Problems in the Computer Assembly Division
Problems in the Computer Assembly Division
Analysis of the Problem This paper explores various conditions pertaining to a small scale computer manufacturing firm located in the southeast. Until recently it has performed well to meet its organizational goals but could not continue with the same pace soon after. Earlier the unit was able to assemble 80 computers per day but now has dropped to 65 in conjunction with the manufacturing related defects. This poor performance not only affected the firm’s success but also challenged its fate. This could be due to many limiting factors. Poor working habits, increased communication gap, failure to adhere to the guidelines, lack of sufficient training etc., concerning the employees are some of the very possible basis for the problem in support to the dawdling productivity levels. Several studies indicate that the quality of work could be improved if proper ergonomics are in place (Eklund, 1995). The very implementation of ergonomics could eventually boost a constructive atmosphere pertaining towards attaining greater job satisfaction for the employees, improved work quality, and enhanced productivity. Further to deal effectively, as a leader, it is very imperative to apply several other strategies to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of the workers so as to bump up the team performance from a period of uncertainty to certainty. This might not be established unless and until proper goal setting is in place. A goal setting is most likely to improve performance, directing attention, increased persistence, and motivation (Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981). In addition it is very important to evaluate each implementation to make sure if the progress is in relation to the achievement of goal strategy.
Assumptions and Limitations Being an in-charge, it is important to make sure if everything is going at a right pace. Any incongruity could eventually result in malfunctioning of the organizational success. To
Analysis of the Problem This paper explores various conditions pertaining to a small scale computer manufacturing firm located in the southeast. Until recently it has performed well to meet its organizational goals but could not continue with the same pace soon after. Earlier the unit was able to assemble 80 computers per day but now has dropped to 65 in conjunction with the manufacturing related defects. This poor performance not only affected the firm’s success but also challenged its fate. This could be due to many limiting factors. Poor working habits, increased communication gap, failure to adhere to the guidelines, lack of sufficient training etc., concerning the employees are some of the very possible basis for the problem in support to the dawdling productivity levels. Several studies indicate that the quality of work could be improved if proper ergonomics are in place (Eklund, 1995). The very implementation of ergonomics could eventually boost a constructive atmosphere pertaining towards attaining greater job satisfaction for the employees, improved work quality, and enhanced productivity. Further to deal effectively, as a leader, it is very imperative to apply several other strategies to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of the workers so as to bump up the team performance from a period of uncertainty to certainty. This might not be established unless and until proper goal setting is in place. A goal setting is most likely to improve performance, directing attention, increased persistence, and motivation (Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981). In addition it is very important to evaluate each implementation to make sure if the progress is in relation to the achievement of goal strategy.
Assumptions and Limitations Being an in-charge, it is important to make sure if everything is going at a right pace. Any incongruity could eventually result in malfunctioning of the organizational success. To
References: Berkowitz, L.(1964). Avd Experimental Social Psychology. In L. Berkowitz, A system for classifying group situations (p. 154). New York: Academic Press, Inc. Eklund, J. A. (1995). Relationships between ergonomics and quality in assembly work. Applied Ergonomics , 26 (1), 15-20. Fiedler, F. E., & Garcia, J. E. (1987). New Approaches to Effective Leadership: Cognitive Resources and Organizational Performance. Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons. Grant, R. M., Rami, S., & Krishnan, R. (1994). TQM 's Challenge To Management Theory And Practice. Sloan Management Review , 35 (2), 24-35. House, R. J. (1971). A Path Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly , 16 (3), 321-339. Hughes, R. L., Ginnett, R. C., & Curphy, G. J. (2009). Leadership: Enhancing The Lessions Of Experience. New York: McGraw Hill. Kaplan, R. S. (1983). Measuring Manufacturing Performance: A New Challenge for Managerial Accounting Research. The Accounting Review , 686-705. Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task performance. Psychological Bulletin , 90 (1), 125-152. Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1973). Organizational, work, and personal factors in employee turnover and absenteeism. Psychological Bulletin , 151-176. Rosow, J. M., & Zager, R. (1988). Training—the competitive edge: Introducing new technology into the workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ulrich, D., & Lake, D. (1991). Organizational Capability: Creating Competitive Advantage. The Executive , 77-92.