Essay, Pages 5 (1043 words)
Therefore productivity can be best improved by clarifying strategically aligned goals and coupling this with a related rewards system for achievement (Dines & Palmer, 1998. ) Hence the concept of MOB (based on goal congruence) was held to be of most benefit at improving employee productivity if undertaken collaboratively. Since its successful application at General Mills, MOB became increasingly popular during the sass’s and sass’s (Dines & Palmer, 1998. The common elements of an MOB system are; objectives are established for all Jobs in the firm; the use of Joint objective setting; the linking of objectives to strategy; emphasis on measurement and intro; the establishment of a review and recycle system (Redden & Shore, 1974.
) Hence MOB plays an integral part of the planning process for an organization as it seeks to involve all employees in the process with the view that by collaboratively setting goals an increased commitment to attaining them will be achieved.
It encourages employees to view their contribution to the organization In a more holistic way, and in doing so positively affects motivation and hopefully leads ultimately to Increased Job satisfaction.
It ensures that all members of an organization are making contributions that are aimed at achieving the same organization-wide goals and objectives. Apart from the planning process, MOB plays a large role in the control process. By holding Individual employees personally responsible for achieving pre-determined measurable, (Shoehorning et al, 2004) MOB provides a clear standard of what is expected in regards to employee ‘performance. Employees are able to effectively ‘self-control’ on the basis that they have a clear idea of what is expected of them in the form of objectives that they participated in setting.
When implemented effectively (which is problematic in itself; discussed later) MOB has definite advantages for an organization. A major one relates to goal congruence and the fact that all employees’ efforts are geared towards achieving certain objectives that have been determined to be the most positive for the business.
This is achieved by clearly focusing subordinates work efforts on the most important tasks and objectives and supervisors efforts on areas of support that will help the subordinate reach the agreed-upon objectives (Shoehorning et al, 2004. ) It is also suggested that MOB can have a positive affect on employee relations by involving subordinates and supervisors in face-to-face communication aimed at reaching collaborative conclusions. In this way it encourages people to work together, although not directly in teams, involving team-work.
It can contribute to employee motivation and garnish powerful enthusiasm to fulfill one’s performance obligations as a result of the collaborative approach to goal setting (Shoehorning et al, 2004. ) MOB is not, however, without its problems and failures. Many organizations that adopted MOB as a performance management system later claimed that it was more of a hindrance than a help (Van Tassel, 1995. ) However, research into these early failings has indicated that it was more of an implementation problem than a problem with the basic philosophy of MOB.
Bechtel (1996) and Redden & Shore, (1974) find that the failure of MOB may be attributable to the fact that two core premises, namely goal congruence and focus on the human elements have simply been ignored. One criticism that MOB has faced is that it is incompatible with TTS (total quality management) practices that emphasis collaboration, empowerment and teamwork. It is held that MOB places too much focus on individual performance (therefore De- emphasizing teamwork) and too much focus on quantitative goals rather than the goal of continuous improvement (Dines & Palmer, 1998. However, MOB in its intended form does emphasis collaboration and empowerment and can be easily adapted to involve teamwork. So it would again seem that it is the implementation, by focusing too much on scientific management principles, as opposed to the human elation’s model promoted by MOB, that is the problem here and not the basic premises of MOB. One possible problem that relates to MOB is due to the increasing complexity and rapid change associated with today’s business environment. Current management theory emphasis flexibility and adaptability as the key to maintaining a competitive advantage over time.
Therefore extreme care must be taken that objectives set in the MOB process don’t take too narrow a view of work tasks and goals. Because these are process to Justify if the goals and objectives themselves are subject to change within he time-frame set out for achievement of objectives. Despite this, MOB can still be used to target desired areas within an organization, such as education, training and development. In this way organizations will be well equipped to deal with rapid change and the workforce will become more adaptable.
The major problem faced by MOB is in the actual setting of goals that are specific, time defined, challenging and measurable. Specific and measurable goals are becoming increasingly difficult to set due to a changing environment and the changing nature of work. Specific goals themselves reduce the adaptability of employees. Measurable goals indicate an easily determined output from an employee, which may be difficult given the nature of work, with many managerial and support roles not lending themselves to easily determinable output.
Despite the problems this raises, with careful consideration, they can more often than not be overcome with a bit of lateral thinking as to what actually constitutes a ‘goal. ‘ Despite its problem, the MOB system, which is well aligned with the statement “if you want high performance from individual contributors, you must hire the best people, org with them to set challenging performance objectives, give them the best possible support, and hold them accountable for results,” (Shoehorning et al 2004, p. 197) can still provide many benefits to organizations today.
It may need to be slightly modified to fit in with a particular organization, but the basic principles still hold true. By giving each employee clear goals, organizations can ensure each individual effort is sufficiently focused on the tasks that are determined to be of the greatest importance in regards to achieving business objectives. Although it does me to be focused mainly on individual contributions, which may not fit in with the current climate aimed at team-building and effort, it can be modified to allow for an even more collaborative approach.