Organizational Behaviour Study of individuals groups and structures

“OB is a field of study that investigates the impact that individuals, groups, and structure have on behavior within organizations for the purpose of applying such knowledge towards improving the organization’s effectiveness.” (Robbins&Judge, 2009) Key OB topics include: motivation, leader behavior and power, cultural diversity, power and influence, communication, group structure & process, learning, attitude development& perception, change process, conflict, work design and work stress. (Heath&Sitikin, 2009)

NEED compare def or application of OB?

Organizational behaviour is an applied behavioural science that is built on multi-interrelated disciplines. Psychology, sociology, and anthropology are 3 predominant areas overlap each other and attached with two junior disciplines. Psychology concerned with measuring, understand and changing individual behaviour (such as perception, personality, leadership effectiveness, motivational forces, etc) to improve organizational effectiveness (MULLIN).

Sociology studies people in relation to their social environment or culture. Within OB, it focuses on group behaviour such as group dynamics, design of work teams, organisational culture, formal organisational theory and structure, organisational technology, communications, power and conflict etc(ROBBIN).

Anthropology is study of societies to learn about human beings and their activities.(ROBBINS) It contributed OB with an understanding of differences in fundamental values, attitudes, and behaviour between people in different countries and within different organisations culture and environment has helped us Psychology mainly contributes to the analysis on individual level while the other disciplines’ contributions have been mainly at analysis of macro concepts such as group processes and organization. (Robbins & Judge OrganisationBehaviour,2009,p10)

NEED REFER TO 2 JUNIOR DISCIPLINES?

4 THEORIES

Need line out the components jointly or respectively with theories¼Ÿ

Increased mechanization and industrialization during industrial revolution in 19th century led to the emergence of earliest schools of thoughts referred as Classical management approach (also as technical rational approach). The classical theorists suggested there is a universal management model, applicable to any organization (universal applicability) and organizations are conceptualized as highly standardized, specialized, and predictable under a machine metaphor.¼ˆ¼‰ Classical perspective view the organization as mechanistic¼Œrational and impersonal entities which embody purpose, formal structure, hierarchy of management, technical requirements and common principles of organization. ( )

Two prominent sub-sets within classical approach are referred as scientific management and beauracracy. Scientific management developed by Frederick Taylor which shaped the first coherent school of thought with application to the industrialized world (robino24). It suggested that a best working method could be analyzed and synthesized through scientific method, then propagated to the other workers via standardization and simplification of process steps to achieve efficiency. Meanwhile, Taylor is a believer in the rational economic concept of motivation¼Œassuming that workers rational thinkers who are motivated by obtaining the highest possible pay by working in the most efficient way(). Bureaucracy initially introduced to organization study by Max Web termed as an ideal type derived from the most characteristics bureaucratices features of all known organisations. classical approach proposed by Taylor, Fayol, Henry Gantt, Follet, Urwick, and others., Too detailed?

It is undeniable that the invent of classical approach led to significant increases in productivity, and facilities mass production techniques and wage rises which enabled mass consumption. (should state in terms of sociology or psychology?) Under a sociological perspective, it views workers as individual ‘units of production’ rather than social beings, and regardless of relevant social factors and dynamics of work within an organisation apart from financial rewards that could substantially influent group behaviours. (Mullins 2007). Under a psychological sociological perspective The ‘rationalisation’ of work through division of work resulted in the de-skilling of workers and alienation from work. (Mullins 2007)In the long tern individual’s rigidity can restrict the psychological growth of their members() too short? critique eg?

As a reaction to this mechanistic approach the human relations or behavioral schools developed in the 1960’s suggest that the best way to manage is an accurate understanding of human behaviour on the social factors involving a consideration of broader issue of motivation, autonomy, trust and openness in managerial and organizational matters at work, and to the individual needs of employees in increasing productivity or efficiency. (R)

The best-known Hawthorn studies conducted by Elton Mayo (including the illumination experiments studies, relay assembly testing room, interviewing program, bank wiring observation room studies) indicate that aspects of the task environment such as leadership style, supportive supervision and group norms can substantially affect individual & group behaviour. Too detailed?

Additionally, management development was based on various managerial behavioural theories such as Herzberg’s two factors theory which stressed the importance of intrinsic needs in motivation equation, McGregor’s renowned Theory X &Theory Y, Maslow’s hierarchy theory of human needs and Frederick about motivators. NEED TO BE EXPANDED?

Human relation approach did take sufficient account of social factors, intrinsic and extrinsic rewards that improve efficiency within organisation. It is insufficiently scientific applicable to people with unskilled jobs but who often present management with the biggest problem of motivation. (Mullins, 2008, page 185) Meanwhile, satisfaction in terms of individual needs will not guaranteed a boost in productivity and efficiency (psychological perspective) Mullins, 2008, page 30 ) Does not consider the impact of stakeholders in the external environment on work behaviour in the organisation.

The systems approach views the organisation as a socio-technical system interacting with the environment outside the organisation. (Brooks 2007, page 131) the system approach to the study of organisations integrated the contrasting positions and consideration of the classical and human relation schools. It also referred as a socio technical approach emphasize that both social and technical sub systems should to be jointly optimized within an organisation.

Organizational behavior can be considered as both a response to and a determinant of many of the complex variables which make up organizations and their environment. Links between organization structure and other variables have been studied by Burns & Stalker¼Œ Lawrence and lorsch¼ŒWoodward¼ŒWilliamson and Mintzberg, An important contribution can be found in the studies conducted by the Tavistock institute of human relation in the late 1940s and early 1950s . View the organization as open system which embrace complex interrelationships between technical and social subsystem¼ˆBrooks¼‰A system approach emphasize the complexity of organizations¼Œ the interdependence of system components, and the importance of relationships between the organizational system and external environment. It also recognizes the presence of contingent environmental factors which even though they may lie outside the organizational boundaries¼Œ nevertheless influence organizational activities. Attention is focused on the whole organization¼Œ the relationships between its technical¼Œ mechanical or structural parameters and its behavioral¼Œsocial or human elements¼Œ and its relationship with the business environment. It is¼Œtherefore¼Œ appropriate at this stage to discuss this contribution to organizational theory. The term sociotechnical systems was coined in the 1960s by Eric Trist and Fred Emery, who were working as consultants at the Tavistock Institute in London. A system approach emphasize the complexity of organizations, the interdependence of system components¼Œ and the importance of relationships between the organizational system and external environment. Critique for systemz:The organization managed by system approach will certainly mirror the increasingly complexity of external factors. A typical illustration can be the US health care industry, running upon the principle of ‘managed care’ ¼ˆmiler and ryan¼‰.

The emerge of contingency approach challenge the one best way¼ˆuniversal

applicable¼‰prescription of classical management, it suggested approach to management must be tailored to a variety of critical environmental and internal contingencies. Researches(eg: The Ashton studies) had been conducted from the early 1960 by scholars such as Burns & Stalker(1961) Paul Lawrence & Jay Lorsch Williamson & Mintzberg Porter et al (1975)& Child (1988) in an attempt to find the best structure to match different factors within the organisation or its environment¼Œ and 3 key terms are concluded to be organisational size ¼Œtechnology and business environment. Besides, customer diversity and the globalization of business may require product or service diversity, employee diversity, and even the creation of special units or divisions.

First¼Œ the outcome of the work is more difficult to apply to the workplace. Second¼Œ The environment is complex or dynamic and complete knowledge is unobtainable so we can only partly understand the impact of internal & external variables Third, the contingency theorists underplay the significance of intensely’human’aspects of organization¼Œ such as power¼Œthe role of multiple stakeholders and organizational culture. Finally¼Œit should be remembered change is often rapid and discontinuous. The factors influencing the ‘correct fit’between organization and environment¼Œfor example at one time may become irrelevant at another time stable environments suggest mechanistic structures that emphasize centralization, formalization, standardization, and specialization to achieve efficiency and consistency. Certainty and predictability permit the use of policies, rules, and procedures to guide decision making for routine tasks and problems. Unstable environments suggest organic structures which emphasize decentralization to achieve flexibility and adaptability. Uncertainty and unpredictability require general problem solving methods for nonroutine tasks and problems.

Management is the process of achieving organizational objectives, within a changing environment, by balancing efficiency, effectiveness and equity, obtaining the most from limited resources, and working with and through other people.(John Naylor management second edition 2004 p6 )

Complexities of contemporary issues in workplace and external enviroment

economic growth/ global competition/population boost¼ˆworkforce diversity¼‰

Organisation cannot be insulated from changes occurring in their external environment. Globalization accompanied by customer diversity of business may require product or service diversity, employee diversity, and even the creation of special units or divisions. Multinational organizations may have to adapt their management approach, products or services to differing diversified expectations, values, and preferences. The availability of support institutions and the availability and cost of financial resources may influence an organization’s decision to produce or purchase new products.

Today’s organizations operate in complex and turbulent environments and thus need

to anticipate and respond to changes to ensure their survival. At the same time, organizations face the demands of increased efficiency, flexibility and growth (Isaksen & Lauer, 2002).They will only survive if they are flexible enough to manage the changing demands created by markets, consumers, shareholders, legal requirements, economy, suppliers, technology, and social trends (Paton & McCalman, 2000). Therefore, an organization’s ability to continuously innovate is essential to its future success (Brennan & Dooley, 2005). However, creativity and innovation will only flourish under the ‘right’ organizational circumstances (Martins & Terblanche, 2003). Hence, innovative activities of organizations have consistently attracted the attention of organizational scientists who seek to identify the factors that enhance or impede innovation (Anderson, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2004).

Read more: Contingency Approach to Management – organization, levels, school, company, business, Contingency perspective and organization theory, Contingency perspective and leadership http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Comp-De/Contingency-Approach-to-Management.html#ixzz16y3lBi5b

Rapid economic growth in countries without a strong industrial tradition up until recent times¼Œ and slow economic growth in the more mature economic growth in the more mature economics and this has occurred at a time of greater global competition and easing of restrictions on international trade. As a result, there is a significant increase in competition globally and direct effect the way company are structured and managed. For example, employees are expected to be more flexible and to develop a capacity to cope with rapid change, consumers are more demanding when it comes to the quality. Meanwhile, an ageing population has implications for the nature of the composition of the workforce.