Managers Manage

Introduction

In this essay I will put forth the argument that mangers should manage the views and values of their employees to forge a corporate culture, as it is considered a key aspect in management for an organisation to succeed. However, I do concur that this notion may imitate the ideology of domination through the employee's perspective. I will develop this argument in three sections. In Section One, I explain how a corporate culture in an organisation leads to its success and what exactly a 'Corporate Culture' embodies, (Peters and Waterman, 1982; Clegg, Kornberger and Pitsis, 2008; Willmott, 1993). While in Section Two I address the issues that a dominant style of management regarding culture can have a detrimental effect within an organisation in the form of unsatisfied employees and how it could lead to an unproductive organisation, (Water-Foot Mill, 1851; Knights and Willmott, 2007; Arnhart, 2007; Peters and Waterman, 1982). Whereas in Section Three I outline the benefits of the practice of a humanitarian approach to managing the Corporate Culture and how it can predominantly enhance an organisation's employee's work ethics, productivity and commitment, (Peters and Waterman, 1982; Elliot, Rundle-Thiele and Waller, 2010).

Section One - Corporate Culture

Recently in the modern era many managers have become obsessed with the notion of managing the views and values of their employees, since it is believed that an organisation will only achieve motions of success when management undertakes such mission. This mission is fundamentally creating a sense of culture in the organisation. Such obsession of control came about after the publication of Peters and Waterman's In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America's Best-Run Companies (1982), where it implanted the idea, 'that a successful organisation embodies a strong sense of corporate culture', into every manager's conscience. This point of view is obvious in the statement, 'The message was simple: great companies have excellent cultures. Excellent cultures deliver outstanding financial success.' (Clegg, Kornberger and Pitsis, 2008)

Before continuing on how a corporate culture can be beneficial, I will explain what exactly culture and corporate culture represents, to allow a clearer understanding of why it is considered vital for an organisation's success. Culture can be summed up as, 'everything that is constructed according to some underlying rule, even if the rule is one of randomness, is part of our culture, no matter if it is a gangster rap' (Clegg, Kornbergerand and Pitsis, 2008). Therefore it can be concluded that the prevailing impression is that any forms of rules generally creates a sense of culture. Thus, it can be assumed that in every organisation there is a sense of culture since in every organisation there are rules. This in turn leads to the stigma that corporate cultures are the values shared by all members of the organisation, which is similar to how (Schein, 1997) defines corporate culture; 'organizational culture is the deep, basic assumptions and beliefs that are shared by organizational members.'

Due to the corporate culture's definition, which is predominantly the basic assumptions and beliefs shared by organisational members. Such conclusion about the benefits of corporate cultures can be represented though; 'According to its leading authorities, the strengthening of corporate culture enhances organisational performance by securing greater commitment and flexibility from employees.' (Willmott, 1993). Through this, the idea that a strong corporate culture will result in a superior organisation is unveiled. This is the case since, if every member of the organisation shares the same understanding and beliefs, they will be operating under the same code of work and therefore, will be working towards a common goal together. By working towards a common goal there will be limited disagreements which, boosts employees commitment and leads to a productive and efficient workforce. Thus, in return of a productive workforce will be the creation of a desirable and successful organisation.

Therefore, so far I have discussed the importance of creating a corporate culture and the essence of what culture and corporate culture represents. Consequently, crafting a corporate culture may seem like a desirable asset to the organisation however, employees may come to disapprove such practices if employees perceive that management is undertaking strict forms of control in order to forge their sense of a perfect corporate culture.

Section Two - Domination Style of Management

A corporate culture will generally only be beneficial if mangers do not adopt a dominant style of management. However, in many cases managers fail to see the significance of employees satisfaction, rather managers only focus on assigning employees strict guidelines that focuses on an organisations success. These types of managers are referred to as autocratic leaders and they make decisions without consulting employees. An example of such authoritative measures can be seen in the extract below;

'Any persons found Smoking on the premises will be instantly dismissed. Any person found away from their usual place of work, ...or Talking with any one out of their own Alley, will be fined 2d for each offence" (Water-Foot Mill, 1851).

Through this extract it is evident that authoritative leaders are not compassionate about their employees but rather more concerned with the overall success of the organisation. Specifically it can also be detailed to an extent that autocratic leaders believe they are of a higher prestige level than the employees and that they are irreplaceable, whereas employees are easily interchangeable.

So far, it can be hypothesised that a dominant style of management can lead to an employee's dissatisfaction. The consequences of dissatisfaction could most likely include lower employee commitments, lower productivity and even, employees arranging groups to challenge management. Such formed groups can in fact occur in reality, as revealed in this extract;

'Collinson's key argument is that culture in this environment had involved to allow the male shop floor employees to deal with the demands of their working lives, but that the humour involved did not really produce a cohesive or supportive community of co-workers or any basis for collective resistance to an oppressive regime in which these workers effectively colluded.' (Knights and Willmott, 2007).

Through this extract it is evident that a dominant style of management to form