Organizational Behavior Issues in Aussieco Essay

Category: Managing,
Published: 04.02.2020 | Words: 1597 | Views: 418
Download now

Aussieco, an Aussie company proven as a little manufacturing and service operation company in 1962 has become a fully widened company with 600 workers. The company constructed its popularity on a single product holding 90 per cent of the Australian industry in the 1980. Over the years the industry holding moved down simply by 30 percent despite the product staying unique and company facing little competition in the market (Jones, Gal, d. d) The downturn in Aussieco’s overall performance is mainly as a result of issues with the company’s management and organizational behavior. Organizational Behavior identifies the understanding, prediction and management of human tendencies in organizations’ (Luthans, 2010). It is the examine of individuals and the behavior in a work place.

A company’s performance and result largely depends on its company behavior since it is an interdisciplinary discipline that includes sociology, psychology, connection and managing. Aussieco’s company behavior issues can be described through Henri Fayol’s 14 management concepts. Henri Fayol’s theory of administration and organizational behavior focuses on the personal duties of management and managerial success which aussieco lacked. (Fayol, 1971).

Need help writing essays?
Free Essays
For only $5.90/page

The corporation has unskilled staff without specialization while major high pr staff can be friends and family devoid of skilled expertise. The professional managing representative is the owner’s nephew with no practical or industrial encounter. The production supervisor is the creation manager’s best friend who has little knowledge of the daily production tasks as he is a floor covering fitter by qualification. Employees at the operative level happen to be migrant labor mostly deficient formal certification.

On diversification, management did not understand the changing market requirements. Aussieco uses the power traditions where control is central. The major mindset or power is fear (Luthans, 2011). Suggestions and personal preferences are not welcomed. The owner-chairman responds in a good negative way if any manager’s opinion differentiates coming from his.

This lack of discussion leads to staff feeling para motivated and undervalued. Even though there has been division of labor and departmentalization in the company however the managers absence authority and responsibility. Around the instance of owner accepting order coming from a bad personal debt customer without consulting the typical manager displays lack of specialist for the manager. Owner’s dictatorial attitude and lack of knowledge of modern styles hold back the dedicated managers to improve and bring changes in the company’s doing work, as they are either fired from your job or perhaps become his instant foes.

The company falls short of discipline and employee dedication. Lack of devotion, no willingness to put substantial levels of efforts, no opinion in the company’s goals and vales and lack of faith in the managing all together brings about all the issues of Aussieco. During lunch time hours the senior supervision and product sales staff get access to unlimited alcohol in the workplace.

Flow line workers underperform and restrain production with vague justifications. Subordination of individual fascination over the company’s interest and goal is among the major challenges of Aussieco Employees overtime to receive money extra but not for productive outcomes. As well the elderly programmer regardless of completing his work purchase uses his work holiday for personal concerns. There is lack of equity and justice among the list of employees. The rule getting everyone must vacate office during lunch break break nevertheless exceptions for the elderly management and sales personnel that consume in the work place, operatives and also other staff will be allowed simply no food or drinks in the workplace.

The migrant staff is usually treated well and much better than its own inside staff. There are less internal promotions. High employee proceeds, no balance of period of employees is another major issue with Aussieco.

To attain optimum productivity of personnel it is essential to have a reliable workforce, which usually Aussieco is lacking in. There are regular mass resignations in the business. No creation manager takes more than three years in the company. The content of employees manager is usually vacant since 2 months.

Employees have no job security and thus aren’t fully focused on their work. This further boosts the company’s costs of recruiting, selection and training. There is certainly lack of inspiration and motivation by the managing for the welfare with the employees.

There may be lack of returns, appraisal and bonus. The workshop rooftops are devoid of insulation and leak during heavy rainwater, no gates and dirty windows level toward bad and harmful working conditions. This possibly gave a loss of $AUS 500, 500 when normal water leakage blew a digital robot. Not any parking area provided for the employees, who reach frustrated to the office, which in turn displays in their slower performance. Insufficient structured function, irregularity at work and no right accounts and records maintained by the managers is another organizational issue to get Aussieco.

Although record showed a stock of 4700 resistors but none could be located. A welder forgotten by the company following fitting of new automat is idle and has no contribution in the company. Reasons why these types of problems take place. One of the major basis for the company issues of aussieco is definitely the employee frame of mind.

Job satisfaction focuses on employee attitude and organizational determination focuses on all their attitude towards organization. Task satisfaction is determined by how well the targets of staff are met in return of their output (Luthans, 2011). The aspects of work satisfication are certainly not met by Aussieco. Workers of Aussieco are unsatisfied with the sort of work they get, the position provides less opportunities to get learning and less responsibility.

There is lack of remuneration and pay, less promotional chances, bad functioning conditions. This kind of high level of job unhappiness of staff reflects inside their low functionality, company’s low profits, substantial employee yield, high absenteeism and low level of commitment towards the organization. The frame of mind of personnel in an corporation is largely motivated by the sort of environment the organization posses and further the frame of mind of workers affects their particular efficiency and satisfaction at the organizational level. The planet of aussieco is not employee friendly thus staff have an adverse attitude.

Employee traits can be best explained by the Five factor model. Job performance is highly determined by an individual’s conscientiousness (i. e dutifulness, persistence, industriousness) and psychological stability (i. anxiety, secureness, suspiciousness). In Aussieco personnel had low conscientiousness and low mental stability which usually affected their particular overall process performance and contextual efficiency. Organizational determination is an important attitude toward the employers and the company. Is it doesn’t extent where we understand them.

A lot of the employees, posses’ continuance organizational commitment, the calculative procedure, where that they chose to continue working in the company because that they have to’ rather than their want or obligation. This kind of attitude is definitely influenced by simply perceived costs of departing the company, not enough opportunities, age group, peer pressure, society expectations etc . Personnel of Aussieco developed this kind of attitude as a result of mechanistic treatment they receive and insufficient empathy from management. Autocracy is the concentration of electrical power and power in hands of one person. The administration of Aussieco has an autocratic structure together with the owner having unlimited electricity and overall authority.

We have a strict hierarchical structure; instructions are directed from best level to bottom level. Ideas, personal opinions and suggestions will be unwelcomed. From this management design managers believe that workers should be controlled to make certain maximum production (Luthans, 2011). Aussieco’s framework can be ideal explained by Douglas McGregor’s theory X. This kind of theory represents an presumption of conflicting and adverse working attitudes.

The managers assume an average person disfavors work and will avoid that if possible, as a result must be compelled with menace of punishment to achieve company goals. A typical person prefers to be aimed and prevents responsibility. This method encourages deadline and ultimatums, arrogant and demanding managers, mechanistic strategy, no matter toward staff and a method communication (Jeremiah, 2009).

In Aussieco this method resulted in a negative attitude by employees, built them unconfident and disappointed. Lack of Taylor’s scientific management. Frederik winslow taylor’s important idea was going to improve industrial efficiency clinically. He urged scientifically picking and teaching workers and regularly monitoring their function to improve productivity which also improves operate man pleasure and positivity (Lynch, 1984).

Aussieco weren’t getting scientific assortment, training and development of workmen and passively left these to train themselves. Managers did not supervise and supply instructions towards the employees and there was zero division of operate between managers and employees. There was insufficient specialization, standardised and organized approach. The organization continuously transformed its suppliers for cheapest material offered, a supplier providing 99. 5% quality level asking $20 per unit was replaced with a supplier recharging $12per unit.

The quality of the item suffered, raising customer problems and impacting the goodwill of the company negatively. There is certainly lack of conversation between departments, department managers and workers and elderly management and managers. The senior administration is unapproachable and not thinking about the issues in the company and workers. Though Taylorism offers faced critique of fermage, mechanistic procedure etc but in relation to Aussieco, the company must adapt specific principles of Taylorism for a better company working. To conclude Ausseico’s serious problem is company and supervision structure.

The organization should have an even more humanistic and realistic approach with a proper balance of authority and responsibility.