CJ Management Seminar

Part 1

Place of Placement

From the onset, it would be prudent to note that I work as a fine dining server at a country club. In this role, I am charged with the role of ensuring that upon being seated, members are provided with immediate and appropriate attention. I ensure that the unique needs of members are addressed and their orders taken, followed by the placement of the said orders via the POS system. I also deploy the relevant serving procedures in the placement of dishes before guests and engaging them going forward to ensure that they have an amazing dining experience and that all their additional meal and drink orders are fulfilled. From time to time, additional roles may be assigned by the supervisor, i.e. during special events. To be able to function effectively in this role, I work closely with other colleagues including, but not limited to; bussers and cooks, as well as management and supervisors.

Theoretical Dominant Model of Organization

Before identifying the theoretical dominant model of organization at my place of employment, it would be prudent to note that there are essentially three such models that have been identified in various organizational theory texts in the past. These are: rational, natural, and open models (Onday, 2016). To begin with, the rational model perceives organizations as systems that exhibit social structures that are highly formalized and that concern themselves with the fulfilment of certain clear goals (Scott, 2003). As natural systems, Scott (2003) indicates that organizations are systems made of players in pursuit of both common and diverse interests, but who are well aware of the relevance of keeping the organization going, and deem the said organization as a crucial resource. Lastly, the open system perspective does not consider the organization to be a closed system as is the case with the other two perspectives highlighted above (Scott, 2003). Instead, as per this particular perspective, organizations are part and parcel of their environments and are indeed sustained by external inflow of information, resources, as well as personnel (Scott and Davis, 2015).

With the understanding developed from the assessment above, the theoretical dominant model of organization at my place of employment happens to be the rational model. As has been pointed out elsewhere in this text, the perspective of this particular model is that the principal orientation of organizations happens to be the fulfilment of clearly defined objectives. Further, on this front, the social structures of an organization happen to have a high degree of formalization. There are a number of features and/or characteristics of this particular perspective that informed my selection of the same as the model that best describes my place of work. The structure of management/leadership at my place of work happens to be largely hierarchical. This is to say that at the top, we have the top management who are concerned with overall strategy formulation. We also have middle-level managers who are largely concerned with the day-to-day running of the country club. Closer to the bottom of the hierarchy are supervisors who essentially assign specific roles to the rest of us and also issue specific guidelines on how we are supposed to perform our roles. Further, supervisors ensure that specific standards are met, i.e. in relation to the quality of service advanced to guests of the country club.

Next, we have the high degree of formalization. At my place of work, all operations are governed by clear procedures and individuals have well-defined roles. There is the expectation that unless otherwise directed, all persons should focus on their assigned duties and responsibilities. For instance, as a server, I am not expected to perform the duties of the busser unless otherwise directed by my supervisor. Indeed, to a large extent, I would describe my place of work as being a bureaucratic organization. This is more so the case given the high degree of organization and formality in which case no employee is supposed to step outside of his mandate. For instance, as a server, I am supposed to adhere to the relevant protocols in as far as decision-making is concerned. I cannot, for instance, deviate from my responsibilities without the express authorization of my immediate supervisor. It therefore follows that to the extent that the country club exhibits a high degree of formality, the most ideal model would be the rational system

One other crucial aspect of the rational system happens to be the pursuit and fulfillment of certain clear goals. The country club has a clear mission, vision as well as objectives. To a large extent, the mission statement has in this case been designed to capture the primary purpose of the country club. This is more so the case in relation to the maximization of the experience of members. More specifically, the country clubs mission statement indicates that it is there for the sole service of its members and ensuring that they are able to access excellent recreational amenities and an environment that is conducive for social interactions. To help achieve this mission, a number of goals (long-term,...

…minimize organizational complexity. This is more so the case given that there is a high likelihood that their formation is rooted upon the identification of certain unaddressed organizational needs. Next, organizational internal groups promote systematic working in the sense that they work within a well-coordinated and collaborative framework. As a consequence, they are likely to be promoting of the smooth functioning of the various organizational activities effectively minimizing organizational complexity. Third, as I have pointed out elsewhere in this text, organizational internal groups make it possible for organizations to reduce the possibility of duplication of roles. This is in most cases accomplished via the clear division of functions and responsibilities. The systematic division of work in this case could contribute towards efforts to rein in organizational complexity. One could also argue that organizational internal groups make it possible for the organization to achieve better coordination.

b) Informal Organizations

On the other hand, organizational complexity could emanate from rivalry (Kenny, 1954). In my own place of work, I have witnessed servers who appear to wield more power or authority than supervisors by virtue of having been recommended for the job by a board member. This is a classic case of struggle for power owing to the fact that superiority ought to be acquired via clearly defined processes and mechanisms,i.e. through promotions (Miles, 2012). When a supervisor is unable to, for instance, sanction an employee for inappropriate behavior due to the employees connection to a high ranking member of the organization, complexities could arise, i.e. in relation to the maintenance of order and guaranteeing adherence to the various organizational standards. This also happens to be the case when promotions are founded on favoritism as opposed to merit. Complications that could be witnessed on this front could relate to the sustenance of employee morale.

Kenny (1954) also indicates that informal organizations could result in the formation of cliques. It is important to note that according to the author, cliques are not necessarily counterproductive. This is more so the case given that some cliques, i.e. in police departments, could come up with a better informal plan for the apprehension of delinquents (Kenny, 1954). The problem with cliques is that they largely operate outside of the formal system and may thus be more inclined to break or bend clearly established rules and/or organizational standards. In my place of work, I have witnessed the formation of cliques that end up alienating other employees who are not their members. This, in effect, ends up denying others an opportunity to work…