Organizational Culture and Behaviour - Literature review Example

Introduction Trait approach is very popular approach to behavior. However, it has raised many questions such as traits do not determine behavior as a whole rather indicate only some dominant characteristics of the person which are relatively constant or similar on different occasions under similar situations. However, situations are dynamic in nature and, therefore, if the situation varies the consistency of behavioral characteristics may also change. Such variations make the behavioral traits unstable or inconsistent. Another objection to trait approach is that traits lump together with other traits. In view of this, any classification of behavior on trait basis would be misleading. The essence of trait approaches in organizational behavior is the employees possess firm personality characteristics that significantly influence their attitudes towards, and behavioral results to, organizational settings. People with unique traits are subject to be quite consistent in their approaches and behavior after a while and across situations. Literature Review Trait approaches to behavior have raised several questions such as whether traits are methodologically reliable or dependable, varied or are in tune with philosophical issues involved in behavior as a process. Traits are generally thought of as source of stability in human behavior that leads them to behave always across special situations and time. However, research has drawn the attention of the psychologists to the fact that consistency of behavior trait varies across situations. This line of thinking has helped to promote situationism. This view states that behavior is more a product of the particular situation than a product of enduring person as characterized by traits or types. Thus, no person is equally honest or domineering all the time and situations. Behavior is predicted generally on the basis of trait but hardly can what a person can do in a particular situation be predicted. At best, it can only be indicated on average tendency of behavior in a certain way across the situation. Therefore, trait theory does not describe personality features in totality because, the characteristic features of the situation is not given any consideration that plays a role in determining behavior. Thus, people are dependent or independent, active or passive, aggressive or calm not only because of inherent internal trait characteristics but also because of external rewards or threats inherent in the situation encountered by people. Social learning theorists such as Mischel (1976) argue that individual personality is not consistent across situations, and for this reason using traits to predict behavior is a waste of time, believing instead that a good predictor of behavior is often the situation a person finds themselves in. however, work psychology is behavior that occurs within the physical and/or psychological boundaries or contexts of organizations. Cherrington (1989) has indicated that an organization is a social structure (a set of interrelated elements that contains resources from the environment to which it “exports” some useful output product) that is comprised of the formed actions of a group of people (relatively stable and predictable events that continue to occur with regularity) that tend to be goal directed. This definition seems to imply that a family unit (of whatever type) is indeed an organization. Essentially, work psychology refers to behavior at work, which is shaped, constructed and reinforced by the implicit and explicit needs of the organization. However, not all behavior takes place within the “borders” of an organization. Thus, the way people dress or talk outside the work organization might be shaped by the organization itself. But all sorts of factors shape, influence or determine behavior, not only one’s membership or experience of organizations. Indeed, one could argue that personality and ability factors determine both which organizations people choose to join and also how they behave in them. That is, there is evidence of reciprocal causation. Organizations differ enormously along several dimensions: large-small, public-private, old-new. But to understand how they influence behavior, climate and cultural variables need to be understood. Schein (1990) noted diverse organizational sides that prescribe how problems are solved: a common language and conceptual forms; agreement on group boundaries and criteria for inclusion and exclusion; criteria for the distribution of power and status; criteria for intimacy and friendship; and criteria for the allocations of rewards and punishments. In this sense, one may expect behavior to differ very substantially between organizations. In contrast, non-organizational behavior is most probably less controlled and approved, and more firm by individual inclinations and needs. Organizations influence individual behavior, but do individuals influence the behavior of organizations? Work psychology theorists stress the importance of the socializing forces of an organization on the individual, preferring to focus on how organizational culture, climate, norms or structures shape individual behavior. The individual level of analysis is exchanged for that of the organization. Nevertheless individuals not only select organizations, they also change them to make them easy to live in. Some organisms adapt to the environment they are given; others choose the preferred environment. People choose, but can change, their working environment to fit their needs and aspirations. Organizations can only influence the behavior of individuals within them if they are very powerful in the sense that various institutional rewards and punishments are in place to maintain a particular behavior pattern. That is, also because of loyalty to organization value, roles and norms of behavior, or because organizations require strong traditional values, individuals are strong forced into a standardized, “corporate culture”, behavioral selection. Organizations can equally reward individuality, eccentricity and polymorphous perversity so that, in a paradoxical way, they can also strongly shape the behavior of individuals in them by stressing individuality. Definition of Trait Traits typically refers t o the distal potential for activation and behavioral output (e.g., emotion, cognition or behavior); in contrast states typically refers to proximal output, reflecting the interplay of trait potential and environmental demands, as well as being influenced by the moment-by-moment temporary fluctuations of the neuroendocrine system. Traits reflect operations at all levels of the brain-behavioral control hierarchy, from basic automatic reflexes to controlled and conscious processes. In complex, unfamiliar, or otherwise problematic environments, flexibility, deliberation and control of behavior is necessary. Use of psychological tests One of the main motivations behind the development of psychological tests measuring attributes such as personality and intelligence has to be able to predict behavior. However, the evidence suggests that personality and intelligence may not be as fixed as the concept of psychrometric testing suggests. While there is evidence that some personality traits remain relatively stable, particularly after adolescence and early adulthood, there is mixed evidence about whether such personality traits predicts the individual’s actual behavior in a given situation. This consistency paradox reflects the fact that we tend to see other people as being relatively consistent, as in ‘John is the outgoing type’, yet research studies found that such traits did not predict a person’s actual behavior in a given situation very well. Examining behavior across a range of situations shows that personality traits predict behavior better at the general level. In this case, behavior is influenced by many variables – not only by external ones but also by internal ones such as mood and fatigue. Classifying Traits Are there different types of traits? Yes, psychologist Gordon Allport (1961) identified several kinds. Common traits are characteristics shared by most members of a culture. Common traits tell how people from a particular nation or culture are similar, or which traits a culture emphasizes. Allport opines that an individual’s pattern of traits determine the behavior. The traits are like intervening variables and thus they mediate between stimulus situation and response of the individual. If traits vary, the response to the situation also varies. For this reason, people’s behaviors in similar situations on two different occasions vary. Individual differences in responding to a particular situation are also caused by the difference in the strength of traits that are dominant differently in different individuals. Allport also believes that trait operate in unique way in each person and hence, make his personality unique. This view is reflected in the very definition of personality offered by ‘Allport’- ‘a dynamic organization’ of those psychophysical systems within the individual that determine his behavior and thought’. Although behaviors may express or reflect aspects of personality, it is important to note that behavior is not the same as personality. The correlation between the stability of traits and stability of related behavior is not particularly high (which is at the core of the situationist argument), but there is no reason to believe that examining behavior is a more accurate way to assess personality than using personality inventories. Simply because changes occur in behavior does not mean that personality has changed (Pervin, 1984). The possession of a certain trait does not dictate that the expression of that trait will always be the same, but the long-term stability of traits should constrain behavior in predictable ways (Pervin, 1985). Traits may be expressed as consistent patterns in action, motivation, and style over time and situation, but this does not imply that traits determine specific action, motivation or style. Behavior may be enacted or traits suppressed depending on situational demands. In addition, a behavior may vary from situation to situation depending on the number of traits that are influencing that behavior in a particular situation. Multiple traits may interact to produce behavior that is not representative of any single traits when considered in isolation (Allport, 1961). This is a key point that is often neglected in personality research. There are few situations, roles, or circumstances in which one personality trait will entirely determine behavior. How extroverts react in a given situation will depend in part on whether they are also high or low in agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism. The role of individual differences in personality stability is yet another aspect of personality that needs to be considered. Some people’s personalities may be more consistent than others’, whereas others may be highly consistent on a few central traits and variables on other traits (Kenrick & Stringfield, 1980). Reference Lists Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Rinchart & Winston. Cherrington, D. J. (1989). Organizational behavior. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Kenrick, D. T., & Stringfield, D. O. (1980). Personality traits and the eye of the beholder: Crossing some traditional philosophical boundaries in the search for consistency in all of the people. Psychological review, 87(1), 88-104. Pervin, L. A. (1984). Current controversies and issues in personality. New York, NY: Wiley. Pervin, L. A. (1985). Personality: Current controversies, issues, and directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 36, 83-114. Schein, E. (1990). Organizational culture. The American Psychologist, 45(2), 109 - 119. Read More