Organizational Behavior: The Working Relationship - Literature review Example

Organizational Behavior Having a working relationship with someone for the first time requires sensitivity and creative planning. Although spontaneity is good during interactions it is also essential to plan for the initial meeting so as to decide which style of interaction should be used for a particular person. Seemingly, this does not require intense preparation but for some cases it does. This can get more complicated when the other person is from a different cultural background. Working relationship entails trust and according to Morton Deutsch's (in Hurley, 2006) research on trust, making decisions on whom to trust and not to trust is affected by a mixture of the factors including experience, personality and culture. Sensitivity and planning considers the importance of trust. Trust can be regarded as a prerequisite for a working behavior, but still this is not necessary. Still dealing with two people's different cultural backgrounds, one should be sensitive enough in dealing with the other person because they may not share the same ideologies and beliefs. To get through this, one must be able to gather information about the culture where the other belongs to. With this he can gain insights on how they interact with other people and at the least, predict how the other people think. By gathering this information, one may also obtain stereotypes on the culture of the other person. He may use this as a basis for his behavior and attitudes toward the other person. This is one of the advantages in using stereotypes in forming working relationship with other people from a different cultural background. Geert Hofstede (in Hurley, 2006) viewed culture as a significant factor affecting risk tolerance. We may see risk tolerance as an important part in different working relations. This means that people from different cultural backgrounds have different levels of risk tolerance. In relation, two people having different levels of risk tolerance may further result in conflict. However, one drawback of this is the possibility of forming negative stereotypes on the person and his culture which may lead to more severe prejudice. Because of this, one may judge the person according to what society has imposed on his culture. This is not only observed in initial meetings but also in the whole working relationship. Some people may have worked with a person of a different cultural background for quite a long time and still relate with him according to the stereotypes associated with the culture with which the other person belongs. It should be stressed that there are individual differences among people even those who were brought up in the same culture. By the time that they have been working together for quite a while, each and everyone in the organization must have at least a basic knowledge on the personality of each other. This knowledge should be the major basis of their mode of interaction with one another and not base it on prejudice and stereotypes. In the scenario of the manager who wishes to form assumptions about the "foreign" person through different stereotypes, it is evident that the "foreigner" is the underdog especially if negative stereotypes are inflicted on him. This goes even worse when it continues for a long period of time and the foreign person is not given a fair treatment just because of what society has to say about his culture. Cultural diversity is rampantly seen in society and narrowly, in the workplace. It is very evident that the contemporary workforce is composed of individuals from almost all races and continents of the world (Roberson & Kulik, 2007). They also suggest that this does not completely mean a healthy working environment. Research also suggests that unmanaged diversity in the workplace also mean conflict in the organization, more specifically increased absenteeism, low morale and conflicting communication within the employees (Jackson et al., 1991; Jehn, Neale, & Northcraft, 1999; Tsui, Egan, & O'Reilly, 1992; Zenger & Lawrence, 1989). With this, "diversity management" has been one of the important managerial skills preferred by different organizations and individuals (Roberson & Kulik, 2007). However, different programs focusing on diversity management has not been able to completely address the critical parts of the issue. It has also been reported that organizations failed to control diversities and make the most out of its possible benefits (Hansen, 2003; Kochan et al., 2003). Also, the literature on diversity management has been critical on managers and their formation of stereotypes on their subordinates (Roberson & Kulik, 2007). These are commonly characterized as prejudiced towards people from other cultural background other than their own. At the most, these prejudices have been eventually incorporated in the organization's policies which become very unfair for the "foreign" individual. Different measures have been done by these organizations to lessen stereotyping and encourage a healthy working environment for the employees to grow and progress (Roberson & Kulik, 2007). These measures include modification of the different organizational process such as selection, hiring, performance appraisals and decision-making (Greengard, 2003; Rice, 1996). Again, one of the focuses here are the managers especially in dealing with decision-making. If ever the organization is successful in completely eliminating or at least diminishing stereotypes in their workforce, there is still no escape from the stereotypes already embedded in the society. Muchinsky (2006) has explained how stereotypes of an efficient employee are used by managers in doing evaluations and assessments. This may have unconstructive results on the individual being assessed especially if the manager has formed negative stereotypes from his cultural background. Individuals can get so close-minded that they will solely base their impression of a particular person on stereotypes which was acquired from society. Roberson and Kulik (2007) also described how stereotypes can be a threat at work. As mentioned earlier, this has also increased rates of absenteeism and turnovers of employees. One may feel deprived of the right to prove himself because everybody is imposing characteristics which may not be fitting on him. Evaluation itself increases anxiety on the person (Roberson & Kulik, 2007) which may be aggravated by the knowledge that one is evaluated through stereotypes. Nonetheless, slight anxiety can even improve performance (Cocchiara & Quick, 2004; Reio & Callahan, 2004; Yerkes & Dodson, 1908). In their study on stereotype threat at work, Roberson and Kulik (2007) have suggested a couple of measures to minimize problems regarding manager's stereotyping and general stereotyping in the organization. They believe that dealing with stereotypes is better than denying them. They recommend that managers talk with the prejudiced employee regarding the stereotyping. But first the manager should be free of any prejudices in order to address to the matter more fairly. Roberson and Kulik (2007) also proposed that the central focus of diversity management programs be shifted from the managers to the work environment itself. They included that the managers should be able to control the environment so as not to convey to the employees that particular stereotypes is existing. These measures aim to lessen stereotypes in organizations and lessen their negative effects on employees. Bibliography Cocchiara, F. K., & Quick, J. C. (2004) The negative effects of positive stereotypes: Ethnicity-related stressors and implications on organizational health. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, p. 781-785. Greengard, S. (2003) Gimme attitude. Workforce, 82, p. 56-60. Hansen, F. (2003) Diversity's business case doesn't add up. Workforce, 82, p. 28-32. Jackson, S. E., Brett, J. F., Sessa, V. I., Cooper, D. M., Julin, J. A., & Peyronnin, K. (1991) Some differences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotions, and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, p. 675-689. Hurley, R. (2006) The Decision to Trust. Harvard Business Review, 84: 9, p. 55-62. Jehn, K. A., Neale, M., & Northcraft, G. (1999) Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, p. 741-763. Kochan, T., Bezrukova, K., Ely, R., Jackson, S., Joshi, A., Jehn, K., Leonare, J., Levine, D., & Thomas, D. (2003) The effects of diversity on business performance: Report of the diversity research network. Human Resource Management, 42, p. 3-21. Muchinsky, P. (2006) Psychology applied to work. CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Reio, Jr., T. G., & Callahan, J. L. (2004) Affect, curiosity, and socialization-related learning: A path analysis of antecedents to job performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19, p. 3-22. Rice, F. (1996). Denny's changes its spots. Fortune, 133, p. 133-138. Tsui, A. Egan, T., & O'Reilly, C. (1992) Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, p.549-579. Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908) The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 18, p. 459-482. Zenger, T., & Lawrence, B. (1989) Organizational demography: The differential effects of age and tenure distributions on technical communications. Academy of Management Journal, 32, p. 353-376. Read More