Case Analysis: Outback Inc and Biogenta Plc - Iloka Benneth Chiemelie

0.1 INTRODUCTION

The two case studies of Outback Inc and Biogenta Plc although differing in relation to industry sectors offers an insight into the most commonly discussed issues in organizations such as management style, teamwork and hierarchy. While Outback Inc is a tourist industry run by family member within Australia, Biogenta Plc is a global company with branches in over 80 countries and operating plans in 10 countries. Thus, we will present a comparative analysis of the two organizations based on the following:

1.0 ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN AND STRUCTURE

1.1 Outback Inc – the company operates a functional organization structure that is designed in a hierarchical ways; were by all decision making process are made at the top of the organization. A functional organization design and structure is one in which activities are grouped together by common functions from the bottom to the top of the organization (Anad and Richard, 2007). This is the case with Outback Inc as it maintains various departments which are structured around traditional functions such as marketing, human resource and finance.

However, the company is a family owned business and the family members head thee various departments. The case study highlighted that they have been increased conflicts between these family members as they argues on who the authority should be bestowed unto and they are reluctant to report to other departments as they believe their family membership gives them equal decision making right. Thus, the hierarchy in the system is not purely exercised as the heads of other departments are not willing to listen to the CEO leading to the departments having to function in silos.

1.2 Biogenta Plc – compared to Outback Inc, this company operates on a divisional organizational structure with Jane Morgan as the Chief Executive Officer. A divisional organizational structure is such were departments are grouped together based on organizational output (Anad and Richard, 2007). It I sometimes called product structure or profit center. This is common amongst big corporations as it ensure organizational efficiency and increase in productivity.

Biogeta Plc is no exception to the discussion above as its organizational structure is divided amongst the task to be undertaken by different departments.  The structure is organized in research and development, manufacturing, sales and marketing and support. In line with the company's vision of becoming the most reliable agricultural corporation in the world, the research and development has the full responsibility of training staffs and putting them through rigorous team work to increase their innovativeness and thus catapult the company towards increased productivity, new product innovation and sustainability. The manufacturing department on the other hand have the responsibility to manufacture the company products based on specification handed over to the by the management. Once the products have been fully manufactured, the next step is to sale this product to the market, and the sales and marketing department have the full responsibility for doing so. The final department is the support department that helps to provide solution to customers need, listen to feedbacks and highlight areas of improvement based on customers' demands.

A comparative analyses of the two companies shows that both companies are different in the way their organization is designed and structured. This difference can easily be linked to the fact that Outback is a family owned business and while Biogenta is a big corporation. The fact that outback is a family owned business and the original owner is no longer in the functional department means that the members of the family will be less likely to listen to each other as they believe that they all have equal right because it is owned by the family. This highlights the classic case of "too many cooks spoils the soup", as compared to Biogenta were all functions are divided amongst departments and headed by a CEO who has fully power to implement any decisions and thus, ensuring a more efficient organizational structure.

2.0 TEAMS AND TEAMWORK

A team is a group of people with complementary skills who are linked and committed to common purpose and hold themselves mutually accountable for the outcomes of the purpose (CE, 2011). Basically, they developed a unique identity and work together in a coordinated and mutually supportive way, with the aim of fulfilling their goal or purpose. Task effectiveness is the extent to which the team is successful in achieving its set objectives, goals and purpose and it is used to measure the outputs of a team (CE, 2011)..

Team working is a crucial element of organizational productivity as researchers believe that teamwork increase innovation due to the fact that different people with different ideas come together to find a solution to a single problem. This was also illustrated in the cases study were teamwork increased productivity in one company and the lack of it reduced productivity in the other company. This is further illustrated below.

2.1 Outback Inc – as discussed earlier on, the company is functional with the members of the family as heads of different department and they are not keen on taking orders from each other as they believe they have equal decision making rights as members of the family. Therefore, teamwork is virtually in existent and there is no cross-functional activity within the system. Departments function in silos as a result of the hierarchical functions which exist within the organization.

This have influenced productivity negatively because the department heads are not keen to find common solutions to a problem by joining hands, and the voices of the employees are not taken into consideration during decision making process. The lack of teamwork has resulted in the management not being able to find the right strategy to move the company forward. In system that encourages team working, Outback Inc would have been able to bring its department together and find a common base for moving the company forward based on combination of personal opinions and ideas.

2.2 Biogenta Plc – although Biogenta has a traditional structure as their form of organizational design, the CEO believes that structures, job titles and powers can put barriers between people and slow down innovation and performance. She believes it is more effective to put her faith in people and in teamwork and there is minimal hierarchy. Therefore, the organization promoted cross-functional working in project teams, some of which are virtual teams at time.

Project working is as in Biogenta Plc as a essential for achieving constant product improvement and innovation, and while getting different people from different departments can be very challenging, Biogenta has a great way of improving this issue by adopting technology as the solution. Therefore, through teamwork, the company is able to increase its innovativeness and improve overall performance of the workforce. This has helped the company in numerous ways towards meeting its set missions and objectives of becoming one of the most innovative agricultural corporations in the world.

Consequently, a comparative analysis of team and teamwork between the two organizations as illustrate below proves that teams and team working is essential for maintaining competitiveness within an organization as it increases efficiency, innovation and enhances productivity when properly implemented as in the case of Biogenta Plc.

3.0 APPROACHES TO LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT

Leadership has been a major topic of research in psychology for many centuries now, as researchers find ways to define what constitute effective leadership. Organizational leadership can be defined in this case as the process of coordinating activities within the organization following a common objective of meeting set goals. Organizations depend upon capable leadership as the guiding tool for unprecedented change within the system. Researchers also agree to this context by arguing that qualitative shift in the nature of leadership across organizational structure is essential for promoting unbridled productivity (Day & Lord, 1988; Hunt, 1991; Jacobs & Jaques, 1987; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Zaccaro, 1996).

This implies that organizations should structure their system in such a way that it promotes communication by removing high hierarchical functions and listening to their employee as well as considering their opinions in decision making in order to keep them motivated. Once again, the two cases studies illustrates that leadership style of different organizations are different and it can determine the success of failure of any particular organization. In that case, let's proceed to elaborate such by beginning with:

3.1 Outback Inc – as highlighted in the case study, while the CEO presented himself as paternalistic, he is actually autocratic and never listens to the employees' suggestions of solutions to the problem the company has been facing. This is event in their employee turnover, where it is described to be above predicted level in an industry were turnover is already considered high. Employees quite the company because they are tired of having their suggestions being turned down, and the employees who are still within the organization are not keen to contributed as they are scared that they will be blamed for the company's declining sales.

Such leadership approach is destructive as every employee wants to be viewed as a member of the organization. This they expect to be achieved by a system were their employees are considered as integral in the overall decision making process of the system. A leader gets to understand the problem within the environment where he exercise's his leadership by listening to the people around him. Nobody is perfect as person and the act of listening is integral for success. Therefore, it can be seen that Outback Inc is making a big mistake by ignoring its employees if we considered the fact that the case study highlights that these employees are high talented, educated and motivated. Such mistake is causing the company tremendously with their declining sales.

3.2 Biogenta Plc – as opposed to the CEO of outback, Jane Morgan the CEO of Biogenta is considered as a role mode by her staff and she has helped develop the company's mission and set value based on consultations with stakeholders. Jane is deeply respect by many of her staff and many of them describe her as inspirational. Her aim has always been to empower her staffs and stimulate them to be creative and innovative so that they can contribute in developing ground-breaking new products. She is very motivational and communicates high expectations of all staff.

Essentially, such a leadership approach has been successful in motivate Biogenta's employees, as they see their CEO approachable and always communicate their process with her. Through this leadership approach, the CEO is always able to better understand each individual personally and find the right solution to keeping them motivated. It is without a doubt that employees are more productive when they are motivated, therefore Biogenta is ripping the benefits of a management and leadership approach that promotes upon communication, and approachability and respect for every individual's contribution as the employees as highly motivated and most of them see the CEO as inspirational.

Comparatively, it has once again been demonstrated with the two companies that the leadership approach and management style adopted by a company can influence their productivity to a great extent. Where the leadership approach is an open system with less hierarchal as demonstrated Biogenta, the employee will be more motivated and it will increase their productivity, while the opposite as demonstrated in Outback will reduce the productivity and commitment of employees.

4.0 ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

Culture as a term is used regularly in discussions that are related to workplace. But understanding the term is taken for granted as many don't see how to link it into organizational context. Peters and Waterman (1982) in their publication In Search of Excellencehighlighted the importance of culture in achieving high levels of organizational effectiveness. This resulted in the rise of publication on how organizational culture influence productivity within the system (e.g. Deal & Kennedy 1982; Ott 1989; Bate 1994).

Culture can be defined as the guiding principles that determine how people behave in a system. It coordinates behaviors of people and set standards for what is acceptable within the system. In organizations, cultures integrated into the missions and objectives as a means of ensuring that employees always undertake their tasks based on standards set by the organizational culture. In addition to providing implicit guidelines for behavior and channeling of emotion (Trice & Beyer 1993), culture serves to usher in a sense of belonging through collective identify and therefore breaks down the intrinsic isolation of employees within the system. In order to elaborate more on this context, we will refer back to the case studies.

4.1 Outback Inc – clearly form the case study, the company doesn't have any identified organization culture. Because the management team comprises of different members of the family who view themselves as being equal in management and decision making, the company doesn't have any guiding principles as every manager makes the right decision that suits his needs rather than focusing on a common objectives of moving the company forwards.

The employees don't have any guiding culture of principles, as each employee focuses more on their departments. The dwindling level of communication which is a result of low organizational culture causes isolation in the departments of the company were employees are unwilling to communicate their ideas about moving the company forward as they do not want to be blamed for the company's declining sales. Such environment without a doubt negatively influences productivity s there is no set standards because different departments function under the guidance of their departmental manager which are more of personal rather than organizational centered. This was also evident in customer satisfaction were the company is suffering decline in its Japanese and overall Asian market, as well as decline in the global tourism industry. Coupled with these loses I recent bad publicity from an Asian magazine and it showcases the need for a guiding principle in outback.

4.1 Biognta Plc – the company has a great culture that is built around equality within the management system, approachability of the management team and teamwork. This culture revolves around Jane Morgan's ideology of promoting a system with less hierarchical division as she believed that in so doing, the company will be able to relish the employee's full potential and motivate them to contribute towards producing ground-breaking new products.

The cultural practices of Biogenta plc is behind their company's tremendous success as they encouraging sharing of information within the system and it helps in developing employing and increasing their innovative pool. The company also makes their management approachable and this ensures that Jane Morgan is able to understand the needs of each employee and develop the right framework for keeping them motivated and productive. The company also encourages spending of time outside working hours, and this is good in the sense that it also helps employees to understand each other performance and in essence improve their team contribution later in the organization.

Therefore, it can be seen that organizational culture is related to productivity, as it defines standards that are acceptable within the system and guides employees on how to meet such standard. Where culture is integrated into a system, it has the full potential of ensuring sustainable growth as is illustrated with Biogenta and the opposite will inhibit productivity and keep staffs in isolation as seen with Outback Inc.

Thus, it can be concluded that while organizations are similar in their objectives of making profit, the way they generate such profits defer from organization to organization depending on the practices that is within the system. Organizations that have a defined culture, an approachable management system, encourages teamwork and poses quality leadership ability will have full potentials of cultivating sustainable development and growth through a system where employees are high motivated as illustrated with Biogenta Plc. Therefore, it is recommended that the best strategy to tackle Outback Inc's dwindling growth is by adopting a system that is similar to that practiced by Biogenta Plc.

5.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anand, N. and Richard, L. D. (2007), "What is the Right Organization Design?", Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 329–344, 2007. Available at: http://faculty.cbpp.uaa.alaska.edu/afgjp/PADM610/What%20is%

20the%20Right%20Organization%20Design.pdf [Accessed on: 24 –04–2012].

Bate, S. 1994, Strategies for Cultural Change, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford.

Constructing excellence (2011), "Effective Teamwork A Best Practice Guide for the Construction Industry." Available at: http://www.constructingexcellence.org.uk/pdf/document/Teamwork_Guide.pdf [Accessed on: 24 – 04 – 2012].

Day, D. V., & Lord, R. G. (1988). Executive leadership and organizational performance: Suggestions for a new theory and methodology. Journal of Management, 14, 453-464.

Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. 1982 . Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Hunt, J. G. (1991). Leadership: A new synthesis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jacobs, T. O., & Jaques, E. (1987). Leadership in complex systems. In J. Zeidner (Ed.), Human productivity enhancement. New York: Praeger.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Ott, J. S. 1989, The Organizational Culture Perspective, Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, California.

Peters, T. & Waterman, R. 1982, In Search of Excellence, Harper & Row, Sydney.

Zaccaro, S. J. (1996). Models and theories of executive leadership: A conceptual/empirical review and integration. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences