Quality of the Job Analysis

Quality of the Job Analysis
Student's Name
Institutional Affiliation
Total number of words: 1945
Quality of the Job Analysis
There is an increasing need to explore the psychosocial factors in the workplace and aim to improve employee well-being consistently. Burnout employees and poor working conditions are linked to multiple factors. Such factors include reduced productivity, poor work performance, occupational injuries and accidents, and sickness absence. To achieve consistently positive outcomes, workers should be treated to good working conditions and ideal employee engagement. The job demands-resources model (JDR) is a tool that gives an insight into occupational stress. An ideal working environment should manifest demands that are equally matched by the resources that the organization offers. This paper analyzes the quality of my job as a corporate strategy assistant at a mid-range manufacturing firm. The analysis delves into exploring the demand and resource features associated with the job before extending its exploration of the job quality. Upon completing the analysis, the paper will outline a range of recommendations that the organization's management could employ to improve the job and, by extension, enhance the benefits of the job both to the employee and the employer. The JDR model remains ideal in understanding employer-employee needs and developing strategies for consistent improvement in ideal workplace environments.
Demands and Resources
The high volumes of work are the primary demand by which a corporate strategy assistant must adhere to stay relevant in such an organization. A corporate strategy assistant must understand the activities within the organization through individual key performance indicators. In the operational hierarchy, the corporate strategy office is responsible for disseminating information about the organization's operations to the chief executive officer. Every morning, the CEO expects a report of all the activities within the organization through the key performance indicator (KPI) reports. As such, every morning, all the vital departments in the organization, including marketing, manufacturing, finance, and operations, must report to the office of corporate strategy. The daily reports help the top management with what decisions to employ in running the organization on a daily basis. Put simply, the auxiliary strategic goals that the organization implements daily emanated from the operational analysis of the corporate strategy office. Beyond focusing on the daily operations, the corporate strategy office also emphasized outlining the organization's strategic future. The corporate strategy office collaborated with the heads of departments to develop the strategic path for the organization. According to Haroon and Malik (2018), a strategic path defines the organization's intention towards the future while focusing on present operations. Among the activities involved in the long-term strategy inputs within the organization are such like the development of long-term strategic plans, the execution of the performance management plan, and the assessment of the performance outcomes (Jiang & Nakamura, 2019). All the above jobs in the corporate strategy meant that the assistant was consistently indulged in analyzing one or more aspects of organizational performance. The outcomes of the analyses from corporate strategy also affected the organization's daily operations, which implied the need for high efficiency and accuracy indices. The job was demanding, bearing the high volumes of work that an employee had to endure.
The second demand for a corporate strategy assistant was the few opportunities to work autonomously. The organizational strategy remains a vital component of competitiveness in any organization. Hence, achieving the best outcomes in organizational strategy must incorporate an advanced understanding of all the KPIs and beyond (Hong-Cheng & Jie-Shin, 2019). Corporate strategy professionals need to be knowledgeable in all aspects of the organization. How organizational strategy is integrated into every key component limits operational autonomy. A corporate strategy assistant must cooperate with other heads of departments to seek and analyze information. In performance management, for instance, departmental heads set targets for their employees. The heads also assessed the employees based on their set targets before transferring the information to the corporate strategy office for analysis. Hence, performance management's efficiency depends on the collaborative effort between department heads and the corporate strategy office (Sabiu et al., 2019). Every input by the corporate strategists depended on the information received through multiple bureaucratic channels. The multiplicity of activities leading to corporate strategy automatically implies interdependence. Additionally, junior employees' outputs, such as corporate strategy assistants, must be subject to consistent supervision and scrutiny within the office. Activities must be conducted according to specific definitions and paradigms. The only opportunities for autonomy in the workplace were accompanied by data analyses whose outcomes would be analyzed by senior officers. The lack of autonomy is extended to bureaucracy in which decisions were executed in a linear channel. That is, the organization was highly hierarchical, and junior managers could barely initiate ideas to the top management. The workplace relied heavily on collectivism, thereby eliminating the possible benefits of individual inputs.
Working as a corporate strategy assistant also comes with notable resources. Primary among the resources is the provision of active feedback. Any employee intends to master continuous improvements in his/her operational environment. According to Huynh (2020), to improve, an employee must first understand the specific elements of success and failure in their inputs. That can only happen if the organization institutes a recognizable feedback culture. In most organizations, feedback cultures are discouraged as most employees find them as mere tools to expose weaknesses. However, my organization orchestrated a strategic feedback mechanism that evolved as one of its key operational strengths. Giving feedback is an emotional prospect in which employees are allowed to talk about the goals for the future, introduce suggestions for improvement, and discuss performance. Managers who encourage feedback and performance reviews improve how their juniors are involved in the overall outcomes of the organizations. Berberoglu (2018) asserts that, normally, the process is terrifying and fear-provoking. However, it bears positive outcomes as individuals are accorded the opportunity to improve on their own. Individual advancements at the workplace could imply efficient collective operations in the future. Additionally, delivering feedback can steer outstanding performances if done with the right intentions. To a corporate strategy assistant, feedback came through multiple avenues. For instance, the daily performance in individual KPIs indicated the efficiency of the strategies implemented at the corporate strategy level. Additionally, more direct feedback from the CEO and the departmental heads would correct and improve suggestions for better outcomes. A young strategy manager who was in a learning environment would understand much about managing an organization in terms of strategy, leadership, and resource allocation. Ultimately, instilling a proper feedback culture must be accompanied by vital characteristics including timeliness, consistency, pos...