Management practices and their specifics have always been a core component of the organizational culture, and the two are largely intertwined. As it evolved throughout the years, so did the methods of supervision across companies. Ways in which one’s work is supervised can be a significant influence on productivity, engagement, and overall level of satisfaction at the workplace. In this essay, I aim to discuss which organizational culture would allow me to thrive professionally and perform at the top of my abilities, and which would stifle me. Furthermore, I will characterize the supervision style I find the most effective and list three questions I would initiate on the job interview to determine the quality of the supervision.
Organizational culture is the concept generally used to characterize the way different processes are maintained and perceived within the firm. It affects multiple levels aspects, including organizational traditions, ideology, day-to-day rituals, values, and professional jargon. It develops upon the combination of assumptions and unspoken rules a group of colleagues has developed for themselves and can be frequently perceived as common knowledge within the company. Generally, researchers define 4 existing types of the organizational culture: clan, hierarchy, adhocracy, and market.
Personally, I believe the clan culture would allow me to perform in the organization the most effective. Its core values are commitment, communication and mutual development, and this type of culture rewards the spirit of camaraderie and collaboration in the daily tasks. It would allow me to develop facilitation skills and engage in teamwork on a daily basis, getting access to the multiple perspectives of my colleagues. In the contrast, the market culture seems the most stifling to me. Although its orientation to productivity can certainly lead to extremely efficient work performances, its encouragement of inner rivalry could in the long run decrease my level of commitment. Despite the certain competition is undoubtedly beneficial for the quality of the output, I find it disheartening and counterproductive when this approach is promoted culturally and affects daily interactions.
The question of which professional supervision is the most effective in social work and in other occupations, in general, has been a point of debate over the recent years. I believe it to be a case where each particular worker’s skills and psychology are what make the difference. Supervision is a management tool, and like any other tool, it cannot be strictly effective or ineffective and is determined by who uses it and how. The four main models of supervision include authoritative, authoritarian, permissive and neglectful, defined by their positions on the scales of the levels of demand and cooperation.
I find the authoritative model to be the best suited for my needs as an employee, as it combines a demanding work rhythm with a highly cooperative leadership style. This supervision model provides the worker with a sufficient amount of control to stay on schedule and achieve goals efficiently and in a timely manner. However, at the same time, it encourages co-operation and swift productive feedback from the management team. Arguably, a highly demanding work environment is essential for consistently excellent performance, I would need consistent communication with my superiors to keep growing as an employee. In terms of style, I find the more open and spontaneous communication style with the supervisor to be preferable over the strictly determined one. It allows for more freedom in general, but, most importantly, leads to clearer and more honest feedback and advice when proceeding with difficult projects.
Furthermore, I believe it to be more effective when dealing with the diverse workforce of modern organizations. Cultural competence and ethical sensitivity are required to deliver effective supervision in a company that allows many individuals from different backgrounds to work together (Lusk et al., 2017). Relatively informal communication is better suited for this goal, while work process integrity can be maintained through consistent attention to deadlines and targets. To achieve this type and quality of supervision in my workplace I could utilize the internal feedback programs if I felt the company’s supervision practices were restrictive or unresponsive.
Frequently, employment interviews provide candidates with an opportunity to learn almost as much about the company they are entering, as the company learns about them. However, one has to take initiative for this to happen, and therefore I came up with three questions related to the supervision in organizations. First, I would ask how frequently, if ever, feedback sessions between employees and team leaders are being held. Second, I would enquire about the vertical communication style of the company and how much formality it entails. Finally, I would ask how the onboarding process for the newcomers is structured in the organization, as it is often implemented by the current or future supervisors. My rationale for these questions would be to get a general idea of the organizational culture and supervision style of the company. These are the crucial parts of the internal environment, and I find it beneficial to familiarize myself with those in advance to perform at the top of my abilities.
Reference
Lusk, M., Terrazas, S. & Salcido, R. (2017). Critical Cultural Competence in Social Work Supervision. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance. Web.