Leadership
The report will assess the effectiveness of work and organization at John Lewis based on the organizational structure and management culture of the company. For doing so, the paper will cover the topics concerning leadership, rational and social organization, motivation and job design, power and politics prevalent in the organization. The central purpose is to review the work and culture of the company to evaluate hoe effective they are in keeping the workers motivated and maximizing the overall productivity of the firm. The report makes use of reliable academic and journalistic sources for developing a coherent argument. Additionally, the paper considers alternative perspectives for providing a thesis that is unbiased critically considered.
The following discussion under the sub-headings will be considered for evaluating the work and organizational structure at John Lewis.
The organization of John Lewis has traditionally followed the collective ownership method of leading where employees are treated as partners, and given the due respect of working as a member of the entire team in operation. The partnership in the business aims to provide workers with ideal working conditions and offers suitable rewards for hard work and performance. The Trust Settlement allows all the members the ability to share ownership advantages. A leadership theory that can be applied to John Lewis partnership is Participative Leadership; since the leaders, instead of taking an autocratic decision about business, involves peers, subordinates and even stakeholders for coming to a decision that is in accordance with all the departments of the organization (Tastan 2013). Although, a transformational leadership would have been more ideal in this circumstance since it improves the working conditions in teams, and guides them towards an effective and required change. John Lewis has so far operated excellently in terms of employee partnership and involving all the workers in the business activities; the organization needs to make some necessary changes in the process of management for better work efficiency and employee satisfaction. A transformational approach to leadership is perhaps one of the best ways to achieve that (Braun et al 2013).
John Lewis follows and independent organizational structure that permits employees to present their personal views, providing the management with a reliable and straightforward vision. The Chairman, the divisional and partnership board of management and the executive group formulate the company’s managing body. The work specialization of the company is assorted very particularly. The organization assigns specialized jobs to the employees while the management designs the different activities. John Lewis bases its organizational structure on the Contingency theory which focuses primarily on the growth of the business than the resources of the company. The management keeps altering and adjusting the resources in accordance with the requirement of the business. For higher effectiveness, John Lewis can adopt the Weick’s model of organization. The model emphasizes on equivocality and an information system which can be accesses by employees for learning about issues that have been previously tackled (Vogus et al 2014). Employees can refer to these information for combating work-related difficulties that might be a major hindrance in the progress of the business. Since John Lewis is a purely partnership-based company, it would benefit a lot from incorporating this model in the management.
Organizational Structure
The firm departmentalizes the teams according to the products of the company and the functions of the teams. The teams are segregated as per the commercial activities. The ultimate purpose of the partnership is the happiness and well-being of all the members, through satisfying and worldwide employment resulting to a successful functioning of business. As all the workers are also shareholders in the company and the number of employee is limited, they are individually identified. This might discourage some employees from vocalizing their honest opinions about the work culture and their qualms about the state of things. Implementing a social identity theory of dehumanization would solve the problem to a great extent. Workers will be better able to work in teams more efficiently if they are given the scope of anonymity. Applying Deindividuation to the organizational structure will help facilitate anti-normative behavior, something the company can use to its advantage. It will help promoting ideal corporate behavior and prevent disturbances in the work ambience (Haslam et al 2014).
The culture of organization in John Lewis is remarkably different from most firms. The partners are the employees of the company and therefore does not need to worry about the recruiting expenses. Apart from everyday operation, employee beliefs and profitability strategies include: honest dealings with customers, integral conducting of business relationships and making valuable contributions to the welfare of local communities. Approaching the topic in theoretical terms, culture in an organization is divided into four distinctive sections of management:
Role culture: in this culture, a group or people is allotted with a specific power or authority. As mentioned earlier in the departmentalization section, John Lewis allocates tasks and authority very specifically according to their expertise and the structure of management.
Power culture: This concept emphasizes the centrality and concentration of power to a particular groups or a limited figure. The organizational culture of John Lewis adheres to even distribution of power among the different partners/employees of the company.
Task culture- In this culture, certain groups or people are made into a team for solving critical issues relating to business operations and management.
John Lewis is a culture unique to the traditional concepts of organization. It is governed by principle and ethics integral to any corporate.
The partnership model is employee-owned and has distinctive systems of operation than businesses that are backed by private-equity and companies listed in the stock market. Unlike these business types, where profits flow directly to the shareholders, John Lewis has profit flowing to the staff as an annual bonus. The owner of the company had established the policy to initiate a democratic experiment in the industrial sector. The management prioritizes the happiness of the employees and makes sure that the partners have a fair share of the profits and benefits of the company. As far as motivation is concerned, there is a staff council for launching complaints and presenting ideas to the board. There is also a weekly magazine wherein the staff can vocalize their views anonymously about management and policies. As the employees are given the right to participate in decision-making, it drives their motivation to work towards the attainment of goals. The benefit is derived from a stakeholder view of management rather than a shareholder one (Wood, 2018).
Groups and Teams
As per the analysis so far, the organizational structure of John Lewis has adhered to the socio-human rational of organization. The company is viewed as a collective community of people and the employees are treated as emotional and social beings. The Human Relations model formulated by Elton Mayo is extremely relevant in this context. Mayo rejected the notion of organization being mechanistic, impersonal and rational entities. On the other hand, the technical rationale of organizational structure suggests that a more systematic approach to leadership and employee management(Bruce and Nyland, 2011) . The heroic leadership traits are a crucial aspect of effective management and the prevailing circumstances in the company indicate a requirement for transformational leadership (Avolio et al 2013).
In this section of the assignment, I intend to reflect on my personal experience of group activity in seminar. This will include a review of both my effectiveness as a group member as well as the effectiveness of the group as a whole. I will be referring to the Kolb’s learning cycle for assistance and draw from the lectures and seminars on groups and teams for evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the group and my own role in it.
Kolb’s model is based on a two-step process, which focusses primarily on the internal cognitive progressions of the learner (Kolbs 2014). According to Kolbs, learning is the acquirement of diverse and abstract concepts that can be flexibly applied in a variety of circumstances. The experimental learning cycle modeled by Kolbs enables the learner to touch all bases in a four-stage cycle of learning (Manolis et al 2014). I will be applying my experiences to each of the steps for evaluating the outcome of the teamwork.
- Concrete experience- Analyzing the organizational structure and culture of John Lewis was a new experience for me and some of the newly learnt theories on culture particularly had my interest. I was acquainted with leadership theories but this was the first time I had the opportunity to put it into theoretical application, and I was delighted to play a crucial role in the process. Different members of the team were asked to read up on the different sections of the analysis and I had a lot to know about my allotted section; that is leadership.
- Observations of the new experience- Initially, I was too overwhelmed with the new things that were so far beyond my knowledge; and struggled to review and record my observations effectively. The group had now advanced from the initial learning stage and the members were learning to assist each other in the analysis of the topic.
- Abstract conceptualization- After having reflected on the new experience, we, as a team, felt the need to modify some of the existing concepts of organizational behavior. I pointed out that there must be a unification in the neo-classical and the contemporary concepts of organizational behavior improving the efficiency of workers and the ambience of the workplace.
- Active experimentation- This stage requires us to apply the learned theories to the world for assessing the learning outcomes and evaluating if they can be put to proper use. We assessed the probable outcomes if John Lewis implements the suggested organizational structure and behavior in the business. The reviews were mixed; some felt that it would bring the company their much-awaited breakthrough while others retorted that incorporating new policies in a company that has seen considerable success using old models of management would only cause undue confusion and ambiguity in operations.
Our development as a group was based on interactions, emotions and activities. What I personally experienced while working in the team can be best explained in terms of social identity theory. As I had a crucial role to play in the evaluation of the topic, it gave me a sense of belonging and self-esteem (Haslam et al 2014) that is integral to organizational practices. If there was one drawback in the team, then it was the lack of an unconscious group dynamics; there was no impromptu conversation among the group members, everything was initiated by theoretical learnings. Leadership was the biggest strength of the teamwork as the person who was allotted the task effectively united us together for a common purpose and kept encouraging us throughout the course of the project to gain a deeper insight into the organizational theories; and also to go beyond them to explore new dimensions on the topic. The balance of team roles, I believe, could have been struck better. The tasks were unevenly distributed and some of the members had more to cover than the rest. Had this been taken care of, the team would have been a high performance one; with each member working effectively and rigorously towards advancing the scope of the theories and applying them to the practical world. As far as teamwork and control in concerned, the experience was enriching and worthwhile, although there are gaps that needs to be filled with effectual planning. I am particularly satisfied with the role I had the opportunity to play in the course of the analysis and the amount of knowledge and experience it gained me. For future endeavors, I wish the team engages more effectively in groupthink and work towards building up an unconscious group dynamics that ensure better team work and harmony among members.
Organizational Culture
In the concluding section of the assignment, I wish to reflect on what I have learnt about the nature of employment in undertaking the People and Organization module. The reflection will make reference to relevant theories of organizational behavior for addressing crucial topics concerning employee motivation, productivity, leadership, identity and culture of a work environment.
An organization that allows my growth by feeding my curiosity and carries out their corporate social responsibility effectively would engage me most in their business activities. I would prefer to work for an organization that values my credentials, looks out for my safety and enables my progress within a work ambience that is at the same time amicable and competitive. An organizational behavior theory that corresponds with my desired workplace conditions is the Need-Hierarchy theory formulated by Abraham Maslow. An organization that abides by this theory considers the psychological needs of the employees (Robertson 2016). This includes canteen facilities, noise, gas, temperature, decoration and space. Security requirements like contracts, agreements, communication, structure and report meetings are also taken proper care of. An organization like that has special concerns for the social needs of the workers, such as joint tasks, sharing offices, appreciation, recognition and team membership (Jerome 2013). The theory suggests that organizations should boost the self-esteem and self-actualization of the employees for maximizing their productivity and expanding the growth of the firm.
These are precisely the reasons why I feel I would be more productive in these organizations. Having my hard work rewarded and my potentials appreciated would motivate me for delivering better outputs in my field of work and increase my productivity in the same. On the other hand, if I were involved in an organization that followed the bureaucratic model of management, I would be a little less efficient due to lack of motivation to work under an authoritative head who cared little for my social and psychological needs. The hierarchical system of management would not compel me as much to work for the growth of the company, since my own growth is little cared for. A bureaucratic system does not allow subordinates to vocalize their opinion on matters without hindrance or present their views about the operations of the company. As a result, employees remain unengaged in the decision-making process of the organization that detaches and demotivates them from work. A company like that would therefore hinder my productivity and demotivate me from carrying out the allotted duties.
Factors like leadership and human relations has high impact on employment. An employ is highly driven by the leader and his/her method of leading. I would prefer being led by someone who follows the model of participative leadership. This system involves the employees in the decision-making process of the business. A participative leader does not take any autocratic decisions based on individual assumptions, rather consults with everyone in the organization before coming to a joint decision for initiating a collaborative approach to a common goal. I feel I will be able to reach out best to a participative leader, and voice my opinions about the organization and myself without feeling threatened. Most employees would find it befitting to work under a leader like that since it makes them feel secured and important as an employee (Miao, Newman and Huang 2014).
Motivation and Job Design
Another aspect that would be a driving factor in my decision making process is organizational behavior. Management thoughts have evolved from classical, neo-classical to contemporary theories and the firms are constantly trying to keep up with the emerging cultures. The archaic bureaucratic model was power-centric and rigidly followed a strict hierarchical system. This system was unadaptable to changing conditions and has no consideration for human qualities and interpersonal relationships. A system like this could be applicable for government organizations where changes are rarely required but private companies would soon start malfunctioning under autocratic system as this one (Hudson et al 2013). Taylor’s theory of scientific management is based on principles and three focal areas, namely task performance, supervision and motivation. Taylor suggests adequate training of staff and allocating tasks to them based on technical aptitude and physical capabilities. Workers who put in extra effort for higher productivity would be paid higher amounts under this system. Taylors also insisted on cordial relationships between managers and workers. I feel this system to be extremely effective in recruiting the right people for the right job and keep them motivated while they are at it. The neo-classical theories belong to the era of human relations. McGregor’s Behavioral theory demarcates between authoritarian and an employee-centric, participative approach to management for arguing that prioritizing the social and emotional needs of the employee improves the quality of productivity (Mohamad and Nor 2013). This theory is excellent for employee motivation when put to practice and new employees would specially benefit from a system like that. Finally, the modern theories of management are based on radial redesigning and fundamental rethinking. Re-engineering involves a complex process of benchmarking, empowerment and advanced training. Considering all the approaches to organizational behavior, I feel the human relations approach would suit me the best. This is precisely because I deeply associate my personal identity with my work and I would be able to function best in a work environment that values the social and psychological needs of an employee above anything else. An organization that follows the neo-classical model of organizational behavior would keep me motivated to work towards improvement, efficiency and higher productivity.
When it comes to employment, my strengths include perseverance and determination, ability to work harmoniously with co-workers, flexibility, communication skills and work ethics. However, I suffer from several shortcomings that might hold me back from making progress in work field. I am a slow-learner and poor at meeting deadlines, I tend to take too many risks than necessary and have been accused of being too outspoken in professional arrangements, which might affect my relationships with colleagues. For overcoming my drawbacks, I intend to undergo thorough training with continued practice in my field of work. Time-management is something I need to work on for improving my efficiency at work. As far as my overbearing and outspoken nature is concerned, I plan increase the quotient of my emotional intelligence by getting hold of some self-help books (Schutte et al 2013).
References
Avolio, B.J. and Yammarino, F.J. eds., 2013. Introduction to, and overview of, transformational and charismatic leadership. In Transformational and Charismatic Leadership: The Road Ahead 10th Anniversary Edition (pp. xxvii-xxxiii). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Braun, S., Peus, C., Weisweiler, S. and Frey, D., 2013. Transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and team performance: A multilevel mediation model of trust. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), pp.270-283.
Bruce, K. and Nyland, C. (2011). Elton Mayo and the Deification of Human Relations. Organization Studies, 32(3), pp.383-405.
Cathcart, A., 2014. Paradoxes of participation: non-union workplace partnership in John Lewis. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(6), pp.762-780.
Haslam, S.A., Van Knippenberg, D., Platow, M.J. and Ellemers, N., 2014. Social identity at work: Developing theoNanjundeswaraswamy, T.S. and Swamy, D.R., 2014.
Haslam, S.A., Van Knippenberg, D., Platow, M.J. and Ellemers, N., 2014. Social identity at work: Developing theory for organizational practice. Psychology Press.
Hodson, R., Martin, A.W., Lopez, S.H. and Roscigno, V.J., 2013. Rules don’t apply: Kafka’s insights on bureaucracy. Organization, 20(2), pp.256-278.
Jerome, N., 2013. Application of the Maslow’s hierarchy of need theory; impacts and implications on organizational culture, human resource and employee’s performance. International Journal of Business and Management Invention, 2(3), pp.39-45.
Kolb, D.A., 2014. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. FT press.
Kolb, D.A., 2014. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. FT press.
Leadership styles. Advances in management, 7(2), p.57.ry for organizational practice. Psychology Press.
Manolis, C., Burns, D.J., Assudani, R. and Chinta, R., 2013. Assessing experiential learning styles: A methodological reconstruction and validation of the Kolb Learning Style Inventory. Learning and individual differences, 23, pp.44-52.
Mayo, E., 2014. The social problems of an industrial civilisation. Routledge.
Miao, Q., Newman, A. and Huang, X., 2014. The impact of participative leadership on job performance and organizational citizenship behavior: Distinguishing between the mediating effects of affective and cognitive trust. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(20), pp.2796-2810.
Mohamed, R.K.M.H. and Nor, C.S.M., 2013. The relationship between McGregor’s XY theory management style and fulfillment of psychological contract: A literature review. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 3(5), p.715.
Robertson, F., 2016. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. In Gower Handbook of Internal Communication (pp. 143-148). Routledge.
Schutte, N.S., Malouff, J.M. and Thorsteinsson, E.B., 2013. Increasing emotional intelligence through training: Current status and future directions. International Journal of Emotional Education, 5(1), p.56.
Ta?tan, S.B., 2013. The influences of participative organizational climate and self-leadership on innovative behavior and the roles of job involvement and proactive personality: A survey in the context of SMEs in Izmir. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 75, pp.407-419.
Vogus, T.J., Rothman, N.B., Sutcliffe, K.M. and Weick, K.E., 2014. The affective foundations of high?reliability organizing. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(4), pp.592-596.
Wood, Z. (2018). The John Lewis model and what others could learn from it. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jan/16/john-lewis-model-lessons
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
