Organizational Behavior - Essay Example

dear client, please do not submit this yet to your I will still double check everything, from the in-text citations to the main content. Iwill inform you once it is ready for submission. Anyway, I still have time to revise. Thank you =) Introduction This essay will present an investigation of behavior in a work group. Nevertheless, beneath the surface of harmonious procedure and valuable effort, a human drama was occurring. The drama was life itself. Because the heart of social behavior and the job procedures was the unconscious attempt of people to bring structure and coordination into their capably disorganized work activities1; the unconscious pursuit for means of building a prosperity to human relationship outside the conditions of carrying out a task; and the unconscious pursuit for creativity, accomplishment, and sense in work life in spite of the current conflicts of employees and management, untrained and trained, layman and specialist.2 The success in this drama is the ability of workers to build organized human associations out of a group of people. In contrast, its failure is the misuse of human creativity where individuals able to do a lot are obliged to do so little.3 The objective of this essay is to show through explanation and analysis how social organization emerges from the network of non-work and work behavior. Second is to explain the reason this social organization is very valuable to the individuals concerned and to the organization for which they work. Nevertheless, this essay will also demonstrate that social organization can become ‘stagnant’ not until leadership is used to defy the potential flexibility of people and their group. It is at these aspects where the rational, purposive features of business appear to conflict with the rigid facts of social organization that the actual introduction of conduct in work teams becomes apparent.4 Unless managers first recognize the social role and structure of work teams, there will be a weak foundation for successful communication concerning the vision and mission of the organization. The Team The factors in the work context and in the group composition appeared to reinforce the forces for social disintegration: ‘a ‘dust heap’ of individuals unrelated to one another’5. Otherwise, the author expected to discover a highly troublesome group of employees, divided into factions perhaps developed along racial or occupational lines. However, the ‘instrument team’ was able to overcome this social disintegration. The social organization of the ‘instrument team’ had these features: 1) A definite structure: Ties had grown to a point where in general people genuinely belong to the group. Individuals are clear on what to expect from one another. They had familiarized themselves to diversity. 2) A unified structure: Aside from being definite, the group’s social structure was unified. 3) The accomplishment of a leadership role: Leadership from the group had surfaced within its social structure. There was an actual requirement for a leader to assist people on the job and to function as a potential mediator as well. 4) Agreement with the goal of the group: The use of leadership and the structure of the team were in agreement with the task for which the team was assigned to. In the sense that it gave protection and stability for members and was in harmony with the objectives of the organization as a whole, the group played the role of a productive unit. The outcome of the social organization of the team was quite positive in its ability to bring structure and order to the social ties of the group of individuals with diverse social backgrounds and job position. The issue which should be taken into account is this: the reason organized relationships emerge instead of the ones characterized by conflict and disorder. What enabled the development of a productive social organization? The following sections will resolve these issues. How can managers consider and apply in their practice these realities of the group? This study recommends that the major issue for management is to determine the circumstances which are most encouraging for permitting a group to decide for itself the arrangement which will gratify requirements for membership in a group. First, these circumstances involve a technological background which permits a definite level of employee interaction, cooperation on the job, and possibly an environment which develops ‘teamwork’ or cooperation in the job. Another setting favorable to effective social organization is a level of understanding or compassion on the first-line managers’ part. There is a wide array of evidence to indicate that employees’ social satisfactions are greatest in those groups which are managed by ‘person-oriented’ leaders.6 Nevertheless, what this essay indicates is that even the slightest adjustment to group mechanism on the leader’s part goes a long way in permitting a particular group to develop an arrangement that is agreeable to members. This bare minimum is composed of behavior which does not stop the emergence of informal leadership and which does not inflict psychological pressures on group members in their relationship with their leaders.7 To this point, this essay have perceived the issue for management as one of developing specific minimal circumstances which permit a group to work out a social arrangement or structure furnishing members a degree of social gratification. Wherever managers find out symptoms in work teams conflict, instability, and disintegration, it would be rational to think that something in the group setting is stopping it from attaining the minimum degree of success related to survival.8 Indications of social problems comprise substantial increases in the emergence of significant changes in productivity level, abrupt decline in work quality, accidents, work turnover, and absences. With the emergence of such indications, responsible managers should evaluate the specific groups concerned to determine the liming factors affecting the group. The basic instrument for evaluation is the interview with group members who perhaps would be quite willing to inform a concerned listener what is troubling them in their interactions at work. The procedure of searching and removing hindrances to the development of the group is a continuous procedure. Nevertheless, there is another entire sector in the management of work teams distinct from social gratifications of members which deserve thorough consideration and response.9 To alter our emphasis, we have to return to our ‘instrument team’ for a while. This essay have discussed how the ‘instrument team’ employees had been successful in building a quite productive social group in spite of the factors inclined toward conflict and fragmentation. The author has indicated that this outcome was what should be anticipated for other groups to fulfill as long as they are not functioning under situations of limitation. However, what was fulfilled other than furnishing social gratifications for group members? To what level were the employees ‘engaged’ in their tasks, and acquiring gratifications which emanate from some innovative or creative task? It is surprising when we give another glimpse of the ‘instrument team’ to stress that the task itself was a dynamic component in the group’s social structure just around assisting one another and providing tools. No proofs that the group was violating the minimum obligations of their tasks and adding dynamically to technical success were found. As a result, there was little to demonstrate in the mode of individual development and growth for the employee. How do we explain these submissive ties between the task and the employee? The conclusion of this essay is that although a group functioning in a quite positive environment can naturally offer social gratifications for members, it cannot independently become innovative nor can it guarantee the personal growth or improvement of its members. A number of favorable leadership roles are fundamental to satisfy these extra objectives. The issue is a lot wider than the impacts of managers’ behavior. Unless the entire management setting where in small work teams operate sustains discussion processes, the individual manager is limited and may be virtually incapable of introducing such a reform in management practices.10 In fact, this implies that standards of behavior for managers at all organizational levels should sustain discussion processes.11 If not, the individual manager who independently introduces such procedures in his/her group may be viewed as a ‘deviant’ leader and reprimanded as a result.12 Hence, the action issue is as of much interest to management who may be supposed to create and strengthen standards of management behavior. An excellent example of the hindrances to experimentation with innovative processes for supervising work teams when there is inadequate assistance in the entire management setting of the organization was discussed by Elton Mayo.13 After observation of and interviews with employees, the researchers had proposed methodical rest periods in a textile mill which was experiencing significant turnover and symptoms of low morale.14 In spite of an increase in efficiency or productivity and a drop in turnover, a manager who was indifferent to the study changed it and eventually dumped it. The initial circumstances of productivity and low morale reappeared. The head of the organization got involved and re-instated the experiment with positive impacts on morale and efficiency.15 However, without the needed knowledge and understanding on the management’s part, the study had been almost ruined and had generated severe uncertainties about expanding its core principle of management into other units of the organization outside the borders of this particular study.16 Suitable organizational reinforcement of discussion processes is important, but it should also go alongside the training of managers for skilled performance. It is outside the range of this conclusion to address in any degree the challenging issue of training. There is a great deal of testing in progress and this essay encourages everyone to become knowledgeable of the different models that are being experimented. Whatever the disparities in contemporary training models, several of the most striking approaches try to surpass mere oral ability about the groups’ leadership. They are trying to initiate change in the behavior of management through enlarged ability in evaluating the role and structure of groups, and the mechanisms of communication in personal contexts. They aim to build ability in listening and reacting to oral behavior in groups and to assist managers in becoming responsible and self-aware individuals. Conclusions The pursuit for new leadership and management styles looks for ways of renewing the challenge of individual development and growth for group members through meaningful and effective task. The attainment of social gratifications through interactions and relationships at work is a precondition for development and growth; however, social gratifications will vanish as well if the innovative capacity in a group is misused. With no challenge to a task, discontentment and tediousness eventually prevail. Several insightful scholars of the industrial period argue that the symptoms of tediousness have traditionally permeated contemporary life. As stated by Eric Fromm in his work entitled The Sane Society17: Today we come across a person who acts and feels like an automaton, who never experiences anything which is really his; who experiences himself entirely as the person he thinks he is supposed to be; whose meaningless chatter has replaced communicative speech; whose dulled despair has taken the place of genuine pain. Two statements can be made about this person. One is that he suffers from a defect of spontaneity and individuality which may seem incurable.18 At the same time, it may be said that he does not differ essentially from millions of others who are in the same position. Even though there could be debate over the source of this issue, its solution will perhaps rely on the personality or individual style of present-day leadership, especially of the small work team which is an individual reality at work. References Boerner, S., Eisenbeiss, S. & Griesser, D. (2007) ‘Follower Behavior and Organizational Performance: The Impact of Transformational Leaders’, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13(3), 15+ Brief, A.P. & Weiss, H.M. (2002) ‘Organizational Behavior: Affect in the Workplace’, Annual Review of Psychology, 279+ Diamond, M.A. (1993) The Unconscious Life of Organizations: Interpreting Organizational Identity. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Greenberg, J. (1994) Organizational Behavior: The State of the Science. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Miner, J.B. (2002) Organizational Behavior: Foundations, Theories and Analyses. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mowday, R.T. & Sutton, R. (1993) ‘Organizational Behavior: Linking Individuals and Groups to Organizational Contexts’, Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 195. Rousseau, D. (1997) ‘Organizational Behavior in the New Organizational Era’, Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 515+ Sims, R.R. (2002) Managing Organizational Behavior. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Wilpert, B. (1995) ‘Organizational Behavior’, Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 59+ Zaleznik, A. (1956) Worker Satisfaction and Development: A Case Study of Work and Social Behavior in a Factory Group. Boston: Harvard University Press. Read More