Different Shapes of Organisational Behaviour - Research Paper Example

Running Head: MOST IDEAS REPRESENTATIVE OF ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOR Critically Evaluate the Following ment: Most Ideas Representative of Organisational Behaviour Theories Are Relevant To Managing Modern Learning Organisation [Writer's Name] [Name of Institution] Critically Evaluate the Following Statement: Most Ideas Representative of Organisational Behaviour Theories Are Relevant To Managing Modern Learning Organisation In order to evaluate the statement "most ideas representative of organisational behaviour theories are relevant to managing modern learning organisation" one has to thoroughly study the concept of learning organisation. The Learning Organisation has been perceived by numerous as a noteworthy expansion in the perception of learning, aptitudes and knowledge inside a managerial environment. By the end of 1980s and the mid-1990s the notion on the LO mounted to distinction and a substantial stuff of literature built up on the subject. The model of the LO provides an ultimate and, at first display as a minimum, greatly striking representation of organisational improvement. Specifically, it offers a wide-ranging tactical support within which abilities, instructing and growth strategies can be placed, thus providing teaching and HRM professionals with a tactic for advertising their products to higher management. Instead of training and capabilities being a bolt-on extra, learning transfers to centre stage and grows to be the principal organisational standard around which business policy and viable gain can be developed. Put plainly, there are said to be 3 different shapes of learning within an association: folks within an organisation learning belongings; organisational learning - where the organisation as a unit begins to develop means in which it can learn lectures in a group; and lastly the learning organisation - where the vital organisational objective is complete learning. The nature of the amendments needed becomes understandable as we look at the five-step prototype of development of a learning organisation submitted by Johnson (2002, pp. 241-249). The initial three steps of the model (Foundation, Formation and Prolongation) are taken to characterise a state of organisational learning. Phases 4 and 5 (Renovation and Transfiguration) represent evolution and conversion to becoming an entirely driven learning organisation. Stages in the Development of a Learning Organisation Foundation: Essential talents development, plus providing beginners with practices and eagerness to learn further. Basic human resources development plans to stimulate and put up self-belief for advance knowledge. Formation: Organisation promotes and develops skills for self-studying and self-development assists individual discover about the organisation and their position in it. Likelihoods and resources are set aside to meet requirement for learning. Continuation: The learners as well as organisation are becoming more groundbreaking, self-regulating and forceful. HRD encourages learning on a separately basis, with bespoke learning familiarities. Renovation: An absolute transform in the form, look and traits or traditions of the organisation. HRM described by neutrality, candidness, litheness and meritocracy. Moral deliberations significant in universal business management. Transfiguration: People be in the lead and a concern for humanity's wellbeing and betterment, the organisation symbolises a lifestyle to be treasured because of its values, learning is at the mid of actions, deficiency of concern regarding identification. The organisation is training and organising itself using total contribution in the group of people. The organisation is evaluated by the degree to which the community who make it up direct and instruct the organisation how to learn, instead of vice versa. The LO literature also depends profoundly on loads of conjectural models of individual learning. The fundamental question for an LO is how to advance moves from single-ring learning to the further highly developed states of double- and triple-loop training and how to control the collectivisation of sole learning by using enriching rules and latest varieties of organisational frame work. Several remarks require to be made in relation to these concepts. The primary is connected with what is possibly the supreme strength of the conception - its importance on a methodical policy to learning within an enterprise. One of the noticeable counter-trends over the past ten years has been an escalating prominence on shifting more and more accountability for educating and development on to the individual member of staff, reflecting anticipations that, provided a process of almost unremitting reformation, the company is less probable to profit in the approaching than formerly. As has been advocated in another place (Ortenblad, 2002, pp 213-230), this growing concentration on the individual is challenging, not least because it repeatedly emerges to insist that the individual employee try to second presumption, with no access to dependable information, the demands of the far-reaching market and of existing and upcoming employers. Traits of a Learning Organisation A learning organisation: capitalises on vagueness as a basis of expansion formulates innovative knowledge as a focal point of aggressive strategy embraces modification promotes liability at the lowest stage encourages executives to perform as counsellors, instructors and learning helpers has a culture of reaction and revelation has a holistic, methodical view of the organisation and its schemes, procedures, and associations has a joint organisation-wide imagination, intention and standards has directors who egg on menace taking and trailing has arrangements for distributing information/learning and exploiting it in the business is consumer driven is engrossed in the society connects workforce self-improvement to the development of the organisation as one supplies numerous possibilities to gain from experience keeps away from structure of government and turf conflicts has a high-faith background attempts for incessant upgrading constitutes, forwards and rewards all sorts of teams employs cross-functional work teams sights the unanticipated as a chance to pick up knowledge LO and Fredrick Hertzberg's Theory of Motivation The LO literature's belief that learning and reflection have to be constructed into the every days and traditions of management behaviour is also imperative, because the regular failure to attain this purpose has been one of the ongoing disappointments of the UK training panorama. In distinct dissimilarity to the greatly vaunted Japanese policy to in-company guidance and development (Fulmer, 1998), in UK firms training all too frequently keeps on to be a trivial deed that is deemed as an optional superfluous in spite of as a bustle connected to the route of production. Fredrick Hertzberg posited that the single technique to motivate employees in long-term is to provide them demanding work where employees can believe responsibility. Hertzberg get to this conclusion after questioning employees and asking them two sets of questions: (a) consider of a time when one felt particularly good about one's job; and (b) consider of a time when one felt particularly bad about one's job. In each case why did one feel that way Hertzberg found that there are "two dimensions to job satisfaction: motivation and hygiene." Fredrick professed the hygiene factors not as motivators, but as spot of possible dissatisfaction. (Hanlan, 2004) Fredrick asserted that if managers satisfactorily address hygiene issues, there is greater employee satisfaction. If, in addition to providing the indispensable hygiene, employers also put in place a variety of tools for motivating their employees, the employees will be even more content and more productive. Although one often thinks of pay as a motivator, Fredrick did not classify it as such. Rather, Hertzberg distinguished pay as a pusher that either legitimate behaviour or rewarded behaviour, but did not generate any internal motivation among the employees. The factors that motivated employees included mainly of internal, non-tangible rewards, as contrasting to external rewards, or hygiene factors. Both impressions are significant to the debate of the psychology of motivation and can be clarified in terms of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. (Butkus, 1999) Intrinsic motivation relates to the degree to which an employee desires to work well in one's job in order to achieve internal satisfaction, where as external motivation refers to external, material rewards that affect to the working atmosphere. So according to Hertzberg the only way to really motivate employees is to present them challenging work. LO and Taylorism and Fordism A less cooperative facet is the language in which a few of the literature is expressed and its causal incapability to confront the callous actualities that face several corporate. An illustration would be Johnson (2002) explanation of the concluding step of development in an LO, were people be in the lead and the organisation is driven by a concern for humanity's wellbeing and betterment, and where the focus is on folks developing themselves as characters and being permitted to carry out what they crave to rather than what other persons (conceivably their supervisors) consider suitable. Indeed Ghosh, (2004, pp 302-311) put forward that one of the causes for the current conceal of the LO thought by models of knowledge management is the formers unsuccessfulness to resonate with the cutthroat outline in countless organisations. An interrelated point is the LO notion's causal postulations on competitive approach and organisational design. The couched conviction is that competitive gain derives from customisation, eternal modernisation and high specification, first-rate supplies and services conveyed by smooth, non-laddering organisations where personnel derive benefit from sizeable empowerment. That LO model assembles inadequately with Taylorism and Fordism. At the very least, it appears vital to highlight the truth that offsetting the language of delegated management. The skirmish between these two contradictory ideas, a combat often being brawled out inside individual managements, is of elementary value within UK organisation in the 21st century. Even though management leaders, futurologists and various supporters of the LO model recommend that the success of empowerment and ingenuity over dominion and control (theory Y in preference to theory X) is unavoidable, the substantiation proposes that this possibly will not be consequently in all cases. LO and Abraham Maslow's Theory In the UK, countless of the cases emerge to emanate from within the National Health Services, and the foremost private-sector corporation allied with the impression has been the Rover Group. This organisation's difficulties imply that the time limit for any venture to grow to be a learning company and monitor tangible effects on the end result may be prolonged. (Olsen, 2002) Abraham Maslow appears from the humanist perception within psychology of motivation. He gives an apparently individualistic approach to the subject of motivation. In spite of looking at internal factors as the driving system for behaviour, Maslow was interested in the cognitive factors that force people towards certain forms of behaviour. Maslow identified the needs that forced people into behaviour beyond the most fundamental fulfilment of survival needs. Maslow anticipated a hierarchy of needs with fundamental survival needs at the lower level and other psychological needs towards the top. According to Maslow, humans have developed beyond the requirements of simple survival and are now driven towards greater achievements; the highest of these is self-actualisation and satisfaction. This is the desire to achieve all that it is possible for an individual to achieve, which is present in all humans. Maslow qualifies the argument with four imperative points: 1. The needs at the bottom of the hierarchy must be fulfilled before the needs higher up can be considered; i.e. one must take care of one's physical needs before one can begin to explore one's cognitive/achievement or aesthetic needs. A lack of food may make it difficult to concentrate on one's work. 2. Although all of these needs are present in all humans, all of the time, they are linked to development, such that one need may predominate over another at certain stages of development. For example, babies will be more concerned with the satisfaction of basic needs (food), than with the need for achievement. 3. Whilst needs at the bottom of the hierarchy are physiological, the higher up the hierarchy one goes the less they are related to biology and the more they are related to life experience, which will inevitably be different for each individual. This partially explains why it is that some individuals will achieve more than others will. 4. There are significant personality differences that will help to explain why some individuals are more capable of achieving more than others. Maslow identifies a list of self-actualisers as well as a list of characteristics that such people possess. Maslow gave several examples of the sort of behaviour or approach to life that would lead to self-actualisation: Taking responsibility Being honest Being prepared to try new experiences Listening to one's own feelings Being prepared to be unpopular (White, 2000) Conclusion It is concluded that most ideas representative of organisational behaviour theories are relevant to managing modern learning organisation. It is noted in this research that different organisation behaviour theories are actually implemented in organisations by making them learning organisations. References Butkus T. Raymond, Thad B. Green, (1999), Motivation, Beliefs and Organisational Transformation. Quorum Books. Westport, CT. Fulmer, R.M, Gibbs, P, Keys, J.B (1998), "The second generation learning organisations: new tools for sustaining competitive advantage", Organisational Dynamics, Vol. 27 No.2, pp.6-20. Ghosh, A. (2004), "Learning in strategic alliances: a Vygotskian perspective", The Learning Organisation, Vol. 11 No.45, pp.302-11. Hanlan Marc, (2004), High Performance Teams: How to Make Them Work, Praeger. Johnson, J.R. (2002), "Leading the learning organisation: portrait of four leaders", Leadership & Organisational Development Journal, pp.241-9. Olsen, J.E., Haslett, T. (2002), Systemic Thinking and the Learning Organisation, Working Paper Series 11/02, Department of Management, Monash University, Caulfield East. rtenblad, A. (2002), "A typology of the idea of learning organisation", Management Learning, Vol. 33 No.2, pp.213-30. White Geoff, Druker Janet, (2000), Reward Management: A Critical Text, Routledge. New York. Read More