management issues in an organization GROUP D.docx

MANAGEMENT ISSUES IN AN
ORGANIZATION
[Document subtitle]
NO NAME CONTACT NO
1. Abdikani Adan Hassan 0616785111
2. Abdifitah Sharif Said 0617085016
3. Abdimalik Kadar Ali 0613696354
4. Ali Herzi Gabeyre 0612940429
5. Amira Said Adan 0612478898
NOVEMBER 11, 2022
BACC28-C

1
TABLE 0F C0NTENT
MANAGEMENT ISSUES IN AN ORGANISATION
Introduction……………………………………………………………………. 2
Organizational Structures and Processes…………………………………….... 3
Organization Design and Strategic Factors…………………………………... 4
Strategic Choice of Organization Design………………………………………. 5
Organization Development (OD) and a few others…………………………….. 6
Decision Making and Strategy…………………………………………………. 7
Strategic Capability…………………………………………………………….. 9
Corporate/Organization Culture and Strategy……………………………………. 11
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………. 14
References……………………………………………………………………….. 15
Introduction

2
The implementation of corporate policies and strategies is an extremely complex problem. It Is
concerned with the application of various conceptual issues relating to organization and
management. Essay on the Introduction to Management: Management is a vital aspect of the economic
life of man, which is an organized group activity. It is considered as the indispensable institution in the
modern social organization marked by scientific thought and technological innovations.
Management is the dynamic life-giving element in every organization. It is the activating
element that gets things done through people. It provides the force necessary to transform the
resources of a business organization into desired goods and services. The primary job of
management is to convert the disorganized resources of men, machines and materials into a
productive organization.
1. Organizational Structures and Processes:

3
The design and management of systems to achieve the best integration of people, structures,
processes, and resources are of great impact in reaching organizational purposes. The scope of
managerial activities is virtually coextensive with the entire process of management.
Cannon, one of the management experts, said:
‘Neither strategy nor structure can be determined independently of the other. If structure cannot
stand alone without strategy, it is equally true that strategy can rarely succeed without an
appropriate structure. Even in large-scale enterprises, well-conceived strategic plans were
thwarted by an organization structure that delayed the execution of the plans or gave priority to
wrong set of considerations.
The basic issues are:
(i) A structure must reflect an organization’s basic mission, goals and strategic programs.
(ii) Organizations must be designed according to the tasks contemplated to be performed.
(iii) The ‘right’ structure for each company at any point in time must consider the determinants
like—key factors for success, organizational principles, and management capabilities, styles and
personalities.
(iv) The organizational hierarchy coupled with administrative coordination is a source of power
and continued growth.
(v) Appropriateness of strategy—’structure-fit’ produces best results (based on the study of U.S.
MNCs i.e., multi-product firms with world-wide product divisions).
(vi) Structure has moved to align itself with strategy, rather than a structure labelled ‘mother-
daughter’ as a move towards strategy (based on European studies on multinationals).
(vii) Using a defictionalized structure to implement a multi-product growth strategy is a very
effective method of obtaining the desired growth (based on British research in 1980).
2. Organization Design and Strategic Factors:

4
The process of organization design requires consideration of strategic decision factors as
outlined below:
(i) Goals:
Although different organizations put different emphasis as to their goals on flexibility, growth,
efficiency or technical superiority, the relative importance attached to each of them is crucial
while selecting an overall structural configuration for the organization.
(ii) External Environment:
An organization is always confronted with key questions like: What is the potential for success?
How predictable and stable is the environment? Where the organization faces a few powerful
outsiders, the design should help the organization to target its responses. Conversely, where the
organization faces many powerful outsiders, the design should facilitate frequent adjustments to
external demands.
(iii) Size and Technology:
Growth creates both new opportunities and problems. The design needed for smaller
organizations often becomes inadequate with the onset of growth. In hi-tech firms operating on
the frontiers of technical development, the design should facilitate technical problem-solving and
risk- taking.
Conversely, firms operating with more well-known and stable processes should consider those
designs that facilitate efficiency. With the increase in the range of products or services and
markets, the organization design should accommodate differences across those ranges.
The above viewpoints highlight the contingency approach to organization design.
The idea is that different organization designs facilitate different purposes. Thus, the internal
functioning of organizations must be consistent with the organization tasks, technology or
external environment, and the needs of its members if the organization is to be made effective on
strategic considerations.
Matrix Organization design (explained under footnote 4 earlier), a part of organizational
dynamics, is found useful ‘in organizations which require responses to rapid change in two or

5
more environments, such as technology and markets, which face uncertainties that generate high-
information processing requirements, and which must deal with financial and human resources
constraints.’
3. Strategic Choice of Organization Design:
Strategy involves the selection of corporate mission and objectives and appropriate courses of
action to achieve those objectives. Logically, several courses of action could be identified for any
given objective, and for each alternative strategy, an alternative organization design exists. Thus,
specific organization design should follow from a specified strategy.
Michael Porter, one of the exponents on corporate strategies, states that corporation can
adopt one of three general (generic) strategies stated below, in the realm of organization
design:
1. Cost Leadership:
The organization design that facilitates overall cost leadership must be one that encourages
efficiency and productivity. The system design (bureaucratic or classical or mechanistic) with its
emphasis on specialization, formalization and centralization fits this strategy.
2. Differentiation:
That is, the consumers’ perception of uniqueness is based upon a variety of factors, such as brand
image, product features, customer service and dealers’ network. The organization design which
facilitates this strategy would tend towards the system design (Non bureaucratic or neoclassical
or organistic) which encourages the freedom of action required by the differentiation strategy.
3. Focus:
This involves achieving either cost leadership or differentiation or both in a particular segment of
the market. The focus strategy implies a trade-off between market share and profitability. This
compatible organization design implies a mix of both system characteristics stated under (1) and
(2), because the firm can attempt both cost leadership and differentiation aimed at its segment.
4. Organization Development (OD):

6
There are times when every organization, or a unit within it, needs to reflect systematically on its
strengths and weaknesses—and on the opportunities and threats it faces, particularly in strategic
planning process. The concepts and ideas of OD can assist the strategist to do just that.
OD is an exciting application of behavioral science theory to management practices, particularly
in a long-range effort to improve an organization’s ability to cope with change in its external
environment and increase in its internal problem-solving capabilities.
It is, thus, a comprehensive approach to improving the overall effectiveness and health of an
organization by making changes in the operations of its component systems.
The principles underlying OD apply to individuals, groups, and organization. The most
important feature is that organizational structures and jobs can be designed to meet the strategic
needs of the organization. They help to identify synergistic solutions to problems with greater
frequency. The figure below depicts a general model of OD and shows its relationships to the
phase of planned change.
A Simple Case Study:
For one business firm, the three stages of OD Process were as follows:
1. Diagnosis:

7
Management perceived a ‘performance gap’ and hired a consultant. The consultant interviewed
key people and planned a workshop where the managers should analyze the interview results in a
problem-solving format.
2. Intervention:
The workshop was held. The participants were trained on how to analyze the data and determine
appropriate action directions; they also received advice on effectiveness of the group process.
3. Reinforcement:
The consultant continued to meet periodically with the group to review progress; additional help
was given when things ‘bogged down’; problem-solving workshops became annual events for
the firm.
In the ‘reinforcement’ stage of OD, changes were monitored, reinforced, and evaluated.
‘Refreezing of change’ occurs at this point and this way, the foundations for future replication of
similar diagnosis—intervention—reinforcement cycles are set.
Two important points may be noted in this context. Prima facie, receptiveness of organizational
members is crucial to the success of OD efforts. Secondly, consent of the governed is required
before implementation of any strategies.
5. Decision Making and Strategy:
Strategy is the end-result of decisions made by those managing the firm. A decision is a specific
commitment to action. Strategy may be explicit or implicit. Many firms do not make their
strategies explicit. They may express one strategy (an espoused strategy), but follow another
course of action (an actual or realized strategy).
So a firm’s strategy can be revealed as ‘a pattern in a stream of decisions’. Sometimes the
strategy is planned or intended. Sometimes it just happens or emerges. Sometimes strategy
comes to fruition or is realized. Sometimes it remains unrealized. A strategy which is intended
and realized ultimately can be referred to as a deliberate strategy.

8
The relationships between them is shown below:
Tactical decisions which result in corporate policies with narrower effect on the firm usually
involve issues and situations which have been encountered before. Strategic decisions, on the
other hand, are those that have not been encountered before in the same form, for which no
predetermined response exists in the organization, and which are important for the growth,
stability and survival of the enterprise.
Effective Strategy:
Whether a strategy is explicit or implicit, intended-realized, or unintended-realized does not
necessarily determine whether a strategy is effective. An effective strategy is evaluated on the
basis of results. In the short-term, financial results are indicators of the firm’s strategic
effectiveness.
In the long-term, whether or not the firm met its established objectives is critical. In the very
long-term, whether the firm survives as a viable entity is a gauge of its strategic effectiveness.
How is a firm’s on-going strategy analyzed? The answer is found in a strategic audit.
There are at least four broad dimensions which should be covered in any strategic audit,
viz.:
(a) Product lines and basic competitive position,
(b) R&D and operating departments,
(c) Financial analysis and financial management,
(d) Top management.

9
Certain other aspects of this internal review will be identified. For each dimension, past
accomplishments, present attainments, and future potential for each area must be considered.
After determination of the firm’s strengths and weaknesses is made, four basic questions
need to be answered:
1. How well do the components of this firm’s strategy fit with the opportunities in its external
environment?
2. How internally consistent are the components of this firm’s strategy, i.e., how well do they
‘fit’ with each other?
3. Can this firm achieve its objectives?
4. How likely is this firm to survive as a viable entity over the long run?
An internal audit system in the firm is not capable to find the complete answer. There is a need to
appraise the external environments of the firm.
6. Strategic Capability:
The concept of ‘strategic capability’ or ‘strategic fitness’ is an evaluation process—an evaluation
of internal and external elements of business environment. Such evaluation is a necessity before
making policy decisions or introducing strategic changes.
The basic internal environmental factors are: the firm’s mission and objectives, the firm’s
orientation (as revealed by distinctive competencies), and the firm’s financial stability and
competencies.
The external elements of business environment are many and varied and unique in characteristics
and should include: economic, social, religious, political, technology, industry structure, etc.
How should these environmental dimensions be evaluated? There are no definite set rules. While
some evaluation can be quantitative, some qualitative. The present situation compared to the past
may provide a clue for this.

10
However, analysis and evaluation of the internal elements of a firm’s environment must
consider the firm’s strengths and weaknesses relative to:
(a) What the firm wants to be or do, and
(b) The threats and opportunities, in the firm’s external environment.
Ultimately, of course, the results the firm will achieve will be determined by the ‘fit’ between the
elements of its internal environment and the elements of its external environment. It is this ‘fit’,
shown in the diagram below, that determines a firm’s ‘strategic capability’.
Thus, strategic capability may be defined as the capability of an enterprise to successfully
undertake action that is intended to affect its long-term growth and development.
In the ultimate analysis, the capability of a firm’s strategy is tested against the key
questions (with sub-questions, of course) outlined below:
Is the strategy consistent with environment? Is the strategy consistent with the firm’s internal
policies, management styles, philosophy and operating procedures?
Is the strategy appropriate in the light of the firm’s resources? Are the risks in pursuing the
strategy acceptable? Does the strategy fit product life cycle and market strength/market
attractiveness situation?

11
Can the firm’s strategy be implemented efficiently and effectively? Are there other important
considerations?
7. Corporate/Organization Culture and Strategy:
“Organizational cultures are not monoliths. In reality, any complex organization is a portfolio of
cultures, each expressing the ‘rules of the game’ as played by the various groups in the
organization.” Schwartz and Davis, in Organizational Dynamics 1981, observed, ‘Coca-Cola and
Pepsi, Hertz and Avis, Mars and Hershey are direct competitors within their industries.
No doubt, their strategies differ significantly. No less doubtfully, so do their companies’ cultures.
All one has to do to get a feel for how the different cultures of competing businesses are manifest
is to spend a day in each.
There are characteristic ways of making decisions, relating to the bosses, and choosing people to
fill key jobs
A close reading of this advises one to learn how to evaluate corporate culture and how to use it to
manage a large organization through a period of strategic change.
Corporate culture is a pattern of beliefs and expectations shared by the members of an
organization. These beliefs and expectations produce rules for behavior and norms that
powerfully shape the behavior of individuals and groups in the organization.
Recent researches in U.S.A. suggest that the primary influence on the behavior of decentralized
profit-centered managers is the behavior of the top management, which, in turn, reflects their
philosophies of management and style of leadership.
It is discovered that culture is capable of blunting or significantly altering the intended impact of
even well- thought-out changes in an organization. A lack of fit between culture and the changes
in other aspects of organization may result in the failure of a new measure to take hold. In this
case, either the culture is changed to fit the strategy or the strategy is changed to fit the culture.

12
The researches further demonstrate that every corporation has a culture (which often includes
several subcultures) that exerts powerful influences on the behavior of managers.
For better or worse, a corporate culture has a major impact on a company’s ability to carry out
objectives and plans, especially when a company is shifting its strategic directions. Well-run
corporations have distinctive cultures that are somehow responsible for their ability to create,
implement, and maintain their leadership positions.
The above researches provide the following methodology for capturing the effects of
culture and enabling management to deal with it and its strategy more effectively:
Step 1:
Define the relevant culture and subcultures. Use individual and small-group – meetings. Develop
a list of shared beliefs about the way it is.
Feed these back until there is a consensus around the central norms in the culture.
Step 2:
Organize these statements in terms of managers’ tasks and their key relationships.
Prepare a matrix of tasks and relationships that will enable the evaluator to identify cultural traits
that place the business strategy at risk.
Step 3:
Assess the risk the company’s culture presents for the realisation of the planned strategic effort.
Categories those cultural risks into three basic elements: unacceptable risk, manageable risk, and
negligible risk.
Step 4:
Identify and focus on those specific cultures that are both highly important to strategic success
and incompatible with the organizational approaches that are planned.
Step 5:

13
Develop alternative organizational approaches that-better fit the existing culture.
(Final) Design planned programs to change those aspects of culture that are the source of the
problem.
To match corporate culture and business strategy, something like the steps outlined above should
become a part of the corporation’s strategic planning process.
This sort of culture-risk analysis can help the organization surface ‘people problems’ before a
strategy is implemented, expanding the options how to deal with the most important issues.
Changing a corporate culture is a complex and long-term program and involves coordinated
efforts by the top management leadership. Organization development process, is a valuable guide
in this strategic effort.

14
Conclusion
Developing a security requirements specification is often the most difficult part of the
entire engineering process. Like developing the system itself, it can involve a one-off
project, be a limited iterative process, or be a matter of continuous evolution. Evolution is easiest
to manage, though it is complicated by changes of scale, environment,
and business structures. Doing it from scratch for a completely new system is hardest
and most error-prone, but there are still some useful techniques and lessons that can be
borrowed from elsewhere.
In the absence of anything better, I suggest to the project manager engaged in
building an application with some nontrivial protection requirements that you make a
best effort to understand precisely what these properties are, build them into the specification,
and then use whatever methodology you would use normally to follow them
through implementation, testing, and deployment. But assume that you won’t get it
right first time. Make sure that you have some institutional means of capturing feedback on what
goes wrong and how the environment is changing, so that you can feed
this back into the process of enhancing and maintaining the system.

15
References
SHITAL P <="" div="" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size:
16px; vertical-align: bottom; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); max-width: 100%; color:
rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Georgia, serif; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal;
font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 300; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-
align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px; -web kit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration-thickness: initial;
text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color:
https://www.businessmanagementideas.com/organisation/issues-related-to-organisation-and-
management/10866

management issues in an organization GROUP D.docx

More Related Content

Similar to management issues in an organization GROUP D.docx (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

management issues in an organization GROUP D.docx