The paper establishes the relationship between organisational structure and culture in Marks and Spencer and Dynatrade together with the different approaches to their organisational management and leadership. Organisational configuration presents the diverse ways in which actions such as job allotment, administration, and synchronisation are controlled and directed in an effort to achieve organisational objectives, aims, and goals. Jacobides terms Marks and Spencer’s organisation structure as lens through which people see it and its environment (459). Its organisational structure dictates the modes of operation whilst determining the degree of its performance. Organisational culture defines the norms, values, and ways of doing work in an organisation. Marks and Spencer and Dynatrade avail a foundation on which various standards of operation, routines, and procedures are anchored. Marks and Spencer and Dynatrade’s culture also affects the mechanisms through which their employees engage in decision-making. These impacts of organisational structure in the two companies suggest that it shapes and manipulates the mechanism of executing organisational actions, which define an organisational culture.
We will write a custom Assessment on Marks and Spencer and Dynatrade Companies Management specifically for you
301 certified writers online
Marks and Spencer has adopted different structures such as matrix, bureaucratic, functional, and divisional structures among others as a way of making sure that its clothing products in all branches that are spread throughout the UAE reach the biggest number of clients. Functional structures exist where it groups its different elements according to their purposes, which while integrated, constitute the main objective of an organisation. For instance, it has structured its operations in the form of departments such as sales production, purchases and procurement, and maintenance departments. Dynatrade Automotive Group has a culture of relying on employee knowledge and talent potential to drive its success both in the short and long-term. In such situations, its functional structures become incredibly effective in the realisation of its goals. However, this type of structure encounters challenges.
The two companies have large geographical operational areas. As such, they deploy the divisional structure. The structure also exists in situations where a corporation constitutes small separate small organisations. For example, in an automobile manufacturing company such as Dynatrade, there may be some divisions that deal with engine, suspension systems, body, power trains, and transmissions among other divisions. In such an organisational structure, various divisions must foster effective flow of information and knowledge bases so that products that are produced at each divisional level can match the quality requirements for the completed products (Jacobides 461).
How Organisational Culture and Structure affects Marks and Spencer’s Performance
Marks and Spencer’s functional structure helps in bridging the demerits and merits of functional and divisional structures. Large organisations such as this one commonly deploy a functional structure. The company produces merchandise 1 and 2. The functional areas may include merchandise 1 sales department, merchandise 2 sales department, merchandise 1 production department, and merchandise 2-production department. The structure facilitates the sharing of information and knowledge base across its organisational boundaries in the effort to encourage an organisational culture of innovation and creativity to enhance its performance.
Functional structure fosters competition among different divisions. The plan enhances increased productivity of the overall organisation. Productivity entails a key parameter for measuring organisational performance. Jacobides adds that functional structures “improve upon the ‘silo’ critique of functional management in that they diminish the vertical functional structures to create a more horizontal structure, which allows the spread of information across task boundaries to happen much quicker” (467). However, they also suffer from some demerits that are inherited from demerits of functional and divisional structures. For example, the structure may give rise to organisational power struggles akin to the existence of dual managerial roles.
Factors that influence the Behaviour of Employees in Dynatrade
Factors such as organisational structure, employee motivation, and recognition influence employee conduct in Dynatrade Automotive Group. The company deploys hierarchical and bureaucratic organisational structures. A bureaucratic organisational structure is associated with Max Weber. Dynatrade’s employees are incredibly concerned with how the company can gain optimally from their labour resources. This behaviour is influenced by the company’s plan of motivating and rewarding all its workers, including qualified engineers whilst guiding and nurturing its new ones towards gaining more experience in the automobile industry. The company upholds teamwork and trainings of all levels of its workers who in turn make incredible contributions in terms of laying a fundamental background on how the company can utilise its human capital resources in more effective and efficient ways. Division of work within the organisation and allocating small divisions to persons depending on their abilities and skill levels is also upheld here to make sure that all people participate in building the company.
Effectiveness of Martin, Stephen, and George’s Leadership Styles
Leadership plays an important role in enhancing organisational success. Leadership functions to inspire followers to work collectively towards the achievement of specific goals within an organisation. Leadership is an organisational practice that not only influences its followers (employees) but also managers in a manner that ensures that organisational objectives are achieved upon applying the required change. This claim means that leadership integrates and intertwines followers and leaders. It also influences organisational objectives and missions and other organisational stakeholders (Lussier and Achua 23). Different leadership styles are effective to different extents.
From an autocratic perspective, Martin deploys strong, controlling, and directive actions to ensure that rules alongside regulations are enforced within work environments. He has the final word and decision for his company. Although this leadership is necessary, where the goal is to enforce compliance with the stipulated guidelines, it can create a negative perception that is accompanied by fear among followers. Consequently, rather than executing duties to precision to attain organisational objectives, he forces people to execute their role to escape the wrath of the leader (Martin). The theory is ineffective to the extent that it makes employees feel as if they are not part of the organisational processes.
Stephen accomplishes his roles of leadership through delegation and participation as opposed to control and enforcement of rules and regulations. This leadership approach is likely to create positive schemas about his capacity to function as a manager. Although Kedharnath emphasises that followers should be answerable to the manner in which they accomplish their organisational functions, followers still know that Stephen will appreciate and accept their responsibilities for having delegated the tasks to them (13). This situation is opposed to the laissez-faire approach in leadership in which George rejects the responsibility of his position. He only relies on what his employee deem right, regardless of whether it is at par with the organisation’s objectives or not.
How Management Theories in Infosys and Google Influence the Actual Practice Of Management
Management theories are essential in the determination of the appropriate behaviours and suitable organisational management approaches that can yield success for Infosys and Google both in the short-term and long-term basis. Management theories encompass “the study of organisations for the benefit of identifying common themes for the purpose of solving problems, maximising efficiency and productivity, and meeting the needs of the stakeholders” (Armstrong and Daft 34). Topics such as environmental perspectives of enhancing organisational development, neoclassical viewpoints, and classical perspectives in approaches of organisational management are central to the study of management theories.
How Organisational Theories affect Management Decisions in the above Two Organisations
Studying organisational theories and behaviours is integral to the derivation of strategies for Infosys and Google’s management strategies that can resort to the alignment of all their workers to common themes, goals, and objectives. Infosys, which is the leading software producer, deploys organisational theories to explain the most effective approaches of managing its workforce to realise its goals and objectives. It also stipulates different organisational models that foster employee development and growth. Coincidentally, this observation also underlines the role and purpose of management practices within Google.
How Infosys and Google are different in their Managerial Approaches
The two organisations deploy different managerial and leadership approaches. Infosys deploys centralised managerial approaches or bureaucratic strategies. In its centralised and bureaucratic managerial approach, power and authority are concentrated at the top. Managers enforce the voice of command. Consequently, opposed to decentralised and democratic managerial approaches, under Infosys’s centralised and bureaucratic managerial approaches, the top-most management personnel make organisational decisions without considering any possible alternative innovative ways of accomplishing a particular task from persons in other levels.
Google deploys decentralised and democratic managerial approaches that encourage employee participation, specialisation, and division of labour. This strategy leads to the creation of work diversity where its employees are given a chance to present their side of story. Jacobides maintains that diversity in work environments leads to high employee performance (455). This finding has prompted Google to unveil mechanisms of ensuring that people remain motivated and effective in their work. For instance, work rotations are an important mechanism of dealing with challenges of job monotony. In decentralised and democratic managerial approaches, people in the lowest hierarchical levels of organisational structure are also involved in decision-making processes.
Armstrong, Antony and Richard Daft. Organisation Theory and Design. Toronto: Nelson, 2009. Print.
Get your first paper with 15% OFF
Jacobides, Martins. “The inherent limits of organisational structure and the unfulfilled role of hierarchy: Lessons from a near-war.” Organisation Science 18.3(2007): 455-477. Print.
Kedharnath, Sylvester. “The influence of leaders’ implicit followership theories on employee outcomes.” Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 7.5(2011): 1-24. Print.
Lussier, Reynold, and Charles Achua. Leadership Theory, Application, Skill Development. Minnesota: Southwestern, 2004. Print.