Behaviour of People in Organizations - Assignment Example

Introduction Organisational behaviour as a field of study is motivating and challenging alike since it involves dealing with people from diverse fields with diverse interests and yet working in groups or teams. Organisational behaviour mainly revolves around an individual’s behaviour in an organization that has an impact on its functioning. Even though human behaviour isn’t bound by any fixed attributes, the study of organisational behaviour has set some yardsticks and laid down some principles on how specific behaviours are to be addressed when they collide with an organisation’s work culture and goals. At the same time, it outlines the general rules that can help organizations consider and safeguard a worker’s credentials, social background and domain knowledge by evaluating, explaining, predicting, and modifying the behaviour. Q1. Define organisational behaviour and relate this interpretation to your current experiences by providing examples (2) of what you have witnessed or how you have experienced it. Organisation behavior is a management term that interprets and deals with people's behaviour in organizations. When knowledge and theories pertaining to organisational behaviour are used in management practices, the managers expect to get the desired results by exerting several positive influences on employees to derive relevant results (Luthans, 2002, p.50). Evolved during the industrial era, Organisational behaviour traces its roots to scientific studies in conjunction with factors as principles of bureaucracy, studies on human relations, needs of employees and administrative theories (Scott, 1992). In all organization behaviour is a resultant effect drawn from research and ideas from a number of disciplines related to interaction and behaviour on human front. The disciplines range from psychology -- both industrial and social -- anthropology, sociology, and communications (Robbins, 2002). Specifically in organization, just as Managing Health Services, it stems particularly from the “science of human thinking or cognitive psychology” (McKenna, 2000, p.6). Also termed as organization theory, when organisational behavior is studied with respect to a particular organization, it paves way for work-structuring, decision-making using tools available in the organization, deciding and exerting control wherever needed, and dealing with conditions that might arise from social, economic, and political scenarios – both internal and external to the organization. In a healthcare organization the internal issues could be as much challenging as are external since workforce in a healthcare organisation generally hails from diverse fields, cultures and groups (Petrovits, Shakespeare, Shih 2011),. As a result of this a healthcare organisation can pose a set of distinctive issues concurrently arising with issues of general nature (Shortell and Kalunzny, 2000). Certain healthcare organization, thinking that they must pay more attention to clinical issues or issues of medical nature than managerial ones, often emphasize the former at the expense of the latter (Preston and Badrick, 1998). Two examples: Two examples of what I have often observed in my organisation needing resolution have generally been i) stress (where the stressors originated from the stressed individuals own mind), and ii) conflict (where it was more intrapersonal than extrapersonal). Q2. Describe why you might need to understand behaviour of people in organizations? There is nothing as challenging as understanding situations people put themselves in or are circumstantially made part of the same, yet what when managers handle such situations ineffectively, they end up becoming more part of the problem than the solution. This is mostly because managers view the issues from where they are standing i.e., at their own level, not one level below or one step above. It offers an exciting opportunity to “look through” a problem from two different perspectives (Hackman, 2003, pp 905–22). Looking at different levels actually means connecting with all behavior that are involved with a situation, and thus knowing how democratically a resolution can be effected. A democratic instead of an autocratic achievement of the issue is a sure shot step at making the work environment socially acceptable within the organisation and boosting the morale of the individuals, groups or teams involved (Morrow, 1997, pp 91–119). Consequently for trust-building among groups or teams, it is very important to understand their beliefs and behaviours for an enhanced professional competence and outcome (Hersey, 1993), and if the need be; then make suitable changes in the system in order to make it uniformly acceptable to all. Q3. Describe what is meant by 'perception'. In your own words indicate how factors influencing the perceptual process might affect your working relationships and why. What is the difference between perception and stereotyping? An individual’s organization of stimuli – as gathered from five senses in a given environment – and their subsequent interpretation is called perception (Robbins, 2005). Perception, which is a four-step process of selection of information, its organization, then interpretation, and finally its retrieval, is normally person-specific, which means two different people may grossly vary in interpretation of the same thing in the same environment. More than one factors – residing either in the perceiver, the target, or the context in which the perception took place, or even the object – can be responsible for either shaping or distorting perception. The perception being communicated can be, actually, far from the truth or reality. Interpretation of a perception by individuals has a tremendous impact on an organisation’s behavior and subsequent decision-making. If not analysed deeply in an organisational context, perception can turn out to be nothing more than an individual’s experience, motive, expectation or interest, and thus become a stumbling block in an organisation’s work structure. When perceptions become a habit in an organisation and create a pitfall within it, it is important to look into the factors that influence perception through the triad of i) perceiver, ii) situation, and iii) target. Perceiver is can be influenced by motive, interest, attitudes, expectation, and experience. Situation can be influenced by time, social and work setting, and the target by sounds, size, proximity, expectations, motion, novelty, background, and similarity. Perception vs. stereotyping Stereotyping is an overgeneralisation of an impression or a perception, which is blankly applied to all individuals to a particular group. For example, an employee in an organisation may refer to a manager of a particular race or region as a workaholic and in the same breath label all managers from that race or region as workaholics. Based on one characteristic in a given class of people, when individuals tend to perceive everyone else in that class as the same, that can be termed as stereotyping. Shrouded in prejudice, generally stereotyping arises from ethnic, gender, caste, and community factors. In the recent years, stereotyping has emerged as a new threat to organizations (Rosenthal and Crisp, 2006, pp. 501-511). Q4. List the types of groups that exist in your workplace or an organisation that you belong to: both permanent and temporary work groups. Demonstrate your knowledge and understanding of group dynamics in discussing whether or not groups make better decisions than individuals. In your response you should also refer to group structures, groupthink and group decision-making techniques. The organisation that I work with has workgroups functioning at three levels: i) interdependent ii) independent, and iii) dependent. As a matter of fact, it is in the interdependent workgroup that I have witnessed the maximum use of organisational behavior principles since people in this workgroup come from diverse fields and backgrounds. Individuals in this workgroup switch their work behavior from sometimes being on their own, sometimes in teams sharing responsibilities and quite often banking on each other for support. Ultimate outcomes are normally achieved by them either a complete group trying to accomplish the whole or by breaking into smaller units to accomplish outcomes by parts. But if speed is anything to go by, I have seen nothing beating independent workgroups, which are faster, more efficient and organised, and probably because of their independence bestowed with an exemplary decision-making capability. In this workgroup each person has his own goal to meet and responsibility to shoulder, and thus no one to boss around. People from this group have a routine direction to follow and specific goals to meet on daily or weekly basis Dependent work groups, on the other hand, work continually under the close supervision of one person acting as their boss and giving directions to get the work done. It is generally the boss who would tell them what and what not to do, as a result of which he is the one whom they report to for minor or major issues. Supervisor is their mentor and he is the one who is answerable for keeping his groups tempo from plummeting and establishing benchmarks for them for better performance. Whichever the type of the group, leader-driven makes the outcome and performance all the more cohesive. Group dynamics In all it is the group dynamics at work in the organisation, and there is a positive cycle moving on from leader to the group and vice versa. Leader’s actions get transmitted to the group and no one can race to the target individually; leader’s actions determine the final outcome, and the process on which group’s functioning is based plays a pivotal role in the result that is achieved (Lupe and Randall, 2009, p. 36), If the leader is dedicated, honest and full of integrity, it is immaterial whether or not he or she is around – the group will toil it out irrespective of his or her presence (Sinha, July 2001, pp 80-92). Another attribute that goes a long way in creating a worthwhile group is leader’s knack for acknowledging group’s hard work, and offering them one or more opportunities in decision-making. Cluster brainstorming of a group through a decision-making process has been considered as more advantageous than individual decision-making. This leads to a higher group satisfaction at each and every individual level (Pamela, Goodman, Fandt, Michlitsch, 2006, p. 162). Group decision-making can further be refined for better results by bringing group together through “groupthink” as against the common practice of bringing them together through “interacting groups”(Andrew, Van De Ven and Delbecq, Dec 1974, pp. 605-621). This is because while in the former members tend to hold back some ideas (or may be pressured to conform to one forced opinion); in the latter they are more vocal and communicative since techniques as “electronic meeting” take them off the traditional face-to-face pressure. The major advantages attached with electronic meetings are speed, anonymity, and honesty (Gallupe, Rent, McKeen, James 1990 January, pp. 1-13). Conclusion Interpretation of people’s behaviour in an organisation forms the cornerstone of organisational behavior as a field of importance to the organization. The study acts as a guide to the managers on how to deal with unexpected situations that arise on account of different types of behaviours exhibited by employees based on their perceptions of the environment in which they are working. The study is not only theory-based but has evolved out of years of scientific evaluation among teams from different organizations. Organisational behaviour theories rest on the pedestal of such disciplines as psychology, anthropology, sociology and communications. It propounds measures to deal with issues that might arise within an organization on account of internal conflicts or triggered by external forces. For effective conduct of business in organizations, it is essential to have a strong knowhow on organisational behaviour since factors that are likely to influence individuals or organizations keep perpetually evolving in the day-to-day work being done by individuals or groups within the organization. References Andrew, Van De Ven and Delbecq, (Dec 1974). The Effectiveness of Nominal, Delphi, and Interacting Group Decision Making Processes, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 17, No. 4 (Dec., 1974), pp. 605-621 Gallupe, R. Rent & McKeen, James D (1990 January), Enhancing computer-mediated communication: an experimental investigation into the use of a group decision support system for face-to-face versus remote meetings. Information and Management, 18, 1-13. Hackman J. (2003). Learning more by crossing levels: Evidence from airplanes, hospitals, and orchestras. J Organ Behav. 24: 905–22. Hersey P, Blanchard H.(1993). Management of Organisational Behavior: utilizing human resources. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc. Lupe Alle-Corliss, Randall Alle-Corliss, (2009). Group Work: A Practical Guide to Developing Groups in Agency Settings, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc Luthans F. (February 2002). Postive organizational behaviour: developing and managing psychological strengths, Academy of Management Executive, p.50. Morrow C, Jarrett M. An investigation of the effect and economic utility of corporatewide training. Pers Psychol 1997; 46: 91–119. McKenna E. F. (2002), Business psychology and organisational behaviour, East Sussex, UK, Psychology Press Ltd. Pamela S. Lewis, Stephen H. Goodman, Patricia M. Fandt, Joseph F. Michlitsch, (2006). Management: challenges for tomorrow's leader, Ohio: Cengage Learning. Pamela S. Lewis, Stephen H. Goodman, Patricia M. Fandt, Joseph F. Michlitsch, (2006). Management: challenges for tomorrow's leader, Ohio: Cengage Learning. Preston A, Badrick T. (1998). Organisational influences. In: Clinton M, Scheiwe D, editors.Management in the Australian Healthcare Industry. Melbourne: Longman; 1998. Petrovits C, Shakespeare C., Shih A. (2011), The Causes and Consequences of Internal Control Problems in Nonprofit Organizations, The Accounting Review 86 (1), 325 (2011); Rosenthal, H. E. S., & Crisp, R. J. (2006). Reducing stereotype threat by blurring intergroup boundaries. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 501-511. Robbins, S.P. (2003). Essentials of Organisational behaviour, Uppder Saddle River, NJ: Prenctice Hall Scott, W.R. (1992). Organizations: rational, natural, and open system (3rd. ed.), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prenctice Hall Shortell, S.M., & Kaluzny, A. D. (2000). Health care management (4th ed.). Albany, NY: Thomson Delmar Learning Sinha J. B. P. (2001), Matching Leadership Roles with the Nature of Organisations: Developing a Culture of High Performance, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 37, No. 1, Read More