Introduction
My experience at a Legal Technology gave me an insight into the intricacies of Organizational Psychology and its effect on the employee’ morale. It’s no secret that an employer introduces the majority of organizational and motivational programs or events in order to increase the image of the firm for the subordinates, attract and retain the best specialists, rally the team, create a friendly atmosphere of competition and prosperity in the future, reduce staff turnover. However, today the issue of the relationship between the employee and the employer is more acute. One of the main methods of reducing tensions in a team between a manager and subordinates is the method of the delegation of authority. The most important influencing factors on the employee’ morale are the work environment, team-building, and organizational structure.
Work Environment
First, the work environment can play a significant role in influencing the organization’s work in a highly positive way. Delegation of authority can be based both on the findings of the intricacies of the employee’s temperament, professional abilities and on the types of employee meta-programs so that the impact of task redistribution is at maximum. At Legal Technologies, I observed that the work environment is highly reliant on the delegation of responsibilities. Giving important instructions to employees, the head will contribute to their professional growth, as well as increase their loyalty to the chief and the company; thus, the question of mistrust will be removed (Bale, Gazmararian, & Elon, 2015). In addition, the subordinate will act as a decision-maker, and therefore the employee’s self-confidence will increase. Delegation of authority is only half of the required complex of organizational measures of a functional nature. In order for a group to operate optimally, it is critical to form a methodology for working with each employee.
It is necessary to understand to form a set of recommendations: if a person once made a mistake, then the fear of making the same mistake will accompany him/her for a long time. Such fear needs to be eradicated, as practice shows: fear of an employee to make a mistake ultimately costs the company much more than the error made. For example, due to the heavy workload, the head of the department is forced to delegate a certain part of his/her duties, characterized by high urgency, to subordinates (Abildgaard et al., 2018). Due to the fact that the latter does not possess a full understanding of the final result, the completion of the tasks set in them takes a significant amount of time. Whereas long-term planning enables workers to avoid unnecessary moral and physical stress.
The most effective option is a collective analysis of the department activities, where the employee can evaluate his/her actions without fear that he/she will be “made extreme”. In addition, paying tribute to innovative implementations, the employees can refer to the current system of corporate blogging (Langer, Feeney, & Lee, 2019). Communication in these networks is based on the idea of anonymous sub-culture, where every participant can familiarize himself/herself with the knowledge of others and help with advice, or assess the actions of the worker.
These activities need to be introduced one of the first, because managers often lose good employees simply because they did not train them in time, hoping that they would somehow figure it out as they went along. In addition, it is useful in this situation to send an employee to study in order to expand their professional horizons, as well as awareness of personal responsibility. On the functional side, an employee needs to develop an understanding that he/she can influence the efficiency of the department (Jiang, Lambert, Liu, & Zhang, 2018). The methodological support of this process will be the introduction of the Balanced Scorecard system or BSC. The essence of this program is in the construction of projections based on the organizational performance of the company.
To begin with, it is necessary to clearly understand that the quality of the organization’s personnel is an objective of work environment setup. Thus, having an idea of the goal, it is necessary to define a list of tasks to achieve it. In order to obtain the most significant effect, the ERP system needs to be implemented not just at the department level, but at the level of an individual employee. With the aid of the “Balanced Scorecard,” it is possible not only to delineate responsibilities between employees but also to build a system of indicators for each. This will allow all workers to feel indispensable for the organization, responsible for the assigned area and improve the social and psychological climate in the team. The balanced scorecard provides frequent control of the incorporation of the strategy, as well as tactical tasks at the expense of the plan-fact system (Hyun & Kim, 2018). Studying deviations from the BSC indicators set by specialists, the management of the department can understand the degree of effectiveness of its work, as well as form a work plan for the medium term.
Moreover, an effective working environment is achieved through the use of a complex of budgetary, planned, prognostic, control, and analytical techniques combined in practice into a single information complex, supported by local IT-solutions. In the process of implementing and introducing BSC, the corporate strategy and mission should be decomposed into a clear system of indicators, based on four areas: financial, marketing, internal (processing), as well as development and training. Particular attention in the formation of a favorable BSC should be given to more mature employees. These workers can easily cope with mentoring tasks. They are usually professional due to significant experience in a particular field. The main efforts should be focused on the IT industry, as well as on technologically complex tools of the working environment. The program should be adapted for the requirements of the company. The trainer should be as close as possible to the trained employee in terms of professionalism so that the team does not have doubts about his/her competence.
The methodological part of the training should be changed in order to maximally clarify its provisions and increase the effectiveness of the applied application of the acquired skills. In the process of learning it is necessary to avoid unnecessarily playful nature of training. For example, a competency-based approach should be conveyed to the target audience without the need for role-playing games in order to prevent an ironic interpretation of the knowledge gained (Hyun & Kim, 2018). As one of the options, it is proposed to introduce a case method. It will show its best when combined with brainstorming and other group activities. Training, in this case, will also perform the functions of socialization, and strengthening the corporate culture. Thus, by studying and examining the main motivational factors affecting the productivity of both senior managers and specialists in the field of personnel management, the manager can partially solve the problems of mistrust in working environment, improve the socio-psychological climate, and retain the most significant employees for the organization.
Organizational Structure
The structural basis of an organization can be an essential factor influencing the employee’s morale. In modern theory, there are two approaches to the definition of the concept of “structure.” One path assumes that the structure is a definite mutual arrangement of parts of a certain whole. For instance, my observations at Legal Technology showed me the significance of organizational structure. The other is that it is a collection of connections between its parts. Of course, parts of the whole are interconnected, but not all and not with everything. In addition, the relationships between the elements can be countless, and most of them are not structural. However, they can influence the features of the structure (Fairfield, 2016). At the same time, the mutual arrangement of the elements as a whole already presupposes the existence of connections between them, such as spatial, genetic.
Furthermore, the first approach includes the morale increase through organizational restructuring, which the managers implement regularly. The organizational structure is a set of its interrelated elements arranged in a definite way with respect to each other. A structure is a form, a device of organization, manifested as a unity of composition and interposition of its parts, a specific method of their connection, a special orderliness of interrelations that should preserve it, a form of distribution of various types of activity between components. People can recognize the external structure of the organization, formed by the directions of its interaction with the environment (Pérez-Valls, Céspedes-Lorente, Martínez-del-Río, & Antolín-López, 2017). The organization strives to preserve the structure in case of any changes, to reproduce the elements it has lost, because it ensures its stability, the stability of the implementation of the main processes. The structure of an organization is influenced by its size, external environment, stage of its life cycle, strategies used, technologies of its main activity, and culture.
The entrepreneurial model is peculiar to small, elementary organizations that use simple technologies, sometimes even consisting of one unit. It is characterized by the predominance of the strategic center, where power and decision-making are concentrated, with a minimally developed technostructure and support units (Lin, 2014). This organization is flexible due to the small formalization of decision-making and relationships, which creates comfort for the staff and allows it to function effectively in a dynamic environment. The model of the mechanistic bureaucracy generated by the industrial revolution is peculiar to large organizations engaged in mass production, operating in a stable ecosystem under conditions of a deep division of labor. They implement well-defined goals with the help of traditional technologies and medium-skilled workers and solve routine tasks routinely.
The model of professional bureaucracy is characterized by the relative autonomy of the operational core, which is its key part, has an insignificant middle line and support staff. It is characteristic of organizations with complex technologies, a deep division of labor, operating in a decentralized environment in a stable environment based on standard, but few formalized procedures and the freedom to choose them. The control is within the framework of the operators – operators themselves; therefore, the model as a whole is democratic (Bilal & Ahmed, 2017). The divisional model is represented by a large corporation as a set of independent divisions under the roof of the parent company, oriented towards the product, consumer, market. The dominant element is the middle line, where most decisions are made, and the center performs control functions. However, there is duplication of tasks and coordination difficulties.
The functional principle of building the management structure assumes that the basis of their construction is not the types of activities, but tasks solved by management. Additionally, there can be only three types of such jobs: general, linear and functional, and for their solution, management units should have common, direct and practical powers. It is in accordance with the system of factors possessed by one or another governing body, and its network is built for each organization. Thus, the linear management structure is based only on direct powers on the administrative management of the main types of activities, and the simplest ones, which does not require specialized knowledge from managers (Kwon & Guo, 2019). Functional powers are the powers of a specialist, according to which he/she has the right to issue binding instructions on how to perform at a high level a particular job.
The linear powers allow answering the question where, when, who, in what volume will do this work, but do not prescribe its content. As practice has shown, purely functional management is ineffective since each performer has several operational managers, which undermines the principle of unity of command. At the heart of the line-staff management structure lie, along with the main – linear, so-called additional staff powers, such as advisory, coordination, representative, conciliation (Sandhu & Kulik, 2018). Decisions made within their framework are, as a rule, recommendatory, not binding.
Summing up the brief results, it should be noted that the problem of organizational structures today remains very confusing from a theoretical point of view, which in many respects hinders both practical developments and the teaching of managerial disciplines. It is important to note that
there is a need for a special in-depth and comprehensive scientific study of the problems of organizational structuring, since special work on the issues of economic, legal and a number of other structures has not yet been created.
Team-Building
The teamwork or team-building method is more effective in managing an organization in a modern economy than rigid administrative management. For example, my observation at a Legal Technology gave an invaluable insight into the importance of teamwork. The transition to a new method of governance requires a restructuring of thinking, behavior, and decision-making methods, which are requirements of a market economy and a chance for a qualitative change in the system of enterprise management (Aberdeen & Byrne, 2018). Humanistic principles of management, based on which new management technologies are developed, allow organizations to master new team approaches to control, which in modern conditions become the best basis for developing group and organizational goals and solving production problems. The unification of workers into a single whole and the creation of a management system that is distinguished by the unity of goals and actions, common corporate values and interests is plausible on the principle of an effective team organization.
The organization of the team is based on the thoughtful positioning of participants who have a common vision of the situation and strategic goals and who have mastered the worked-out interaction procedures. The process of forming teams in an organization is a time consuming and lengthy process (Brandstorp, Kirkengen, Sterud, Haugland, & Halvorsen, 2015). Teamwork does not always justify the costs associated with its construction and maintenance. Cooperation often generates a sense of individualism of its members, reduced creativity, conflict. However, teams that have undergone the process of formation with the passage of all stages of development of group dynamics achieve a high level of organization and teamwork skills with the division of leadership, rotation of roles, their own rules and norms (Mathew, 2015). Team members are able to set goals, creatively achieve them, revealing the personal potential of each participant.
The team building process can be spontaneous as well as focused. The elemental process is characterized by the emergence of informal leaders and cohesion around common activities, which becomes the goal: travel, sports, music. A focused approach to the team building process requires the manager to clearly understand the reasons for major changes in the management system (Schoeneborn, Kuhn, & Kärreman, 2019). Needs for team activities arise in the context of rapid changes and various structural changes, with the emergence of new areas of work, global goals, programs, if necessary, to work together on real tasks, when a fresh look at problems and collective decision-making, maintaining or creating friendships are needed. Teamwork, overcoming conflict situations, tense emotional atmosphere, as well as the need to increase the level of coherence, trust and mutual assistance between groups (Chenhall, Hall, & Smith, 2016). Ways to work on the formation of teams in each situation will be different.
The team has common features with the group, but the team has more permanent staff, a more rigid distribution of roles, a more precise and more formal goal. Team members played. From the side, they are also perceived as team members. Team members view participation in the team as a reward. The team is committed to a common goal. Team members act in the same way in relation to the environment, and all are proud of the fact that together they can achieve more than they do alone (Wadhwani, Suddaby, Mordhorst, & Popp, 2018). The team satisfies the individual’s needs for involvement, respect, success, even if progress is joint. The group, as a rule, has unique people who are tolerated as long as their contribution is estimated higher than the psychological costs of their manners.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the system of economic remuneration of an organization is formed taking into account the factors of the external and internal environment. It should be noted the unequal influence of factors on individual elements of the system of economic rewards. Accounting for the market price of labor and the cost of reproducing the labor force affects the size of the basic payment primarily. At the same time, the forms and systems of payment in greater degree associated with the features of technology and organization of production and labor. The size and structure of social benefits and benefits are determined to the greatest extent by the economic situation of the enterprise and the peculiarities of the personnel policy.
References
Aberdeen, S. M., & Byrne, G. (2018). Concept mapping to improve team work, team learning and care of the person with dementia and behavioural and psychological symptoms. Dementia, 17(3), 279–296.
Abildgaard, J. S., Hasson, H., von Thiele Schwarz, U., Løvseth, L. T., Ala-Laurinaho, A., & Nielsen, K. (2018). Forms of participation: The development and application of a conceptual model of participation in work environment interventions. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 1(1), 1-6.
Bale, J. M., Gazmararian, J. A., & Elon, L. (2015). Effect of the work environment on using time at work to exercise. American Journal of Health Promotion, 29(6), 345–352.
Bilal, A., & Ahmed, H. M. (2017). Organizational structure as a determinant of job burnout: An exploratory study on Pakistani pediatric nurses. Workplace Health & Safety, 65(3), 118–128.
Brandstorp, H., Kirkengen, A. L., Sterud, B., Haugland, B., & Halvorsen, P. A. (2015). Leadership practice as interaction in primary care emergency team training. Action Research, 13(1), 84–101.
Chenhall, R. H., Hall, M., & Smith, D. (2016). Managing identity conflicts in organizations: A case study of one welfare nonprofit organization. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(4), 669–687.
Fairfield, K. D. (2016). Understanding functional and divisional organizational structure: A classroom exercise. Management Teaching Review, 1(4), 242–251.
Hyun, H. S., & Kim, Y. (2018). Associations between working environment and weight control efforts among workers with obesity in Korea. Journal of International Medical Research, 46(6), 2307–2316.
Jiang, S., Lambert, E. G., Liu, J., & Zhang, J. (2018). An exploratory study of the effects of work environment variables on job satisfaction among Chinese prison staff. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(6), 1694–1719.
Kwon, S., & Guo, B. (2019). South Korean nonprofits under the voucher system: Impact of organizational culture and organizational structure. International Social Work, 62(2), 669–683.
Langer, J., Feeney, M. K., & Lee, S. E. (2019). Employee fit and job satisfaction in bureaucratic and entrepreneurial work environments. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 39(1), 135–155.
Lin, L. H. (2014). Organizational structure and acculturation in acquisitions: Perspectives of congruence theory and task interdependence. Journal of Management, 40(7), 1831–1856.
Mathew, A. (2015). Talent management practices in select organizations in India. Global Business Review, 16(1), 137–150.
Pérez-Valls, M., Céspedes-Lorente, J., Martínez-del-Río, J., & Antolín-López, R. (2017). How organizational structure affects ecological responsiveness. Business & Society, 1(1), 2-7.
Sandhu, S., & Kulik, C. T. (2018). Shaping and being shaped: How organizational structure and managerial discretion co-evolve in new managerial roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1(2), 1-9.
Schoeneborn, D., Kuhn, T. R., & Kärreman, D. (2019). The communicative constitution of organization, organizing, and organizationality. Organization Studies, 40(4), 475–496.
Wadhwani, R. D., Suddaby, R., Mordhorst, M., & Popp, A. (2018). History as organizing: Uses of the past in organization studies. Organization Studies, 39(12), 1663–1683.