HudBay is a Canada-based incorporated mining organization that carries out its ventures, investigations and expansion activities America-wide. The company primarily focuses on sighting, production and marketing of pedestal and valuable metals. The company’s envisions a top-notch position in America for long-term and cost-effective mines. Company’s core undertaking is to craft a sustainable turn-over via enhanced commodity coverage on the footing of per share. The approaches include superior quality, long-term deposits and mining-promoting commands (HudBay, 2011).
Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Co., Ltd (HBMS) was established at the FlinFlonorebody at Northern Manitoba in 1927. Following this, in a ten years’ time, a Fortune magazine published an article encompassing the success story of endowed group of geologists, engineers, prospectors and entrepreneurs who surmounted tremendous trials to achieve a prosperous new mining property in the wastelands of Canada. The article entitled Hudson Bay’s story as the tale of heroes. Much has been revolutionized since then. Presently, HudBay is known as an integrated mining company progressing and exploring all over America and targeting the sighting and publicizing of extracted metals (HudBay, 2012).
HudBay’s plan for upcoming 2 years is to target their 3 development projects into limelight. The instantaneous concern for the company at Lalor is the completion of yielding-tunnel, extensive underground advancement and development of the new concentrator. They are anticipated to invest about $163 million out of Lalor’s total 2013 budget of $ 794 million. On the other hand, the Reed project is progressing rapidly and is expected to produce up to its full potential i.e. 1300 tons per day in the start of 2014 (HudBay, 2012).
The HudBay company identifies the risk factors involved in project maintenance like delayed schedules or unpredicted cost set-backs. The company, however, has an effective plan to counter treat in such situations. HudBay Company is striving to grow and has been able to cut-down its annual loss rates from $ 163588000 to $21170000 for the year 2012, which is an incredible achievement (HudBay, 2012).
The purpose of this report is to gain a profound understanding about four functions of management. In pursuit of fulfilling the purpose of the assignment, real world company, HudBay Minerals, has been selected. The company’s financial health has been dwindling since past two-three years. However, in the year 2012, the company showed a commendable decrease in losses. The company’s motto is to apply a mining- friendly influence among the Americans. It enjoys leverage over other companies owing to its expertise in Volcanogenic Massive Sulphide (VMS), Porphyry mineral deposits and Geophysics that in turn assist in identification of prospective mining sights and extent or mineral-rich areas. Greater than half of company’s 2013’s budget is allocated to develop Brownfield opportunities in the vicinity of existing ores (HudBay, 2012). The company ensures the continuation of its 777 mine major projects, and that they fall right on the company, as well as investor’s expectations. They continuously scrutinize alternative opportunities, which can help attaining balance and provide them with the ability to overcome unanticipated challenges and track other investment options that are likely to flourish in the near future (HudBay, 2013b).
It was found that the top management had the most problems, regarding four functions of management. It was recommended that it needs to delegate some of its planning tasks to middle management and dedicate the saved time to controlling and leading functions.
The middle level management needs to take up the responsibility of planning by dividing strategic goals into managerial objectives themselves. Lastly, the company should enhance the communication between all layers of management, especially between low and top level of management. In this way, the low level of management can share its ideas with the top level, which can provide a profound insight into the core operations of the company. The company needs to implement aforementioned recommendations as soon as possible in order to enhance organizational performance.
Top management is the only layer that has highest payout rates, all around the world. The underlying reason for high remunerations is that they are supposed to take risks on company’s behalf. During the planning phase, they are supposed to take calculated risks (Williams, 2010). Same is the case with HudBay Minerals. The job description of HudBay’s chief executive officer reveals that he spends the majority of his time on planning. Main clauses of his job description revolve around planning and taking risks (HudBay, 2013). So, the top management spends the majority of its time on planning.
Middle managers are responsible for carrying out order provided by the top layer. At HudBay Mineral, the middle managers do not take any participation in planning. In case, they face any unusual or non-routine problems, they are supposed to consult their seniors. The company ensures that all managers at the center of the organizational hierarchy act as a liaison between the top and low level of management. However, the company takes “pride” in its middle management (HudBay, 2012). So, HudBay’s middle level management does not take any active part in planning.
All around the globe, low level management, is only remotely involved in the planning phase. They underlying reason for this practice is that they have little or no vision regarding the company’s strategic position. At HudBay Minerals, low level management mainly includes miners and site supervisors (HudBay, 2012). Despite the fact that the company’s core operations are carried out by this level of management, they are still not involved in the planning phase. However, the company realizes their importance and provides them with security and health benefits, which exceeds the industry’s standard (HudBay, 2011).
The top level management of HudBay minerals acts as liaison between the board of directors and the company itself. The top level spends the second major of its chunk in organizing. The top level management is responsible for managing the company’s resources with a strategic view. They have to make sure that each and every part of the company gets its fair chunk of resources so that it can perform with optimal efficiency (HudBay, 2012). However, the company’s profit/loss statement tells a whole other story. Nonetheless, job description of top level managers reveal that organizing resources is their second most important part of the job (HudBay, 2013a).
The top level of management allocates resources among the middle level managers. When the middle level managers receive their allocated budgets, they have to sub-divide them among various functions of their respective departments. Middle level managers spend a higher amount of time on organizing than on planning because the top level management does not give them the autonomy to participate in the planning phase. However, middle managers do spend a significant amount of time in organizing resources and the authoritative chain of command (Odgers-Berndtson, 2012).
The low level of management at HudBay is mostly miners as mentioned in the aforesaid text. Mining requires technical skills and the supervisors have to ensure that a vast area of work is covered with minimum numbers of miners. The low level management also spends almost the same of time as the middle management, only slightly low (HudBay, 2011). So, the low level managers spend the second biggest chunk of their time in organizing.
The term, “leadership” is widely debated in academic circles, and there is hardly any consensus on the definition. However, motivating and directing employees have been considered a key part of leading, by various academics and professionals (Zaccaro & Horn, 2003 pp. 769-806). Top managers spend the second smallest chunk of their time on leading. They dedicate the majority of their time in planning and organizing. At HudBay, top level managers hardly spend any time on motivating. They focus majorly on the “directing employees” part of leadership as they break-up their plans into small objectives and assign them to the middle management team.
Middle managers are not only responsible for organizing resources. They are also responsible for getting the best out of their employees. For that, they have to motivate employees and boost up their morale in order to achieve high employee loyalty, which consequently will result in high organizational growth. At HudBay, middle level managers do not seem to be involved in motivating employees. However, the company does work on employees’ career development, but motivation regarding routine work seems to be absent (HudBay, 2013b). So, the manager at the middle level does not spend much time on leading their subordinates.
As mentioned in the aforesaid text, low level managers, or first line managers at HudBay are minors and supervisors. The level of physical exertion involved in mining in quite high (Colman & Dave, 2013 pp. 11-20). So, it is necessary to keep employees motivated during their normal routine work. That is the reason due to which low level managers spend the first major chunk of their time in leading employees.
In absolute terms, all three layers of management spend the smallest chunk of their time and resources in controlling. Same is the case with the top level management. They are mainly involved in planning, and spend the least amount of their time in controlling. At HudBay, managers at the top level of the organizational hierarchy do not spend their time and resources in controlling (HudBay, 2012a). Moreover, the job description of the chief executive officer of HudBay also has the minimal number of clauses that attend to the controlling function of the management (HudBay, 2013).
Like top level management, the middle level of the management also spends the smallest chunk of their time in controlling operations and resources. This does not suggest that they completely ignore the controlling part of the management, like the top level management. In order to ensure that all their orders are rightfully executed with full efficiency, they have to ensure a strong control system that makes sure everything is on its right track (Odgers-Berndtson, 2012). So, the middle level managers do spend time on controlling, but minimal effort is put in it.
In an ideal situation, low level managers spend the least amount of time on controlling, when compared with the top and middle level of managers, along with all four functions of management. The evidence found from secondary resources depicts that low level managers at HudBay only implement the control measure, which are directly related to security and safeguard of miners. Otherwise, controlling in the context of routine matters was not evident. Nonetheless, controlling function, be it in the context of safety or routine matters, is done by the low level of management at HudBay.
The difference between theories and text-book management and real world management cannot be ignored. In order to make prudent recommendations, it is important to have a benchmark to which recommendations would lead to. So, following diagram clearly depicts the time and resources that managers, at all three levels, spend on all four functions of management.
Source: (RFB, 2013)
The top level of management spends sufficient, in fact, more than sufficient time, on planning. There is no doubt that the company’s top level of management should spend the first biggest chunk of their time on planning, but top level managers spend extra time on the cost of other functions. So, the time dedicated to the planning phase should be reduced so that room for other function can be created. For the organizing function, the second major chunk of the top level management is spent on organizing. Although the top level of management is spending optimal level of time on organizing, there is still room for improvement. As mentioned in the aforesaid text, the top level of management at HudBay does not involve itself in controlling and leading at all. Leading and controlling are as important as the other two functions (Samson & Daft, 2011). When middle managers are not motivated themselves, by the top management, they will not be able to motivate the low level of management. So, the top level of management needs to cut its time from planning and allocate some portion of it to controlling and leading.
The middle level of management lacks in a single aspect of management. Their time allocation for other management functions is fine except planning. The top level management does not involve the middle management in the planning phase and take the extra burden of planning on behalf of middle management, at the cost of controlling and leading time. So, the top level needs to delegate planning responsibilities to the middle management. In this way, the top level of managers would save their time and the middle management would get motivated as they would feel a part of the company as important decisions regarding planning will be made by them.
Although the functioning of low level of management seems acceptable, but best firms in the world involve their low level management in the planning phase for the same reason, which is mentioned above in the context of middle and top level of management. Secondly, a little extra effort needs to be put by the low level of management in the organizing function. It will not only help them in smoothening functions, but it will also increase the overall organizational performance.
In summary, the report covers the basic functions of management; planning, organizing, leading, and controlling. In order to study these four functions in the context of real world examples, HudBay was selected. It is a Canadian company that has its mining operations in the North-American and American region. The company has been suffering loss since last two years. However, it has been trying to regain investors’ confidence by reducing losses and implementing aggressive growth strategies. Its new operations at Lalor show a promising future. However, as of the year 2012, the company reported a loss of $21170000. A decrease of 870% was observed in losses, in a short term period of one year only.
From a management perspective, there were several problems in the company. The top level management completely ignored the practical aspect of controlling and leading. On the other hand, the middle management was deprived of their right, which is related to planning for company’s strategy. Lastly, the low level of management was ignored in the strategy making/planning process. However, the low level of management was the only layer that seemed to be doing its job in efficient manners.
Colman, G & Dave, D (2013) 'Exercise, Physical Activity, and Exertion Over the Business Cycle', Social Science & Medicine
, September, pp. 11-20.
HudBay (2011) Annual Report
. Available at: http://www.HudBayminerals.com/files/5665_HudBay_AR2011_ENG_FINAL_v001_d8zsp0.pdf (Accessed: 27 September 2013).
HudBay (2012) Annual Report
. Available at: http://www.HudBayminerals.com/files/5934_HudBay_AR2012_ENG_FINAL_v001_f30r59.pdf (Accessed: 27 September 2013).
HudBay (2012a) Position Description-Chair of the Audit Committee
. Available at: http://www.HudBayminerals.com/files/doc_downloads/governance_documents/Position Description Chair of Audit Committee.pdf (Accessed: 27 September 2013).
HudBay (2013) Position Description-CEO
. Available at: http://www.HudBayminerals.com/files/doc_downloads/governance_documents/Chief Executive Officer Position Description.pdf (Accessed: 27 September 2013).
HudBay (2013a) Position Description-Chair of the Technical Committee
. Available at: http://www.HudBayminerals.com/files/doc_downloads/governance_documents/Position Description Chair Technical Committee.pdf (Accessed: 27 September 2013).
HudBay (2013b) Corporate Fact Sheet
. Available at: http://www.HudBayminerals.com/files/doc_downloads/HudBay_Corp_FS_ENG-Mar13.pdf (Accessed: 27 September 2013).
Odgers-Berndtson (2012) Succeeding at Succession
. Available at: http://www.odgersberndtson.ca/ca/press-room/next5/article/succeeding-at-succession-5872/ (Accessed: 27 September 2013).
RFB (2013) Management Levels
. Available at: http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Log-Mar/Management-Levels.html (Accessed: 27 September 2013).
Samson, D & Daft, R (2011) Management
. 4 USA: Cengage.
Williams, C (2010) Management
. 6 USA: Cengage.
Zaccaro, S & Horn, Z (2003) 'Leadership Theory and Practice: Fostering an Effective Symbiosis',The Leadership Quarterly
, 6, pp. 769-806.