Wealth Wise Series How they can help in wealth creation. Honouring Exemplary Boards. Deep Dive Into Cryptocurrency. ET Markets Conclave — Cryptocurrency. Reshape Tomorrow Tomorrow is different. Let's reshape it today. Corning Gorilla Glass TougherTogether. ET India Inc. ET Engage. ET Secure IT. Suggest a new Definition Proposed definitions will be considered for inclusion in the Economictimes. Succession planning Definition: Succession planning is a process by which individuals are scanned to pass on the leadership role within a company.
The process ensures that business continues to operate efficiently without the presence of people who were holding key positions as they must have retired, resigned, etc.
Description: Succession Planning, specifically termed as Management Succession Planning, involves coaching and development of prospective successors or people within a firm or from outside to take up key positions in an organisation through an organized process of assessment and training.
It ensures a smooth transition of power in key leadership roles. If the successor is chosen within the organisation, it will help motivate the employees, and also save on cost and extra time which the management would have spent in scanning candidates from other firms.
There are four main stages in the succession planning process, which involve transition movement of new role , initiation, selection, and education. Here the CEO or any top leader of the organisation talks about these key things to the candidates.
Both the theories, which are very different from each other, are used by managers to motivate their employees. Theory X gives importance to supervision, while theory Y stresses on rewards and recognition.
In this situation, one would expect employees to dislike their work, avoid responsibility, have no interest in organizational goals, resist change, etc. To McGregor, a steady supply of motivation seemed more likely to occur under Theory Y management. The higher-level needs of esteem and self-actualization are ongoing needs that, for most people, are never completely satisfied.
As such, it is these higher-level needs through which employees can best be motivated. McGregor stressed that Theory Y management does not imply a soft approach.
McGregor recognized that some people may not have reached the level of maturity assumed by Theory Y and may initially need tighter controls that can be relaxed as the employee develops. If Theory Y holds true, an organization can apply the following principles of scientific management to improve employee motivation:.
He calls it Theory Z. Figure compares the traditional U. Theory Z emphasizes long-term employment, slow career development, moderate specialization, group decision-making, individual responsibility, relatively informal control over the employee, and concern for workers. Theory Z has many Japanese elements. But it reflects U. In the past decade, admiration for Japanese management philosophy that centers on creating long-term relationships has declined.
Such conformity has limited Japanese competitiveness in the global marketplace. Today there is a realization that Japanese firms need to be more proactive and nimble in order to prosper. The people at Akron perceived a great deal of similarity among themselves in background, prior work experiences, and approaches for tackling job-related problems. They also perceived the degree of coordination of effort among colleagues to be very high.
This was appropriate for a laboratory in which a great variety of disciplines and skills were present and individual projects were important to solve technological problems. They responded to quick feedback concerning the quality and service that the plant was providing. This was essential, given the nature of their task. These orientations meant that they were willing to wait for long-term feedback from a research project that might take years to complete. A scientist in Stockton said:.
We can wait for months if necessary before we get feedback from colleagues and the profession. I can live with that, though. In Akron, the technology of the task was so dominant that top managerial behavior which was not focused primarily on the task might have reduced the effectiveness of performance. Given the individualistic bent of the scientists, this was an important force in achieving unity of effort.
All these differences in climate characteristics in the two high performers are summarized in Exhibit III. Exhibit III. As with formal attributes, the less effective Hartford and Carmel sites had organization climates that showed a perceptibly lower degree of fit with their respective tasks.
For example, the Hartford plant had an egalitarian distribution of influence, perceptions of a low degree of structure, and a more participatory type of supervision. The Carmel laboratory had a somewhat top-heavy distribution of influence, perceptions of high structure, and a more directive type of supervision.
Because of the difference in organizational characteristics at Akron and Stockton, the two sites were strikingly different places in which to work. But these organizations had two very important things in common. First, each organization fit very well the requirements of its task. Second, although the behavior in the two organizations was different, the result in both cases was effective task performance.
Since, as we indicated earlier, our primary concern in this study was to link the fit between organization and task with individual motivation to perform effectively, we devised a two-part test to measure the sense of competence motivation of the individuals at both sites.
The first part asked a participant to write creative and imaginative stories in response to six ambiguous pictures. The results indicated that the individuals in Akron and Stockton showed significantly more feelings of competence than did their counterparts in the lower-fit Hartford and Carmel organizations. This interdependency is illustrated in Exhibit IV. Putting the conclusions in this form raises the question of cause and effect.
Does effective unit performance result from the task-organization fit or from higher motivation, or perhaps from both? Does higher sense of competence motivation result from effective unit performance or from fit?
Our answer to these questions is that we do not think there are any single cause-and-effect relationships, but that these factors are mutually interrelated.
This has important implications for management theory and practice. While Theory Y might help to explain the findings in the two laboratories, we clearly need something other than Theory X or Y assumptions to explain the findings in the plants. For example, the managers at Akron worked in a formalized organization setting with relatively little participation in decision making, and yet they were highly motivated.
According to Theory X, people would work hard in such a setting only because they were coerced to do so. According to Theory Y, they should have been involved in decision making and been self-directed to feel so motivated. Nothing in our data indicates that either set of assumptions was valid at Akron. Conversely, the managers at Hartford, the low-performing plant, were in a less formalized organization with more participation in decision making, and yet they were not as highly motivated like the Akron managers.
The Theory Y assumptions would suggest that they should have been more motivated. A way out of such paradoxes is to state a new set of assumptions, the Contingency Theory, that seems to explain the findings at all four sites:.
Human beings bring varying patterns of needs and motives into the work organization, but one central need is to achieve a sense of competence.
0コメント