Issues in Organizational Behaviour - Coursework Example

Organizational Behaviour ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR Introduction Organizational behaviour can best be described as an area of study that involves the understanding, explanation, and the improvement of behaviours and attitudes of groups and individuals in firms and organizations. It is a multi-disciplinary field that integrates management, communication, psychology, and sociology, while it also complements organizational theory that mainly focuses on intra-organizational and organizational topics (Wood, 2012: p45). The concepts and theories in organizational behaviour are drawn, as a result, from a broad array of disciplines. For instance, individual characteristics and job performance research in organizational behaviour basically draws on organizational and industrial psychology studies, while team processes and satisfaction studies heavily draw on social psychology. Moreover, organizational structure and team characteristics research depends heavily sociology research, while decision making, learning, and motivation are best understood using economic models (Oswick et al, 2011: p328). Such diversity is a critical quality in organizational behaviour studies as it provides topics that are thought provoking and intrinsically interesting. Issues in Organizational Behaviour One of the issues facing organizational behaviour today is stress among employees and a lack of motivation. As noted by Ashkanasy and Humphrey (2011: p222), many organizations today fail to correctly stimulate their employees, while poor conditions of work have led to increasingly lower morale among employees. Poor working conditions may result in increased employee stress, dissatisfaction, and exhaustion. Stress has been noted as being different to pressure, which can be viewed as a positive factor at times because it challenges employees to enhance their performance and be more innovative. Stress, on the other hand, is a negative factor since it is borne out of overworking the employee and placing too many demands on them, as well as placing too much responsibility and not providing enough time to rest. This may lead to increased health risks among employees and subsequent emotional consequences, such as low self-esteem, depression, fatigue, and anxiety (Ashkanasy & Humphrey, 2011: p222). Moreover, stress and its negative effects may have long-term effects on the organization, employees, and their customers, specifically because service quality decreases as a result of frustration and unfriendliness from the employees, leading to customer dissatisfaction. Stressed employees are also less likely to collaborate efficiently with their workmates (Saks & Gruman, 2011: p19). A lack of motivation in organizations is derived from stress and poor use of motivational factors like career advancement and development, responsibilities, recognition from supervisors and peers, and achievement. According to McEvoy (2011: p479), it is difficult to motivate employees without eliminating such sources of dissatisfaction like autocratic and rigid supervision, poor conditions of work, long work hours, and poor communication that arise from negative influences borne out of the organizational environment and atmosphere. Probably the most notable aspect of this issue is that solving dissatisfaction issues will not result in total employee satisfaction and motivation, while the increase in motivation and satisfaction may not entirely eliminate dissatisfaction (Jackson & Carter, 2011: p62). Another organizational behaviour issue that will be tackled in the final report is staff turnover, especially with regards to the fact that organizations may lose knowledgeable and skilled employees to other organizations that may, in turn, gain a competitive advantage (Aswathappa, 2010: p59). Staff turnover in organizations is highly associated with uncompetitive reward systems, low salaries, poor training and recruitment methods, and poor career development and advancement opportunities. Employee turnover can be either voluntary or involuntary with each happening for different reasons. Whereas voluntary turnover refers to employee leaving due to conflicts with management, identification of better positions elsewhere, or personal reasons, involuntary turnover involves organizations firing or laying off employees. While change of staff is inevitable, it can directly affect the organization’s bottom line. Therefore, it is important that the company is aware of the departing employees’ motives, while crafting an employee retention strategy. Employees may leave if they are motivated by a higher remuneration package. Failure to keep up-to-date with remuneration packages by competitors’ leads to poaching of the best and most knowledgeable staff by competing firms (Aswathappa, 2010: p60). Engagement of employees is also a critical factor in employee turnover. While employee engagement may come across as a cliché term in corporate circles, engaged employees share several traits that make them more likely to remain at their workplace (McKinley, 2010: p54). These employees are satisfied with their employer, have pride in their employer, job satisfaction, have the opportunity to complete challenging tasks satisfactorily, and get positive feedback and recognition for their contributions. Moreover, they gain personal support from management, understand the link between the organization’s mission and their job, and have prospects for career advancement and development. Failure to achieve these expectations by the organization has been identified as one of the major reasons for high staff turnover. Poor management may also make employees miserable (Jeung, 2011: p54). Since employees generally crave consistency, structure, and routine, failure to provide these aspects in the organisation may lead employees to leave voluntarily. The final organizational behaviour issue that will be considered in the final report is weak corporate culture. Corporate culture has been defined as the system of practices, traditions, values, and convictions that are shared by persons working for the organization (Rollinson, 2013: p18). The culture of an organization aids employees in understanding the situation of the company through a more efficient and effective mode of communication, as well as better collaboration and cooperation among the employees and management. However, the increasing tendencies towards the pursuit of lower costs and poor communication and dialogue in organizations have led to weakening of the organizational culture in many firms. A weak culture normally occurs when employees begin to consider personal objectives in a manner that is different to the aims and mission of the company, mostly as a result of poor leadership. Weakening of the organizational culture has a significant effect on the internal employee relationships, while it also leads to lack of trust in the organization, a sense of instability within the company, and a lack of shared values and attitudes towards one another and towards customers in the organization (Rollinson, 2013: p18). Organizational Behaviour One theory of organizational behaviour that will be used in the final project is McGregor’s Theory X and Y, which have proven helpful in the planning and implementation of personnel practices and policies. This theory is based on two principles, X and Y, in which principle X does not consider employees to be human and prefers the use of a dictatorial management and leadership style, while principle Y pushes for the full involvement of employees in decision making and the dignified treatment of employees (Christina et al, 2014: p169). This theory posits two distinct assumptions that organizations and their managers have concerning their employees, which usually become self-fulfilling prophesies. The assumptions of theory X are that majority of employees do not like work and will seek to avoid working as much as they can, which means that they should be controlled, coerced, and threatened in order for them to complete their tasks (Christina et al, 2014: p170). Moreover, employees are considered to have minimal ambition, choose job security above anything else, and would prefer not to have any responsibility. On the other hand, theory Y assumes that employees naturally apply mental and physical effort and that most find that their tasks are satisfying depending on the work environment (Robbins, 2012: p22). In addition, it also makes the assumption that employees generally exercise ingenuity, creativity, self-direction, and self control of their own motivation in pursuit of organizational and individual goals. Moreover, theory Y also posits that employees learns to either accept responsibility or seek it actively, as well as that the full potential of employees is not tapped in majority of organizations. The assumptions posited by McGregor’s Theory X and Y are powerful behavioural models that are reflective of the organization’s structure. Whereas management that abides by theory X base their firms on a carrot-stick approach with pervasive controls and restrictive discipline, management that follows theory Y empower their employees by creating firms based on trust (Robbins, 2012: p22). A second theory that will be used in the report is theory Z, which is a management approach characterized by management philosophies that involve individual responsibility in team and group contexts, slow promotion and evaluation procedures, consensual making of decisions, and long term job security (Donaldson et al, 2013: p163). Using this theory in the report will help in understanding how organizational performance can be achieved even as organizations grapple with lack of motivation and stress among employees. There are several benefits to using theory Z in understanding and improving organizational behaviour, such as increasing employee commitment, reducing staff turnover, increasing productivity, and improving job satisfaction and morale. These benefits can be realized according to theory Z, in several ways One way is to ensure a strong company culture and philosophy, especially by ensuring that the culture and philosophy of the organization is appreciated and adhered to by all employees (Donaldson et al, 2013: p163). Theory Z also proposes long-term staff employment and development, in which the organization’s management puts in place programs and measures to develop employees. By ensuring measured and steady promotion, along with long-term employment, employees tend to be more loyal (Pettinger, 2010: p44). Employees should also be expected and encouraged to be part of decision making, while employees should be more generalist because of their increased responsibility in decision making consensus, although they would still be expected to be specialized enough to carry out their career responsibilities. Theory Z also proposes that organizations should have concern for their employees’ wellbeing and happiness, particularly by putting measures in place to foster the health, safety, and wellbeing of staff. In addition, it is also proposed that organizations adopt informal control using more formalized measures (Pettinger, 2010: p44). In this case, the employee is empowered complete tasks in the best way possible, while the organization uses formalized measures to assess performance and work quality. References Ashkanasy, N., & Humphrey, R. (January 01, 2011). Current Emotion Research in Organizational Behaviour. Emotion Review, 3, 2, 214-224. Aswathappa, K. (2010). Organisational behaviour. Mumbai [India: Himalaya Pub. House. Christina, S., Dainty, A., Daniels, K., & Waterson, P. (January 01, 2014). How organisational behaviour and attitudes can impact building energy use in the UK retail environment: a theoretical framework. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 10, 164-179. Donaldson, L., Qiu, J., & Luo, B. N. (January 01, 2013). For Rigour in Organizational Management Theory Research. Journal of Management Studies, 50, 1, 153-172. Jackson, N., & Carter, P. (2011). Rethinking organisational behaviour. Harlow, England: Financial Times/Prentice Hall. Jeung, C.-W. (January 01, 2011). The concept of employee engagement: a comprehensive review from a positive organizational behaviour perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 24, 2, 49-69. McEvoy, G. (January 01, 2011). Increasing Intrinsic Motivation to Learn in Organizational Behaviour Classes. Journal of Management Education, 35, 4, 468-503. McKinley, W. (January 01, 2010). Organizational Theory Development: Displacement of Ends? Organization Studies, 31, 1, 47-68. Mullins, L. J. (2005). Management and organisational behaviour. Harlow, England: Prentice Hall/Financial Times. Oswick, C., Fleming, P., & Hanlon, G. (January 01, 2011). From Borrowing to Blending: Rethinking the Processes of Organizational Theory Building. Academy of Management Review, 36, 2, 318-337. Pettinger, R. (2010). Mastering organisational behaviour. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Robbins, S. P and Judge, T. A. (2012) Organizational Behaviour. Harlow: Pearson Prentice Hall. Rollinson, D. (2013) Organisational behaviour and Analysis. 4th ed. Harlow: Pearson Prentice Hall. Saks, A. M., & Gruman, J. A. (March 01, 2011). Organizational socialization and positive organizational behaviour: implications for theory, research, and practice. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne Des Sciences De Ladministration, 28, 1, 14-26. Wood, J. M. (2012). Organisational behaviour: Core concepts and applications. Milton, Qld: John Wiley & Sons. Read More