There appears to be a multitude of underlying problems that are consuming the HBS department Essay Example

There appears to be a multitude of underlying problems that are consuming the HBS department Essay The department is understood to be the worst in the factory with claims and evidence of bad attitude, poor atmosphere, low motivation and low job satisfaction. Over the past eight years a high turnover of six managers has occurred. This was accompanied with managers not meeting or being told of production targets and usually with high level of wastage. HBS have many interpersonal/intergroup problems within the department. This is not only confined to within inter and intra parts of the packing and production staff but also between the supervisors of both the teams. This is confirmed with the large amount of time consumed by the department manager resolving conflict between both the supervisors in the packing and manufacturing department. The average amount of time consumed by conflict being 25% in private sector and 50% in public (Harvey and Brown, 2001) Although in this case it looks like more than 25% of the managers time is being spent on conflict. We will write a custom essay sample on There appears to be a multitude of underlying problems that are consuming the HBS department specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on There appears to be a multitude of underlying problems that are consuming the HBS department specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on There appears to be a multitude of underlying problems that are consuming the HBS department specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer Although as we will discuss shortly some conflict may actually be healthy as in the interactionist approach it is apparent that too much may actually provide what G.Morgan terms as dysfunctional energy. Badly handled competition between the two supervisors is also a problem. It is very common for the production department to ignore requests, concerns from packaging and proceed in increasing and meeting production targets with the comment its my job to produce sweets This kind of behavior would also be common with what is termed sub optimization. Sub-optimization usually has a negative effect for the organization as a whole as the department is driving to maximum it own goals rather than that of the organization. This can be seen in the xy activity used by C.Oswick. The lack of communication is also apparent. Despite being a highly interdependent department it appears that little communication occurs among and between each departments staff at ground level and also at senior. Much of the Packaging staff are imbedded in interpersonal conflict and the production staff communicate very rarely among even themselves. Dissatisfaction among its manufacturer side of the department has also risen through the misunderstanding and incorrect implementation of the pay structure regarding the job grading scheme. Despite this scheme enabling the employees to be trained in up to 40 different lines of production, many of the skills learnt depreciate due to lack of usage with the supervisor usually tending to assign staff to the areas they perform best at. Staff as a result are becoming increasingly bored with their lack of job differentiation. It also appears that staff are unhappy at what they call Impossible Levels of production being asked of them. This results in more waste as described in research by W.F Whyte in money and motivation which we will discuss later. Finally on a more practical level there also appears to be problems with the age of machinery. Breakdowns appears to be regular which is damaging to production and will render the packaging department useless. THE DIAGNOSIS OF THE CAUSES There would appear to be several key factors with many interlinked and the main causes being: lack of communication, mishandled competition, inter-group conflict, role conflict, role ambiguity, sub-optimization and inter-group relationships. One of the major problems affecting organizational effectiveness is the amount of dysfunctional energy expended in inappropriate competition and fighting between groups that should be collaborating (Beckhard 1969) As we can see from the quote above conflict can cause plenty of dysfunctional energy. The major example of this would be the conflict between both the supervisors of the department. More energy is being spent on conflict about such things as power imbalance, role ambiguity than actually listen to the problems at ground floor level. This also effects management effectiveness as much of his work capacity is consumed by trying to solve conflict. Other determinants that interlink or promote growth of conflict would be role ambiguity and sub-optimization. Sub-optimization occurs when A group optimizes its own sub goals but loses sight of the larger organization goals. (L.J Mullins) This is currently occurring between the packaging and production department and is underlined by the production department having a power imbalance over the packaging department. They are able to adjust production speeds to their liking and so therefore determine output and meet their own targets. However this currently is without any consideration regarding the packaging department who are not always able to manage the larger output from production. Although production are meeting their targets for their subgroup they are actually hindering the company as packaging are unable to pack the products efficiently as they are unable to cope with the sheer volume. This therefore causes conflict between both supervisors. Role ambiguity also plays a key role in conflict caused. Role ambiguity exists when an individual or the members of the group are not clear about their functions, purposes and goals within the organization (Rosenfeld 1999) This is certainly arising within HBS department as many of the employees dont know their targets for production, only simply that they have to produce. Much of the department is also operating without feedback, this causes ambiguity as they are not being reassured about their functions and purposes. This as well as causing conflict will prove to be a de-motivating factor among the work force. Communication and co-operation is also a key problem. Many of workers are rarely communicating with each other on the production line and there are many interpersonal problems among the packaging staff. The unwillingness of the supervisors to listen or co-operate with workers for example the fact they havent listen to staff wanting to give advice from the floor or their desire of afternoons with less work load. The fact that the production supervisor isnt asking or knowing the workers threshold of production and is pushing the staff to unachievable levels of production it is resulting in the larger amounts of wastage. Research from W.F Whyte (Money and motivation) shows that factory workers have incredible guile. He determines that they are able to control many aspects of their work even under close supervision. He also talks of how many workers were able to actually cause damage to products on purpose when they are asked to work too fast a pace. This maybe one of the reasons for the high wastage at HBS Also with the staff not in frequent and constructive communication with supervisors the production feel that they can actually handle and manage the job better than the supervisors and management. This in turn has induced the workers to actually act as gatekeepers of information (Oswick and Grant 1996) this allows them to control the flow of any type of information from the production floor and detach themselves from any responsibility when things go wrong. THE RECOMMENDED PRESCRIPTION Now that we know that conflict is one of the key factors of the problems among HBS we need to start implementing techniques and changes to help address the situation. Conflict arises whenever interests collide (G.Morgan) this statement by Morgan helps us understand that several problems are caused by colliding interest. Clearly we see this with the supervisors. There are many ways in which to solve, reduce or turn conflict into a positive factor. First we must understand there are two main style approaches toward management of conflict. Firstly there is the traditional approach to conflict (Table1). This approach sees conflict as avoidable and caused by troublemakers. This is the view currently being taken by the production supervisor who wanted to get rid of the trouble makers. Under the current situation I would imply it would be over the top as it could be argued he is also a trouble maker in regards to the situation. If management were to undertake this more traditional approach large quantities of the staff would have to either leave, or be transferred with at best the conflict being solved at present but with never actually solving its root cause. This method was a great concern for Miller and Friesen (1984) who support the adoption of more proactive and anticipatory methods In this situation I would suggest a more interactionist approach to conflict (Table1) This accepts that some conflict among the organization is inevitable and is more down to the structural factors rather than troublemakers. A well managed amount of conflict can offer many advantages. It keeps people on their toes, nothing becomes too routinized and the organization isnt as resistant to change. It can also provide a basis for better decision making as there is a possibly a more diverse amount of ideas and also no ready made solution. From figure1 we see that there is a supposed optimal level of conflict and performance, it is important that the manager finds the correct level as slipping to a higher level of conflict would bring them back to the situation they are currently suffering. Training for management/supervisors should be given if required. Structure is also very important and is something I suggest looking at before analyzing individuals and groups. As Daft 1995 says Structure can often be the cause of inter-group/personal conflict. HBS need to install or reinforce their structure. Currently little feedback is being given and there appears to be no actual common reward or goal between both sections. This alone will cause conflict among the two separate subgroups as currently they are not being given stimulus to work together. If the departments are given common goals then it is likely to bring about a reduction in conflict. This is supported by the famous C.Sherif study (1953) who promotes the use of superordinated goals. The superordinated goals I would promote in this case would be the production of finished quality sweets (After packaging) The reward system would enforce this. If the production of finished sweets meets given targets then staff could be rewarded financially Out of the à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½50,000 (Adams equity theory) This would also mean negotiation/co-operation of both supervisors as they would be accessed on the final product. So no matter how many sweets the production department produced it would also have to talk with packaging to produce an effective output. The power balance would also be reduced as packaging would now be a bigger determinate in the equation. Now if they dont work together no rewards will be gained. To support the recommendations we need to improve the communication and cooperation of the organisation. Much has been discussed about the negative effects that poor communication/cooperation has on effectiveness. What HBS must implement in accordance with above is: more interaction, more negotiation, and the frequency at which it takes place. This increases collaboration and integration between both departments. It also reinforces superordinated goals and brings about such advantages as increased motivation, commitment and self esteem. This increase of communication will also bring about the harvesting of new ideas. For instance staff are not happy with rotation during off peak and on peak times. On peaks times are hindered by other departments unskilled staff, which would actually hinder production as skilled staff are covering for their mistakes, hence higher wastage. With more communication cooperation a system could be devised to suit both staff and HBS. i.e. would they be happy being trained in both departments or would staff consider being more flexible in hours with some going part time or acting as floaters for peak time. More discussion with sales would also be advisable as management can plan staff levels for on peak and off peak times. All this can come about in a suitable manner with improved integration, cooperation and communication. This applies also to staff suggestions of less work in the afternoon as well as the implementation of the training system and general lack of rotation. With and discussion, possible compromise a solution to these problems can be sort and hopefully one which is acceptable to both parties. The above is also supported by research from Paul Lawrence, Jay Lorsch whose research showed that effectiveness was closely linked to the degree of integration and communication. Once the conflict has been reduce to manageable levels it is important that management continue to keep these levels in check. Regardless of their style successful management will always depend on their ability to read developing situations. The manager must be able to analyse interest understand conflicts and explore power relations so that situations can be brought under control. In figure 2 we can see the styles of negotiating conflict. Clearly management have largely been taking avoidance as an option and letting it occur. In future management need to address the best possible solution as each situation arises. I would suggest training the Kilmann model to management to address conflict more according in the future. These recommendations infused together will bring about manageable and positive conflict. This in turn will bring about reduction in wastage and also a chance to nurture and harvest staff ideas as well as being more responsive to change.