User talk:Nayan9876

Introduction

Responsibility

Responsibility shows the duty allocated to a particular situation. Whoever having the position should accomplish the duty which he/she assigned. It is his/her responsibility. The word responsibility is frequently stated as a duty to perform a specific job given to a subservient. In an organisation, responsibility is the obligation as per the strategies give out. Definition of Responsibility

Responsibility is a duty of single person to person to perform allocated duties to the best of his/her skills under the path of his/her supervisory leader. According to Theo Haimann’s theoretical argument, “Responsibility is the commitment of a subordinate to accomplish the duty as obligatory by his superordinate” (Kumar and Sharma, 2000). Features of Responsibility The core of responsibility is the duty of a subservient to accomplish the duty allocated. It always initiates from the relationship of superordinate -subordinate. Normally responsibility changes upwards while authority drifts downwards. Responsibility is in the procedure of an ongoing duty. Responsibility cannot be substitute. The person tolerant responsibility is liable for the performance of allocated obligations. It is hard to consider responsibility deprived of authority.

Authority

Authority is the power or right given to a manager or an executive in order to attain certain organizational goals. A manager won’t be able to do his/her role efficiently without an appropriate authority. Authority is the beginning of organizational structure. It is a vital accessory of the occupation of management. Deprived of authority, a manager concludes to be a manager, because he/she cannot develop his rules approved through others. Authority is one of the formation stones of both informal and formal organisations. An Organisation cannot continue without the authority. It designates the power and the right of creating decisions, ordering and directions to subordinates. Authority is given from upper positions but should be recognized from lower. Definitions of Authority

Rendering to Henri Fayol, "Authority is the power to give instructions and too precise respect” (Management Innovations, 2008).

Accountability

Every manager/employee is accountable for the job allocated to him/her. He/she is supposed to finish the job as per the prospects and update his/her superior consequently. Accountability is the obligation formed for the use of authority. It is the liability for performance of the allocated duties. Description of Accountability

Conferring to McFarland, "accountability is the duty of an individual to report officially to his/her superordinate about the job he/she has done to complete the duty." When authority is given to a subordinate, the individual is accountable to the superordinate for performance in relative to given duties. If the subordinate could not do a good job, the superordinate cannot avoid the responsibility by mentioning that poor performance is the mistake of the subordinate. A superior is usually accountable for all activities of groups under his/her direction even if there are numerous layers down in the chain of command. Simply identified the accountability means that the subordinate have a duty to explain the issues responsible for lack of performance or non-performance.

Literature Review

There are increasing number of studies such as Roberts (1991), Munro and Hatherly (1993), Llewellyn (2002) and so on, explored the role of the responsibility and the accountability in organizations and how does it vary from the lower level to the higher level in the management hierarchy. And also the researches which they have done say how the upper level management reinforce the responsibility and the accountability in the interaction with their subordinates. Roberts (1991), has argued about the hierarchical accountabilities and the individualizing accountabilities. He further argued that both accountabilities are equated one to one. This reproduces the idea that the each and every individuals who already mentioned in the hierarchical accountabilities will emphasise their consideration upwards on the duties and standards fixed by their directors or managers and will be unable to remember the interdependence among themselves and their colleagues. His argument clearly says that this consideration of accountabilities of hierarchy repeats a sense of individuals working alone with their disjointed work responsibilities. On the other hand Wheelwright & Clark (1992) debates that as much as people work as a team, the ability to fulfil the given communal responsibilities and to achieve the expected goal is more. Lindkvist & Tell (1998) also support Wheelwright’s & Clarks argument by giving their opinion as, “Cooperation is also a quality of a growth of project-based understanding due to the incapability to require causal affairs and work actions theoretically, progression of work accepts the character of interactive problem-solving and research and development processes and also relating close collaboration between individuals and a diversity of functions”. In such a cooperative setting, the regulator systems are considered to stand-in a sense of shared (relatively than separate) responsibility and accountability for outcomes.

From managers’ perspective, again there are certain number of researches done by several authors. Mainly how managers reinforce accountability and responsibility in their interaction with their subordinates. According to Boxall and Purcell (2003), work-life managers also known as employee welfare managers are responsible for an extensive collection of programs to improve employee protection and wellness and increase work-life stability. These may contain work-related safety and health values and practices, physical fitness and health promotion, medical inspections and health treatments such as flexible work timetables, first aid, refreshment activities and food facility, transport plans such as transit supports, employee proposal systems, counselling services and elder care and child care. Advising may assistance employees’ contract with expressive conditions, consumer and family, legitimate and economic problems. Some employers suggest occupation counselling. In some of the companies, managers from other separate departments are handling or coordinating some of the programmes such as dealing with information technology and physical security and so on. At the same time Koch and McGrath (1996) said that the leader should focus more on development and training events and must know the capability requirements under the business procedure and assess the training opportunities such as seminars on the particular topics, decision-making instructive sessions, communicating and teamwork learning and so on for set up the essential skills among the subordinates. According to Willmott (1996), to get the things done, employers don’t need to get all the employees at the same place and at the same time. It’s important for managers to build a culture which is full of trust and honesty and also than the control by checks on the procedure it’s important to control through the outcomes. Leaders should give more time and space for their subordinates to show the honesty and skills and the ability to take the responsibility and the accountability to make the difference among each and every one rather than let them to stay at the same place and the same work. Simply what he tried to say this argument is “managers should be experimenters”. As a supportive argument for the above argument of Willmott (1996), Sinclair (1995) says that the main idea which brought up from this individual accountability establishes a self-inflicted personality. And further this point is argued because this method of accountability mostly depends on or it is compulsory to handle by internally (in other word psychologically). And also the personal responsibility observed as a powerful method of controlling and working. But such an inside logic of Responsibility and Accountability deceptively has a long history, which might be further or less deliberately documented by the several generations. In Habermas (1976) argument, he spoke about the individual actions of any particular individual of his/her entire life with comparing with the world as an example. When an individual ‘makes up the mind’ to monitor his/her own morality or characteristic objectives, it will be him/her live world understanding which connects to the particular culture, personality as well as the society which offers a opulently mixed resource base of operations. Murthy (2012), proposes that Human Resource Management tells to those choices and activities which leads the management of all the employees at each and every level in the organization and which are connected to the operation of policies managed towards making and supporting competitive benefits.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we have described the importance of accountability and responsibility in an organization by defining various researches. According to the given theory of Fayol, some of the debates are supporting to the theory when some of them are not. But the final conclusion will be that the accountability and the responsibility play an important role in the organizations. And the way of managers reinforce the accountability and responsibility in interaction with their subordinates is described in several methods owing by several authors above. In real life the way of managers and employees take responsibilities and accountabilities are vary from person to person. But for an organization or a business it is important to have honest staff and people who can be responsible and accountable for the company in order to be successful in the field or market or industry.