3.
Organizing
January-2004 [18]
3.
a) 'Organisation is an important tool to
achieve enterprise objective.' Explain this statement with help of steps in
organization. [6]
b) Define span of control.
Explain the factors, which determine span of control. [7]
c) Explain basic principles
of organization. [5]
ans :-- First
of all, men are social animals. It is not everything they are, of course, but
it is certainly a major part of their nature. As social animals, they have certain
inborn way to organize themselves: family, small tribe up to 300 people, and
sexually specific organizations: male warbands and friendships, and female
circles. Those fundamental elements of society are not included amongst the
rational principles of organisation. They are the default position, from which
the society starts and to which it retreats when all higher form fails. Most
importantly, they are insufficient by themselves to ensure survival of any
society higher or larger than a small tribe. The rational principles either
make use of or oppose those instinctive and natural associations, but are
always distinct from them.
Secondly, the basic aspect of all organisations is the justification: what is the reason that members of that organization should be loyal to it and sacrifice their interests for the good of the whole. For the natural organizations described above that problem is less important, because the loyalty to such organisations is inborn in men. People are naturally willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of their family or to help their friends in warband. In addition, the necessity for social cohesion is obvious for small tribes surrounded by untamed nature and by enemies.
Obviously, all existing social systems make use of those natural loyalties, but require some higher principle to go beyond them, to the loyalty to the remote leader, the state, the nation or the humanity as the whole. This is why the assertions by writers on military cohesion that soldiers fight not for the cause or nation but for their friends are obviously false. The soldiers do fight for their friends – that is the emotion they actually feel. But in some armies there is a reason why both they and their friends are willing to sacrifice their life, and do not simply run away together. Other armies lack that reason, and as the result their soldiers do run away.
Such justification are also needed in other areas of society. Why an official should to be honest, and benefit strangers to the detriment of his own kin? In many states there is no such justification, and as the result there prevails corruption. Such states are able to be anything more than bands of robbers preying on local tribes only thans to direct or indirect help from other, more robust nations.
Justification for the state are usually religious or more rarely pseudo-religious, in the form of utopian ideologies. For a limited time a society can survive without such a justification, sustained only by the habit of obedience and self-interest. At present China is running an experiment, with its government having no better justification than the fact that it governs and is ensuring prosperity. The desperate attempts to ensure high and constant economic growth suggest that the rulers of China are not confident that this experiment will end favourably for them.
Such problem are analysed by Eric Voegelin in his books, eg New Science of Politics. This essay however is concerned more with the problem what are the members of society to do, not why are they willing to do it.
The most basic way to ensure cooperation, from the theoretical point of view, is a free agreement of parties, as in commercial partnerships. We could call the zero principle – particularly as it actually does not assure any cooperation, which lasts only as long as all parties believe that it is in their interest. If the partners do not agree, the partnership is dissolved. This system is theoretically the best possible, as it ensures both cooperation and freedom, but can work at most for a few partners. In practice, it is very often only a formal expression of instinctive modes of cooperation, such as friendship or warband; if it is not the case, such a partnership is extremely fragile. There were attempts to apply similar principles to the state, but they obviously always ended in failure.
The first actual principle is tradition: one does as did one's fathers did before him. This must be distinguished from habit of obedience as it was described above. Habit of obedience is one of possible reasons why people continue to obey some social structure. It means simply that any change of existing structure entails risk and effort, and people are not willing to do that without good cause. Habit of obedience can support various systems of organisation.
Tradition as a system of organisation describes what members of society should do: namely what they and their forefathers did before. It is typical for the simplest and least changing societies, and is usually supported by religious beliefs, or, of course, the habit of obedience. Without other principles, it can held together only a wholly undifferentiated society, in which all members do the same. The benefits of this principle are twofold: tradition works, better or worse, but reliably, and it costs nothing.
Traditional societies are very often the first form of state formed from unified tribes. The new ruler retains the tribal form of organization, even if he reshapes the actual tribes which form it, and adds on top a small layer of his administration, which is financed by tribal tribute. The army is formed by tribal levies and the ruler’s personal warband-bodyguard.
The principle of tradition is obviously present in all long lasting social systems; it is usually emphasized by the rulers in periods of decline, when they lack any better justification than the habit of obedience. In such case, any change can lead to the collapse of the fragile rule, and therefore the system which requires the least effort and causes the least disturbance is preferred.
The second principle or system is direct command or tyranny. One does as one is told. The difference of this from many of the following principles, which can also be based on orders of sovereign or his representatives, is the criterion for assessment of individual's conformance. In this case the only criterion is the feeling of the commander; if he is satisfied, the individual did correctly. If not, not. This system allows by itself to command only a small group; the tyrant must be able to personally see and threaten each member.
By creating a hierarchy, the system can be extended – the tyrant controls his satraps, they control their lieutenants, and so on. This enlarged system, as all greater societies becomes unstable without some religious or utopian justification. Social organizations based on such a system are economically inefficient, and can survive only by robbing or extracting tribute from other societies. For that reason it is the archetypal form of organization on the Great Steppe, where tribute from surrounding sedentary societies was always necessary.
The benefits of this system are flexibility and simplicity. The disadvantage is enormous inefficiency and incompatibility with any economic progress.
The third principle is that of law and morality. One does as one should do. There are various definitions of law and morality. Here we will use the following distinction: morality is what you should do regardless what other members are planning to do; law describes what you should do in cooperation with others. In particular, when you obey a moral rule, it is immaterial whether other people obey such rules, and what they should do. In case of law, to the contrary, this is of prime importance. This definition is far too short, and probably makes little sense without further explanation, but for now we will leave it at that.
We will consider primarily law. This principle is even more connected with other principles than is the case in general – even in abstracto it is hard to imagine a society ruled entirely by the law, with no personal authority. The law can be established by tradition or command; it can demand mechanical obedience to precise rules or autonomic interpretation of general principles. The specific difference of the law is that it is known in advance and foreseeable, and in addition it establishes only certain limits, within which an individual can behave as he wishes. It is, therefore, the first principle which allows individual any autonomy – and autonomy, the freedom to make decisions, is necessary for progress (and for that reason, of course, it is dangerous).
The fourth and fifth principles are connected together; in a sense, they are opposites. They require a bit more explanation than others; we all know what is law, command or tradition, but those principles are less well understood. They are principally met with in either military or management.Those principles are also directly connected with an increasingly important element of modern society: various inspections by the private and governmental institutions.
In the German and even more in English military tradition they were called Befehlstaktik and Auftragstaktik – the command-system and the task-system. Various enthusiasts call them also Second and Third generation war. Those names can be obviously rather confusing.
The so-called Befehlstaktik (command tactic or system) or Second Generation War is actually a very civilian principle of organisation, and it has nearly nothing to do with commands as defined in the second principle. In management it could be called Fordism or eg process management. It is actually rather simple: you define exactly what each position in organisation should do and what are the criteria for the appraisal of its performance and the rewards and penalties. Next you take a man, train him appropriately, put him in the position and inspect his compliance with rules. If he follow exactly the rules, you reward him according to the pre-established tables, if not, you introduce appropriate penalties. In short, you construct a kind of Skinner box, or conduct Pavlov training, with preestablished expected stimuli and reactions.
For various reasons, mostly having to do with the fundamental principles of Western civilisation, that system is immensely popular. Of course, it has many advantages: predictability, and surprisingly also freedom. Namely, freedom is actually not a freedom to do anything as such – in that sense anyone is perfectly free, since he can do what he wishes – if he disregards the results. Freedom to be meaningful requires an ability to foresee the results of one's action; only if we can know what will be the results of our action, we can make reasonable decision – and only such decisions can be said to be truly free. In addition, this system allows to avoid having to make ever any personal decision. In each situation (that is, each situation foreseen by the planner) correct behavior is clearly predetermined and established. This allows to fulfill another modern desire: to avoid responsibility and to avoid any personal authority. No one will be able to order the individual to do anything; all duties will follow from first principles. In fact, such a system seems to provide absolute freedom and absolute security, together with avoidance of any responsibility. It is ready made for anyone who wishes to use it to create utopia.
This system is, of course, an attempt to create a machine of people, and because of that, Matt Beck's essay is applicably to this in toto: In its utopian or immoderate form it represents the typical quest of Western utopianism to construct a perfect mental or physical machine which should replace the world.
Secondly, the basic aspect of all organisations is the justification: what is the reason that members of that organization should be loyal to it and sacrifice their interests for the good of the whole. For the natural organizations described above that problem is less important, because the loyalty to such organisations is inborn in men. People are naturally willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of their family or to help their friends in warband. In addition, the necessity for social cohesion is obvious for small tribes surrounded by untamed nature and by enemies.
Obviously, all existing social systems make use of those natural loyalties, but require some higher principle to go beyond them, to the loyalty to the remote leader, the state, the nation or the humanity as the whole. This is why the assertions by writers on military cohesion that soldiers fight not for the cause or nation but for their friends are obviously false. The soldiers do fight for their friends – that is the emotion they actually feel. But in some armies there is a reason why both they and their friends are willing to sacrifice their life, and do not simply run away together. Other armies lack that reason, and as the result their soldiers do run away.
Such justification are also needed in other areas of society. Why an official should to be honest, and benefit strangers to the detriment of his own kin? In many states there is no such justification, and as the result there prevails corruption. Such states are able to be anything more than bands of robbers preying on local tribes only thans to direct or indirect help from other, more robust nations.
Justification for the state are usually religious or more rarely pseudo-religious, in the form of utopian ideologies. For a limited time a society can survive without such a justification, sustained only by the habit of obedience and self-interest. At present China is running an experiment, with its government having no better justification than the fact that it governs and is ensuring prosperity. The desperate attempts to ensure high and constant economic growth suggest that the rulers of China are not confident that this experiment will end favourably for them.
Such problem are analysed by Eric Voegelin in his books, eg New Science of Politics. This essay however is concerned more with the problem what are the members of society to do, not why are they willing to do it.
The most basic way to ensure cooperation, from the theoretical point of view, is a free agreement of parties, as in commercial partnerships. We could call the zero principle – particularly as it actually does not assure any cooperation, which lasts only as long as all parties believe that it is in their interest. If the partners do not agree, the partnership is dissolved. This system is theoretically the best possible, as it ensures both cooperation and freedom, but can work at most for a few partners. In practice, it is very often only a formal expression of instinctive modes of cooperation, such as friendship or warband; if it is not the case, such a partnership is extremely fragile. There were attempts to apply similar principles to the state, but they obviously always ended in failure.
The first actual principle is tradition: one does as did one's fathers did before him. This must be distinguished from habit of obedience as it was described above. Habit of obedience is one of possible reasons why people continue to obey some social structure. It means simply that any change of existing structure entails risk and effort, and people are not willing to do that without good cause. Habit of obedience can support various systems of organisation.
Tradition as a system of organisation describes what members of society should do: namely what they and their forefathers did before. It is typical for the simplest and least changing societies, and is usually supported by religious beliefs, or, of course, the habit of obedience. Without other principles, it can held together only a wholly undifferentiated society, in which all members do the same. The benefits of this principle are twofold: tradition works, better or worse, but reliably, and it costs nothing.
Traditional societies are very often the first form of state formed from unified tribes. The new ruler retains the tribal form of organization, even if he reshapes the actual tribes which form it, and adds on top a small layer of his administration, which is financed by tribal tribute. The army is formed by tribal levies and the ruler’s personal warband-bodyguard.
The principle of tradition is obviously present in all long lasting social systems; it is usually emphasized by the rulers in periods of decline, when they lack any better justification than the habit of obedience. In such case, any change can lead to the collapse of the fragile rule, and therefore the system which requires the least effort and causes the least disturbance is preferred.
The second principle or system is direct command or tyranny. One does as one is told. The difference of this from many of the following principles, which can also be based on orders of sovereign or his representatives, is the criterion for assessment of individual's conformance. In this case the only criterion is the feeling of the commander; if he is satisfied, the individual did correctly. If not, not. This system allows by itself to command only a small group; the tyrant must be able to personally see and threaten each member.
By creating a hierarchy, the system can be extended – the tyrant controls his satraps, they control their lieutenants, and so on. This enlarged system, as all greater societies becomes unstable without some religious or utopian justification. Social organizations based on such a system are economically inefficient, and can survive only by robbing or extracting tribute from other societies. For that reason it is the archetypal form of organization on the Great Steppe, where tribute from surrounding sedentary societies was always necessary.
The benefits of this system are flexibility and simplicity. The disadvantage is enormous inefficiency and incompatibility with any economic progress.
The third principle is that of law and morality. One does as one should do. There are various definitions of law and morality. Here we will use the following distinction: morality is what you should do regardless what other members are planning to do; law describes what you should do in cooperation with others. In particular, when you obey a moral rule, it is immaterial whether other people obey such rules, and what they should do. In case of law, to the contrary, this is of prime importance. This definition is far too short, and probably makes little sense without further explanation, but for now we will leave it at that.
We will consider primarily law. This principle is even more connected with other principles than is the case in general – even in abstracto it is hard to imagine a society ruled entirely by the law, with no personal authority. The law can be established by tradition or command; it can demand mechanical obedience to precise rules or autonomic interpretation of general principles. The specific difference of the law is that it is known in advance and foreseeable, and in addition it establishes only certain limits, within which an individual can behave as he wishes. It is, therefore, the first principle which allows individual any autonomy – and autonomy, the freedom to make decisions, is necessary for progress (and for that reason, of course, it is dangerous).
The fourth and fifth principles are connected together; in a sense, they are opposites. They require a bit more explanation than others; we all know what is law, command or tradition, but those principles are less well understood. They are principally met with in either military or management.Those principles are also directly connected with an increasingly important element of modern society: various inspections by the private and governmental institutions.
In the German and even more in English military tradition they were called Befehlstaktik and Auftragstaktik – the command-system and the task-system. Various enthusiasts call them also Second and Third generation war. Those names can be obviously rather confusing.
The so-called Befehlstaktik (command tactic or system) or Second Generation War is actually a very civilian principle of organisation, and it has nearly nothing to do with commands as defined in the second principle. In management it could be called Fordism or eg process management. It is actually rather simple: you define exactly what each position in organisation should do and what are the criteria for the appraisal of its performance and the rewards and penalties. Next you take a man, train him appropriately, put him in the position and inspect his compliance with rules. If he follow exactly the rules, you reward him according to the pre-established tables, if not, you introduce appropriate penalties. In short, you construct a kind of Skinner box, or conduct Pavlov training, with preestablished expected stimuli and reactions.
For various reasons, mostly having to do with the fundamental principles of Western civilisation, that system is immensely popular. Of course, it has many advantages: predictability, and surprisingly also freedom. Namely, freedom is actually not a freedom to do anything as such – in that sense anyone is perfectly free, since he can do what he wishes – if he disregards the results. Freedom to be meaningful requires an ability to foresee the results of one's action; only if we can know what will be the results of our action, we can make reasonable decision – and only such decisions can be said to be truly free. In addition, this system allows to avoid having to make ever any personal decision. In each situation (that is, each situation foreseen by the planner) correct behavior is clearly predetermined and established. This allows to fulfill another modern desire: to avoid responsibility and to avoid any personal authority. No one will be able to order the individual to do anything; all duties will follow from first principles. In fact, such a system seems to provide absolute freedom and absolute security, together with avoidance of any responsibility. It is ready made for anyone who wishes to use it to create utopia.
This system is, of course, an attempt to create a machine of people, and because of that, Matt Beck's essay is applicably to this in toto: In its utopian or immoderate form it represents the typical quest of Western utopianism to construct a perfect mental or physical machine which should replace the world.
July-2004 [2]
1. Give very brief (2-3 lines) answers to
the following questions:
c) Define span of management. [2]
ans :-- Simple meaning is - how many people are directly
reporting to one manager.
Span of management also known as span of control means how many subordinates are handled by a superior. It is one of the basic functions of organization.
Simple meaning of Span of Management is how many people are directly reporting to one manager.
Span of management also known as span of control means how many subordinates are handled by a superior. It is one of the basic functions of organization.
Simple meaning of Span of Management is how many people are directly reporting to one manager.
January-2005 [19]
1.
a) Give very brief answers to the
following questions:
i) Explain the concept of matrix
organization. [2]
ans :-- An
organizational
structure that facilitates the horizontal flow of skills and information.
It is used mainly in the management
of large projects
or product
development processes, drawing employees
from different functional
disciplines
for assignment
to a team
without removing them from their respective positions.
Employees in a matrix
organization report
on day-to-day performance
to the project or product
manager whose authority
flows
sideways (horizontally) across departmental boundaries. They also continue to
report on their overall performance to the head of their department
whose authority flows downwards (vertically) within his or her department. In addition
to a multiple command and control structure,
a matrix organization necessitates new support mechanisms,
organizational
culture, and behavior patterns. Developed
at the US National Aeronautics & Space Administration
(NASA) in association
with its suppliers,
this structure gets its name from its resemblance to a table
(matrix) where every element is
included in a row as well as a column.
c) Distinguish between
v) Delegation and Decentralization
ans
:--
Difference between delegation
and decentralization
|
Basis
|
Delegation
|
Decentralization
|
|
(i)
Definition
|
It refers to the entrustment of responsibility
and authority from a superior to his subordinate. Thus, it is
individualistic.
|
It refers to the delegation of authority to a
lower level in the organization. Thus, it is totalistic.
|
|
(ii) Scope
|
It is restricted from one person to another.
|
It takes place when delegation is made to all the
employees at a number of levels.
|
|
(iii) Control
|
The person who delegates authority keeps the
power to control with himself.
|
Control is exercised in a general manner. The
authority to control may also be delegated to the lower levels.
|
|
(iv) Compulsion
|
Delegation is compulsory if an executive wants to
get the help of others in getting things done.
|
Decentralization is optional. Management may not
find it necessary to decentralize authority.
|
|
(v)
Relationship
|
Delegation establishes superior-subordinate
relationship.
|
Decentralization is a step towards creation of
semi-autonomous units.
|
|
|
2.
a)
"Sound organisational
structure is an essential prerequisite of effective management" Comment.
[5]
5.
a) What are the similarities and
differences between delegation and empowerment? [10]
July-2005 [12]
1.
c) “Sound organizational structure is an
essential prerequisite of effective management” Do you agree with the above?
Justify your answer. [4]
b) Describe the logical relationships
between division of work, departmentalization, hierarchy and co-ordination. [8]
January-2006 [8]
1.
g) Distinguish between:
ii) Authority
and Responsibility [2]
ans
:--
Responsibility
Responsibility implies a relationship. The person responsible to ensure something happens in the expected manner. In project management, this means completing all major milestones on or before their scheduled times, keeping costs and cash flow within the project budget, and delivering quality in accordance with the project standards.
The person responsible for a project is not necessarily the same person who is allowed to change to the project requirements.
Authority
Responsibility implies a relationship. The person responsible to ensure something happens in the expected manner. In project management, this means completing all major milestones on or before their scheduled times, keeping costs and cash flow within the project budget, and delivering quality in accordance with the project standards.
The person responsible for a project is not necessarily the same person who is allowed to change to the project requirements.
Authority
Authority connotes a function or title. The person
authorized to make decisions as to the cost, schedule and other questions that
arise throughout the course of the project execution.
The person with authority over a project may allow change the project requirements.
7.
b) Write short notes on any three of the following:
i) Information
organisations [3]
ii) Knowledge
Level systems in an organization [3]
July-2006[19]
1.
c) ‘Organising consists of two
sub-processes—differentiation and integration. [4]
Ans: Differentiation is the process of deciding how to
divide the work in an organization. Differentiation ensures that all essential
organization tasks are assigned to none or more jobs and that the tasks receive
the attention they need. Three different forms of differentiation are
horizontal, vertical and spatial.
Integration is the process of coordinating the different parts of an
organization to achieve unity among individuals and groups in various jobs,
departments, and divisions in the accomplishedment of organization goals and tasks. Integration
helps keep the organization in the state of dynamic equilibrium, condition in
which all the parts of organization are interrelated and balanced, both
vertically and horizontally.
2.
b) ‘Delegation of authority is the key to
organization.’ Discuss the statement and state the guidelines for effective
delegation of authority. [8]
3.
a) ‘Formal and informal organizations are
not two different forms, but are two dimensions of the same organization.’
Discuss and bring out clearly the differences between the two. [7]
January-2007 [9]
6.
a) What is the theory of organizational behaviour? Explain the
nature of Organisational Behaviour.
[9]
Ans: Organizational Behavior
(OB) is the study and application of knowledge about how people, individuals,
and groups act in organizations. It does this by taking a system approach.
That is, it interprets people-organization relationships in terms of the whole
person, whole group, whole organization, and whole social system. Its purpose
is to build better relationships by achieving human objectives, organizational
objectives, and social objectives. Organizational behavior encompasses a wide
range of topics, such as human behavior, change, leadership, teams, etc.
There
are four major models or frameworks that organizations operate out of:
- Autocratic - The basis of this model is power with a managerial orientation of authority. The employees in turn are oriented towards obedience and dependence on the boss. The employee need that is met is subsistence. The performance result is minimal.
- Custodial - The basis of this model is economic resources with a managerial orientation of money. The employees in turn are oriented towards security and benefits and dependence on the organization. The employee need that is met is security. The performance result is passive cooperation.
- Supportive - The basis of this model is leadership with a managerial orientation of support. The employees in turn are oriented towards job performance and participation. The employee need that is met is status and recognition. The performance result is awakened drives.
- Collegial - The basis of this model is partnership with a managerial orientation of teamwork. The employees in turn are oriented towards responsible behavior and self-discipline. The employee need that is met is self-actualization. The performance result is moderate enthusiasm.
Nature of OB
The field of OB attempts to understand human behavior in
Organizational settings, the organization itself, and the individual
organization interface. All these areas are highly interrelated. Thus, although
it is possble to focus on only one of these areas at a time, a complete
understanding of Ob requires knowledge of all
three areas. Thus the field of OB is exciting
and complex.
Environment -->Human behavior in organization settings<-->individual organization interface.
OB has three levels of performance analyses viz., The Individual, The group and the Formal ORganization.
OB is a contingency orientation approach that is directed towards developing managerial actions that are most appropriate for a specific situation and the people involved.
OB is a source of knowledge and repository of information by theorists, researchers and practitioners.
OB is science and art as it contains the skill and knowledge of applying it
Environment -->Human behavior in organization settings<-->individual organization interface.
OB has three levels of performance analyses viz., The Individual, The group and the Formal ORganization.
OB is a contingency orientation approach that is directed towards developing managerial actions that are most appropriate for a specific situation and the people involved.
OB is a source of knowledge and repository of information by theorists, researchers and practitioners.
OB is science and art as it contains the skill and knowledge of applying it
July-2007 [13]
1.
c) What are the main principles of
delegation of authority?
[4]
5.
b) Distinguish between Formal and Informal
Organization. [9]
ans :-- An organization established
under certain rules and regulation is called formal organization. In such
organization the duty, authority, responsibility and accountability of the
person involved are clearly defined. But informal organization is spontaneously
established with feeling, sentiment, spirit. whim, desire, concept etc. of
similar minded persons. In such organization duty, authority, responsibility
etc. are not defined. It functions with the understanding of the persons
involved in it. So there are basic difference between formal and informal
organization.
- Formal organization is formed for achievement of clearly defined objective. Such organization are established to produce consumer goods and services and meet their needs. The main objective of the formal organization is to save their organization, make it stable, develop and expand it, earn profit and provide public services etc. But informal organization has no such objectives, it is only an association of similar minded persons. It is inspired by the feeling of the friendship,fame, respect, unity, safety of job etc.
- Formal organization is established with certain process but informal organization comes to exist spontaneously.
- All the members of the formal organization are bound together with authority relation. In such organization a hierarchical structure of lower level, middle level and higher level managements work in co-ordination and can be showed in a chart. But informal organization is not so and duty, authority and responsibility of its members are not found in written forms. So they cannot be shown in chart.
- In a formal organization particular works which are performed for the achievement of organizational goal are identified. The identified works are classified in different groups and sub groups. But it is not so in informal organization.
- In formal organization duty, authority, responsibility etc of each person is clearly defined by line, rules and regulation. Si it is not done in informal organization.Informal organization works with unwritten rules, regulation and code of conduct.
- In formal organization efficiency, skills, discipline, control,etc.are given emphasis but in informal organization freedom, homely environment, friendly behaviour etc are emphasized.
- In formal organization communication system operates in the predetermined model and way, but communication system operates in natural way. even then communication system becomes effective in informal organization.
- A formal organization follows traditional norms and values. It adopts environmental changes less, but informal organization becomes dynamic and works according to the changing environment.
- Leadership is already fixed in formal organization but in informal organization leadership is not fixed. It depends on the individual ability, efficiency and charisma informal organization.
- All the activities of a formal organization are directed towards achievements of the organizational goal. So less importance is given to social and psychological necessity, interest, expectation, feelings etc. of the persons involved in it. But in informal organization priority is to social and psychological necessity, expectation, interest, feelings etc of its members.
January-2008 [26]
1.
d) Explain the concept of matrix
organization.
[4]
ans :-- An
organizational
structure that facilitates the horizontal flow of skills and information.
It is used mainly in the management
of large projects
or product
development processes, drawing employees
from different functional
disciplines
for assignment
to a team
without removing them from their respective positions.Employees in a matrix organization report on day-to-day performance to the project or product manager whose authority flows sideways (horizontally) across departmental boundaries. They also continue to report on their overall performance to the head of their department whose authority flows downwards (vertically) within his or her department. In addition to a multiple command and control structure, a matrix organization necessitates new support mechanisms, organizational culture, and behavior patterns. Developed at the US National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA) in association with its suppliers, this structure gets its name from its resemblance to a table (matrix) where every element is included in a row as well as a column.
e) Given a choice between delegations and
empowerment, suggest which one should be adopted by a HR-Manager to enhance
organization’s efficiency and effectiveness. [4]
2.
a) “Sound
organizational structure is an essential prerequisite of effective management”.
Comment.
[6]
ans :-- 1. Facilitates administration:
Sound organisation facilitates the achievement of the objectives of an enterprise by providing a framework within which the functions of coordination and control can be per formed effectively. It provides a system of authority and a network for effective communications. It is the means by which common men can do uncommon things. Organisation is a network of decision communication centers in which individual efforts can be coordinated towards group goals.It integrates the various jobs into an operating system to provide for the accomplishment of the firm's objectives. Thus, a properly designed and balanced organization structure facilitates both management and operation of the enterprise. Inadequate organisation may not only discourage but actually preclude effective administration.
2. Encourages growth and diversification:
It is sound organization practices that have enabled enterprises to grow and expand to giant sizes. An organization structure is the framework within which an enter pries grows. Systematic division of work and consistent delegation of authority facilitate taking up of new activities, and meeting new demands. A sound structure provides the necessary flexibility for growth without losing control over the various activities. Balanced emphasis can be put on different activities.3. Optimum use of new technology:
Optimum use of technological improvements can be made through a sound structure manned with competent employees. In addition, a sound organisation permits optimum utilization of human resources. It permits humane use of human beings by avoiding duplication of work and overlapping of efforts. Sound organisation ensures that every individual is placed on the job for which he is best suited.4. Stimulates innovation and creativity:
A well-designed organization stimulates creative thinking and initiative on the part of employees. It provides for effective management of change and responds favorably to changes in the environment. By providing well-defined areas of work and clear-cut responsibility, it provides recognition for the professional and the specialist in terms of their achievements.5. Encourages good human relations:
In a sound organisation every individual is assigned the job for which he is best suited. The assignment of right jobs to right persons improves job satisfaction and interpersonal relations. Well-defined jobs and clear lines of authority and responsibility help to establish cordial relations between management and workers.6. Ensures continuity of enterprise:
Sound organisation helps in the continuity of management by providing scope for the training and development of future management. An effective organisation provides avenues for development and promotion through extensive delegation and decentralization of authority.
4.
a) ‘Formal
and informal organizations are not two different forms, but are two dimensions
of the same organizations.’ Discuss and bring out clearly the differences
between the two.
[6]
Ans :-- Formal
organization
is a fixed set of rules of intra-organization
procedures and structures. As such, it is usually set out in writing, with a
language of rules
that ostensibly leave little discretion for interpretation.
In some societies and in some organization, such rules may be strictly
followed; in others, they may be little more than an empty formalism.- To facilitate the accomplishment of the goals of the organization: In a formal organization the work is delegated to each individual of the organization. He/She works towards the attainment of definite goals, which are in compliance with the goals of the organization.
- To facilitate the co-ordination of various activities: The authority, responsibility and accountability of individuals in the organization is very well defined. Hence, facilitating the co-ordination of various activities of the organisation very effectively.
- To aid the establishment of logical authority relationship: The responsibilities of the individuals in the organisation are well defined. They have a definite place in the organisation due to a well defined hierarchical structure which is inherent in any formal organisation.
- Permit the application of the concept of specialization and division of Labour, division of work amongst individuals according to their capabilities helps in greater specializations and division of work.
- Create more group cohesiveness
Characteristics of a formal organization
- Well defined rules and regulation
- Arbitrary structure
- Determined objectives and policies
- Status symbol
- Limitation on the activities of the individual
- Strict observance of the principle of co-ordination
- Messages are communicated through scalar chain
Distinction from informal organization
Formal rules are often adapted to subjective interests — social structures within an enterprise and the personal goals, desires, sympathies and behaviors of the individual workers — so that the practical everyday life of an organization becomes informal. Practical experience shows no organization is ever completely rule-bound: instead, all real organizations represent some mix of formal and informal. Consequently, when attempting to legislate for an organization and to create a formal structure, it is necessary to recognize informal organization in order to create workable structures. However, informal organization can fail, or, if already set in order, can work against mismanagement.Formal organizations are typically understood to be systems of coordinated and controlled activities that arise when work is embedded in complex networks of technical relations and boundary-spanning exchanges. But in modern societies, formal organizational structures arise in highly institutional contexts. Organizations are driven to incorporate the practices and procedures defined by prevailing rationalized concepts of organizational work and institutionalized in society. Organizations that do so increase their legitimacy and their survival prospects, independent of the immediate efficacy of the acquired practices and procedures. There can develop a tension between on the one hand, the institutionalized products, services, techniques, policies, and programs that function as myths (and may be ceremonially adopted), and efficiency criteria on the other hand. To maintain ceremonial conformity, organizations that reflect institutional rules tend to buffer their formal structures from the uncertainties of the technical activities by developing a loose coupling between their formal structures and actual work activities. - (John Meyer and Brian Rowan, 1976)
The informal organization is the interlocking social structure that governs how people work together in practice. It is the aggregate of behaviors, interactions, norms, personal and professional connections through which work gets done and relationships are built among people who share a common organizational affiliation or cluster of affiliations. It consists of a dynamic set of personal relationships, social networks, communities of common interest, and emotional sources of motivation. The informal organization evolves organically and spontaneously in response to changes in the work environment, the flux of people through its porous boundaries, and the complex social dynamics of its members.
Tended effectively, the informal organization complements the more explicit structures, plans, and processes of the formal organization: it can accelerate and enhance responses to unanticipated events, foster innovation, enable people to solve problems that require collaboration across boundaries, and create footpaths showing where the formal organization may someday need to pave a way.
The informal organization and the formal organization
The nature of the informal organization becomes more distinct when its key characteristics are juxtaposed with those of the formal organization.Key characteristics of the informal organization:
- evolving constantly
- grass roots
- dynamic and responsive
- excellent at motivation
- requires insider knowledge to be seen
- treats people as individuals
- flat and fluid
- cohered by trust and reciprocity
- difficult to pin down
- essential for situations that change quickly or are not yet fully understood
Perpetuate the cultural and social values
They perpetuate the cultural and social values that the group holds dear. Certain values are usually already held in common among informal group members. Day-to-day interaction reinforces these values that perpetuate a particular lifestyle and preserve group unity and integrity. For example, a college management class of 50 students may contain several informal groups that constitute the informal organization within the formal structure of the class. These groups may develop out of fraternity or sorority relationships, dorm residency, project work teams, or seating arrangements. Dress codes, hairstyles, and political party involvement are reinforced among the group members.Provide social status and satisfaction
They provide social status and satisfaction that may not be obtained from the formal organization. In a large organization (or classroom), a worker (or student) may feel like an anonymous number rather than a unique individual. Members of informal groups, however, share jokes and gripes, eat together, play and work together, and are friends-which contributes to personal esteem, satisfaction, and a feeling of worth.Promote communication among members
The informal group develops a communication channel or system (i.e., grapevine) to keep its members informed about what management actions will affect them in various ways. Many astute managers use the grape- vine to "informally" convey certain information about company actions and rumors.Provide social control
They provide social control by influencing and regulating behavior inside and outside the group. Internal control persuades members of the group to conform to its lifestyle. For example, if a student starts to wear a coat and tie to class, informal group members may razz and convince the student that such attire is not acceptable and therefore to return to sandals, jeans, and T-shirts. External control is directed to such groups as management, union leadership, and other informal groups.Disadvantages of informal groups
Informal organizations also possess the following potential disadvantages and problems that require astute and careful management attention.Resistance to change.
Perpetuation of values and lifestyle causes informal groups to become overly protective of their "culture" and therefore resist change. For example, if restriction of output was the norm in an autocratic management group, it must continue to be so, even though management changes have brought about a more participative administration.Role conflict.
The quest for informal group satisfaction may lead members away from formal organizational objectives. What is good for and desired by informal group members is not always good for the organization. Doubling the number of coffee breaks and the length of the lunch period may be desirable for group members but costly and unprofitable for the firm. Employees' desire to fulfill the requirements and services of both the informal group and management results in role conflict. Role conflict can be reduced by carefully attempting to integrate interests, goals, methods, and evaluation systems of both the informal and formal organizations, resulting in greater productivity and satisfaction on everyone's behalf.Rumor
The grapevine dispenses truth and rumor with equal vengeance. Ill-informed employees communicate unverified and untrue information that can create a devastating effect on employees. This can undermine morale, establish bad attitudes, and often result in deviant or, even violent behavior. For example, a student who flunks an exam can start a rumor that a professor is making sexually harassing advances toward one of the students in class. This can create all sorts of ill feelings toward the professor and even result in vengeful acts like "egging" the residence or knocking over the mail box.Conformity
Social control promotes and encourages conformity among informal group members, thereby making them reluctant to act too aggressively or perform at too high a level. This can harm the formal organization by stifling initiative, creativity, and diversity of performance. In some British factories, if a group member gets "out of line”, tools may be hidden, air may be let out of tires, and other group members may refuse to talk to the deviant for days or weeks. Obviously, these types of actions can force a good worker to leave the organization.Benefits of the informal organization
Although informal organizations create unique challenges and potential problems for management, they also provide a number of benefits for the formal organization.Blend with formal system
Formal plans. policies, procedures, and standards cannot solve every problem in a dynamic organization; therefore, informal systems must blend with formal ones to get work done. As early as 1951, Robert Dubin recognized that "informal relations in the organization serve to preserve the organization from the self-destruction that would result from literal obedience to the formal policies, rules, regulations, and procedures." No college or university could function merely by everyone following the "letter of the law" with respect to written policies and procedures. Faculty, staff, and student informal groups must cooperate in fulfilling the spirit of the law" to effectuate an organized, sensibly run enterprise.
6.
a) Why is innovation a very important
expect of sustainence in modern businesses? How is innovation typically managed
in an organization? [6]
ans :-- Management
innovation — that is, the implementation of new management practices, processes
and structures that represent a significant departure from current norms — has
over time dramatically transformed the way many functions and activities work
in organizations. Many of the practices, processes and structures that we see
in modern business organizations were developed during the last 150 years by
the creative efforts of management innovators. Those innovators have included
well-known names like Alfred P. Sloan and Frederick Taylor, as well as numerous
other unheralded individuals and small groups of people who all sought to
improve the internal workings of organizations by trying something new.Consider how our ability to manage the consistency of manufacturing processes has evolved: from Ford Motor’s introduction of the moving assembly line in 1913 and Western Electric’s invention of statistical quality control in 1924, through the quality revolution begun by Toyota Motor and other Japanese companies in 1945 and on to such recent innovations as the ISO quality standards and Motorola’s Six Sigma methodology, which were both introduced in 1987.1 Similarly, the ability to keep control of a company’s finances has changed substantially over the centuries, through such innovations as discounted cash-flow analysis, capital budgeting and, more recently, activity-based costing. Even the foundation stones of the modern business organization were at some point created by inventive and farsighted individuals: Luca Pacioli popularized double-entry bookkeeping in 1494, and the limited liability company was created in 1856.2
A historical perspective is useful because it reminds us that nothing about our current ways of working is inviolable. There are management innovations under way all the time in organizations. Many fail, some work — and only a few make history. Over time, the most valuable innovations are imitated by other organizations and are diffused across entire industries and countries. Some management innovations, including Toyota Motor Corp.’s lean production system and Procter & Gamble Co.’s brand management model, gave the pioneering companies lasting competitive advantage. Others, such as Materials Requirement Planning and investment portfolio analysis, created broader- based productivity and societal benefits. Indeed, taken as a whole, the process of management innovation is probably as important to economic and social progress as technological innovation.3 Ray Stata, the former CEO of Analog Devices Inc., a semiconductor company based in Norwood, Massachusetts, argued that, “at Analog Devices, and many other U.S. companies, product and process innovation are not the main
No comments:
Post a Comment