- 500+ Experts Online to help you 24x7
- Guaranteed Grade or Get Money Back!
- Rated 4.8/5 Out of 5087 Reviews
In an organization there are many people works, their behavior towards other employees and organization matters a lot. Management level persons observe and monitor the behavior of individual in the workplace because their attitude and actions can influence the overall business performance to great extent. Present report is based on the Run-Rhedeg Ltd which is a manufacturing firm and produces Nordic walking poles (Pan , Qin and Gao , 2014). Tony Taylor has formed the organization and designed the walking poles. Currently cited firm is facing many issues such as poor performance and low production. Current assignment will discuss the problems that is faced by the entity. Management style of the Tony Taylor will be described in this study. Theory of Fayol and Mintzberg will be illustrated in order to identify the role and function of manager. In addition, recommendation would be provided so that cited firm can improve its profitability and can achieve its objective (Pari
1. Problems of Run-Rhedegare
Run-Rhedeg Ltd is the manufacturing firm which is specialized in the manufacturing of Nordic walking poles. At the initial level cited firm was very successful and demand of the product was very high. Tony who was the owner and founder of the organization was having degree of sports and regularly attend conferences related to this. Tony always have an eye over completion and modify its operations time to time so that it can gain competitive advantage (Boyce, Zaccaro and Wisecarver, 2010).
Currently cited firm is facing the problems of high employee turn over and abseentism in the workplace. The reason behind this that there is no formal management. Tony and other authorities treats the workers informally so they do not take their jobs seriously. Other related people always suggest the owner to give training to the staff members but Tony refuses and said that his knowledge is enough to run the business. That is why employees do not have much experience and knowledge about the manufacturing of poles so they feel under confident (Braun and. et. al, 2013). That is why most of the new staff leave the place soon. Cited firm has hired the employees from schools and most of them are women. Education field is completely differ from the manufacturing so people do not have any knowledge and information about production and market demand. There is no systematic procedure and each team takes its decision by own. That causes difficulty in the operations (Carter and. et. al. 2013). Team members do not concern with the high authorities that decreased their quality of work. That is why customers are not liking the products and that is why sales volume is going down.
Staff members are worried because they do not find any career growth in the Run-Rhedeg Ltd so they leave the job and join other organization. That is main reason of increasing turn over rate in the cited firm. People do not get training so they can not improve their performance, that decrease their morale and they think not to work with the entity. Tony realized this think and start giving training to the staff members about new production line. But people were not having any basic knowledge about the manufacturing process so they were unable to understand the whole process in the training sessions (Eames. and et. al, 2008). That is why new candidates leave the place within two months.
These were the main reason that is why Run-Rhedeg Ltd has experienced the absenteeism and staff turn over. Selection of wrong candidates was the first mistake that has created trouble in the organization. Because if the persons has no experience about the field then individual will feel under confident because of poor performance and individual will not be able to continue the job. Second problem was not having formal training sessions and when in the new flow line process straining was given to them then they were unable to gain the knowledge because of having no basic knowledge (NeÄadová. and Scholleová, 2011). Third reason was leaving their job was that customers were not satisfy with poor quality poles products so sales and profitability were getting down so employees feel that they have no career opportunity for them thus they start leaving their jobs. These were the main reason of experiencing absenteeism and staff turn over on the Run-Rhedeg Ltd.
2. Management style of Tony Taylor
Tony Taylor was the founder of the Run-Rhedeg Ltd, he was having good experience and knowledge about sports. He attends conferences and meetings continuously so that he can know about latest updates and can run its business well. Tony was very confident on his knowledge and experience. Management style adopted by the person was participative style. It is also called democratic style in this managers involve the people in the decision making process and take their suggestion in each phase. If employees are giving any innovative ideas so Tony immediately implement these ideas in order to enhance performance of the Run-Rhedeg Ltd. Tony encourages his staff members so that they share their views and feel participative in the workplace. Powers given by the management to the staff members. It can be justified by the case study as well. It is found in the Run-Rhedeg Ltd that each team member have control and discipline over their own work. No one force them to do particular activity (Ntayi, Ahiauzu and Eyaa, 2011). If their performance gets down then team own self take decisions. In the extreme cases staff members ask the production head so that problems can be minimized.
According to the case study it can be said that in the Run-Rhedeg Ltd no formal system is followed, all employees have freedom to talk and perform their duties by their own norms. There is no restriction from the authorities side that is why people discuss their social life in the workplace and pay les attention on work. Participative management style of Tony always help in encouraging the people so that they share their views and get involved in the decision making process. But due to less controlling and nor policies and regulation people do not take their responsibilities seriously. That affect their performance level and they do not produce quality poles (Ankli and Palliam. 2012).
Participative management style is good and worthwhile. It gives optimistic results to the organization if management manages its team well. It gives opportunities to the employees that of working together and develop their bonding. That builds strong relationship with the employees and people support the firm in their difficult time. On other hand participative management style affect the working performance because no controlling and no supervision impact on the quality of production. Tony is required to closely supervise its team because team members have no knowledge (Oplatka and Stundi, 2011). Close monitoring will help in managing decorum in the workplace and people will fulfill their responsibility well. From the case study of Run-Rhedeg Ltd it is found that Tony Taylor has adopted the participative management style in the workplace.
3. Fayol and Mintzberg theory
Fayol and Mintzberg have given the management theory which describe the role and functions of the managers in an organization. This concept describes the five main elements of the management such as planning, organizing, coordinating, commanding and controlling. This model explains that it is necessary for the managers to follow these all components for managing the people well in the firms (Perkins and Muondo, 2013). Fayol and Mintzberg theory has described five function of management, these are as following:
This model states that managers have to plan the activities in order to accomplish the goal of the organization. It is the responsibility of Tony that to combine the unity, provide flexibility and provide resources to the people so that they can perform their work well. Individual has to make proper planning so that drawback can be minimized and Run-Rhedeg Ltd can enhance its quality of manufacturing. Tony is the experienced but being a manager he has not fulfilled his function well. Tony was very confident on its experience but never work for making planning (Hart, 2012).
It is another function of managers which is necessary to fulfill by the management level persons. It is the responsibility of Tony that to provide capital and raw material so that staff members can manufacture the poles well. Tony has played the role of organizer, individual provides necessary resources to the workers so that they can perform their duties well. Individual attention conferences and meetings so that he can gain more knowledge and can p gain competitive advantage by organizing the activities well (Homola, 2014).
Main objective of Run-Rhedeg Ltd is to enhance its performance and gain success in the corporate market. It is the role of Tony that to have integrity and communicate with the staff members clearly. Knowledge and loyalty can eliminate the incompetence. Tony has performed his duties well. Individual has given all rights to the employees so that they can coordinate well with each other and can make effective communication. But to some extent Tony fails to ado its job well because he was not commanding over its staff members (Jaivin, 2012).
Faylor theory has explained another function of manager in the organization that is controlling. Individual is responsible for identifying the weakness, take time to time feedbacks and conform the activities are running as per the plan or not. It suggests that managers have to adopt tall structure in the workplace and have to make strong control over the staff members so that people can perform well and can improve their performance level. Tony takes feedback from the staff members but controlling is very low. That is why people discuss more their social life in spite of working in the Run-Rhedeg Ltd (Kaleta and et.al, 2012).
This theory suggests that managers play role of coordinator in the organization. Individual has to maintain harmony in the workplace and have to make effective coordination between sales and production and rest other departments. So that no confusion takes place and individual fulfill their duties well. Being a manager in the Run-Rhedeg Ltd, Tony has carried out its responsibilities well. Because Tony conduct meeting time to time with staff members and ask their suggestion. It involves all members in the meeting so that common goal can be shared with all. That enhance coordination and reduced conflicts situation in the workplace (Eames. and et. al, 2008).
4. Recommendation by USW solution
Consultant of USW solutions have identified the business performance of the Run-Rhedeg Ltd and individual found that there is main problem of poor knowledge and unskilled staff members. Apart from this another drawback of the cited firm is that no controlling over employees. So it can be recommendated that Run-Rhedeg Ltd should give time to time training to the staff members so that they can gain knowledge about manufacturing and can improve their performance. It is necessary to involve basic knowledge in the training then go towards higher level. This will be easily understandable by the workers. Apart from this HR manager has to hire skilled people those who have knowledge about manufacturing field, so that they can contribute well in the success of the firm. Another suggestion that can help in improving performance of the Run-Rhedeg Ltd is that Tony is required to make effective control over staff members. There must be specific rules and regulations so that quality of production can be maintained. Strong control will force the staff to pay more attention on work rather then wresting time in gossiping.
From the above report it can be concluded that identify the behavior of employees is very important. If people are positive then they will coordinate well and will put best efforts for the success of the organization. But if they are negative then they will not perform well in the workplace. Run-Rhedeg Ltd is required to concentrate on its staff members and their attitude. By this way it will be able to improve their performance and will be able to accomplish its goal soon.
- Ankli. E. R. and Palliam. R., 2012. "Enabling a motivated workforce: exploring the sources of motivation". Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal. 26(2). pp. 7 – 10.
- Boyce, L. A., Zaccaro, S. J. and Wisecarver, M. Z., 2010. Propensity for self-development of leadership attributes: Understanding, predicting, and supporting performance of leader self-development. The Leadership Quarterly. 21(1). pp.159-178.
- Braun, S. and. et. al., 2013. Transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and team performance: A multilevel mediation model of trust. The Leadership Quarterly. 24(1). pp.270-283.
- Carter, M. Z. and. et. al., 2013. Transformational leadership, relationship quality, and employee performance during continuous incremental organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 34(7). pp.942-958.
- Eames, C. and et. al., 2008. The Leader Observation Tool: A process skills treatment fidelity measure for the Incredible Years parenting programme. Child: care, health and development. 34(3). pp.391-400.
- Hart, M., 2012. Is it Just Me?. Hachette UK.
- Homola, S., 2014. Neck manipulation, stroke and the precautionary principle. Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies. 19(4). 208-211.
- Jaivin, L., 2012. Confessions of an S & M Virgin. Text Publishing.
- Kaleta, D. and et.al., 2012. Objectives The aim of this study was to assess patient-dentist communication and to evaluate the factors affecting it among Saudi patients and its effect on satisfaction. Materials and Methods A self-administered questionnaire was designed for this survey with 5-scale Likert-type statements. Results Patients’ main concern was the courtesy followed by information interaction, moral support, explaining the procedure and understanding of the patient’s feelings. These were the factors that contributed .... International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health. 25(1). 97-102.
- NeÄadová, M. and Scholleová, H., 2011. Motives and barriers of innovation behaviour of companies. Economics & Management. 16(2). pp.832-838.
- Ntayi, J. M., Ahiauzu, A. and Eyaa, S., 2011. Psychological Climate, Catharsis, Organizational Anomie, Psychological Wellness and Ethical Procurement Behaviour in Uganda's Public Sector. Journal of Public Procurement. 11(1). pp.1.
- Oplatka, I. and Stundi, M., 2011. The components and determinants of preschool teacher organisational citizenship behaviour. International Journal of Educational Management. 25(3). pp.223 – 236.
- Pan , F. X., Qin , Q. and Gao , F., 2014. Psychological ownership, organization-based self-esteem and positive organizational behaviors. Chinese Management Studies. 8(1). pp.127 – 14.
- Parikh, 2010. Organisational Behaviour. Tata McGraw-Hill Education.
- Perkins, S. and Muondo, R. A., 2013. Organizational Behaviour: People, Process, Work and Human Resource Management. Kogan Page Publishers.