How Relationship of Organizational Behaviour Could Affect the Performance of Workers - Coursework Example

How relationship of organizational behaviour could affect the performance of workers Introduction Organizational behaviour involves description, understanding, prediction and control of human behaviour within the environment of an organization (Bakker and Schaufeli, 2008). It involves the study of group dynamics, relationship of individuals in groups, leadership, and the function of organizations and implementation of change in a firm (Luthans et al., 2005). Importance of organization behaviour Due to recent economic crisis that has rocked many firms in the world, understanding organization behaviour could alleviate the occurrence of such crisis since organization dynamics, organization culture and talent ideology had a contribution to these problems and all of them have roots in the organization behaviour. By doing so, organization behaviour can determine the performance of a firm. Thus, the essay provides insights in the organization behaviour and how individual and group behaviour can contribute to the success or failure of a firm (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). Significance of this topic Leaders in a firm influence others in different ways. An individual is capoable of influencing the behaviour of others in a firm. Managers adopt different ways of relating to their employees and this has an impact on the performance of the firm.this essay will shed light on the impact of organization behaviour the performance of the firm. Aim The aim of this essay is to discuss the relationship between organization behaviour and performance of employees (Chen and Francesco, 2003). Objectives 1. To determine the shortcomings of organization behaviour and how to overcome such limitations; to determine the impact of organization behaviour on performance; 2. To determine the relationship between organization behaviour and performance; and 3. To determine the role played by organization behaviour in the improvement of performance. Limitations of organization behaviour and how to overcome them Currently, organization behaviour is based on systems approach, which has five parts: the individual, the formal organization, the informal organization, the fusion process and the physical environment. These parts are supposed to coexist (Luthans et al., 2005). These parts have been founded on three behavioural sciences: anthropology, sociology and psychology. Failure to understand the contribution of one of these subjects to organization behaviour can result in uncalled for organization behaviour. For instance, failure to understand sociology may result in difficulties in managing groups and formation of teamwork. Thus, one shortcoming of organization is that it is based on three broad subjects, which need to be integrated in order to allow employee development, motivation, teamwork and development of organization culture. To avoid this limitation the management need to consult or be knowledgeable in the three subjects, which affect organization behaviour (psychology, sociology, and anthropology). Organization behaviour also entails individual behaviour, group behaviour, organization structure and organization processes (Muse et al., 2008). These areas have an impact on the personality and perceptions of individuals within a firm, group dynamics, attitudes and job satisfaction, politics and role of leadership, decision making processes, job design, chain of communication and culture f the firm and its environment. Various models have been devised to explain the behaviour of individuals within an organization (Luthans et al., 2005). They include autocratic, custodial, supportive and collegial models. Even though these models may coexist in a firm, one of them is usually dominant. Thus, organization behaviour has a limitation of having unbalanced models of organization behaviour some of which like autocratic model could have negative impact on the performance of the firm if it is dominant (Wright, Gardner and Moynihan, 2003). Thus, managers within a firm need to ensure that the dominant model adopted support the performance of a firm to avoid this limitation. Another limitation of organization behaviour is that one member of an organization can have an impact on the behaviour of others. This implies that in case the firm recruits a new employee, the new employee could influence others either positively or negatively. To avoid problems, which arise from negative influence the management, need to undertake strict and thorough training of the employee. The social system, which influences organization behaviour, has no boundaries and hence the behaviour of a firm may be influenced by other firms. To avoid this, firms need to instil into their employees the values and teach them the culture of the firm. By doing so, the culture of the firm will be able to influence the behaviour of new employees to act in specified way. Once the employees understand the culture of the firm, they will acquire a sense of security, stability, and understanding and be able to respond to different situations appropriately (Luthans et al., 2005). Organization behaviour also entails individualization that can involve exertion of influence on the social system of the firm by employees. When the culture of a firm is challenged by such employees and the management becomes rigid, this can result in strikes that may influence negatively on the performance of the firm. To avoid such limitations of organization behaviour the management ought to balance socialization and individualization of employees in their firm. This will ensure that radical ideas by employees are discussed among employees and the management in order for a negotiated order to be arrived at. Impact of Organizational behavior on performance As mentioned earlier there are four models of organization behaviour. Each of these models has different impact on the performance of employees and the firm at large (Kim, 2005). In the autocratic model has the managers being powerful and authoritative. The employees on the other hand are oriented to be obedience and dependent on their manager. The only need of the employee that is met in this model is subsistence (Kuvaas, 2008). Firms that embrace this model as the dominant model have minimal performance. The custodial model is based on economic resources and the managers are oriented towards money. The workers on the other hand are oriented towards security and benefits in addition to being dependent on the organization (Avey, Wernsing and Luthans, 2008). Thus, the firm is able to meet security need of employees and it allows cooperation among employees. Supportive model of organization behaviour is based on leadership with the managers oriented to support the employees while the employees are oriented towards job performance and participation. The employees thus receive recognition and are given status under this model. The model awakens the talents in the employees and allows increased performance. The collegial model is based on partnership, the management is oriented toward teamwork, and the employees are oriented toward responsible behaviour and self-discipline (Kim, 2005). This allows self-actualization of employees and these results in moderate enthusiasm that drives performance at the firm. Proper balance of these models in a firm can increase performance at different levels of the firm dependent on the needs of the employees. Change is often painful and most people tend to reject it since it disrupts the familiar operations of a firm. Organization behaviour that is rigid and does not allow or entertain new ideas often leads to difficulties when the firm wants to implement change. However, organization behaviour which allows organization development and new ideas are welcome allows introduction of planned change with little or no resistance. One of the key functions of management is decision making. The influence of ethics on decision-making process is a trend in organization behaviour. Ethical practice depends on awareness, consequences and the use of personal and social values to make decisions (Kuvaas, 2008). It requires that leaders use moral judgment at workplace to make decisions. This ensures that people hired to work for the firm are aware of the consequences of their decisions on the stakeholders of the firm. An individual who acts ethically in decision-making is first able to recognize the ethical issue, evaluate the issue based on personal ethics and resolve to comply with this ethical judgment and act ethically. Thus organization behaviour which fosters moral judgment often leads to better performance and unlikely of the firm collapsing. It is argued that stress results from extraordinary demands, constraints or opportunities (Kim, 2005). Thus, organization behaviours that encourage such demands and constraints often lead to development of stress among its employees (Luthans et al., 2005). The stress in turn leads to job dissatisfaction, employee turnover, absenteeism, accidents, poor interpersonal relations, low morale, poor customer service and low productivity. The dynamic development in information technology has increased job demands for many firms and many employees are left to work in constantly changing work environment. This has in turn resulted in increased stress among employees due to inability to handle the changing work conditions (Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004). Organization behaviour, which allows employees to access rewards and benefits such as flexible work schedules, compensation time or telecommunication options can reduce workplace stress and result in increased performance of the employees and the firm at large. The relationship between OB and performance Therefore, the dominant model of organization behaviour is related to performance (Kuvaas, 2008). A balance of these models at various levels of the firm will result in increased performance while poor balance can affect negatively on the performance of the firm (Luthans et al., 2005). In addition, ethical decision-making process as a trend in organizational behaviour is related to performance of the firm with decisions based on moral judgment being able to increase stability and performance of the firm. The role of organizational behavior to improve performance Organization behaviour plays a vital role in improving the performance of the firm (Kim, 2005). By putting the interests of employees at heart and employing appropriate organization behaviour at different levels of the firm the performance of the firm is likely to improve since different employees have different needs (Turnley et al., 2003). In addition, fostering participative decision-making process that is ethical and based on moral judgment is likely to increase the performance of the firm. Finally, having organizational behaviour that fosters organization development based on introduction of change that involves consultation can help a firm to adopt new techniques of carrying out its practice with little or no resistance. This can help improve the performance of the firm. Conclusion Organizational behaviour involves description, understanding, prediction and control of human behaviour within the environment of an organization. Even though organization has some limitations, it can help a firm to improve its performance. Organization behaviour is related to the performance of the firm in that it determines the type of leadership, how employees are motivated and the way decisions are made which are core to the performance of both employees and the firm. References Avey, J., Wernsing, T., and Luthans, F. 2008. Organizational Change? Impact of Psychological Capital and Emotions on Relevant Attitudes and Behaviours. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 44(1), pp. 48-70 Bakker, A., and Schaufeli, W. 2008. Positive organizational behaviour: engaged employees in flourishing organizations. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 29(2), pp. 147-154 Chen, Z., and Francesco, A. 2003. The relationship between the three components of commitment and employee performance in China. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 62(3), pp. 490-510 Coyle-Shapiro, J., Kessler, I. and Purcell, J. 2004. Exploring Organizationally Directed Citizenship Behaviour: Reciprocity or ‘It's my Job’? Journal of Management Studies, 41(1), pp. 85-106 Kim, S. 2005. Individual-Level Factors and Organizational Performance in Government Organizations. J Public Adm Res Theory, 15 (2), pp. 245-261. Kuvaas, B. 2008. An Exploration of How the Employee–Organization Relationship Affects the Linkage Between Perception of Developmental Human Resource Practices and Employee Outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 45(1), pp. 1-25 Luthans, F., Avolio, B., Walumbwa, F., and Li, W. 2005. The Psychological Capital of Chinese Workers: Exploring the Relationship with Performance. Management and Organisation Review, 1(2), pp. 249-271 Muse, L., Harris, S., Giles, W. and Field, H. 2008. Work-life benefits and positive organizational behaviour: is there a connection? Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 29(2), pp. 171-192 Schaufeli, W, and Bakker, A. 2004. Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 25(3), pp. 293-315 Turnley, W., Bolino, M., Lester, S., and Bloodgood, J. 2003. Fulfillment on the Performance of In-Role and Organizational Citizenship Behaviours. Journal of Management, 29(2), pp. 187-206 Wright, P., Gardner, T., and Moynihan, L. 2003. The impact of HR practices on the performance of business units. Human Resource Management Journal, 13(3), pp. 21-36 Read More