Impact of Teamwork and Technology on Organizational Performance

The text discusses the concept of teamwork in two companies, Ford and Monsanto, highlighting the importance of effective leadership, communication, and technology. The author notes that informal groups formed by employees can benefit the company by creating a friendly environment. However, there are threats to team-based working, such as discrimination among employees. Technology has both positive and negative impacts on teamwork, making tasks easier but also potentially reducing employee skills. The conclusion is that teamwork has contributed to the success of Ford and Monsanto, with leadership, communication, and technology playing crucial roles.

Organization and
behaviour

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................3
TASK 1......................................................................................................................................3
1.1 compare and contrast the organizational culture and structure of both ford and
Monsanto................................................................................................................................3
1.2 Analyze group based structure and the culture which exists in the organization............4
1.3 Factors which influence the behaviour of individual.......................................................4
TASK 2......................................................................................................................................5
2.1 identify the leadership followed before and after team based working...........................5
TASK 4......................................................................................................................................6
4.1 identify different types of groups and suggest reason for different types of behaviour. .6
4.2 factors leading to effective teamwork and the threats involved in continuing team based
working..................................................................................................................................6
4.3 impact of technology on both Monsanto and ford in the team working..........................7
REFERENCES...........................................................................................................................8

INTRODUCTION
Organization behaviour is the behaviour of the individuals towards the working and
the colleagues. This report talks about ford which is manufacturing car company and
Monsanto which is an agriculture biotechnology firm. These two organizations have changed
their business to team based working. These two are organization are very successful. This
report stresses on the culture and structure adopted by both the company before and after re-
organization. Further, it stresses on the leadership style which the companies have adopted
after the team based working and its importance as compared to previous one.
TASK 1
1.1 Compare and contrast the organizational culture and structure of both ford and Monsanto
Organizational culture and structure have huge impact on the functioning of the
organization. The ford and Monsanto is successful in their own business. For is the successful
car company which is headquartered in US. Initially, the organization used line
organizational structure as in this structure there is a direct relationship between different
levels of the firm. In past, ford concentrated on the performance of each department.
Departments were given the goal and they have to accomplish it. In case of doing marketing
of the car, the marketing department made the strategy has they were the people who were
responsible for it (Wilson, 2014). The culture which was followed in ford was the role
culture. Different power was given to the individual according to their position. In case of
department, the head had the power to give the task to their subordinates. But after the team
based structure, the organization structure and culture was changed. The structure which was
adopted by the company after team based approach is the divisional structure. All the team is
based according to their expertise. Every team has different goals and they focus on their
particular aspect. Task culture is the culture which Ford is following in the company.
According to this culture, every team is given particular task and they have to fulfil them.
This has made the work easier and now because this they are planning to expand their
business in the other segment.
The Monsanto is the agriculture biotechnology company which manufacture many
products. Because of this organization India came know many things. The main this which is
manufactures is the modified crop seed which is useful for the farmers. Before the team based
1

structure, this company used hierarchical structure. In past, the business was small so all the
work was done by few individual and according to their position they were assigned work as
well as authority. The culture which was followed was person culture; every individual is
liable for the work and had the power to take decision. But now as the company has been
expanded it has transformed their work to team based work. Now the structure which is
followed in the organization is project based culture (Phillips and Gully, 2011). This is
beneficial for the company because every project is dealt by different individual because of
this they are able to manufacture more of the products. The culture which is adopted by the
organization is the task culture as according to the task every employee has been assigned
roles and responsibility and they have to accomplish in the given period of time.
1.2 Analyze group based structure and the culture which exists in the organization
Organization structure and culture is developed to enhance the performance of the
organization and to meet the objectives and vision and mission effectively. Both the
organization has changed their working into the team based working, so its impact on the
functioning is both positive as well as negative. In case of ford, first changing the structure
had created resistance in employees as they have become comfortable with the structure
which was followed in organization Warner, 2014). In this initial time it lowered down the
performance of human resource. But after some time it had positive impact because of the
task culture, performance of the employees were measured effectively by the company. This
was reason as company thought to expand its business in different segment.
In case of Monsanto, after team based structure the authority of giving orders on the
subordinate was diluted. According to the project, every team has a different leader. But the
positive impact on the performance was that their productivity was enhanced and because of
the team a strong culture was build between the members of the team. According to the
power the decision making became fast it helped the organization in successfully
implementation of strategy (Brunsman, DeVore and Houston, 2011).
1.3 Factors which influence the behaviour of individual
There are several factors which affect the behaviour of the individual especially when
they are working in a team to achieve the objective. Both the company is following the team
based structure so the factor which impact the behaviour are:
 Capabilities and skills of the employees- At the time of working in a team, behaviour
of the members are influenced by the skills which is having in the other team member.
In case of ford, the team members get inspiriting from other individual skill which has
2

helped them to make the performance effective and even because of this they try to
learn from other. But this have impacted negatively in the Monsanto organization, it
has created jealously among the employees as the performance is measured in terms
of the work (Phillips and Gully, 2011.).
 Diversity- In case of team based culture; the employees are of diverse nature and
belong to different culture. Because of the diverse culture and the nationally, the
behaviour of the employees and it gives rise to discrimination. This scenario has been
witnessed in the Monsanto organization. The scientists who makes product are of
different nationality. This impacts the behaviour of employees and it impact
negatively on the performance (Carnall, 2007).
TASK 2
2.1 Identify the leadership followed before and after team based working
Leadership is very important for the organization. Every organization is successful if
they have good leaders. The work of the leaders is to guide the employees to achieve the
company’s goal as well as objective. In case of ford which is a car manufacturing company
the style which was followed previously was the autocratic leadership style. This style the
individual have the power to guide the employees and the human resource are not involved in
the decision making process (Kozlowski, 2009). It was beneficial when the competition was
very high and the company has to compete with other organization. To implement the
strategy quickly, this leadership style worked well. But the company saw dissatisfaction
among the employees, so after team based working the leadership style which is followed by
the organization is the democratic style. Now the workers are involved in every decision
making process which are taken by their department. This has increased their decision
making skill and had made them more confident (Leadership styles, 2015).
On the other hand, Monsanto which is an agriculture biotechnology company it in the
past followed laissez-faire leadership style. In the past, there were few employees so there
was no one to supervise their work (Gonos and Gallo, 2013). All the employees were
responsible for their work. This leadership style was successful because the human resources
were highly skilled. But with the business expansion the quality of recruitment declined and
every employee needed a supervisor to manage their work. After team based working the
leadership style followed in the company is transactional style (Adler and Gundersen, 2007).
3

In this style, the goals are set for the employees and they are allotted some time to finish the
task. This style has increased the productivity of the corporate and has made the company
more profitable.
2.2 compare and contrast the nature of managerial authority and the functions of management
Organizational theory is very significant in guiding the management and helps them
in functioning of the organization. The organization theory which followed in the original
copy centres Inc. is the scientific management. In which the emphasis is given on increasing
the productivity and efficiency of the organization. They have trained the employees to use
the computer and have motivated them so that their productivity could be increased. The
scientific management stresses on the training of the work and this is done by the company.
With the help of organizational theory they have taken step to increase the productivity of
employees (Halepota, 2005). The theory which was adopted by Ford Company was the
division of labour, after the down turn the employees developed the team and helped in
meeting the goal of the organization. All the work was divided according to the expertise and
even they even asked the ideas from the assemble line workers and the also helped them. In
this case, emphasis was giving on the achieving the goal not on increasing the productivity.
In case of Monsanto the managerial authority focused on the team work and all the
team members were given the power to take the decision. The function of the management
was to guide them regarding the goals of the organization. Even because of this, the
management level was reduced from 7 to 4 (Phillips and Gully, 2011). The strategy which is
followed by the Monsanto organization is entirely different from the above theory.
2.3 Different approaches to management
In case of Ford and Monsanto, both are using the team approach for achieving the
organizational goal and objectives. After making the team they have become more profitable
as the work which was done by the individual is not that successful as compared to working
in a team. In the initial stage they were focusing on the traditional, they have adopted t
traditional method by now they are using the team approach which has helped them to create
a new product easily. It has created a better position in the market by using the team
approach. They are making new products with the help of the team. Even, Monsanto also
adopted the team approach as they took their own decisions which were previously taken by
the management. Team approach has changed the position of the firm as they are now
achieving safety levels. The employees in original copy centres work alone and the company
has given all the amenities to them. Because of this approach of management they have
4

become very hard worker and also give extra time for the working which has assisted
company to develop competitive advantage. This approach is different from Ford and
Monsanto (Dulewicz and Higgs, 2005).
TASK 3
3.1 What leadership style is followed in the original copy centres
The leadership style which is followed in the company is motivated the employees of
the organization. According to this only the company has become successful its operation.
The leadership style followed in this organization is democratic leadership in this style every
individual has the authority to take the decision. This has motivated the employees and they
work hard to achieve the goals of the company (Emery and Barker, 2007). They can give
ideas to the management regarding any problem arising in the company. They are free to use
the laptops and the management trust the employees. but in case of recession, when the
difficult time come, the firm can adopt the transactional leadership in which the employee has
to achieve the target and according to this they will be provided with reward or the
punishment if they have done anything wrong. This will be suitable because if another style is
adopted then they may leave the organization which will not be good for the company. The
motivation level may get down but the company has to manage the employees (Halepota,
2005).
3.2 By using the Herzberg theory of motivation and vroom expectancy theory motivate the
employee
Herzberg focuses on two factors which cause job satisfaction and the other which
causes job dissatisfaction. The original copy centre to focus on the factors which causes
satisfaction among the employees they are basically increase in pay, recognition at the time
of recession. The factors of job satisfaction are workplace environment etc. so the company
should overcome these factors. With the help of this, the employee can be motivated to work.
Vroom theory is basically the expectancy theory in which emphasises is given on the
rewards which are given by the organization to the deserving employees. This can be useful
in motivating the employees of the original copy centres as in the recession time they will
require motivation through rewards so that they will feel motivated to remain in the
organization (Webb, 2007).
5

3.3 Usefulness of both the theory to mangers in Ford and Monsanto
Both these theories are very helpful in motivating the staff of both companies. The
economic downturn was seen by the Ford and at that time only, the managers made their
team and achieve their goal. For the achievement they can be provide with the reward by the
management. In this case they can use the vroom expectancy theory. For the Monsanto, they
can use the Herzberg theory, the employees can be motivated by providing them the factors
which make the employees satisfied and avoid the factors which create dissatisfaction among
the human resource (Cummings and et. al., 2010). In this case, they have made teams have
but still there are some areas in which they need improvement. So, it is important for this
organization to motivate the employees who are resistance to change so the organization can
function effectively and profitably. These two theories can be adopted by both the
organization for being successful.
TASK 4
4.1 Identify different types of groups and suggest reason for different types of behaviour
In the organization, the group are made for some of the specific purpose. Every group
is given different task and they have to perform the task to accomplish the goal for the
organization. Basically the there are two types of group one is the formal group and the other
is the informal group.
 Formal group- The organization form this group for the purpose to complete the task.
Generally, the individual who are involved in the task based group are expertise in
different field. To achieve the sales target, the group is made and the individual has to
meet the target (Men and Stacks, 2013). The behaviour of the workers in this type of
group is professional and the communication which is done is also formal.
 Informal group- This group is not formed by the organization. They are made
according to the interest of the employees who are working in the organization.
Mostly the employees who have formed the group are for similar interest. These
groups are beneficial for the company because it makes the environment friendly
(Taber, 2010.).
6

4.2 Factors leading to effective teamwork and the threats involved in continuing team based
working
There are several factors which help in building the effective team and achieving the
goals effectively. In case of Monsanto which is an agriculture company it is important to
effectively achieve the goal. The factors responsible for effective teamwork are:
 Leadership- the leadership followed in the company should be effective and the
leaders should be capable to resolve the issues which arise at the time team working.
With the effective leadership, employees can easily make decision regarding the
problem which is faced by the group members (Brunsman, DeVore and Houston,
2011).
 Communication process- The communication process should be clear. Monsanto
makes chemical so it is important to communicate properly so that no issue arise at
the time of manufacturing the product. If anything goes wrong then it can be harmful
for the employees as well as the consumers (Warner, 2014). Effective communication
will create transparency which is necessary in teamwork.
There are several threats which are involved if the company continues its team based
working. The major threat in the team based working is discrimination between the
employees are witnessed which create problem within employees and further affect the
performance of human resource. Another threat which is seen is sometimes teams which are
made are not capable to meet the target (Carnall, 2007). So then the organization has to
shuffle them it takes time and employee’s takes time in adjusting with the new employees.
4.3 Impact of technology on both Monsanto and ford in the team working
There is both negative and positive impact of technology on the team working. As
there are many competitors of Ford Company so it has to use technology to upgrade its
system and make car according to the needs and preference of the user. Another advantage is
that, technology makes the work easier for the teammates as they can connect with their
members when they are far off (Adler and Gundersen, 2007). This assist in saving time and
because of technology they have to put less manpower to accomplish the task.
In case of Monsanto, it is a research agriculture organization so for them technology
is must as without the use of them they cannot manufacture product. The advantage of
technology in team based working is that, with the help of technology the task is divided
appropriately and the disadvantage is that the employees do not use their full skill as they are
7

dependent on the technology this makes them less efficient which hinders their performance
(Taber, 2010).
CONCLUSION
From this report it can be concluded that, team work has provided aid to both the Ford
and Monsanto Company and made them profitable. Both the organization is now developing
their new products with the help of the team. But in case of original copy centres they have
given emphasis on the motivation and according to that only they have increased the
productivity of their employees. Organizational theory and the approaches of management
both are different in all the companies but still they are successful in selling their product.
8

REFERENCES
Books and journal
Adler, N. J. and Gundersen, A., 2007.International dimensions of organizational behaviour.
Brunsman, B., DeVore, S. and Houston, A., 2011. The corporate strategy function: improving
its value and effectiveness. Journal of Business Strategy. 32(5). pp.43–50.
Carnall, C., 2007. Managing Change in Organizations. Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Cengage Learning. Cummings, G. G. and et. al., 2010. Leadership styles and outcome
patterns for the nursing workforce and work environment: a systematic
review. International journal of nursing studies. 47(3). pp.363-385.
Dulewicz, V. and Higgs, M., 2005. Assessing leadership styles and organisational
context. journal of Managerial Psychology. 20(2). pp.105-123.
Emery, C. R. and Barker, K. J., 2007. The effect of transactional and transformational
leadership styles on the organizational commitment and job satisfaction of customer contact
personnel. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communication and Conflict. 11(1). pp.77
Halepota, H. A., 2005. Motivational theories and their application in construction. Cost
engineering. 47(3). pp.14-18.
Kozlowski, S., 2009. Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations. Taylor &
Francis.
Le Breton-Miller, I. and Miller, D., 2014. Temporal considerations in the study of family
firms: Reflections on “the study of organizational behaviour in family
business”. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 23(5). pp. 669-673.
Mehrotra, A., 2005. Leadership styles of principals. Mittal Publications.
Men, R. L. and Stacks, W. D., 2013. The impact of leadership style and employee
empowerment on perceived organizational reputation. Journal of Communication
Management. 17(2). pp.171 – 192.
Phillips, J. and Gully, S., 2011. Organizational Behavior: Tools for Success. Cengage
Learning.
Phillips, J. and Gully, S., 2011. Organizational Behavior: Tools for Success. Cengage
Learning.
Taber, T., 2010. A prosocial self-concept approach to understanding organizational citizenship
behavior. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 25(7). pp. 741 – 763.
Warner, M., 2014. Whither Chinese HRM?: Paradigms, Models and Theories. Routledge.
Webb, K., 2007. Motivating peak performance: Leadership behaviors that stimulate
employee motivation and performance. Christian higher education. 6(1). pp.53-71.
1

Wilson, J. P., 2014. International human resource development: Learning, education and
training for individuals and organisations. Development and Learning in Organizations.
28(2).
Online
Gonos, J. and Gallo, P., 2013. MODEL FOR LEADERSHIP STYLE EVALUATION. [PDF].
Available through: < https://www.efst.hr/management/Vol18No2-2013/10-
Gonos_Gallo.pdf>. [Accessed on 7th December, 2015].
Leadership styles. 2015. [Online]. Available through:
<http://4leaders.com/category/leadership-styles/>. [Accessed on 7th December, 2015
2