www.profitandvalues.com

In every organisation, there are always issues that management will have to deal with on a day to day basis. How one deals with these issues is dependant on the character and the management style of that individual (Silbiger 2005:130). Understanding people’s thought processes, behaviour and motivations can help us address these issues effectively.

Pearson Education (2004) defines the study of Organisational Behaviour as “the performance of individuals and groups in different structures and cultures within the workplace”. There is an alarming concern that the many organisations are full of lazy workers - for example workers in the United Kingdom as reported by the BBC (2006) in an article; state that “an overwhelming majority of bosses and employees think that some of their colleagues consistently underperforms” (ibid). The Daily Mail’s Rebecca Caber (2006) also writes of this laziness and lack of work ethic after an undercover investigation revealed this about “gangs of maintenance workers” (ibid), who were followed throughout an eight hour period to find that “some only laboured 57 minutes” (ibid).

This general perception is in fact a reality and is very much evident in many of today’s organisation. During recent conversations with one's peers from other organisations both small and large there exist situations that directly contribute to this attitude. One in particular is “inter-departmental rivalry” (Silbiger 2005: 121), which can be seen in an example provided by one of these managers where the Technical Support and Service Engineering units often blamed each other for mistakes or failures to provide support to the organisations clients. I too have observer similar situations and I can safely say that they were accusing each other of being lazy. Both parties were concerned that the other wasn't doing their fair share of the work load.

Although these situations are often usually low in number, the potential is ever present for things to get out of control if they are not addressed. The outcome of what can only be described as miscommunication will ultimately result in a dissatisfied customer; who may eventually take their business dealings elsewhere for their needs to be met if this “gap” (ibid) is not addressed quickly.

Despite what some may think, staff retention is often very high on the list of priorities of many companies. These organisation more often than not offer above average remunerations, additional rewards, clear career paths and a “strong corporate culture” (Vecchio 2006: 12). In return, they expect “quality, high performance, and flexibility” (ibid). However, even thought these attractive incentives attract high calibre candidates, there is still one area that is neglected hence organisations fail to retain staff - character suitability.

To use another real life example to illustrate this point, another particular organisation had gone through three different individuals who had been hired in the role of Customer Service in one 12 month period. The role required an individual that was customer focused and who could remain calm under pressure. Yet, the profile of the individuals employed suggested they were better suited to roles such as computer programmer or engineer. The outcome had not only been an expensive recruitment exercise, but a drop in morale within the Customer Service team had also been noticed (IDS Study 2004).

These “changes in the work setting” (Vecchio 2006: 10) by the added work load for the remaining team members had affected the level of service; and “risk losing the experience and trust we have worked together to build” (CBI, 2005: 15). A company blessed with good leaders is a company destined for great success. There are organisation that are fortunate to have such individuals within its ranks. Good leaders encourage and motivate their workforce to perform. In turn they are respected for the different methods in which they use to do so. Without this gift, the workforce may end up with this view; “no respect and trust, no retention” (Vecchio 2006: 3).

However, there are managers and leaders in positions of formal authority who lack some of the skills needed to perform the leader's role successfully. Vecchio states that “two way communication by sharing and asking for information” (ibid), is imperative to being a good leader. By not actively listening and not speaking directly with employees, one cannot gain understanding of where an employee’s goals and aspirations lie.

It has been my experience that some organisations deliberately shy away from asking their employees what their career aspirations are - both short term and longer term. They fear that by knowing, they would be obligated to provide the training necessary for these particular employees to advance their careers to the next level. Therefore, by intentionally being ignorant of the employees needs, they will be able to retain them as they cannot move on to other organisations due to lack of experience.

Yet they fail to realise that by helping these employees to achieve their own personal goals, organisations stand to gain more from these individuals who are often driven themselves and are willing to do what it takes to succeed. Another important skill required is the ability to command respect by exercising authority in a professional manner.

To use a real life experience, I have worked with peers who were clearly being undermined by direct reports, who rather than carrying out all duties required, they would choose certain jobs that they wanted to do. The net effect was a misuse of resources, but even worse was the number of dissatisfied customers who's service level agreements were not met. As good as they were at supervising and directing people's work, they did lack these two core leadership skills. The outcome of having someone in a position without these skills, will result in employee dissatisfaction which has “imminent consequences and negative financial impact” (ibid) to the organisation.

Often, the reason these individuals are promoted into the ranks of manager is due to the fact that they have been with these organisations for a very long time. Therefore this mistake is often made despite the short comings and lack of professional qualifications. By learning to identify these weaknesses within an organisation, one is in a better position to rectify the situation making the organisation stronger and more effective.

References:
BBC. (2006) Staff brand colleagues as 'lazy' [Online]. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4163570.stm (Accessed: 08 June 2006)

Caber, R. (2006) Proof that road workers hardly work at all [Online]. Available from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article... (Accessed: 08 June 2006)

CBI. (2005) Spotlight on security: why business must make the difference. In: Business Summit, 07 June 2006, London.

CBI pp.15 IDS Study. (2004) Improving staff retention [Online]. Available from: http://www.incomesdata.co.uk/studies/impstaffretention.htm (Accessed: 09 June 2006)

Pearson Education. (2004) Glossary [Online]. Available from: http://wps.pearsoned.co.uk/wps/media/objects/1513/1550326/glossary/gloss... (Accessed: 08 June 2006)

Silbiger, S. (2005) 10 Day MBA: A Step-by-Step Guide to Mastering the Skills Taught in Top Business Schools. 2nd ed. London: Paitkus Books Ltd

Vecchio, R. P. (2006) Organizational Behavior: Core Concepts. 6th de. Mason, OH: Thomas South-Western