Importance of Organisational Behaviour and Human Resource - Assignment Example

Organisational Behaviour and Human Resource a) Why it is important to study organisational behaviour? Studying organizational behaviour is important because it enables us to understand how the various components of the organization behave, its dynamics and functions, thereby making us more effective in dealing with it. Equally important in studying organisational behaviour are the people working in the organisation, how they interact with each other, their surroundings, what motivates them, what makes them perform well, and so on. To understand this human component that makes the organisation complex, a careful study is neccessary. Our understanding of the human component in the organization evolves and changes. Old theories are debunked by new ones. This only manifests the complexity of human nature in an organizational setting; to thoroughly understand this complexity, perpetual study is required. Of course, the option of totally abandoning the idea can be considered to save the researcher from the burden of undergoing laborious study. But the importance of human component in an organisation is so paramount that it is even considered as the organization’s most important asset; studying it becomes imperative despite its complexity that entails not only effort but also time and resources. In studying organisational behaviour, we have discovered and understood what makes a person. The odyssey of such study led us to the discovery of different dimensions in the person, and this widens our perspective of humans as multi-faceted individuals. During the process of understanding, we have become acquainted with the interesting thoughts of Milgram, Goleman, Martin, Curry, and Ritzer. Studying their research makes us realize that people tend to obey authorities even if the directives are harmful, illegal and even destructive, and that very few people will in fact challenge authority (Milgram, 1963). This realization is important because it makes us more aware of the fact that there are directives that are not necessarily proper but still people obey them, and just because most people obey them, it does not necessarily mean that the directives are right. It also shows us that if we become managers or leaders, we should be aware and responsible enough when we dispense instructions or directives. The study of Milgram tells us that subordinates will tend to obey us, and we should not imagine that just because our subordinates obey, our instructions or directives are right. This also brings to light the idea of emotional intelligence, the understanding of which is important because it puts our perspective in a proper direction. It makes us realize that “people’s skill” is more important than IQ as regards getting things done. It is because a team, which entails social interaction between its members, can accomplish a job better and easier than an individual (no matter how brilliant he or she is) working on a gargantuan task alone. Ritzer was updated about his idea of McDonaldization as the new rationale of modern society (2003). This understanding is important because it provides us with the contextual appreciation of the economic landscape in which organisations and operate. When we properly understand the tendencies of the behaviour of people that comprise the organisation, and how to motivate and lead them under the present and relevant economic context, it will be helpful for the organisation and its people to realize their objectives. It would also provide the organisation with a higher probability of optimizing the productivity of its workforce, thereby enhancing job performance, which is very important as regards the organisation’s competitiveness. b) How this learning may be useful to you in the future?  This understanding about the human aspect of the organisation will be an indispensable tool for me in the future; it will help me become not only an effective employee or a manger but also an effective leader. Absence of this understanding about the human dimension of the organisation will make me not only ineffective but also prone to mistakes, prone to be misunderstood or to become insensitive to others, which would render me incapable of addressing any issue that I may have. The various theories I learned in class are eye openers in relation to our tendencies. They were also able to explain why we behave in a certain or why we do not behave in a certain manner. What makes us tick, and what is the most effective way of leading people. Of these theories, I will cite several which I find to be the most relevant, enlightening and most useful to me in the future. First is the theory and idea about emotional intelligence, which is a requisite of transformational leadership. I thought then that leaders just boss around, write people up if they do not move or provide the carrot to motivate people to get things done, and they not necessarily mind people. I thought then that having a vision of something grand is sufficient to make somebody a leader and that intelligence quotient mattered more than emotional intelligence. Goleman’s thoughts of emotional intelligence made me realize that leading people is more than that, and there is a huge difference between a boss and a genuine leader, and that we have to be mindful of how we deal with other people and ourselves. What was enlightening was that it is really our social quotient, or emotional intelligence, that could make us more successful than our cognitive intelligence, or IQ. More than solving equations, which is the ambit of IQ, is how we regulate our emotions as we relate to our people to have things done (Goleman, 1993). According to Goleman, it is in fact EQ and not IQ that could determine success, and it is not so important to be really cognitively smart as long as we know the baseline skills. What matters more is how we treat people, solicit cooperation, deal with stress and have things done despite of adversity. Studying the research of Hocschild “The Managed Heart...” (1983) might lead us to conclude that this kind of leadership might not be conclusive, because according to Hochschild, emotion, such as the identification of a subordinate before a leader, in transformational leadership is in fact relative and dependent on the prevailing norm. In cultures where identification has no root, this idea may not be applicable. I will not argue about the validity of the Hocschild’s theorem; I will rather pick up the item that could be useful to me in the future. I will pick up the notion that the organizational emotion or culture is in fact a conditioned factor and I will use it in a positive way. If I become a leader of an organization in the future, I will create an atmosphere of excellence and service culture in my organization; each employee will have to subscribe by means of social conditioning of the organization. Speaking of the organization, the study of Martin (1992) also made me aware about the three perspectives of integration, differentiation and fragmentation. These perspectives are applicable not only in team development but also in the development of ideas. Groups and/or teams can be fragmented, which is not the ideal situation, because it renders the organization weak through the inordinate distribution of strength or differentiated, which can be good or bad. Differentiation can be positive if it means bringing the diversity, which produces a manifold perspective in the organization, or it can be destructive if it leads to cliques or fragmentation. But, of course, integration is the ideal state for the organization because it not only consolidates teams and ideas but also brings cohesiveness in the organization. This integration cannot be realized without understanding the other two concepts – fragmentation and differentiation. Studying the human aspect of an organization would also be useful not only in terms of becoming effective in one’s organization but also in dealing with entitites outside the organization. For organizations to be successful, they have to deal with entities outside its own structure. These outside entities include customers, suppliers, business partners, regulating institutions, foreign counterparts, foreign partners and suppliers. Again, these entities are composed of people that also belong to an organization and are similar to the people inside our own organization that are complex and multifaceted. This interaction with outside organizations is even more intensified with the advent of globalization. Globalization means the interdependence of economies where organizations are now closely integrated. The new environment of globalization means that people belonging to organizations are more predisposed to consume the drives of the economy of the globalized environment. While I do not agree with the George Ritzer theorem of equating consumption with nothingness and his gloomy idea about the world, it gives me the idea that along with globalization is heightened consumption, which could be good or bad for the organization. It could be bad because along with the enhanced consumption comes the intensified demand for products and services that are of higher quality and lower price. At the organizational level, it means that companies have to be efficient; otherwise, the market will doom them to oblivion due to the intense competition. But this can also be good if the organization is able to produce products and create services that are of quality and of value fitting the customers’ needs and desires because they will dominate a wider market. This could mean bigger profits for shareholders and higher salaries to employees. This, however, underscores the need to understand organisational behaviour because under the present economic environment people have to perform at their optimum to ensure that the organization survives and thrives in the market. The sound understanding about organizational behaviour, especially of how to motivate, lead and enable employees to perform, is not only useful but could also spell the difference between failure and success. High-performing employees will create products and services that are better and cheaper while non-performing people will produce mediocre results in a least efficient way, and the difference between the performing and non-performing employees is the understanding of organizational behaviour by their leaders. In addition, high-performing people in the organization not only will create products and services that are better and cheaper but also could suggest other methods to create them. Better yet, an organisation whose employees’ behaviours are motivated can even create demand for products and services that they make. This is particularly true in today’s information age, when inventions determine demand. For example, Blackberry has created the smartphone market and Apple has pioneered the application ecosphere and revolutionized the smartphone market. These markets did not exist before, but because of the organisational ingenuity of these companies, they were able to create demand for their products and services. In conclusion it is important to cite the theory of Curry (2011) about ecological ethics. His ethical theory states that nature is not just the source of raw materials that we use in our economic activities but rather consists of values that not only have economic importance but also serve as a basis of our virtues. This is useful for me to know because this ethical guideline of Curry will temper the organisation’s excessive consumerism and disregard for the environment. This is useful because it will also enable the organisation to think strategically, considering long-term consequences. If the organisational behaviour is not mindful of how the organisation uses natural resources, this will not only have repercussions on the ethical image of the organisation but also economic implications. As regards short-term conseqences, if the organisation violates environment laws, regulatory agencies of the government may impose excessive fines on the organization that could undermine the economic health of the company. This will also have a ripple effect on society. It will negatively impact its Customer Relations Management (CRM); the company will be viewed as unethical and irresponsible, and this can undermine its customers’ confidence towards the organisation. In the long run, this will affect the company when the raw materials its needs for production become extinct or banned from use by the government. Whichever is the consequence, it will not be good for the organization, so it would also be useful to have an understanding of ecological ethics for the overall long-term health of the company and the environment. Reference List Curry, Patrick, 2011. Ecological ethics. Polity Press Goleman, D., 1998. Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books Hocschild, Arlie, 1983. The managed heart: The commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley: The University of California Press. Martin, J., 1992. Cultures in organizations; three perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press. Milgram, Stanley, 1963. Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human Relations 18 (1), pp. 57–76. Doi: 10.1177/001872676501800105. Ritzer, George, 2003. The globalization of nothing. SAGE Publications, Inc. Thousand Oaks Read More