secrets to organizational efficiency

8/12/2019 Secrets to Organizational Efficiency

1/4

Secrets to Organizational Efficiency, or Marketing Positive Behavior?

A Commentary on the Article Three Secrets of Organizational Effectiveness

Cindy Nguyen

GMGT 1010 University of Manitoba


2/4

Secrets to Organizational Efficiency, or Marketing Positive Behavior? 1

Introduction

Davis and Newtons article Three Secrets of Organizational Success suggests

that three practices of pride building are essential to ensuring positive motivation of

employees in the workforce, which ultimately result in a more efficient workplace

overall. The three practices are listed as (1)

giving more autonomy to frontline workers,

(2) clearly explaining to staff members the significance and value of everyday work, and

(3)providing better recognition and rewards for employee contributions. The items listed

here can be seen as an extension from the proposals of Management 2.0, with the

proposed indication that the study of neuroscience and psychology serves as reasonable

evidence for the proposed items. With the good intensions of the article aside, it is noted

that the article provides no actual empirical evidence for their claims of any sort, nor do

they present any numerical figures suggesting the economic feasibility of the proposed

practices of micromanagement. Therefore it can be said that, while the article does

indeed make a strong point, it simply states an obvious point in virtue without adequate

scientific/psychological studies, and economic feasibility.

Service& (formerly Booz & Company) and PwC

The magazine to which Davis & Newtons article was published in is Strategy&,

which is a company that provides services of advice to other business growth and

development. Strategy& (formerly Booz & Company) was recently acquired by PwC

Corporations, which is a corporation whos primary objectives are to seek business

solutions and act as a network for major industries including raw resources and

pharmaceuticals. The article published here, by Strategy& serves in conjunction to

support their parent companys outcomes, particularly providing examples from the


3/4


pharmaceutical department. This does not necessarily represent the entire workforce

well, but appears to shift accountability on department/sector managers, instead of the

administration of a company.

Contributing factors of psychological motivation & a representative sample of the

workforce

This article studies the behavior of a higher-earning group of individuals in the

workforce. There is a problem with this, in which particularly, the contrast of this subject

can be seen in a local grocery market. The customer service experienced at the pharmacy

counter is notably more constant than what would be observed from a deli counter. The

managers all use the same tactics of motivation, at least from the Safeway that I work at.

Not only are there more tasks that come from one department than the other, but

ultimately, at the end of the day the major overall contrast in these two subjects are that

the workers from one department will come home to more financial obligations and

concerns than the other. Resultantly, the argument made by Newton and Davis therefore

consists of a bias in their case study, which suggests thats effectiveness it is not

representative of the entire workforce, as a whole.

An academic study of the subject discussed, that is, psychological incentives to

positively motivate workers, would assess the impact of all related factors scientifically

and economically. The study should present numerical evidence that the suggested

theory is both economically feasible for a wider range of the work force (i.e. broader

range of workers income), with associated figures related to performance in order to

demonstrate the relevance of each associated category (i.e. boosting morale, imitation


4/4


neuroscience, the costs of providing employee recognition). Without associated practice

and results (in terms of figures), the argument is simply a theory, with little viability.

Conclusion

The authors Davis & Newton both bring up a perfectly valid suggestion to the

practice of management in the workforce incorporating pride building and consideration

of imitation neuroscience. While these authors present their arguments effectively, they

do not provide any means of evidence of scientific validity, practice design proposals, nor

do they assess the economic feasibility associated with the associated claims and

suggestions. Readers should also be mindful of the industry to which this articles

magazine is associated with, PWC, which includes industries such as pharmaceuticals

and research and development in life sciences. With the corporations overall industrial

practices, it is not an unreasonable claim to suggest that the non-profit published article

serves to promote for further funding and development in the sectors psychological

sciences department, whilst upholding the companys mission of providing business

strategic advice in management practices and business solutions.

secrets to organizational efficiency

Documents