What Is Organizational Misbehavior and Why Does It Occur - Research Paper Example

appear here] appear here] What is organizational misbehavior and why does it occur? Critically evaluate its impact on the organization. Date appears here What is organizational misbehavior and why does it occur? Critically evaluate its impact on the organization. Misbehavior is an element of everyday life in organizations as people challenge established norms, but the ethics of this phenomenon has seen limited debate. Is the character of personality and entity misbehavior the same? What is the impact of this misbehavior? How should we observe this misbehavior? When should misbehavior be welcomed and discouraged? Whilst welcoming submissions from any area of business ethics, it is these questions that this paper highlights. In recent times, a “small number of organizations acutely considered ethics to be a legal topic for enterprise setting up and calculated thinking.” (Arendt, 3) Folks at the summit of an enterprise regularly spend time increasing their organizational and applicable strategic plans, their development strategy, even their brand strategy, but ethics and regulatory compliance was merely an issue for the finance department, legal counsel, and possibly human resources. Nowadays organizations are clearly conscious that, “organizational ethical behavior will necessitate serious thought, at the board and executive level.” (Armbrüste 5) Prevalent organizational misbehavior and illegal activity have made the formation of an official ethics strategy an elevated priority for all enterprises, regardless of their size or structure. Many larger organizations have established a position for an Ethics Officer, and smaller organizations turn to consultants that specialize in ethical consultation. Such individuals provide the frontline of defense against moral decay in corporate America. Organisations are made up of individuals: This is because collectively a group can achieve far more than the equivalent number of individuals. Misbehaviour in organizations can be tricky for management to spot and correct, and as an end result, the cost to organizations can be high. There are useful theories and empirical evidence that help to describe, explain, predict and control both attitudinal and behavioural problems in an organizational setting. The current research examines the causes of different types of misbehaviour, and makes suggestions for remedies and managerial practices that can help to reduce its occurrence and impact. The members of an organisation have their zones of comfort and agendas. The organisation has a specific mission; the management task is to ensure that these individual endeavors are aligned towards their organisation’s purpose. Therefore an understanding of how individuals fit in to organisations, and the way in which organisations work is fundamental to the ability to manage. “Provided the recent misbehaviors in organizations that are all over the headlines, - - ImClone, Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco.” (Aronwitz 13) The misbehaviour debate refuses to lie down or quietly fade into obscurity. It raises fundamental questions about the nature of social reality, the manner in which it is conceptualized and the theoretical means most appropriate in explaining the relationship between its constituent elements. In raising unavoidable, and difficult, questions about the nature of and link between “human activity and its social contexts” (Bacon & Story 2) , the misbehaviour debate forces students and members of organisation alike to confront a set of issues that defines irrevocably the constitution of the subject matter and the analytical and methodological terms. In general, this paper is rather optimistic about the nature of men and the possibilities to organize conforming and dutiful behaviour of employees. This undoubtedly is a reflection of our prosperous times and business successes, which marked the beginning of the new millennium. “Perhaps conforming to a certain political correctness” (Ball & Wilson 5), academics in organization studies, in addition, like to stress the capabilities and competencies of human resources rather than point to flaws of personnel. In the seventies, the era with a considerable amount of friction in labour relations. The general tone in organization studies was rather different. The organisations were only occupied with potential hostilities and contradictory interests of employers and labour unions, but also with less valued behaviour on the employee side, such as (frequent) sick leave and pilferage. Even then, organization theorists tended to express themselves as true believers in the good nature of human beings. The striking thing about organization studies in both decades, in addition to abstract theorizing, is the commonness of this scientific confidence, to the degree of more or less neglecting the real behaviour of people in organizations. “Everyday reality in organizations has hardly been described, since we used not to study organizations in a more down-to-earth, if one wishes anthropological, manner.” (Barker 25) Everyday phenomena, such as gossiping and humor at the job and gender-related tensions among people in organizations, have not been typical objects of study in managerial academics. More often than not, these occurrences are taken to be parts of the informal organization only, and hence it is thought that not much attention needs to be paid to such unimportant subjects. Many scholars contend that organisational misbehaviour is a theme of forced definition by the faction which has the supremacy to establish what acceptable behaviour is. They say that managers miscalculate the degree of such misbehaviour and also inflate the impact on the organisation of misbehaviour. “A key factor is that the processes which are formative of organisational behaviour lay outside the control of managers.” (Benzman 21) The key to better management in organizations is to better understand the relationship between self-sufficiency and being in command. The quest for autonomy is the root of misbehaviour. Control can never be absolute, and employees will find ways of evading and subverting managerial organisation and direction of Work Groups do form interests and establish identities and develop autonomy, sometimes independent of management. It is also suggested that there are differences in its level of strength of positive engagement, through ever-increasing degrees of non-compliance to outright hostility and withdrawal. However, they do argue that in some cases such behaviour is not discouraged by management and give numerous examples to support their arguments. Thus, managers sometimes co-operate in rule-breaking id it means that targets are met. Being critical of previous studies of misbehaviour which are classified it in terms of traditional industrial relations, labour process or deviancy studies which focus on individual psychology. It can be argued that management seeks to define behaviour as acceptable or unacceptable. Thus it is a product of controlling regimes as much as the behaviour of individuals and groups. At the same time being critical of recent work on managerialism as a belief which, some contend, is long on accounts of the exploitation of meaning but short on the proof that organisations work in the ways that are alleged. They are also critical of workplace social relationships that treat the place of work as just another territory for the individuals struggle for individuality in the post modern society. There are conditions and struggles specific to the labour process and the employment relationship. Thus they are skeptical of the notion that in recent times we have seen the employment relationship transformed into a qualitatively new kind of organisation in which misbehaviour is seldom seen – organisations that are value rather than control driven. Thus the corporate culture approach which finds agreement in common values through new management practices, aided by technology, is not proven. Conducting programs about organisational misbehaviour can ease sentencing and penalties for criminal activity within the organisation; they also provide other, higher-order benefits. Ethical standards and the training that supports them, helps employees know how to do the right thing by ensuring a common understanding of what is expected and required. An ethical work environment increases job satisfaction and reduces misconduct and the pressure to behave unethically. At the same time, such an environment increases the ability to communicate across all levels, builds trust, and promotes greater consistency in decision making. This results in fewer violations of laws and regulations and the serious consequences that accompany them, proving that good ethics equals good business. The Greek philosopher Plato wrote about the essence of leadership. Aristotle addressed the topic of persuasive communication. The writings of 16th century Italian philosopher Machiavelli laid the foundation for contemporary work on organizational power and politics. In 1776, Adam Smith advocated a new form of organizational structure based on the division of labour. One hundred years later, German sociologist Max Weber wrote about rational organizations and initiated discussion of charismatic leadership. Soon after, Frederick Winslow Taylor introduced the systematic use of goal setting and rewards to motivate employees. In the 1920s, Australian-born Harvard professor Elton Mayo and his colleagues conducted productivity studies at Western Electrics Hawthorne plant in the United States. What do these scholars from the bygone eras trying to convey? They are all in their own way stressing the importance for organisations in today’s world to conduct themselves properly. For a long time, scholars associated with typical research paradigms that make up organizational behavior have been leaning toward the more hopeful representation of organizational reality. To better understand peoples behavior in the workplace, misbehaviour must also be explored. Organizational Misbehavior is a word that was coined by Yaov Vardi about 10 years ago when he established that there were no models for how to predict misconduct at work. Thus, the purpose is to delineate a new agenda for organizational behavior theory and research. Devoted to the study and management of misbehavior in work organizations. It s important to consider three pieces of the same picture. Firstly discuss the prevalence of these phenomena. Searching for typologies and definitions for misbehavior in the organization text using a chronological viewpoint and propose a general framework of organizational misbehavior. Exploring some important manifestations and past history of organizational misbehavior at different levels of analysis--the person, the job, and the organization is also necessary. Finally, it is also important to present practical and methodological implications for managers and researchers. Some scholars offer a wide-ranging and methodically developed structure for the development and management of misbehavior in organizations. Many researchers publicly declare workplace politics in the form of unions should continue to be an important form of resistance alongside more underground forms of confrontation. Further, protest movements and struggles in civil society are vital, if hitherto largely unconsidered form of resistance to managerial initiatives. Therefore, one contribution of this paper is to highlight the importance of considering resistances to managerial and organizational practices occurring in the realms of civil society. This involves recognizing more hierarchically organized forms of opposition to managerial strategies, such as those undertaken by non-governmental organizations and less hierarchically organized social movements. Misbehaviour is prevalent in organizations, and similar to the behaviour of managers themselves, arises from acknowledgment that the interests of employees and those of their employing organizations do not exactly match up. The abandon of the topic in orthodox studies of organizational behaviour reveals the normative base of the discipline. It wouldn’t be out of order to criticize conventional organizational examination and the mapping out of the wide environment across which organizational misbehaviour occurs. There is a connection between search of self-interest and processes of personality formation by workgroups. The close associations between identity formation, the quest for autonomy and organizational misbehaviour are made apparent and the inclination to misbehave is recognized as being deeply entrenched in organizational life. This papers analysis of some of the newest forms of organizational subversion offers fresh understanding of the underlying dynamics of organization. Works Cited Arendt, Hannah. 1958. The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Armbrüster, Thomas. 2003. ‘Political Liberalism, Management, and Organization Theory’, paper presented at the 19th EGOS Colloquium, Copenhagen, Denmark, 3-5 July. Armbrüster, Thomas and Diether Gebert. 2002. ‘Uncharted Territories of Organizational Research: The Case of Karl Popper’s Open Society and Its Enemies’, Organization Studies. Aronwitz, Stanley. 1973. False Promises: The Shaping of American Working Class Consciousness. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Bacon, Nick and Story, John. 1996. ‘Individualism and Collectivism and the Changing Role of Trade Unions’, in The New Workplace and Trade Unionism, P. Ackers, C. Smith and P. Smith (eds). London: Routledge. Ball, Kristy and Wilson, David C. 2000. ‘Power, control and computer-based performance monitoring: Repertoires, resistance and subjectivities’, Organization Studies. Barker, James R. 1993. Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive control in self managed teams’, Administrative Science Quarterly. Bensman, Joseph and Gerver, Israel. 1963. ‘Crime and Punishment in the factory: The function of deviance in maintaining the social system’, American Sociological Review. Read More