Behavioral Modification in Corporate Organizations - Literature review Example

Running head: MODIFY BEHAVIOR Modify Behavior By __________________ Introduction Leadership is a process of social influence in which one person is able to enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task. The major points of this definition are that leadership is a group activity, is based on social influence, and revolves around a common task. Although this specification seems relatively simple, the reality of leadership is very complex. Interpersonal factors (i.e., thoughts and emotions) interact with interpersonal processes (i.e., attraction, communication, influence) to have effects on a dynamic external environment. Each of these aspects brings complexity to the leadership process. It is the purpose of this book to try to make that complexity a bit more manageable, thus increasing our ability to understand what effective leadership is. (Martin, 1997:1) Hence the social process by which one person attempts to influence one or more other persons is encountered in a large variety of interpersonal relationships; e.g., the superior-subordinate, the staff-line, the consultant-client, and the salesman-customer. These relationships always occur in, are affected by, and in turn affect a context of groups and organizations. Broadly speaking, the objective of all leadership attempts is change-change in motivation, in attitudes, in behavior, etc., whether at the level of the individual or of the group. (Fred, Robert, 1961:1-2) Behavioral modification in Corporate Organizations It is very difficult for managers to change attitudes and even more difficult, if not impossible, for them to change someone’s personality. Behaviour, on the other hand, can be changed using techniques that are relatively easy to learn and apply. (Charles, Peter, 2004:1) Two contrasting views that could then be used to speculate on the likely behaviour of the manager and its effect on the subordinate. These views can be labeled as assumptions i.e. Theory X and Theory Y. The assumption behind Theory X is fairly simple; ‘people are basically lazy’; no one would work if they did not have to. Acceptance of this assumption leads to the inevitable conclusion that the only way to get people to work is by using strict control. This control can take two different forms. One-way is to use coercion; the threat of punishment if rules are broken or targets not achieved. The alternative approach is to use the ‘carrot’ rather than the ‘stick’. People are seduced by promises of rewards into producing the performance required. Theory Y is more difficult to define, partly because it is a more complex set of assumptions, but it involves the notion that people are naturally active, they want to be involved in their work, they enjoy achieving and have the ability and the desire to make a constructive contribution to the solution of any problems that may arise. Over the years there have been many different sets of assumptions, concerning individual’s motivation at work, made by managers. Rational/economic motivation The underlying assumption is that people’s motivation is entirely economic and that they are rational in the way they set about fulfilling their financial needs. Social motivation Motivation at work is primarily social, i.e. what motivates people is being part of a team and finding fulfillment through group interaction. Self-actualization The writings of Maslow, introduced the idea of human needs beyond those simply for subsistence and belonging, namely esteem and self-actualization. In other words, to be highly motivated, people needed to feel that their work is worthwhile and that it contributes to their development. Motivation This concept is complex. Since in different era different things are the cause of motivation. The reality is, of course, that all the above assumptions can be valid in different circumstances. (Charles, Peter, 2004:13-15) What are far more important, from a behavioral perspective, are habits. Much of our day-to-day behavior is controlled by habits. This means that we do not have to consciously think about our behavior, it comes almost automatically. These habits have to be learned but, once acquired, we can carry out the required behaviors almost without thinking about them. Habits are, of course, very useful. Having to think about how we are going to behave takes time and effort - thinking is costly. For behaviors that are routine it is highly efficient to have them controlled by habits. As has been mentioned, it appears that attitudes only influence a small part of our behavior. Research suggests that the situations in which attitudes do predict behavior is when the behavior is novel. We are then likely to consult our attitudes, to decide how we ought to behave. Repeat behaviors, on the other hand, are likely to become habitual. (Charles, Peter, 2004:29) Today, every manager is concerned with the many technological and structural changes that affect his current operations. Often, these changes bring a great deal of pressure to bear on the individuals and work units that must adapt to them. Employees may experience considerable stress because they can no longer do their work in the way they formerly did. They may have to face uncertainties that are upsetting to them; thus they may react negatively to change, either individually or as members of groups. The most characteristic individual and group reaction to change is called resistance.(Fred, Robert, 1961:88) In any behavioral change program the first step is to measure, and record, how frequently the behavior is occurring before attempts are made to change it. If you do not know how much it is occurring before the behavioral intervention, you will not know whether or not the intervention has been successful. This initial measure is known as the baseline. (Charles, Peter, 2004:62) Making sure that it is the right behavior that gets rewarded, and the wrong behavior that gets punished, may appear to be obvious. It is not uncommon, however, for organizations inadvertently to punish the behavior that they wish to encourage, and vice versa. (Charles, Peter, 2004:138) One of the advantages of rewarding behavior rather than outcomes in this case is that those involved often see it as fairer. Although organizations try to make sales areas as similar as possible this is rarely achievable in practice. A salesperson may do everything right and yet, despite their best efforts, not achieve the sales required. Concentrating on the behaviors helps avoid this. Often, therefore, it is better to use behaviors rather than outcomes when there are uncontrollable factors between the behavior and outcome. Once the behavior has been specified, it is essential that a fairly accurate record should be kept of the baseline level of behavior. Just measuring the behavior may lead to improvements in effectiveness through the clarification effect. There are two main ways in which behavior can be measured, frequency and time. You can, for example, measure the number of times the behavior occurs; this would be a measure of its frequency of occurrence. On the other hand you may not be interested in how often a behavior occurs but how long it lasts; this would involve a time-based measure. As has been mentioned, the precise specification of behavior in a precise, observable and measurable form is a fundamental requirement for any behavioral change project. (Charles, Peter, 2004:142-149) Behavioral Modification in Military Like all organizations, the military cannot anticipate all subordinate behaviors required to achieve goals. However, subordinate extra-role activity (i.e., behavior that surpasses the formally expressed position requirements) is essential for organizational productivity. (Ronald,1995:1) Three sets of factors are hypothesized to affect the willingness and ability of Army acquisition employees to implement a change. These factors are: Employees’ attitudes toward implementing change Employees’ subjective norms or the perceived effect of the views of other social referents (colleagues, superiors, interest groups) toward implementing change. Employees’ perception of behavioral control or their perception of how factors beyond their control (organizational or environmental factors) affect their ability to implement change. In order to target resistant elements and to make sure the smooth implementation of a change, certain measures have to be taken. Targeting training and implementation efforts on resistant elements should focus primarily on QA personnel. In fact, QA personnel are the only group to actually hold a negative change attitude, indicating they do not support the elimination of milspecs and standards. It will also be important to focus efforts on engineering personnel. Even though QA, engineering, and logistics personnel are mostly affiliated with matrix organizations, this analysis shows that matrix personnel have significantly lower change attitude and subjective norm than PM personnel do. The analysis further indicates that employees who have been involved in acquisition for more than 20 years hold a significantly lower change attitude than do employees with under 20 years experience. Training and implementation efforts can be targeted to this group as well. Specifically, training efforts can be directed at addressing the concerns of this group. Changing the change-related attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control of resistant employees will require efforts to better align their underlying sub factors with those of the more supportive employees. To better align outcome beliefs and thus attitudes between the more resistant civilian groups and the military, Army leaders should Better educate engineers, QAs, and logisticians that seven potentially positive outcomes of reform are possible, and Better educate the same group that three potentially negative outcomes are unlikely to result from eliminating milspecs and standards. Specifically, training and communication programs need to convince resistant elements that the following positive outcomes will be realized. To better align control beliefs, efforts should be made to directly address control factors and control issues in an attempt to modify employee perceptions. In addition, to the extent possible, steps should be taken to minimize the real constraining effects (if any) of the surveyed control factors. There are three types of control factors surveyed in this study: Policy factors Rule factors Environmental factors Future training and communication efforts need to place much greater attention on teaching participants how to eliminate milspecs and standards and how to work, or perform their job, without milspecs and standards. (Conrad:2000) References Charles Cox, Peter Makin, 2004, Changing Behaviour at Work: A Practical Guide. Publisher: Routledge. Place of Publication: New York. Conrad Peter Schmidt, 2000, Bureaucratic Behavior: Acquisition Reform in the United States Army. Publisher: Rand. Place of Publication: Santa Monica, CA. Fred Massarik, Robert Tannenbaum, 1961, Leadership and Organization: A Behavioral Science Approach. Publisher: McGraw-Hill. Place of Publication: New York. Ronald J. Deluga, 1995, The Relation between Trust in the Supervisor and Subordinate Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Journal Title: Military Psychology. Volume: 7. Issue: 1. Martin M. Chemers, 1997, An Integrative Theory of Leadership. Contributors, Publisher: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Place of Publication: Mahwah, NJ. Read More