Foundation Of Management For Organizational Productivity

In Favor

Discuss about the Foundation of Management for Organizational Productivity.

Organizational productivity varies due to different organizational cultures and different organizational policies. Moreover, operations of an organization are always subjected to the circumstances of the external environment. Considering this particular scenario, it is to say that management of any business organization could not practice one individual policy or system for a long time. Management operations should be changed or modified due to different internal and external circumstances. The following paper is aiming to construct a critical argument for understanding whether there is only one best way for management or not. To accomplish this individual purpose, the assignment hereby is desiring to support the statement that says that there is only one individual way for managing the workforce and at the same will contradict it with relevant concepts. The essay has decided to evaluate the favorable side of the statement by discussing about mass production, standardization if products and the aspect of efficiency. On the other hand, in terms of disapproval, the paper will display the inefficiency of the statement by analyzing different types of production procedures, technical systems, organizational goals, and types of employee in addition, the frequency of uncertainty in business.

It can be considered that there is only one constant way for management if one looks at organizational desires to acquire mass production. In this respect, it is to denote with utmost priority that production of a distinct product on a bulky amount of standardized products in an efficient way. It is to regard in the sense that the entire idea of mass communication has been derived from the time of industrial evolution when the company owners realized the significance of large-scale production along with the importance of having an apt organizational management. Following the theoretical concept of scientific management, mass production can be accomplished through the efficient input of the labors (Marsh 2012). Therefore, it is indicative of the fact that to acquire mass production, there is only one-way to manage and achieve, which is active and effective labor engagement. However, it would be completely wrong to perceive the fact that labors are in charge of production operation as they have the sole responsibility to conform the tasks, which are determined scientifically.

The concept of product standardization is intertwined with mass production as the phrase product standardization refers to the process of homogenizing the items, which are desirable to most of the customers and infuse them into one. The fundamental aim is therefore to reduce the buying choices of the customer and focused on to one particular product that carries near about all the desirable features. Hence, it is understandable that the ultimate aim of the process of standardizing product is to earn customer attention and acquire mass production (Baud-Lavigne et al. 2012). Therefore, it is also assumable that the process of standardizing product could be accomplished only through labor efficiency. Here, it is required to underpin that labor efficiency is driven by standardization of every working condition within an organization (Smith 2012). It is necessary to keep in mind in this sense that standardized working condition is affordable through the principles coined by Taylor in his concept regarding scientific management.

Mass Production

According to the concept, scientific selection, cooperation between managers and labors and equal division of work – are some of the most significant principles those can only standardize work. Thus, it can be said that the only way for standardizing products is to standardize work conditions.

As mass production and standardization of a product are possible through efficient labor input, therefore it can be perceived that similarly like these, two mentioned aspects, labor efficiency can be driven through only one way. The concept that says that efficiency is the paramount of achievement is aptly applicable for organizational productivity. According to Winslaw Taylor, it is true that there is only one distinct way for having mass production with standardized product, which is to sufficiently analyze and improvise one task before allocating it to the labor (El-Haber 2016). More specifically, in Taylor’s words, the only best way to increase efficiency in terms of tasks, which is the scientific management as it erase chance of uncertainty and removes every possible variables (El-Haber 2016). Variable aspects in this sense are referred to different employee behavior and different standard method, which finally end up in making unstandardized working culture. Therefore, it can be understood that the in one hand, mass production, standardized products and efficiency for success are interrelated, on the other it could be perceived that each of these facets can be only drawn successfully through one best way, which is the scientific way.

On the contrary, to the favorable aspects and argument presented in the above section for the hypothetical statement, it is to opine that the premise of business organization in present scenario is prone to flexibility. In other words, it may be said that an organization can run successful only when it earns the natural ability to adapt. Therefore, flexibility has now become the key to success (Bonaimé et al. 2013). Hence, it is not an agreeable fact that organization should adhere to only one possible way. For instance, it should be kept in mind that flexibility is required due to different kinds of production procedure. As per the standpoint of Cognitive theory, business enterprises are unique in terms of production as every organization irrespective of their production type, faces intense challenges from the external and internal environments (El-Haber 2016).

On the other hand, production procedures alter due to different organizational goals. Therefore production has extended from being solely mass productive to lean. Contrary to mass production, which opens up door for rampant wastages, lean production is established to remove the negative side of mass production. The attempt to improvise the existing production process is considered as one of the most convenient way to make management and labor more efficient (Yang et al. 2015). Therefore, it is to perceive that there is certainly no single way for management.

Standardized Products

It is to denote in this purpose that when there are different kinds of production procedures, there should be different types of technical systems. According to Burton et al. (2015), in an era where industrial growth is advancing with rampant technical discoveries, staple technical frame for business operations and production could not be acceptable. On the other hand, judging from the theoretical standpoint of contingency, success of management depends on the management’s ability to change its operations according to varied situations. An organization is bound to change or modify its existing technical system for implementing new procedures for employee training, which necessary to increase the employees’ capacity for creativity (Hayes 2014). For instance, when a company required converting its production style from mass to lean production, it certainly needs to adopt the concept of flexible machinery, which instead of being devoted and integrated with a single task can be reprogrammed with multiple procedures of business.   

This particular phrase refers to the power of befitting into the distinct needs and goals of an organization. It is regard in this context that a successful organization structure could be accomplished only when the structure would fit into the current needs and situation of the organization. As per Büschgens et al. (2013), flexibility is probably the only constant aspect of business organizations in the present times. Here again, it is to say that an organization could not stay negligent about the significance of utilizing the concept of flexibility. Therefore, optimization of a business culture and more specifically the structure could be driven through acceptance of rapid change in both internal and external environment. For example, when an organization encounters recession which is an external circumstance, it essentially requires making huge changes in the production, marketing, finance and employee management policies in terms of organizational change. In a situation of recession or in pivotal internal crisis like employee mutiny and technical failure could not be managed with a traditional and staple way of management. Optimization of a business in such a situation could be acquired by changing the existing policies (Burton et al. 2015). Most importantly, optimization to this extent is applicable for both mass and lean production.

As stated by De Spiegelaere et al. (2012), optimization or success of business is dependable upon organizational goals or mission. The production style in this case matters strongly as organizational aim is fundamentally related with production and revenue instead of fruitful brand image and brand loyalty. It is to jot down in this respect that organizational goals are prone to fluctuation as per the altering attribute of the target market. Rudimentary types of organizational goals are long terms goals and short term goals. An organization generally changes its age old long term goals when the enterprise realizes that their staple customer group has changed or the company itself is running in loss. Operational strategies taken in time of having long terms goals would not be befitted in the process of accomplishing short terms goals. In this context, it is to state that technical modification and structural change are mostly found determined by the changing buying behavior of the target audience. It is to keep in mind in this sense that buying behavior of customers alters due to cultural, economic and political change. Therefore, it is understandable that organizational goal is subjected to all of these mentioned aspects. With this realization, it is to indicate that with only one particular operational strategy a company cannot fruitfully change or modify its goals.

Efficiency is Paramount

An organization generally holds different types of employees, such as full-time, half time, probationary and casual. In the words of Pinsky (2014), it is generally mistaken that an organization’s strategic policies for its human resource management does not need any variation according to different types of employees. Successful labor engagement is possible when an organization satisfies its employees according to their needs. Expectation of a full time worker will not be similar with the expectation of half time workers. Therefore, human resource managements require possessing different policies regarding wage flexibility and numerical flexibility. Numerical flexibility requires to be applied for representing the just-in-time principles regarding the deployment of the department of human resource. On the other side, wage flexibility is essential for satisfying different employees. Satisfaction of the workforce is final determinant of optimization of business culture. Therefore, with one particular notion of human resource management could prove detrimental for a company’s relation with its employees.

A business organization is always subjected to its external and internal business environment. Uncertainty related to business environment refers to uncertain situation of political environment, employee relations and customer expectation. These three particulars are the predominant factors for every business organization irrespective of its goals and structure. Therefore, it is easy to assume that the necessity of flexibility in management is standing on the uncertainty of a company’s external environment (Dutta et al. 2016). Hence, again it is true that keeping in mind about the uncertainty, an enterprise could not just adopt only one best way for management.  

Conclusion

From the entire discourse above, it can be understood that the concept of having only one best way for management has been useful and successful in the time of industrial revolution. However, in present context, considering different kinds of organizational structure along with varied organizational goal and different employees, an organization cannot accomplish its expectation by optimizing only one strategic standpoint. More elaborately, from the part, which has worked in favor for the statement that says there is only one-way for management, it seems that for acquiring standardized product an organization only requires to increase labor efficiency. Therefore, here it can be said that standardization of product is only gained through one particular way. On the contrary, from the next segment that has contradicted the argument, it can be deduced that single way management does not befit with different types of production procedure. From this part, it is understandable that organizational success depends on every organization’s ability to maintain flexibility or the capacity to stay adaptable for any circumstances. Moreover, from the study it is easy to underpin that one single technical framework could not afford different operational frameworks. 

References

Baud-Lavigne, B., Agard, B. and Penz, B., 2012. Mutual impacts of product standardization and supply chain design. International Journal of Production Economics, 135(1), pp.50-60. Available at: https://www.mgi.polymtl.ca/agard/fr/publications/doc/2012/2012_IJPR-Baud-Lavigne-Agard-Penz.pdf [Accessed on 10-12-2016]

Bonaimé, A.A., Hankins, K.W. and Harford, J., 2013. Financial flexibility, risk management, and payout choice. Review of Financial Studies, p.hht045. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jarrad_Harford/publication/228204620_Financial_Flexibility_Risk_Management_and_Payout_Choice/links/00b49529ae43e4de72000000.pdf [Accessed on 10-12-2016]

Burton, R.M., Obel, B. and Håkonsson, D.D., 2015. Organizational design: A step-by-step approach. Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://www.langtoninfo.com/web_content/9780521617338_frontmatter.pdf [Accessed on 10-12-2016]

Büschgens, T., Bausch, A. and Balkin, D.B., 2013. Organizational culture and innovation: A meta?analytic review. Journal of product innovation management, 30(4), pp.763-781. Available at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/39961909/Organizational_Culture_and_Innovation_-_Meta_Analysis.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires=1482222101&Signature=XOFZW%2BmHLZUjgTGRpOT4WF1zPZU%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DOrganizational_Culture_and_Innovation_A.pdf

[Accessed on 10-12-2016]

De Spiegelaere, S., Van Gyes, G. and Hootegem, G.V., 2012. Job Design and Innovative Work Behavior: One size does not fit all types of employees. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation (JEMI), 8(4), pp.5-20. Available at: https://repozytorium.wsb-nlu.edu.pl/bitstream/handle/11199/162/De%20Spiegelaere%20Stan%20i%20in.,%20JEMI.pdf?sequence=2 [Accessed on 10-12-2016]

Dutta, S.K., Lawson, R.A. and Marcinko, D., 2016. A Conceptual Foundation for Management Accounting Information to Support Sustainability Strategies. Advances in Accounting, 31(1). Available at: https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=952112098007006069103076028021099024031086037020053013069083082065096028112124102087055031099031027019034093126092124092002007033047002081054080081100116122104029039076022117012090118086110002010080090027064115001109102081114096118082091070015085116&EXT=pdf [Accessed on 10-12-2016]

El-Haber, N., 2016. MGT1FOM, Foundations of Management, McGraw-Hill Education.  Available at: https://latrobe.rl.talis.com/lists/CB571774-C55A-7A7F-E1CB-F1B68127A441.pdf [Accessed on 10-12-2016]

Hayes, J., 2014. The theory and practice of change management. Palgrave Macmillan. Available at: https://books.google.co.in/books?hl=en&lr=&id=-jMdBQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=The+theory+and+practice+of+change+management.+&ots=50Zg7rmDPr&sig=6lp4v44f28zeVFrqANvTOM09iio#v=onepage&q=The%20theory%20and%20practice%20of%20change%20management.&f=false [Accessed on 10-12-2016]

Marsh, P., 2012. The new industrial revolution: consumers, globalization and the end of mass production. Yale University Press. Available at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/capsule-review/new-industrial-revolution-consumers-globalization-and-end-mass-production [Accessed on 10-12-2016]

Pinsky, M.R., 2014. Clinical Trials without conceptual foundation may produce flawed results for the management of fluid therapy in the critically ill. British journal of anaesthesia, p.aeu143. Available at: https://bja.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/05/31/bja.aeu143.full [Accessed on 10-12-2016]

Smith, C. ed., 2012. Insect colonization and mass production. Elsevier. Available at: https://books.google.co.in/books?hl=en&lr=&id=YnrxyRp7n5wC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Insect+colonization+and+mass+production&ots=PuRhGU9KOg&sig=C0Tt40qwASBClOHkZYLIzoIZ95U#v=onepage&q=Insect%20colonization%20and%20mass%20production&f=false [Accessed on 10-12-2016]

Yang, J., Zhang, F., Jiang, X. and Sun, W., 2015. Strategic flexibility, green management, and firm competitiveness in an emerging economy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 101, pp.347-356. Available at: https://tarjomefa.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/5166-English.pdf [Accessed on 10-12-2016]