Analysis of Woodbury Car Company Management at 1915, 1965 and 2015
It is quite notable that every organization that is operational possesses a channel of communication that facilitates information transfer from one stakeholder to another in the organization. The communication channel may define how information is passed from the senior management team to the junior workers and vice versa or even shareholders and suppliers. Because of dynamic changes in the business environment, every business always seeks out to adapt to every new environment presented to it whether by internal influences or external influences in time and space. It means that even the adopted mode or channels of communication by a company may change. A communication strategy applied at one point may differ from that adopted at another point within the same organization. This study seeks to analyze the possible management communication strategy that may have been adopted between the years 1915, 1965 and 2015 through the prevailing management communication principles of those specific periods.
1915
Much of organizational communication at around this industrial age was based on the metaphor that an organization is like a machine . The machine metaphor basis is laid on the possibilities of specialization, standardization and predictability which are similar functionalities attributed reflected by a machine . Considering how a machine part is specialized to a particular function and replaceable when faulty, this theory stipulates that employees could also be treated in the same way. It is possible to assume employees at Woodbury Car Company may have been viewed this way around this period.
Henri Fayol who was a Frenchman had the perspective of using a scientific approach at enhancing productivity and outcomes . The view championed an organizational structure that reflected unity of command, control, power and reward . It was necessary to have an established chain of command that was unified. The possibility that result from this approach is that decision making is unidirectional and in this case from the top-most rank downward. An organization that may have adopted this school of thought may have had a hierarchical structure of management which would be the assumption of Woodbury Car Company at that given time. Referring to Henri Fayol’s Theory of Classical Management, the industrial age organizations like Woodbury Car Company may have motivated their workers through incentives and rewards to enhance their productivity . The existence of a cultured chain of command meant that Woodbury Car Company junior employees had to observe this protocol whenever they wanted to pass information. It was a bureaucratic channel of some sort. It also meant that the workers viewed the management as unapproachable.
1965
Analyzing the Theory of Scientific Management devised by Frederick Taylor on improving efficiency at the work place, it is possible to assume that employees at the Woodbury Car Company were posted according to their individual strengths. The theory stipulates that efficiency can be attained when an employee is given a role he or she is best at and can perfectly accomplish it in the shortest time possible . The paradigm shift of concentration from the work to the employee though is the basis of the Hawthorne Effect experiment conducted at the Illinois Hawthorne electricity Plant in 1924 . It deviates from the traditional Taylor’s and Fayol’s theories of employee automation. The concept focuses more on how to increase the efficiency of the worker by providing a favorable environment. The favorable environment consequently enhances productivity.
The possible management structure adopted by the Woodbury Car Company around this period could have abolished the authoritarian structure elevated by the machine theory. In the machine theory, the employees were never involved in decision making and may have never been too concerned with the projected success of the organization . In the machine metaphor era, workers may have only been concerned with what was indicated on their job description contract and thus may have never been driven by self motivation and sense of ownership . The indication of the Hawthorne Effect adoption by Woodbury Car Company by around 1965 may have meant that there might have been a possibility of the workers expressing themselves freely with the management since they found them approachable. Their views may have been taken into consideration during management decision making. The possible effect is that the management may have been able to provide a favorable working environment for the workers from a point of understanding. The Human Relation and Resources concept takes into account the position of workers as social beings with social interest and deserving to be treated with respect and esteem and not just machine parts that can be replaced anyhow . It is important to take a step and find out what issues a worker may be dealing with that could be affecting their productivity instead of just replacing them.
Also referred as the age of the social network, it is important to note that an organization is made up of a system of people interlinked by social relationships . Being a system of people who are always moving, communication needs to be open through all the ranks and quarters of the organization to influence efficiency and efficacy . In such a case the traditional hierarchical management structure does not suffice since freedom of expression and opinion is promoted. People within the organization are also interdependent of each other and the existence of a management team is just for leadership sake . Decision making within the organization is consensual. The management depends on employee input before making decisions and the employees can freely give their inputs. Both the management and the employees are relational. The adoption of this perspective at Woodbury Car Company could mean that workers are free to express their opinions irrespective of their perceived ranks. Decision making is rather through a consensus than unidirectional and the barriers of bureaucracy are certainly broken.
References
Ehrlich, K., & Inga, C. (2005). Inside social network analysis. Boston College.
Hahn, L. K., Lippert, L., & Paynton, S. T. (2013). Organizational Communication. In L. L. Laura K. Hahn, Survey of Communication Study. Saylor.
Levitt, S. D., & List, J. A. (2009). Was there really a Hawthorne effect at the Hawthorne plant? An analysis of the original illumination experiments. National Bureau of Economic Research.
Rose, N. (2005). Human Relations Theory and People Management. European Management Journal , 34, 43-62.
Suchman, A. L. (2010). Organizations as machines, organizations as conversations.
