HRM Case Study

Name:
Instructor’s Name:
Course:
Date:
HRM Case Study
Was this a Smart decision on Bernie’s part? 
No, that was not a smart decision. He should have tried to reach out to Gloria.
Would you have gone about it differently? Support your point of view.
Yes, I could have gone about it differently. I would have approached her and tried to build a sustainable relationship with her. As much as concentrating on horizontal relationships seems potent at the time, vertical relationships are equally important. Effective vertical relationships often help avoid instances of communication by-pass as well as enable decentralizations, among other positive communication dividends. I could just not follow suit and join other employees in distancing myself from the supervisor. Trying would not hurt at all.
Expand your understanding: research the topic of building work (career) relationships. Contrast similarities and differences between the importance of building relationships vertically versus horizontally. 
Vertical relationships are hierarchical and exhibit strong management characteristics. All the employees are conscious of the chain of command with employees reporting to the CEO ADDIN CSL_CITATION { “citationItems” : [ { “id” : “ITEM-1”, “itemData” : { “DOI” : “10.1016/j.indmarman.2006.06.016”, “ISBN” : “0019-8501”, “ISSN” : “00198501”, “PMID” : “21864213”, “abstract” : “In this paper we argue that the organizational form of a buying firm’s vertical relationship with a supplier can be defined as a configuration of four distinct, but related dimensions of integration.

These dimensions pertain to ownership integration (the extent that the firm owns the upstream component supplier), coordination integration (the intensity of information exchange to align the two stages of production), task integration (the extent that the buying firm performs upstream tasks), and knowledge integration (the extent that the buying firm possesses knowledge about the upstream component). Ranging from fully integrated to fully disintegrated, these dimensions can be combined to form various organizational configurations that better reflect the true nature of organizational forms than one-dimensional conceptualizations. Drawing on distinct fields of research (e.g. transaction costs economics, information-processing theory, and learning) the goal of this paper is to improve our understanding of the four dimensions of integration and their interrelationships. This is an important step for future processes of configurational theory building and normative testing. u00a9 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.”, “author” : [ { “dropping-particle” : “”, “family” : “Jaspers”, “given” : “Ferdinand”, “non-dropping-particle” : “”, “parse-names” : false, “suffix” : “” }, { “dropping-particle” : “”, “family” : “Ende”, “given” : “Jan”, “non-dropping-particle” : “van den”, “parse-names” : false, “suffix” : “” } ], “container-title” : “Industrial Marketing Management”, “id” : “ITEM-1”, “issue” : “7”, “issued” : { “date-parts” : [ [ “2006” ] ] }, “page” : “819-828”, “title” : “The organizational form of vertical relationships: Dimensions of integration”, “type” : “article-journal”, “volume” : “35” }, “uris” : [ “http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=e98176c2-c52e-4981-b1ef-bffc56eef485” ] } ], “mendeley” : { “formattedCitation” : “(Jaspers and van den Ende)”, “plainTextFormattedCitation” : “(Jaspers and van den Ende)”, “previouslyFormattedCitation” : “(Jaspers and van den Ende)” }, “properties” : { }, “schema” : “https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json” }(Jaspers and van den Ende 823). Vertical relationships exhibit centralized management style that allows the CEO to delegate job roles to lower-level managers, who consequently help manage employees. On the other hand, horizontal organizational relationships are less hierarchical (more decentralized) with fewer boundaries between the CEO and subordinate employees ADDIN CSL_CITATION { “citationItems” : [ { “id” : “ITEM-1”, “itemData” : { “DOI” : “10.1016/S0191-3085(01)23004-4”, “ISBN” : “9780762308422”, “ISSN” : “01913085”, “PMID” : “6695628”, “abstract” : “We view physical symbols as a rich, potent, non-verbal language that is uniquely suited for enacting relationship issues within organizations. Like verbal language, physical symbols have accepted elements and structure (e.g. grammar), and both influence and are influenced by social construction processes. We apply this u2018physical symbols as languageu2019 perspective to modem organizations, and argue that recent trends, such as increasing diversity and empowerment, result in changes in relationships between individuals and organizations. We further argue that these relationship changes alter both the type (e.g. more portable and instrumental), and use of physical symbols in the workplace. Specifically, we suggest that the accessibility and JEexibility of a physical symbol language offers individuals and organizations a powerful medium with which to represent and negotiate new and complex identity and status relationships. Viewing physical symbols as a language provides students of organizations a vehicle for examining these changing relationships, and ofleers a framework for how symbol language miscommunications can be identified and overcome. *”, “author” : [ { “dropping-particle” : “”, “family” : “Pratt”, “given” : “Michael G”, “non-dropping-particle” : “”, “parse-names” : false, “suffix” : “” }, { “dropping-particle” : “”, “family” : “Rafaeli”, “given” : “Anat”, “non-dropping-particle” : “”, “parse-names” : false, “suffix” : “” } ], “container-title” : “Research in Organizational Behavior”, “id” : “ITEM-1”, “issued” : { “date-parts” : [ [ “2001” ] ] }, “page” : “93-132”, “title” : “Organizational Relationships *”, “type” : “article-journal”, “volume” : “23” }, “uris” : [ “http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=c8171175-0d96-4cc6-8dc8-2f1a6b824ddf” ] } ], “mendeley” : { “formattedCitation” : “(Pratt and Rafaeli)”, “plainTextFormattedCitation” : “(Pratt and Rafaeli)”, “previouslyFormattedCitation” : “(Pratt and Rafaeli)” }, “properties” : { }, “schema” : “https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json” }(Pratt and Rafaeli 100). This structure lacks a middle management, and the high-level management often interacts directly with staff and clientele.
Vertical relationships in organizations inculcate uniform standards that allow the high-level management to design tasks to the staff ADDIN CSL_CITATION { “citationItems” : [ { “id” : “ITEM-1”, “itemData” : { “DOI” : “10.1016/j.indmarman.2006.06.016”, “ISBN” : “0019-8501”, “ISSN” : “00198501”, “PMID” : “21864213”, “abstract” : “In this paper we argue that the organizational form of a buying firm’s vertical relationship with a supplier can be defined as a configuration of four distinct, but related dimensions of integration. These dimensions pertain to ownership integration (the extent that the firm owns the upstream component supplier), coordination integration (the intensity of information exchange to align the two stages of production), task integration (the extent that the buying firm performs upstream tasks), and knowledge integration (the extent that the buying firm possesses knowledge about the upstream component). Ranging from fully integrated to fully disintegrated, these dimensions can be combined to form various organizational configurations that better reflect the true nature of organizational forms than one-dimensional conceptualizations. Drawing on distinct fields of research (e.g. transaction costs economics, information-processing theory, and learning) the goal of this paper is to improve our understanding of the four dimensions of integration and their interrelationships. This is an important step for future processes of configurational theory building and normative testing. u00a9 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.”, “author” : [ { “dropping-particle” : “”, “family” : “Jaspers”, “given” : “Ferdinand”, “non-dropping-particle” : “”, “parse-names” : false, “suffix” : “” }, { “dropping-particle” : “”, “family” : “Ende”, “given” : “Jan”, “non-dropping-particle” : “van den”, “parse-names” : false, “suffix” : “” } ], “container-title” : “Industrial Marketing Management”, “id” : “ITEM-1”, “issue” : “7”, “issued” : { “date-parts” : [ [ “2006” ] ] }, “page” : “819-828”, “title” : “The organizational form of vertical relationships: Dimensions of integration”, “type” : “article-journal”, “volume” : “35” }, “uris” : [ “http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=e98176c2-c52e-4981-b1ef-bffc56eef485” ] } ], “mendeley” : { “formattedCitation” : “(Jaspers and van den Ende)”, “plainTextFormattedCitation” : “(Jaspers and van den Ende)”, “previouslyFormattedCitation” : “(Jaspers and van den Ende)” }, “properties” : { }, “schema” : “https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json” }(Jaspers and van den Ende 825). In many cases, managers or CEOs have a rather easier time maintaining vertical relationships. This is because the employees in a vertical organization possess well-defined roles that are enhanced by hierarchical communication channels. Vertical relationships also enhance job efficiency, encourage collaboration and often provide avenues for employee professional development within the organization. On the other hand, horizontal relationships within an organization tend to enhance employee morale because employees hold some bit of decision-making authority. In addition to that, horizontal relationships increase worker satisfaction because they have a stronger sense of belonging to the company. It often enhances virtues of teamwork.
Vertical relationships often tend to be rigid because of many barriers and rules between the high-level management and employees ADDIN CSL_CITATION { “citationItems” : [ { “id” : “ITEM-1”, “itemData” : { “DOI” : “10.1016/j.indmarman.2006.06.016”, “ISBN” : “0019-8501”, “ISSN” : “00198501”, “PMID” : “21864213”, “abstract” : “In this paper we argue that the organizational form of a buying firm’s vertical relationship with a supplier can be defined as a configuration of four distinct, but related dimensions of integration. These dimensions pertain to ownership integration (the extent that the firm owns the upstream component supplier), coordination integration (the intensity of information exchange to align the two stages of production), task integration (the extent that the buying firm performs upstream tasks), and knowledge integration (the extent that the buying firm possesses knowledge about the upstream component). Ranging from fully integrated to fully disintegrated, these dimensions can be combined to form various organizational configurations that better reflect the true nature of organizational forms than one-dimensional conceptualizations. Drawing on distinct fields of research (e.g. transaction costs economics, information-processing theory, and learning) the goal of this paper is to improve our understanding of the four dimensions of integration and their interrelationships. This is an important step for future processes of configurational theory building and normative testing. u00a9 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.”, “author” : [ { “dropping-particle” : “”, “family” : “Jaspers”, “given” : “Ferdinand”, “non-dropping-particle” : “”, “parse-names” : false, “suffix” : “” }, { “dropping-particle” : “”, “family” : “Ende”, “given” : “Jan”, “non-dropping-particle” : “van den”, “parse-names” : false, “suffix” : “” } ], “container-title” : “Industrial Marketing Management”, “id” : “ITEM-1”, “issue” : “7”, “issued” : { “date-parts” : [ [ “2006” ] ] }, “page” : “819-828”, “title” : “The organizational form of vertical relationships: Dimensions of integration”, “type” : “article-journal”, “volume” : “35” }, “uris” : [ “http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=e98176c2-c52e-4981-b1ef-bffc56eef485” ] } ], “mendeley” : { “formattedCitation” : “(Jaspers and van den Ende)”, “plainTextFormattedCitation” : “(Jaspers and van den Ende)”, “previouslyFormattedCitation” : “(Jaspers and van den Ende)” }, “properties” : { }, “schema” : “https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json” }(Jaspers and van den Ende 825). Many employees tend to feel stifled by such relationship because of the inability to communicate with the management. Their input is also rarely recognized nor rewarded. Likewise, horizontal relationships have their shortcomings. These relationships lack a middle point of reference that decentralizes roles to subordinate employees ADDIN CSL_CITATION { “citationItems” : [ { “id” : “ITEM-1”, “itemData” : { “DOI” : “10.1016/S0191-3085(01)23004-4”, “ISBN” : “9780762308422”, “ISSN” : “01913085”, “PMID” : “6695628”, “abstract” : “We view physical symbols as a rich, potent, non-verbal language that is uniquely suited for enacting relationship issues within organizations. Like verbal language, physical symbols have accepted elements and structure (e.g. grammar), and both influence and are influenced by social construction processes. We apply this u2018physical symbols as languageu2019 perspective to modem organizations, and argue that recent trends, such as increasing diversity and empowerment, result in changes in relationships between individuals and organizations. We further argue that these relationship changes alter both the type (e.g. more portable and instrumental), and use of physical symbols in the workplace. Specifically, we suggest that the accessibility and JEexibility of a physical symbol language offers individuals and organizations a powerful medium with which to represent and negotiate new and complex identity and status relationships. Viewing physical symbols as a language provides students of organizations a vehicle for examining these changing relationships, and ofleers a framework for how symbol language miscommunications can be identified and overcome. *”, “author” : [ { “dropping-particle” : “”, “family” : “Pratt”, “given” : “Michael G”, “non-dropping-particle” : “”, “parse-names” : false, “suffix” : “” }, { “dropping-particle” : “”, “family” : “Rafaeli”, “given” : “Anat”, “non-dropping-particle” : “”, “parse-names” : false, “suffix” : “” } ], “container-title” : “Research in Organizational Behavior”, “id” : “ITEM-1”, “issued” : { “date-parts” : [ [ “2001” ] ] }, “page” : “93-132”, “title” : “Organizational Relationships *”, “type” : “article-journal”, “volume” : “23” }, “uris” : [ “http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=c8171175-0d96-4cc6-8dc8-2f1a6b824ddf” ] } ], “mendeley” : { “formattedCitation” : “(Pratt and Rafaeli)”, “plainTextFormattedCitation” : “(Pratt and Rafaeli)”, “previouslyFormattedCitation” : “(Pratt and Rafaeli)” }, “properties” : { }, “schema” : “https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json” }(Pratt and Rafaeli 105).
Discuss the significance of communication and how much a conscious effort plays into building strong relationships. 
Communication is an important element in different spheres of the society. With the aid of communication, humans are able to interact and live with one another with relative ease. Good communication also enhances unity and cohesiveness within an organization. Employees can provide immediate feedback to the bosses without withholding it ADDIN CSL_CITATION { “citationItems” : [ { “id” : “ITEM-1”, “itemData” : { “DOI” : “10.1109/MPOT.2014.2331793”, “ISSN” : “02786648”, “PMID” : “14530538”, “abstract” : “Communication skills are consistently one of the most valued skill sets sought by employers. Unfortunately, due to the technical nature inherent to the engineering discipline, and often the hobbies that accompany individuals within the profession, the development of communication skills is often overlooked. The ability of an engineer to effectively communicate in the workplace manifests itself in numerous ways. This may be in communicating research progress or objectives, effectively supporting your company’s product or service to a client, or in client and peer training. With developed communication skills, engineers will see increased career opportunities and foster personal growth. A variety of means to improve your communication skills can be reached through a number of exciting opportunities that will pay dividends to both you and your employer.”, “author” : [ { “dropping-particle” : “”, “family” : “Choren”, “given” : “Alexander”, “non-dropping-particle” : “”, “parse-names” : false, “suffix” : “” } ], “container-title” : “IEEE Potentials”, “id” : “ITEM-1”, “issue” : “3”, “issued” : { “date-parts” : [ [ “2015” ] ] }, “page” : “10-11”, “title” : “The importance of communication in the workplace”, “type” : “article-journal”, “volume” : “34” }, “uris” : [ “http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=7f37d3da-bc3e-4190-85a6-548c52ba698d” ] } ], “mendeley” : { “formattedCitation” : “(Choren)”, “plainTextFormattedCitation” : “(Choren)”, “previouslyFormattedCitation” : “(Choren)” }, “properties” : { }, “schema” : “https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json” }(Choren 10). Effective communication also improves customer relationships and the overall organizational relationships. That is why employees, however, superior they rank in an organization, should take conscious and deliberate efforts to enhance their relationships domestically and at their workplaces.
In conclusion, positive organizational relationships are paramount to the success of any organization. Organizational relationships can be divided into three groups namely; vertical, horizontal, and diagonal. These relationships are critical and should be maintained at equilibrium. That is why as much as horizontal relationships are easy and readily built, Bernie should also seek to enhance his relationship with the supervisor. He should take deliberate steps to initiate communication and stop adopting the negative organizational culture (indifference from the other workers towards Gloria) that he found at the department.
Works CitedADDIN Mendeley Bibliography CSL_BIBLIOGRAPHY Choren, Alexander. “The Importance of Communication in the Workplace.” IEEE Potentials, vol. 34, no. 3, 2015, pp. 10–11, doi:10.1109/MPOT.2014.2331793.
Jaspers, Ferdinand, and Jan van den Ende. “The Organizational Form of Vertical Relationships: Dimensions of Integration.” Industrial Marketing Management, vol. 35, no. 7, 2006, pp. 819–28, doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2006.06.016.
Pratt, Michael G., and Anat Rafaeli. “Organizational Relationships *.” Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 23, 2001, pp. 93–132, doi:10.1016/S0191-3085(01)23004-4.