Introduction
In the contemporary world, organizations have changed tremendously and appreciated the need for placing emphasis on their respective structures, designs and cultures. Besides, there has been apparent need to recognize teams and team working within the context of organizations. Although the concept of team working is not necessarily new, organizations have increased their focus on teams owing to the roles that they play in the achievement of organization’s objectives (Atkinson 1984, pp. 56). On the one hand, Biogenia is a manufacturing company that has numerous organizational dynamics. On the other hand, Sleepeasy specializes in offering hospitality and hotel services. This paper seeks to make a comparative analysis of the two organizations. It will focus on different approaches to team work, culture, structure and design of the organizations.
Teamwork and Team working
At the onset, Biogenia has cemented its place as an organization that appreciates teams and people working in the context of teams to increase company’s yields and performance. Considering the company’s ability to have numerous employees to fulfill designated tasks, it encourages employees from all the functions to work closely and enhance team working. Within an organization, the nature of some work is so different from the rest that it requires a separate structure to optimize it (Atkinson 1984, p. 87) If this work is grouped instead into one of the units, the principle of unit alignment suggests that the specialist work will become contaminated. In fact, its cross-cultural project teams play an important role in the organization (Atkinson 1984, pp. 56).
Team dynamics are prevalent within the organization with team members from different ethnicities, genders and qualifications working together to achieve various organizations’ targets. The constituents of the teams have diverse abilities, skills and experience to handle tasks and roles designated to them. The project to develop a new herbicide in South Africa borrows numerous teambuilding strategies some of which are critical in their ability to achieve goals of the company. As it seems, the team has been able to achieve their objectives and can afford to attend recreational activities together in such a way that they enhance a team spirit. As such, Biogenia has an elaborate strategy to underscore the role of teams in attainment of their goals.
Conversely, Sleepeasy hotel chain seems to overlook the role of teamwork. First, the chain has specialized roles for its employees and rarely does it encourage teamwork amongst them. Although the sectors in which the two companies are apparently different, it is important to notice that some employees who fulfill specific task for the organizations have no opportunity for team working. The rationale is that the company does not recognize that all its functions and their respective employees could work together to increase customer service and their job satisfaction (Burns & Stalker 1967, pp. 47). While some of its employees are under qualified, others are highly skilled and encouraged to pursue more qualification.
For room service employees, the company makes no efforts to train them and equip them with much required experience. As such, the company’s employees will not necessarily feel as a team owing to the fact that they fulfill different tasks that are unrelated and require dvaried experience. Sleepeasy also fails to recognize diversity as an important factor that leads to team working (Wergin 2003, p. 70). Indeed, the company contrasts Biogenia in appreciation of cultural diversity within its organization. Sleepeasy employs staff members belonging to the same ethnicity in its outlets. This is unlike Biogenia that has employed 20 people of different nationalities in its Cambridge research and development function. This does not only allow growth in teams but also enhances diversity and functional conflict. Hence, Sleepeasy stands to lose on the positive attributes associated with team working.
Organizational structure and design
According to Schein (2004, pp. 76), organization structure is important in enhancing organizations’ ability to remain within their goals and ultimately, increase their revenues. Biogenia has an organization structure that allows it to operate in a global business environment with efficiency. First, the company has numerous employees in various countries whose roles fit in one of the four functions of the company. The execution of the strategy is centered on four distinct functions of the organization that include research and development, manufacturing support in addition to sales and marketing (Clarke & Newman 1997, p. 23).
Principles of organization design guide Biogenia in its structure. For instance, to enable its strategy of remaining competitive in the context of competitive business context, the organization has been able to locate some of its production processes in areas that are favorable. In fact, it has 10 manufacturing plants located in different countries to reduce the overhead costs. It is important to realize that Biogenia has implemented strategies to ensure that the operational costs accruing the company remain within the constraints. The organizational structure of the company has developed links especially in lieu of the fact that it operates in many countries across the globe to increase its ability to enhance its profitability (Thompson 1967, p. 57).
Conversely, Sleepeasy Company has an organizational structure that recognizes the need for competitiveness. The company has employed different members if its staff to fulfill specific functions such as cooking and cleaning. The employed staff of the organization work under the supervision of managers. It appreciates the need for improved services for its customers and uses numerous ways to ensure that it remains competitive in the global environment (Clegg 2000, p. 76). Its structure is shaped in such a way that it is able to minimize costs. This is through employing staff members whose wages are only above minimum wages. Although these employees are not permanent, they are able to ensure that the organization operates within the constraints of the resources. Besides, the organization has been able to protect important skills that are typical of its workforce. Indeed, numerous employees whose qualifications meet the criteria for managerial positions are exposed to more training to enhance retention of skills (Isles 2004)
Although the two companies operate in different sectors, it is important to notice that the two appreciate the need for innovation and advancements. Biogenia is a flexible organization that treats all its workers in similar way and ensures that its workers can fit in numerous positions at its disposal. In fact, the organization’s structure enhances the ability of the teams to work together despite their ethnicity, gender and nationality. Conversely, Sleepeasy’s organizational structure places emphasis on the ability of the employees to be dynamic and fit within different areas of operations. It is noticeable that the two organizations have hierarchical structure in which the managers occupy the top positions with the responsibility of ensuring that the organizations are able to improve their performance (Goldthorpe 1968, p. 20).
Organizational Culture
Sleepeasy organization appreciates that employees should be able to specialize in their respective roles that they perform. According to Schein (2004, p. 72), organizations ought to have employees that specialize in order to reduce costs and be more efficient. As such, the organization values specialization in its culture. In addition, the organization has a culture of enhancing compliance with labor organizations and their stipulations. It does not violate the workers’ minimum wage and offer good training for people with essential skills. According to Johnson (1992, p. 51), organizations should increase their competitive edge by ensuring that they abide with the labor laws and regulations. In this case, it is imperative for Sleepeasy to pay wages and salaries that reflect this compliance.
Further, Sleepeasy emphasizes on the importance of putting customers’ satisfaction central to its objectives. Indeed, the organization conducts frequent performance monitoring that focuses on the customer satisfaction. This organization culture distinguishes the organization from others (McGregor 1960, p. 71). Nonetheless, the organization fails to value the importance of unionization amongst its employees (Maslow 1943, p. 41). It is critical for an organization to view trade unions not only as important for its employees but also as a characteristic of contemporary organizations. Sleepeasy also fails to recognize cultural diversity amongst its workforce. In fact, the organization employs workers of similar ethnic background in many of its hotel outlets.
Conversely, Biogenia has a culture of skills and talent acquisition. It employs the most qualified workers to execute its projects. It values diversity in its workforce and execute programs that enhance cultural relativity (Rees 1999, pp. 72). Unlike Sleepeasy, various programs of the company focus on ensuring that workers of different cultural backgrounds are appreciated. Biogenia’s culture also entails innovation in which every member of the organization has an opportunity to exercise his or her knowledge and skills. The cross-functional project team in South Africa is an illustration of this culture where four team members from different backgrounds blend together to execute the company’s strategy.
Conclusion
Essentially, organizations have different structures, designs, cultures and management. They enhance the ability of an organization to achieve its objectives and ensure that the organization remain profitable and operates within its resources (Rolfe 1986, p. 11). Biogenia is a manufacturing company that specializes in herbicides and pesticides. It has a structure that appreciates hierarchical execution of duties. Besides, the organization emphasizes on the need for team working and ensures that employees are comfortable when fulfilling their duties (Rolfe 1986, p. 61). Indeed, its culture is to ensure that innovation, research and development are important components of its operations. Through cross-functional projects, the organization facilitates cultural diversity and encourages teambuilding. On the contrary, Sleepeasy is a company in the service sector that focuses on hospitality services. It does not encourage cultural diversity and team working due to its culture of discouraging innovation and team building (Taylor 1911, p. 71). In fact, the company’s employees located in its outlets are from similar background yet it has no strategies of ensuring that they are able to ensure cultural diversity. As such, the two organizations contrast hugely.
References
Atkinson, J 1984, ‘Manpower strategies for flexible organisations’, Personnel Management, vol.3 no. 1, pp. 28-31.
Burns, T & Stalker, G1961, The management of innovation, Tavistock, London.
Clarke, J & Newman, J 1997, The managerial state, Sage publishers, London.
Clegg, S 2000, ‘The rhythm of the saints: cultural resistance, popular music and collectivist organization in Salvador’, vol. 6 no. 23, pp. 246-263.
Goldthorpe, J 1968, The affluent worker: industrial attitudes and behaviour, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Homewood.
Isles, N 2004, The joy of work, Work Foundation, London.
Maslow, A 1943, ‘A theory of human motivation’, Psychological Review, vol. 50 no. 4 pp. 370-96.
McGregor, D 1960, The human side of the enterprise, McGraw Hill, New York.
Porter, W & Lawler, E1968, Managerial attitudes and performance. Irwin, New York, McGraw Hill Publishers.
Rees, J 1999,’Teamworking and service quality: the limits of employee involvement’, Personnel Review, vol. 28 no. 6, pp. 455-473.
Rolfe, H 1986, ‘Skill, deskilling and new technology in the non-manual labour process’, New Technology, Work and Employment, vol.1 no. 1, pp. 37-49.
Schein, E 2004, Organizational Culture and Leadership, prentice hall Publishers, Upper Saddle River.
Taylor, F1911, Principles of scientific management, Harper, New York.
Thompson, E 1967, ‘Time work-discipline and industrial capitalism’, Past and Present, vol. 38 no. 1, pp. 56 –97.
Wergin, N 2003, ‘Teamwork in the Automobile Industry – An Anglo-German Comparison’, European Political Economy Review, vol. 1 no. 2, pp. 152-190.