Team work helps in achieving the successful performance of work organizations- "Team work allows persons to achieve difficult target" Scarnati(2001,p.5) . "A team has a specific goal or purpose where team member can develop effective mutual relationships to achieve team goal. In a team work individual working together in a cooperative environment to achieve goals through skills and sharing knowledge" Harris and Harris,1996.Characteristic of effective team work are
A Promise to team success and shared goals- Team members promised to the success of the team and their joint goals for the project. Successful teams are motivated, engaged and aim to achieve at the highest level.
B Interdependence- Team member has to create an atmosphere where they can contribute more than an individual. A positive co-dependent team brings out the best in each person allowing the person to achieve their goal at a far superior level(Johnson and Johnson,1995,1999). Individual support their team members to learn, contribute and achieve.
Get your grade
or your money back
using our Essay Writing Service!
C Interpersonal skills- Include the ability to discuss issues openly with the team members, be trustworthy, honest, supportive and show commitment and respect to the individual and the team. Encouraging a caring work environment is important including the ability to work effectively with other team members.
D Open communication and positive feedback- Listening to the issues and need of their team members and valuing their involvement and expressing this help to create an effective work environment. Team members should give and receive constructive criticism and provide genuine feedback.
E Appropriate team composition is required in the creation of a successful team- Team members should be fully aware of their specific team role and understand what is expected from them in terms of their contribution to the team and the project.
F Commitment to team processes, leadership and accountability- Team members need to be accountable for their contribution to the team and the project. They need to be aware of team processes, best practice and new ideas. Good Leadership is required for team success including shared decision making and problem solving.
MOTIVATION OF EMPLOYEES
3 Motivation includes a main element when going through the process of human learning. If the organization cannot provide the ability to motivate its employees, The knowledge within the organization is not practically used to a maximum. It becomes the mission of every successful learning organization to find the causes that enable it to motivate its employees to continuous learning and to take advantage of this knowledge to ensure its living. One of the oldest concepts within research on motivation is hedonism, Where the individual tries to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. A condition of hedonism being a tenet in motivational research is nevertheless an acceptance of the individual difference between persons(Manners et al.,1997). At the first level of examination, the individual level and identity is therefore internally affected by personality. Allport(1961) explain personality is a dynamic organization of psycho-physiological systems within individuals, that determine their thoughts and behaviour. Personality is consist of processes, which survive within the consciousness of the individual, and theories about personality try to explain why attitudes, goals and acts are similar during a longer period of time. We behave in a different way from other individuals, because of our psychological processes and structures differ somewhat from others(Lester,1995,p.11).Part time work for men has recently re-emerged as one possible solution to the problem of work family reconciliation, and men in Norway work part-time to a greater extent than in most other European and EFTA countries. 13 percent of Norwegian men, as compared to 7 percent of European men work part-time(Eurostat,2005). Working part-time is however, still mainly a female adaption, and the share of part-time workers among Norwegian women is 44 percent. In a recent Nordic study of men, gender equality and social innovation(Holter,2007b), Part-time work for men emerges as "a frontier area in the interviews. It is something that many fathers want, but few of them manage to realize"(Holter,2007.p.258).
OBSTACLES OF THE COMPANY
According to Barclays PLC organizational Behaviour case study the main obstacles to effective organisational performance are as follows-
MERGER OF THE COMPANY
Always on Time
Marked to Standard
First issue was alliance of the US businesses of the LEHMAN BROTHERS. Integration work had caused a stain on the LEHMAN staff with some departing the firm for other opportunities(Masters,2008). There was lot of significant uncertainty in the integration that was only made worse by the external environment which saw the worsening of the financial market's crisis.
CULTURE OF THE COMPANY
2 - Second issue was culture of both the companies were totally different which causes clashes in between the staff. No of Lehman staff did not join Barclays and they moved on to other organization. Handling of the integration by Barclays was resulting in the departures of the LEHMAN staff.
MOTIVATION OF THE STAFF DURING MERGER OF THE COMPANY
3 Third issue related to the integration of the business was the motivation of the staff of LEHMAN BROTHERS. Not only staff personally impacted by the failure of the bank but the integration of the LEHMAN staff into the BARCLAYS business also create a large uncertainty among the staff. A large amount of LEHMAN staff was left behind the new firm(Wilson,2008).Those who continued were not particularly motivated, In their brain their remained a large uncertainty in terms of their role in the new organization(BARCLAYS).
EFFECT OF THE CHANGE PROGRAMS ON EMPLOYEE'S EMOTION
4 "change is disturbing when it is done to us exhilarating when it is done by us" Kotter and Schlesinger(1979) suggest that there are four major reasons why people resist change , They are afraid of losing something of value, They misunderstand the change and its implications, They believe that the change does not make sense, or simply they have a low tolerance for change.
5 GENDER DIFFERENCES IN ENTREPRENEURAL ATTITUDES
As data from the Eurobarometer(2007) indicate, although 47 percent of citizens prefer self-employment, only 17 percent actually set up their own business. Attitudes in the EUROPEAN UNION also differ from those of other countries. In the USA, for example, only 29 percent of citizens state that they would not launch a company if there were a risk of failure, while this same figure is 44 percent for the EUROPEAN UNION (Isusi and Corral,2008). Given this situation, greater attention must be paid to the role of women as they are a driving force in the creation of companies. Today, the vast majority of business owners or company managers in the European union continue to be men (65-75 percent according to the Centre for Enterprise and Economic Development Research at Middlesex UNIVERSITY). A similar figure can be found for spain, where only 32.97 percent of mangers of private companies or public entities are women, A proportion that has changed very little over the last nine years. In case of self employed workers who are also employers, the percentage of women is even lower, dropping to 24.6 percent in 2008(data from the Spanish Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs).
6 Issues concerning the follow up and the control of the implementation process(e.g. priorities getting changed over time, assignment being carried out at the last moment, the implementation process lacking the necessary synchronizing among implementers.)
7 Issues concerning the cooperation needed for effective implementation(e.g implementers lack in capabilities and or know how important for the job, implementers unhappy with the decision implementers being over tired, over-busy, not motivated for the job, organizational units, the cooperation of which is required, who refuse to cooperate for some reason or another.)
8 The issue of necessary backing by the person of authority(eg having realized what is being carried out, the boss objects, demands an alternative approach, a senior manager contradicts the actions being carried out and has the whole project stopped).
9 "Act of god"
- Events happenings phenomena that could not have been predicted in advance(eg unexpected rough weather interfering with the implementation process, enemy attack or the breaking of a war or other unexpected aggressive outbursts, the illness or death of a person of relevance, an unexpected replacement of top executive personnel, who favoured a different approach, other unexpected changes within the organization, with which the parties involved were not familiar. Shetach (2009)
Third part of organizational behaviour
The "capi" mode
This Essay is
a Student's Work
This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.Examples of our work
"Capi" stands for "coalesced authority, power and influence". It is believed that in order to manage projects effectively and efficiently, leading them towards successful completion, it is essential to coalesce those three forces (or energy sources) (Adizes, 1992):
Authority can be base If at any stage in the decision making and implementation process of a project, another person could interfere or oppose a decision in any way, or express dissatisfaction that the decision has been taken without his consent, this might indicate that the "authority", regarding the particular decision, belonged to that other person in the first place; and was not in the hands of the person that led the decision in practice. This is true for the project as a whole, as well as for any singular decision or step within it. Is the managerial force that enables one to lead the project independently, throughout all the required stages, without the need to receive confirmation and or approval (e.g. from a higher ranking executive), for any decision, move or step, throughout the project.It is therefore recommended that, if, at any stage, the project manager is not absolutely certain that he has full authority to act, he should "acquire", in advance, the necessary assurance and backing from whoever is, in actual fact, the figure of authority. The model identifies between authority and responsibility. People frequently assume that if they are responsible for getting something solved and done, they automatically have the authority to do so. Nominating a project manager makes him responsible for carrying out the project, but does not automatically put him in full authority to do so. Higher executives often expect, explicitly or otherwise, to be "kept in the picture", often meaning - to be given the opportunity to confirm and or reject certain steps taken, as part of the process. In other meaning , they provide you the responsibility without clearly and totally letting go of the authority over the project or issue.â€ƒIn order to make sure the smooth advancement of the project, the "capi" model "advises" its users to verify, in advance, whether the project manager has, in fact, the full authority to act independently on decisions, taken within the project. Likewise, any particular decision, regarding a specific aspect within the project, requires a similar verification, in order to ensure, in advance, its efficient implementation. on either hierarchical position or professional expertise (e.g. the medical authority of a doctor regarding health issues).
TheÂ power of cooperationÂ In order to ensure maximum success in any decision, the "capi" model recommends, that one must take initiative steps, in advance, to ensure full cooperation, of all "power-holders", in the future (ensuring that cooperators have the necessary know-how and or capabilities and or resources as well as willingness and interest to cooperate). These steps are termed in politics "lobbying" - getting your potential cooperators to willingly cooperate fully, when their cooperation will, in fact, be needed in the future.â€ƒ("p"). The "capi" model refers to "power" in relation to cooperation in project implementation. The particular people/factors (i.e. units, departments or other organizations), whose cooperation is needed to implement a certain decision, or to take part in the project as a whole, have the "power" of choice whether to cooperate, in any particular situation. The power is in the hands of the person/department who supplies the equipment, the one confirming the budget to finance the decision/project, the team-members applying the decision, etc. If, for one reason or another, one or more of the previous choose or happen not to cooperate fully, as required, failure (to some degree) will probably occur.
InfluenceÂ "i" is derived from having all the relevant data information know-how that can lead to a qualitative and applicable decision, regarding a particular project or a specific issue or problem within the project's framework. (The author of this paper suggests "i" could better stand for "information").
One would be said to "have i", when possessing the full spectrum of data, regarding a particular problem or issue. "i" is said to be "dispersed", when possessed by more than one person. The "i" factor determine the quality of the decision's to be taken.
One should make sure, in advance, that the decision one is taking, is a qualitative, suitable and workable one, otherwise one might discover (often too late), that the decision was not based on the full volume of data regarding:
the nature of the project or its objectives
the relevant environment, within which it prevails;
the limitations and constraints on its "smooth" application; and
the resources available for the project (budget, manpower, etc.).
It is the combination of the three factors - "authority", "power of cooperation" and "influence" (or "information"), and the analysis of the decision-situation with the aid of this combination, that enables one to be sure, to the maximum of one's abilities, of the results of one's doings.
Figure 1Â presents the "capi" model, showing three overlapping circles, describing these three elements. The "triangle" formed by the overlapping area of all three circles, is termed by Adizes "capi", meaning: "Coalesced authority, power and influence".
"Capi" is primarily a diagnostic tool, aimed at diagnosing the situational and contextual characteristics of the particular project involved. The "capi" model can be viewed as somewhat equivalent to concepts such as "mental model" and "situational awareness", mentioned in the above-reviewed literature. It points out the potential problems/difficulties that may arise, during the implementation process. It prepares its user for the obstacles he might have to confront, on his way to successful application.
When aware of the potential obstacles, ahead of time, the user may wish, and often can, take measures to reduce/minimize those obstacles, thus increasing his prospects of success.
The RDSM (revised decision square model)
Every decision, which is part of the project, can be described as a square. The RDSM collapses all the possible variety of decision aspects, into four categories that constitute the four sides of the square (Shetach, 2009):
The side of the "what" - describes the content of the decision on its various levels:
the goals this decision should enhance, that must be clear and accepted by all associated with the decision;
a detailed operative description of how the decision will be manifested; and
a detailed timetable for the application of the decision.
The side of the "how" - specifies how one can achieve the "what", within the scheduled timetable. This side includes two aspects:
an elaborated list of resources needed to achieve the "what" (financial resources, manpower, hours of labor, physical setup, equipment, aids, etc.), including detailed plans for their attainment, when necessary (e.g. the process for obtaining the financial resources); and
a complete distribution of assignments among team members, involved in the advancement and application of the decision, as part of the full project.
The side of the "when" - this side points out one sole detail: the date and the time on which the team, working on the decision or project, is going to re-meet, for follow-up, implementation-control purposes.
The side of the "who" - the name of the project (or decision)-coordinator - one of the team members assigned to ensure that the follow-up of the implementation process, of that decision, will continue as planned.
The RDSM states that the more thoroughly, clearly and unequivocally one "seals" "closes" "locks" (i.e. specifies in detail) the "four sides" of any decision - one has a better chance of applying it efficiently. It recommends to "lock" a decision-square (usually more than one, i.e. a square per each topic or aspect of the overall issue or project-aspect), before the end of every team meeting, which takes place as part of the project.Â Figure 2Â presents a detailed RDSM.This tool touches on extremely basic issues, such as tying all loose ends, ensuring clear and unequivocal communications within teams, setting follow-up meetings and dates, etc.Â Shetach (2009)Â remarked, regarding the guidelines proposed by the model:
When and how to apply these managerial tools
The two managerial tools, presented previously, go together in assuring successful project outcomes, thus providing means for coping with four out of the five previously mentioned categories of hurdeles, in the way to successful operation.
The combination of the two is suitable for application in any managerial and team situation, where decisions are taken and where implementation is attempted. The selection of such constellations is endless, minor every-day decisions in the home environment as well as in organizational settings, long-term projects in any field of business or activity - construction, services, industry, civilian and military settings, high-tech and start-up projects, etc.
The techniques presented here are universal precisely due to their ability to provide a "cover" to any obstacle that may present itself on the way to efficient implementation, unless it is some form of "Force major" (as previously defined).
The use of the "capi" model is recommended at two critical place throughout the project as a whole and throughout each specific decision-making and implementation process within it:
Prior to commencing.
Before deciding on the work of art on the project-team or decision-team.
The RDSM is applicable at the end of each and every meeting dealing with the project, or with any aspect related to it.
The "capi" model reveal and sets all possible predictable hurdles that , stand in the way of a successful termination of the project. It also points out the optimal set of people (by profession, position, hierarchical level, department or organizational representation, etc.), which should construct the total project team and the mini team suitable for dealing with any particular sub-decision, within the total process.
The RDSM helps managers "seal" all the necessary ends, to ensure no detail has been omitted, forgotten or neglected, at any point along the process of implementation. It also takes care, that all factors and individuals concerned, would be continuously "in the picture". It confirms their exposure to data they must obtain at any stage along the process (including last-minute or unforeseeable changes), to ensure their utmost cooperation at all stages, regarding all the issues with which each one of them is involved. It reminds managers, all along the long route to completion of the project, to verify that goals and sub-goals are strategically relevant, clear and maintained by all concerned.In practical terms, within a team-meeting, dealing with a particular aspect of the project, or the project as a whole, the RDSM is used and applied as follows: before a meeting, dealing with a particular issue, is about to end, the team must make certain that the critical aspects, emphasized by the model, are covered:
the team should be clear and agreed on the goals to be achieved, and how those goals will be manifested, including a detailed timetable for their application;
the team should make sure that all the necessary resources have been listed, including plans for their attainment, if relevant and necessary;
the team should make sure that the delegation of assignments among its members is finalized, agreed by the team members (after each one has assessed his capability of taking on this additional responsibility), and clear to all;
the team should never end the meeting before having scheduled its next meeting. it is preferable to set dates for all future follow-up meetings, necessary for the completion of the project. This is the most critical element of the whole model - ensuring ongoing follow-up and control over the implementation process, which lies ahead; and
the team should appoint one of its members as the decision/project coordinator. The coordinator should be ready to take on himself the additional job of making sure that the team meets, as scheduled previously (in sub-section 4), and that each one of its members arrives to this meeting prepared, as far as his assignments are concerned. This means that he/she will need to keep in touch with each one of the other team members, to make sure they remember their commitments. If an unexpected obstacle arises, as to the holding of the meeting as planned, the coordinator is responsible for setting an alternative time and place, to ensure minimal damages and maximum project efficiency
MANAGEMENT IS THE CORNERSTONE OF THE ORGANIZATION
Management is the cornerstone of the organization without management organization cannot be run. Organization cannot achieve its goal without management. Recent major research by the author and his team (HubbardÂ HYPERLINK "http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=1754-2731&volume=22&issue=3&articleid=1858427&show=html#idb6"et al.HYPERLINK "http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=1754-2731&volume=22&issue=3&articleid=1858427&show=html#idb6", 2007) into some of Australia's leading organisations found nine common elements for long-term success: effective execution, perfect alignment, adapting rapidly, clear and fuzzy strategy, leadership not leaders, looking out and looking in, right people, managing the up and down and balancing everything. The findings are represented as a "winning wheel" framework for success (Figure 2) that practitioners have found to be applicable to organisations of all types from a wide range of industry sectors.It shows the central, pivotal role of effective execution that is depicted as both an element of the framework and as representing the outcome of the total framework. The other elements of the "winning wheel" are connected together to make the wheel work and steer the organisation towards its mission and goals. The power of the model lies in its integrative approach - there is no "start" or "finish" to the wheel. All elements are important and change in one precipitates change to others and it is organisations that execute effectively that defines them as winners.Most organisations disappoint their stakeholders by their failure to deliver what they say, what they promise, what they promote and market. On the other hand, winning organisations say what they are going to do and then do it and they keep doing it, again and again. It's challenging because announcing with clarity what the organisation is planning to achieve sets an expectation and clear target for future performance. For most organisations this is the judgement of failure but for winning organisations it is an opportunity to show success.