Managers ManageEssay Preview: Managers ManageReport this essayIntroductionIn this essay I will put forth the argument that mangers should manage the views and values of their employees to forge a corporate culture, as it is considered a key aspect in management for an organisation to succeed. However, I do concur that this notion may imitate the ideology of domination through the employees perspective. I will develop this argument in three sections. In Section One, I explain how a corporate culture in an organisation leads to its success and what exactly a Corporate Culture embodies, (Peters and Waterman, 1982; Clegg, Kornberger and Pitsis, 2008; Willmott, 1993). While in Section Two I address the issues that a dominant style of management regarding culture can have a detrimental effect within an organisation in the form of unsatisfied employees and how it could lead to an unproductive organisation, (Water-Foot Mill, 1851; Knights and Willmott, 2007; Arnhart, 2007; Peters and Waterman, 1982). Whereas in Section Three I outline the benefits of the practice of a humanitarian approach to managing the Corporate Culture and how it can predominantly enhance an organisations employees work ethics, productivity and commitment, (Peters and Waterman, 1982; Elliot, Rundle-Thiele and Waller, 2010).
Section One – Corporate CultureRecently in the modern era many managers have become obsessed with the notion of managing the views and values of their employees, since it is believed that an organisation will only achieve motions of success when management undertakes such mission. This mission is fundamentally creating a sense of culture in the organisation. Such obsession of control came about after the publication of Peters and Watermans In Search of Excellence: Lessons from Americas Best-Run Companies (1982), where it implanted the idea, that a successful organisation embodies a strong sense of corporate culture, into every managers conscience. This point of view is obvious in the statement, The message was simple: great companies have excellent cultures. Excellent cultures deliver outstanding financial success. (Clegg, Kornberger and Pitsis, 2008)
The philosophy of “management practice” (see also, Pansy, 2003) was an important component of the thinking of Ernst & Young’s strategy of transformation. Prior to the formation of management, Ernst & Young worked with the concept that it was important to avoid the “social-economic, economic and moral” influences of firms (Kornberger and Pitsis, 2006). It meant that business enterprises are structured around a “business model”, which in most cases does not employ the same level of expertise and the same personnel as the employers, which in turn often leads to greater productivity and more effective management practices.
In a sense, the strategy of “management practice” has been seen as a “market success”.
The development of the concept of “management practice” was an important component of the thinking of Ernst & Young’s strategy of transformation. Prior to the formation of management, Ernst & Young worked with the concept that it was important to avoid the “social-economic, economic and moral” influences of firms (Kornberger and Pitsis, 2006). It meant that business enterprises are structured around a “business model”, which in most cases does not employ the same level of expertise and the same personnel as the employers, which in turn often leads to greater productivity and more effective management practices. According to Pansy, in both the developed and emerging capitalist countries (i.e., the UK and Mexico) the management profession is seen as “socialistic”, which means a tendency to view corporations in the context of “business traditions or industries and social processes”. This includes such characteristics not only of social hierarchy and hierarchy, but also of the workplace (i.e., the “law of economic production and the law of production”) (Pansy, 2006).
The development of the concept of “management practice” was an important component of the thinking of Ernst & Young’s strategy of transformation. Prior to the formation of management, Ernst & Young worked with the concept that it was important to avoid the “social-economic, economic and moral” influences of firms (Kornberger and Pitsis, 2006). It meant that business enterprises are structured around a “business model”, which in most cases does not employ the same level of expertise and the same personnel as the employers, which in turn often leads to greater productivity and more effective management practices. According to Pansy, in both the developed and emerging capitalist countries (i.e., the UK and Mexico) the management profession is seen as “socialistic”, which means that a tendency to view corporations in the context of “business traditions or industries and social processes”. This includes such characteristics not only of social hierarchy and hierarchy, but also of the workplace (i.e., the “law of economic production and the law of production”) (Pansy, 2006). As a consequence of this, the corporate culture of management and its social structures are gradually becoming more apparent (Pansy, 2005; Pansy, 2005b; Pansy, 2001). In the 1960s, for example, the idea of high efficiency and high quality management was developed. Since then, there is a much broader awareness to consider the importance of human relationships between managers and employees, and to ensure human dignity in the workplace. At the same time, in recent years, the trend towards a more effective social management system has been increasing.
This emphasis in the management profession has also led to a more and more complex interaction with the management profession as
The philosophy of “management practice” (see also, Pansy, 2003) was an important component of the thinking of Ernst & Young’s strategy of transformation. Prior to the formation of management, Ernst & Young worked with the concept that it was important to avoid the “social-economic, economic and moral” influences of firms (Kornberger and Pitsis, 2006). It meant that business enterprises are structured around a “business model”, which in most cases does not employ the same level of expertise and the same personnel as the employers, which in turn often leads to greater productivity and more effective management practices.
In a sense, the strategy of “management practice” has been seen as a “market success”.
The development of the concept of “management practice” was an important component of the thinking of Ernst & Young’s strategy of transformation. Prior to the formation of management, Ernst & Young worked with the concept that it was important to avoid the “social-economic, economic and moral” influences of firms (Kornberger and Pitsis, 2006). It meant that business enterprises are structured around a “business model”, which in most cases does not employ the same level of expertise and the same personnel as the employers, which in turn often leads to greater productivity and more effective management practices. According to Pansy, in both the developed and emerging capitalist countries (i.e., the UK and Mexico) the management profession is seen as “socialistic”, which means a tendency to view corporations in the context of “business traditions or industries and social processes”. This includes such characteristics not only of social hierarchy and hierarchy, but also of the workplace (i.e., the “law of economic production and the law of production”) (Pansy, 2006).
The development of the concept of “management practice” was an important component of the thinking of Ernst & Young’s strategy of transformation. Prior to the formation of management, Ernst & Young worked with the concept that it was important to avoid the “social-economic, economic and moral” influences of firms (Kornberger and Pitsis, 2006). It meant that business enterprises are structured around a “business model”, which in most cases does not employ the same level of expertise and the same personnel as the employers, which in turn often leads to greater productivity and more effective management practices. According to Pansy, in both the developed and emerging capitalist countries (i.e., the UK and Mexico) the management profession is seen as “socialistic”, which means that a tendency to view corporations in the context of “business traditions or industries and social processes”. This includes such characteristics not only of social hierarchy and hierarchy, but also of the workplace (i.e., the “law of economic production and the law of production”) (Pansy, 2006). As a consequence of this, the corporate culture of management and its social structures are gradually becoming more apparent (Pansy, 2005; Pansy, 2005b; Pansy, 2001). In the 1960s, for example, the idea of high efficiency and high quality management was developed. Since then, there is a much broader awareness to consider the importance of human relationships between managers and employees, and to ensure human dignity in the workplace. At the same time, in recent years, the trend towards a more effective social management system has been increasing.
This emphasis in the management profession has also led to a more and more complex interaction with the management profession as
Before continuing on how a corporate culture can be beneficial, I will explain what exactly culture and corporate culture represents, to allow a clearer understanding of why it is considered vital for an organisations success. Culture can be summed up as, everything that is constructed according to some underlying rule, even if the rule is one of randomness, is part of our culture, no matter if it is a gangster rap (Clegg, Kornbergerand and Pitsis, 2008). Therefore it can be concluded that the prevailing impression is that any forms of rules generally creates a sense of culture. Thus, it can be assumed that in every organisation there is a sense of culture since in every organisation there are rules. This in turn leads to the stigma that corporate cultures are the values shared by all members of the organisation, which is similar to how (Schein, 1997) defines corporate culture; organizational culture is the deep, basic assumptions and beliefs that are shared by organizational members.
Due to the corporate cultures definition, which is predominantly the basic assumptions and beliefs shared by organisational members. Such conclusion about the benefits of corporate cultures can be represented though; According to its leading authorities, the strengthening of corporate culture enhances organisational performance by securing greater commitment and flexibility from employees. (Willmott, 1993). Through this, the idea that a strong corporate culture will result in a superior organisation is unveiled. This is the case since, if every member of the organisation shares the same understanding and beliefs, they will be operating under the same code of work and therefore, will be working towards a common goal together. By working towards a common goal there will be limited disagreements which, boosts employees commitment and leads to a productive and efficient workforce. Thus, in return of a productive workforce will be the creation of a desirable and successful organisation.
The organisation of a corporation is a concept to be found among all people. If there is something you desire to improve (e.g. a better working environment or to find more comfortable work places), then it is essential to identify it, with some basic values and standards, and apply those values to what you can achieve.
What is the key to change?
As well as those principles outlined above, there are a number of steps that can be taken:
Change how a organisation operates. Take the following basic steps to establish a culture which enables us to: Create a culture which fosters a high level of commitment and accountability from every member of the organisation (for example, it will promote more collaboration of managers and managers-in-waiting);
Provide a culture for new and experienced staff members. Create a culture which allows them/their individual employees not to be dismissed simply because they don’t have a good record in the organisation or lack a positive experience with the company. Provide more of a sense of belonging which will boost morale, give a sense of pride and allow new staff members to see the benefit and impact of working together. Create a culture to strengthen individual and community relations, develop a culture which fosters individualism, and promote teamwork within it. Provide a culture which will encourage the sharing of information between staff (in an effort to prevent misunderstandings) and ensure that the right people know one another. This can be done through a variety of tools, such as through forums, e-learning clubs, or by organising committees to promote this.
How can a culture of good organisation be established?
A culture of good organisation is achieved by increasing participation from all members. The culture of good organisation will contribute to the success of an organisation and it should be strong enough to hold people to their word. In order to succeed in this endeavor, you should start with good organisation and work towards reaching your personal and business goals without hesitation.
How can organisations be established when and how?
If organisations are established by a culture of good organisation, they should be implemented within a framework which promotes unity and harmonicity. This can be done through both the building of the organisation (by the co-operation of co-operation between the worker and the organisation) and by the building of social links between workers. This will create a sense of unity amongst the members as well as create a sense of pride in the labour movement.
Do organisations work to increase the effectiveness and scale of work?
A culture of good organisation results in a stronger work force at the workplace. This creates a sense of community which is conducive to the collaboration of managers and managers. This means that organisations will work by encouraging one another to collaborate. This enables the working group members to work their hearts out when and whether they need support from other members.
In order for good organisation to be established you must work towards the highest levels of coordination in order to ensure that the organisation works with the best possible group to best achieve its goals of achieving better results for everyone.
To create good organisation you must create a sense of mutual trust rather than competition between stakeholders (or between a group of individuals of different types) that will make the good organisation work equally. In order to achieve good organisation, the workers must feel that their employer feels at times that a workplace that works for everyone will benefit from teamwork, and that they can take responsibility for the performance of their jobs. For example, by working together, employees can work the best people and make decisions for their own benefit.
How can organisations be established when and how?
A culture of good organisation has great effects for the employees and the organisations built within it, because it has a strong focus on shared objectives rather than on narrow, exclusive objectives. For example, a culture of good organisation means that the organisation can work to improve workplace collaboration within a workplace and this can benefit the individual for every individual on board regardless of how well-paid someone is. To achieve such an achievement, there must be strong competition and
Therefore, so far I have discussed the importance of creating a corporate culture and the essence of what culture and corporate culture represents. Consequently, crafting a corporate culture may seem like a desirable asset to the organisation however, employees may come to disapprove such practices if employees perceive that management is undertaking strict forms of control in order to forge their sense of a perfect corporate culture.
Section Two – Domination Style of ManagementA corporate culture will generally only be beneficial if mangers do not adopt a dominant style of management. However, in many cases managers fail to see the significance of employees satisfaction, rather managers only focus on assigning employees strict guidelines that focuses on an organisations success. These types of managers are referred to as autocratic leaders and they make decisions without consulting employees. An example of such authoritative measures can be seen in the extract below;
Any persons found Smoking on the premises will be instantly dismissed. Any person found away from their usual place of work, or Talking with any one out of their own Alley, will be fined 2d for each offence” (Water-Foot Mill, 1851).
Through this extract it is evident that authoritative leaders are not compassionate about their employees but rather more concerned with the overall success of the organisation. Specifically it can also be detailed to an extent that autocratic leaders believe they are of a higher prestige level than the employees and that they are irreplaceable, whereas employees are easily interchangeable.
So far, it can be hypothesised that a dominant style of management can lead to an employees dissatisfaction. The consequences of dissatisfaction could most likely include lower employee commitments, lower productivity and even, employees arranging groups to challenge management. Such formed groups can in fact occur in reality, as revealed in this extract;
Collinsons key argument is that culture in this environment had involved to allow the male shop floor employees to deal with the demands of their working lives, but that the humour involved did not really produce a cohesive or supportive community of co-workers or any basis for collective resistance to an oppressive regime in which these workers effectively colluded. (Knights and Willmott, 2007).
Through this extract it is evident that a dominant style of management to form