I have finished 4 parts of the essay. I need to find some one to help me to put them together and add a conclusion. APA style. The conclusion have to more than 1000 words. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Engstrom Auto Mirror Plant: Motivating In Good and Bad Times Analysis

Student’s name:

Course code & title:

Instructor:

Date:

Engstrom Auto Mirror Plant: Motivating In Good and Bad Times Analysis

Organizational behavior is influenced by individuals, groups, or the organization system. An organization’s behavior correlates with its effectiveness in task achievement. Therefore understanding organization behavior is crucial in determining how to improve productivity. Human behavior influences a company negatively or positively.

A decline in productivity plus production of low-quality mirrors was experienced in the Engstrom Auto Mirror plant after a period of success in business. This period followed the introduction of the Scanlon plan. The Scanlon plan was introduced at a time when the productivity of the firm had decreased. A new manager, Ron Bent, took over and was in need of a way of reviving the organization. He decided on Scanlon plan. The Scanlon plan rewarded employees with bonuses based on the improved performance of the whole firm. Workers productivity improved in the subsequent years since the inception of the Scanlon plan but later declined to the extent that bonuses could no longer be given. The lack of bonuses impacted negatively on the employees’ morale and behavior in the organization. Some organizational issues seem to have contributed to the downturn of the firm.

Ron Bent didn’t analyze the causes of the decreased workers performance when he took over as a manager. Instead, he opted to look for ways of improving workers productivity. At that time, the company was in transition to incorporate new technology. The workers could have started anticipating job insecurity. Job temporariness decreases corporal loyalty (Robbins, Judge, Millett, & Boyle, 2013).  The insecurity could have changed the perception of the workers towards the organization and, in turn, alter their behavior. Changing the perception of the employees would have changed their behavior and improve their performance. He didn’t consult workers on ways in which productivity could be increased before he introduced the Scanlon plan. The workers did not, therefore, own the plan and felt dissatisfied with it when no bonuses were given. He didn’t educate the workers adequately about the Scanlon plan. The workers became accustomed to the bonuses until they felt it was part of a regular compensation. When they did not get bonuses, it was as if part of their rights were violated. The workers expressed distrust in the way calculations were done when giving bonuses despite being provided with the information. They had been used to a simpler way of calculating productivity, but the Scanlon plan became too hard for them to comprehend. The distrust reflects the fact that the employees had not got sufficient information regarding the operation of the Scanlon plan. The employees were also dissatisfied with the sharing of bonuses. They felt they ought to have got the larger share than their supervisors because they worked more than them. The act of pilfering demonstrates a poor attitude from the workers towards the organization.

The manager didn’t take the most appropriate steps in motivating the workers morale to improve productivity. According to cognitive evaluation theory, when people get rewards for performing tasks, they get motivated by getting the reward and not improving the appraised behavior (Robbins, Judge, Millett, & Boyle, 2013). People, therefore, need to be allocated tasks they are competent for, and that they will feel in control. They will, in turn, get motivated to perform better and may not require further motivation. Division of labor and specialization in Engstrom could, therefore, have helped in increasing productivity and Bent ought to have considered it. There lacked set goals and targets of production in Engstrom. The bonuses were evaluated from the production of the whole company. Goal setting is linked to task performance and improves employee productivity. Properly set goals accompanied by regular feedbacks of the results achieved act as a motivation to continue improving. The goals give a sense of direction and notify the employee the amount of effort required in the job. Clear, precise, and challenging goals are better motivating factors than simple and vague goals (Rainlall, 2004). If Bent had set the organization’s goals, they could not have experienced the slump in production that occurred when there was a ready market for their products.

The manager’s decision to give incentives to improve productivity was a good plan due to the situation of the company, but he only emphasized on monetary incentives. A combination of both monetary and non-monetary incentives is required to improve the motivation of workers. Some non-monetary incentives such as praising or recognition of a worker satisfy the ego needs of the employee and may be the most significant incentive. He could also have given them some assurance of job security other than notifying them of the possibility of layoffs. There also lacked a positive social system in Engstrom. The employees’ actions and attitudes such as pilfering, demonstrated dysfunctional behaviors that negatively influenced the organization’s behavior. Dysfunctional behavior leads to failure of meeting targets, absenteeism, and disrespect amongst workers (Newstrom & Davis 2015). The manager also failed to perpetuate an organization’s culture that would unify the members towards a common goal. Organization culture influences individual and group behaviors that are important in an organization’s productiveness.

The organization laid more emphasis on production, and the employee issues came second after it. Such a system usually impacts an organization negatively after some time. The scientific management theory observes four principles to maximize production in companies. The principles include finding the best way to perform a task, letting workers perform tasks that they are good at, reward and punishment as motivators of workers and good management (Robbins, Judge, Millett, & Boyle, 2013). The aim is to improve production while the employee issues are not put into consideration. With time, this is associated with low production, poor quality, job dissatisfaction, and loss of pride like it happened with Engstrom. Therefore, the application of such a theory is not beneficial to a company in long run.

The employees’ complaint that the sharing of the bonuses was unfair is wrong. Equity according to Adam’s equity theory does not depend only on the input-output ratios. Equity is achieved through comparison of input and output ratios experienced or enjoyed people in similar situations (Robbins, Judge, Millett, & Boyle, 2013). The workers in Engstrom did not appreciate this, and they compared them with the supervisors whom they thought their input was less. Mistrust is a consequence of perception of inequity at work. The management should have explained to the employees the basis of establishing fairness in the sharing of bonuses. Failure to do so negatively influenced their behavior and culminated in decreased production in the organization.

Failure to maintain a good organizational behavior creates false perceptions in employees about the company. The result is a poor attitude amongst workers. A poor job attitude leads to work dissatisfaction and mistrust between the management and the workers. The cumulative effect is a decrease in workers performance and organization’s productivity. Conditions that would, therefore, alter workers behavior have implications for the production of a company.

 

References

Newstrom, J.W, & Davis, K. (2015). Human behavior at work: Organizational behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Rainlall, S. (2004). A review of employee motivation theories and their implications for employee retention within organizations. The journal of American academy of business, 9, 21-26.

Robbins, S., Judge, T. A., Millett, B., & Boyle, M. (2013). Organisational behaviour. Pearson Higher Education AU.

 

 

Attachments:

• 1502898016-20160508033215mileston_3.docx
• 1502898017-20160508033216mileston_4.docx