Employees Perception towards Organizational Success through the Performance Management System - Case Study Example

Perception [Name] [Institution] Introduction Organizational behavior describes a set of topics that describe the study as well as the application of knowledge concerning how individuals and groups carry themselves in firms through incorporating a system approach. This means that it interprets the relationships between people and organization in the terms of the whole firm, whole social system, whole person and whole group. The aim of organizational behavior is to create improved relationships through attaining human, organizational and social objectives (Robbins, Judge, Millett & Waters-Marsh, 2011 p. 8). This paper aims to describe the relationship between personal perception in the workplace, leader-member exchange and perceptions of employee performance. Further, this paper will describe how my relationship with leaders in my organization impacted my performance. Perception Perception is the means by which people define as well as organize their sensory feelings so as to offer their environment some meaning. One’s perception differs from another person’s and the two can vary greatly than the real objective reality. A person’s perception on reality forms the foundation of his/her behavior. This is important in the workplace because people behave according to how they perceive the workplace (Robbins, Judge, Millett & Waters-Marsh, 2011 p.144). Perception is influenced by many factors such as factors that encompass the perceiver like attitude of the person, their expectations, interests, experience as well as motives. The other factor is linked to context and examples include social and work setting as well as time. There are those associated with actual target like proximity, novelty, background and size among others (Robbins, Judge, Millett & Waters-Marsh, 2011 p.144). Perception is related to employment by the fact that a person can behave in a manner that causes problems. This is as explained by the attribution theory in which case an employee is judged in attribution to a particular behavior (Robbins, Judge, Millett & Waters-Marsh, 2011 p.145). For instance, a problem may arise from an employee who underestimates the influence of external factors as well as one who is overestimating the way internal factors may influence judgment concerning the behavior of others (Robbins, Judge, Millett & Waters-Marsh, 2011 p.146). The other relationship of perception to employment is observed when the problem of selective perception arises. This happens when an employee appear to interpret selectively what is observed on another person’s attitudes, interests, experiences and background (Robbins, Judge, Millett & Waters-Marsh, 2011 p.147). Another problem is when one attributes his/her characteristics to other individuals. Stereotyping is another issue that results from judging others using a group’s perception to which it belongs. The other problem rises from generalizing impression concerning a person on the basis of a single character (Robbins, Judge, Millett & Waters-Marsh, 2011 p.148). An organization can be affected by the way individuals perceives an interviewee when testing them for a vacancy. Those interviewing the person may like one of his aspects and grants him/her the job based on that single characteristic. This may later affect the organization because they assumed that the single feature was a good fit for the firm which may not be true in reality. In other case, an employer may fail to promote an employee after forming a negative perception simply because the person fellowships with a certain religion different from his (Robbins, Judge, Millett & Waters-Marsh, 2011 p.149). Stereotyping thus arise contrary to the legislation that safeguards human rights (Maiya, Krishnamurthy & Sukhesh, 2011 p. 178). The relationship between personal perception in the workplace and perceptions of employee performance is evident from the discussion above. This is because perception affects productivity of employees because their performance is influenced by the way they perceive their managers and how their managers perceive them. This is because what workers perceive influence their productivity in most cases and it does not depend on how well the managers guide them but on how they perceive their leaders (Robbins, Judge, Millett & Waters-Marsh, 2011 p.164). In this regard, employers should evaluate how employees perceive their work in order to impact their productivity. This is where the issue of leadership comes in because the employer has to be leaders to their employees who are the followers. They should lead in assessing their employees’ perception of their work so as to influence productivity in a positive manner. The issue of leadership is well addressed by leader-member exchange (LMX) which is a theory that describes organizational relations. LMX focus centrally on the interaction and relationship between the subordinate and supervisor parallel to the behavior, traits as well as situational leadership styles or other variables. LMX is crucial in the understanding of the challenges of the competition that most businesses are undergoing. The current markets are changing globally and thus organizations require LMX in order to survive and remain competitive. Leaders accord their subordinates different treatment at different levels and degrees depending on whether one is on the in or the out-group (Robbins, Judge, Millett & Waters-Marsh, 2011 p. 338). According to Truckenbrodt, LMX asserts that there is no uniform interaction between leaders and their subordinates due to the limited time as well as resources of the supervisors (2002 p.234). Subordinates in in-group category carry out their work as stated in the contract although their supervisors expect them to perform other unstructured duties like voluntary work. In return, supervisors give them positional as well as personal resources for their unstructured work. Thus, mutual trust and cooperation exist between the in-group and their supervisors (Truckenbrodt, 2002 p.234). However, the out-group subordinates are those who work per the prescribed duty and as such, they are not favored like the former group. LMX’s unit of analysis is focused on the exchange happening between the subordinate and the superior who forms the distinct basic premise (Truckenbrodt, 2002 p.234). According to the research by Campbell & Swift, there existed bias when supervisors were checking the performance of the two groups and when the subordinates were evaluating their own performance (2006 p. 403). Supervisors were seen to favor the in-group presumably because of the mutual relationship between the two. This kind of treatment should not be seen among leaders who influence the employee’s performance because bias and poor perception may lead to judging wrongly good workers and thus affecting overall productivity negatively. The differences between the in-group and out-group subordinates relative to their supervisors may be a product of perception. This is because the out-group subordinates may perceive their work as dictated by the contract or as per the initial agreement and thus might not go overboard. However, this does not mean that their supervisors should treat them indifferently because as the law requires, an employer should agree the terms and conditions with the employee before signing the contract. Hence, the out-group should get equal treatment with the in-group because the latter offers the extra efforts willingly without coercion. Even if they get favors in return, this should not be the ground to discriminate or look down upon on the out-group (Robbins, Judge, Millett & Waters-Marsh, 2011 p. 338). The way leaders treat their subordinates determine their output and it is in this regard that employees should be helped to develop a positive perception of their employment. If this is achieved, employees are bound to influence their turnover and absenteeism positively and in turn more job satisfaction and overall increased performance. Thus, the relationship between personal perception in the workplace, leader-member exchange and perceptions of employee performance is brought out by the effects of different perceptions which consequently influence decision-making. Decision-making is the backbone of every organization and is thus the central factor of every business process. Hence, any factor affecting decision-making is worth addressing. Impact of Relationship with Leaders on my Performance The leaders who I have been working for have understood my psychology very much. They have also been a motivation because they have been respecting me as well as acknowledging my humanity (Robbins, Judge, Millett & Waters-Marsh, 2011 p. 4). These leaders have been directing my work especially in situations when new assignments arise. The support given has been the backbone of my efforts to a level where the productivity of my department has increased greatly. Further, the advice the leaders have been giving has shaped my personal in additional to professional character. I have been able to interact and live together with people of different behaviors in a harmonious manner courtesy of the training and the good environment offered by my workplace. Similarly, the autonomy in my workplace has enabled me to do my work without any interruptions such that I give the best and thus receive job satisfaction. Leaders in my workplace avoid forming wrong perceptions about their employees and they instead try to train us to what they want us to be in order to lead after them. This has helped me to be more confident in my work because of the appreciation of what I do. The future in my organization in deed looks bright because of the good leadership. My leaders have been my mentor and motivator who have enabled my career to grow to another level. The company in turn is achieving increased productivity because the employees are all satisfied and thus are giving their best. Hence, all leaders should emulate the good leadership in my organization in order to compete effectively in the globally challenging competitive working environment. All firms will achieve maximum productivity if the leaders lead by example and this will only be through treating their employees the way they ought to and in line with the business ethics. References Campbell, C., & Swift, C 2006, Attributional comparisons across biases and leader-member exchange status, Journal of Managerial Issues, 18(3), 393-408 Maiya, U., Krishnamurthy, M., & Sukhesh, P 2011, employees’ perception towards organizational success through performance management system, Indian Journal of Commerce & Management Studies, 2(1), 177-184 Robbins, S. P., Judge, T. A., Millet, B., & Waters-Marsh, T 2011, organizational behavior, NSW: Prentice Hall. Truckenbrodt, Y 2000, the relationship between leader-member exchange and commitment and organizational citizenship behavior, Acquisition Review Quarterly,233-244 Read More