What Contributes and Hinders Employee Commitment to the Company - Essay Example

Organizational Behavior This comprehensive study analyzes the actions of people or groups within an organization’s workforce, in a systematic manner. Organizational behavior determines an individual’s engagement to the organization (Arvinen-Muondo and Perkins, 5), with the relationship that the individual has with other members within the organization. It also is important in the evaluation of the probable candidates in a job position that is vacant within an organization. Therefore, with positive organizational behavior, it is more likely for an individual to find a job. The top individual behaviors that build a strong organizational behavior include integrity or honesty, strong ethics towards work, perfect writing and verbal communication skills, motivational skills and good interpersonal relationship skills. The lack of organizational structure is a vice that inhibits the understanding between various people at work. The growth in trust amongst individuals in an organization leads to the genesis of promises and timelines to fulfill such promises. In the business world, promises represent the perception that people have about an individual expects. In the process of fulfilling promises in an organizational framework, people create varying perceptions about the happenings of the organization, in most cases leading to violations in fulfilling the promises as scheduled. The violation of promises in a workplace erodes the trust amongst the employees, therefore hindering the employees’ relations (Senge, 13). In this case, the productivity is undermined, hence lower investments by the employees. Apart from the employees’ interrelations, the violations of promises by the management contribute to breach of contract. This occurs in most organizations that have histories of mistrust and conflict. It happens also in situations where there are cultural and social diversities that make it difficult to understand the perspectives of the individuals. In addition to that, the external pressures that contribute to violations may spill over to an organization, hence affecting the employees. This causes the tendency and possibilities to breach contracts to be high, therefore obliging a party to view the relationship with little value than the other (Kondalkar, 21). The major ways to deal with the lack of trust and violation of promises within an organization include social learning, exit, voice or silence. In social learning, the people in the organization learn the different social backgrounds of the varying people in the workforce. This way, the perceptions of the people become convergent rather than divergent. However, social learning is limited to the diversity of social backgrounds; hence, it is difficult to use it in situations which have people from the same social background. Exit is an option that terminates the relationship between the parties in a relationship voluntarily. This happens when the employees and the management fail to reach a consensus concerning the fulfillment of the promises as engraved in the contract. This technique is suitable in organizations where the contract form is transactional, hence the brief relationship. It is also conducive where other employees are quitting the organization, or in fields where there exists multiple vacancies (Nadin and Williams, 46). Despite being an active and outright solution, exit limits the abilities to explore means that can solve the problem amicably. Exit does not give room for the revision of promises and elimination of possible violation. Instead of exit, the voice action refers to the attempts by the employees to salvage the relationship between fellow employees and the management. This occurs by filing complaints with the management about the dissatisfaction that an individual faces. These efforts have the main aim of compensating or issuing a remedy to the violation of promises and the lack of trust within an organizational framework. Therefore, by voicing concerns, individuals hope to restore trust, reduce possible ineffectiveness and enhance protocol formation or strengthening of existent protocols. However, voice is limited to intimidate the relationships further, as many people threaten to worsen the relationships further if their demands are not met. This amounts to blackmail, a trait that is against the code of organizational behavior. Silence on the other hand offers no response to the situations at hand. This is avoidance and negligence on the part of the management, while on the part of the employees it is loyalty. It implies the lack of alternatives, or the patience to see conditions improving. This is a good way to control the emotional outbursts, as it inhibits people from insulting each other in the workplace. On the other hand, silence amounts to negligence and inability to perform. This is evident when employees are not answerable to their lack of productivity, or in situations that the management fails to take responsibility for claims made against the organization. It generally brews more mistrust in the organization (King and Lawley, 12). Communication amongst the divergent culture is a hindrance to the organizational behavior as it stretches the ability to give positive judgments and understand the conversations. Different cultural backgrounds hold different beliefs that make the members from that culture believe that their beliefs are true, and that they are based on real data. The ladder of inference is a technique that sets to explain the reason why most individuals do not understand the genesis of their deepest attitudes. For successful communication across cultural diversity, parties must do inner reflections that expose their way of reasoning, before displaying it to others (Pekerti and Thomas, 26). Effective communication begins with inquiry about the thoughts of the audience, hence making it possible to draw observable data from the statements. It also gives room for the disagreement from other parties, and further allows the dialogue to establish the reasoning behind the data. Therefore, communication is effective when the interpretation is universal and represents the reasoning of many people in an organizational setting. The use of the ladder of inference to understand the communication skills across people with diverse culture is limited. As it tries to incorporate the thinking of diverse people, it imposes the thinking of the majority to the minority. This makes it difficult for the minority ideas to be incorporated in the communication, as it talks about explaining the major concept to those with no communicational ability to understand the conversation. In cultural diversity, active listening is important in reducing the probability of criticizing the ideas of an individual. In-group talk, the members listen to one another to reduce arguments and increase the probability of incorporating the views of one another in the conversation. Active listening requires articulation of the development of individual personality. With active listening, individuals develop their self picture as it uses the experiences of others to develop an inner change within individuals. For active listening to succeed (Farson and Rogers, 35), the group members must try to get into the mindset of the speaker. In situations where there is diverse cultural backgrounds, it is important for the listeners to avoid drawing conclusions. Instead, there is a universal use of gestures, body languages and facial expressions to describe a similar experience to the group. The attitude of the narrator is critical in setting the tone of the message, as informal or formal. By listening, the group builds a pattern of effective communication. In contrast to having effective listening in communicating, it is a skill that is difficult to acquire. The practice that the skill requires is demanding. In addition to that, the listeners must have interest in the speaker. From the onset, the presentation by a speaker determines the manner in which the audience views the speaker. Emotional expression acts to attract the attention of the speaker, while on the other hand irritates some faction of the audience. With disinterest in the speaker, the group inhibits effective expressions by the speaker. The level of personal risk that active listening has makes it difficult for the audience to understand the speaker. It is difficult for people to abandon their thinking and begin thinking in the line of another person (Anon, 817). This makes people accustomed to seeing and hearing only what they want to. This therefore inhibits the ability to develop a sincere positive attitude towards the speaker. I have learnt that organizational behaviors succeed in the presence of effective communication (Improving Risk Analysis: Policies, Practices and Individual Needs, 34). The building of structures is necessary in creating protocol and relationships in the organization. In situations where there is cultural diversity, it is important to explore other avenues that expose the similarities that lie beyond the cultural differences. In addition to that, I learnt that for effective communication, active listening is critical. All the above factors contribute positively to organizational behavior, hence improving the productivity and dedication of people in a group or employees in an organization. Conclusion: Organizational behavior is not mere common sense. The systematic approach is difficult to master, and in the sense of individual approach towards organizational behavior, the conclusions that people make are often faulted. Besides, it is difficult to master individual behaviors, as different situations come up and they require different solutions and different mindsets. Individual assessment, however, is important in building the necessary requirements that define positive organizational behavior. In conclusion, the effectiveness of employees is dependent on more than just their individual behavior (Adler, 26). The motivational tactics by the management and the ownership of the business play a critical role in deciding the behaviors of employees. References Adler, N.J. International Dimensions Of Oganizational Behavior. 2nd ed. Boston: MA: PWS-KENT Publishing Company., 1991. Print. Anon, (2015). [online] Available at: http://www.mi.rei.ase.ro/Site%20MI/Case%20Study%205_Road%20to%20Hell.pdf [Accessed 26 Apr. 2015]. Arvinen-Muondo, Raisa, and Stephen J Perkins. Organizational Behaviour. London: Kogan Page, 2013. Print. Farson, Richard E., and Carl R. Rogers. ACTIVE LISTENING. Communicating in Business Today(1987): n. pag. Print. Improving Risk Analysis: Policies, Practices And Individual Needs. Risk Analysis 28.6 (2008): 1491-1492. Web. King, Daniel, and Scott Lawley. Organizational Behaviour. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Print. Kondalkar, V. G. Organizational Behaviour. New Delhi: New Age International (P) Ltd., Publishers, 2007. Print. Nadin, Sara J., and Colin C. Williams. Psychological Contract Violation Beyond An Employees Perspective. Employee Relations 34.2 (2011): 110-125. Web. Pekerti, A. A., and D. C. Thomas. The Role Of Self-Concept In Cross-Cultural Communication.International Journal of Cross Cultural Management (2015): n. pag. Web. Senge, Peter M. The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. New York: Currency, Doubleday, 1994. Print. Read More