It is seen in many instances that decisions have made great organizations, in fact there is the notion that Management is defined as the art of decision making. Decisions are of three types, the immediate, the delayed, and not taken. Again, we can categorize this into many attributes like monetary decisions, non- monetary decisions etc. One of the best forms of decision making is a calculated, logical and evaluated one. But organizations must decide on a few issues immediately and this could be advantageous provided there has been a history of similar situation in the past. A quality decision is the one that is considered as that which leads to good outcome. As corporates and leaders take more rational decisions which helps the organization’s growth and such experience always is useful in future.
In today’s border-less business environment, companies are operating in different locations across the globe to ensure that they can gain competitive advantage over their competitors at different countries. To ensure common strategic mission, vision and objectives of the company across the globe, managers from different countries of origin are sent to different countries to equip them with a global mindset in managing the company. The problem is that they have different ways of communication as compared to local managers. These might affect the level of job satisfaction of employees. No statistic captures the influence of a manager on the day-to-day experience of an employee than that uncovered by Gallup research that managers account for 70% of variance in employee engagement scores. In assessing this analysis, the Harvard Business Review cites two additional behaviors which impact both employee engagement and performance levels within the business.
The first of these is, unsurprisingly, communication.
Gallup studies have report a strong link between consistent managerial communication with higher engagement levels, with those combining face-to-face, phone and communication tools seeing the best results. However, evidence shows 69% of managers’ report feeling uncomfortable communicating with employees in general.
Investment into soft skills training, combined with effective internal communication tools such as social networks or intranet platforms, can support managers in overcoming barriers to communication. Organizations understand that effective communication at all levels of the organization improve organizational success and employee relations. Communication has been studied regarding performance and job satisfaction, but the relationship with employee attitude and happiness has not been done in a higher education setting. The decision to be happy and have a positive attitude has been the subject of hundreds of books, articles, speeches, studies, and workshops. The value of communication in an employee’s choice to be happy is explained as it affects the individual, team, and overall organizational culture.
The public-sector companies in India were created with the intent of maximizing control of the nation’s resources through government control and policies. It also helped assure a minimum growth rate for the company providing meaningful, dependable and long-term employment for its citizens. While most of these aspects were achieved the competition amongst these companies and those in the private sector of similar industry category proved the efficiencies and productivity in private companies were much higher. The reasons were attributed towards a higher pay scale in the private sector and coupled with ‘hire and fire policy” which made the success story in private sector faster to achieve. The decision-making abilities in the private sector helped it in forging ahead with new technology, production processes, new frameworks for Human resources etc. At best the key word for success in the private sector was Innovation or adopting changes quickly. The public sector lacked this ability of speed more due to the decision-making process which was tardy or avoided or delayed. This made many public sectors in India to become white elephants and docile behemoth draining huge funds from the government. Of late the government in its quest for efficiency in the public sector has disinvested them or privatized many and for some given them special status. The onus of survival and keeping these companies ahead is put on the top management and they see innovation as a key ingredient to be factor for growth.
Nowadays, there is no need to say that organizational effectiveness is important. In today’s competitive world, consultants and academics propose new bases to enhance the effectiveness and performance of organizations. In this paper, we have used two new approaches which have found significant emphasis from the part of researchers: organizational capabilities and managerial competencies. This paper aims to evaluate the effects of managerial competencies and organizational capabilities on the organizational effectiveness. This study develops an integrated model to be tested. If you ask them which companies they admire, people quickly point to organizations like Reliance, Godrej, Patanjali, TATA, BIRLA, Google or Microsoft. Ask how many layers of management these companies have, though, or how they set strategy, and you’ll discover that few know or care. What people respect about the companies is not how they are structured or their specific approaches to management, but their capabilities—an ability to innovate, for example, or to respond to changing customer needs. Such organizational capabilities, as we call them, are key intangible assets. You can’t see or touch them, yet they can make all the difference in the world when it comes to market value.
These capabilities—the collective skills, abilities, and expertise of an organization—are the outcome of investments in staffing, training, compensation, communication, and other human resources areas. They represent the ways that people and resources are brought together to accomplish work. They form the identity and personality of the organization by defining what it is good at doing and, in the end, what it is. They are stable over time and more difficult for competitors to copy than capital market access, product strategy, or technology. They aren’t easy to measure, so managers often pay far less attention to them than to tangible investments like plants and equipment, but these capabilities give investors’ confidence in future earnings.
