Whereas corporate culture is a common collection of principles and hypotheses guiding people's actions in an organisation, in order to reach their maximal capacity, there is a choice to take what is included or excluded from it.
Culture plays a significant role in achieving the aims of the organisation's governance and business structure. The initial aim of Multicom was developed to give its legacy and new customers better services. The beginning was smooth until the management was divided after a decision where organizational theory was adopted in the running of the firm (Robert, 2015, 10). This meant that challenges related to the concept of power within the management, communication, processes and decision making models in the entire organization will later emerge.
In the case of Multicom, the organization adopted the modern theory which was according to the view by Jim Walsh and Wendy temporary before the firm was well established.
Later after the organization was on its feet, the two majority shareholders represented the Neo-classical theory that tries to strike a balance between bureaucratic characters of an organization, and human relations while the remaining opted for the modern theory that was already doing well in determining the organizational set of cultures (Mills, 2004, 19). This brought about the need to exercise power by the two majority shareholders leading to not only to the paradigm shift, but also to the splitting of the management and the formation of a new organization by the two minority shareholders. The modern theory opted by the Marie and Frank aimed at treating the organization as an open system preparing the employees to react to any changes in the business setup by creating a number of all-round staffs.
Case Analysis
At the initial stages of Multicom development, the modern theory was used in determining the inclusion criteria of what formed the organization’s culture. The organization was considered as an open system that meant that the firm would be run based on the market needs (Pettinger, 2010, 34). A number of employees were trained to be all round staffs that could be assigned almost every task. The theory used also created an image to the companies’ clients yielding much more returns to the company. The company enjoyed growth in terms of finances and the human capital for a number of years. The need to switch from a more flexible approach to a more governed approach arose after the two majority shareholders had parental responsibility demanding more leisure time. The continued tussle raised the need for the two majority shareholders to exercise their powers on the decision at hand. Wendy Bridges and Jim Walsh presented their decision to Marie and Frank who posed little resistance to the decision that was anyway final. Neo-classical theory was hence adopted as the function yielding the structural and cultural properties of the organization. This meant that as much as the human relations aspects of the organizations were kept, a bureaucratic system was adopted to achieve order forming the basis for a Neo-classical theory of organizational running. It was unavoidable that the employees noticed the push and pull among the members of the management. These new changes meant that the employees had specific responsibilities and that, a more formalized procedures would be used to regulate inter-project movement and at under what conditions would an employee be away during office hours. According to Marie and Frank, this would undermine the performance of the workers contrary to the current setup that was working just fine for the organization (Kossek, & Lambert, 2005, 22). The decision was done and properly implemented. The two minority shareholders later on decided to not consider Multicom as a working place, but rather a lesson that later influence the formation of a new firm. Marie and Frank opted for a more open system with the primary intention of maximizing output per employee. Media2000 was then formed retaining the traits imposed by a modern organizational theory that treats the organization as a dynamic entity. The theory considers the variable in the business environment in determining how the organization and the members of staff should carry itself (Gregory, 2009, 17). The outcome of the structure could not be predetermined though it yielded better performance among the employees. The division and the formation of the new firm would definitely have repercussions to Multicom client base and the organizational spirit. The new company portrayed itself as a an icon of creativity and fun working that made sure that all its employees enjoyed and worked hard to serve the clients. The company prospered and quickly established itself from the client base it had inherited from Multicom.
Evaluation
To properly understand the effects of decisions with an effect of changing the cultural and structural organization of the firm, all decisions must be evaluated from the moment the organization was formed. The formation of the new firm was met by growth in terms of the organizational spirit and client base. The organization had adopted the modern theory in the establishment of principles that would be used to govern how employees carried themselves during business hours. The character of the modern theory as an open system meant flexibility among the employees that intern yielded greater results per employee. The growth by the organization could therefore be directly linked to the modern theory approach for day to day running of the firm. The decision to embrace the modern theory was therefore well informed evident by the profound milestones achieved by the organization. The challenges of the modern theory is the high demand for supervision that arose after two of the four founders had family obligations. Due to the level of flexibility and openness posed by the modern theory, the four members of management needed to commit time to make sure that everything was done to the best interest of the organization. The rising need for more leisure time by two of the four founders demanded for change in how things were run. This means that there were fewer supervisory hands on board. The organization would therefore need to implement more control on how things were done (Fahri, 2009, 32). Marie and Frank on the other hand had all the time at their disposal and therefore disagreed with changing how the firm was run. Regardless of the fact that modern allows for the organization to be responsive to all changes including the family responsibilities by the two members of management, the majority shareholders opted for implementing more control calling for the Neo-classical theory. Wendy and Jim then implemented their powers to break the tyranny in decision making on how the organization will later on be managed. The decision was for retaining how the organization ran its business but also exercise some of level of control. This demanded for the establishment of responsibilities of every member of staff and clear guidelines on under which circumstances would a worker be out during office hours. The shortcomings to the Neo-classical theory is the pull and push that is created between the individual interests and those of the company then arise. This then undermines the performance of employees while at the same time creating a gap between them and the management. It is very important that the employees feel free in the presence of the employer for them to properly perform (Darakhshan, 2014, 18). The organization was later faced later affected by the pull and push forces leading to the splitting of the management and formation of a new firm by the two minority shareholders. It is however clear that the paradigm shift was not the only factor behind the split, but rather the mode with which the ideology of Neo-classical theory was implemented. The exercise of power by the two majority shareholders made the remaining two managers seem inferior when it comes to decision making. This meant that regardless of whether they had a lasting solution to the problem at hand, it could not hold as the decision was final.
Conclusion
The evaluation of the case analysis therefore concludes that the theory chosen would be effective based on the factors on the ground. In this case, lack of enough time to commit to the organization by half of the management meant there was need to exercise more control in how the firm undertook its business. While it was important to change the organizational principles of the firm, the superior half of the management should have opted for a decision making platform that was based on human relations involving all the shareholders as is required by the modern theory that was then the order of the day (Abu-Rumman, 2015. 67). The approach by the two managers to impose their decisions on the other half lead to split. This gave the inferior half a chance to implement their idea on how the organization should be managed which is the modern theory way.
References
Abu-Rumman, A. (2015). Effective Determinations on Organization Agility Practices: Analytical Study on Information Technology Organization in Jordan.
International Review of Management and Business Research, vol. 4, no.1: 3-90. Darakhshan, P. (2014).
Organizational Change as a Predictor of Work Commitment among Male and Female Employees. International Journal of Education and Management Studies. Vol. 4, no.1: 7-92. Fahri, K. (2009).
New Paradigms in Organization Development: Positivity, Spirituality, and Complexity. Organization Development Journal, vol. 27, no1: 6-71. Gregory, M. (2009).
Organizational Culture, Professional Ethics and Guantanamo. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, vol. 42, no.1-2: 11-122. Kossek, E., & Lambert, S. (2005).
Work and Life Integration: Organizational, Cultural, and Individual Perspectives. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mills, J. (2004).
Making Sense of Organizational Change. London: Routledge. Pettinger, R. (2010).
Organizational Behaviour: Performance Management in Practice. London: Routledge. Poole, M., & Andrew, V. (2004).
Handbook of Organizational Change and Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press. Robert, T. (2015).
Why Do So Many Organizational Change Efforts Fail? The Public Manager, vol. 44, no.1: 4-64. Seowon, S. (2013).
Understanding Organizational Change into Entrepreneurship: A Theoretical Frameworks and Integration. Management Review: An International Journal, vol. 8, no.2: 5-82.
