Knowledge of Organisational Behaviour Should Enable to Explain and Predict Human Behaviour - Coursework Example

Running Head: Organizational Behaviour Organizational Behaviour [Institute’s Organizational Behaviour Introduction The organization is a complex product of the expectations, behaviours, and beliefs prevailing in an organization. As Brooks discusses in his book, these processes occur on an individual, group, and organizational level (Brooks, 2009, p. 2). Understanding and managing such a dynamic network of forces presents a challenge to managers, one that the discipline of organizational behavior helps to resolve. It teaches managers and other relevant professionals in organizations to understand human behaviour in an organization. This understanding enables them to not only make sense of the behaviour they witness in their workforce, but also to predict it before hand and sometimes even influencing it to reflect the desired level. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that organizational behaviour teaches one how to control human behaviour in an organization. However, it may be unreasonable to label this practice as exploitative, since the control is limited to an organizational setting, and the results are aimed to improving organizational performance, rather than exploitative practice of this knowledge. Organizational behaviour teaches a manager how to analyze and handle several different dimensions of an organization. One of the relatively well-known areas of expertise is the substantial and extensive knowledge of motivation that organizational behaviour has to offer. It offers dozens of theories on motivation, each tailored to specific situations as well as different findings in this area. These range from the classic theories such as Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory to the more controversial, contemporary theories such as Theory X and Y (Thompson and McHugh, 2002, pp. 10-48). Each of these motivational theories offers a unique insight into an employee’s mind, helping one understand what drives these employees to put effort into their work and then teaching one how to use these teachings to influence employees to exhibit desired behaviour. On the surface, it may seem like a euphemism for ‘manipulation techniques’ that teach a manager how to exploit a person’s predictability and use it to their organization’s advantage. However, the intentions behind organizational behaviour practices should be kept in sight before drawing such evaluations. Discussion Considering an organization with a de-motivated workforce may help one understand the ethical validation of this discipline. Such an organization would have paid employees who have each been designated specific tasks, each of which contribute to the organization’s performance and success. This is common amongst organizations that combine technology, creativity, and innovation in their operations. If the employees of such an organization lack motivation, their performance levels will be low, and predictably below the needed levels (Rashid, 2003, pp. 30-55). This would lead to failure of the organization, which could have several detrimental results, which could lead to employees losing their jobs and putting them at as much loss the organization. Thus, teaching a manager to remedy such a problem in a manner, which is beneficial for both the employee and the organization, is not exploitative. Furthermore, these theories do not try to manipulate an employee psychologically on a subconscious level. They do not aim to take advantage of the employee without realizing it, but rather offer this motivation at a conscious level, the influence of which is visible to the employees themselves. Other than Pavlov’s Classical Conditioning theory, most of the motivational theories operate on a conscious level and depend on the employees consciously reacting to the situation they are presented with (Huczynski and Buchanan, pp. 5-25). For example, bonus schemes are one of the most commonly used motivational techniques in a workplace. They offer the employee monetary and other similar forms of extra compensation for efficient and productive performance. However, they do so at a level where the employees are fully aware of the forces at work. They consciously recognize the reward for putting in more efforts and then make an effort to earn the reward. This does not signal manipulation and exploitation, but rather a healthy practice where the employee is able to improve his or her performance with the help of the manager. Another interesting part of organizational behaviour, which is often labeled as exploitative, is its teaching on power. This is because it teaches them how to gain power over an individual, which seems to be an exploitative practice. Organizational behaviour teaches managers that power is the ability of one person to influence another person’s action. It further goes on to present the General Dependency postulate, which claims that the greater the dependency of the latter person on the former, the more power the former has over the latter (Pettinger, pp. 115-160). Furthermore, it discusses the different sources of power, teaching managers how to gain power over the employees using different means. This area may be considered an exploitative study, since it mentions several different sources that may be then used to manipulate the employee into performing at the desired level. Organizational behaviour outlines five sources of power. The three formal sources are reward power, coercive power and legitimate power. Each of these sources has been criticized for the manner in which they seem to gain influence over the employee (Fincham, 2005). Considering two of these sources, reward power and coercive power, will help understand the reason behind this. Reward power is exercisable by those people who are in the position to reward people for their efforts if they act in the required manner. Its counterpart is coercive power, which lies with a person who has the right to administer punishments to people. Thus, a person who has these powers has the ability to promote and give bonuses to a person who performs well, and reprimand and even fire those who do not work according to requirements. This helps the managers gain influence over the employees, but results in them working out of fear and ulterior motives. Thus, the practice of such power can be considered exploitative to the interests of the employees. However, one important fact to note is that organizational behaviour treats this manner with sensitivity. It recognizes how power can be a dangerous force in an organization if it is abused, or in abundance with a few people. Thus, before beginning the discussion on power, most authors give a warning about the way it is a sensitive manner, and must be dealt with carefully to avoid taking advantage of employees at any level (Mullins, 2007, pp. 20-37). One book on organizational behaviour compares power to drugs. If used in excess or abused, it can lead to severely detrimental consequences and put many people in danger. However, if used in moderation and only when needed, it can have very useful, medicinal purposes, which can help several people (Robbins and Sanghi, 2010, p. 216). Thus, organizational behaviour should not be considered an exploitative science for teaching managers how to gain power over the employees, since it teaches them to administer the “drug” power, as a doctor, not a drug abuser. It teaches them to use this power only for healthy organizational purposes, which will benefit the employees as well as the organization. Several other ways exist in which organizational behaviour teaches one to predict human behaviour, such as its teachings about conflict. The occurrence and resolution of conflict is one of the most important topics in organizational behaviour because conflict is a very commonly occurring phenomenon in organizations, and is often detrimental to organizational dynamics if not handled properly (Buchannan and Huczynski, 2007, p. 30). Using the research that organizational behaviour experts have carried out, one can create and predict conflict, thus enabling a manager to control the employees in this aspect. This may seem like it gives a manger advantageous ability over the employees, since he or she can then manipulate a brewing conflict to move in any desired direction (Champox, 2010, p. 421). However, exploring the teachings of organizational behaviour on a deeper level will help understand why this is not a negative aspect of organizational behaviour, but how it is instead yet another way in which it teaches managers to work for the greater good of the employees as well as the organization. While the traditional view condemns conflict, the humanistic view sees the benefits of conflict in an organization and thus teaches a manager to maintain a moderate level of conflict in the organization in order to keep productivity levels and efficient decision making to a maximum extent (French and Rayner, 2011, pp. 210-240). This is to say, that the reason that organizational behaviour stresses on conflict is because conflict is essentially tied to productivity and worker satisfaction (Arnold, 1995). Furthermore, it helps a manager differentiate between the different types of conflict, and recognizing the ones that can be useful to the organization and the ones that cannot. For example, it teaches how both process and task conflict lead to better decision-making and increased productivity levels if they exist in moderate and controlled levels (Blacker, 1984, pp. 30-50). Whereas the third type of conflict, relationship conflict, is extremely detrimental to the work process, and thus should be resolved immediately, since it is interpersonal, and often based on personal disagreements, which do not lead to any improvement in the work process (Saks and Johns, 2007, p. 36). Additionally, a manager who senses that there is need for a small level of conflict may attempt to introduce it there, so that organizational performance improves. The manager may do this by introducing a certain level of competition amongst the employees, so that they will work harder. Finally, organizational behaviour also teaches one how to resolve and manage excess levels of conflict in the organization in manner, which minimizes the damage. In all these ways, organizational behaviour equips the person with the ability to handle situations, which could otherwise work against the performance of the organization. This invalidates the theory of how the controlling and predictive powers of conflict handling are exploitative and unethical, since they have a very useful application in the workplace. Leadership is yet another area in which organizational behaviour teaches managers to handle and control people. It defines leadership as the ability to lead a group of people towards a certain goal. This requires a certain level of control and the ability to understand and lead people. The implication of this is as follows: as organizational behaviour teaches a person to lead people, it teaches them to control them, in order to be able to lead them towards a specific goal. In other words, it enables leaders to understand people and then control people and make them work towards a specific goal. It does this by enabling them to understand the psychology behind the efforts of a work force, so that they are able to influence and inspire the people. However, rather than being exploitative, the leadership research that experts have conducted over the years, regarding both classical and contemporary leadership theories, has mostly been focused on increasing productivity and levels of satisfaction in the workplace (Martin, 2001, pp. 40-75). For example, it teaches how Level 5 leadership is highly effective in increasing productivity levels and work force satisfaction, due to the compassionate yet driven way in which it leads the employees. In addition, it condemns leadership that is task-based or job-oriented, since those types of leadership tend to ignore the human side of the workers, and only exploit their working side (Sinha, 2009, pp. 285-312). Thus, organizational behaviour does not teach managers how to become leaders and manipulate people. Rather, it teaches one how to lead people and help them productively achieve their organizational goals in a manner, which is most beneficial for the workers as well. Conclusion Conclusively, these are only a few of the several areas through which organizational behaviour teaches a person how to predict and control a person’s behaviour. However, as the above analysis of some of the organizational behaviour theories shows, this is a positive rather than a negative aspect of this field. It does not aim to equip managers with all the necessary tools to exploit an employee. Rather, it aims to equip them with enough understanding to be able to manage the work force in a manner that maximizes productivity without taking advantage of the employees. While it does give the ability to control employees, this is accompanied with warnings, and discussions about how such an abuse of that ability will only be detrimental to the organizations interests. Thus, keeping in mind the aim it has as well as the manner in which it handles such sensitive issues, one can conclude that organizational behaviour is not exploitative towards employees, and is needed for an organization to be successful. References Arnold, J. et al 1995. Work Psychology. London: Pitman Publishing Blackler, F. & Shimmin, S. 1984. Applying Psychology in Organisations, London: Methuen. Brooks, I. 2009. Organisational Behaviour: Individuals, Groups and Organisation 4th Ed., Prentice Hall. Buchannan, D, & Huczynski, A. 2007. Organisational Behaviour: An Introductory Text. London: Prentice Hall Financial Times. Champoux, J. 2010. Organizational Behavior: Integrating Individuals, Groups, and Organizations. Taylor & Francis. Fincham, R. & Rhodes, P. 2005. Principles of Organisational Behaviour 4th Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. French, R., and Rayner, C. 2011. Organizational Behaviour. John Wiley and Sons. Huczynski, A and Buchanan, D. A. 2004. Organizational Behaviour: An Introductory Text. London: Prentice Hall. Martin, J. 2001. Organizational behaviour. Thomson Learning. Mullins, L. 2007. Management and Organisational Behaviour 8th Edition, London: Prentice Hall Financial Times. Pettinger, R. 2010. Organizational Behaviour: Performance Management in Practice. Taylor & Francis. Rashid, S. A. 2002. Organizational Behaviour. Taylor and Francis. Robbins and Sanghi. 2010. Essentials of Organizational Behavior, 10/E. Pearson Education India. Saks, A. M., and Johns, G. 2007. Organizational Behaviour. Pearson Education Canada. Sinha, J. B. P. 2009. Culture and Organizational Behaviour. SAGE Publications Ltd. Thompson, P. & McHugh, D. 2002. Work Organisation 3rd edition. Palgrave. Read More