Table of Contents
Question 1: The Culture of Kellogg's Company
Norms and customs are causes of human behaviour within the field of social sciences which provide a distinctive base for conversation (Schultz & Schultz 2010). In Kellogg, employees are encouraged to speak positively to each other. It entails listening to them and accepting their respective rights to their own perception in relation to the workplace. The company offers an open lobby area with a distinctive coffee bar that accommodates as many as 200 employees at any given moment. The area acts an informal platform for company briefings and presentations. Another way for which the firm maintains a positive customs and norm setting is reflected when the sales team engages in Friday meetings to share success stories for the week.
Physical organizational environment is the immediate perceivable workplace setting that is offered by a firm as a way of ensuring that its objectives are met in time (Schultz & Schultz 2010). It involves the arrangement of departments and offices in order to provide the aspect of favourable work setting for employees. Kellogg physical environmental setting is arranged in terms of functions and work roles. It involves engineering operations that are performed within the manufacturing section, finance, marketing, sales, human resources and IT departments. Such model of physical organization environment is meant to uphold the safety and health needs of employees, as well as promote a given set of favourable work patterns.
Rules and policies are a set of legal frameworks that are formulated and implemented by an organization with the aim of ensuring that its overall objectives is attained in an ethical and right manner (Schultz & Schultz 2010). It provides a guideline to employees and other workers of a firm in regards to that they should do or not do as need arises. It also serves to promote work relationships amongst employees. Kellogg Company can be seen to encourage a set of rules and policies by the formulation of K-values. Such policy ensures that each and every employee is able to own projects and thus, aim at improving the firm’s output results. Consequently, employees are advised to speak positively about each other even when they are apart. Responsibilities pertaining to safety and health issues are also passed down to employees, since they are expected to observe the safety rules and practices as formulated by the management team.
Goals and measurements should be formulated in a way that is realistic, attainable and timely in order to provide a framework for measuring employee progress in the daily undertakings. They should be set by management team towards measuring the viability of attaining certain goals and objectives. Kellogg allows its employees to own projects and execute them in a manner that helps increase overall productivity of the firm. Such departments as the sales and marketing ensure that Friday meetings are necessary for all employees for purposes of measuring the success stories of the week. Employees’ performance is measured in regards to whether or not they were able to work over and above the set K-values. Winners are awarded with a wide variety of gifts that might include cash prizes, vouchers or even holiday entitlements.
Management behaviour is established to expound on the immediate ways for which management team is able to maintain a steady and positive relationship with junior employees. The management team is expected to encourage and motivate employees to work effectively to achieve the overall objectives of the company as a whole. It is the basic treatment by managers to their respective employees (Schultz & Schultz 2010). For instance, Kellogg management always maintains a steady form of relationship that is based on two-way dialogue. The management has formulated a communication programme that helps empower their relationship. A suggestion box has also been set for employees in order to pass generated ideas to management. Employees’ personal hobbies and family lifestyles are encouraged and respected by the management team given that they are allowed to adjust their work hours in order to achieve personal and organization goals at the same time. Respect is fundamental to such model of relationship, since managers expect the employees to perform their tasks without fail.
Rewards and recognition helps motivate the employees to work harder to produce quality products. The management is responsible for the creation of a reward and recognition model aimed at distinguishing and rewarding employees that have shown exemplary work within a certain period (Schultz & Schultz 2010). Kellogg Company has also devised a rewards and recognition model to measure employees’ degree of success in attaining overall objective of the firm. For example, “The WK Kellogg Values Awards” is a program formulated by the company for purposes of availing special recognition for what employees perform and thereafter reward them for their exemplary performances. The sales team also recognizes individual employees that have worked hard to meet the K-values and winners are awarded cash prizes, vouchers or even holiday entitlements.
Ceremonies and events are functions put forward to aid with different level of interactions that might be either formal or informal in nature (Schultz &Schultz 2010). They are sometimes arranged for purposes of rewarding and recognizing positive or negative behaviours among employees and thus, motivate or deter others from engaging in it. Kellogg Company has created a lobby area with coffee bar where more than 200 employees gather at the same time for purpose of conducting informal briefings and work presentations. Notwithstanding, the sales team also converge once every week for purposes of analysing success stories of that period. Weekly group meetings are also events that are organized for the company’s employees for purposes of providing informal chances for employees to access information on any section of the business that might include: sales data or company products and services. It is aimed at strengthening different work teams and also, improves employees’ sense of belonging.
Learning and development are the aspects that allow employees to receive training on certain procedures and processes, hence become experts inthe field. They are allowed to learn while working for or outside the company. It is meant to strengthen employees’ self-actualization prospects and also improve the level of productivity. Kellogg Company provides a favourable working environment that allows imminent learning and development. For instance, employees are allowed study leaves and secondments, which are aimed at improving employee personal development and planning. It also helps strengthen their commitment and sense of being treated fairly.
Communication is a design of ensuring effective dialogues between junior staff and management team. Kellogg Company maintains a two-way dialogue with its immediate employees through its already established communication platforms. It is aimed at empowering the employees and also generates ideas about the ways of improving company’s production processes. The platforms facilitate listening of employees’ woes and challenges and also providing level of feedback whenever necessary.
Organizational Structure is used to define the manner for which operations of a firm are allocated, coordinated and also supervised for purposes of achieving organizational goals and objectives (Jacobides 2007). Kellogg Company organizational structure is based on a functional structure where employees are grouped into different functionalities and to whom they are expected to report. Some of the functions for which Kellogg Company employees are arranged include sales, marketing, IT and human resources.
Question 2: Benefits of a Motivated Workforce
Research indicates that motivated, engaged and also responsive employees depict a higher degree of productivity in comparison to the unmotivated group of workers (Boddy 2002). It is established that whenever workers feel that they are engaged in the activities of a company then they tend to work harder for the overall good of the firm. It is attributed to the fact that they easily perceive first-hand what their individual contributions mean to the overall success of the firm. Consequently, in addition to being productive, the employees are able to constantly generate higher quality of products or services, which is mostly attributed to lower turnover rates. It helps save a company such resources as money and time that would otherwise been used for purposes of recruiting, training and replacing new employees (Boddy 2002).
There are numerous possibilities which an organization can use to motive its employees. It is important for such organizations to realize that satisfied employees have a significant impact on their respective growth and development agendas (Boddy 2002). On the contrary, disengaged workers can negatively impact their level of operations, hence curtail the ability to becoming an industry leader. Thus, organizations are encouraged to develop talent within the employees for purposes of preparing them for future positions. It is caused by the fact that it is much easier to promote from within the confinements of an organization than to seek the services of an outside recruit. Employees who perform their duties with passion and thus, depict a deeper connection to the organization are mostly the ones that drive aspects of innovation, assume substantial level of initiatives, as well as deliver high quality work, which translates to the growth and development of the entire organization. In consequence, disengaged and demotivated employees are able to influence the operations of the organization by generating the low quality of work (Boddy 2002).
Question 3: Critique of Motivation Theories within the Case Study
The first motivation theory is based on Fredrick Taylor’s scientific management theory. The theory puts much emphasis on monetary reward given that improved payments could help organizations attain higher rates of output. The fundamental of theory is focused on its ability to pay workers in accordance with their specific level of work or contributions to a company, hence avoid possibility of resource wastages. Subsequently, the theory also possesses the capacity to break down tasks into distinctive components or specific jobs through the concept of labour division. It is especially visible in larger companies like Apple or Wal-Mart. However, the theory is also perceived to be based on certain concepts that curtail important functions of employees within an organizational setting (Khalifa & Quang 2010). For instance, it facilitates the exploitation of workers given that it exerts unnecessary pressure on employees to execute tasks much faster. Employees’ performance is reflected in terms of their productivity and profitability capacities, which, in turns, led to their exploitation. The theory posits a challenge in regards to unity of command. It is especially caused by the fact that it promotes functional foremanship structure which requires workers to report to a substantial number of authorities. The lack of coordination and chain of command can cause confusion and chaos to the operations of an organization. Consequently, the theory promotes a mechanical approach, since Taylor puts much emphasis on the importance of efficiency (Khalifa & Quang 2010). He failed to recognize and reward the human elements. His theory perceives workers to be robots that can accelerate tasks performance at any given cost. It promotes an individualistic approach whereby individual performance is hailed as opposed to team work. It is contrary to the fact that the overall success of an organization is dependent on both individualistic and group-based performances. It is also important to note that theory is based on a wrong assumption that posits workers to be only motivated by financial gains (Schultz & Schultz 2010). However, in the real sense, employees are not only motivated by financial gains but also social needs and personal based egos. It can also be argued that theory is based on a rather narrow approach. It is only applicable when the immediate level of workers performance is measured on a quantitative platform. It means that it is applicable in industries where performance can be measured quantitatively. It cannot be utilized within the service sector since the sector does not allow individual performance to be measured quantitatively (Schultz & Schultz 2010).
The case study also investigates the Maslow’s hierarchical theory. The hierarchical needs placee physiological needs of employees at the bottom. As employees are able to satisfy one level of need, their immediate motivations are altered as they aspire to attain higher statuses of order needs (Kaur, 2013). Thus, as a way of positively motivating individual employees, Maslow suggests that it is fundamental to comprehend the exact placement within the hierarchy of employees in order to take certain factors into consideration whenever determining their need capacity. Maslow’s theory provides a practical implication of management of the organizations. The rationale behind the theory is focused on the fact that it has the capacity to recommend the managers on the easiest ways they can use to make their junior staff achieve self-actualization levels. It is caused by the fact that self-actualized workers are able to perform at their maximum creative heights. Thus, it is crucial to make workers attain such phase of life by way of assisting them meet their respective needs (Kaur 2013). Some of the notable ways through which the theory might help workers attain the level is by way of recognizing their respective accomplishments, providing financial security and also availing significant opportunities to socialize (Kaur 2013).
Current theory proposes that when employees are allowed to grow and develop in an environment where their respective needs are not met, they are unlikely to operate effectively and efficiently (Kaur 2013). It means that high-based managers are able to satisfy their growth and deficiency needs, while lowly-placed mangers are only able to satisfy their immediate deficiency needs on their respective jobs. It assumes that all workers are alike and also it refutes the assumption that there is no existence of motivation theories only theories of job satisfaction. However, in reality, people depict different behaviours, as well as needs that they would likely want to have covered (Kaur 2013). The theory can only work in an organizational setting that does not conform to the inter-competition behaviours stipulated by different employees in meeting their life goals and achievement. Different people have different priorities in life, hence there is no proven information regarding all employees’ situations being alike and that there is only one basic way of meeting one’s needs (Kaur 2013).
The study further notes the Elton Mayo’s Human Relations Movement theory. The theory is based on experiments performed at the Hawthorne plant in the United States of America in the course of early 1930s (Hseuh 2002). The experiments were able to showcase the fact that by taking an interest in caring for workers can have a positive effect on their respective motivation and productivity capacities. The theory postulates that employees are fairly motivated in case they are allowed to work in groups or teams. They were also motivated to work exemplary in the event that managers prioritized the aspect of communication and consultation with employees and also took an interest in listening and evaluating their viewpoints and welfare (Hseuh 2002).
Mayo’s contribution to management is heavily criticized by numerous intellectuals. For instance, Mayo’s theory is perceived to keen on adjusting employees into machines as opposed to focusing on improving and enlarging their human capacity or human freedom (Hseuh 2002). The fact that Mayo’s theory is focused on Hawthorne plant is not significant enough to apply to a great number of people across the numerous industries. The experiment was conducted on a small, isolated group and it was not clear whether the conditions and supervision could be replicated successfully in large groups or in a factory environmental where employees are defined in distinctive functions (Hseuh 2002). Subsequently, the theory focuses on the assumption that human beings by nature are in dire need to cooperate and form distinctive groups. Such supposition differs from the realistic nature of man who is sometimes able to act in suspicion of others (Hseuh 2002).
Subsequently, Kellogg Company case study mentions Herzberg’s theory. The theory posits that whenever employees feel satisfied they would turn out to be very productive. The theory is based on two factors: hygiene and motivators factors. The hygiene factors are known as the dissatifiers. It means that they are formed from elements within a workplace setting that can make employees unhappy about given circumstances occurring within the company like excessive company bureaucracy or working with autocratic leadership styles (Basset-Jones & Lloyd 2005). The motivators, which are also known as the satisfiers, are elements within a given workplace that allows individual employees a job satisfaction. They might include their degree of responsibility of the awarded tasks, aspects of promotion and recognition. Herzberg was of the opinion that organizations should ensure that hygiene facets are minimized or eliminated for purposes of ensuring that motivators had their distinctive full effectiveness (Amaral & Uzzi 2007).
The two-factor theory has been used on a wider scale to depict the influence of intrinsic employee motivations on job attitudes (Basset-Jones & Lloyd 2005). Thus, it is still applicable to modern day motivation procedures as exhibited by workers under different workplaces settings. However, on the contrary, the theory has been regarded ineffective in some instances especially because aspects of satisfaction and dissatisfaction do not exist on different platforms. The distinction of aspects to satisfiers and dissatifiers is perceived as way that was used by Herzberg to record events at that time but it cannot be applicable in real life situations. Furthermore, it is perceived that the theory does not provide possibilities for individual differences like certain personality traits that are able to affect employees’ distinctive response to certain motivating or hygiene-based aspects (Basset-Jones & Lloyd 2005). The fact that the theory focuses on the assumption that only happy and satisfied employees have the capacity to produce more output is a fallacy. Another important issue that emanates from the theory posits that just like other statistical-based theories, it assumed that human beings showcase a similar behaviour towards work. It is not necessary true, since different employee portray significant differences in matters that affect their motivational capacities (Basset-Jones & Lloyd 2005).