Contemporary Issues in Organisational Behaviour 2011 and Onwards - Essay Example

? Organisational Behaviour Inserts His/ Her Inserts Grade Inserts Inserts Contemporary issues in Organisational Behaviour 2011 and onwards Organisational Behaviour is defined as “the study of individuals and their behaviour within the context of the organisation in a workplace setting. It is an interdisciplinary field that includes sociology, psychology, communication and management” (Lamb, 2010). It was originally treated as a part of the field of Psychology for its high focus on observation and analysis of human behaviour. However, it rapidly emerged as an independent field due to the complexities and unique nature of workplace settings, integrating the studies of sociology, communication and management as well. Organisational Behaviour is a vast subject, catering to studies pertaining to employees; their motivation strategies, their productivity, their dedication to the organisation they work in, their emotional complexities, the role of workplace environment and peers. Indeed Organisational Behaviour is a detailed research-based subject for determining the factors influencing workplace settings and employees and how to increase their productivity. Hence, for organisational welfare, the knowledge of organizational behavior is unquestionably important. Traditional Organisational Behaviour theories, or initial theories, had been sufficient to cater to the traditional organisational settings. Originally, before the technological advent of computers and the never ending internet connectivity, organisations meant a workplace divided into numerous cubicles with the employees milling about their regular office chores, only leaving their cubicles during lunchtime, and at times working overtime through the night in their respective offices. Supervision was generally done by observing the employee performance through the tinted cubicle glasses, providing assistance and motivation on spot. However, with rapid technological advancements in the form of software developments and easily available internet connectivity, the typical meaning of “organisation” and “workplace” has also evolved. Dictionary.com now defines ‘organisation’ as “a business or administrative concern united and constructed for a particular end”, with no reference to the physical aspect of the organisation. Technological advancements has made “work-from-home” possible, just as “carrying office around” is possible due to the development of gadgets. People do not spend night time working in offices, and most organisations do not have an office space for all their employees – “working at a distance” has gained popularity as a part of increasing efficiency and cost-cutting strategies of all businesses. This has posed significant challenges to the traditional organisational behaviour theories, posing contemporary issues evolved due to the change in work environments. Firstly, due to technological developments, work can hardly be uniquely distinguished from life. Organisations have undergone immense structural reforms like de-layering, outsourcing, atomisation, casualisation, horizontal linkages, devolution etc. (Murray, Poole & Jones, 2006, p.18-19). Each of these reformations have caused a change in organisational and employees’ behaviour and hence posed challenges to the organisational behaviour theories. De-layering implies the elimination of middle level management due to technical support, flattening the organisational structure of hierarchy and increasing lower level management coordination directly with the top-level management (Murray, Poole & Jones, 2006, p.18-19). Traditionally, middle level managers have served the purpose of buffering the communication between the upper and lower levels of management. Outsourcing implies part of an organisation’s value chain being produced by other organisation collaboratively (Murray, Poole & Jones, 2006, p.18-19). This phenomenon has recently spring to light after the worldwide economic crisis which had largely affected businesses. This technique allows businesses to retain part of their functioning in one area (due to cost effectiveness) while moving a major part of their operations into another region, contrary to complete shutting down of business operations. This has posed questions to quality management, as certain distinguishable parts are produced elsewhere, outside the guarantee and supervision of the original brand name. Atomisation implies breaking up of larger work units into smaller autonomous units (Murray, Poole & Jones, 2006, p.18-19). This typically opposes the ideology of teamwork and combined efforts on behalf of employees. Instead, these units work in combination for the fulfillment of a central purpose. However, each unit instead of individual is distinctively autonomous, responsible and answerable for its work. Larger units are discouraged. Casualisation means employment on the basis of project instead of contractual staffing (Murray, Poole & Jones, 2006, p.18-19). Such basis of employment challenges the concept of ‘training and development’ for organisational and human resource benefit. It also encourages short term employment, allowing individuals to choose projects instead of employment tenure. Horizontal linkages mean self coordinated efforts by individuals in different work areas (Murray, Poole & Jones, 2006, p.18-19). This defies the typical structural existence of hierarchy and fixed relationships. Employees work across departmental boundaries to collaboratively complete different aspects of a single task. Devolution helps in greater customer interference in organisational decisions by authorising a wide range of employees in direct contact with customers (Murray, Poole & Jones, 2006, p.18-19). Such employees hold privileges in deciding organisational discourse in accordance with customer preferences. The employees’ work is often distributed across traditional departmental or organisational borders, reducing the sense of clear boundaries between such units (Murray, Poole & Jones, 2006, p.18-19) – opposing the customary method of working strictly within departmental borders which used to be well-defined. Also, hierarchical demarcation is also eliminated as already mentioned. In addition to such organisational reforms, environments have also changed. Globalisation has increased the need of managers to confront and “interact with different cultural and law situations” (Arunaw, 2010). Cross-cultural recruitments and international establishments of businesses have caused cultural mixing which can conflict with organisational cultures and motives. Also, political regimes, and political climates tend to influence the organisational behaviour as cultural impacts can be observed (Arunaw, 2010). Original Organisational Behaviour theories and studies did not take such factors into account. Emotions and Power, collectively called Social Influence, impacts the productivity of organisations and individuals, and also on organisational behaviour (Puneet, 2010). Personal emotions undoubtedly affect organisational behaviour and hampers the productivity and functioning of employees as individuals and as business units. Also, power can be motivating and demotivating factors in organisations. Though this topic has been under scientific research in order to devise improvements, further researches need to be made in order to lay down concrete guidelines and theories. Stress is defined as “a state of tension experienced by individuals facing extraordinary demands, constraints or opportunities” (George & Jones, 2005) and is attributed to impose influences on organisational behaviour. Immense stress can lead to job burnout, or loss of interest in the job. Though monetary and non-monetary compensation is helpful in eliminating work related stress in the short-term, long-term solution for this element needs to be devised in order for maintaining the productivity of employees. Stress can directly impact employee productivity if not dealt with. In addition to organisational reforms and psychological factors, the need of time has also changed. External competition has boomed to immense levels, serving as a force of organisational change and development (Griffin & Moorhead, 2011). Local as well as international competition has increased the importance of efficient production processes and cost-reduction of firms in order to reap sustainable profits. Such strategies have also influenced the organisational behaviour and employee performance. Information processing and communication has also revolutionised multifold. Constant connectivity and ease of reporting has totally changed the work patterns of employees. As already stated, such technological advancements have encouraged working from home without physical demarcations of office. Such developments have greatly influenced employee behaviours and have posed significant challenges regarding supervision of employees and their work. Such revolutions have altered the typical definitions of organisations in its entirety. Numerous ethical issues are also attached now in organisations contributing to the studies of organisational behaviour. “A code of ethics without an equally well-defined system of punishment and reward is essentially meaningless” (Sexton, 2007). However, ethical violations being conducted in an organisation can give rise to employees’ confusion and disinterest in the organisation. A common phenomenon called “Whistle Blowing”, though appreciated in the written code of conduct, more often results in severe consequences for the Whistle Blower, greatly affecting all employees of the organisation. More recently, another induction to the elements of organisational behaviour is “terrorism and disaster”. Terrorism and disaster implies “… events that are … substantially novel, sudden and rare … also highly destructive (i.e. catastrophic) …” (James, 2011). In addition to psychological and environmental factors, sociological factors like destruction have also become a part of organisational behaviour. “Improved understanding of how organizations can prepare for and respond to disaster and terrorism is clearly needed to enhance their and their employees’ safety and success …” (James, 2011). Thus organisations are required to cater to natural and incurred disasters as well. Such are the contemporary issues faced by Organisational Behaviour as a subject in 2011 and beyond. Immense research needs to be undertaken in order to obtain satiable answers to these issues and all other issues that will be evident in forthcoming era. Continuously evolving world requires the organisations to evolve simultaneously and adapt to the changing trends in order to survive. Stagnation is never an option for any organisation. Hence these studies also need to be revised in order to become compatible in the present era. Bibliography: Lamb, D. 2010. Organizational Behavior. Viewed November 29, 2011. Anonymous. n.d. Organization. Viewed November 29, 2011. Murray, P. Poole, D. and Jones, G. 2006. Contemporary Issues in Management and Organizational Behavior. Viewed November 29, 2011. Arunaw. 2010. The Impact of Culture and Law on Organizational Behavior. Viewed November 29, 2011. Puneet. 2010. Emotion and Power (as social influence): Their impact on Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Counterproductive Individual and Organizational Behavior. Viewed November 29, 2011. Griffin, R. W. and Moorhead, G. 2011. Organizational Behavior. Viewed November 29, 2011. George, J. M. and Jones, G. R. 2005. Understanding and Managing Organizational Behavior. Viewed November 29, 2011. Sexton, T. 2007. Organizational Behavior and Ethics. Viewed November 29, 2011. James, K. 2011. Introduction to the Special Issue: Terrorism, Disaster and Organizational Science. Viewed November 29, 2011. James, K. 2008. Creative anti-terrorism strategies: Promoting collective efficacy for hazardous trucking terrorism prevention. Viewed November 29, 2011. Anonymous. Understanding Issues in Organizational Behavior. Viewed November 29, 2011. Read More