Organizational Behavior in Management - Essay Example

The systematic study of Organizational Behavior (OB) equips the manager with the necessary theories, concepts, and principles of human behavior which he would need in future decision making processes. According to Morrison (2008), “OB is the analysis of the way that individuals work within an organization”. On the other hand, Schermerhorn et al (2005), define organizational behavior (OB) as "the study of human behavior in organizations". A manager, having four basic functions such as planning, organizing, directing, and controlling, need the theoretical background on organizational behavior to assist him in effectively carrying out these functions. Organizational behavior provides theories on motivation, communication, leadership, work group behavior, organizational development and even topics on career, time and stress management. With a systematic knowledge of organizational behavior, a manager is more qualified to analyze the behavior of his employees and how they interact with other personnel within the different departments of the organization. In addition, Tresero wrote that OB is important to study because “if people are an organization (are considered the) most important asset then understanding how humans behave in organizations will improve productivity. Understanding OB allows better worker relations, more realistic expectations and improves job satisfaction”. For an organization, a manager with knowledge of OB would be able to increase productivity for it provides the knowledge and information which are the bases for improving performance. Frequent resignation, excessive wastage, for example, could signify that the company needs better recruitment or screening procedures, more intensive training programs, safe and clean working environments, equitable compensation package, or a healthy and stimulating psychological climate. All these strategies are better determined by a manager who is equipped with a systematic study of organizational behavior. 2. Perception is defined by Robbins (2005) as “is a process by which individuals organize and interpret their sensory impressions in order to give meaning to their environment." Two types of perceptual “fast track” such as selective perception and stereotyping have been known to be used by people to judge other individuals more quickly. Selective perception is defined by Wilson (2000) as occurring when “when two different individuals perceive a stimulus in different ways”. According to Assael (1992), “selective perception operates at two levels: a higher and a lower. In the case of a high-level case of selective perception humans selectively choose or expose themselves to information that confirms previous beliefs or helps them make informed choices. Low-level selective perception occurs when humans block out information to avoid overload.” Simply stated, selective perception is a process by which individuals perceive only selected sensory impressions depending on factors imminent for the individual given the specific situation on hand. Stereotyping, on the other hand, is defined as “making a fixed or conventional notion or perception” (Webster’s Dictionary 2000). These perceptive shortcuts can be a positive and valuable tool in a decision making process in such a way that they provide “valid data for making predictions based on one perception and the shortcuts they learn to use” (Robbins 2005). They enable decision makers to choose an accurate decision immediately and assist in making the performance of tasks manageable. On the other hand, these shortcuts could distort perceptions on judging people by “eliciting false information, particularly about gender or race, and they can lead to prejudices that in their most innocuous form, shape negative attitudes about social policies. In their most damaging, they can perpetuate social injustice” (Stereotyping). Examples of these are: Asians are perceived as hardworking. With this pre conceived notion, a manager might decide on recruiting Asians without closely examining educational background, work experience, work ethics and cultural diversity. Therefore, although, this perceptual fast track method could assist one in making an immediate decision regarding recruitment, it is still best to consider other organizational behavior theories to ensure success. 3. As a masteral student, a motivational experience for me was when a professor provided the effective motivation impetus to initiate us to study well because by consistently getting a high grade, we would be exempted from taking the final exams. This motivational experience falls under the expectancy model of motivation wherein “motivation for a given act depends on the desirability of the expected outcome of a situation, whether you believe you can affect the success of the situation and whether you believe the success of the situation is linked to the desired outcome”. (Vroom’s Expectancy Theory of Motivation). This is a motivational theory based on outcomes. The professor linked performance to outcome. If students study well enough, they would have gained all the necessary theories, concepts, applications needed to be exemplary in their course. By consistently getting high grades, the student and the professor are both assured that there really is no need to take a final examination because all the basic theoretical background and academic requirements for the course have already been deeply understood. Thus, by linking a good, consistent, steady performance through studying well, the student is rewarded with an exemption from taking the final examination. To make me even more motivated, I think that aside from the exemption from taking the final exams, the professor could give additional incentives like acknowledging exemplary efforts by announcing these in front of the class. This would provide a sense of self-esteem and is perceived as an intrinsic reward for a job well done. 4. A study on cynic’s condundrum by Hanson (2005) first presented a series of definitions for cynic, to wit: “Dictionary.com says: An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others. The Merriam-Webster dictionary says: Capitious, Peevish ... contemptuously distrustful of human nature and motives ... based on or reflecting a belief that human conduct is motivated primarily by self-interest. And finally, the Oxford English Dictionary says: A person disposed to rail or find fault; now usually: One who shows a disposition to disbelieve in the sincerity or goodness of human motives and actions, and is wont to express this by sneers and sarcasms; a sneering fault-finder.” A manager, knowing, this scornful, distrustful attitude can devise the following steps to improve a cynic’s attitude. First and foremost, a manager should be fair and equitable in treating all subordinates. Sincerity should exude in the manager’s character to counter the feeling of distrust of a cynic. Secondly, the manager should exercise participative management. He should involve his subordinates and solicit their ideas, comments on the performance of their tasks. A cynic’s belief that human conduct is motivated by self-interest would be negated once his ideas and interests are taken into account. Fourth, the manager should apply appropriate motivational theories applicable to the characters and personalities of his subordinates, the goals of the organization, and his leadership skills. An active participation and involvement of the cynic in planning and organizing strategical methods to achieve corporate goals would rule out management’s focus on corporate gains, alone. A system of rewards, as well as controls should be discussed and be agreed upon by all personnel to ensure success in improving the cynic’s mood. It should be emphasized, however, that all changes that are to be applied by the manager should not compromise, in anyway, the achievement of the organization’s objectives. 1. Organizations can create team players depending on the objectives for grouping them. It is noted in Martires (2000) that “groups work differently than people alone. A good match of people, situation, and job can maximize the group’s effectiveness”. Groups must be planned not only in their formation but more so in their development for them to be productive and efficient. After determining the specific objective for their formation, selection of members should be carefully done by taking into account the skills, backgrounds, working relationships, and other character and personality traits which would assist in the accomplishment of goals. When this have been appropriately done, training, group meetings, brainstorming, group dynamics, and quality circles could be utilized to ensure that the group is in the right direction for the performance of the required tasks. It is important to remember that high performing teams are influenced by the following components: mission, goals, roles, leadership, communication, decision-making, systems or procedures, a system of rewards and control, and competence (Martires 2000). 2. There are many leaders today who exude qualities of an effective leader. The new president of the United States, Barak Obama, is an effective leader. The leader of the Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI is an effective leader. My father, for me, is an effective leader. “Effective leadership produces a high correlation between morale and productivity; sustains a close coordination between the upper and lower echelons of the organization, and develops, nurtures, and builds individual and group spirit” (Martires 2000). An effective leader knows his follower; for only then can he apply the appropriate leadership style to steer them on performing well. An effective leader knows his functions; for only then can he work to achieve the organizations’ goals. An effective leader has the personal qualifications that make him a leader: character, educational expertise in his field of endeavor, work experience, and goal oriented. An effective leader can balance the needs of his subordinates and the needs of the organization which he serves. Works Cited: Morrison, W. (2008). How Managers Use Organizational Behavior Analysis. Associated Content. Retrieved on February 28, 2009 from Schermerhorn, J. R., Jr, Hunt, J. G., & Osborn, R. N. (2005). Organizational Behavior (9th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.. Tresero. Organizational Behavior: Terminology and Concepts. Retrieved on February 28, 2009 from Robbins, Stephen P. (2005). Organizational behavior (11th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Assael, H. (1992). Consumer behavior & marketing action. Boston: PWS-KENT Publishing Company. Wilson, D. (2000). Selective Perception. Retrieved on February 28, 2009 from< http://www.ciadvertising.org/student_account/fall_00/adv382j/derrellwilson/frontpage.html> Webster’s New World Dictionary. (2000). Pocket Books, Simon & Schuster, Inc. New York. p. 632. Stereotyping: Its Roots and Implications. Retrieved on February 28, 2009 from Vroom’s Expectancy Theory of Motivation. Retrieved on February 28, 2009 from < http://www.arrod.co.uk/archive/concept_vroom.php> Hanson, R. (2005). The Cynic’s Conundrum. Retrieved on February 28, 2009 from < http://hanson.gmu.edu/metacynic.html> Martires, C. R. & Fule G.S. (2000). Management of Human Behavior in Organizations. National Bookstore, Philippines. Read More