Reilly et al. 2014). At the same time, the level of consistency across the teams and how they review their performance on their own is also not working at the moment (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2015). So this is another area that is needed to be taken into reckoning as far as the way broader evaluation of the objective is supposed to be done at each and every level (Harrison & Lock, 2017).
Coming towards the training and development, it would be beneficial for the organization if they set up a learning and development department (Luthans & Doh, 2018). This department should or even a team should be setup that should work towards how the learning and development as well as the training programs can be setup to make sure that some of the areas where the organization is lacking are looked at (Helmreich & Merritt, 2017). They would go a long way in determination of the required set of skills for the people as well as making sure that some of the cultural issues that are hampering the progress of the organization are also resolved in an appropriate manner for the given time period (Helmreich & Merritt, 2017). The problem that is faced by the “No Name” is that there are no systems for most of the thing that are being done in the organization and they seems to have developed a methodical approach towards the way they tend to do certain things (Helmreich & Merritt, 2017).
There are two main dominant theories that one gets to see as far as the performance management is talked about (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2015). The one theory is about how Goal Setting is being done by the employees on their own and when the organizations align their goals with the individual goal, the improvement is witnessed (Hogan & Coote, 2014). Then there is expectancy theory that talks about the fact that how goal setting and objectives that are set by the organization itself allows the employee to adapt to these changes (Hogan & Coote, 2014). Most of the management sciences experts have claimed the fact that Expectancy theory is one of the ways forward for the organizations if they want to make sure that they are able to bring the best out of their employees (Hogan & Coote, 2014). The central hypothesis of this theory is that how most of the times the organizations are working on the basis of an unanticipated factor that allows them to make sure that they are following the valuable goals that are set by them during the process of goal creation (Luthans & Doh, 2018). In that way, the individuals are going to be expected to adhere to the broader set of goals that are set by the organization and then adapt to these goals (Hogan & Coote, 2014).
The key thing that has to be looked at is the way No Name” should look is that what are some of the performance approvals criterion that they have setup in the organization (Khan & Hashemi, 2017). It goes a long way towards making sure that the right set of message is being delivered to the employees in terms of the way they are being evaluated (Khan & Hashemi, 2017). The other thing that is being discussed in the above section as well is that how the personal and hard skills of the employees are in synch with the broader goals that are setup by the organization (Khan & Hashemi, 2017). It means making sure that only people who adhere to the basic values and goals of the organization should be there. Conscious effort should be made to change the culture where not only the technical expertise and the management of your own goals should be valued instead, effort should be made towards developing people to achieve the cross functional dynamics that are working at the broader level to say the least (Laudon & Laudon, 2016). In that way, people would look at themselves and simplify the processes that are being carried out at the moment as well as make sure that they are setting their goals at the appropriate level for the next cycle as well. No Name” name should also go out of its way to ensure that the minimum performance goals are communicated to the employees (Laudon & Laudon, 2016). The training and development department should also look at the way performance management system is going to be developed and their role is going to be very important in the execution of the whole process (Laudon & Laudon, 2016). So there are going to be some whole sale changes at the level of the organization. It means that some of the people who are not able to adapt to these changes and the evolving workplace dynamic would be eventually filtered out (Liden et al. 2014). The people who would be working though would be motivated and driven enough to take the “No Name” forward in turn resolving most of the issues in terms of performance and technical expertise.
In the light of the case study, there are many things that can be done at the level of the organization to make sure that the cultural breakdown and the improvement of the performance management structure can be carried out (Liden et al. 2014). The important thing during the course of the whole process is to make sure that the people who are the part of the change management as well as the involvement of all the stakeholders should be carried out in an appropriate level. Furthermore, the performance management system is one of the more crucial aspects of the program so effort must be made to ensure that it is one of the areas where complete attention is being given by all the stakeholders to say the least (Liden et al. 2014).
Ahammad, M. F., Tarba, S. Y., Liu, Y., & Glaister, K. W. (2016). Knowledge transfer and cross-border acquisition performance: The impact of cultural distance and employee retention. International Business Review, 25(1), 66-75.
Bortolotti, T., Boscari, S., & Danese, P. (2015). Successful lean implementation: Organizational culture and soft lean practices. International Journal of Production Economics, 160, 182-201.
Cameron, E., & Green, M. (2015). Making sense of change management: A complete guide to the models, tools and techniques of organizational change. Kogan Page Publishers.
Chang, C. L. H., & Lin, T. C. (2015). The role of organizational culture in the knowledge management process. Journal of Knowledge management, 19(3), 433-455.
Epstein, M. J., & Buhovac, A. R. (2014). Making sustainability work: Best practices in managing and measuring corporate social, environmental, and economic impacts. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Epstein, M. J., Buhovac, A. R., & Yuthas, K. (2015). Managing social, environmental and financial performance simultaneously. Long range planning, 48(1), 35-45.
Goetsch, D. L., & Davis, S. B. (2014). Quality management for organizational excellence. Upper Saddle River, NJ: pearson.
Gu, V. C., Hoffman, J. J., Cao, Q., & Schniederjans, M. J. (2014). The effects of organizational culture and environmental pressures on IT project performance: A moderation perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 32(7), 1170-1181.
Harrison, F., & Lock, D. (2017). Advanced project management: a structured approach. Routledge.
Helmreich, R. L., & Merritt, A. C. (2017). Culture at work in aviation and medicine: National, organizational and professional influences. Routledge.
Hogan, S. J., & Coote, L. V. (2014). Organizational culture, innovation, and performance: A test of Schein’s model. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1609-1621.
Khan, F., & Hashemi, S. J. (2017). Introduction. In Methods in Chemical Process Safety (Vol. 1, pp. 1-36). Elsevier.
Laudon, K. C., & Laudon, J. P. (2016). Management information system. Pearson Education India.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Liao, C., & Meuser, J. D. (2014). Servant leadership and serving culture: Influence on individual and unit performance. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1434-1452.
Luthans, F., & Doh, J. P. (2018). International management: Culture, strategy, and behavior. McGraw-Hill.
O’Reilly III, C. A., Caldwell, D. F., Chatman, J. A., & Doerr, B. (2014). The promise and problems of organizational culture: CEO personality, culture, and firm performance. Group & Organization Management, 39(6), 595-625.
O’Neill, J. W., Beauvais, L. L., & Scholl, R. W. (2016). The use of organizational culture and structure to guide strategic behavior: An information processing perspective. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 2(2).
Pulakos, E. D., Hanson, R. M., Arad, S., & Moye, N. (2015). Performance management can be fixed: An on-the-job experiential learning approach for complex behavior change. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 51-76.
Reiche, B. S., Stahl, G. K., Mendenhall, M. E., & Oddou, G. R. (Eds.). (2016). Readings and cases in international human resource management. Taylor & Francis.
Rosemann, M., & vom Brocke, J. (2015). The six core elements of business process management. In Handbook on business process management 1 (pp. 105-122). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Schermerhorn, J., Davidson, P., Poole, D., Woods, P., Simon, A., & McBarron, E. (2014). Management: Foundations and Applications (2nd Asia-Pacific Edition). John Wiley & Sons.
Valmohammadi, C., & Roshanzamir, S. (2015). The guidelines of improvement: Relations among organizational culture, TQM and performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 164, 167-178.
Van Grembergen, W., & De Haes, S. (2018, January). Introduction to the Minitrack on IT Governance and its Mechanisms. In Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
Wang, C. L., & Rafiq, M. (2014). Ambidextrous organizational culture, contextual ambidexterity and new product innovation: A comparative study of UK and Chinese high‐tech firms. British Journal of management, 25(1), 58-76.
Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2015). Managing the unexpected: Sustained performance in a complex world. John Wiley & Sons.