alexa Effects of Reengineering, Nepotism and Mobbing on the Employee Performance | Open Access Journals
ISSN: 2315-7844
Review of Public Administration and Management
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700+ peer reviewed, Open Access Journals that operates with the help of 50,000+ Editorial Board Members and esteemed reviewers and 1000+ Scientific associations in Medical, Clinical, Pharmaceutical, Engineering, Technology and Management Fields.
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Conferenceseries Events with over 600+ Conferences, 1200+ Symposiums and 1200+ Workshops on
Medical, Pharma, Engineering, Science, Technology and Business

Effects of Reengineering, Nepotism and Mobbing on the Employee Performance

Mehmet Sahin Gok1* and Merve Ekmekci2
1Gebze Technical University, Kocaeli, Turkey
2Beykent University, Department of Administrative Science, Istanbul, Turkey
Corresponding Author : Gok MS
Assistant Professor, Gebze Technical University
Faculty of Business Administration Cayirova Fabrikalar Yolu
No: 10141400, Gebze, Kocaeli, Turkey
Tel: +90 262 605 1438
Fax: +90 262 653 8490
E-mail: [email protected]
Received June 25, 2015; Accepted October 26, 2015; Published October 28, 2015
Citation:Gok MS, Ekmekci M (2015) Effects of Reengineering, Nepotism and Mobbing on the Employee Performance. Review Pub Administration Manag 3:170. doi:10.4172/2315-7844.1000170
Copyright: ©2015 Gok MS, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Related article at Pubmed, Scholar Google

Visit for more related articles at Review of Public Administration and Management

Abstract

For the purpose of adapting to the fast-developing dynamic environment and being a part of this development, reengineering has the importance of being a significant argument for companies. On the other hand, nepotism and mobbing which can be seen as in-company negative conflicts have the potential of adversely affecting this development process. In this sense, this study focuses on evaluating the effects of reengineering, nepotism and mobbing on employee performance. Within the scope of this study, 204 valid questionnaires have been received from finance sector and certain analyses have been conducted by use of multiple regression model. With the analysis results, it has been concluded that “company key features” and “structural characteristics of the organization” which are the sub-dimensions of reengineering are directly and positively effective on employee performance. The analysis results not only contribute to the related domain literature, but also present advices to the implementers. This study has great importance as it assesses employee performance in an integrated manner that is in terms of reengineering as a positive factor and in terms of nepotism and mobbing as a negative factor.

Keywords
Employee performance; Reengineering; Mobbing; Nepotism
Introduction
Developed as a solution method for the companies aiming to adapt to the rapidly-changing world and take quick steps, reengineering concept has turned into a remarkable subject in the recent years. In general, reengineering can be explained under different titles such as the development of business processes, redesigning of fundamental processes, transformation of business processes and management of business processes. Hammer and Champy defined the process of reengineering as “the fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in critical, contemporary measures of performance, such as cost, quality, service and speed.”
In this sense, for the companies aiming to adapt to rapidlychanging world and make rapid moves, reengineering serves as a solution and also an argument to reach a higher performance. Besides, it is of great importance that the corporate company structure offers an appropriate environment for development and that the employees adapt to this development [1]. At this point, it may be thought that incompany conflicts such as nepotism and mobbing make the effective management of the development process more difficult. Nepotism and mobbing are problems that may arise not only in family-owned companies, but in almost all the sectors [2]. Furthermore, as it is an assault against the feelings of people, it is quite difficult to conceptualize these problems due to their reasons, grades and results.
On the other hand, companies are the institutions that act with the purpose of realizing their primary targets by changing their dynamic structure since their foundation. In order to reach their targets, they sometimes need major changes. As human beings generally tend to get bored of routine matters, not foreseeing the results of the change cause fear of losing the existing standards. Factors such as psychological abuse and nepotism may adversely affect employee performance and consequently company performance. Our study aims to determine in what extend and in what manner these cases affect employee performance. In other words, the main target of this study is to evaluate the effect of reengineering that is expected to accelerate the advance of companies and enable the development, on employee performance in terms of nepotism and mobbing.
The study is composed of three parts. In the following part, reengineering, mobbing and nepotism concepts, their grades and effects are discussed in theoretical frame. In the second part, the research method, analyses and outputs are examined. The result and advice part is the final part of this study.
Theoretical Background
Reengineering
Change, a part of life, can be simply explained as leaving the current situation and moving towards a new one. In the 21st century that is called as change era, everything has been changing in a rapid and dynamic way or getting adapted to these changes. Change can be expressed as abstract as a concept, but it is a concrete concept due to the results it produces [3]. Therefore, change aims to increase the efficiency, productivity, motivation and satisfaction level, as well as growing and developing [4].
In this sense, business processes, business methods, used materials, expected outputs, organization culture, organization targets and changes at people themselves are the changes that may be used to raise the productivity [5]. Difference between the requirements of a business and all the inputs including the effort as well that are needed during the execution of business shows the necessity for change [6].
At this point, reengineering with its factors of advancing the business processes, redesigning the main processes, transformation of business processes and management of business processes, is seen as an effective method used both to produce and manage the changes for companies. According to Aksu [7], reengineering has the characteristics of developing the corporate structure and all the information systems with the aim of bringing a grand development in the performance criteria such as corporate cost, employee and customer satisfaction, speed and quality.
On the other hand, in traditional processes there is a strict hierarchy and obligation to take decisions depending on top management. Long span of hierarchy causes retard on decision taking and consequently causes delays on the work itself [8]. Reengineering helps to erase the steps between the executer of the work and decision maker and helps the employees to take decisions independently and manage themselves. That provides more customer and time, brings the possibility of decreasing the fixed costs and also enables the employees to reveal their abilities [9].
In the application, reengineering is a process carried out by the employees and there is a clear need for a leader as it embodies radical transformation [10]. Without leader, it is possible to plan and design all the processes, but it is not possible to apply reengineering without a leader. The most fundamental reason of this situation is that change brings about concern, anxiety and therefore a resistance rises among the employees. The person who can break the resistance and take the support of the employees can be only the leader of reengineering [11]. The imperative and indispensable characteristics of a reengineering leader are passion, mobility and curiosity. These characteristics make him a strong and successful reengineering leader [8]. In order to make the reengineering applications successful, it is needed to reduce the potential resistance against the preparation and design process, determination and support of management, sufficiency of technical equipment and change [12].
According to Ölmez [13], for reengineering application four phrases are needed. First of all, the aim of change must be determined. We should question what we want and why. In this way, we can specify what we expect from change. At the second step, we should make the planning that will take us to our targets. The third phrase is the realization phrase of reengineering. This phrase can be dealt in two parts; the technological methods that will make the application successful and cultural methods that will help to overcome the resistance and shock arising against the change in the organization. At the last phrase a team is formed and this team follows the reengineering process and presents it to the management with a report. Through the report, if it is found out that there is a mistake in the plan, the work is taken back to the second phrase, and the plan is modified or improved. If the targets are wrong, the process is restarted from the first phrase and new targets are determined.
The common approach to the reengineering applications is to focus on processes instead of organizational borders, to create an extraordinary performance and profit, to remove the ancient traditions and rules and to practice the new creative information technologies [14]. There is a certain frame for companies to receive the desired results from the reengineering applications, however there is never a single way for that. Companies must shape their road map by themselves. Each company must have a course that they designate as a measure against their internal situations. In this sense, we do not have a single recipe at reengineering to satisfy the expectations [15].
On the other hand, the reactions of employees against desired changes in the organization such as preventing, not having confidence, suspecting, attempts to extend or obstruct the change process are called as resistance against change. This resistance may be at individual, group or organizational level. Creating an atmosphere of uncertainty, the change brings about fears of economic and social loss among employees. In addition, change requires physical and mental effort; the employee must make an additional effort besides his regular work. So this prepares the resistance base for the employees [16]. This resistance arising against reengineering applications is an expected and normal process which must be overcome by reengineering leader and his team. However, some other problems such as mobbing and nepotism that may exist in corporate company structure may turn this process into a much more difficult case.
Mobbing and nepotism
Mobbing means exercising power and having unethical, immoral, wearing and humiliating acts on a certain person or a group for a long time or constantly by a certain person or a couple of people especially in workplaces. In this sense, mobbing is totally a sentimental assault [17]. Because of being a sentimental process, there is not a certain consensus upon definition of mobbing in literature [18]. But, the common points at mobbing application can be stated as below:
• Although having different motives for exercising mobbing, these acts have adverse effects on victims.
• Mobbing has psychological harm on victim.
• Mobbing continues in a systematical way.
• Victim understands that these mobbing acts are deliberately done to harm him.
It is normal to have conflicts at organizations at every culture and level, and companies may see these conflicts as motivating on condition that they are done at a reasonable level [19]. Because not having any conflict means that the employees do not reveal all their ideas and capabilities, which decrease the development capacity of companies. Additionally, this may affect adversely reengineering application which has the main target of benefiting from the richness of various perspectives. At this point what is important is neither to disregard the conflict nor to clear it away, what is important is to benefit from the profits of conflict and follow it closely not to have adverse results [20].
Similarly, nepotism is an act of awarding some people with a position or offer just because they have close relationships with you. Nepotism application strengthens the relations with the people favored, but weakens the relations with the other people in the team [21]. Although it is said that nepotism happens as an instinctive behavior, in social sciences it is believed that it is not an instinctive but a deliberate behavior [22].
According to Bute [23], it is a common phenomenon in familyowned companies. At family-owned companies, the priorities of company fall behind the priorities of family relationships. Relatives are employed without taking into consideration their abilities, potential contributions to company or their values. Also some important management positions are granted to these relatives regardless of their qualities [24].
Adverse sides of nepotism are stated as below [23]:
• The job definitions, responsibility areas and authorities of both family members and employees out of family are not clear.
• The qualities of family members working in the company are disregarded.
• The relationship level to the family is important in terms of participating at management and receiving a promotion.
• In case of a failure, the family members do not see any fault at themselves but look for a scapegoat among the other employees out of family.
• In certain cases, family and business relations cannot be distinguished.
• In companies where nepotism exists, authority is owned by a certain group of family. All the decisions are taken by the same authority. These people do not want to lose their reputation as a result of human nature and this may slow down the development of company.
• Employee feels uncomfortable about being a subordinate to an unqualified but favored manager, the inequality between his contribution and received result makes him realize that he works in an unfair workplace. His confidence and motivation are adversely affected by this situation.
• It is seen that nepotism causes intense work stress among the employees and this work stress brings about work dissatisfaction.
• Nepotism does not allow the human resources department to work objectively, which prevent the company from giving chance to its own potential qualified managers.
• Although the favored employee has achievements with his own qualifications, the perception that these achievements are only thanks to his close relations with the family cause an unfair pressure upon the person.
On the other hand, reengineering has the main target of rising the corporate efficiency and performance. Besides that, it encounters with resistance of people working against change. In order to overcome this resistance, it is important that the employees firstly believe in the process and participate in change devotedly or adapt to the change. However, when there are other problems such as mobbing and nepotism besides this resistance, the uncertainties about the management of the process and reaching to success increase and there may be problems at achieving the desired results from reengineering. In parallel to this theoretical frame, within this study the effects of reengineering applications, mobbing and nepotism on employee performance are analyzed.
Analysis and Results
The data used to conduct the analyses have been collected from firms in finance sector by way of questionnaire, and in this manner 204 valid questionnaires have been included into the study. The questionnaire form that is used in the research is composed of four parts. The first part of the questionnaire contains criteria about reengineering, the second part about nepotism, and third part about mobbing and fourth part about employee performance. In the context of this research, the studies done in the literature of reengineering, nepotism and mobbing have been evaluated extensively and the highly valid and reliable criteria that are thought to give the best results have been included into the study. The questions for Reengineering Part have been taken from the book “Reengineering” of Hammer and Champy and the questions for Mobbing Part are from the thesis study of Selman Tayyar entitled as “A Research on Physiological Intimidating in Enterprises and Their Effects”. The questions of Nepotism Part are from an article of Mustafa Bute titled as “Relations between the Effects of Nepotism on Employees and Human Resources Applications: An Research towards the Turkish Public Banks, and the questions for the Employee Performance are from the thesis study of Esin Gurkanlar headed as “The Effects of Flexible Working Hours on Female Employees’ Social Roles and on Employee Performance”.
In the frame of this study, as proposed by Hammer and Champy in their book entitled “Reengineering the Corporation”, reengineering is handled under three sub-dimensions which are (i) structural characteristics of the organization, (ii) reorganization orientation and (iii) key features of the company. The hypotheses and the research model of the study are given below.
H1: The reengineering applications have direct and positive effect on employee performance.
H2: Nepotism affects employee performance in a direct and negative way.
H3: Mobbing affect employee performance in a direct and negative way.
Among the participants to the questionnaire of the research, 93 participants (46%) work in international companies, 76 participants (37%) work in national companies, 35 participants (17%) work in regional companies. The fact that 46% of the participants are from international firms shows that the participants work in innovator firms that follow up the trend by giving importance to adapt to the market conditions. In terms of title/status, 11 participants to the research (5%) are senior managers, 42 participants (21%) are mid-level managers, 93 participants (46%) are specialist and 58 participants (28%) are personnel. Therefore, 76% of the participants to the questionnaire are at personnel and specialist status. And this rate shows that, in the research by which we aim to determine the effects on employee performance, we will be able to evaluate mostly the employee, rather than management side (Figure 1).
Taking into account the age range of the participants to the questionnaire, it is seen that 35 (17%) people are at the age range of 18-25, 121 people (59%) are at the age range of 26-35, 38 people (19%) are at the age range of 36-45, 7 people (3%) are at the age range of 46-55 and 3 people (1%) are at the age range over 56. A major part of the participants to the questionnaire are at the age range of 26-35, which shows that the sample group is a dynamic age group. It has been anticipated that the employees who are at this age range are at early period of their career and therefore are more inclined to endure many troubles and cold organizational climate. Additionally, an almost equal gender distribution has been acquired in this data set.
In the frame of the analyses, primarily credibility and validity evaluations have been conducted. Additionally, a general credibility analysis, which includes all the criteria variables, has been carried out. In this analysis result including 58 variables in total, 0.937 Cronbach Alpha coefficients has been reached. Besides, each sub-factor has been subjected to credibility analysis separately and the acquired values are presented in Table 1.
In addition to that, the Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin Method and the structural validity of the criteria have been controlled, as well. In accordance with the factor analysis results, reengineering has been divided into three sub-factors, as expected (Structural characteristics of the organization, reorganization orientation and key features of the company). But mobbing criteria has been handled as a sole main factor in the research. The questions on nepotism have been divided into two variables. While it has been tried to determine the situation about the current company in the first factor, in the second factor the general perception about the nepotism phenomenon has been questioned.
Taking into consideration the correlation analysis results presented at the Table 2, it is seen that the factor of structural characteristics of the organization has a mid-level bilateral relation (0.513) with employee performance. In other words, to give the opportunity of self-development to the employees within structural characteristics of the enterprise has a positive effect on employee performance. It has been found out that there is a sensible relation between reorganization orientation which is the second factor and employee performance. As another independent variable, key features of the company are in a bilateral and strong relation with employee performance (0.607).
In the analysis results, a minor interaction has been detected between nepotism and employee performance. Besides that, the nepotism emphasis factor composed of three questions has indicated a negative-oriented tendency, as expected. Because of tiny correlation value, it may be wrong to make a comment directly. Nevertheless, the point of view of employees for nepotism emphasis has a negative attitude. As one of the most major problems today, mobbing could not be associated with employee performance in this research. This may have two reasons. Employees filling the questionnaire may not have understood the questions correctly. However, the first possibility has been eliminated because of high values of credibility and validity tests. The second and the most probable possibility is no existence of mobbing in the enterprises where the questionnaire forms have been filled.
In summary, in the frame of the correlation analysis in which bilateral interaction between six different independent variables and employee performance have been examined, it has been found out that statistically three factors have positive effect on employee performance. Among these variables, structural characteristics of the organization and key features of the company have a mid-level effect, while reorganization orientation has a low-level effect on employee performance. Both factors of nepotism and mobbing do not have a bilateral interaction with employee performance.
In the next phase of the analyses, a multiple regression model has been constructed to examine the effects of reengineering, nepotism and mobbing on employee performance. The results of the regression analysis are presented at Table 3.
Considering the regression analysis results, it has been seen that at 1% level of meaning only two reengineering sub-factors have direct and positive-oriented effect on employee performance. First are structural characteristics of the organization and the second is key features of the company. Reorganization orientation, the third sub-factor of reengineering, has turned out to be meaningless along with nepotism and mobbing factors. Not having any effect in the correlation analysis shows that structural characteristics of the organization and key features of the company which are the first sub-factors of reengineering have a substantial effect on employee performance by overshadowing the other elements.
The determination coefficient that is the percentage of the model explaining the dependent variable has been calculated as 0.430 (43%). In other words, the variables of structural characteristics of the organization and key features of the company explain 43% of the changes at employee performance. Another important point in the regression model is the fact that the mobbing factor has shown a negative-oriented tendency despite the low level of β and t values. This reason of this result may be negative view of the questionnaire participants towards the mobbing concept and their thought about possible adverse effect of mobbing on employee performance. This fact may imply that employees hesitate to express their real opinions.
Conclusion and Suggestions
The target of this study is to analyze the effects of reengineering, nepotism and mobbing on employee performance. Especially in the current century, in the dynamic market of companies where modern management techniques are prominent and companies apply innovative initiatives to raise firm and employee performance, acquiring competition advantage has gained great importance. For the purpose of having a more efficient and productive management of organizations, a new need has arisen for reorganization necessity, which is called as also reengineering [25]. Besides that, it has been seen that in this change process it is now more important to detect nepotism and mobbing implementations that may adversely affect the employees’ morale and remove them from the system by managers.
In this study, only two hypotheses have turned out to be meaningful. As much as the number of relations that we expect to be meaningful, we have had some outputs from the hypotheses, which showed no relation or meaning. For example, in this study we could not see any effect of nepotism on employee performance. As an explanation to that, it may be thought employees see nepotism as quite normal criteria at recruitment and promotion. In other words, employees are accepting nepotism without difficulty. Considering that some people are recruited by this way in organizations, nobody can deny the nepotism fact. In this sense, it seems possible that nepotism, an inseparable part of family-owned companies, will maintain its existence in far future, as well.
According to the questionnaire, it is really hard to evaluate mobbing which is the other independent variable that has turned out as meaningless. In other words, mobbing and nepotism might not have significant effects on employee performance, considering the results of this study. Similarly one can argue that there not any significant relationship between these factors. However statistical relationship, which we could not find between mobbing, nepotism and employee performance, might only represent the limited research sample. Thus, these relationships might also be investigated by considering other social-humanitarian factors [26].
Nonetheless, some factors such as anxiety to fill questionnaire, threat of getting fired or work stress may prevent employees from giving the real information. For that reason, it would be more reasonable to use the techniques of fields such as sociology and physiology in order to evaluate mobbing. For instance, the method of live observation or cyber laboratory application may be used. Another effective observation method is to insert a bi-directional agent among employees, which is expected to be a quite effective way for mobbing evaluations.
In the world where human beings change their working manners and daily routines, change at corporate culture is inevitable. The companies, which does not accept or refuse adapting to this change, reduce the motivation and performance of their employees. As seen from the analysis results, transforming the corporate culture from conservative to a productive quality positively affects employee performance and helps the institution to adapt to the change.
Under the light of the outputs of the research, some advices for managers especially in reengineering process are as follows:
- If managers of institutions persuade all employees to move as customer-oriented and take risks when required as a corporate culture, they can achieve a huge increase at employee performance. As suggested by the analysis results, to tolerate the mistakes of employees may positively affect performance.
- For employees, working as customer-oriented instead of manager-oriented and having a self-development opportunity in this way are directly effective on their own performance. At the same time, if employees do not see their managers just as the person who orders, but as a leading person, they can have more performance at keeping the quality level of their job.
- To determine, enlarge and make multidimensional the job definitions of employees beforehand are very important criteria in terms of employee empowerment. In this way, employees can increase their professional abilities and their performance at adapting to new duties.
- If the organizational values are transformed from traditional structure to a more productive one, it is thought that employees can accept more responsibilities and increase their performance.
References


























 

Tables and Figures at a glance

Table icon Table icon Table icon
Table 1 Table 2 Table 3

 

Figures at a glance

Figure
Figure 1
Select your language of interest to view the total content in your interested language
Post your comment

Share This Article

Relevant Topics

Article Usage

  • Total views: 8233
  • [From(publication date):
    October-2015 - Aug 16, 2017]
  • Breakdown by view type
  • HTML page views : 8041
  • PDF downloads :192
 

Post your comment

captcha   Reload  Can't read the image? click here to refresh

Peer Reviewed Journals
 
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2017-18
 
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

 
© 2008-2017 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version
adwords