Sopio Mtchedlishvili

Question 1.

Should managers try to be proactive, or being reactive to the circumstances can be as efficient? Please
provide arguments and examples of both views

In a company all managenet positions requires some kind of a response to challaenges and
problems. Being proactive and being reactive are two choices that a manager has. Reactive managers
take hits as they come, while proactive ones prepare for them in advance to counteract or be ready for
the hit.

I believe, that being proactive is better for managers. In this case, they are in control and have a
better handle of the situation as they are already prepared for risks to occure and are not spending their
day fighting those issues. This in turn, results in being more productive and focusing on more
substantian and urgent cases. It is true that you can not always avoid problems, but being proactive
means that you can reduce their impact. Also, proactiveness can motivate manager’s team. When a
group’s leader is prepared for a crisis and thus leads her team confidently employees begin to trust her
and work more enthusiastically. Additionally, proactive managers are more able to spend their time
developing and mentoring their teams.

However proactive approach sometimes has its drawbacks. If a complitely unforseen issue
appears proactive manager will not be able to work effficiently as he is not adapted to that kind of
situation and pressure will deminish his productiveness.

Reactive managers also have some positive sides. They can work under pressure very well and
have brilliant problem solving skills that are tested many times. They also like to try different approaches
and do not try to follow one chosen path, as they do not have planned decisions and act on the spot.

To sum up, both proactive and reactive managerial approaches have it cons and pros, but in my
opinion proactive is better as it makes your team feel confident, ready for crisis and the company faces
problems with less impacts.
Question 2.

Does reward always positively correlate with employee’s motivation, or it can turn to negative at
some point? Please provide arguments?

As the time passes, the reward system becomes more and more important. People has began to
want more meaningfull and fulfilling jobs. For that, appraisals, regocnitions and rewards are crucial. So,
employers are forced to adopt the reward system if they want so called “new blood” in their company.

Rewards also are amplifiers of trust. When an employee sees that her or his work is being
valued and not going unnoticed, when recieving some kind of a recognition her trust in the chief
increases, improving the productivity.

Also the reward system motivates employyes to stay. Many people leave their jobs because they
do not feel respected by their bosses. While on the contrary, rewarding workers shows them respect
and appreciation for the job done and makes them to want to stay in the company.

However there are also those kind of rewards that can not motivate employees. Sometimes,
rewards are only issued in the company quarterly or even anually like bonus checks. Most workers do
not worry about those rewards and are not eager to pursue them on every day basis. Those prizes do
not motivate employees much.

In addition, sometimes rewards can also play a negative part in increasing employees
motivation. Like, if a company issues benefits (rewards) one profitable year and then for some financial
difficulties it is not able to reward workers for the same amount of effort. When an employee does not
recieve the awrad she was expecting, she might change her thinking and not care for the job so much
anymore.

Another case, why reward system can sometimes be a demotivator is that often it aprraises just
an individual work, based on the workk performed alone. While teamwork is more productive, most
reward systems incentivise individual work. So, during group work motivation of employees are low.

To conclude, the reward system can have positive, neutral or negative effect on employees’
motivation. But with right designd and planning of the system it can be a powerful motivator.
Question 3.

A manager should be democratic in decision-making and dictatorial in implementation. Do you agree

with this statement? Please provide arguments?

A manager should be democratic in decision-making and dictatorial in implementation. I agree

with this statement and I believe that it is a healthy system.

I think considering other employees’ opinions is very important to come up with the best
possible decision, because people who work in the company know a lot of details that even very careful
manager might not notice. So, it is very likely that involving other people, especially while making big
decisions, will improve the success rate of the company.

Also, I think very important that when you involve employees in decision-making, they feel
honored and simply care more about the benefits that this decision might cause instead of just making
sure that they do bare minimum at work to keep the job. So, it is more likely that it will help increasing
productivity.

Additionally, involving employees in that kind of stuff improves communication level, so the
manager can see their vision and also the problems that might stay unnoticed in other situations.

On the other hand, when it comes to implementation, I think it’s important for the manager to
set boundaries. Because to keep the productivity, it’s important to keep some level of strict policy. So, I
think when the decision is made, it’s important to control the way it actually implements and the
manager should be very careful and distant about it.

To sum up, I think the manager being democratic in decision-making and dictatorial in
implementation really helps increasing productivity of the employees and has positive affects on the
development of the company.