Effects of Human Dimension on Organisational Behaviour - Essay Example

Effects of human dimension on organisational behaviour Introduction A unique relationship that exists between people, organisations and behaviour is that people make up organisations and people have behaviour. Because of this, organisations also have behaviour based on the interface between human behaviour and the organisation (Sathe, 2005). By implication, organisational behaviour is largely centred on the individual behaviour of people within the organisation. It was based on this that Sathe (2005) stressed that there are important dimensions of human behaviour that affects organisational behaviour directly. In this paper, two of these dimensions which are attitudes and job satisfaction, and motivation are critically appraised and evaluated to find their relationship with organisational behaviour. The paper therefore makes it possible to define the best means of managing organisational behaviour through the simple task of managing attitudes and motivation. Whiles doing this, great emphasis shall be given to theories of management and organisational behaviour that focus on ways in which modern day managers can make the most out of their employees by understanding the attitude of employees and putting in place the right forms of motivation that creates the needed organisational behaviour for growth. This is because Walton (2007) noted that it is not all forms of organisational behaviour that promotes growth. Attitudes and job satisfaction Three components of attitude Drory & Ritov (1997) noted that attitudes are evaluative judgements or statements made about people within an organisation. This means that attitude embodies people’s habitual nature, readily associated or identifiable with them within the organisation. The attitudes of people however do not always come in one form as there are three key components of attitude common with organisational members. The first component is the cognitive component, which Canary, Coach and Serape (2001) noted to be the form of attitude that highlights people’s opinion and beliefs. Because of the relationship between cognitive component of attitude and opinion, it is often seen as a means by which people give personal evaluation on actions that take place within the organisation (Samovar and Porter, 2011). A typical example is the evaluative attitude of people when there is a promotion at the workplace. In such situations, employees are likely to evaluate the promotion as either being deserving of the person or not. Where the person’s evaluation says the person promoted did not deserve the promotion, chances are that a negative attitude will be developed towards that person. Meanwhile, where there is a negative attitude, organisational behaviour may be negatively affected due to the possibility of frequent organisational conflict (Witteman, 2012). There is also the affective component of behaviour, which defines the emotional or feeling aspect of attitude (Fishbein and Ajzen, 2005). Because of the relationship with feeling, the affective component of attitude is manifested based on a behavioural decision about a person for, or against who an evaluation is made (Smith, 2006). Another example of this in a workplace experience is a new employee who goes to office newly and is assigned a mentor who should take the new employee through orientation. When the mentor decides to dedicate additional time to this new employee to make him learn on the job faster, the new employee may have an evaluation of the mentor as being kind. Based on this, a feeling of likeness may be developed in the new employee for the mentor. In such a situation, a positive attitude from an affective component can be said to have been developed. Meanwhile, there is the exhibition of positive attitude between employees, Eysenck, Eysenck and Barrett (2005) noted that organisational behaviour is affected positively. This is because it becomes easier for people to get along with each other and conflicts are resolved at the lower levels of the organisational hierarchy without having to climb all the way to the top. The third component of attitude is the behavioural component, which looks at attitude from a perspective where people have an intention to behave or react in a certain way (Graen, Novak and Sommerkamp, 2012). What this means is that at this component, attitude becomes more physical and evidence based (Zenko, 2009). It is not surprising that Valencic, McCroskey and Richmond (2001) stressed that it is at the behavioural component that the real impact of attitude on organisational behaviour may be experienced. This is because at this point, people harbouring any form of attitude, whether negative or positive attitude exhibit them in a way that is clearly seen by others. In the first example about promotion, the employee who made an evaluation that the promotion was unfair may exhibit this attitude by deciding to look for a new job. In the second example about the new employee and his mentor, the new employee may exhibit the feeling of likeness by deciding to extend his contract with the company. In effect, the different components of attitude may be expressed at different levels within which actions are performed at the organisation. Within each of these levels however, a different level of impact on organisational behaviour may be experienced. Major job attitudes and how they impact on organisational behaviour Having noted that there are different components or levels within which attitudes manifest, Eysenck and Eysenck (2005) also emphasised that in a typical organisation, there are different job attitudes that are displayed by employees. Meanwhile, each of these job attitudes affects organisational behaviour differently. One such job attitude is job satisfaction. Canary, Coach and Serape (2001) described job satisfaction as state of having positive feeling about one’s job as being fulfilling and meeting personal characteristics. This means that job satisfaction is more of an intrinsic feeling of contentment for what one is assigned to do at the workplace. Due to the relationship between assigned roles and job satisfaction, it is very easy for one to find the relationship between this type of job attitude and organisational behaviour. This is because when people are satisfied at their jobs, they have been found to complain about their roles less and so get along with their superiors more easily (Robbins and Judge, 2007). On the other hand people who are less satisfied at their jobs always feel that there is something they are being denied of in terms of roles. Relating this to easier discussions, it would be noticed that chances that people who are satisfied will develop positive attitude are higher whiles chances that people who are less satisfied will develop negative attitude are higher. The second job attitude that is very important and directly related to organisational behaviour is employee engagement. In a typical modern organisational context, employee engagement can be explained as the extent to which an employee is given room to be involved in work through the implementation of innovative ideas born by these people (Drory & Ritov, 1997). From this definition, it would be seen that employee engagement goes a step ahead of ordinary involvement whereby an employee is made a partaker of day to day activities that come up. Rather, it involves some level of independence given to employees to operate. Indeed employee engagement can be said to be a type of job attitude given the fact that a person’s decision to be engaged, or the decision for the organisation to engage an employee may be based on the outcome of several evaluative judgements (Antonioni, 1998). Using the same examples cited earlier, chances that a job attitude of employee engagement to be developed between the new employee and the mentor who assigns roles are higher. Because employee engagement allows employees to be innovative, it increases their levels of inner confidence and thus promotes healthy relationship with others, which is a tool for achieving positive organisational behaviour (Canary and Spitzberg, 1987). Motivation at work Approaches to motivation There are a number of theories that have been used to explain how motivation may be approached, especially in the workplace environment. One of these is the content theory, which largely emphasises on what is involved with what an employee is provided with as part of work delivery (Baumeister and Vohs, 2004). There are several philosophies that explain the content theory, including the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. In this hierarchy of needs, a person is said to have five major forms of needs which form a pyramid. This means that the needs at the base are plenty, expected by plenty people, and most important for survival (Murphy, 2009). These needs are physiological needs, safety needs, social needs, esteem, and self actualisation. In the workplace context, the most important lesson that the Maslow hierarchy of needs teaches managers that there are many different ways in which they can package the content of motivation. Whiles some of these may be extrinsic such as physiological needs, others can be extrinsic such as esteem and safety needs. It was for this reason Hall (1976) admonished managers to have a means by which they are able to classify their employees to know which forms of motivation applies to them most. The second theory is the process theory, which places emphasis on process rather than content. Unlike the content theory which answers the question of what motivates an employee, the process theory looks more into how the motivation process itself works and can be considered sustainable over time (Pearce and Osmond, 2009). The expectancy theory is a typical philosophy under process theory, which has been used as part of decision making process on motivation to evaluate efforts for outcomes (Carver and Scheier, 2001). This means that expectancy theory places premium on outcomes, which represent a valuable reward for what someone does. In a typical workplace context, the expectancy theory can be applied as a performance enhancement mechanism by which employees are given a cognitive boaster to take pride in the outcome of the jobs they are engaged in. Gunykunst and Ting-Toomey (2008) actually found the application of expectancy theory as a useful means by which managers can inculcate commitment into workers for them to be more concerned with the success of the processes of work that will yield any form of expected outcomes. This is to say that when applied, the expectancy theory helps employees to appreciate the fact that the performance, rather than the reward should be the ultimate target for them. Impact of motivation on organisational behaviour There are several discussions in literature on how motivation relates to and impacts on organisational behaviour. Cofer and Appley (1967) saw that the impact of motivation at work is directly linked to the needs and expectations of workers at work. Linking this to the above, both the content theory and process theory impacts on organisational behaviour as they relate to needs and expectations respectively. Also based on the needs and expectations, there are three major relationships established between motivation and organisational behaviour. The first of these is economic rewards. By economic reward, reference is being made to a type of content based motivation in which employees expect to have a feel of something materialistic as a symbol of motivation (Gollwitzer, 1999). This may include a bonus, allowance or commission. Jones (2008) posited that even for employees whose ultimate expectation of work is not economic reward, they expect that they will be showed appreciation for what they do and that there will be value from their expertise. Based on this, one will expect that an organisation that has lower economic rewards may be lacking in internal competitive, aimed at departmental and organisational growth. This is because workers hardly find any motivation under which they should put in so much effort to their work. The second impact of motivation focuses on social relationship. Here, reference is made to how flexible the organisational climate is to promote interpersonal relationship at the workplace. With the expanding importance of cross-functional teams at the workplace, Cervone, Shadel, Smith and Fiori (2006) stressed that one of the most important ways by which manager can manage the organisational behaviour to ensure that it is accommodating for all employees is by ensuring that there are as many avenues for social relationships as possible. This is because where there are healthy social relationships employees tend to understand each other better. With such form of understanding, it is very easy to expect that employees can work within the organisational space with the most perfect form of harmony, knowing that they are less likely to offend others or be offended by others. Having said this, Deresky (2002) warned that where the social relationship is made to outgrow its boundary, it can bring out negative impacts on organisational behaviour. Such negative impacts are likely to arise when workers become overly interested in the creation of relationships than the actual delivery of work. With this noted, it very important that managers will have a clear form of definition of the social relationship in place within the organisation. Such social relationship should be ones that aim to promote respect for diversity and accommodation to people’s differences. The last impact of motivation is linked to intrinsic satisfaction, which explains the extent to which an employee acquires an inner fulfilment of satisfaction without the need to be externally reinforced (Weightman, 2008). The presence of intrinsic motivation among workers have been associated with the outcome of process theory, whereby employees yet an inner satisfaction based on the process of work and the progress with their work rather than any material or abstract they have already seen. In the estimation of Fishbein and Ajzen (2005), intrinsic satisfaction guarantees higher level of employee retention than extrinsic satisfaction. This claim is made largely because of the qualitative nature of intrinsic satisfaction. This is to say that unlike extrinsic satisfaction which can be measured, intrinsic satisfaction cannot be measured and so it is difficult for employees to express dissatisfaction based on the level of intrinsic motivation available. Meanwhile, the higher the number of retained workers, the more likely it is that they will know themselves and so relate in a more harmonious manner that promotes positive organisational behaviour (Abbasi and Hollman, 2012). Conclusion The discussions above have helped in relating two major dimensions of employees to organisational behaviour. These dimensions are attitude and motivation. It has been realised that both attitude and motivation have the potential of impacting on organisational behaviour. Meanwhile, this impact is not always positive or negative. In most cases, the level of management, most importantly human resource management in place at the workplace is the key to achieving a positive workplace attitude based on the attitude and motivation. On the whole, organisations that work their ways out to creating positive attitude among workers can be sure to attain positive organisational behaviour. The opposite is also true for those that are not able to manage their employees but create negative attitude. As far as motivation is concerned, it is important to motivate employees from both the content theory approach and process theory approach to ensure that employees are well motivated. It is under such circumstance that a positive organisational behaviour can be fostered at the workplace. Indeed, as much as organisational behaviour may be seen as an internal force, it has a direct impact on external forces including stakeholder endorsement. It is for this reason that managers must be abreast with the best approaches to managing their organisations to institutionalise positive organisational behaviour. References Abbasi, S. M. and Hollman, K. W. (2012). “Business Success in the Middle East”. Management Decision, Vol. 31 No. 1: pp. 55-59. Antonioni, D. (1998). Relationship between the big five personality factors and conflict management styles. International Journal of Conflict Management, 9,336-355. Baumeister, R.F. and Vohs, K.D. (2004). Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications. New York: Guilford Press Canary, D. J. and Spitzberg, B. H. (1987). Appropriateness and effectiveness perceptions of conflict strategies. Human Communication Research, 14, 93-118. Canary, D. J., Coach, W. R., and Serape, R. T. (2001). A competence-based approach to examining interpersonal conflict. Communication Research, 28, 79-104. Carver, C.S. and Scheier, M.F. (2001). On the self-regulation of behavior, New York: Cambridge University Press Cervone, D., Shadel, W.G., Smith, R. E. and Fiori, M. (2006). Self-Regulation: Reminders and Suggestions from Personality Science, Applied Psychology. International Review Vol. 55 No. 3: pp. 333–385 Cofer, C. N. and Appley, M. H (1967), Motivation: Theory and Research, New York: John Wiley & Sons Deresky, H. (2002). International Management: Managing Across Borders and Cultures. ZDA: Prentice Hall Drory, A., & Ritov, I. (1997). Effects of work experience and opponents power on conflict management styles. International Journal of Conflict Management, 8,148-161. Eysenck, H. J. and Eysenck, S. B. G. (2005). Personality and individual differences: A natural science approach. New York: Plenum. Eysenck, S. B. G., Eysenck, H. J., and Barrett, P. (2005). A revised version of the psychoticism scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, pp. 21-29. Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (2005), Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Gollwitzer, P.M. (1999), Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans, American Psychologist 54 (7): 493–503 Graen, G., Novak, M. A., and Sommerkamp, P. (2012). The effects of leader-member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 109-131. Gunykunst, W. B. and Ting-Toomey. S. (2008). Culture and Interpersonal Communication. California: Sage. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond Culture. New York: Anchor Press, Garden City. Jones, I. (2008), The Human Factor: Inside the CIA's Dysfunctional Intelligence Culture New York: Encounter Books Murphy, J. (2009), Inner Excellence, McGraw-Hill Pearce, C.L. and Osmond, C.P. (2009). From Workplace Attitudes and Values to a Global Pattern of Nations: An Application of Latent Class Modeling. Journal of Management, 25, 7: pp.9-778 Robbins, S. P. and Judge, T. A. (2007), Essentials of Organizational Behavior (9 ed.), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Samovar, L. A. and Porter, R. E. (2011). Communication between Cultures. California: Wadsworth, Belmont. Sathe, V. (2005). Culture and Related Corporate Realities, New York: Irwin. Smith, P. B. (2006). National Cultures and the Values of Organizational Employees: Time for Another Look. London: International Thomson Business Press. Tosi, H. L., Mero, N. P. and Rizzo, J. R. (2000). Managing Organizational Behaviour, Massachusetts: Blackwell. Valencic, K. M., McCroskey, J. C., and Richmond, V. P. (2001). The effect of teacher temperament on students' perceptions of teacher communication behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, pp. 109-131. Walton, R.E. (2007). Managing conflict. (2nd Edition).Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Weightman, J. (2008) The Employee Motivation Audit: Cambridge Strategy Publications Witteman, H. (2012). Analyzing interpersonal conflict: Nature of awareness, type of initiating event, situational perceptions, and management style. Western Journal of Communication, 56, pp. 248-280. Zenko, Z. (2009). Comparative analysis of management models in Japan, United States of America, and Western Europe: doctoral dissertation, Maribor, Slovenia. Read More