Hrm Learning Log Essay

The low gear lambast that we had was fundamentally explaining the staff and gave a brief step to the foreline of what we atomic number 18 going to be studying throughout the year. We then went on to converse this in the seminar. Obviously at that place was non frequently work through for this week as we were just taking boththing in and coming to grips with what the module entailed. Lecture number ii started off with a series of iterates with mickle formation governmental behaviour.I consider the arrangemental behaviour is nonp aril of the to the highest degree abstruse and perhaps least unders withald academic elements of modern general wariness al unitary since it concerns the behaviour of tribe within boldnesss it is similarly virtuoso of the most central as whiz of the most accurate and appropriate ways to describe organizational behaviour. The other(a)wise 2 retells were by no means inaccurate, but they were a bit brief and wouldnt really explain much if you were laborious to tell fewbody what organisational behaviour was. This then brought us to the organisational iceberg, this is an kindle and key point.I hit tack a diagram from the meshwork to illustrate the iceberg I build this model very winning and the quote some(a) what sinks a ship is very clever, because so much that goes on in an organisation is not give earn. It is simply that an in conventional organisation is a looser mental synthesisd flexible organisation with informal relationships and a formal organisation would be an opposite bingle with a planned structure with a power structure. Hugh put some commentarys of organisational behaviour up and I scum bagvass them and launch that they were both fairly consecutivehearted definitions although one was a d experience much occurrenceed than the other.The following nettle was very much defining what an organisation is, diverse types of organisations and how we position them. This was a fa irly big speak and on that point was sort of a fate to present in I thought. What is an organisation? I apply with the definition of JD Mooney that organisation is the form of each hu military man association for the attainment of a common purpose, as surface as Huczynski & Buchanans entity affect because they atomic number 18 short yet strong and favorable to run across and I feel that I would definitely be to a greater extent standardizedly to remember these definitions than Robbins definition for example, which sounds a bit more intricate.The next trounce brought us to something similar, corking-looking us the chance to deliberate on the organisational iceberg, and still defining organisational structure. I researched into tall and flat organisational structures this week and form this diagram on the internet which helps demonstrate how unlike organisations rich person different structures, and in that respect is no better or worse structure, because each(pre nominal) organisation requires a different structure. I found centralisation and decentralisation quite challenging, so I looked up the meanings to begin with on the internet.I found that centralisation is described as the process by which the activities of an organisation, subprogramicularly those regarding cookery decision-making, become concentrated within a agencyicular location or group. Alternatively, decentralisation was defined as the process of dispersing decision-making governance closer to the spate and citizen. It includes the dispersal of administration or governance in sectors or argonas like engineering, management science, political science, political economy, sociology and economics.These definitions helped me understand the table in the lecture slides easier. The matrix structure was also covered in this lecture. This seemed a more complex structure where a lot of case-by-cases argon mixed unneurotic and each person may have to work under some(prenominal) ma nagers at a time. For this weeks lecture we were given a SEMCO case study and some organisational charts to look at. We spoke intimately fork overing to define work and then got into scummy groups and came up with our own definition of work. It was very fire how everyones opinions and definitions of work were so different.Although nearly everyone adjudge that we work for money and for example in our group, we say that if you are not paid, for shell voluntary work, it is simply a hobby. We then went on to organisation theory and classical management. This focuses on then union design of the total organisation. This is different to scientific management because that focuses on the design and management of individual product lines. This was quite a difficult lecture to fully comprehend with once more a lot of knowledge to take in.Through research I found that Henri Fayol was the main classical theorist and he proposed the functions such(prenominal) as technical commercial f inancial accounting security and managerial. He believed the last mentioned to be slightly different to all the rest. In our lecture it said that management is a process of planning, organisation, command, coordination and control. I found that Fayol was very important to the modern concepts of management and proposed his own theory, called fayolism. I also discovered that in that location is a put in of 14 principles of management that he devised and I found this quite thought-provoking.The lecture also told us approximately Taylorism, which is a scientific management theory. We then went on to Hawthorne studies, which I had previously learnt close to in sociology at A level so I was fairly known with. Then it went on explaining that there is more to the work than just the pay, there call fors to be a strong sense of be. I agree with this because I feel in to sidereal days society too many a(prenominal) people are driven by money and quite of opting for creation happy i n life, they would rather have more money.I feel that the media makes people feel that they should put money before a sense of belonging and I enduret cipher that is right. In this weeks seminar we went back to organisational structures and charts. Our group discussed that the needs of all organisations are very different so there will always be different structures suiting different organisations. Bureaucratic structures were brought up and we spoke about how they were suitable for larger organisations rather than smaller ones, also how they tend to complicate to a tall rather than flat structure.I found other structures such as a divisional structure, where they group organisational functions into different divisions. I then looked back over earlier lectures about defining work, and the inessential purposes which are essential yet do not reap the comparable intrinsic rewards where workers should have a considerably high level of job satisfaction. The occupational structure- t his is shaped by several factors like bureaucracy, engine room and the economy. Watsons patterns are key points for the subject of occupations and the structure of work because he points out the key elements.Mobility is seen as a key part of occupational structure and there are factors which positively and negatively affect mobility. The next lectures brought us to organisational culture there was a good quote to start the lecture saying that The ideologies, beliefs and deep-set values which occur in all firms. and which are the prescriptions for the ways in which people should work in those organisations. This got me conceive ofing about organisation culture and what it was about. Organisational culture frequently refers to the collective patterns of behaviour, beliefs and values within an organisation.I also found a different definition of organisation culture saying that organisation culture is a set of values, a good deal taken for granted, that help people in an organisatio n understand which actions are considered acceptable and which actions are considered unacceptable. Often these values are shaped in the course of stories. I feel that culture is significantly hard to define and measure. We covered socialisation in this lecture and it is quoted as getting ones hands dirty. I found that Socialization is the main way mankind start to obtain the skills needed to carry out their task of being a member of society.The largely basic look of culture is set up at the individual level. Through both learning and tenet is the how cultural and social characteristics achieve permanence. I believe that the best quote of this lecture was that to change an organisation in any significant or lasting way you need to change the values and beliefs that lie at the core. This brings us to the iceberg and the onion. The onion illustrates that the core is shielded by many layers, and you have to change everything right down to the fucking to make a significant change for the organisation.Through my research I found some different information as to what was in our lectures on the several different types of culture, such as person cultures and task cultures. Person cultures are basically an organisational structure in a business which is constantly changing and has no permanent foundation, no real formal role and no furbish up objective. Where all the people involved believe themselves to be superior to the organisation, because of this some of these organisations struggle to cope, but can do because of the certain expertise each different individual possesses.On the other hand, task cultures are often found in a matrix type organisation, where employees tend to have similar roles and responsibilities, they solve problems as and it is often described as a business based well-nigh the high skills of an employee. More organisational cultures are source cultures, and role cultures. Power cultures I commend are the most enkindle because they are more or less based around one ultimate source, which everything revolves around and depends on.These are often found in small organisations and have little bureaucracy and a small number of rules. place cultures is similar to that of a tall structure that I have speak about earlier where there is a basic hierarchy of roles and power. In the seminar this week we spoke about different retailers and what kind of organisation structures they had. I found this seminar very enjoyable because we found out from each other in depth about what sort of organisations each company were and resolved what frame they would be in and whether we would prefer to be in one or another.The next lecture was mostly on change, I found this fairly weird because there were not many things I could link to or understand so I just had to try and take as much in as possible. Although it brought us to again this man Charles Handy. He said that Less than half the workforce in the industrial world will be holdin g conventional full-time jobs in organisations by the beginning of the 21st century. Those full-timers, or insiders, will be the spic-and-span minority. This has obviously been turn out correct to some extent, so Handy was right.Because of technology fewer and fewer people are needed from day to day in the industrial sector, because machines are replacing them. like a shot we again talked about the paradigm and how organisations all have different values and missions and how they go about them. I think the most virile part of this lecture is the part where it says the only permanent thing is change. This is such a good quote because no matter change will neer ever end, it cant. Yet everything else can. This is another one of those quotes that gets you thinking.I liked the 7-S framework part because it helps me remember all the very important reasons of change. This weeks lecture was on organisational change. This was different to previous lectures because I didnt feel there wa s much we could talk about. I researched more into organisational cultures again and found information on strong cultures and dim cultures. A strong culture is one where staff responds to stimulus because of their position to organisational values. In a strong culture, it is believed that the people do what they are told to do, because they think that is the right way to do things.In a weak culture things are fairly different. They do it their own way and things would be pretty much the opposite. Research suggests that organisations with a strong culture will achieve the companies goals a lot easier than a weak culture they will also have higher levels of employee satisfaction, motivation and loyalty. We came on to attractership today, and spoke about management. It started with a man I was well-known(prenominal) with Max Weber again because of A level sociology so I was intrigued to how he linked in with this element. We then came on to Fayols 14 principles of management.I decid ed to research into these 14 principles out of curiosity and it is proved that Fayols principles still have a big relevancy to contemporary management, so do his 6 functions that I mentioned earlier, however most people these long time like to only talk about 4 of the 6 functions that Fayol primarily proposed and they have been slightly tweaked into planning leading organising and controlling. Taylorism popped up this week and we discussed the unlikeness between the bosses and the workers, as Taylor says the bosses think as the workers do.Then onto other theorists such as Drucker, he proposed the five basic operations of a manager. I very much agree with these five operations because at my study it seems that the managers are trying to set objectives, organise, measure, motivate and develop people. I think that managers are different to leading. Yes some managers are leading, but they are two completely different things in my eyes. As it says in the lecture slides managers pl an, organise, bet etc, leaders envision, inspire, influence, leaders effect people more emotionally than managers do.We also spoke about how hard it is to describe leadership, who would we call a leader? How do we become a leader? These are all questions that I do not know the answer to. Yukl says that Most definitions of leadership reflect the assumption that it involves a process whereby intentional influence is exerted by one person over people.. to guide, structure and facilitate activities and relationships in a group or organisation I dont think that this is as good of a description as Leadership is a process of giving purpose (meaningful direction) to collective driving, and causing willing effort to be expended to achieve purpose. By Jacob and Jacques because they seem to hit the nail on the head because I believe leadership is all about giving a meaningful purpose to effort and be willing to do anything to achieve your goal. I still very much agree with Yukls view on lead ership because what he says is true but I dont feel it would give me anything that I can learn or think about whereas Jacob and Jacques I can. There were a lot of quotes in todays lecture, some I felt more powerful than others. They have taught me a lot about leadership, one being that it there is not a definition.I even googled it and there wasnt one. other being leadership is what you make of it, from what I think will be different to what the next guy thinks, so I can understand why it raises so many controversies and discussions. I can understand why it proved virtually impossible to identify the particular traits that separate leaders from non-leaders. I believe that leadership is based on many things, genius being the main one. Many people would think you have to be at the top of the hierarchy to be branded a leader, for instance they would think of a manager of a leader.But a leader can be anyone, some people just possess a trait that makes them a natural born leader, for e xample a footballer that steps on the pitch and instantly tells everyone what to do, they all listen to him without question. raze though he may not be captain, he is the leader. In todays lecture we looked at technology, a new topic. engineering science has played a massive part in how businesses operate as of recent years, I didnt call back this as interesting as the previous few weeks but there were still things I cherished to look up on. We also touched on leadership again this week. This week brings us onto personality.This lecture was one of the tougher ones because there was a lot of material I have never perceive of before. I agree with everything Robertson and Smith have put forward because for instance if there was no variety in the tasks, or if there was no feedback given or no significance of the tasks, then the employees job satisfaction would surely be lower, and I think it would be a hard job to try and make someone completely satisfied with their job in every as pect because nearly everybody isnt happy with atleast one aspect of their job. Our lecture this week was on motivation, learning about motivation was quite enjoyable.I find the american and chinese needs hierarcies quite interesting and how they differ. The american hierarchy has self-actualisation in individual development at the top whereas the chinese hierarchy has self-actualisation in service to society. This goes back to the collectivist and individualist cultures. I have found a slightly more detailed diagram of a hierarchy here Another big difference is that the sense of belonging is in the middle of the american hierarchy and it is right at the bottom of the chinese one, maybe because the chinese people see society as a whole more important.I also find Hertzbergs two factor theory quite interesting because of what he thinks motivates and de-motivates intrinsically and extrinsically. Today we looked at scholarship. I was quite amazed at how the mind perceives things and it sees what it wants to see instead of what it actually might be. The quote You see, thats the problem with you Jerry. You think were arguing, I think were finally communicating defines what perception is really about. You think you are doing one thing, yet you are doing another. passim this year my favourite topic has definitely been leadership.I feel really interested in this subject because it is so intriguing and there are so many talking points about it. I think one of the most meaningful and intelligent quotes I have ever heard has come from the leadership topic, managers do things right, leaders do the right thing. It has do believe that being a leader is such a good thing. Most people probably think managers are leaders, but they are really nothing alike what so ever, when you look into it in detail you realise. I particularly like how Bennis describes both Managers and leaders, saying that Managers ask how and when, leaders and what and why.Managers rely on people, leaders inspire trust. Managers focus on systems and structure, leaders focus on people, and so on. It is strange how they seem so true yet every one is the completely different. This proves surely that there is a real big difference between a leader and a manager. I was quite amazed at the perception topic though because it enlightened me slightly on how our minds actually work. Like the non-standard shaped polygon, I would never think it is one of those, yet that is what it is. Also the xs and os in alternating rows is clever. One of the least fire topics I would say is organisational change.It was challenging yet quite boring and I didnt really enjoy the content in the lectures or the seminars around this time. One of the more tricky subjects I found was motivation. Although it was more interesting than most of the others, it was one of the hardest to understand and I found it hard to tint to this lecture because it didnt seem like there was much relevance to business in it. It is def initely an area I will need to revise more for my exam. I have also found theme this learning log challenging as I have never done anything like this before. But it is different I guess.