Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Culture within organizations
Culture within organizations
Culture within organizations
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Culture within organizations
This essay will discuss three problems within JJs. They are Joe¡¯s centralised power, conflict between Kurt and Marama and ineffective marketing strategy. They will be analysed, by the theory of law, management, social science and marketing on the power and culture¡¯s perspective, to view how leader exercises the power to effectively manage his business and employees, how power and culture influence the organisation¡¯s operation and how power and culture contribute a company¡¯s marketing strategy.
The first problem in JJs is Joe¡¯s centralise power without empowerment to subordinates. Executive leader can benefit by a knowledge of power sources in order to influence others to achieve organisational goals. Different power types in organisation lead positive and negative motivations to staff (Bartol, Tein, Matthews & Martin, 2005). Because coercive power emphasises on punishment, staff will have resistant feeling, work passively, lack enthusiasm and even undermine organisational goals attainment. Staff feedback to legitimate, reward, information power is compliance, so staff will behave obediently and make minimum effort to work. As for expert power and referent power, because the powers come from staff admiration to the leader, so staff will be willing to work hard and be devoted to organisational goals. Take an example of Joe¡¯s leader power in JJs. He develops coercive power and intimidates his staff, so his staffs refuse to work more, when there is work to be done. The theory of leadership and power suggests that leaders must be able to recognize powers play in organisation and rely on some or all of them effectively to lead employee.
A limited liability company is a separate legal entity existing under Companies Act 1993. Although a company is owned by shareholders and operated by directors, it has its own identity separate and apart from its shareholders and directors. Therefore, a company is a juristic person, obviously not a human being. As the management of power is relied on directors, Companies Act 1993 indicates ¡°a director of a company, when exercising powers or performing duties, must act in good faith and in what the director believes to be the best interests of the company¡± (Government NZ, n.d., para.131). An example in JJs suggests that Joe, as the director and CEO of company, does not treat JJs as a separate legal entity and excise his powers properly. Joe is JJs¡¯ shareholder as well as Apex shareholder with a 30% shareholding in that Joe gives JJs¡¯ replacing equipment business to Apex, although Apex quots is 20% higher than another company¡¯s.
There are many theories pertaining to the nature of power in society. In modern society, it is important to identify where and when power is exercised, who benefits and who suffers from it being exerted upon them. In this tradition, it is useful to examine the managerialist perspective.
What major technology change has had the greatest impact on the quality of your life?
Tost, L., Gino, F., & Larrick, R. P. (2013). When power makes others speechless: the negative impact of leader power on team performance. Academy Of Management Journal, 56(5), 1465-1486. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0180
Leadership is definitely about power and an effective leader is able to utilize both types of powers rather than relying on one or the other. Formal power can be used by leadership to remove obstacles or roadblocks faced by employees and to make both hard and easy decisions regarding the organization. Inspiration, influence, trust, and loyalty are all elements that create a high performing and content staff and all these elements are related to the use of informal power. It is important for an effective leader to create a balance between both kinds of power in order to effectively motivate and influence their staff using power.
The scenario clearly illustrates how each of the five powers are used. It is evident that they can have a powerful influence with the productivity and influence within organization. The relationships between the powers and dependencies in the scenario are excellent examples because they perfectly exemplify why and how motivational influences exist in any scenario where bases of powers and dependencies exist.
According to French and Raven (1960), there are five types of power. They are reward, coercive, legitimate, expert, and referent power. It is easy to apply each one of these types of power to Captain Miller and his approach to leadership.
The literature generally suggests that effective leaders express their needs and motives in ways that benefit the organization. These needs or motives, are considered to be; tenacity, power, drive and work ethic (DuBrin et al. 2006). The power motive is significant, as it plays a major role in the relations taking place within the organization. Power over others is an inevitable part of leadership, but it also carries with it the risks associated with the misuse or abuse of power (Wikipedia, 2008).
Unfortunately, being inspiring to employees is not enough. These situations occur when employees face challenges in accomplishing goals. In such situations, a leader needs to exercise power and influence to push forth the desired goals. While the course identified five sources of power, I believe only three should be considered for an effective leader. The first is legitimate power (6), which is often considered the first source of power in the organizations I have worked in. The source of power comes...
In effect Salomon's principle as confirmed by Macaura v Northern Assurance Co. and Lee v Lee's Air Farming Ltd. helps form an image of a corporation as a 'depersonalised conception'[5], an object that is 'cleansed and emptied of its shareholders. '[6] Yet the concept of an incorporated company as a separate legal person causes some difficulties, for surely all 'legal personality is in a sense fiction'.[7] Questions soon arise ... ... middle of paper ... ...
The shared value systems of an organization member are the one who plays essential role in affecting the business activity and success of an organization in the competitive and global environment. I will present this report mainly focusing over the view of the culture and how culture and power are stressful in retail stores like Woolworths Limited. When we go to previous history of organization, this report tries to make us understand about the culture and power structure of Woolworths limited.
YakkaTech Corp. is growing IT services firm which mainly installs and upgrades enterprise software systems and related hardware. They have grown and consolidated as well as become more efficient at their business but this isn’t without growing pains. Their employees seem to lack job satisfaction and their customers feel that the employees “seem indifferent to their problems.” The company’s voluntary quit rates have risen above the industry average while management raises pay rates in the hopes that customer service quality and productivity would improve. However, customer service complaints and productivity remain low and employee moral seems to be low as well.
In company law, registered companies are complicated with the concepts of separate legal personality as the courts do not have a definite rule on when to lift the corporate veil. The concept of ‘Separate legal personality’ is created under the Companies Act 1862 and the significance of this concept is being recognized in the Companies Act 2006 nowadays. In order to avoid personal liability, it assures that individuals are sanctioned to incorporate companies to separate their business and personal affairs. The ‘separate legal personality’ principle was further reaffirmed in the courts through the decision of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd. , and it sets the rock in which our company law rests which stated that the legal entity distinct from its
The Principle of Separate Corporate Personality The principle of separate corporate personality has been firmly established in the common law since the decision in the case of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd[1], whereby a corporation has a separate legal personality, rights and obligations totally distinct from those of its shareholders. Legislation and courts nevertheless sometimes "pierce the corporate veil" so as to hold the shareholders personally liable for the liabilities of the corporation. Courts may also "lift the corporate veil", in the conflict of laws in order to determine who actually controls the corporation, and thus to ascertain the corporation's true contacts, and closest and most real connection. Throughout the course of this assignment I will begin by explaining the concept of legal personality and describe the veil of incorporation. I will give examples of when the veil of incorporation can be lifted by the courts and statuary provisions such as s.24 CA 1985 and incorporate the varying views of judges as to when the veil can be lifted.
...l man who enables others to think and do in his way (role model) and his employees work him for unconditional loyalty (e.g. his PA), also, adopt a fair system of rewards and punishments; however, as a leader sometimes he just needs some transformational styles which respect and communicate with followers equally rather than forced them to shut up rudely. As for organizational culture, the article obtains further understanding that some factors attribute to detect cultures existed in an organisation, communication system, for example. As a result, it can be identified that his culture not only can be classified as power but task. Moreover, due to the changeable outside environment, compounded and flexible cultures seems to be a better way for an organisation’s sustainable development. Therefore, leadership is tightly related to organizational culture.
According to Corporation Act 2001 s124(1), it illustrates that ‘’A company has the legal capacity and powers of an individual both in and outside the jurisdiction” . As it were, company as a legal individual must be freely with all its capital contribution shall embrace liability for its legal actions and obligations of the company’s shareholders is limited to its investment to the company. This ‘separate legal entity’ principle was established in the case of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1987] as company was held to have conducted the business as a legal person and separate from its members. It demonstrated that the debt of company is belonged to the company but not to the shareholders. Shareholders have only right to participate in managing but not in sharing the company property. Besides ,the Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd [1925] demonstrates that the distinction between the shareholders and company assets. It means that even Mr Macaura owned almost all the shares in the company, he had no insurable interest in the company’s asset. The other recent case is the Lee v Lee’s Air Farming Ltd [1961] which illustrates that the distinct legal entities between employee ad director allows Mr.Lee function in dual capacities. It resulted that the corporation can contract with the controlling member of the corporation.