Personal experience when under employment the first time was a bit normal went as expected when considering the trends in the country at the time for the new employees in the country at the time. I was in university and was doing quite a marketable course at the time. I was lucky because the employment level in the state was quite low and they depended on a more mature work force. As a result, my colleagues were a bit more mature as most of them had finished their various courses in the university. This left me in an awkward position because I was the youngest and the most inexperienced.
When it came to qualifications for a position that was worse because I hardly had any experience in a similar position, I had to pick up a useful skill by observing the rest. I also had to be quite quick at learning very fast. I was lucky because my supervisor was quite approachable and understood the situation well. In this way, he understood and patient with me often instructing me on what to do when he felt the need arose. Their supervisory styles were classical were they exerted a lot of control on their teams. They reported to a coordinator.
The objective in this setting was to exert as much respect from the employees as possible. It deferred from transformational styles in that they did not encourage an inspirational style of doing things. The amount of supervisor staff was also quite small and so they had to divide their attention among a large number of employees where one supervisor minded a large group of people. At times, internal surveys were conducted to collect data on the internal situation, and they responded as having a reaction as they felt more respect in that position much like the response of a few supervisors taken in a survey, in Germany (Frege, 1999).
They did not have a lot of time on one employee, as a result, and tended to give a whole lot of instructions in a one sitting so that they could move on to the next depending on the situation. They were quite overworked if you asked me. This tended to make them unpleasant and irritable at times because they seemed to be on edge most of the time beating deadlines. They also could not trust each other because the line of work needed one to have a code of ethics whereby distorting information on research was very serious. Therefore, they tended to have us cross check everything with them before handing it over to their bosses.
Schools of management used
In this way, they helped us get better because they corrected our mistakes. When it came to managerial type of management, they did not adhere to one specific school. It is not as if they did not give enough thought to the issue, but in the situation, it was more profitable to employ different schools of management depending on what suited the situation, at the time. Thus, one could see this as winging it at the time. They sometimes went the humanistic way emphasizing on supervisory-employee relationships. Here, all corner, that is the parties involved are taken into consideration (Williams, 1983).
When the situation was appropriate, they reverted to the scientific approach and emphasized a more result driven style. The reason for this duality in styles is the type of work. The firm dealt with market research, and our sector dealt with the field. In the field, every supervisor knows that situations tend to be fluid and no one knows what can happen.
Anything can come up, and the supervisor or person in charge of the team needs to act accordingly to suit the situation while compensating potential loss. This is because a coordinator above their position will only care for results from them. This is why they might seem to wing it some of the time because as much as they need the results, they also know they need the team support to get through the situation because they do a lot and, so need to have their trust. In this way, they may have consciously had all of this in mind.
The management styles and all but they evaluated the situation and found that they have execute things a different way or else they may face quite an unbearable work environment for everyone. The work environment is subject to many fluctuating factors, not just in my employee environment. Even the office environment in our country needs some managers or supervisors to act by winging it’ in order to make a profit. In some cases, these actions could be illegal. The country gets by with a lot of corruption and so one may find it commonplace in their organization.
This means that as one has their morals in place they should not forget how the rest of the society around them functions. An interesting example was when a coordinator needed certain statistics from a certain area in the country regarding key research from a leading bank in the country. The interviewer who conducted the research made certain mistakes in their questionnaire and these needed to rectify. In some cases, there were questionnaires that went untouched. Submitting this research in this position to the client was unacceptable by far and so the coordinator had to employ drastic options to help the situation, as time was not on our side, as well.
This meant he had to call me in because I was near at the time and I had to edit the questionnaires to appear believable. Everything else about the organization was quite formal. The system although was capitalist, and so the executives knew their place and as did the rest. The salary was quite lower than they were and barely enough to survive on if one were depending on it solely. In short, it was hierarchal in nature where the executive was at the top followed by the supervisors and finally us, the interviewers.
Conflict and hierarchy
Hierarchal power schemes usually allow the bosses or executives I this case, to become bullies. The co-workers also tend to become aggressive mobs because each is searching for their own career advancement (Lune, 2010). When it comes to conflict, the company did not pay attention to the various signs generated along the way. They paid the price for this negligence like a couple of companies that brown represented in his writings in 1983 considering interdepartmental issues between production and management. These issues were similar in the organization (Dreu and Vliert, 1997).
This resulted in a stir whereby the company sustained losses due to time spent bickering among themselves on power plays. However, this was in the executive sector and so did not matter to the grunts at the bottom because it was not our time being wasted. The hierarchy after all was top-down and adhered to all the typical principles of bureaucratic protocols. My reaction to the structure was not in their favor because it seemed unjust. If the organization paid more attention to their employees including the supervisors, it would go a long way. This includes revising and up grading of salaries that are not those of executives.