Analysis of a Performance Problem that Involves Issues in Organizational Behavior - Term Paper Example

Topic: Analyze a performance problem that involves issues in organizational behavior With the increasing challenges to improve and systematize organization, performance management should be better dealt in an evaluative measure that will seriously look into the causes, influences and factors that has direct and indirect impact to people’s behaviors within an organization. This document will discuss about common performance problems in some organizations and to analyze causes that has directly and indirectly impacted to human behaviors, with an aim of clarifying the issues. Organizational behavior In a workplace, organizational behavior refers to the attitude and responses of human capital on matters relating to their job performance; their perception of leadership and justice; and on matters relating to decision-makings (Albert, 2004). Some organizational development theorist posits that organizational behavior interrelates to corporate or institutional preparations, its internal culture, and their commitment as members of the organization (Cunningham & Eberle, 1990). Successful organizations have firm institutional structures, policies, mechanisms and goals that are reflective of its mission and vision. Often, these are organization with leaders possessed of transformational management abilities, hence with such intense dedication in addressing common problems of workers and managers (Davis, 1967; Hackman & Oldham, 1975). Business managers defined organizational behavior as a discipline about recounting, understanding, forecasting and calculating human behavior within an organizational environment (Davis, 1967; Villa & Thousand, 2000; Koch, 2006). It has evolved from primeval classical management theories into a complex idea—and is sustainably changing in following dynamic environmental and corporate cultures and changes (Kock, 2006). Making an organization effectively workable and operational is indeed a thorny task since understanding a person’s behavior is, in the first place, a challenge in itself. An organization, composed of varied individuals with many relations adds more overwhelming intricacies, hence, organizational behavior must be supervised (Newstrom & Davis, 1993; Revans, 1982; Schein, 1968; Stewart, 1991). Its not surprising that modern industrial or corporate psychologists seriously works through the organizations by taming behavior of people, whether individually or collectively, and whether with the aid of technology or by simple reflective sessions. Thus, at the core of business management is the supervision of organizational behavior. To fully manage this, it’s crucial that an organization must be capacitated with human resource that has systems and control to predict patterns of behavior of its human resources at the all levels: individual and organizational (Newstrom & Davis, 1993; Revans, 1982; Schein, 1968; Stewart, 1991). Psychologists apply organizational behavior theories using four basic concept of behavioral science: individual, group, in organizational structure, and in organizational processes (Ilgen & Kelin, 1988; Janis, 1982; Katzell &Thompson, 1990). They delve and study the varying influences, factors, causes, and aspects of human behaviors as reflected in their respective individuality, discernment, approaches, level of satisfaction, dynamisms, politics or governance, kind of leadership, job inclinations, and the impact of pressure at work, decisiveness, communications, and company cultures (Ilgen & Kelin, 1988; Janis, 1982; Katzell &Thompson, 1990). There are many approaches to evaluate these elements and its impact to individuals, groups, and organizational competence, value and effectiveness. Hence, they utilize both basic and innovative framework and principles to understand organizational behavior albeit fact, that each discipline provides diverse analytical framework and psychological themes to ascertain the differences and distinct behavioral responses of persons (Ilgen & Kelin, 1988; Janis, 1982; Katzell &Thompson, 1990). Some of the factors generally considered as influential in behavioral science are personality development whether from the lenses of genetic, situational, environmental, cultural, and social aspects (Kotthoff, 1997). Experts posit that behavioral psychology have serious impacts to business and organizations, hence the serious study on job satisfaction cases, which measure tangible matters relating to salaries, benefits, perks, opportunities, working conditions, and the influences of corporate culture. The latter is very significant because it focused on the shared values, position, principles, and organizational philosophy (McCauley, 1998).. Common Organizational Behavioral Problems As described earlier, an organization is composed of persons with varying orientation, discipline, religious beliefs, interests, political inclinations and economic orientation will have diverse responses to situation and if not systematized will impact to organizational management (McGill & Slocum, 1995). Such may complicate the problems in the long run. Organizational experts contend that organizational behavioral problems may occur (a) when the organization lacked common understanding of its vision, mission, goals and programs; (b) when conflicting interest dominate economic interest, hence, hinder innovations process; (c) there are bureaucratic barriers to innovation; (d) lack of employees adaptability to changes; (e) organizational mismanagement and lack of leadership with a resultant domino effect about employees’ demotivation., lack of teamwork, open coordination, systemic thinking, creativity, personal efficacy and empathy” (McGill/Slocum 1995: 480; Meehl, 1978; Mitchell, 1979; Mowday & Sutton, 1993; O’Reilley, 1991, Schelling, 1978; Schneider, 1985). Effective managers should be able to consider all problems by understanding its structure, mechanism, and organizational culture. These will help them predict the nature of the problems and enable them to diagnose the surrounding conditions, symptom and the roots thereof. Corporate psychologists opined that among the indicators of problems include declining profits, waning work’s quantity or quality, demotivated employee as illustrated in absenteeism or sluggishness, and unconstructive workers attitudes (O’Reilley, 1991, Schelling, 1978; Schneider, 1985). At each juncture, conflict within the organization may arise at the relational and continuum and such would require reasonable stockholder’s decision-making. As such, managers ought to possess in-depth of understanding about the causes which made workers resistant to change (Sennet, 1998; Staw, 1984). Resistance is illustrated whenever there is ambiguity and confusion on new changes; disagreements out of disturbance of comfort zones; apprehension about lessening of authority, networks and convenience; and possible ineptitude to adapt to change (Staw, 1991; Theriault, 2003, Thompson, 2003; Tyler, 1999). Other relevant organizational problems include surfacing of striking crisis, declining organizational structure, conflict in the selection of new leaders, and emergence of new competing organization. In this state of affairs, managers must have concrete organizational cultural analysis to determine practices that need to be changed (Robbins, Bergman, Stagg, Coulter, 2006). Organizational Culture Organizations require that they must work in cooperation and collaboration. They should have an integrated interfacing of roles and tasks to systematize its individual contribution of the, although however, psychologists and organizational developers compel managers to establish structures which can thwart probable harmful behavioral tendencies of human resources. But such illustrates the significance of investigating the behavior of organizations based on the interfacing of players, socio-structural and cultural contexts. Unfortunately, there is not much qualitative and empiricist studies that probe on these cases with special focus on methodical aspect on dealing them. Most are theoretical prescriptions from corporate psychologists and business managers (Schelling 1978; Alexander, House,Rousseau, & Thomas-Hunt 1995; Bohnen, 2000). Experts posit that it isn’t enough to determine the causes but must however also provide the causal mechanism as recommendatory or prescription as standard of organizational behavioral development. Hence, business managers should be not contended of being datapraxeologists, or that person who discusses organizational issues presupposed that it’s representing the same situation throughout the world when in fact it’s simply a constricted selection of some parts of the complex situation (Tyler, 1999; Van de Ven; 1981; Vroom 1964). This is very important so as not to precipitate doubtful recommendations in the end. To come up with concrete and socially acceptable solutions, corporate psychologists and managers should illustrate good assessment of the situation; the application prerequisites of a practical creative measure; practicability of recommended actions; predictions of the potential impacts; introduction of control mechanisms, the costs and interest of desired changes; value judgments, effective communications, and effecting changes with least resistance from those who’d be affected (Robbins, Bergman, Stagg, Coulter, 2006). Moreover, the societal conditions surrounding the organization should not be ignored as this has substantial influence too to the behaviors of human resources. This is pointed because a lot of industrial organization ignores the social contexts that are prevalent at an epoch of their operation and business relations. Recommendations To resolve issues relating to organizational behaviors, it’s significant that the following prescriptive measures be considered: a. Organizational Development – this process require that an organization must have clear vision, mission, vision, goals and programs. This provides better direction about how the institution and its human resources are managed and where it’s heading for. Organization is unified and can easily nurture teamwork when its vision and mission are clarified. These are foundational aspect of an institution and it’s from these contexts that its values and shared values are derived. b. Leadership, Power and Influence—corporate management should exhibit combined transformational, transactional, authentic, and socialized charismatic leadership to bridge relations in their work and operations. These are all essential in building command, operations, and acquiescence to monitoring and evaluation. Leadership is about illustration of legitimate power based on organization’s formal hierarchy. Experts expressed that legitimate power is broader and inspire member’s acceptance of authorities and their compliance (Robbins, Bergman, Stagg, Coulter, 2006). As they say, authority is about wielding power. If an institution is purposive and motivating, its management would choose to exercise power that respects human resources’ rights, their dignity as workers, and the policies regulating the management-workers relations, e. g. labor rights. Further, culture directly affects the politics within an organization, thus, its important that diversity and multiculturalism is respected to balance power or influence tactics. It’s also significant that the political behavior of the organization kowtow to principles of equity and justice. Effective administrators recognize the political character of organizations. By measuring behavior through political framework, human resources actions can be easily predicted and political strategies can be refined to suit for organizational advantages (Robbins, Bergman, Stagg, Coulter, 2006). Good leadership nurture trust, neutralize situation and recreate better values. It also seeks to empower workers by inculcating them the right vision, foresight, reliability, vitality, pro-activeness and cultural sensitivity (Tyler, 1999). c. Effective Change Management – Introducing change into an organization is often a daunting task because it’s often met with resistance. This is because inherent in changes are alterations, radical amendment, a development, or maybe a transfer of authorities that could disrupt the normative process that is commonly observed by members. To manage resistance, management must be capacitated to adopt with change strategies at better perspectives and with equanimity. Social psychologist posits that changes can take place (Lewin 1947) through the stages of freezing, transition, and actual enforcement of changes. Lipit, Watcon and Westley (1958) explained that this stages is inclusive of assessing the problem; determining motivation and capacity to change; utilizing commitment for change; relying effective forces to strategize; recognizing roles and expectations; maintaining open communication or coordination; and, achieving the desired level of changes. In the case of eliciting behavioral changes through performance appraisal, Prochaska and DiClemente (1992) posed that change can be achieved through contemplation or reflection to boost cognitive and emotive realization. This is part of social learning were human forces adapt to changes using dialogues, interaction and observation. Organizational leaders must have alternate approaches on how to introduce changes (Lippitt, Watson, and Westley, 1958) by articulating with clarity the intentions and desired outcome based on evidences and analysis. They must be able to clarify matters with validated information and choose reasonable measures for actions while lengthening political support to amplify the impetus on resolving issues (Lippitt, et.al., 1958). In reducing members’ resistance to change, managers should utilize mechanisms to articulate intentions and desired outcome to stakeholders with clarity (Kritsonis, 2005). Members’ participation to decision-making should be elicited while facilitating and negotiating for consensual agreements. In case these processes isn’t effective enough, manipulation or co-optation and coercion using legal remedies can be an alternate recourse although this isn’t quite wisely adopted by modern organizational development advocate. Sociologists believed that there are circumstances that can help smooth the progress of transformation. d. Value enhancement programs – Human resources in an organization can best appreciate change in action and behavior (Hale, Householder, & Greene, 2003) by inculcating to them values of teamwork, collaboration, cooperation, and harmonization to positively achieve a desired change or organizational behaviors. Such call for policy enforcement within the organization’s management and human resource management. Further, an organization with better motivational causes in conflict reduction and mediation systems (Sheppard, Hartwick, & Warshaw, 1998: 325-343). Aside from policies, the management must encourage to acculturate motivational systems for workers to be able to appreciate the interrelationship or interrelatedness of departments, chain of command, and organizational structural design (Robbins, Bergman, Stagg, Coulter, 2006). The institution must also conduct regular training and seminars to upgrade the knowledge and skills of its members following new trends and emerging philosophies of organizational management. Conclusion Organizational behaviors are complex matters that need to be understood by variegated lenses. It needs a combined analysis of corporate psychologist, anthropologists, historian, human resource managers and business experts. From the discussion, its apparent that introducing cultural changes and nurturing workers’ adaptability to changes require transformational leaders who can devote for the systematization and reorganization to logically shift the socialization and improve value system within an organization (Robbins, 2006). Appropriate organizational behaviors can be adopted whenever an organization is competent of modeling changes and if it can articulate organizational history, vision, mission, and goals in relation to future plans and programs. It must have a protracted interest on the learning processes; support positive change; practice bridging leadership, realize diversity and teamwork; encourage nonconformists to breakthroughs; exploit innovative technologies and nurture trust for maintain harmonious relations. This is possible when leaders and members lives and drives their motivation with innovation and creativity. Robbins, et. al. (2006) posits that innovations are possible when structural, human resource and cultural variables are holistically observed. Human resource must likewise be motivated with right policies and support mechanisms. Structures for collaboration and coordination of systems must also be established to enjoy spaces for open communication and enjoyment of resources (Robbins, et.al 2006). Innovation should be encouraged to illustrate acceptance of uncertainty, tolerance to creativity, and to have measures for risk management and conflict mediation. It’s further affirmed that better organizational behaviors will be achieved with combined practice of transformation, transactional, authentic and charismatic leadership. This is essential to bridge the relation of management and members of an organization in an open mode of communication and feedback mechanism. The traits inherent in these systems of leaderships inspire motivational systems; output-outcome oriented management; and has an open mechanism for constructive feed-backing (Robbins, et.al. 2006). Moreover, these kinds of leaders value the significance of regular performance evaluation and mechanisms that inspire on eliciting recommendatory and prescriptive measures for an organization to move on and sustain its operation. It likewise inspires members to undertake developmental training and skills improvement to secure them and to care for their creativity and innovativeness. It allows participation and enables an environment that is less resistant to changes that would be introduced following the conditions that shapes the operation and sustainability of the organization. It respect diversity and understands the capacity of each members by highlighting the significance of their distinctive contribution to the organization. REFERENCES Albert Martin, 2004. "New Directions in Organizational Behaviour?," management revue. The International Review of Management Studies, Rainer Hampp Verlag, vol. 15(4), pages 410-419. Cunningham, J. B. & Eberle, T. (1990). A Guide to Job Enrichment and edesign. Personnel, Feb 1990, p.57 in Newstrom, J. & Davis, K. (1993). Organization Behavior: Human Behavior at Work. New York: McGraw-Hill. Davis , K. (1967). Human relations at work: The dynamics of organizational behavior. 9th ed., New York: McGraw-Hill Hackman, J. R. & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, pp. 159-70. Knoster, T., Villa, R., & Thousand, J. (2000). A framework for thinking about systems change.In R. Villa & J. Thousand (Eds.), Restructuring for caring and effective education: Piecing the puzzle together (pp. 93-128). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Koch, C. (2006). The New Science of Change. CIO Magazine, Sep 15, 2006 (pp 54-56). Newstrom, John W. & Davis, Keith (1993). Organizational Behavior: Human Behavior at Work. New York: McGraw-Hill. Revans, R. W. (1982). The Origin and Growth of Action Learning. Hunt, England: Chatwell-Bratt, Bickley. Schein, E. (1968). Organizational Socialization and the Profession of Management. Industrial Management Review, 1968 vol. 9 pp. 1-15 in Newstrom, J. & Davis, K. (1993). Organization Behavior: Human Behavior at Work. New York: McGraw-Hill. Stewart, J. (1991). Managing Change Through Training and Development. London: Kogan Page. Ilgen, D. R./Klein, H. J. (1988): Organizational Behavior. In: Annual Review of Psychology, 40: 327-351. Janis, I. (1982): Groupthink. 2nd edition, Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Katzell, R. A./Thompson, D. E. (1990): An Integrative Model of Work Attitudes, Motivation and Performance. In: Human Performance, 3: 63-85. Kotthoff, H. (1997): Führungskräfte im Wandel der Firmenkultur. Berlin: Sigma. March, J. G./Simon, H. A. (1958): Organizations. New York: Wiley. McCauley, C. (1998): Group Dynamics in Janis’s Theory of Groupthink. In: Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 73: 142-162. McGill, M. E./Slocum, J. W. (1995): Unlearning the Organization. In: Staw, B. M. (Ed.): Psychological Dimensions of Organizational Behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall: 473-484 Meehl, P. E. (1978): Theoretical Risks and Tabular Asterisks. In: Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46: 806-834. Mitchell, T. R. (1979): Organizational Behavior, In: Annual Review of Psychology, 30: 243-281. Mowday, R. T./Sutton, R. I. (1993): Organizational Behavior. In: Annual Review of Psychology, 44: 195-229. O’Reilly, C. A. (1991): Organizational Behavior. In: Annual Review of Psychology, 42: 427-458. Schelling, T. (1978): Micromotives and Macrobehavior. New York: Norton. Schneider, B. (1985): Organizational Behavior. In: Annual Review of Psychology, 36: 573-611. Sennett, R. (1998): The Corrosion of Character. New York: Norton. Staw, B. M. (1984): Organizational Behavior. In: Annual Review of Psychology, 35: 627-666. Staw, B. M. (1991) (Ed.): Psychological Dimensions of Organizational Behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Staw, B. M. (1991): Dressing Up Like an Organization. In: Journal of Management, 17: 805-819. Theriault, R. (2003): The Unmaking of the American Working Class. New York: New Press. Thompson, L. L. (2003) (Ed.): The Social Psychology of Organizational Behavior. New York: Psychology Press. Tyler, T. R. (1999): Why People Cooperate with Organizations. In: Research in Organizational Behavior, 21: 201-246. Van de Ven, A. (1981): A Commentary on Organizational Behavior in the 1980’s. In: Decision Sciences, 12: 388-398. Vroom, V. H. (1964): Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley. Warner, M. (1994): Organizational Behavior Revisited. In: Human Relations, 47: 1151-1167. Wilpert, B. (1995): Organizational Behavior. In: Annual Review of Psychology, 46: 59-90. Kurt Lewin. 1939. "Theory and Experiment in Social Psychology: Concepts and Methods." The American Journal of Sociology: 1939. New York: 44 (6): 868-896. Lewin, Kurt. 1947. “Frontiers of Group Dynamics.” Human Relations, 1947: 1: 5-41 Lippitt, R., Watson, J. and Westley, B. 1958. The Dynamics of Planned Change. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World. Robbins, Stephen. 2003. Organizational Behavior. 10th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kritsonis, Alicia. 2005. "Comparison of Change Theories." International Journal of Scholarly Academic Intellectual Diversity. California: 8 (1) Quinn, James Brian. 2008. “Managing Strategic Change.” In: Managing Change. 2nd Ed. Eds. Christopher Mabey and Bill Mayon-White. London: The Open University, Paul Chapman Publishing: 65-85. Robbins, Bergman, Stagg, Coulter 2006. Management. Pearson Education Australia. Water Corporation. 2006. "Premier opens Australias first major desalination plant." Water Corporation. Http://www.watercorporation.com.au/m/media_detail.cfm?id=3301. Accessed: March 30, 2011. Water Corporation. 2007.” Water Technology-Perth Seawater Desalination Plant, Seawater Reverse Osmosis (SWRO)”, Water Corporation. http://www.water-technology.net/projects/perth/. Accessed March 30, 2011. Water Corporation. 2011.”What we do: Water Supply”, Water Corporation. http://www.watercorporation.com.au/W/water_index.cfm?uid=9818-2171-5332-3690 Accessed March 30, 2011. Water Corporation. 2011.”The Way we work.” Water Corporation. http://www.watercorporation.com.au/P/purpose_values.cfm?uid=6135-9990-9046-5900 Accessed March 30, 2011. Department of Water. 2006. Kimberley Water Source Project. Department of Water. 28 April 2006. Accessed March 30, 2011. Prochaska, J.O., DiClemente, C.C. and Norcross, J.C. 1992. "In search of how people change: Applications to addictive behaviors." American Psychologist, American Psychological Association: 47(9):1102-1114. Prochaska, J.O., Velicer, W.F., Rossi, J.S., Goldstein, M.G., Marcus, B.H., Rakowski, W., Fiore, C., Harlow, L.L., Redding, C. A., Rosenbloom, D., & Rossi, S.R. 1994. "Stages of change and decisional balance for twelve problem behaviors." Health Psychology. American Psychological Association.13(1):39-46. Hale, J.L., Householder, B.J., & Greene, K.L. 2003. "The theory of reasoned action." In: The persuasion handbook: Developments in Theory and Practice. J.P. Dillard & M. Pfau (eds.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: 259-286. Sheppard, B.H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P.R .1998. "The theory of reasoned action: A meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research." Journal of Consumer Research, University Chicago Press: 15: 325–343. Read More