Concepts of Organizational Behavior - Essay Example

Running Head: Case Assessment Guidebook Case Assessment Guidebook of the appears here] of the appears here] Case Assessment Guidebook Organizational behavior is important to all management task, roles and skills. Since organizations are built up levels - individual, group and an organizational system as a whole, it is vital for managers to understand human behavior in order to meet the organizations overall objectives. Managements function is to plan, organize, lead and control. Management roles can be interpersonal, informational or decisional. Management skills can be technical, human or conceptual. In order to be effective, the behavioral science disciplines of psychology, sociology, social psychology, anthropology and political science all contribute to the means of applying organizational behavior concepts. Managers are able to develop an understanding of what motivates employees to learn, train and perform optimally as individuals through the use of organizational behavior concepts. Managers realize there are many dynamics behind working within a group and the importance of group behaviors and communicating is a key link to empowering and controlling conflicts a group. Overall, in order for managers to be successful and effective they must utilize and develop the use of organizational behavior concepts that will enhance not only there own abilities but also there employees. Inexorably, the general movement in this country toward protecting both individual and group rights and sensitivities has spawned a number of innovative ideas and control mechanisms. These range from what might be subsumed under political correctness to particular penalty devices in criminal justice. Although not concerned with the rather complex social and political forces that have led the country through turbulent rights adjustments culminating in the criminalization of hate, it is important to have some understanding of the background. Fortunately, that understanding is widespread, thanks to the advanced state of public communications media, and requires little explication here. It is, perhaps, sufficient to note that the very concept of hate crime is of relatively recent origin and can best be understood in the context of what has been happening in this country in regard to changing and expanding notions of individual, group, and minority rights. The concept of hate crime does not encompass hatreds in general. One will not find hatred of either Republicans or Democrats, of either Bostonians or New Yorkers, or even of either criminals or noncriminals, in any way proscribed by the criminal law. Usually, it is only when hatred focuses on race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or sexual preference that the criminal law comes into play. Furthermore, hatred in one of those areas, by itself, is not criminal. It is only when some traditionally established crime, such as assault, vandalism and theft can be legally shown to have been motivated by hate against restrictively specified groups does the punitive hate crime mechanism become active. It is difficult to precisely trace the origins of an evolutionary process but certainly the activities of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith must be regarded as seminal in regard to notions of hate crime. The League has been tracking one kind of hate crime, anti-Semitic vandalism, since 1960. In 1979, it first started to publish an annual "Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents." These audits, from the beginning, revealed an alarming trend of increasing anti-Semitic vandalism and violence. The League responded by making greater efforts in terms of education, public exposure, and demands for law enforcement support. In 1981, the League's legal affairs department drafted a model hate crimes legislative bill, and the League continues to hold a leadership position in promoting hate crime statutes. (Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith 1988a) Other organizations, notably Afro-American groups, have also played a leadership role in pursuing hate crimes legislation. In 1985, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives published a law enforcement guidebook on racial and religious violence. In 1983, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights published an influential report entitled Intimidation and Violence: Racial and Religious Bigotry in America. In 1984, with a seed grant from the State of Maryland, the National Institute Against Prejudice and Violence was established. The Institute, whose advisory board represents an impressive cross-section of prominent people from different racial, religious, and ethnic groups, seeks to suppress violence and intimidation motivated by unwarranted prejudice. In reviewing materials published by organizations promoting the hate crime concept, one can discern a thrust aimed at mobilizing the special interests of the law enforcement community. Violence motivated by specified hatreds is presented as a threat to law and order in society. Police agencies are logically booked into the hate crime business not on the basis of moral arguments but on the straightforward basis of public safety and order maintenance. Economic costs of hate crime and the related costs to police efficiency are part of the argumentation supporting hate crime legislation. As of this writing, there are at least 48 states which, along with the Federal Government, have some form of statute addressing hate crime. (US Department of Justice, FBI 1990) The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has held training conferences for state and local law enforcement agencies charged with enforcing hate crime statutes. On July 18, 1990, the FBI developed a draft of hate crime data collection guidelines, and there is clearly Federal leadership in this area. The International Association of Chiefs of Police has promulgated a model racial, religious, and ethnic violence policy statement as a guide for police executives, and there are numerous relevant handbooks, executive orders, and guidelines developed by law enforcement agencies throughout the country. (US Department of Justice, FBI 1990) In light of a recent event involving Los Angeles police officers, it is interesting to note one example of such hate crime policy among police. Collection of Data In order to facilitate the statewide data collection required by law, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement promulgated, to all law enforcement agencies in the state, a lengthy manual known as the Hate Crime Report Manual. The manual provides certain codes for uniform reporting and attempts to deal with the most difficult aspect of hate crime, which is its definition. The manual declares that motivation is the "key element in determining if an incident is hate-related." According to the manual, motivation can stem from hatred based on: race/color; religion; or ethnicity/national origin. Only one motivation can be listed so that the conceivable circumstance of an incident motivated by hatred of both a religion and a race would have to be reported as one or the other motivation, not both. The manual goes into considerable detail as to the possible indicators of motivation. Some of the indicators are fairly concrete like gestures, words, and symbols. Other indicators offered by the manual are somewhat harder to grasp. The manual lists several possible hate-related activities such as: cross burning; threatening placement of animal parts; spitting; defecating; urinating; graffiti placement; wearing of intimidating clothing; and tattooing. Among the possible symbols listed are swastikas, colors, gang signs, and ritualistic markings. Recognizing the difficulty of determining when a crime is motivated by a statutorily proscribed hatred, the manual stresses the importance of law enforcement officers relying on their "investigative judgment." An important thing to keep in mind when pursuing the concept of hate crime is that expressions of proscribed hatreds, which occur during the course of an otherwise motivated crime, do not amount to hate crimes. A hypothetical example might help to clarify this point. If during the course of a barroom fight, which started from an argument about some sporting event, the combatants call each other names like nigger, spic, or honky, the event does not rise to the level of a hate crime because it was not a proscribed hatred which precipitated the assaults. It should be noted that in 1990, offenses motivated by gender hatred or hatred of homosexuals were not covered by the Florida Hate Crimes Act, and such incidents were not reportable then. However, they are expected to be reported in the future. The data on which this research is based were drawn from the raw reports of law enforcement officers as submitted to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement on a prescribed form titled, "Florida Hate Crime Statistical Report Form." Data Presentation Race of Victim. As shown below, whites represent the highest number of victims followed by blacks who are 12% fewer. TABLE 1. RACE OF VICTIM Race Number Percent Black 97 38 White 129 50 Asian 3 1 Unknown 30 11 Total 259 100 Age and Sex of Victim. Male victims outnumber female victims by more than 2 to 1. Twenty percent of victims are under 21 years of age; 54% are between 21 and 55; and 7% are over 55. In 19% of the incidents, age of victim is unknown or not applicable. Race of Offender. There is a high percentage of unknowns in this category perhaps because race of offender is not essential to the official definition of a hate crime. Black and white were the only specific races recorded among the 259 reports submitted by law enforcement agencies. The number of white offenders exceeded the number of blacks by 6%. TABLE 2. RACE OF OFFENDER Race Number Percent Black 69 27 White 85 33 Unknown 105 40 Total 259 100 Sex and Age of Offender. Because sex and age of offender are also not essential to the official definition of hate crime, there is a high percentage of unknowns in these categories. Fifty-three percent of offenders are male and only 4% are female. Offender sex is unknown in 43% of the incidents recorded. Twenty percent of offenders are under 21 years of age; 22% are between 21 and 55; and 1% are older than 55. Age of offender is unknown in 57% of the incidents. Hate Crime Target and Offense. The hate crime reporting scheme calls for information regarding whether offender action is taken against a person or against some inanimate object separated from a person. The vast majority (82 percent) of hate crimes are directed against the person with other targets being property, religious facility, and organization. Assault is the dominant (43 percent) offense category followed by damage to property (31 percent). Intimidation is the offense in 18% of the incidents with other offenses covering 8% of the incidents. Indicator of Hate Motivation. Objective indicators of criminal actions motivated by hate are pivotal to determining a hate crime. "Investigative judgment" is obviously indispensable in identifying such indicators. Words are clearly the most frequently found indicator. TABLE 3. INDICATOR OF HATE MOTIVATION Indicator Number Percent Words 141 54 Gestures 15 6 Words and Gestures 26 10 Symbols 38 15 Other 37 14 Unknown 2 1 Total 259 100 Motivation. Racial hatred is the principal motivation for hate crime incidents. TABLE 4. MOTIVATION Motivation Number Percent Race 177 68 Religion 54 21 Ethnicity 28 11 Total 259 100 Offender Race vs. Victim Race. A comparison of the race of offenders to the race of their specific victims is shown below. By a slight margin, there are more incidents of blacks committing hate crimes against whites than incidents of whites committing hate crimes against blacks. Overall, there are more white offenders than black offenders. Because the law enforcement agency reports frequently omit offender race, the following covers only the 148 incidents where race of both the victim and the offender is indicated. TABLE 5. OFFENDER RACE vs. VICTIM RACE Offender vs. Number Percent Victim Black vs. White 63 43 White vs. Black 58 39 Black vs. Black 5 3 White vs. White 22 15 Total 148 100 Summary and Discussion An examination of the 259 incidents officially reported during the first full calendar year of the operation of the Florida Hate Crimes Reporting Act provides a rough picture of the newly defined concept of hate crime. Critical to the concept is the distinction made between hate indicators incidentally manifested during a crime and indications of hate, in fact, motivating a crime. It hardly merits saying but not all hatreds are condemned by the criminal statutes. In 1990, only hate based on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion incurred criminal penalty and only if such hate triggered one of the ordinarily established crimes. Waiting in the wings are plans to include crimes motivated by hatred of gender and homosexuality. Structure is a very powerful shaper of behavior. If management is not happy with the behavior or people in their organization, they need to take a closer look at the system in place and the structure they are working in. If employees are behaving like bureaucrats, then chances are they are working in a bureaucracy. If employees are not focused on the customer, then perhaps they are working in a structure that is not customer oriented. If employees are not innovative, then they might just be working in an environment that is inflexible and controlled. If employees are resisting change, the organization possibly might not value growth and development. Management needs to realize that employees will behave in the environment that is presented to them. This is why organizational behavior is so important in the workforce. It can either limit or liberate the performance potential of an organization. The search for that ideal structure and being able to alter that structure as needed to meet changes is essential and crucial to any organization in order to be effective, the behavioral science disciplines of psychology, sociology, social psychology, anthropology and political science all contribute to the means of applying organizational behavior concepts. References Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith. (1988a). Hate groups in America: A report of bigotry and violence. Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith. (1988b) Hate crime statutes: A response to anti-Semitism, vandalism and violent bigotry. National Institute Against Prejudice and Violence. (1986). Striking back at bigotry: Remedies under federal and state law for violence motivated by racial, religious, and ethnic prejudice. National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives(NOBLE). (1985). Racial and religious violence: A model law enforcement response. National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives(NOBLE). (1986). Racial and religious violence: A law enforcement guidebook. State of California, Office of the Attorney General. (1986). Racial, ethnic and religious crimes project: Preliminary steps to establish statewide collection of data. State of Florida, Office of Attorney General. (1991). Hate crimes in Florida, January 1, 1990-December 31, 1990. State of Florida, Florida Department of Law Enforcement. (1989). Hate crime report manual. United States Commission on Civil Rights. (1983). Intimidation and violence: Racial and religious bigotry in America. United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1990). Hate crime data collection guidelines (revised draft July 18, 1990). Read More