Management and Organisational Behaviour Assignment

This is the scenario when I was working as Sr. Assistant Restaurant Manger in ‘The AAYA’ Japanese Restaurant, London. I was responsible for Sales, Training and managing a staff of 40 people on floor. The restaurant was newly open with multinational staff. The restaurant environment had a good blend of experienced, enthusiastic and youth staff. There was a good understanding, urge to learn and respect for others culture within the staff. The restaurant won ‘the best oriental restaurant of the year’, in prestigious London Restaurant Awards (within 3 months of opening).I had been working with the company from 4 months in pre opening team. Mr. Kieran Mitchell, general manger, was very experienced, co-operating, ever encouraging us to do new and unique things with the set up of the restaurant.

The problem started after the restaurant was functional. Kieran was complete opposite person afterwards. He was never up to the mark, in his own world, committing thing and then not doing. Whatever was discussed in the managers meet, he never use to follow and when we gave training to staff regarding what was decided, he used to change it without informing. Kieran had a Friday meet with Mr. Gary Yau (owner). He used to show all the work (sales figure, training, complaints etc) done by us as his work. Mr. Yau was pretty impressed with his work and didn’t give full attention to operations in the restaurant. Moreover this was directly affecting our job as owners started thinking that we are of no use. Kieran was always given credit and incentives for the things done by us. This was not only directly affecting us but also was having an adverse effect on the staff. The staff started having indifferent behaviour and this created problem for him to control staff. Due to drop in motivation and job satisfaction, staff turnover started to increase and the new people hired were hard to train in this kind of environment. Group dynamics which was created before could not be formed again due to lack of interest of the staff. We (me and my co-managers) tried to talk to him about this but everything was in vain.

This thing was going on for months till my restaurant manager and me, decided to have a word with the owners regarding this. Kieran came to know about this started having problem with our work and management. He started to be bias with some staff, which also included the salary. But this time Mr. Yau was keenly observing the ongoing in the restaurant as he thought that there was clear problem of leadership and communication from GM to managers. He (owner) started calling Kieran during the work to know about the mid-day reports. Moreover, he started coming to our mangers meet to see how thing we discussed, agreed and never implemented by GM. After observing things for 2 weeks, Mr. Yau issued a warning letter to Kieran, and was fired a week later. It took lot of time and effort to overcome the environment created by him (GM).

Read also  Behavioral Approach To Leadership Management Essay

Task 2.1: Impacts of the Events on the Attitudes and Perceptions of Staff:

There were various events/problems which had great effect on the attitudes and perception of the staff which was directly effecting the work environment and the business. Attitude is a predisposition to respond in a positive or negative way to someone or something in our environment (Wood et. al. 2010, p. 54). Perception is the process through which people can receive, organise, and interpret information from their environment (Wood et. al. 2004, p. 120). Some main problems in this scenario include job satisfaction, change of staff behaviour, salary issues, communication, etc.

The main issue faced by the staff in ‘The AAYA’ was job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is among the important attitudes that influence human behaviour in the work place (Wood et. al. 2010, p. 57). First main reason behind this was salary issues. Employees started having depressing attitude towards this, as GM was being bias to some staff. When pay is seen as fair, based on job demands, individual skill level and prevailing market standards, satisfaction is likely to result (Robbins et. al. 1994, p. 218). Moreover, the most senior person, GM, being partial to few employees was very much de-motivating for other staff, and hard to control for him. Wiesner (2011) states that bias can lead to serious errors for the manger. Due to this perception, staff started having indefinite behaviour. People’s behaviour is based on their perception of what reality is, not reality itself (Robbins et. al. 1994, p. 163).

In addition to attitude, employees were de-motivated due to lack of self recognition. People want to be seen and recognised for their skills and accomplishments, and also want to know that their work is appreciated (Wood et. al. 2010, p.53). According to McKenna in Wiesner & Millett (2001), motivation is an individual trait emerging from the person’s identity. In ‘The AAYA’, the employees were not given recognition for their work, by GM, and this resulted in to low productivity, decrease in motivation and change of attitude towards the job. According to Robbins et. al. (1994, p. 218), manager should be interested in their employee’s attitude because attitude gives warning to potential problem.

Read also  Starbucks Organizational Behaviour

Some other problems included high staff turnover and rise of cost due to this, communication, group dynamics, not stating clear goals to the staff, etc. Wood et. al. (2010) reveals that costs of staff turnover are high as it includes recruiting, training and productivity losses caused due to any operational interference and low morale.


Group dynamics is discussed in Task 2.3

Task 2.2: Two Motivational Theory and Impact of Events in this Scenario upon Motivation of the Employees

According to Buchanan & Huczynski (2004, p. 244), motivation is the cognitive, decision making process through which goal directed behaviour is initiated, energized, and directed and maintained. In ‘The AAYA’, motivation level was very low within the staff and urge to put in more efforts was very less. Wood et. al. (2010, p. 42) advocates that the forces within the individual, that account for the level, direction and persistence of effort expended at work is motivation to work.

The two theories which are discussed for the scenario are as follows:

Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory (Content Theory)

Equity Theory (Process Theory)

Theory 1: Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory

Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory is appropriate in this scenario. This theory, also known as motivator-hygiene theory (Wood et. al. 2010, p. 89), differentiates intrinsic factors which are related to work satisfaction (motivator) with extrinsic factors that are associated with dissatisfaction (hygiene) (Robbins, 1998, p. 171).

Wood et. al. (2010, p.90) states that effective mangers have to achieve two distinct outcomes, maximum job satisfaction and simultaneously minimise job satisfaction. These outcomes can be achieved Herzberg’s theory, as according to the views of Herzberg in Robbins (1998, p.172), opposite of “Satisfaction” (motivator) is “No Satisfaction” (and not Dissatisfaction), and opposite “Dissatisfaction” (hygiene) is “No Dissatisfaction” (and not Satisfaction). As motivator and hygiene are two different factors, this can help mangers to achieve above mentioned out comes by focusing on maximising motivator factors and minimising hygiene factors.

Read also  Oil Gas Industry Attractiveness

In ‘The AAYA’, the motivator factors which was not found were recognition, advancement, growth or promotion, and hygiene factor which were missing were relation with the management and subordinates, security, and salary issues. Herzberg’s findings and recommendation helps the employees and the management for planning and controlling their work environment (Robbins et. al., 1994, p. 252).

Theory 2: Equity Theory

Employees in ‘The AAYA’ were de-motivated due to senior manger being partial to some. Employees could feel inequity through under paid compared to other staff doing same work. According to Buchanan & Huczynski (2004, p. 251), inequity occurs when people gets either more, or less, than they think they deserve. Employees would have motivated if pay was equal to their input of work and co-workers doing the same work. Equity Theory recognises that employees are concerned not only with rewards they receive for their efforts, with what others receive for the same amount (Robbins et. al., 1994, p. 256). Hence, Equity theory is best applied here.

Equity theory is based on the phenomenon of social comparisons (Wood et. al. 2004, p.154), and people’s perception of fair treatment (Buchanan & Huczynski, 2004, p. 251). This theory is best known through writing of J Stacy Adams, who argues in Buchanan & Huczynski (2004, p. 244), that people are motivated to act in a situations which they perceive to be inequitable or unfair (Buchanan & Huczynski, 2004, p. 251).

Moreover it is very important for the staff to know the links between efforts and rewards, through management to reduce inequity. Buchanan & Huczynski (2004, p. 253) agrees by stating that management should identifies that perception of inequity can generate tension. Therefore, managers should openly share the information on how allocations of decisions are made, following consistent and unbiased procedure (Robbins, 1998, p. 187). In this scenario, the pay was decided by the GM and no guidelines were there for staff to follow. This affected employee’s commitment towards work and intention to quit increased.

Task 2.3: Group dynamics

Order Now

Order Now

Type of Paper
Number of Pages
(275 words)