How Can Management Strengthen the Organizational Culture

How Can Management Strengthen the Organizational Culture
There is a subtle link between expectancy, effort, productivity and reward. Werner (2002, p.335) states that ???a person will exert a high effort if he/she believes there is reasonable probability that the effort will lead to the attainment of an organizational goal, and the attainment of the organizational goal will become an instrument through which that person will attain his/her personal goals.??? If this is the case with employees, one would thus conclude that 0rganizational goals will be elevated above personal goals, and this may account for the use of incentives and rewards to recognize the effort made by employees. In the same vein, the Beehive Survey found out that whilst over 60% of organizations in South Africa recognized that pay is just one way to motivate employees, less than 40% created long-term incentives across all levels (Sacht T., 2003). One may argue that inadequate monetary benefits may lead to discontentment and disenchantment that are illustrated by shoddy work and a high labor turnover in some organizations. For example, the Salary Moves and Labor Trends Beehive Survey, conducted by Deloitte and Touche in South African organizations in 2003 ??“ indicated that labor turnover [as a result of dissatisfaction with salaries and incentives] was 15% among key specialists and 17% for general monthly paid employees (Brindle, 2003).
From the preceding discussion it can be deduced that there is a relationship between pay and incentives and cognitive dissonance theories which propound that productivity is a result of the perceived difference between what is expected or desired as fair and reasonable reward individual motivation and what is experienced in the job situation, organizational incentives. The following motivational ideas are to strategically manage the organizational culture throughout the organization.
Employers and employees have expectations when they come into an employment relationship. Kotter (1976, p.93) contends that the first group of expectations represents what an individual expects to receive from an organization and what the organization expects to give the individual while the second group of expectations includes what an individual expects to offer the organization and what the organization expects to receive from the individual. The two types of expectations defined as a give-and take relationship which is intended to create a win-win situation for employees and organizations. According to Van Dyk (2002, p.33),??? expectations are contained in psychological contracts??? which Porter et al. (1975) regard as the ???dynamics of organization-individual interactions???, and cooperative contracts. Similarly, Kreitner and Kinicki (2007) define a psychological contract as an individual??™s perception about the terms and conditions of a reciprocal exchange with another party. Schein (1980) aptly summarizes the value of expectations when he states:
???it is my central hypothesis that whether a person generates commitment loyalty, and enthusiasm for the organization and its goals??¦ depends to a large measure on two conditions: (1) the degree to which his own expectations of what the organization will provide him with what he owes organization match with what the organizations are made of what it will give and get; (2) assuming there is agreement on expectations what actually is to be exchanged???It can be construed that it is necessary for employers and employees to communicate their expectations. With this know information and all of the changes in the organization that have taken place we need to sit down and explain to the employees where this company is headed. We need to explain to them what are strategic plan is for this company and how we are going to get there to include why some were let go from the company. To start to build this trust with the employees we need to start with communication. We need to have this meeting ASAP because the longer we wait the greater the discord and lack of trust that the employees will have in the leadership.
Next we need to step will be to set up some performance measurement indicators (PMIs) for all of the accounting processes within the company for each section and accountant to meet. Organizational goals direct the actions of both the employers and employees. As a result, the setting of simple and specific goals which have measurable outcomes assists employees to know clearly what they are supposed to do. In addition, organizations should set attainable and realistic goals for employees and not set employees up for failure with unrealistic expectations. There is therefore sense in what Pascale and Athos (1981) in The Art of Japanese Management, as cited in Mwosa (1987), noted when they wrote:
???Managerial reality is not an absolute; rather, it is socially and culturally determined across all cultures and in all societies. Human beings coming together to perform certain collective acts encounter certain problems that are related to establishing, directing, co-coordinating and motivating. Culture affects how these problems are perceived and how they are resolved. Social learning also establishes horizons of perception???
Managers are expected to set goals which are within the employees??™ performance range, and that is why the potential, aptitude, abilities, skills, knowledge and values of employees should be considered before one is engaged to do the work. For example, employing a traditional and conservative Catholic in an abortion clinic may not be advisable on moral and value-consideration , even if that person is a highly skilled surgeon. It is also necessary to bear in mind that goal-setting should also anticipate the outcomes to be attained. Commitment to the tasks at hand becomes easier when one has a mental construct of what the end of the product of the whole undertaking will be. Coetsee (2003, p.175) states that aligned commitment is the extent to which employees understand and live the shared vision of the organization.
Mathibe (1998) notes that in line with industrial needs for productivity and competitiveness, competencies and skills acquisition are the sine qua non for task performance in present-day production systems. The words of Frederick Taylor of getting ???the right man for the right job??? are relevant here because organizations that want to gain competitive advantage over competitors need skilled and well-trained employees. Additionally, employees that are skilled and trained for the jobs do not feel threatened, either by the changes, the job itself or new entrants ??“ who happen to be well-trained and skilled in the jobs ??“ into the job market. Skill obsolescence in the face of globalization and technological advancements also increases the need for unfolding of potential and development diverse skills in employees.
Multi-skilling is the buzz-word in many organizations since it is assumed that it generates a highly developed form of work intensification, flexibility, inter-changeability and mobility in the workforce (Tomaney, 1990). The training program needs to be revitalized. We need to start with the changes that will be implemented because of the new jobs that some members will be moving into. The was a number of personnel that were let go during the merger and before we go out to replace those whom were let go, we need to see if there are employees within the company that are better fitted for these jobs. I think the best plan of attack for the training is to sit down and discuss weaknesses with both the employees and section supervisors. We can be guided best by this discussion with them as well as letting them know that they are important to us and that they know the job and processes better than us. This will allow employees to show their talents and potential to fill other positions throughout the company.
Organizations need workplace practices that unlock potential in order to enable them to be productive. One may argue that job performance [effort] requires interaction, synergy and symmetry between the intellect [the head], emotions [the heart] and skills [the hand].
The external environment represents factors outside organizations that affect personal functioning and it includes technological acceleration, the effect of social and other groups outside the work environment; and individuals constantly compare personal progress with personal achievement in organizations (Van Dyk, 2002, p.26). All things being equal, the job context environment is the task environment within which an individual functions, and employees who interact with their work environments ??“ not only being defined by such environments but also defining such environments ??“ have a higher degree of motivation than those who accept the status quo and let the work environment define them. Similarly, Passer and Smith (2004) contend that the likelihood that people will engage in particular behaviors in given situations is influenced by two factors: expectancy and reinforcement value. Passer and Smith??™s view makes sense for people with an external locus and employees with a strong internal locus of control. In the same vein, Bandura regards reciprocal determinism as a situation where internal determinants and external determinants interact and cohere to enhance employee motivation (Burger, 2004). The view expressed by Bandura??™s reciprocal determinism addresses questions whether employees define the work environment or the work environment defines the employees. Subsequently, Van Dyk (2002) concludes that just as individuals can only meet their expectations and needs by joining organizations, they translate their expectations into personal goals before they join organizations.
The preceding discussion clearly indicates that people are not victims of their environments [as arguments for external locus always infer], but they are masters, inventors and creators of new vistas for their lives [as it is always stated in arguments for internal locus]. Werner (2002) rightly observes that people strive towards maturity ??“ through unfolding of their potential ??“ in their work since they experience growth in the context of their work. One would therefore expect creation of the following conditions in order to improve employees??™ motivation:
??? Communication: ???managers explain expectations and the organization??™s performance standards ???(Dawson, 1993);
??? Listening: ???managers listen to employees??™ views regarding expectations on performance standards??? (Hargreaves & Hopkins, 1991);
??? Encouragement: ???managers provide encouragement in order to motivate and inspire employees to improve performance and aspire for quality??? (Chetty, 1997);
??? Agreement: ???managers forge collective agreements on performance standards and operational strategies??? (Sono, 2002); and
??? Reporting: ???managers provide feedback on successes and levels of performance of employees as a strategy for improving the quality of production??? (Van der Westhuizen, 2002).
The creation of an environment that is appropriate for personal growth and development provides enough motivation for working in an organization. When conditions in the organization do not satisfy an employees??™ physiological, safety and security, acceptance, love and self-actualisation needs employees tend to become demotivated, lethargic, unproductive and grumpy. The Expectancy Theory is based on the assumption that people are motivated to behave in ways that produce desired and valued outcomes (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2007, p.246). This view is closely linked to Skinner??™s Operant Conditioning because on both occasions an individual or operant is responsible for the outcome or reinforcement which leads to the repetition of desired behaviors. Mwamwenda (1995) explains that reinforcement follows the repetition of a desired behavior [outcome] after a stimulus [input] has been provided. The link with Pavlov??™s dog which salivated also indicates that stimuli may be generalized just as in the case of employees getting promotion or bonuses at particular intervals for the work they did well. Robinson (1992) contends that effective motivation depends on a concern for ethical values and when duties, responsibilities and formal relationships are appropriately planned, organized and controlled. It suffices to state that ambivalence about the conditions in an organization may generate despondency and lack of motivation (Heystek, 2002), even if an organization has attractive incentive schemes and salary structures. One has to caution though, while dependence on incentives schemes to enhance employees??™ motivation may ensure efficiency in the short-term, in the long-term one may proof to be an ineffective mechanism for sustainability in the business. For example, in organizations that set production targets as in mining ??“ employees work long hours [over-time] ??“ which may compromise safety standards ??“ just to reach the target and to get the bonuses. Fatalities ??“ in the mines ??“ have been recorded due to this practice, and such mines were forced to close for some time in order to upgrade their safety. I know that we are in a time of limited economic resources, but there are other programs that could be adapted in place of monetary means. There are some small things we could do such as the Employee of The Month Award. We could assign a parking spot close to the building for the winner as well as give some paid time off from work for exceptional performances on the job.
Just as Lawler and Porter focused on value of outcomes in the form of rewards, Charlton (2000) notes that extrinsic and intrinsic rewards have reciprocal motivational effects since they represent effective methods of energizing, promoting and maintaining employees??™ behavior. Schultz (2004, p.277) also notes that a reward is first and foremost a people issue: it is about motivating them, reshaping and refocusing their behaviors??™, and inducing them to accept organizational values. Nevertheless, one should be cognizant of the fact that rewards may or may not have a motivating effect on the basis of their attractiveness to the individual. For this reason, Mayo??™s conclusions in the Hawthorne Experiments on motivation were that employees??™ are motivated by more than pay and conditions. In some cases, the need for recognition and a sense of belonging may be important motivators which influence employees??™ groups and teams to perform beyond expectations (Shah & Shah, 2008, p.5).
It is essential to note that motivation ensures voluntary unfolding of employees??™ talents and potential for the benefit of the organization. To this end, Dawson (1993, p.61) regards motivation as the extent to which employees acknowledge the legitimacy of and seek to achieve organizational objectives and interests. The significance of this argument is that the expectancy theory predicts that employees will be motivated when they believe that putting in more effort will yield better job performance. In the same vein, better job performance will lead to organizational rewards, such as an increase in salary or benefits, and these predicted organizational rewards are valued by employees.
The success of every organization, society and country depends on the direction and Leadership that is provided. Similarly, experience in, and knowledge of contemporary management and Leadership approaches is necessary for upholding the notion of efficacy, quality and motivation in organizations. In the same vein, competitive organizations are led by people who understand that people empowerment raises productivity, operational autonomy and innovation. However, there are economists who argue that organizations cannot grow and expand if employees??™ are poorly skilled, de-motivated and oblivious of organizational goals. On the same note, there are indications that when people have appropriate skills for job performance, and when they understand the rules of the globalized and globalizing industry such as ours, their productive capacity will increase. With the implementation we can change the perception of our employees and will be able to build the trust that we need to stay competitive with our competing accounting firms. ReferencesAronson, E., Wilson, T. D. & Akert, R. M. 2005. Social Psychology. New Jersey: PearsonBoje, D . & Rosile, G. A. 2004. Death, Terror and Addiction in motivational theory. In: Brewis,

J., Linstead, S., Boje, D & O??™Shea, A. (Eds.), Passion, of organizing. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business.Brindle, T. 2003. Re-aligning the workplace. In: The Star, 5 February 2003.Burger, J. M. 2004. Personality. Belmont: Thompson.Charlton, G. 2000. Human habits of effective organizations. Pretoria: Van Schaik.Chetty, C. 1997. The school effectiveness movement: origins. The Curriculum Journal, 8(1): 45.Coetsee, L.D. 2003. Peak performance and productivity. Potchefstroom: Van Schaik.Davis, J & Wilson, S.M. 2003. Development and knowledge economy. In: Brown, R [Ed]. Universities and development. London:Association of Commonwealth Universities.Dawson, T. 1993. Principles and practice of modern management. Kent:Hodder & Stoughton.Drafke, M. W. & Kossen, S.1998. The human side of organizations. Massachusetts: Addison.Hargreaves, D. H. & Hopkins, D. 1991. The empowered school. London: Cassel.Heystek, J. 2002. The role of consultant heads in New Visions Programme. Nottingham: NCSL. Hoy, W. K. & Miskel, C. G. 1991. Educational Administration. New York: McGraw-Hill.Kotter, J. P. 1976. The psychological contract. California Management review, XV(3): 91-99.Kreitner, R. & Kinicki, A. 2007. Organizational Behaviour. Boston:McGraw-Hill.Kroon, J. 1990. General management. Durban: Haum.Lefcourt, H. M. 1976. Locus of control: current trends in theory and research. New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Mabale, B. J. 2004. Optimisation of educators??™ potential in primary schools. Unpublished MEd. Dissertation. Mafikeng: North West University. Maltby, J., Day, L. & Macaskill, A. 2007. Personality, individual differences and intelligence. Harlow: Pearson Prentice-Hall.Mathibe, I. R. 1998. The development, character and effect of education in a technocratic age.Unpublished M.Ed Dissertation. Pretoria:Unisa.Moorhead, G. & Griffin, R. W. 1989. Organizational behaviour. Boston: Houghton Muffin.Mwamwenda, T. S. 1995. Educational Psychology: An African Perspective. Durban: Butterworths.Mwosa, J. L. 1987. Concepts of development. In: Ndengwa, P., Muretheili, L. P. & Greene, R. H. (Eds.) Management for development. Nairobi: OxfordPascale, R. T. & Athos, A. G. 1981. The Art of Japanese management. New York: Simon &Schuster.Passer, M.W. & Smith, R.E. 2004. Psychology: the science of mind and behaviour. 2nd Ed.Boston:McGraw-Hill.Porter, L. W., Lawler, E. E. & Hackman, J. R. 1975. Behaviour in organizations. New York:McGraw-Hill.Robinson, J. 1992. Managing after the superlatives. Kent: Tudor.Rotter, J. B. 1966. Generalised expectancies of internal versus external control of reinforcement.Psychological monographs, 80(whole no. 609).Sacht, T. 2003. The Beehive model. Equity Skills News and Views, 2(14). 15 September 2003.Schein, E. H. 1980. Organizational psychology. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Schultz, H. B. 2004. Compensation management. In: Nel, P.S., Gerber, P.D., Van Dyk, P.S.,Haasbroek, G.D., Schultz, H.B., Sono, T & Werner, A. Human Resources Management and Leadership. London: OxfordShah, K & Shah, PJ. 2008. Theories of motivation.…Sono, T. 2002. Cultural diversity and change management. Nel, P.S., Gerber, P.D., Van Dyk,P.S., Haasbroek, G.D., Schultz, H.B., Sono, T & Werner, A. Human Resources Management and Leadership. London: OxfordTomaney, J. 1990. the reality of workplace flexibility. Capital and class, 40: 29 ??“ 60.Turner, TC. 1999. Some current issues in Research on Social Identity and Self-categorisationTheories. In: Ellemers, N., Spears, R. & Doosje, B. (Eds.), Social Identity. Oxford:BlackwellVan der Westhuizen, P.C. 1999. Effective Educational Management. 9th Impression.Pretoria:KagisoVan Dyk, P. S. 2002a. The functional systems and efficiency approaches to human resourcesmanagement and leadership. In: Nel, P.S., Gerber, P.D., Van Dyk, P.S., Haasbroek, G.D., Schultz, H.B., Sono, T & Werner, A. Human Resources Management and Leadership. London:OxfordVan Dyk, P. S. 2002b. definition of scope of human resources management. In: Nel, P.S.,Gerber, P.D., Van Dyk, P.S., Haasbroek, G.D., Schultz, H.B., Sono, T & Werner, A. Human Resources Management and Leadership. London:OxfordWalton, R. E. 1985. From control to commitment. Boston: Harvard Business School.Werner, A. 2002. Leadership. In: Nel, P.S., Gerber, P.D., Van Dyk, P.S., Haasbroek, G.D.,Schultz, H.B., Sono, T & Werner, A. Human Resources Management and Leadership. London:Oxford

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *