Welcome to Week 4 of the MGM!
Below
you shall find this week's Discussion Question (DQ) as well as my
Initial Response (IR) to it followed by the Discussions had with my professor and fellow student. The post ends with my hand-in assignment for the week.
Regards,
El Tanoderno
Week 04 Discussion Question
Reading: Child, J. (2005) Organization: contemporary principles and practice. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
In working out your responses to the Discussion Question, you should choose examples from your own experience or find appropriate cases on the Web that you can discuss. Credit will be given for references you make to relevant examples from real companies.
Examine the implications of new technologies on organisation, using examples from your own company or another organisation you know well.
My Initial Response to Week 4's DQ:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Andrew,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Week 04 Discussion Question
Reading: Child, J. (2005) Organization: contemporary principles and practice. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
In working out your responses to the Discussion Question, you should choose examples from your own experience or find appropriate cases on the Web that you can discuss. Credit will be given for references you make to relevant examples from real companies.
Examine the implications of new technologies on organisation, using examples from your own company or another organisation you know well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Initial Response to Week 4's DQ:
Implications of New Technology on
Organization
The past few centuries have seen tremendous
advancements in technology that shaped the way we make business in the 21st
Century, from the Industrial Revolution in the 18th Century to entering
the Modern Age in the 20th Century and up until now, which has
become known as the ICT Revolution, Digital Era as well as the Information Age (G15,
2008) amongst many others
Since the 1950s technology has made
significant changes within organizations as organization has no longer to focus
around hierarchy and the accumulation, storage and distribution of information as
much as in traditional vertical organizational structures, bureaucracies, where
the main focus was ‘command and control’ (Zammuto et al, 2007).
Instead of using a rainforest of files in
copious amounts of file-cabinets, a company’s accumulated data is generally
stored in a main computer that is kept secure, just as was the case during an
internship at the IT department of Kuoni.
Compared to our forefathers we have such an
array of new tools it will be difficult not to leave a good amount of these out
and how they have facilitated as well as the continuous development of said
tools and how they keep facilitating, not to mention impacting, on the way we work
in organizations. The way these new technological advancements impact the
structure of an organization and the processes within an organization is
evident in both.
One aspect in which an organization
benefits from technology is by reducing a company’s costs of information
processing and communications by annually increasing processing power and
through enterprise-wide systems that create a single database hosted on a
server providing automated processing and analytical reports (Zammuto, 2007).
How does saving costs translate into organization? Simply by saving money the
organizational processes that need more focus, now, have another financial
backing source. Resources can now be increased to reward, control and integrate
or by focusing on customer needs and invest more into the R&D department to
make that new gadget the crowd so eagerly would like to have. In a structural
sense, these systems allow integration to occur across organizational
boundaries, i.e. the vertical hierarchy, and by the integrative aspects these
systems provide they decrease the necessity to use hierarchy to manage
information flows and coordinate tasks, thus perhaps making certain positions
obsolete within the chain of command. This ultimately allows people to organize
around their function itself as an employee and how the information may benefit
the organization as a whole (Zammuto, 2007) by increasing the speed and
reliability of transaction for both business-to-business (B2B) and
business-to-customer (B2C) transactions (OECD, 2005).
Another example, whilst I was
Assistant-Delegate Manager at Richmond Events (RE) in London, a fellow colleague
found out she was pregnant but, even though the company was to give her
maternity leave, she decided to work from home using the company laptop which
allows her full access to the intranet used by RE and hence the data of all
clients as well as being updated in real-time. This meant RE didn’t have to
find a replacement that wouldn’t perform all responsibilities as well as my
colleague due to unknown terrain, thus keeping the process-based activities
fully intact which wouldn’t have been able without the necessary technology.
Due to the successful integration of
working from home, which has been on the rise in Europe from the 90s (Brocklehurst,
2001), she now regularly works from home although mainly from the office. This
freedom relaxes and decreases stress found in the workplace thus increasing
performance.
Sitting amidst this revolution and looking
at the impact and implications a question might arise to some. How will our
dependence on technology fare on our overall performance in an ever competitive
market in which people become obsolete due to the convenience of technology?
References:
Brocklehurst, M. (2001) ‘Power, Identity
and New Technology Homework: Implications for ‘New Forms’ of Organizing’ Organization Studies, 22/3 [Online]
Available from: http://www.liv.ac.uk.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/library/ohecampus
(Accessed 28 January 2012)
Anon (2005) ‘ICT, E-Business and SMEs’ OECD Digital Economy Papers Number 88
[Online]
Available from: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/6/9/31919255.pdf
(Accessed 28 January 2012)
Zammuto, Raymond F. et al (2007) ‘Information
Technology and the Changing Fabric of Organization’ Organization Science Vol.18 No.5, September-October [Online]
Available from: http://www.liv.ac.uk.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/library/ohecampus
(Accessed 28 January 2012)
Good, Andrew. Regarding your employee who is
working from home do you know the percentage of
employees in your company who are allowed to do
so? Has the company reviewed the data that confirms
that most employees are more productive at home, or
why do you think the company went this way? Best, Dr. L.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------working from home do you know the percentage of
employees in your company who are allowed to do
so? Has the company reviewed the data that confirms
that most employees are more productive at home, or
why do you think the company went this way? Best, Dr. L.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Dr. Lapkoff,
Richmond Events’ London branch currently employs
an estimated 30 employers, although during my time with the company and prior
to the Credit crunch there were about 50 employees which were divided more or
less equally by occupying two floors.
During my three years at RE, as called by
employees, I’m only aware of my colleague telecommuting on such a regular basis,
although others, from time to time, were given the same privilege but on a far
less regular basis. The reason as to why she enjoys the freedom of telework
more than others is primarily because she is a very diligent, highly
time-organized, efficient and disciplined worker that dedicates oneself to
deliver no matter how stressful it might get whilst raising her first-born son
by herself.
Therefore, on the basis of trust built up
through dedicated hard work instead of reviewing any data, she was given the
regular privilege of teleworking.
This complies with the following,
‘First,
telecommuters may be more productive because they receive additional training
and/or are selected to become telecommuters because they are already the most productive
employees.’ (Butler et al, 2007).
Other employees enjoyed other privileges
which were suited to their needs. My senior, for example, was given the
privilege of taking her family, each entire summer, to her villa in Spain or
leave early in order to pick her kids up from school. During this time I would
take on her full responsibilities and report directly to the Logistics and Supply
Chain Team Manager whilst maintaining contact with her by e-mail.
London’s RE Branch is rather small and with
a pronounced horizontal structure due to consisting of 6 teams, Marketing,
Logistics & Supply Chain, Finance, PIMS International and HR as well as IT,
which all work independently from each other and therefore RE functions with
low specialization and high discretion. Each team has a team leader who controls
each team and reports directly to the manager of the branch whilst cross-conferring
with other team managers, especially IT and Finance.
Through this process-based approach
employees are given a lot of freedom, although under one condition, which is to
work diligently and to get the right results otherwise one may be made redundant.
The same colleague that became pregnant was also given a one week holiday to
Miami with her son as thanks for her hard work prior to becoming pregnant.
What has to be taken in consideration is
that telecommuting is only performed on a short-term basis at RE and not made
the principle manner of working.
‘…many
organizations offer telecommuting as an option, but are not strongly
encouraging it. This is a very telling indicator that telecommuting does not
deliver, at least at the level of the whole organization…’ (Westfall, 2004).
It is rather used as a strategic tool to
help maintain productivity, which is even found to be sustainable whilst
increasing productivity not just on a short-term but also long-term basis
(Butler et al, 2007).
Regards,
Andrew
References:
Butler et al (2007) ‘Does Telecommuting
improve Productivity: Seeking solid evidence of demonstrable productivity gains’
Communications of the ACM, April, Vol.50,
No.4 [Online]
Available from: http://www.liv.ac.uk.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/library/ohecampus
(Accessed 30 January 2012)
Westfall, Ralph D. (2004) ‘Does
Telecommuting Really Increase Productivity?’ Communications of the ACM, August,
Vol.47, No.8 [Online]
Available from: http://www.liv.ac.uk.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/library/ohecampus
(Accessed 30 January 2012)
Dear Andrew,
The company I work for also applies the work-from-home approach in
its organisation to some of its employees, however not on an everyday basis
(meaning they will stay in the office a couple of days a week). While some of
them cope with their work responsibilities (largely depending on ICT), for
others it is not the most suitable way to work. There was an example of my former
colleague who was exceptionally allowed to work from home on a permanent basis
due to her family situation and she quit after 1 month, because according to
her could not bear stress of “job” and “home” at the same time in the same
place.
Do you think there is a risk that applying this approach can lead to
family-to-work conflict bringing negative impact on the performance of
the employee who works from home?
Thank you.
Vita
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Vita,
Thank you for your interest in my post and
contributing to it with a stimulating question.
In my personal opinion, I do
believe that working from home on a permanent basis may be far more productive
for some people provided they have their own office area of the house to
provide them with a designated workplace.
Another condition, for this to work
is self-discipline and the ability to work at times of domestic stress and the
pressure of a deadline. It isn’t, most certainly, an approach to work that
should be adopted on a large scale in my opinion as most people aren’t fit to
handle all of the responsibilities, but there are a few that would excel in
such a working environment.
According to Standen et al (1999)
Telecommuting has both positive and negative effects which directly affect
family relationships and quality of life as well as one’s psychological
well-being and performance as the work-family boundary is reduced. The same paper also states that work-family
conflict due to this boundary crossing is expected to happen.
If one is single, strong-minded and reliant
or with family, but has things domestically under control, then this might be just
what that persons needs in order to balance and manage each responsibility in a
time-frame that suits the relevant situation, thus increasing productivity by
the overall control of one’s life in all aspects. This control, however, may cause
tension between family members if they are overly monitored (Standen et al,
1999).
In regards to you former colleague, I
believe she just wasn’t fit for such an approach on a permanent basis even though
she was exceptional. Depending on what issues you former colleague had at home,
maybe the reason as to why she was exceptional at the workplace is that it was
her escape from whatever issues she was facing at home and hence company served
as her retreat. If this was the case, then yes, at the workplace she could
breathe freely and therefore perform at the level she did, but once she had to come
face-to-face with her issues at home she had nowhere else to retreat anymore
and thus the approach backfired in the way it did by rupturing her pressure-threshold.
Standen et al (1999) also mentions that the
home is traditionally perceived as a refuge and that telework could blur out
that spatial designation, although in your colleagues case this role might have
been reversed due to her issues at home, and that this overlap of roles, between
home and workplace, creates new stressors that may likely to produce states
such as tension, anxiety, fatigue, and depression.
Do you believe if she was perhaps allowed
to come in just twice or three times a week and work the rest of the week from
home on a permanent regular basis, that she might have managed better? Or
perhaps her full-time telecommuting should have been introduced step-by-step to
prevent ‘sudden immersion shock’?
Regards,
Andrew
References:
Standen et al (1999) ‘The Home as a Workplace:
Work-Family Interaction and Psychological Well-Being in Telework’ Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 1999,
Vol. 4, No. 4,368-381 [Online] Available from: http://www.liv.ac.uk.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/library/ohecampus/
(Accessed 1 February 2012)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Week 4 Hand-In Assignment:
Dear Moses,
I have to agree on your concluding sentence
that in the modern business world the ability to stay ahead in the development and
use of new technology can determine how competitive a company remains or even
the company’s survival.
Samsung Electronics, for example and as I mentioned
in my Initial Response last week, is currently the World’s biggest technology
company by sales as of 2009 pushing ahead of HP (Song & Oliver, 2010). It
continues to push forward as in the previous year Samsung overtook Apple to
become the World’s smartphone leader selling an estimated 11m more phones than
Apple in its third quarter (Arthur, 2001), and the world’s top maker of memory
chips and smartphones, estimated its profit would jump up 73%(Kim, 2012) and
thus to a lifetime high (Reuters, 2012).
Clearly this wouldn’t have been possible if
Samsung Electronics didn’t invest into its R&D department in order to maintain
the pole position or strategically invested. In fact, since it was incorporated
into the Samsung Group in 1969, as the group’s first venture into the
electronics industry, till the early 1990s, it had done little to upgrade its
capabilities in product design and development. According to Kim (1997), between
1993 and 1995, Samsung Electronics strategically invested into and acquired
eight foreign firms covering a broad spectrum of technology such as
telecommunications, computers and semiconductors diversifying further into the
information technology sector. Kim (1997) further states that Samsung
Electronics re-oriented the nature of its non-production linkages with foreign
firms to help foster the development of the design and marketing capabilities
it has lacked in the past, frequently through acquisition.
One might say that 1996 was the deciding
year for Samsung Electronics’ success it enjoys nowadays as Chairman Lee Kun
Hee launched the New Management Movement by declaring that “design would be a
source of corporate competitiveness in the new century” and thus hired six
professors to teach at the newly established IDS (Innovative Design Lab of
Samsung) to teach design courses to Samsung’s designers resulting in winning the
Industrial Design Excellence Award in 2003 for its products (Chang 2011).
Further, according to Chang (2011), Samsung
Electronics became the top-ranked firm for design excellence and created a new ‘strategic
product system’ in which all business divisions work around-the-clock to
develop new and better products.
‘R&D
at Samsung
Innovation
is crucial to Samsung's business. As new technologies are being constantly
introduced to the market, speed is essential for remaining competitive in
today's digital era, and new markets have to be pioneered continuously. Through
the interplay of creative, imaginative people; a global R&D network; an
organization that encourages collaboration and cooperation among business
partners all along the supply chain; and a strong commitment to ongoing
investment, Samsung has put R&D at the heart of everything we do.’(Samsung
Electronics, 2012)
So yes, a business requires the aptitude
and ability to invest appropriately into R&D in order to stay ahead, which
in my opinion Samsung Electronics is a great example due to its problems prior
to 1996 and how it flipped the coin to become the World’s leader in technology.
Regards,
Andrew
References
Song, J. & Oliver, C. (2010) Samsung
beats HP to pole position [Online] Seoul: Financial Times. Available from:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/c48d477a-0c3b-11df-8b81-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1k5t451vn
(Accessed 21 January 2012)
Arthur, C. (2011) Samsung overtakes Apple to become world
smartphone leader [Online] The Guardian. Available from:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/oct/28/samsung-overtakes-apple-smartphone
(Accessed 31 January 2012)
Kim, M. (2012) Samsung to report Q4: Eyes on smartphone
sales, spending plans [Online] Reuters. Available from: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/26/samsung-idUSL4E8CQ2LK20120126
(Accessed 31 January 2012)
Reuters (2012) Samsung forecasts best profit ever
[Online] Available from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/samsung-forecasts-best-profit-ever/article2293082
(Accessed 31 January 2012)
Chang, S. (2011) Sony Vs Samsung: The Inside Story of the
Electronics Giants' Battle For Global Supremacy [Online] Available from: http://books.google.co.kr/books?id=4Y5y0IpuheYC&pg
(Accessed 31 January 2012)
Samsung Electronics (2012) R&D at Samsung [Online]
Available from:
http://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/ourbusinesses/researchdevelopment.html
(Accessed 31 January 2012)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Week 4 Hand-In Assignment:
Special Organization Features within
Companies
The Case of Southwest Airlines and Semco
Southwest Airlines
Southwest Airlines (SWA) was founded in
1967, by Rolling King and Herb Kelleher (Muduli & Kaura, 2011), and from
day one other competitors in the air-travel industry, such as Texas
International and Braniff Airlines, tried to boycott SWA to take off, by using
any means possible by law, as well as politically, but, to no avail as the
company grew to become one of the most successful airlines in history (Child,
2005).
In 1971 it started its operations serving
the intrastate Texas cities, Dallas, Houston and San Antonio, becoming the 7th
largest US airline by 1993 (Muduli & Kaura, 2011) and covering 59 US cities
by 2004. Two years after it started operating, it became profitable and has
been profitable until 2009 when it experienced its first ever losses (Wheelan,
2011).
It became an $11.7billion business by 2004 (Child, 2005), with a net
income of $499million in 2006, employing over 32,000 Employees (McGee-Cooper et
all, 2007) without having any redundancies ever. The latter highlights one of
the three main components of SWA’s policy, which are job security, minimum
hierarchy and bureaucracy, as well as a consistently applied corporate culture (Child
2005). This approach to internal culture is taken seriously evident through the
following two mission statements and the following examples which demonstrate
these.
‘We
are committed to provide our employees a stable work environment with equal
opportunity for learning and personal development…above all, employees will be
provided the same concern, respect, and caring attitude within the organization
that they are expected to share externally with every Southwest customer.’ (Child, 2005)
One unorthodox strategic adoption at SWA is
that customers come second, as Kelleher and Colleen Barrett, his legal secretary
and partner, believe that employees can only serve customer with exemplary and
memorable service if employers were supported in the same way (McGee-Cooper,
2011), therefore providing employees with flexibility at the work place,
recognition and appreciation for outstanding performance to stress the
importance of positive attitude instead of one’s skills (Muduli & Kaura,
2011).
This approach has resulted in SWA in an
overall high customer satisfaction through customer friendliness, achieved by
primarily focusing on its employees’ well-being, even though its departures
were only 76% punctual of the time and had a higher rate of baggage loss than
the national average (Wheelan, 2011).
‘To help create the SOUTHWEST SPIRIT and
Culture where needed; to enrich it and make it better where it already exists;
and to liven it up in places where it might be floundering.’ (McGee-Glover, 2011)
Semler’s Semco
Semco is a manufacturing company that
extended its services to the internet (Semler, 2000), based in Sao Paulo,
Brazil, and led by Ricardo Semler, who took over his father’s business in 1980,
a self-proclaimed maverick as he puts more value on responsibility than
pyramidal hierarchy and thus adopted several unorthodox ways since his rise to
CEO (Semler, 1994). As soon as he took over, he made most top management
positions redundant, by cutting 75% of corporate staff by 1982, and remodeled
the structure from 12 layers (Child, 2005) to have just three layers by
removing most job titles (Colvin 2001) as the company was almost bankrupt at
the time (Child, 2005).
Semler himself states in his 1994 Harvard
Business Review paper that he just owns the company’s capital as he doesn’t
belief in control and therefore reconstructed the company to govern itself
rather than him owning and controlling it. He further states that his unique
and unorthodox approach is based on three principles which are employee
participation, profit sharing, and open information systems.
‘Executives
set their own pay, and everyone in the company knows what everyone else makes.
All workers set their own hours. Every employee receives the company's
financial statements, and the labor union holds classes on how to read them.
Workers choose their managers by vote and evaluate them regularly, with the
results posted publicly.’ (Colvin, 2001)
One might say the company’s strategic approach
is run like a democracy rather than a business by giving this amount of freedom
to its employees and thus doubt its success as traditionally a company is
defined by boundaries and control, but this approach including the value of
free-time away from the office and time for creative thought in the office has
raised Semco’s profits from $35million to $160million during 1998 and 2004
(Shinn, 2004). Even the workplace environment is affected by Semler’s
free-thinking vision in action as there are no private offices or any policy on
office attire and neither Semler himself, or his employees share the privilege
of personal assistants or extra auxiliary hands and therefore are
self-responsible.
Analaysis and Conclusion
Compared to most companies’ approaches
these two companies not only stand out in their specific industries but
throughout the global markets in their approach to managing a company.
Southwest Airlines has its employees at the center whilst focusing on their
well-being and thus produces customer satisfaction compared to the more
traditional approach which focuses on the needs of the customer, and this is
what makes this company so special.
Semco also focuses on its employees
although in a totally different way which reminds one more of a democratic
revolution taken place and making other companies look more like military
regimes. It feeds of the freedom given to its employees which is enjoyed only
by a very few employed workers on the planet and this is what makes this
company special.
What both share is a very humanitarian approach
focused around their workers.
References:
Wheelan, D. (2011) All Grown Up [Online] Available from:
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2011/0718/features-southwest-airlines-gary-kelly-midway-grown-up.html (Accessed 31
January 2012)
Muduli, A. & Kaura V. (2011) ‘Southwest Airlines Success:
A Case Study Analysis’ BVIMR Management Edge, 2011, Vol. 4 Issue 2, p115-118,
4p [Online] Available from: http://www.liv.ac.uk.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/library/ohecampus (Accessed 31
January 2012)
McGee-Copper, A. et al (2008) ‘The Power of LUV: An Inside
Peek at the Innovative Culture Committee of Southwest Airlines’, Reflections,
2008, Vol. 9 Issue 1, p49-54 [Online] Available from: http://www.liv.ac.uk.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/library/ohecampus (Accessed 31
January 2012)
Colvin, G. (2001) The Anti-Control Freak in Ricardo Semler's
company workers pick their own hours and the CEO has a temp job. Yes, it works
[Online] Available from: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2001/11/26/314107/index.htm (Accessed 31
January 2012)
Semler, R. (1994) ‘Why My Former Employees Still Work For Me’
Harvard Business Review January-February
[Online] http://www.liv.ac.uk.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/library/ohecampus (Accessed 31
January 2012)
Semler, R. (2000) ‘How we went digital without a strategy’
Harvard Business Review September-October [Online] http://www.liv.ac.uk.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/library/ohecampus
(Accessed 31 January 2012)
Shinn, S. (2004) ‘The maverick CEO’ BizED January/February
[Online] Available from: http://www.liv.ac.uk.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/library/ohecampus
(Accessed 31 January 2012)
