EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The point of this paper is to analyse own organisation or one that the author is familiar with in terms of organizational behaviour issues. The paper is required use a variety of models and theories within authors chosen topic as part of his analysis. The author select the organization Oticon, which is a Danish firm founded in 1904 by William Demant and is a major manufacturer of hearing aids with sales throughout Europe and the rest of the world. For conducting the discussion and analysis of the case organization, various theoretical concepts and models are used as regards group dynamics, management of change, management/leadership styles and corporate culture. In the paper firstly theoretical concepts and premises are discussed and further in relation to the theoretical premises the case organisation’s organizational behaviour issues are discussed as regards group dynamics, management of change, management/leadership styles and corporate culture. Oticon operates all through its operation inside and outside the country with 1,000 staff, the majority of whom are employed in the Danish subsidiaries. Work at the head office, employing 130 of the staff, covers a range of activities including new product research, product development and the marketing and promotion of both new and existing products.
INTRODUCTION
Danish firm Oticon is was founded in 1904 by William Demant and is a foremost manufacturer of hearing aids with sales right through Europe and the remaining parts of the world. The firm continues to be a privately owned organisation through its holding firm named Oticon Holding, and the bulk of the shares in Oticon Holding are owned by the Oticon Trust Fund which has 75 per cent of the stock. The firm has four Danish subsidiaries, two of which are located in Copenhagen (, one in Snekkersten, and the chief factory in Thisted. Above and beyond these Danish operations Oticon has subsidiaries out of the country.
THEORETICAL CONCEPTS AND MODELS
Group Dynamics
According to Robbins and Finley (1995), group dynamics is positioned amid the structure of the person and the organization, and further the group dynamics implies the situation of carrying out something with a throng of persons in concert. In order to better understand the group dynamics, we need understand the three levels of the organization in the forms of individual, group, and organization. In this framework, social capital is at the individual level, whereas group dynamics is at the group level. Lewin was the father of the concept group dynamics, and coined the phrase group dynamics considering that the group is influential, constructive, dynamic, and necessitates to be catalyzed to do extremely well, where the word dynamics extended as laying emphasis on the circumstances of the composite shared power among its members. Further group dynamics was grouped into five sections namely the organization and progress of the group, the rule and strengthening of the group, the role, the communication pattern, the decision approach, and the group inside the group (Brodbeck. and Greitemeyer, 2000). There are several theoretical premises so far as the organizational behaviour issue in the form of group dynamics is concerned. Some popular theories are system theory, function theory, interaction theory, and several others. System theory demonstrates that groups are an organization and that each division of the organization relies on one another to have shared goals. On the other hand, function theory demonstrates laying emphasis on the accomplishment of the goal, and the incorporation and working out of the group. Last but not the least, interaction theory views that each conduct in the group is interrelating to create things take place.
The phrase group dynamics in fact implies to the communications amid individuals who are conversing jointly in a group setting, where group roles are principally decided by a grouping of individuals personality and their experience with group situations. Individuals who introverted are more expected to sit back in a group, whereas individuals who are intolerant are more probable to push the discussion in front. On the other hand, individuals who are very convinced tend to present more opinions. If such roles are by and large predestined, how may the group dynamics be bettered (Nazzaro and Strazzabosco, 2009). In group dynamics the approach a group interrelates might be upgraded in quite a few modes. There are training courses to concentrate and there are assessments individuals might take to learn regarding their communication style. however, possibly the simplest mode to get better a group’s dynamics is for one or more group members to become skilled at managing the discussion, and accordingly assist a group get done its goals, similar to a performer manages the several players in an rock band to create a blended sound. Through managing it implies responding to and pass on the behaviour or involvement of individuals to a way that is superior for the group. Whether or not the group is directed, group roles tend to take place. Through learning in relation to the archetypal sorts of behaviour that come into view, and how to act in response to them fittingly, individuals may well get better the efficacy of group discussions. The final point is that in group dynamics the approach of the group must be problem solving, but there should be accord necessitating that each one share whatsoever information, views, facts, or sentiments group members might have. It is all the way through this grouping of contributions that the group is proficient to come to a judgment that convinces each one (Nazzaro and Strazzabosco, 2009).
Management of Change
Organizations go all the way through diverse inner processes of change all through their usual existence phase where managerial leaders might form change-driving powers inside the organization. For case in point, a few organizations start deep-seated change that results in structural makeover all the way through which organizations go to regenerate business orientations in the course of altering the communication formation. Additional changes in the forms of mergers and acquisition, fresh top management teams and shifting firm dynamics due to restructuring and streamlining necessitate organizations to create momentous changes not just in strategy and structure, but as well the process and culture of the organizational set up (Keifer, 2005). Theoretical premises put that continuing organizational change replicate a strengthening outcome where organizations are developing into more and more involved in manifold and even continuing inner change proceedings. Yet more revelations point out that foremost reorganization as a consequence of scaling back the dimension of the organization (e.g., Keifer, 2005 ) and organizing reengineering necessitates fresh models of performance all through the whole organization (Erakovic and Wilson, 2005). Generally, the ground-breaking sorts of change that result from reorganization and reengineering are indispensable just for the reason that organizations and their managers pay no heed to or are uninformed of changes in the surroundings and do not create incremental changes as desirable. Not considering of which power create organizations to notice the requirement for change, managers in organizations carry on to fight back to uphold or add to their firms competitive benefit as fast changes take place both in the external and internal surroundings. These by and large imply that the motivating factors for organizational change are the outcome of the necessity to continuously perk up output and efficacy (Arnetz, 2005).
Just the once managers in organizations become conscious the necessity for change, they as well countenance challenges as regards fruitfully executing steps that direct to change. Yet again, there is considerable investigates that concentrate on the process of executing organizational change, with concerns in the form of how change takes place, who starts the execution of change and replies to the evenhandedness of the change execution, particularly whether the execution course of action is dealt with justly or unjustly (Erakovic and Wilson, 2005). Whilst organizations are passing through change, it is time for management or leaders to keep fit management and control. They ought to turn out to be the role models for the rest of the employees and demonstrate behaviors that reveal what is anticipated from employees as regards the change. This would be reliable with theory of social learning and the conception that individuals learn all the way through scrutiny of others. As well all through a time of organizational change, management or leadership requires to drive optimistic messages concerning the change itself. In this framework, optimistic vocal strengthening from management that the organizational change is advantageous and favorable will hurry up employees readiness to become skilled at the change. On an additional level, this will encourage employees in a course of change. Even as this approach does not fall beneath a learning premise per se, it is a fundamental motivational method for management or leadership in the organization to utilize all through organizational change periods as a way of putting down the foundation for new learning and changes in activities to occur (Keifer, 2005).
Robbins (2005) lays emphasis on the fact that that a few kind of strengthening is indispensable to create changes in conduct, consequently management requires to be very vigorous all through change processes to establish strengthening strategies. One strategy to utilize that does not cost change is vocal strengthening. Vocal strengthening of conducts that fit into the organizational change tends to enhance employee replication of those new-fangled change activities. with the passage of time, getting on conducts tend to optimistically grow to be smother as they are substituted with fresh conducts. It actually depends on the degree of the organizational change occurring as to what sort and how powerful strengthening requires to be. The indispensable tip is that strengthening of a few sorts is a requirement for change to occur in individuals working in the organisation. Organizations might change their structure and policy through just writing fresh rules and procedures, nevertheless the employees are not proceeding to change quite as straightforwardly. It is in this context that the relationship amid learning theories and organizational change actually is and where strengthening arrives in as a imperative fraction of organizational change. Whether it is downbeat or upbeat, several strengthening are proceeding to have to be put into place for employees to fruitfully become accustomed to changes in the organization (Robbins, 2005).
Management /Leadership Styles
Multiple leadership styles have been researched since long for all kinds of organisations and groups. Hellriegel and Slocum (2006) put that leadership style plays a vital role to achieve organizational performance and leader’s ability for adapting to external and internal environment changes as well as leading a cordial subordinate’s group for working together forms the basis to success. The transactional style of leadership maintains stability in a firm and is instrumental for attaining goal through regular social and economic exchanges.Transformational style of leadership and transactional style of leadership have been predominantly used within firms; though, the concept concerning both the styles of leadership being adapted has drawn numerous debates regarding the most effective style (Bass and Riggio, 2006; Baldoni, 2005).
Transactional leadership is based on three primary components which include active management through exception, passive management through exception and contingent rewards (Hellriegel and Slocum 2006). Transactional leaders, under contingent reward, offer rewards when achieving targets which are measurable and are short term based. Underactive management through exception, a leader supervises the performance of subordinates and minimizes their deviation from the goals. Under passive management through exception, transactional leaders interface with employee matters when subordinate provide unacceptable performance. Transactional leadership thus provides benefit to achieve goals whereas penalties for not realizing the targets. Transformational leadership elucidated that a leader possesses more moral qualities and scarifies self-interest over group interests. Krishnan (2004) contends that theory of transformational leadership is the power of the leader to motivate the subordinates to achieve more than what was planned by the followers. Numerous researchers have agreed that the transformational leadership style consist of four elements which are idealized influence, intellectual stimulation inspirational motivation as well as individualized consideration. Another essential transformational leadership factor that is vital for a leader includes managerial ability(Bass and Riggio, 2006; Baldoni, 2005).
Leadership style plays a vital role to achieve organizational performance and leader’s ability for adapting to external and internal environment changes as well as leading a cordial subordinate’s group for working together forms the basis to success. The two basic classifications of leadership styles are transformational and transactional. Transactional leaders were observed to work within organizational constraints while transformational leaders applied changes within an organization. Transactional style of leadership maintains stability in a firm and is instrumental for attaining goal through regular social & economic exchanges. Transactional leader’s main focus is the clarification of follower’s role and the leaders must know regarding the employee needs which necessitate meeting the firm goals. The transactional leadership attributes include contingent rewards as well as management through exception. Transactional leadership thus provides benefit to achieve goals whereas penalties for not realizing the targets. Leadership skills have also been classified and include idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation and lastly individualized consideration. Another essential transformational leadership factor that is vital for a leader includes managerial ability.
Corporate Culture
There is an increasing trend regarding the rising concerns as regards cultural set up of the organisation. The organization culture as a leadership impression is recognized as one of the countless constituents that leaders might utilize to nurture a vibrant organization. Leadership in organizations initiates the culture structure route through entailing their suppositions and beliefs on their group. Schein, (2004) posits that organizations stabilize due to accomplishment in attaining their most important roles, the leader’s suppositions develop into collective and setting in those suppositions might subsequently be thought of more as a procedure of mingling fresh individuals. Leaders in organizations attain accomplishment through being steady, in giving apparent indications regarding their preferences, values and beliefs. Just the once culture is organized and acknowledged, they develop into a strapping leadership means to communicate the leaders values and ideals to employees in the organization, and particularly fresh employees. While leaders prop up ethical culture, they turn out to be thriving in keeping up organizational development, the first-rate services demanded all the way through the society, the skill to deal with problems previous to they turn out to be disasters and as a result are competitive against competitors.
Schein (2004) conceptualizes organizational culture as a dynamic occurrence that surrounds us at all times, being continually formed and put into practice through communications with others and structured by leadership conduct, and a set of structures, routines, rules, and models that conduct and hold back activities (p.1). A realistic method to classify organizational culture is the background in which individuals work and these are the employees conducts, attitudes, beliefs, skills, standpoints, routines and intolerances. A few of these traits are molded by precedent leaders, either fine or shocking throughout years of propaganda, control, and strengthening. Thompson, Strickland and Gamble (2005) postulate that ethics is the most crucial aspect to leadership in establishing good organizational culture, where leaders who involve followers to get done shared objectives through fostering ethical and moral conducts in their organizations considerably strengthen organizational values. The reality continues that leaders of organizations are accountable for the environment they generate in their organization. Organizational cultures are formed, kept up and changed by individuals, where an organizational culture is partially, as well formed and kept up by the leaders of the organization. Leaders as executives in the organisations are the most important foundation for the creation and reinfusion of organizations principles, verbalization of core values and explicit rules. Organizational values put across choices for definite conducts and results. Organizational rules articulate conducts tolerable by others, and are culturally good enough methods of hunting goals. Leaders as well ascertain the strictures for prescribed lines of communication and the formal communication norms for the organization. Values and rules, just the once put out throughout the organization, set up the immovability of the organization’s culture.
DISCUSSION OF THE CASE
Group Dynamics
The group dynamics in the organizational set up of Oticon may well be understood in the context of literally torn down the walls to make one big open plan office, where employees move from desk to desk as per the projects in which they are currently entailed. For being proficient to work together and talk about the project, the team members generally move their desks in concert in a corner of the office. All communication is currently effected all the way through an information technology led network or face to face. The latter is utilized more commonly now that no one including project leaders has a personal office. As Nazzaro and Strazzabosco(2009) put group dynamics in fact implies to the communications amid individuals who are conversing jointly in a group setting, where group roles are principally decided by a grouping of individuals personality and their experience with group situations.The number of members in the project groups in Oticon varies in accordance with the quantity of work being carried out and the involvedness of the task. Senior management in the firm advises the employees they feel will be best suited for the job and a choice of criterion are used to create the choice in relation to the nature of the project. Characteristically these take account of, technical skills, experience, leadership aptitude or corporate skills shared with the fact that the employees have time obtainable when the project is due to begin. As Nazzaro and Strazzabosco(2009) put through managing it implies responding to and pass on the behaviour or involvement of individuals to a way that is superior for the group. Whether or not the group is directed, group roles tend to take place, where through learning in relation to the archetypal sorts of behaviour that come into view, and how to act in response to them fittingly, individuals may well get better the efficacy.
Managing Change
Managers or leaders in Oticon recognise that embarking upon a momentous change process are improbable to attain the full benefits unless their employees are entirely committed to the process and the goals sought from it. As Keifer(2005) puts continuing organizational change replicate a strengthening outcome where organizations are developing into more and more involved in manifold and even continuing inner change proceedings. The case provides insights into Oticon’s approach to change and the steps taken to minimise employee resistance to change. During this organisational development process there have been some changes in management and staff reductions have taken place. Employee turnover at Oticon was remarkably low considering the extent of the change. No one left the company during the first three months following the introduction of the restructured organisation despite the fact that not everyone felt comfortable with the new world of Oticon. As Robbins(2005) puts, organizations might change their structure and policy through just writing fresh rules and procedures, nevertheless the employees are not proceeding to change quite as straightforwardly, and that the relationship amid learning theories and organizational change actually is and where strengthening arrives in as a imperative fraction of organizational change.
Management/Leadership Styles
Leadership style in Oticon is transactional and not transformational. As Hellriegel and Slocum (2006) put transactional leaders, under contingent reward, offer rewards when achieving targets which are measurable and are short term based, where underactive management through exception, a leader supervises the performance of subordinates and minimizes their deviation from the goals. In Oticon, the co-ordination and communication between the project groups are not formalised. The connections between the employees are much stronger within the individual project group than between groups. The groups are fully autonomous, which means that no one outside the project team really knows what is going on inside the group. The lack of a general overview which this process creates has sometimes caused problems for the development process. As Hellriegel and Slocum (2006) put transactional leadership run under passive management through exception, transactional leaders interface with employee matters when subordinate provide unacceptable performance, where transactional leadership thus provides benefit to achieve goals whereas penalties for not realizing the targets.
Corporate Culture
The corporate culture in Oticon is not vibrant and consistent leading to various problems in organisational performance. As Schein, (2004) puts that through a vibrant and consistent culture organizations stabilize due to accomplishment in attaining their most important roles, the leader’s suppositions develop into collective and setting in those suppositions might subsequently be thought of more as a procedure of mingling fresh individuals. In Oticon the project leader is free to manage the project group in the manner he or she prefers. This means that the project groups are run in various ways. Some groups meet with all the project members on a regular basis, and employees only meet when they find it necessary. Certainly a few groups make all decisions together, however at the same time as others leave the decision making to those directly involved with a particular aspect of the project. Thompson, Strickland and Gamble (2005) postulate that ethics is the most crucial aspect to leadership in establishing good organizational culture, where leaders who involve followers to get done shared objectives through fostering ethical and moral conducts in their organizations considerably strengthen organizational values. However, this ethics is complete lacking in Oticon.
CONCLUSION
The group dynamics in the organizational set up of Oticon may well be understood in the context of literally torn down the walls to make one big open plan office, where employees move from desk to desk as per the projects in which they are currently entailed. For being proficient to work together and talk about the project, the team members generally move their desks in concert in a corner of the office. All communication is currently effected all the way through an information technology led network or face to face. Managers or leaders in Oticon recognise that embarking upon a momentous change process are improbable to attain the full benefits unless their employees are entirely committed to the process and the goals sought from it. During this organisational development process there have been some changes in management and staff reductions have taken place. Employee turnover at Oticon was remarkably low considering the extent of the change. Leadership style in Oticon is transactional and not transformational. In Oticon, the co-ordination and communication between the project groups are not formalised. The connections between the employees are much stronger within the individual project group than between groups. The groups are fully autonomous, which means that no one outside the project team really knows what is going on inside the group. The lack of a general overview which this process creates has sometimes caused problems for the development process. The corporate culture in Oticon is not vibrant and consistent leading to various problems in organisational performance. In Oticon the project leader is free to manage the project group in the manner he or she prefers. This means that the project groups are run in various ways. Some groups meet with all the project members on a regular basis, and employees only meet when they find it necessary. Certainly a few groups make all decisions together, however at the same time as others leave the decision making to those directly involved with a particular aspect of the project. The corporate culture ethics is complete lacking in Oticon.
REFERENCES
- Arnetz, B.B. (2005), Subjective Indicators as a Gauge for Improving Organizational Well-Being, An Attempt to Apply the Cognitive Activation Theory to Organizations, Psychoneuroendocrinology, 30, pp,1022-1026.
- Baldoni, J. (2005), Great Motivation Secret of Great Leaders, McGraw Hill Professional Associates Inc, London.
- Bass, B. M. and Riggio, R. E. (2006), Transformational Leadership, 2 ed., Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
- Brodbeck, F. and Greitemeyer, T. (2000), A dynamic model of group performance: Considering the group members’ capacity to learn. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 3, pp.159-182.
- Erakovic, L. and Wilson, M. (2005), Conditions of Radical Transformation in State-Owned Enterprises, British Journal of Management, 16, pp.293-313.
- Hellriegel, D. and Slocum, J. (2006), Organizational behavior, 11th Ed., South Western, Mason, OH.
- Kieffer, T. (2005), Feeling Bad: Antecedents and Consequences of Negative Emotions in Ongoing Change, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, pp.875-897.
- Krishnan, V. R. (2004), Impact of transformational leadership on followers’ influence strategies. Leadership and organization Development Journal, 25, 1, pp.58-72.
- Robbins, R and Finley, M. (1995), Why teams don’t work, what went wrong, and how to make it right, Pacesetter Book, Princeton, NJ.
- Robbins, S.P. (2005), Organizational Behavior, 11th Ed., Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ.
- Schein, E. M. (2004), Organizational culture and leadership, 3rd. ed., Jossy-Bass, London.
- 12. Thompson, A. A., Strickland, A. J., Gamble, J. E. (2005), Crafting and executing strategy: The quest for competitive advantage: Concepts and cases, 4thed., McGraw-Hill, Irwin.
E-sources
- Nazzaro, A. and Strazzabosco, J. (2009), “Group Dynamics and Team Building”. [Online] accessed from http://www1.wfh.org/publication/files/pdf-1245.pdf [12th May, 2013]