Market Orientation And Organizational Commitment In Maritime Safety Company

Discuss about the Market Orientation And Organisational Commitment In Organisational.

The global market in maritime safety was 17.3 billion US dollars in 2016. It is forecasted to grow at the rate of 7.7% in the period of 2017 through to 2024. The market is driven by compliances and standards, safety awareness, increasing trade activities and freight. The segmentation of the market is based on technologies and systems, access control, surveillance and tracking segment and the rest of the segments are segmented into long-range acoustic device. The Maritime Safety Company deals only with maritime safety and delivering technology services. The company operates in a global environment and therefore faces competition from others players in the same global market. BAE Systems and Elbit Systems Ltd are some of the players this same market among many competitors (DataBridge Market Research, 2018).

The issues are that they have three different points of inflection that has to stop the transformation from taking place. This hindrance was causing a number of concerns to the board and the company.  There is a concern about financial, reputation and sustainability of services.

In addition, the same people that are providing traditional services are the same people trying to hinder transformation. There is no actual completion day or reasons to successfully deliver the transformation because the company was operating successfully through delivering services to its clients.

The approaches that were adopted to addressing the issues bring in in-house the additional capabilities in the same area without separating and bringing in new perspective and approaches. This was continuous, were not evolving, not identified and no good cause analysis or a path to follow the organization.

Moreover, there was lack of innovation and strategy that was put in place by the company. There were increased reputation risk and the commercial risk that was increasing on daily basis and therefore the need to identify different options to be implemented so as to move forward.

The bigger problem is caused by the company as there is no independent perspective and a clear path that guarantees success so as to effect the transformation. The independent oversight section in-place is small and does not impact on the transformation and changes through the various points of inflection. Additionally, the degree of organizational capacity is missing, unidentified and has never been independently identified through previous paths. Moreover, there is no burning platform that ignites the desire to change because of the notion that they are operating successfully in the traditional way.

Causes

Through the process, the company realized that the structure that was in place was not going to allow successful delivery of the transformation. The transformation has cultural, organizational and technology-based elements.

The organization irrespective of its successful nature as well as its reputation in the market, there is short of initiatives for change. The ill-match initiatives seen in the organization is due to the fact that efforts get focused on one or two of the three axes of change. The first alternative that is better for change in the organization is setting of top-down direction. The approach gives a focus for change and transformation in the entire organization as well as developing amble conditions that are vital for improvements of performance (Carlos Pinho et al.2014, 374-398). Additionally, a broad-based there is the need for a bottom-up approach so that it enhances performance improvement. This permits the employees to take approaches that are fresh in enhancing performance and solving issues that may arise. On top of this, there is the need for redesign of the cross-functional process so as to facilitate linking of functions, activities, and information in new methods in order to allow the breakthrough in quality, timeliness and improve in cost (Hill et al. 2014).

The other alternative that energizes the team is setting and rewarding quick wins. It provides a tangible new approach to doing things which get enshrined in the transformation vision and culture for change. Since the transformation takes time and involves many people, a number of these people will not wake-up for the task unless they get strategic goals that are short-term as well as achievable for the long path to ultimate success (Dyer et al. 2013).

Moreover, the organization needs to create transformation task force charged with the role of ensuring that there is no complacency that permits old habits. Despite the fact that the efforts for change cannot be perceived in a short time, the task force has to embrace and advocate for resiliency fueled by a good reward system. The team is held accountable and gets a reward based on their achievements (Klang et al. 2014, 454-478).

On the other hand, must have a purpose for the change. When there is a purpose for change, there is the creation of the power to transform the organization. It indicates the point at which the organization is situated at the time for the change. This makes the employee rejuvenated and energized, creates strong alignment in the company, boost customer loyalty, greater value for investment and new markets. According to Visnjic et al. (2016, 36-52), leaders currently endeavor in people, planet, and profit. The essentiality of profit generation is to get the employees, make them satisfied and show a responsibility in the outside society through the commitment to embracing sustainable practices in relation to the environment.

Alternatives

The criteria that get employed in arriving at the options to make recommendations are based on the dynamic market that is rapidly evolving. In order to remain competitive in the maritime safety market, Martine Safety Company has to upscale its strategies to be sustainable such that they are well above the players in the market. The current state of using traditional method and strategies will soon be overtaken by events and will find the organization in a bad state as far as the stiff competition is a consideration. The competition based on technology adoption and change in culture by other players in the market will make Maritime Safety Company lack behind and risk losing the market share they enjoy. Customers, on the other hand, are upbeat with current technological changes and are adapting and using this vital tool for better services to their doorsteps. In view of this, there is need to change the company culture, embrace technology, develop a clear path to success and set strategies with new perspective and approach.

There is a need for Maritime Safety Company to develop a target operating model and get the model aligned with the goals of transformation. In order to realize this, the process begins with benchmarking with other players in the market and making the assessment so as to make a comparison with the current state of the organization Smith and Wendy 2014).In the evaluation of the organization, the profitability gained is as a result of the reputation build over time, the operations set and steering made with time. However, with the current stiff market and emergence of tough players coupled with application and implementation of technology, Maritime Company will soon be defeated owing to its use of the traditional model (Cummings et al. 2014).

It is therefore of paramount importance to eliminate, improve and replace core traditional processes employed currently. These core processes need not be changed but instead reimagine and rewire approaches and the viable option is to use the digital lens. The use of technology coupled with changing customer behavior compels companies for radical changes with the aim of improving product and services. In addition, when the internal processes in the organization employ technology, there is increased transparency, create levels for making quick and effective decisions (Welford and Richard 2013). In the application of the target Model, the lean approach put forth great value. It begins with the value position examined from the customer’s perspective as opposed to internal perspective. The processes get broken down into discrete steps matching client’s needs, creating value and eliminating waste. This deals away with the friction that emanates between departments as well as value streams. In addition, through the use of this approach, the organization at the same time promotes learning organization which is vital for transformation (Benn et al. 2014).

Decision Criteria

The other recommendation applicable is rethinking of the business model. Maritime Safety Company has a task in this aspect ( (Bocken et al. 2014, 42-56). The traditional model employed for a length of time get superseded by changing strategies in the market thus shift in strategy, value reevaluation, as well as focus on new services and products. The traditional model cannot be done away immediately but get juxtaposed with the new models like the innovative-go-to-market method or digital strategy. The common transformation trap is used to make flexible processes that get refined with time (Arend and Richard 2013, 390-402).

The organization through the use transformation task force requires leading from the front as change agents. The team task to ensure change, as well as transformation, must show leadership capabilities (Cruickshank et al. 2013, 271-290).The leader has to lead and be a role model for the people to follow. When the right committed people are the task to lead, the people providing traditional services will not try to hinder transformation (Goetsch, David and Stanley 2014). Maritime Safety Company instead of using the same people as agents of change requires bringing in new people with the right skills that will be agents of change (Fitzsimmons et al. 2014, 80-94). Even though this might prove to be difficult owing to resistance and denial from the employee, the task team has to induce a process for change so that it follows denial, resistance, exploration, and commitment phases (Trevino et al. 2016).

In addition to the above recommendation for change and transformation, the Maritime Safety Company requires relooking into the culture of the company (Katzenbach et al. 2015). There is the need for the employees to transform what they do and the manner of doing the task and this call for a change in behavior. Design and delayering of the organization bring in changes in behavior that facilitate a good environment that encourages the exercise of desired behavior (Nederveen Pieterse et al. 2013, 782-804).

The initial stage of implementation is to have the right people in the organization with skills and competencies. These require the organization to train, recruit and hire to get people with new competencies. As this is a task, the implication is that resources get involved. The organization has to set up resources that are sufficient to make implementation happen and the support of management and the board is needed.

Additionally, there is need to create a target operating model. This is possible by setting up the structure delineating distinct lines of authority, with clear and open communications lines. It is important to eliminate, improve and replace core traditional processes by reimagining and rewiring the approaches used. The viable option is digital lens.

Recommended Solutions

The Maritime Safety Company has to change the culture of the organization. There is a requirement for workforce to change what they do and the way of doing work. This requires an adjustment in conduct. Plan and delayering of the association acquire changes in conduct that encourage great condition that supports the exercise of wanted behavior.

References

Arend, Richard J. "The business model: Present and future—beyond a skeumorph." Strategic

Organization 11, no. 4 (2013): 390-402.

Benn, Suzanne, Melissa Edwards, and Tim Williams. Organizational change for corporate

sustainability. Routledge, 2014.

Bocken, Nancy MP, Samuel W. Short, P. Rana, and Steve Evans. "A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes." Journal of cleaner production

65 (2014): 42-56.

Carlos Pinho, José, Ana Paula Rodrigues, and Sally Dibb. "The role of corporate culture, market

orientation and organisational commitment in organisational performance: the case of

non-profit organisations." Journal of Management Development 33, no. 4 (2014): 374-398.

Cruickshank, Andrew, Dave Collins, and Sue Minten. "Culture change in a professional sports

team: Shaping environmental contexts and regulating power." International journal of sports science & coaching 8, no. 2 (2013): 271-290.

Cummings, Thomas G., and Christopher G. Worley. Organization development and change.

Cengage learning, 2014.

DataBridge Market Research. 2018.  Global Maritime Safety Market by Manufacturers, Regions,

Type and Application, Forecast to 2024. Accessed 4 May 2018. https://factsweek.com/128206/global-maritime-safety-market-by-manufacturers-regions-type-and-application-forecast-to-2024-2/

Dyer, William G., and Jeffrey H. Dyer. Team building: Proven strategies for improving team

performance. John Wiley & Sons, 2013.

Fitzsimmons, Stacey R., and Christina L. Stamper. "How societal culture influences friction in

the employee–organization relationship." Human Resource Management Review 24, no. 1 (2014): 80-94.

Goetsch, David L., and Stanley B. Davis. Quality management for organizational excellence.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: pearson, 2014.

Hill, Charles WL, Gareth R. Jones, and Melissa A. Schilling. Strategic management: theory: an

integrated approach. Cengage Learning, 2014.

Katzenbach, Jon R., and Douglas K. Smith. The wisdom of teams: Creating the high

performance organization. Harvard Business Review Press, 2015.

Klang, David, Maria Wallnöfer, and Fredrik Hacklin. "The business model paradox: A

systematic review and exploration of antecedents." International Journal of Management Reviews 16, no. 4 (2014): 454-478.

Locke, Edwin A., and Gary P. Latham, eds. New developments in goal setting and task

performance. Routledge, 2013.

Nederveen Pieterse, Anne, Daan Van Knippenberg, and Dirk Van Dierendonck. "Cultural

diversity and team performance: The role of team member goal orientation." Academy of Management Journal 56, no. 3 (2013): 782-804.

Smith, Wendy K. "Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic

paradoxes." Academy of Management Journal 57, no. 6 (2014): 1592-1623.

Trevino, Linda K., and Katherine A. Nelson. Managing business ethics: Straight talk about how

to do it right. John Wiley & Sons, 2016.

Visnjic, Ivanka, Frank Wiengarten, and Andy Neely. "Only the brave: Product innovation,

service business model innovation, and their impact on performance." Journal of Product Innovation Management 33, no. 1 (2016): 36-52.

Welford, Richard. Hijacking environmentalism: Corporate responses to sustainable

development. Routledge, 2013.