Sannan Ahmed

Assignment
Office Space is a movie that very beautifully
portrays the structure of an organization, clearly

#3showing the happy and frustrated people of an

organization

Movie Summary
Introduction:
In this document summary, we will briefly discuss the movie ‘Office Space’ in which it is shown
how an organization structure works, what are the pros and cons of working in an organization of
large scale, what kind of people are working in an organization who sum up to make up a
complete structure of an organization.

Judge is best known for such animated creations as Beavis, Butt-head and Hank Hill ("King of
the Hill"), but he proves just as observant and funny in his first foray into the world of three-
dimensional characters in this modest comedy of corporate manners. The quiet humor of "Office
Space" becomes clear in its first scene, in which Peter (Ron Livingston), sits in bumper-to-
bumper traffic while a geezer using a walker veritably whizzes past him. Once Peter makes it to
work -- at a dreary software company -- his drone-like routine begins. He's reprimanded by his
smarmy boss (Gary Cole), who begins every sentence with a pseudo-mellow, "What's
happening?" and every order with, "I'm going to go ahead and ask you to " He suffers the
paranoid nattering’s of Milton (Stephen Root) in the office next door. And he drags co-workers
Michael Bolton (David Herman, who appropriately enough, resembles a shaggier Bill Gates) and
Samir (Ajay Naidu) out for coffee where he can pine for the waitress he has a crush on (Jennifer
Aniston) and lament life in the high-tech hive. But after a hypnotherapy session goes awry,
Peter's attitude undergoes a sea-change. Suddenly, he doesn't give a bit or a byte about reports,
memos or sucking up to the boss. He starts skipping work, and when he does come in, it's to
clean the fish he's caught. The more apathetic Peter becomes, the more desirable he becomes.
"He's a straight shooter," says a persnickety management consultant played by John C.
McGinley, "with upper management written all over him."

"Office Space" doesn't follow through with this amusing premise. But even an uneven story
presents Judge with a chance to prove his canny ear for contemporary office politics, and his eye
for the generic suburban landscape that defines life for so many modern wage slaves. One need
look no further than a scene of cubicle gangstas whacking a recalcitrant copier to experience the
unassuming but singularly cathartic pleasures of this refreshingly unpretentious comedy.
 Motivation:
The word motivate is frequently used in the context of management as a transitive verb:
motivation is by implication something done by one person or group to another. A further
implication of this usage is that the motivated parties need to be induced to perform some action
or expend a degree of effort which they would not otherwise wish to do. That this is an issue of
vital importance to the prosperity of commercial organizations is emphasized by Lawler (1973):
“Those individual behaviors that are crucial in determining the effectiveness of organizations are,
almost without exception, voluntary motivated behaviors”. Motivation concerns that
“psychological processes that cause the arousal, direction and persistence of behavior”. Whilst
there is general agreement in the literature about these three components of “motivation”, the
nature and place of motivation in a work-related context has been the subject of a long and
developing study. Theories have been propounded, tested and superseded at a pace which has left
organizational practice often several steps behind the researchers. The following pages will
attempt to document the main themes and the most widely recognized theories. Employee
motivation has always been a central problem for leaders and managers. Unmotivated employees
are likely to spend little or no effort in their jobs, avoid the workplace as much as possible, exit
the organization if given the opportunity and produce low quality work. On the other hand,
employees who feel motivated to work are likely to be persistent, creative and productive,
turning out high quality work that they willingly undertake. There has been a lot of research done
on motivation by many scholars, but the behavior of groups of people to try to find out why it is
that every employee of a company does not perform at their best has been comparatively
unsearched. Many things can be said to answer this question; the reality is that every employee
has different ways to become motivated. Employers need to get to know their employees very
well and use different tactics to motivate each of them based on their personal wants and needs.
Inspiring employee motivation requires much more than the old-fashioned carrot- and-stick
approach. Today’s manager needs to understand the reasons why employees work and offer the
rewards they hope to receive. Motivated employees have a drive to succeed no matter what the
project. Managers cannot “motivate” employees, but they can create an environment that inspires
and supports strong employee motivation.

There is an old saying you can take a horse to the water but you cannot force it to drink; it
will drink only if it's thirsty - so with people. They will do what they want to do or otherwise
motivated to do. Whether it is to excel on the workshop floor or in the 'ivory tower' they must be
motivated or driven to it, either by themselves or through external stimulus. Are they born with
the self-motivation or drive? Yes and no. If no, they can be motivated, for motivation is a skill
which can and must be learnt. This is essential for any business to survive and succeed.
Performance is considered to be a function of ability and motivation, thus:

Job performance =f(ability)(motivation)

Ability in turn depends on education, experience and training and its improvement is a slow and
long process. On the other hand motivation can be improved quickly. There are many options
and an uninitiated manager may not even know where to start. As a guideline, there are broadly
seven strategies for motivation.

Positive reinforcement / high expectations

Effective discipline and punishment
Treating people fairly
Satisfying employee’s needs
Setting work related goals
Restructuringjobs
Base rewards on job performance

Managers need to find creative ways in which to consistently keep their employees motivated
as much as possible. Motivation is highly important for every company due to the benefits that
it’s able to bring. Such benefits include:

1. Human Capital Management

A company can achieve its full potential only by making use of all the financial,
physical, and human resources that it has. It is through these resources that the
employees get motivated to accomplish their duties. This way, the enterprise begins to
listen as everyone is doing their best to fulfill their tasks.

2. Meet Personal Goals and Help an Employee Stay Motivated

Motivation can facilitate a worker reaching his/her personal goals, and can facilitate the
self-development of an individual. Once that worker meets some initial goals, they
realize the clear link between effort and results, which will further motivate them to
continue at a high level.

3. Greater Employee Satisfaction

Worker satisfaction is important for every company, as this one factor can lead towards
progress or regress. In the absence of an incentive plan, employees will not fill ready to
fulfill their objectives. Thus, managers should seek to empower them through promotion
opportunities, monetary and non-monetary rewards, or disincentives in case of inefficient
employees.

4. Raising Employee Efficiency

An employee’s efficiency level is not strictly related to his abilities and qualifications. In
order to get the very best results, an employee needs to have a perfect balance between
ability and willingness. Such balance can lead to an increase of productivity, lower
operational costs, and an overall improvement in efficiency, and can be achieved only
through motivation.

5. A Higher Chance of Meeting the Company’s Goals

Any enterprise has its goals, which can be achieved only when the following factors are
met: There is a proper resource management
The work environment is a cooperative one
All employees are directed by their objectives
Goals can be reached if cooperation and coordination are fulfilled at once through
motivation.
There are many frameworks, models, and theories that focus on employee motivation. A few
of the most common are quickly summarized below. While they are each based on good research
and have some degree of universal applicability, none are the absolute doctrine on motivation. In
fact, few motivation concepts are universal. However, one idea that is acknowledged by all
frameworks that address motivation is that there are extrinsic and intrinsic motivational factors.

1. Extrinsic Motivation
Extrinsic motivation is motivation that comes from things or factors that are outside the
individual. For example being motivated to work hard at the office because you are
looking for a promotion is a type of extrinsic motivation. Social recognition, money,
fame, competition or material achievements are all examples of extrinsic motivation.
2. Intrinsic Motivation
Intrinsic motivation is motivation that comes from within. It comes from the personal
enjoyment and educational achievement that we derive from doing that particular thing.
For example for people who love music, their motivation to practice the instrument,
attend classes etc, is intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is crucial in today's work
environment. Research shows that it is a key factor in performance and innovation. At a
personal level, intrinsic motivation makes your work fulfilling. It's a major reason for
deciding to stay on a job. It helps keep your stress level down.

TECHNIQUES OF EMPLOYEE MOTIVATION

Job enlargement, job enrichment and job rotation are three basic approaches;
1. Job Enlargement:
Job enlargement involves expanding the job of an employee that has them doing more work
of a similar nature to what they already do. This may be allowing them to complete the whole
task instead of just part of it, for example, packaging the products as well as manufacturing them.
This process ideally removes the boredom out of the job by eliminating the repetitiveness out of
tasks and allowing them to complete the whole process, further increasing their responsibility.
2. Job Enrichment:
Job enrichment is an attempt to give workers more control over their tasks and more
responsibility for design, execution, and output. The worker assumes some of the functions
previously carried out by his or her immediate supervisor or by other staff.
3. Job Rotation:
Job rotation is a practice whereby each employee learns several operations in manufacturing
process and rotates through each in a set period. Job rotation has important implications for firm
learning. On one hand, when employees rotate, the firm receives information about the quality of
various jobs - employee matches. On the other hand, without rotation, the firm receives only
direct information about one match, but the information it gets about this one match is very
reliable.

 Group Dynamics:
Group dynamics can be conceptualized as falling within the following five domains: (1)
communication processes and interaction patterns, (2) interpersonal attraction and cohesion, (3)
social integration and influence, (4) power and control, and (5) culture. A conceptual framework
of group dynamics is an important heuristic device for workers seeking to assess and understand
how any group works. Values form the core concept across the social sciences.

Values personal beliefs about what is right and wrong provide an important explanation for
understanding what makes people tick. Work values are personal beliefs about what is worth
doing at work. Unlike most previous studies, the current study aims to investigate the effects of
team-level, rather than individual-level, work values. Like Chou et al. (2008), we use the term
“shared” to indicate that members of the same team hold similar work values. Following self-
determination theory, we distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic team-level shared work
values. We propose that individuals within teams that are characterized by more intrinsic,
relative to extrinsic, work values will show higher levels of work engagement: That is, they will
have a more persistent and pervasive work-related state of mind, characterized by vigor,
dedication, and absorption. Moreover, we unravel the process through which shared work values
exercise their impact and, propose that intrinsic, relative to extrinsic, team values are related to
work engagement because they satisfy basic psychological needs, as defined in SDT. By
examining need satisfaction as a mediator
in the relationship between shared work values and work engagement, our contributions to the
literature are threefold. First, with few exceptions, work values have been studied
as being attributes of the person. The dominance of studies focusing on individual-level
work values is somewhat surprising given that work values also exist at levels other than this
one, for example, the team level. Theoretical justification for the existence of team-level work
values is provided by Schneider’s (1987) attraction-selection-attrition model, and the group
socialization literature. The present study puts the existence of team values to the fore and
extends the limited literature on team-level work values by examining their cross-level impact on
work engagement. Second, we rely on SDT to conceptualize shared work values and to explain
the cross level relationship between these values and individual-level work engagement. SDT is
a well-supported theory that has been successfully applied to a wealth of motivational settings,
including the workplace. To our knowledge, SDT has not yet been tested at the team level. To
fill this void therefore, this study is among the first to examine the usefulness of SDT in defining
values at the team level, and to explain how this team level input influences individual-level
output. Third, we examine the team-level predictors of an outcome that has gained momentum in
work and organizational psychology: work engagement. Previous studies focused predominantly
on the individual-level predictors of work engagement, mostly job resources (e.g., autonomy),
and personal resources. In doing so, prior research has largely ignored the possibility that
work engagement may also be influenced by environment, leading to a call for more research
on contextual predictors. In response, we focus on the associations of social context, and, in
particular, shared team values, on the work engagement of each team member.
  Organizational Structure and Culture:
Organizational structure and organizational culture belong among the concepts with the highest
explanatory and predictive power in understanding the causes and forms of people’s behaviors in
organizations. Consequently, these two concepts are often used in research as independent
variables in explanations of numerous phenomena found in companies and other types of
organizations. To influences of organizational structure and culture on other components of
management are usually researched separately and independently from one another. However,
there are examples of research that analyzes the influence on management of both culture and
structure in their mutual interaction. Unfortunately, although it is intuitively clear that
organizational culture and organizational structure must greatly impact one another, there has
been very little extensive research exploring their direct mutual impact. Exploring the
relationship between organizational structure and culture would be highly beneficial, since both
of them determine the behavior of organization members. However they do it in different ways.
Organizational culture is an intrinsic factor of organizational behavior, inasmuch as it directs the
way people behave in an organization by operating from within and by determining assumptions,
values, norms, and attitudes according to which organization members guide themselves in
everyday actions in the organization. On the other hand, organizational structure is an extrinsic
factor which influences people’s behavior from the outside, through formal limitations set by
division of labor, authority distribution, grouping of units, and coordination. Therefore one’s
behavior in an organization is the result of the impact of its culture and structure, as well as the
influence of other factors. Therefore studying the mutual impact of organizational culture and
structure is important for a comprehensive understanding of the behavior of an organization’s
members. Organizational culture can be defined as “a system of assumptions, values, norms, and
attitudes, manifested through symbols which the members of an organization have developed
and adopted through mutual experience and which help them determine the meaning of the world
around them and the way they behave in it”. As this definition implies, organizational culture has
a cognitive and a symbolic component in its content. The cognitive component consists of
mutual assumptions, beliefs, norms, and attitudes that the organization’s members share, and
which also shape their mental (interpretative) schemes. Organizational culture therefore
determines the way the organization members perceive and interpret the surrounding world, as
well as the way they behave in it. The cognitive content of organizational culture ensures a
unique manner of assigning meaning and a unique reaction to phenomena within and around the
organization. Hence, if a strong culture exists in an organization, all the members of the
organization will make decisions, take actions, or enter interactions in a similar and foreseeable
fashion. Symbols are a visible part of organizational culture, and they manifest its cognitive
component. Semantic, behavioral, and material symbols strengthen, transmit, and also modify
organizational culture. The significance of organizational culture emerges from the fact that, by
imposing a set of assumptions and values, it creates a frame of reference for the perceptions,
interpretations, and actions of the organization’s members (Schein, 2004). In this way it
influences all the processes that take place in an organization, and even its performance. Trough
managers’ and employees’ mental maps, organizational culture influences the dominant
leadership style, organizational learning and knowledge management, company strategy, and
also the preferred style of changing the management, employee reward system, commitment,
and other aspects of connections between individuals and the organization. It would, therefore,
be rational to assume, as this paper initially postulates, that organizational culture impacts on a
company’s organizational structure. With its assumptions, values, and norms, the culture
influences top management’s frame of reference that shapes organizational structure.
Organizational structure is, therefore, a sort of cultural symbol and it mirrors key assumptions
and values dominant in an organization. Organizational structure is defined as a relatively stable,
either planned or spontaneous, pattern of actions and interactions that organization members
undertake for the purpose of achieving the organization’s goals. This understanding of
organizational structure is based on a fundamental assumption of it being purposeful, i.e., on the
idea that organizational structure has its purpose. Purposefulness of structure implies that it is a
rational instrument in the hands of those governing the organization, used for directing the
course of activities in the organization towards realizing its objectives. Rationality of the
organizational structure is ensured by its differentiation and integration of organization members’
individual and collective activities. The differentiation process involves differentiation of
operational and managerial activities. Differentiation of operational activities is realized through
division of labor, or in other words, job design, and it results in the organization’s specialization
level. Differentiation of managerial activities determines who decides on what, and results in a
certain level of centralization or decentralization of authority within the organization. Integration
is realized in unit grouping and coordination. Unit grouping, or departmentalization, implies
structuring of activities and tasks into organizational units, and it can be based on input
(functional), output (market or project), or a combination of the two (matrix). Individual and
group activities and tasks in an organization are harmonized by coordination, in order for it to
function as a unified whole. Coordination can be achieved through five basic mechanisms: direct
supervision, mutual communication, process standardization, output standardization, and
knowledge standardization. Differentiation and integration in organizational structuring therefore
imply four essential dimensions of organizational structure: job design, delegation of authority,
unit grouping, and coordination. These dimensions of organizational structure are congruent,
which means that there is harmony or concordance between them. Presumption of congruency is
fundamental for the concept of organizational structuring. It assumes that congruency or
harmony as dimensions of the organizational structure leads to better performance of the
organization. In order for an organization to be successful it has to provide mutual congruency of
the dimensions of its own organizational structures. This, then, leads to the formation of
configurations of congruent structural dimensions, which is just a different name for models of
organizational structure. An organizational model is actually a unique configuration of congruent
structural dimensions: a certain level of specialization and (de)centralization levels, a
certain unit grouping mode, and a certain coordination mechanism. The most prominent
classification of models of organizational structure as configurations of structural dimensions has
been provided by Mintzberg and it will be used in this paper.
Organizational structure models, as a particular configuration of structural dimensions, direct and
shape the manner in which organization members perform their tasks in the course of achieving
the organization’s goals. In different organizational models the organization members make
decisions, take actions, and interact within the organization’s functioning in entirely different
ways. Thus it can be assumed that the model of the organizational structure influences
organizational culture. It is quite possible that the compatibility of the behavior determined by
the structural framework in an organization, on the one hand, and the behavior determined by
cultural assumptions and values, on the other hand, has an impact on strength, i.e., in
strengthening or weakening of organizational culture.

References:
1. Hill, F. (1977). Hill Interaction Matrix (HIM): The conceptual framework, derived rating
scales, and an updated bibliography. Small Group Behavior, 8(3), 251–268.
2. Jones, L.V. (2000). Enhancing psychosocial competence among black women through an
innovative psycho-educational group intervention. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Bell & Howell.
3. MOTIVATION IN THE WORKPLACE TO IMPROVE THE EMPLOYEE
PERFORMANCE November 2014, Volume 2 Issue 6, ISSN 2349-4476
4. http://www.centerforworklife.com/cfwl-content/uploads/2013/02/Motivation-
inworkplace.pdf
5. http://www.practical-management-skills.com/motivation-theories.html
6. http://www.trainingsolutions.com/pdf/motivating.pdf
7. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice Bert Schreurs, IJ. Hetty van Emmerik,
Anja Van den Broeck, and Hannes Guenter
Online First Publication, August 11, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000009
8. Bakker, A. B. (2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 265–269. doi:10.1177/ 0963721411414534
9. Alvesson, M. and Borg O. (1992). Corporate Culture and Organizational Symbolism: An
Overview. Berlin: gruyter.
10. Cameron, K.S. and Quinn, r.E. (2011). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational
Culture: Te Competing Vales Framework. reading, Ma: Addison-Wesley.
11. Deal t. and Kennedy A. (2011). Corporate Cultures: Te Rites and Rituals of Corporate
Life. NewYork, NY: Perseus Books Publishing.
12. Handy, C. (1979). Gods of Management. London, UK: Pan.