Understanding Organizational Effectiveness, Culture, and Team Development

An organization's effectiveness is dependent on its open skills and morals; the interpretation of 'organizational effectiveness' can be affected accordingly with the idea of hierarchical development, particularly when used as the name of a division or part of a company's Human Resources. Thus, organizational culture is about the set of values and beliefs that form the behavioral components of an employee's organization. Cultural leaders are the individuals who influence the extent to which those beliefs and values are shared throughout the organization.

For this reason, it is important for the leaders of any organization to establish a reasonable organizational culture that will foster improvement and, at the same time, empower those who believe in them.

The structure of an organization determines the business operations carried out within it, and this can vary depending on the particular organization. For instance, the structure of Walmart clearly designates the roles of those in authority alongside the roles of employees in fostering organizational success. The actual physical structure of all Walmart stores is flat, enabling effective control over the employees and the overall business activities by the management. That being said, Walmart is one of the largest retail companies in the world. Its organizational culture and structure have been critical in achieving a competitive edge over the years. Both elements are influenced by factors such as commitment to their employees and customers, cost efficiency, and an overall focus on expansion.

To be powerful and accomplish its objectives, an association should effectively react to natural elements. How can the effectiveness of an association be measured? Different models of determining organizational viability exist on the grounds that organizations face different situations. They produce different products, their organizational members are comprised of various kinds of people, and the organizations are at different stages of development. Each model that is most useful to an organization has a specific mixture of these environmental and organizational traits. Two different essential dimensions may be considered to develop models of organizational effectiveness. The first is the organization's internal versus external focus. The second dimension is the organization's emphasis on flexibility versus control. Flexibility allows faster change, while control maintains a firm grasp on current operations. When these two dimensions are drawn at correct angles to each other, the initial four models of organizational effectiveness can be plotted. They are the goal attainment, open system, internal process, and human relations models.

According to the same objective model of adequacy, an organization is effective to the degree that it fulfills its expressed objectives. For instance, the formal objectives of the Toronto Blue Jays are to win their division, the American League flag, and the World Series.

Assessing the effectiveness of an association requires cash, time, HR, and development planning. It also requires a significant commitment of time and effort from the staff of the association, and thus diverts staff effort away from the association's core activity of exploration.

An organization is a gathering of individuals who cooperate to accomplish a wide assortment of goals, both individual goals and the overall goals of the organization. Organizations exist to provide goods and services that people need. These goods and services are the product of workers' behaviors. Organizational behavior is the study of the many factors that influence how individuals and groups respond to and act within organizations, as well as how organizations manage their environments. Although many people believe that understanding human behavior in organizations is intuitive, many commonly held beliefs about behavior in organizations—for example, the idea that 'a happy worker is a productive worker'—are either entirely false or only true in specific circumstances.

The ability to use the tools of organizational behavior to understand behavior in organizations is one reason to study this subject. A second reason is to learn how to apply these concepts, theories, and methods to improve behavior in organizations so that individuals, groups, and organizations can achieve their goals. Managers are challenged to find new ways to motivate and coordinate employees to ensure that their goals align with organizational goals.

Bruce Tuckman identified the four main stages of team development as Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing. Later, as self-managed teams became standard in business, he added a fifth stage called Adjourning or Transforming.

Teams travel through a progression of stages, starting when they are formed and ending when they are disbanded. Bruce Tuckman distinguished four specific periods of group development: forming, storming, norming, and performing. Each has a main role and a typical set of interpersonal dynamics among team members. Tuckman suggested that all are inevitable and even critical elements of a successful team's advancement. Once their endeavors are underway, team members need clarity about their activities and goals and clear direction about how they will function independently and collectively. This leads to a period known as storming—because it can involve brainstorming ideas and because it generally causes disruption. During the storming stage, individuals begin to share ideas about what to do and how to do it, which vie for attention.

Effectively traveling through the raging stage implies that a group has clarified its motivation and methodology for accomplishing its objectives. It now moves to a period focused on establishing shared values about how team members will cooperate. These norms of cooperation can address issues ranging from when to use certain modes of communication, for example, email versus phone, to how team meetings will be run and what to do when conflicts arise.

Most specialists in group improvement concur that groups will experience five unique stages. How quickly a group travels through each stage will depend on the team members, their individual skills, the work they are expected to do, and the type of leadership available to the team.

When standards are set up and the group is working as a unit, it enters the performing stage. At this point, colleagues cooperate effortlessly on interdependent tasks and can convey and organize successfully. There are fewer tedious diversions based on interpersonal and group progress. Therefore, inspiration is usually high, and colleagues have trust in their ability to achieve goals. While these four stages—forming, storming, norming, and performing—are distinct and largely sequential, they often blend into each other and even overlap. A group may pass through one stage only to return to it.

For instance, if a new member joins the group, there may be a second brief period of adjustment while that person is integrated. A group may also need to return to an earlier stage if its performance declines. Group building activities are often undertaken to assist a group through its development process. Time and effort are required to move through the various group development stages. Every team will experience all the stages. However, the timeline of each stage may vary from team to team, depending on the individual members and their skill levels, the work the team is expected to accomplish, and the group leadership during each stage.

Managing moves and the conflicts that arise amid them is a crucial administration skill. It can make the difference between a relatively smooth transition and one that slows down or risks undermining the change effort. Worse, some of the conflicts caused by the change initiative, if unaddressed, can haunt relationships and organisational structures long after the change itself is fully integrated.
Conflict is inevitable in small businesses. Conflict can arise from a variety of sources, and occur between managers and subordinates, among team members, and between employees and customers. Managers and organisations can opt to view conflict negatively, acting to suppress it at every opportunity, or see it as inherently positive, using conflict to effect positive change.

Particularly, safe activities may be plain and/or clandestine. Either open or shrouded activities may include conflict. The contention may be with the change itself. This kind of conflict shows a contradiction about the change(s) with the directors that are nearest to the people. This is so, even if those directors are not the chiefs of the authoritative change. They are the intermediaries of the individuals who did choose, following their part, to represent the organization and implement the change. Employees might also find themselves in conflict with one another: perceived winners (of the change) versus perceived losers, those who are almost always against the change, and arbitrary conflicts about seemingly unrelated issues caused by the stress of the change.

Coincidentally, now and again, first-line or lower-level managers have not been privy to the decisions that brought about the change. They may not have all the information that would help their unit navigate through the transition. They too may have been negatively affected by it. They may feel as powerless and vulnerable as other employees.

References

1. Becerra-Fernandez, I., and Sabherwal, R. "Organizational Knowledge Management: A Contingency Perspective," Journal of Management Information Systems, (18:1), 2001, pp. 23-55.
2. Mahoney, Thomas A., and William Weitzel. "Managerial Models of Organizational Effectiveness." Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 14, no. 3, 1969, pp. 357–365. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2391131. Accessed 15 Mar. 2020.
3. Stid, Daniel, and Kirk Kramer. "The Effective Organization: Five Questions to Translate Leadership into Strong Management." Bridgespan, 2019, www.bridgespan.org/insights/library/organizational-effectiveness/the-effective-organization-five-questions.
4. Lawler III, Edward E. "HR Should Own Organizational Effectiveness." Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 11 Mar. 2015, www.forbes.com/sites/edwardlawler/2014/02/11/hr-should-own-organizational-effectiveness/#a98b26b1e464.

Did you like this example?

274

14