Organizational Behaviour - Case Study Example

 «Organizational Behaviour» The position and the needs of employees in modern organization have been described and analyzed by theorists worldwide using appropriate theoretical contexts. The use of these theories in practice could help a modern organization to increase the performance of its employees – an initiative that could also result to the improvement of the firm’s profitability. One of the most common theories explaining the role of employees in organizations is the equity theory of Adams (1963); in accordance with the specific theory, the work of employees in a particular organization should be viewed as an exchange for the benefits that these employees expect to gain; in other words, employees offer to the organization a series of inputs (their physical efforts and their knowledge/ experiences) as an exchange for a series of outputs – referring to the salary, the rewards and any benefit received in the specific exchange process (Anderson et al., 2002, 54). From a similar point of view, Pride et al. (2009) emphasize on the importance of the exchange developed between the employee and the organization; in accordance with Pride et al. (2009) the motivation of employees in a specific organization is based on their willingness ‘to obtain and preserve equitable treatment for themselves’ (Pride et al., 2009, 289); in the above context, it is noted by Pride et al. (2009) that if a balance exists between the inputs and the outputs (salary, benefits) then the employee believes that ‘he is treated by the organization equitably’ (Pride et al., 2009, 289); however, it is made clear that the above relationship – between inputs-outputs – needs to be evaluate by referring to another person – usually a co-worker; if the inputs-outputs ratio of an employee is the same with that of another employee in the same organization, then it is concluded that the organization treats its employees with equitability. Under the above terms, equity theory can be regarded as having two different directions: the employer-employee relationship and the relationship among employees at all levels of the organizational hierarchy (Greguras et al., 2009, 465). The equity theory, as presented above, has the following advantage: it establish an integrated relationship among employees and employer; however, this relationship is related with specific interests; in this way, the relationship between employees and employer – also among employees – may become typical, focusing only on gaining specific benefits (Meyer et al., 2010, 323); in such environment, the cooperation and coordination among employees is expected to be problematic. Another theory focusing on the motivation of employees is the expectancy theory which is partially related with the equity theory – as described above; the expectancy theory was developed by Vroom and is based on the following two criteria/ rules: ‘a) how much we want something and b) on how likely we think we are to get it’ (Pride et al., 2009, 289); in accordance with the expectancy theory, the motivation of employees within the organization is depended on the above criteria; in this way, it is expected that each employee may reach a different level of motivation – in accordance with his/ her personal targets and the practices he/ she is going to adopt in order to achieve them. In the context of the expectancy theory, the motivation of employees will be related with the existence of a ‘direct relationship between effort, performance and reward’ (Pilbeam et al., 2006, 248); if the above relationship is not clear, employees are not likely to be motivated; from a similar point of view, the expectancy theory can lead to the assumption that the motivation of an employee will be increased if the specific employee expects that an increase in his/ her performance will resulted to a relevant increase in his/ her salary and rewards; in order for such hypotheses to be made it is necessary that the relationship between work and reward is clear – in the context described above. Compared to the equity theory, expectancy theory can be characterized as leading to similar assumptions; again, specific interests – expected, or else, estimated outcomes – are set as the criteria for the increase or not of employee motivation; from this point of view, the only difference between the equity and the expectancy theory is the lack in the latter of a comparison between the expected rewards and benefits of employees within a particular organization – the rewards of an employee are compared with the rewards of another employee are compared in order to be identified if the specific firm treats its employees with equitability – a concept critical for the equity theory, as explained above. Even if equity theory and expectancy theory help to understand many of the aspects of motivation in the workplace, still there are issues that need to be addressed; the Maslow theory of Hierarchy of Needs offer an important theoretical framework for the explanation of behaviour of employees within the organization; by understanding the behaviour of employees in the workplace it is easier to identify the facts or conditions that can motivate employees in modern organizations. In accordance with the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory, the needs of employees in the workplace can be put in hierarchical order; the satisfaction of the needs of each level is necessary in order for employees to proceed to the next level. At low level of the hierarchy are the physiological needs – these are the needs that are of primary importance for the human life – for instance, food; at the next level, there are the safety needs; safety needs include the stability and the safety in their general context – in the workplace safety is related with the stability in work and the feeling that there is no threat regarding the continuation of work in a specific organization; the fear for firing can be extremely stressful for employees preventing them for proceeding to the next level of the hierarchy – the social needs. The social needs refer to the need for understanding and love; in accordance with Maslow, a person’s social needs can be fulfilled by the family (Preziosi, 2007, 162); however, the community also would have a role in the development of a person’s social needs. In the workplace, the social needs are also related with understanding and need for cooperation/ coordination. In accordance with the above, for moving from the specific level of hierarchy to the next one, an employee needs to feel that within the organization the level of coordination/ cooperation is high – at least in accordance with his/ her own criteria on support. After having satisfied these needs, an employee could seek for the satisfaction of his/ her esteem needs which refer to the respect expected by others; this level of the hierarchy has similar aspects with the previous one; at the next – and final level – an employee needs to satisfy his/ her self-actualization needs; these needs, in fact, are considered as satisfied if the needs in the previous levels of the hierarchy have been satisfied; at this level, the employee feels no pressure or uncertainty. It is at this point that the motivation of the employee will start to increase; however, while trying to satisfy his other needs – at lower levels – an employee can also be motivated; in other words, it is a gradual growth of the employee’s motivation; at the final level of the hierarchy the rate of growth of motivation will be extremely high. The theory of Maslow can be characterized as defining more accurately the terms under which employee’s motivation can be increased; in the Hierarchy of Needs theory the criteria for the development of employee motivation are clearly set – there is no case of misunderstanding or false interpretation; another issue highlighted through the theory of Maslow is the fact that each employee – as human – have certain needs which, if not satisfied, they can influence his/ her performance in the workplace. From this point of view, the Hierarchy of Needs theory of Maslow can be considered not only as related with the motivation in the workplace but with the socialization and the personal development of individuals (Liao et al., 2009, 371); it is in this framework that motivation in the workplace is also influenced. In other words, motivation is a psychological condition resulted by the satisfaction of certain human needs – as described by Maslow; the specific fact needs to be taken into consideration by managers that have to develop a plan for the increase of employees’ performance. In accordance with Stuart et al. (2007) the value of the Hierarchy of Needs Theory is extremely high today – despite the social, political and financial changes that have developed from 1930s – when the theory of the Hierarchy of Needs was first introduced – onwards; furthermore, Stuart et al. (2007) notes that the above theory introduces an important assumption: ‘status is important’ (Stuart et al., 2007, 64); in the context of the above view, by acquiring a series of goods, the social status of an individual is affected; his self-esteem is also likely to be increased; through this assumption, the increase of motivation is related with the social and economic status of employees – this status is likely to be improved by satisfying the needs mentioned in the various levels of the hierarchy (Tremblay et al., 2009, 213); this process would also positively affect employee motivation. Ryecroft et al. (2001) also verify this sequence of thoughts; in accordance with the above theorists all theories on employee motivation are based on ‘the assumption that humans are driven by primitive instincts to fulfill certain requirements’ (Ryecroft et al, 2001, 3). Under the above terms, the theory of Maslow (see Graph 1, Appendix) is considered to best reflect the needs of employees in modern organizations; the specific theory also offers the necessary framework for developing the plans through which employee motivation will be effectively supported. Another known theory in the particular field is the Herzberg Two-Factor theory of motivation (1959) – also known as Motivation – Hygiene theory (see Graphs 2 & 3 in the Appendix section). This theory is based on the fact that the performance of people in the workplace is affected by two different types of factors – the hygiene factors and the motivators; in accordance with this theory, the supervision, the coordination and the rewarding/ salary cannot be considered as enhancing motivation; on the other hand, their absence may lead to the decrease of employee motivation; they hygiene factors, as described above, are differentiated by the motivators, a series of factors that they can lead to the increase of employee motivation; these factors (known also as satisfiers) could be summarized as follows: ‘achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility and advancement’ (Miner, 2007, 48). The theory of Hezberg introduces a really interesting view: money is not the critical factor for the increase of employee motivation; of course, in case that the employee is not appropriately rewarded, it is quite possible that his motivation will be decreased – but it is not guaranteed that he will be highly motivated in case of a high salary. In accordance with Hollyforde et al (2002) motivation would not be related with the failure to achieve a high level of rewarding but rather as ‘a function of growth from getting intrinsic rewards out of interesting and challenging work’ (Hezberg, 1987 in Hollyforde et al., 2002, 103). The theory of Hezberg – as explained – above presents a framework of employee motivation similar to that of Maslow; in fact, the two theories would be combined when the increase of employee motivation in a particular organization is attempted. 2. In accordance with the issues developed above, the increase of motivation in the firm under examination would have to be based on certain criteria; the theories developed above would help Belcher to decide on the criteria set for the increase of employee motivation but any suggested strategy should be carefully examined – as of its effectiveness in the long term. On the other hand, the conditions in the workplace are not the same – compared to the period in which the Motivation Hygiene theory and the Maslow Hierarchy of Needs Theory were developed; this issue is highlighted in the study of Cartwright et al. (2006) who noted that today ‘the demands placed on employees have been increased’ (Cartwright et al., 2006, 199); this fact, according the above researchers have resulted to the decrease of trust in the workplace. In this context the introduction of measures that would seek to increase employee motivation in the particular organization should be carefully planned ensuring that employees are treated with equality but also that mistrust will appropriately addressed (Hurtz et al., 2009, 635). At this point, the potential application of the theories explained above on the case under examination should be examined and evaluated; In accordance with the events described in the case study the theory that best reflects the conditions developed in the workplace in regard the employee motivation is the equity theory; as already explained, the specific theory highlights the importance of the reward expecting but compared to the performance of another employee in a similar position; the productivity of Emily would justify a high increase of her rewarding; however, she was finally given a rewarding almost equal with Paul Kennedy – even if the latter did not perform at the same level with Emily; a clear problem of inequality in the treatment of employees in the workplace exists. Expectancy theory could be also used in terms that Emily contributes to the firm’s success at a significant level but she is not rewarded fairly – at least compared with Paul Kennedy who has a low level of performance. On the other hand, it would be supported that Emily should not wait for an increase in her rewarding – she should rather consider the standard salary as guaranteed – in the context that the enterprise is not obliged to reward employees higher than the amount included in their employment agreement; therefore, it is concluded that among the two theories – the equity theory and the expectancy theory – the former is totally applied on this case while the second can be only partially accepted. The theory of Maslow on Hierarchy of Needs cannot be considered as applicable on this case; there is no issue of covering basic human needs; the specific theory would be applied only if certain levels of the hierarchy would to be used. More specifically, from the Hierarchy of Needs pyramid, only the last two levels could be used in this case; the conditions in the workplace have led Emily to lose her self-esteem; this is a problem that should be addressed by Mr. Smith in order for Emily’s Self-Actualization to return to its previous levels. The theory of Hezberg, also, would be only partially applied; Emily is not satisfied with the rewarding given to her but also with the failure of Mr. Smith to thank her for her contribution in the increase of the firm’s performance. At this point two different factors from the Hezberg Model exist: the money rewarding (hygiene factor) and the recognition of the value of work (motivator); from the above two factors, Mr. Smith should emphasize on the recognition of the value of work – this would be of primary importance for Emily in order to cancel her plans to leave the company; the increase of her rewarding – at the next level – would be welcomed by Emily but it is not the specific issue that led to the decrease of her motivation in the workplace. In accordance with the above, the improvement of employee motivation in Belcher would require the following measures: a) change of existing behaviour of Mr. Smith towards the employees – the hostility towards employees leads to the continuous decrease of their motivation, b) the existing rewarding scheme should be reviewed and updated; equality should be established regarding the rewarding of employees working in various organizational departments; this means also that employees will be rewarded only when they actually perform higher than specific standards, c) the employee relationships should be reviewed; showing preference to specific employee and avoiding speaking to others would cause severe turbulences within the organization; the rules included in the theories presented above would be used by Mr. Smith in order to improve employee relations across the organization – supporting the standardization of the organizational performance. Bibliography A. Books Anderson, N., Ones, D., Sinangil, H. (2002) Handbook of industrial, work & organizational psychology: Organizational psychology, Volume 2. SAGE Collins, S., O’Rourke, J. (2008) Managing Conflict and Workplace Relationships. Cengage Learning Griffin, R., Moorhead, G. (2009) Organizational Behavior: Managing People and Organizations. Cengage Learning Hollyforde, S., Whiddett, S. (2002) Motivation Handbook. CIPD Publishing Kolb, B. (2006) Tourism Marketing for cities and towns: using branding and events to attract tourism. Butterworth-Heinemann Koontz, H., Weihrich, H. (2006) Essentials Of Management. Tata McGraw-Hill Miner, J. (2007) Organizational behavior: From theory to practice. M.E. Sharpe Pilbeam, S., Corbridge, M. (2006) People Resourcing: Contemporary HRM in Practice. Pearson Education Preziosi, R. (2007) The 2008 Pfeiffer Annual: Management Development. John Wiley and Sons Pride, W., Hughes, R., Kapoor, J. (2009) Business. Cengage Learning Ryecroft, C., Moxon, D. (2001) Human Relationships. Heinemann Stuart, B., Sarow, M., Stuart, L. (2007) Integrated business communication in a global marketplace. John Wiley and Sons B. Journals Caramelli, M., Briole, A. (2007) Employee stock ownership and job attitudes: Does culture matter? Human Resource Management Review, Volume 17, Issue 3, 290-304 Cartwright, S., Holmes, N. (2006) The meaning of work: The challenge of regaining employee engagement and reducing cynicism. Human Resource Management Review, Volume 16, Issue 2, 199-208 Chiang, F., Birtch, T. (2010) Pay for performance and work attitudes: The mediating role of employee–organization service value congruence. International Journal of Hospitality Management, Volume 29, Issue 4, 632-640 Chiang, C., Jang, S. (2008) An expectancy theory model for hotel employee motivation. International Journal of Hospitality Management, Volume 27, Issue 2, 313-322 Coyle-Shapiro, J., Morrow, P. (2006) Organizational and client commitment among contracted employees. Journal of Vocational Behavior, Volume 68, Issue 3, 416-431 Garofano, C., Salas, E. (2005) What influences continuous employee development decisions? Human Resource Management Review, Volume 15, Issue 4, 281-304 Greguras, G., Diefendorff, J. (2009) Different Fits Satisfy Different Needs: Linking Person-Environment Fit to Employee Commitment and Performance Using Self-Determination Theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, Volume 94, Issue 2, 465-477 Hand, J. (2008) Give everyone a prize? Employee stock options in private venture-backed firms. Journal of Business Venturing, Volume 23, Issue 4, 385-404 Hurtz, G., Williams, K. (2009) Attitudinal and Motivational Antecedents of Participation in Voluntary Employee Development Activities. Journal of Applied Psychology, Volume 94, Issue 3, 635-653 Liao, H., Toya, K., Lepak, D., Hong, Y. (2009) Do They See Eye to Eye? Management and Employee Perspectives of High-Performance Work Systems and Influence Processes on Service Quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, Volume 94, Issue 2, 371-391 Matzler, K., Renzl, B. (2007) Assessing asymmetric effects in the formation of employee satisfaction. Tourism Management, Volume 28, Issue 4, August 2007, Pages 1093-1103 Meyer, J., Maltin, E. (2010) Employee commitment and well-being: A critical review, theoretical framework and research agenda. Journal of Vocational Behavior, Volume 77, Issue 2, 323-337 Nwogugu, M. (2006) Employee-stock-options, production/service functions and game theory. Applied Mathematics and Computation, Volume 181, Issue 1, 552-562 Tremblay, M., Blanchard, C., Taylor, S., Pelletier, L., Villeneu, M. (2009) Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Scale: Its Value for Organizational Psychology Research. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, Volume 41, Issue 4, October 2009, Pages 213-226 Appendix Graph 1 – Maslow theory – Hierarchy of Needs (source: http://www.abraham-maslow.com/m_motivation/Hierarchy_of_Needs.asp) Graph 2 – A graphical representation of the Motivation – Hygiene theory of Hezberg (source: http://www.examstutor.com/business/resources/studyroom/people_and_organisations/motivation_theory/pictures/herzbergs_two_factor_theory_fig2.gif) Graph 3 – Another graphical representation of the Motivation – Hygiene theory of Hezberg (source: http://tutor2u.net/business/images/herzberg_factors.gif) Read More