Call For Further Research To Enhance Organizational Behavior Theory - Essay Example

This paper analyzes organizational behavior theory in the context of contemporary organizations. Whereas certain organizations are utilizing the principles of organizational behavior to the fullest extent, there are more firms that are not yet willing to embrace this productive change. The paper calls for further research to ease implementation of specific organizational behavior principles. Call For Further Research To Enhance Organizational Behavior Theory In the United States, eighty percent of the people were self-employed in the early 1800s. By 1870, only thirty three percent were self-employed; by 1940 only twenty percent; and after 1970 only ten percent were self-employed (Hernandez 2003). Nowadays, the organization is the principal form of employment for people around the world, and under scrutiny from all quarters. The twenty first century began with a great deal of excitement especially as the innovatory technologies of the twentieth century started to appear commonplace and every organization had already been supplied with tools through academic research to deal with additional massive organizational changes in the offing. The discipline of organizational behavior had been through its trials and tests, finally emerging as an indispensable area of learning for all twenty first century managers to have gone through. Arthur P. Brief and Howard M. Weiss (2002) describe this relatively new field of applied psychology thus: The organizations in which people work affect their thoughts, feelings, and actions in the workplace and away from it. Likewise, people's thoughts, feelings, and actions affect the organizations in which they work. Organizational behavior is an area of inquiry concerned with both sorts of influence: work organizations on people and people on work organizations. Organizations act as the engine of the world economy in our day. So, for the first time in the previous century, the psychology of workers in an organization became a focal issue in studying organizations. Employee development, organizational citizenship, organizational attachment, work attitudes, job design, turnover, leadership, absenteeism, and employee work motivation turned out to be the centers of attention with advances in psychological theory and changes in the workplace (Mowday and Sutton 1993). Developments in the understanding of personality, emotion, and cognition, and their influence on work choices and goal striving were thoroughly investigated. The entire human resources departments world over were revolutionized at the same time as economic, technological and organizational changes encouraged further research on the influence of sociocultural and environmental factors on motivation. The emergence of new theories, paradigms, and organizational concerns not only provided a rich matrix for the study of organizational behavior, but also provided firms with a rather attractive framework for organizational behavior modification, and in general, the art of running a firm with reference to its people (Kanfer 2006). By the end of the twentieth century it was evident that we have a borderless, international economy (Hodgetts 1999). Organizations with multinational structures could more conveniently apply the standards described in organizational behavior theory and achieve well for themselves and their communities. An organization with international outreach meant that there were many other organizations in the same boat facing the world economy as the primary source of inspiration. Applying latest international research in organizational behavior was definitely easier and more lucrative for them, just as the use of latest developments in computer technology was made mandatory in these organizations before others. Organizational behavior experts in the twentieth century did not need to give attention to tremendous transformations about to affect the world economy beginning in the twenty first century. There was no way for them to predict the effects of forthcoming global scale happenings such as terrorism on organizational factors like employee motivation. The organizational behavior theory does explain motivation, for example, in terms of sudden incidences that can lower it (Robbins 1986). Whether these occurrences are at the personal level of an individual worker or at the level of an organization where the entire workforce is disturbed by violence in the local community - it is fair to state that organizational behavior theory has tackled this aspect of organizational change and terrorism is no surprise for the organizational environment when the fundamental knowledge of organizational behavior is taken into consideration. The field of organization behavior had addressed organizational change in the last century to a great extent (Robbins). New forms of strategic organizational planning, for example, scenario planning and contingency planning, were also being tested and successfully employed (Schoemaker 1997; Taylor-Smith 2002). Yet, when it comes to application of organizational behavior theories it seemed stressful in itself to discuss the effects of global scale turbulence on an organization and the community it interacts with. The word 'terror' has humungous implications in the discipline of psychology. Uncertainty and severe tension around the world could easily have led to organizational breakdown. Even so, we have seen that organizational behavior theories have helped to ease this tension at least inside the organization by providing it with the theoretical support to continue its good, hard work. Organizations are still providing products and services to people around the world. This is a major accomplishment for organizational behavior theorists. Their behavior theories seem to have won out in the end, as they have assisted organizations in coping with large scale changes productively. By the end of the twentieth century, organizations required all the theoretical tools they could possibly gather to function efficiently. The information revolution had become a reality. Managers no longer had to fantasize about exotic computer technology. Artificial intelligence, expert systems, telecommunications, Internet, Internet II, intranet and extranet were all becoming a part and parcel of organizational structure. The quality-speed revolution that started with total quality management also had a big impact on organizational culture and operations, as well as customer expectations (Hodgetts). All the same, the Universal Planner appears to have publicly declared at the end of the twentieth century: 'I have more change to put forward seeing as you have successfully endured the previous alterations in your organizational structure!' By the commencement of the twenty first century, organizations had to begin giving serious thought to improving liquidity amid uncertain economic and business conditions ("Businesses Placing" 2001). Furthermore, managers were now required to grow in skills. The regular accounting manager of an organization was supplemented with the fraud auditor as corporate fraud increased around the globe (Luizzo and Nostrand 1994). The Balanced Scorecard was introduced as a complement to the Balance Sheet, reflecting the need for strategic management to join forces with the accounting practice as intangible assets grew in importance over tangible assets (Kaplan and Norton 2001). A modern field of practice close to the heart of organization behavior had also been introduced by the name of organizational development. For the present century, organizational development consultants have pointed out the following trends: (1) The range of organizational development techniques is expected to expand, spurred mainly by the information explosion; (2) The number of employees involved in organizational development would increase, which implies that all members of the organization would act as participants in all phases of operation, e.g. the accountant would be a part of the strategic planning process from now; (3) It will be increasingly important to improve organizational communication, and the implications for organizational behavior - including stress, learning, and responsibility - would be repeatedly addressed ("Management 2006" 2001). Progressive organizational behavior theories that stress the need for greater organizational learning are uniquely significant in the twenty first century. In the fast changing business environment, successful organizations promote learning by getting everyone focused on a common objective with a sense of urgency, providing easy communications between and among all members, and then allowing the system to self-organize and reconfigure itself to deal effectively with the emerging new environment (Petersen 1999). What if organizational leaders fail to keep up with this need for increased learning Fred Luthans answers: But if they don't accomplish change, their organizations won't succeed or even survive. What surprises me is that too many of today's managers think they can get by without changing. Every time I think of this faulty reasoning, I recall Einstein's response to the question: What is insanity He said it was "people who do the same things and expect to obtain different results." This resistance to change is pure insanity given the environment in which we live. We have to change. So what I'm saying is that today's leaders must transform their firms into learning organizations, anticipate change and learn how to learn-and yet this isn't even enough. Now they have to move their organizations into world class status. These world class organizations or WCOs, as we call them, are basically striving to be the best in this hypercompetitive environment of internationalization, advanced information, technology, quality, and speed (Hodgetts). The world class organizations mentioned by Luthans are the same ones that became pioneers in adopting the principles of organizational behavior. With reference to organizational behavior theories, Luthans also reminds us that organizational leaders are effective only by keeping people in mind. Human intelligence cannot be overlooked in the age of artificial intelligence. Latest research indicates that almost half of the firms and the managers in charge have stopped believing in the value of human resources. Only about twenty five percent of all organizations are implementing the organizational behavior approach with practices such as 360 degrees feedback systems, self-managed teams, pay for performance plans, gain sharing, employee involvement and empowerment, etc (Pfeffer 1998). While the information about organizational behavior theories is in place, it is obvious that all organizations are not learning at present to gain a competitive advantage. The essential problems in organizational behavior are stirred by changes in the organizations themselves (Barley and Kunda 1992; Goodman and Whetten 1997). Luthans proposes that in the twenty first century, organizational behavior experts must be "thinking a lot more in terms of process forms of implementation for leadership effectiveness while eliminating the old specialized silo or functional approach. (Hodgetts)" Enhanced and easier methods of applying the organizational behavior theory should prove to be of further advantage to the organization that is already employing the organizational behavior principles, and of enormous benefit to the firm that has failed to keep up with the times. Organizations that have entered the twenty first century applying the innovative organizational behavior approach are offered additional advice by Luthans: I guess what I see for effective leadership for the 21st Century is a coalescing, an integration, of the strategy and organizational behavioral areas. The strategy part of effective leadership should be concerned with mission, vision, and the big picture, to be sure, but effective leaders also need to start thinking more in terms of organizational behavior variables such as a behavioral approach and self efficacy in terms of answering the question: How do we get there (Hodgetts) Based on our organizational development model, then, strategic management must not only be merged with the accounting practice, but also with organizational behavior in the twenty first century. The organizational behavior theory is virtually flawless in terms of the amount of time and research invested in it. The theory continues to evolve with the cropping up of new organizational issues day by day. It is not a static theory, and whatever flaws are observed in it by managers should be corrected by researchers within a short period of time. As stated previously, organization is the main force behind the world economy today. Moreover, a lot of the employees in organizations are potentially people that could have been self-employed in a bygone age. Regardless of their capacity to succeed or fail in the context of self-employment, taking stock of a contemporary organization's human resources strength is crucial. Consider the following examples of organizational leaders that have tapped their human resources potential: Take Bill Gates, the ultimate techie but a great leader. A reason he has done so well is because he believes in the people part of his leadership role. In fact, one of his quotes that I like is "My inventory, the value of my company, walks out the door every night." I think Gates appreciates the human side of enterprise. He has reward systems, he has teams, he has all the things we talk about in HR; you can find not only the most sophisticated technology in the world, but also textbook examples of effective OB/HR at Microsoft. Gates is obviously the ultimate techie, but he is also appreciative, and an effective leader of human resources. So is Jeff Bezos, the cyber architect of Amazon.com. All of his top people have become millionaires through his HR policies of sharing the wealth through pay for performance and stock ownership in this amazing e-commerce firm (Hodgetts). As we have discovered, whereas many firms at present do not regard the organizational behavior theory as a vital part of managing a contemporary organization, there are others like Microsoft and Amazon.com that have employed human intuition to the fullest extent when applying the commonsensical principles of organizational behavior. Robert Katz described all effective leaders as possessors of three necessary skills: technical, conceptual, and human. Without technical appreciation, organizational leaders are in trouble. Conceptual skills involve communication and strategic planning. The human perspective and skills are all about organizational behavior, and it has never been the task of organizational behavior theorists to explain how organizations would fail sans the application of their theories (Robbins). Any organization that cannot keep up with the times in terms of latest information and behavioral change is inevitably doomed in the twenty first century. This is the era of gaining competitive advantage by utilizing ground-breaking principles, whether they are technology-related or concerned with the science of human behavior. The human resources department of the twenty first century cannot disregard the importance of organizational change by the application of new principles just because change does not "feel good" to the employees in general. Luthan points out that this "soft," pat on the back approach of the human resources department was justified in the 1970s and 1980s. In the twenty first century, however, the department has to be more interested in performance enhancement, which is bound to make the employees happy in the long run, anyway, even if they are short sighted at this point in time. Organizational leaders have to ask about principles their firms are advised to adopt: "Can you show that this stuff works That it has an impact on the bottom line (Hodgetts)" Organizational behavior principles, just like the latest in computer technology, must be tried and tested in a firm before its leading managers decide to employ them on a full time basis. Luthan adds that this organizational approach does definitely lead to increased profits and growth. This fact is based on research evidence. Luthans has also conducted meta-analysis of many organizational behavior modification studies. He describes the results thus: We found that O.B. Mod. had an average increase of 17% in employee performance. We think that is pretty impressive, especially when you consider many technological innovations or some of the better known human resource techniques such as goal setting do not have evidence of that big an impact. In addition, we also found through this meta-analysis some significant theory driven moderators. Specifically, we found that the type of organization and the type of contingent reinforcement intervention moderates the relationship between O.B. Mod. and employee performance. For example, we found that O.B. Mod. had a bigger impact in manufacturing organizations, approximately 33% average improvement, than in service organizations at about 10%. However, it must be remembered that this 10% is still highly significant and can make a big difference in the labor intensive service industry (Hodgetts). Organizational behavior theories are being applied all over the world and results reveal that a firm is always better off applying these theories. It is upsetting to the world economy, nevertheless, that all organizations do not currently apply the latest techniques and principals required for greater productivity and gains. In the twenty first century, organizational behavior experts should be thinking of further research in the implementation of the organizational behavior ideology. The organizational behavior theory should now be taking into account the firms that fear change and learning, and thereby formulate a framework to make it less burdensome for human resource departments around the world to succumb to organizational behavior modification. References 1. Barley S. and Kunda G. "Design And Devotion: Surges Of Rational And Normative Ideologies Of Control In Managerial Discourse." Adm. Sci. Q. 37, 1992. 2. Brief, Arthur P. and Weiss, Howard M. "Organizational Behavior: Affect In The Workplace." Annual Review of Psychology, 2002. 3. "Businesses Placing Top Priority on Improving Cash Flow this Year." Korea Times, 12 January 2001. 4. Goodman P. S. and Whettan D. A. "Fifty Years Of Organizational Behavior From Multiple Perspectives." In A Half Century Of Challenge And Change In Employment Relations. Edited by M. Nenfeld, J. McKelvey. Ithaca, New York: ILR Press, 1997. 5. Hernandez, Edward H. Organizations & Environment, 2003. Available at http://www.hrmgt.com/mgt4000.htm. Accessed: 28 October 2006. 6. Hodgetts, Richard M. "A Conversation On Fred Luthans Leadership In The 21st Century." Journal of Leadership Studies, 1999. 7. Kanfer, Ruth. "Work Motivation In The 21st Century: Mapping New Directions For Theory And Research." Society For Industrial And Organizational Psychology Inc, 2006. Available at http://www.siop.org/. Accessed: 28 October 2006. 8. Kaplan, R. S., and Norton, D. P. "Transforming the Balanced Scorecard from Performance Management to Strategic Management: Part I." Accounting Horizons, Vol. 15, 2001. 9. Luizzo, Anthony J., and Nostrand, George Van. "Delving Deeper to Decipher Fraud." Security Management, Vol. 38, September 1994. 10. Management 2006. "21st Century Organizational Development Consulting," 2001. Available at http://www.manage2001.com/index.htm. Accessed: 28 October 2006. 11. Mowday, Richard T. and Sutton, Robert I. "Organizational Behavior: Linking Individuals And Groups To Organizational Contexts." Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 44, 1993. 12. Petersen, John L. "Getting Ready For The 21st Century." USA Today, Vol. 127, May 1999. 13. Pfeffer, Jeffrey. The Human Equation: Building Profits By Putting People First. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1998. 14. Robbins, Stephen P. Organizational Behavior: Concepts, Controversies and Applications. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1986. 15. Schoemaker, Paul J. H. "Disciplined Imagination: From Scenarios to Strategic Options." International Studies of Management & Organization, Vol. 27, 1997. 16. Taylor-Smith, Moray J. "Do you know where: Companies with International Operations must have Contingency Plans in place for Employees Traveling to a Foreign Country on Business." Security Management, Vol. 46, July 2002. Read More