Part A: Question 1
The foundation of open systems theory is that all the components of an organization are inter-related, thus, changing one variable impacts many other components of the organization. Additionally, organizations use external and internal inputs to produce outputs. (McShane & Steen, 2009). Further, there is a nonlinear relationship between different components of an organization. Meaning, a small change in one variable can cause enormous changes in another, and conversely, large changes in one variable may have a small effect on another. Therefore, organizations are in a state of dynamic equilibrium. Thus, organizations are seen as open systems which continually interact with their external environment (rather than being closed and independent units). Clearly, in the case of Napanee Beer Co., a communication failure in one department affected different parts of the organizational subsystem. One part of the organization, the marketing department, did not inform another component of the organization, the production department, that there was a new marketing campaign. Due to this lack of communication, the production department was not prepared to produce the higher priced specialty beer, which was now at higher demand, due to the work efforts of the marketing department. This dilemma relates back to the organizational efficiency, where the amount of output is directly related to the number of inputs (McShane & Steen, 2009). The input that was lacking in the case of Napanee Beer Co. was information. The marketing department, by failing, to provide up to date information to the production department, resulted in the production department not being able to turn the input of the marketing department into an output of higher priced specialty beer. Since internal subsystems of an organization are dependent upon one another to relay and receive the correct information, ideas or materials (McShane & Steen, 2009), transforming inputs into outputs requires a transformation process. This transformation process should not only be efficient, but should be adaptive and innovative at the same time (McShane & Steen, 2009). At Napanee Beer Co., the transformation process was neither efficient nor adaptive and innovative, as they could not adapt to the situation of producing more specialty beer to meet demand. This breakdown in communication resulted in reduced production and dissatisfied customers. Question 2
The MARS model of individual behavior is a model that consists of four predictors that explain the reasons for an individual’s behavior and performance (McShane & Steen, 2009). The four interrelated predictors described in the textbook are: motivation, ability, role perceptions and situational factors. Unless all of the predictors of the MARS model are met, employee behavior and performance will be negatively impacted. Motivation represents the force that drives a person towards their voluntary behavior. Ability is the natural aptitude and capabilities of an employee to complete a task. Role perception characterizes how an employee understands their job within the organization. Finally, situational factors refer to the conditions beyond the employee’s control that influence behavior and performance (McShane & Steen, 2009). In this case, employees seem to lack motivation to either come into the office in the morning or the employees lack motivation to be on time for work. Perhaps the main motivation for employees not coming to the office is because they want to build stronger client relationships. Meaning, employees visit their clients first, as improving client relationships equals better sales in the long run. Whereas, those employees who are simply late, do not value company work time and it seems as though a culture of being late has become acceptable. In regards to their ability to perform their assigned tasks, potentially, some employees have great...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document