BFGym - Organisational Behaviour PDF

Preview

Summary

Birmingham Fitness GYM Coursework Assignment for OB...

Description

Birmingham Fitness Gym – OB Case Study BFGym is known as a popular gym in the city centre, known for its amicable atmosphere and professional staff. Recently it has experienced a decline in employee morale and job satisfaction. Employees at the establishment feel disinterested, potentially caused by the new structural changes in the gym, such as the conversion of the breakout room, as well as an authoritarian management style. An attempt of fixing these issues were made by the gym owner Kate with a management meeting. This meeting was unsuccessful at rectifying the problems due to the fact that certain employees did not contribute. In addition, an employee cherry picking solutions as well as neglecting Nick - who has joined the team recently. Therefore, to get the gym back on track, a restructure of the management system and adopting a democratic leadership style will need to be done, which can lead to the augment motivation of employees. (Fiaz, M. et al. 2017) Compulsory 1. Motivation can be defined as ‘the as the inner force that drives individuals to accomplish personal and organizational goals’ (Lindner, 1998, p2). Arguably the main reason why there is a decline in motivation and employee morale, is due to the bureaucratic style of management in which there is a chain in command in terms of authority. As the case study states, management have reduced Jo’s classes from 45 minutes to 30 minutes, as well as Jane being assigned a schedule she did not want. Therefore, this indicates the hygiene factors are not being met, which are; pay, supervision, company policies, physical work conditions, relationship with colleagues, which is part of the Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory. Frederick Herzberg (1959) states that hygiene factors not being met can lead to dissatisfied staff. However, if they are met,

they will not necessarily satisfy staff. These factors are mostly inherent and as a result these factors are likely to satisfy the latter levels of Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy (Lawley 2013).

The lack of motivation at BFGym can be explained by the motivator factor, which includes; advancement, responsibility, job interest, recognition and a sense of achievement. Hygiene factors must be set first before motivators can be attended (Kermally, S. 2005). Managers at BFGym should encourage employees to voice their ideas as well as offering progression and achievement within the job either through promotion or a bonus scheme, for example Phillip or Jo could be promoted to a ‘Head Trainer’ or a ‘training manager’. This links with Maslow’s 4th stage of Hierarchy of Needs, ‘Self Esteem’ as one feels appreciated and important. However, one of the drawbacks of the two-factor theory is that it is hard to measure the degree of satisfaction and dissatisfaction (Golshan et al. 2011). Also, each employee is different and they are motivated for different reasons, as well from various factors, so employees may react differently. In addition, factors which motivate employees change on the regular (Bowen & Radhakrishna, 1991). For example employees may just be motivated by pay, however once said person has reached an optimum income, motivation factor could change to recognition and interesting work. Another main stress factor at the gym is the amount of pressure the employees receive based on the workload given. This could be caused by the increase in customers from 200 to 540 and the text suggests that there could be a shortage in staff, which could explain the increased workload the staff

have. Phillip, Jane and Jo have complained about the back to back classes, and the attrition rate being high as well. This can lead to staff feeling demotivated and as a result productivity can decrease which can affect the business. Therefore, a middle ground needs to be constructed between an employee’s input and output in the gym and once the balance is right, it will result in a more productive relationship with management, known as the Equity Theory. In terms of input, this means the knowledge, commitment and effort an employee gives, and the output is what is given back in terms of remuneration, satisfaction and credibility. This is very important as, a study conducted throughout organisations in the US by Huseman and Hatfield in 1990, stated that ‘83% of employees report that their inputs exceed their expectations’ and ‘53% report they are unrewarded’ (Huseman, R. C. and Hatfield, J. D. 1990). 2. A process loss is where problem solving takes place in a group, however it is insufficient and inadequate to achieve optimal performance. The group meeting held by Kate was not successful at resolving problems and the process losses caused the group to fail. One process loss of the group work at BFgym was the negative attitude members of that meeting had. The text states they all didn’t find it ideal to hold the meeting after working hours due to full work schedule all day. In addition, Jo and Robin throughout the meeting ‘appeared agitated’ and ‘wanted to get it done with’; they wanted to ‘make it home by dinner time’, therefore staff were not paying attention. It could be argued that, as they were already feeling like this, they didn’t have the effort to bring suggestions to the table. In addition, Robin and Jo appeared to be free riding in the whole group meeting as nothing was being contributed, their

behaviours replicate the minimizing strategy in social loafing where the member will try ‘to get by with the least effort possible’ (Harkins et al, 1980, p457), which tends to occur in groups. On the other hand, Jane was the main contributor as she came up with solutions to problems as well as giving suggestions to benefit the whole group as a whole - in other words, to social compensate (meaning that an individual increases their effort in order to compensate for the poor performance of others). However, it is clear that there are more process losses than process gains, therefore strategies need to be put into place which can make the group function more effective together. Even so, in practice, groups can rarely maximise the full potential due to the existence of process losses and this is known as the Steiner Model which summarises the formula ‘actual productivity = potential productivity − faulty group processes’ (Oxfordreference, 2019). In order to enhance their group work better, one method of doing this is to simply resolve any grudges or conflict between the employees. This is mainly between the management, experienced employees and recently employed. This is because, if there is tension within the group, members may not want to input their ideas due to possibly feeling left out, or because of a personal problem between members. This could be resolved through a social gathering such as a party or at a staff gym session in order to relax the environment. In addition, decision making should be more expansive and control should be given to employees not just management as well. This will lead to employees feeling empowered and as a result increase their productivity leading to the Maslow tier of self-actualisation which is ‘to become everything one is capable of becoming’ (Maslow, 1987, p64).

3. Organisational culture can be defined as the assumptions, underlying beliefs, ways of interacting and values that can contribute to the social and psychological aspect of business operations and is essential for effective leadership and management. One example of this is Southwest Airlines, where its successful leadership has led to empowering employees ‘to do what they need to do to meet that vision’ (Patel, 2015). The dominant culture at BFGym is Role culture (Cacciattolo, K., 2014), which is characterised by a high degree of control. Power is determined by the position in the hierarchy, therefore the culture is built on the organisational structure. Handy (1996) found that organisations have a tall structure which represent ‘functions and divisions’ (Handy, 1996, p17) in an organisation. One reason is because in the group meeting, Nick’s input is discarded, he also felt unfairly treated and he felt not part of the group. This could have been because he is a new employee to the gym, therefore he does not have a say in decision making. Other employees such as Jane and Jo have been assigned classes instead of their desired schedules, which led to Jo becoming upset and Jane feeling stagnated, due to the top down bureaucratic management style, managers did not approve her desire to change. A more suitable culture to BFGym would be Task Culture – Athena (Handy, 1996), which emphasises getting the right people together, solve the problem, get on with the task and achieve goals. The leadership part is led by experts, therefore, for BFGym, senior trainers can lead the team, who have the most experience such as Jane or Phillip. This can result in a more democratic leadership style also and the control can be shared with team. Another reason why this culture suits BFGym is because of its flexibility and teamwork-

oriented approach to problem solving. EG a large fitness class can be led by two to three trainers instead of the one, therefore proving to be more efficient and as a result boosting employee moral as they don’t feel bored. Also, another advantage is that authority comes from experience, contribution and individual knowledge instead of the bureaucratic top to down system. However there are some drawbacks of task culture is that it is hard to manage for a large business. Elective 1. Bureaucratic Structure of an organisation has two characteristics: Hierarchical and Division (Cleverism, 2015). Hierarchical is the top to bottom structured management. Conversely, Division is governed by a set of rules being; Division of work, hierarchy of authority technical competence, record keeping, rules and regulations and impersonal relationships. As stated in the text, BFGym has a bureaucratic structure where management put down a schedule of classes to be taught and goes down to its trainers. One advantage of BFGym’s bureaucratic structure is that the business is ‘increasing its customers, who enjoy coming to the gym because of professional services provided by employees. This is likely to be caused by the ‘clear operating structure’, where there is a chain in command, which allows managers to delegate tasks to employees and operate a strict policy in order for the task to be completed. This follows to the second point where the structure follows a standard operating procedure in order to achieve performance targets as well as efficiency. However, the bureaucratic structure does have its drawbacks and one of the main drawbacks is the reduction in efficiency, Jo’s classes were changed from

one to one to large group pattern and, as a result, she is completely drained after giving classes. As a result of this change, Jo will have low job morale and therefore productivity may reduce as Jo will be tired and Jane’s schedule has changed to back to back schedule, Phillip’s classes have a high attrition rate. This shows there is a clear indication that staff are being over worked and there could be a shortage of staff because they were not fully prepared for the increase in customers. As a result, productivity and efficiency of each employee will reduce drastically and, therefore, employee morale will fall possibly leading to job losses in the long run, high costs to BFGym. To conclude, BFGym have numerous underlying issues with the management as well as group work. Employees don’t seem motivated due to the bureaucratic management system as well as the increased stress and workload caused by the expansion. Certain employees seem to be ‘free riding’ but this could be due to low job satisfaction. In order to improve the environment at BFGym, changes need to be made to the management system by implementing democratic style as well as a new culture. Ultimately BFGym have had an increase in customers, therefore they have failed to adjust to the changes leading to increased pressure on the workforce.

References

Bowen, B. E., & Radhakrishna, R. B. (1991). Job satisfaction of agricultural education faculty: A constant phenomena. Journal of Agricultural Education, 32 (2). 16-22. Cacciattolo, K., 2014. Understanding organisational cultures. European Scientific Journal, ESJ, 10(10). Cleverism. (2015). Bureaucratic vs. Matrix Organizational Structures. [online] Available at: https://www.cleverism.com/bureaucratic-vs-matrix-organizationalstructures/ [Accessed 20 Jan. 2019]. Fiaz, M. et al. (2017) ‘Leadership Styles and Employees’ Motivation: Perspective from an Emerging Economy’, Journal of Developing Areas, 51(4), pp. 143–156. Available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=edsggo&AN=edsgcl.506675754&site=edslive&authtype=ip,shib&custid=s9815128 Golshan, N, 2011. Effects of Motivational Factors on Job Satisfaction: An Empirical Study on Malaysian Gen-Y Administrative and Diplomatic Officers, 19(7) p3 Handy, C. (1996). Gods of management. New York: Oxford University Press, p.21. Handy, C. (1996). Gods of management. New York: Oxford University Press, p.17. Harkins, S.G., Latane, B. and Williams, K., 1980. Social loafing: Allocating effort or taking it easy?. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16(5), pp.457-465. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The Motivation to Work (2nd ed.). NewYork: John Wiley & Sons Huseman, R. C. and Hatfield, J. D. (1990) ‘Equity theory and the managerial matrix’, Training & Development Journal, p. 98. Kermally, S. (2005) ‘CHAPTER SIX: Frederick Herzberg (1923-)’, in Gurus on People Management. Thorogood Publishing Ltd., pp. 43–50. King, D. and Lawley, S. (2013). Organizational behaviour. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p.228. Lindner, J.R., 1998. Understanding employee motivation. Journal of extension, 36(3), pp.1-8. Maslow, H. (1987). Motivation and personality (3rd ed.). p64

Oxfordreference.com. (2019). Steiner's model - Oxford Reference. [online] Available at: http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100530786 [Accessed 18 Jan. 2019]. Patel, S. (2015). 10 Examples of Companies With Fantastic Cultures. [online] Entrepreneur. Available at: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/249174 [Accessed 20 Jan. 2019]....