Organizational Behavior Manufacturing Companies

Question: Discuss about the Organizational Behavior for Manufacturing Companies. Answer: Organizational change in Nissan Nissan and were Toyota were the two best car manufacturing companies in Japan. But, during the 1990s it suffered great loss due to mismanagement and complacency. It got dumped under huge debt. The cars manufactured were also not up to the mark, not at all inspirational(Pasmore, Woodman, Shani, 2010). Yet Nissan did not lose its importance in the eyes of European car manufacturing companies. They noticed the promising horsepower potential in it. Waiting to spread worldwide they were also looking for places to start off, so in this scenario, Nissan in Japan seemed to fill the gaps of their expectation. At first, Chrysler Daimler, the German car manufacturer of the famous Mercedes-Benz approached Nissan. Daimler did a lot of queries and investigations regarding the future aspect of the company if he overtook it, but could not find any positive sign to overtake it. Then came Louis Schweitzer, chairman, and CEO of Renault who gave an offer of 5.4 billion dollars to get off the stake in N issan, which was accepted. He sent an executive name Carlos Ghosn to Japan to take hold of the new alliance(Tager, 2003). Ghosn was an ambitious person who had a frank quality to make things right. Within the year 2000, he recovered Nissan from its previous half-dead condition. He made many changes in Nissan after taking control over its management decisions. He clearly understood the main reasons behind that condition of Nissan(Donnelly, Morris, Donnelly, 2005). The main reasons were like less focus on profits, less focus on the customer, missing the sense of urgency, existence of silos and no vision towards the future aspect of the company. The previous management had no idea about where would that company lie in the upcoming 10 years. Another issue that struck Ghosns mind regarding this company was the policy of seniority which meant that the longer a person worked in that company the more his salary used to get increased. This deprived the young talents to get their actual value. Ghosn always encouraged young talents. So he eliminated many employees as much as 21,000 and reduced the capacity of pro duction by 30%. He also gave stress on producing models on 15 platforms instead of 24 platforms and sharing with Renault. Both Nissan and Renault were expected to produce 1million units per year while sharing the same platform(Pasmore, Woodman, Shani, 2010). He reduced the number of suppliers from 1145 to 600 so that cost could be spread over a large number of volumes by them. He made sure to sell off unprofitable and unrelated investments. In a high-profile event, he personally guaranteed maximum exposure and gave a clear signal to the employees, investors and customers about the future vision of Nissan. Though this open announcement was a big risk and open challenge to the world but then, he not only successfully won the challenge but also gave a new life to Nissan in a decade. His transparency and simplicity nature made him a good leader and this in turn, provoked workers to be faithful not only to him but also towards the company(Anderson, 2014). Team work Ghosn believed in the aspiration present in the young generation. So he always encouraged young talent. While getting rid of the old employees with a huge amount of salaries, he hired young talents. During the dark years of Nissan, many expert workers left Nissan. But Ghosn did not lose hope. He decided to make a new team keeping in mind the four criterions. Firstly, the workers should be open-minded. Secondly, they should have acquired expertise in their field of work. Thirdly, they should be expert coaches, that is, they work as a team, teaching and learning from each other towards the way of growth. Lastly, they should be able to relocate to Japan if necessary. His main motto was to make people understand that difference is innovation("Vancouver testing for new Nissan FCV", 2006). They should have the patience and enthusiasm towards accepting something new. He always motivated his team members. Motivation was the main medicine behind the recovery of Nissan. A person should know wh o they belong to and what their company is all about. If they have no idea or no interest about all these stuff then, they should forget about going an extra mile forward with their company(Marcum, 2000). We all know that Japan is a country where group work is the priority but then, it should not be forgotten that if a useful group can enhance the profit of a company at the same time a useless selfish group could even bring about the destruction of that company. Though he maintained transparency with his team but kept the decision-making authority up to himself only. While taking any new decision there used to be 12 hours discussion amongst the team but the main decision used to be taken by Ghosn himself. He never gave individual responsibility to anybody. If anybody came up with any new ideas then, he divided the worker into different teams to get the plan executed. He never showed betrayal towards his employees which in turn kept the candle of faith burning in their mind(Chen Tjosvold, 2013). Targets with time limits used to be given to the employees and when they reached the target they used to be rewarded and along with it new targets with more responsibilities used to be given. This increased the team spirit and kept them motivated. If Ghosn had confidence in any employee then he gave him more responsibilities and targets. Bt if he had less confidence in any employee then he used to get down to the root of his problem, solve it and then provide possible targets for him. He kept that much transparency with them that his employees were open to share problems with him and he used to solve it accordingly. Yes, under his leadership along with his team members Nissan got back its value and worth within a decade(Bellot, 2011). All this was the result of his leadership and teamwork represented by his team. References Anderson, J. (2014). Counterfactuals and their Truthmakers.Polish Journal Of Philosophy,8(2), 7-24. https://dx.doi.org/10.5840/pjphil2014829 Bellot, J. (2011). Defining and Assessing Organizational Culture.Nursing Forum,46(1), 29-37. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6198.2010.00207.x Chen, N. Tjosvold, D. (2013). Inside the leader relationship: constructive controversy for team effectiveness in China.J Appl Soc Psychol,43(9), 1827-1837. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12134 Donnelly, T., Morris, D., Donnelly, T. (2005). Renault Nissan: a marriage of necessity?.European Business Review,17(5), 428-440. https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09555340510620339 Marcum, J. (2000). Out with motivation, in with engagement employee relations.Natl. Prod. Rev.,19(4), 57-60. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1520-6734(200023)19:43.0.co;2-n Pasmore, W., Woodman, R., Shani, A. (2010).Research in organizational change and development. Bingley, UK: Emerald. Tager, M. (2003). What people really need from a change leader.Leader To Leader,2004(31), 6-9. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ltl.56 Vancouver testing for new Nissan FCV. (2006).Fuel Cells Bulletin,2006(4), 4. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1464-2859(06)71002-1