Organizational behavior

Organizational behavior (OB) or organisational behaviour is "the study of human behavior in organizational settings, the interface between human behavior and the organization, and the organization itself".[1] OB research can be categorized in at least three ways, including the study of (a) individuals in organizations (micro-level), (b) work groups (meso-level), and (c) how organizations behave (macro-level).[2]

Overview

Chester Barnard recognized that individuals behave differently when acting in their organizational role than when acting separately from the organization.[3] Organizational behavior researchers study the behavior of individuals primarily in their organizational roles. One of the main goals of organizational behavior is "to revitalize organizational theory and develop a better conceptualization of organizational life".[4]

Relation to industrial and organizational psychology

Miner (2006) mentioned that "there is a certain arbitrariness" in identifying a "point at which organizational behavior became established as a distinct discipline" (p. 56), suggesting that it could have emerged in the 1940s or 1950s.[5] He also underlined the fact that the industrial psychology division of the American Psychological Association did not add "organizational" to its name until 1970, "long after organizational behavior had clearly come into existence" (p. 56), noting that a similar situation arose in sociology. Although there are similarities and differences between the two disciplines, there is still confusion around differentiating organizational behavior and organizational psychology.[6]

History

As a multi-disciplinary field, organizational behavior has been influenced by developments in a number of related disciplines including: Sociology, industrial/organizational psychology, and economics.

The Industrial Revolution is a period from the 1760s where new technologies resulted in the adoption of new manufacturing techniques and increased mechanization. In his famous iron cage metaphor, Max Weber raised concerns over the reduction in religious and vocational work experiences. Weber claimed that the Industrial Revolution's focus on efficiency constrained the worker to a kind of "prison" and "stripped a worker of their individuality".[7] The significant social and cultural changes caused by the Industrial Revolution also gave rise to new forms of organization. Weber analyzed one of these organizations and came to the conclusion that bureaucracy was "an organization that rested on rational-legal principles and maximized technical efficiency."[8]

A number of OB practitioners documented their ideas about management and organisation. The best known theories today originate from Henri Fayol, Chester Barnard, and Mary Parker Follet. All three of them drew from their experience to develop a model of effective organizational management, and each of their theories independently shared a focus on human behavior and motivation.[3][9][10] One of the first management consultants, Frederick Taylor, was a 19th century engineer who applied an approach known as the scientific management. Taylor advocated for maximizing task efficiency through the scientific method.[11] The scientific method was further refined by Lillian and Frank Gilbreth, who utilized time and motion study to further improve worker efficiency.[12] In the early 20th century the idea of Fordism emerged. Named after automobile mogul Henry Ford, the method relied on the standardization of production through the use of assembly lines. This allowed unskilled workers to produce complex products efficiently. Sorenson later clarified that Fordism developed independently of Taylor.[13] Fordism can be explained as the application of bureaucratic and scientific management principles to whole manufacturing process. The success of the scientific method and Fordism resulted in the widespread adoption of these methods.

In the 1920s, the Hawthorne Works Western Electric factory commissioned the first of what was to become known as the Hawthorne Studies. These studies initially adhered to the traditional scientific method, but also investigated whether workers would be more productive with higher or lower lighting levels. The results showed that regardless of lighting levels, when workers were being studied, productivity increased, but when the studies ended, worker productivity would return to normal. In following experiments, Elton Mayo concluded that job performance and the so-called Hawthorne Effect was strongly correlated to social relationships and job content.[14] Following the Hawthorne Studies motivation became a focal point in the OB community. A range of theories emerged in the 1950s and 1960s and include theories from notable OB researchers such as: Frederick Herzberg, Abraham Maslow, David McClelland, Victor Vroom, and Douglas McGregor. These theories underline employee motivation, work performance, and job satisfaction.[5]

Herbert Simon's Administrative Behavior introduced a number of important OB concepts, most notably decision-making. Simon, along with Chester Barnard, argued that people make decisions differently inside an organization when compared to their decisions outside of an organization. While classical economic theories assume that people are rational decision-makers, Simon argued a contrary point. He argued that cognition is limited because of bounded rationality For example, decision-makers often employ satisficing, the process of utilizing the first marginally acceptable solution rather than the most optimal solution.[15] Simon was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics for his work on organizational decision-making.[16] In the 1960s and 1970s, the field started to become more quantitative and resource dependent. This gave rise to contingency theory, institutional theory, and organizational ecology. Starting in the 1980s, cultural explanations of organizations and organizational change became areas of study--In collaboration with fields such as anthropology, psychology and sociology--this kind of qualitative research became more acceptable in OB.

Current state of the field

Research in and the teaching of OB primarily takes place in university management departments in colleges of business. Sometimes OB topics are taught in industrial and organizational psychology graduate programs.

There have been additional developments in OB research and practice. Anthropology has become increasingly influential, and led to the idea that one can understand firms as communities, by introducing concepts such as organizational culture, organizational rituals, and symbolic acts.[1] Leadership studies have also become part of OB. OB researchers have shown increased interest in ethics and its importance in an organization. Some OB researchers have become interested in the aesthetic sphere of organizations.[17]

Research methods used

A variety of methods are used in organizational behavior, many of which are found in other social sciences.

Quantitative methods

Statistical methods used in OB research commonly include correlation, analysis of variance, meta-analysis, multilevel modeling, multiple regression, structural equation modeling, and time series analysis[18][19]

Computer simulation

Computer simulation is a prominent method in organizational behavior.[20] While there are many uses for computer simulation, most OB researchers have used computer simulation to understand how organizations or firms operate. More recently, however, researchers have also started to apply computer simulation to understand individual behavior at a micro-level, focusing on individual and interpersonal cognition and behavior[21] such as the thought processes and behaviors that make up teamwork.[22]

Qualitative methods

Qualitative research[18] consists of a number of methods of inquiry that generally do not involve the quantification of variables. Qualitative methods can range from the content analysis of interviews or written material to written narratives of observations. Some common methods include: Ethnography, case studies, historical methods, and interviews.

Topics

Counterproductive work behavior

Counterproductive work behavior is employee behavior that harms or intends to harm an organization.[23]

Decision-making

Many OB researchers embrace the rational planning model. Decision-making research often focuses on how decisions are ordinarily made (normative decision-making), how thinkers arrive at a particular judgement (descriptive decision-making), and how to improve this decision-making (prescriptive decision-making).

Employee mistreatment

There are several types of mistreatment that employees endure in organizations including: Abusive supervision, bullying, incivility, and sexual harassment.

Abusive supervision

Abusive supervision is the extent to which a supervisor engages in a pattern of behavior that harms subordinates.[24]

Bullying

Although definitions of workplace bullying vary, it involves a repeated pattern of harmful behaviors directed towards an individual.[25] In order for a behavior to be termed bullying, the individual or individuals doing the harm have to possesses (either singly or jointly) more power than the victim.

Incivility

Workplace incivility consists of low-intensity discourteous and rude behavior and is characterized by an ambiguous intent to harm, and the violation of social norms governing appropriate workplace behavior.[26]

Sexual harassment

Sexual harassment is behavior that denigrates or mistreats an individual due to his or her gender, often creating an offensive workplace that interferes with job performance.[27]

Teams

Organizational behavior deals with employee attitudes and feelings, including job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and emotional labor. Job satisfaction reflects the feelings an employee has about his or her job or facets of the job, such as pay or supervision.[28] Organizational commitment represents the extent to which employees feel attached to their organization.[29] Emotional labor concerns the requirement that an employee display certain emotions, such smiling at customers, even when the employee does not feel the emotion he or she is required to display.[30]

Leadership

There have been a number of theories that concern leadership. Early theories focused on characteristics of leaders, while later theories focused on leader behavior, and conditions under which leaders can be effective. Among these approaches are contingency theory, the consideration and initiating structure model, leader-member exchange or LMX theory, path-goal theory, and transformational leadership theory.

Contingency theory indicates that good leadership depends on characteristics of the leader and the situation.[31] The Ohio State Leadership Studies identified dimensions of leadership known as consideration (showing concern and respect for subordinates) and initiating structure (assigning tasks and setting performance goals).[32][33] LMX theory focuses on exchange relationships between individual supervisor-subordinate pairs.[34] Path-goal theory is a contingency theory linking appropriate leader style to organizational conditions and subordinate personality.[35] Transformational leadership theory concerns the behaviors leaders engage in that inspire high levels of motivation and performance in followers. The idea of charismatic leadership is part of transformational leadership theory.[36]

Managerial roles

In the late 1960s Henry Mintzberg, a graduate student at MIT, carefully studied the activities of five executives. On the basis of his observations, Mintzberg arrived at three categories that subsume managerial roles: interpersonal roles; decisional roles; and informational roles.[37]

Motivation

Baron and Greenberg (2008)[38] wrote that motivation involves "the set of processes that arouse, direct, and maintain human behavior toward attaining some goal." There are several different theories of motivation relevant to OB, including equity theory,[39] expectancy theory,[40] Maslow's hierarchy of needs,[41] incentive theory, organizational justice theory,[42] Herzberg's two-factor theory,[43] and Theory X and Theory Y.[44]

National culture

National culture is thought to affect the behavior of individuals in organizations. This idea is exemplified by Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory. Hofstede surveyed a large number of cultures and identified six dimensions of national cultures that influence the behavior of individuals in organizations.[45] These dimensions include power distance, individualism vs. collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity vs. femininity, long-term orientation vs. short term orientation, and indulgence vs. restraint.

Organizational citizenship behavior

Organizational citizenship behavior is behavior that goes beyond assigned tasks and contributes to the well-being of organizations.[46]

Organizational culture

Organizational culture reflects the values and behaviors that are commonly observed in an organization. Investigators who pursue this line of research assume that organizations can be characterized by cultural dimensions such as beliefs, values, rituals, symbols, and so forth.[47] Researchers have developed models for understanding an organization's culture or developed typologies of organizational culture. Edgar Schein developed a model for understanding organizational culture. He identified three levels of organizational culture: (a) artifacts and behaviors, (b) espoused values, and (c) shared basic assumptions. Specific cultures have been related to organizational performance[48] and effectiveness.[49]

Personality

Personality concerns consistent patterns of behavior, cognition, and emotion in individuals.[50] The study of personality in organizations has generally focused on the relation of specific traits to employee performance. There has been a particular focus on the Big Five personality traits, which refers to five overarching personality traits.

Occupational stress

There are number of ways to characterize occupational stress. One way of characterizing it is to term it an imbalance between job demands (aspects of the job that require mental or physical effort) and resources that help manage the demands.[51]

Work-family

Chester Barnard recognized that individuals behave differently when acting in their work role than when acting in roles outside their work role.[3] Work-family conflict occurs when the demands of family and work roles are incompatible, and the demands of at least one role interfere with the discharge of the demands of the other.[52]

Organization theory

Organization theory is concerned with explaining the workings of an organization as a whole or of many organizations. The focus of organizational theory is to understand the structure and processes of organizations and how organizations interact with each other and the larger society.

Bureaucracy

Max Weber argued that bureaucracy involved the application of rational-legal authority to the organization of work, making bureaucracy the most technically efficient form of organization.[8] Weber enumerated a number of principles of bureaucratic organization including: a formal organizational hierarchy, management by rules, organization by functional specialty, selecting people based on their skills and technical qualifications, an "up-focused" (to organization's board or shareholders) or "in-focused" (to the organization itself) mission, and a purposefully impersonal environment (e.g., applying the same rules and structures to all members of the organization). These rules reflect Weberian "ideal types," and how they are enacted in organizations varies according to local conditions. Charles Perrow extended Weber's work, arguing that all organizations can be understood in terms of bureaucracy and that organizational failures are more often a result of insufficient application of bureaucratic principles.[53]

Economic theories of organization

At least three theories are relevant here, theory of the firm, transaction cost economics, and agency theory.

Theories pertaining to organizational structures

Theories pertaining to organizational structures and dynamics include complexity theory, French and Raven's five bases of power,[54] hybrid organization theory, informal organizational theory, resource dependence theory, and Mintzberg's organigraph.

Institutional theory

Systems theory

The systems framework is also fundamental to organizational theory. Organizations are complex, goal-oriented entities.[55] Alexander Bogdanov, an early thinker in the field, developed his tectology, a theory widely considered a precursor of Bertalanffy's general systems theory. One of the aims of general systems theory was to model human organizations. Kurt Lewin, a social psychologist, was influential in developing a systems perspective with regard to organizations. He coined the term "systems of ideology," partly based on his frustration with behaviorist psychology, which he believed to be an obstacle to sustainable work in psychology.[56] Niklas Luhmann, a sociologist, developed a sociological systems theory.

Organizational ecology

Organizational ecology models apply concepts from evolutionary theory to the study of populations of organisations, focusing on birth (founding), growth and change, and death (firm mortality). In this view, organizations are 'selected' based on their fit with their operating environment.

Scientific management

Scientific management refers to an approach to management based on principles of engineering. It focuses on incentives and other practices empirically shown to improve productivity.

Contributing disciplines

Journals

See also

References

  1. 1 2 Moorhead, G., & Griffin, R. W. (1995). Organizational behavior: Managing people and organizations (5th edition). Boston. Houghton Mifflin, (p.4)
  2. ↑ Wagner, J. A., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (2010). Organizational behavior: Securing competitive advantage. New York: Routledge.
  3. 1 2 3 Barnard, Chester I. (1938). The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. OCLC 555075.
  4. ↑ Simms, L.M., Price, S.A., & Ervin, N.E. (1994). The professional practice of nursing administration. Albany, NY: Delmar Publishers. (p. 121)
  5. 1 2 Miner, J.B. (2006). Organizational behavior, Vol. 3: Historical origins, theoretical foundations, and the future. Armonk, NY and London: M.E. Sharpe.
  6. ↑ Jex, S. & Britt, T. (2008). Organizational psychology: A scientist-practitioner approach. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley.
  7. ↑ Weber, M. (1993). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism (T. Parsons, Trans.). London, England: Routledge. (Original work published 1904–1905)
  8. 1 2 Weber, Max. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Translated by A.M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons. London: Collier Macmillan Publishers, 1947.
  9. ↑ Fayol, Henri (1917), Administration industrielle et générale; prévoyance, organisation, commandement, coordination, controle (in French), Paris, H. Dunod et E. Pinat, OCLC 40224931
  10. ↑ Follett, Henry C. Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett. Routledge. ISBN 0415279852.
  11. ↑ Taylor, Frederick Winslow (1911), The Principles of Scientific Management, New York, NY, USA and London, UK: Harper & Brothers, LCCN 11010339, OCLC 233134. Also available from Project Gutenberg.
  12. ↑ Price, B 1989, ‘Frank and Lillian Gilbreth and the Manufacture and Marketing of Motion Study, 1908-1924’, Business and Economic History, vol. 18, no. 2
  13. ↑ Sorensen, C. E. (1956). My forty years with Ford. New York, NY: Collier Books.
  14. ↑ Cullen, David O'Donald. A new way of statecraft: The career of Elton Mayo and the development of the social sciences in America, 1920–1940. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses; 1992; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text.
  15. ↑ Simon, Herbert A. (1997) Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations, 4th ed., The Free Press.
  16. ↑ "Press Release: Studies of decision-making lead to prize in economics". Nobelprize.org. 16 October 1978. Retrieved 11 May 2014.
  17. ↑ Taylor, S.; Hansen, H. (2005). "Finding form: Looking at the field of organizational aesthetics drawing on theories and methods from the humanities, including theater, literature, music, and art.". Journal of Management Studies. 42 (6): 1211–1231. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00539.x.
  18. 1 2 Brewerton, P.M., & Millward, L.J. (2010). Organizational research methods: A guide for students and researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  19. ↑ Organizational Research Methods (journal)
  20. ↑ Harrison, Lin, Carroll, & Carley, 2007
  21. ↑ Hughes, H. P. N.; Clegg, C. W.; Robinson, M. A.; Crowder, R. M. (2012). "Agent-based modelling and simulation: The potential contribution to organizational psychology". Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 85 (3): 487–502. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.2012.02053.x.
  22. ↑ Crowder, R. M.; Robinson, M. A.; Hughes, H. P. N.; Sim, Y. W. (2012). "The development of an agent-based modeling framework for simulating engineering team work". IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics – Part A: Systems and Humans. 42 (6): 1425–1439. doi:10.1109/TSMCA.2012.2199304.
  23. ↑ Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2005). The Stressor-Emotion Model of Counterproductive Work Behavior. In S. Fox, P. E. Spector (Eds.) , Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 151-174). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10893-007
  24. ↑ Tepper, B. J. (2000). "Consequences of abusive supervision". Academy of Management Journal. 43 (2): 178–190. doi:10.2307/1556375.
  25. ↑ Rayner, C., & Keashly, L. (2005). Bullying at Work: A Perspective From Britain and North America. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets. (pp. 271-296). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
  26. ↑ Andersson, L. M.; Pearson, C. M. (1999). "Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace". Academy of Management Review. 74: 452–471.
  27. ↑ Rospenda, K. M., & Richman, J. A. (2005). Harassment and discrimination. In J. Barling, E. K. Kelloway & M. R. Frone (Eds.), Handbook of work stress (pp. 149-188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  28. ↑ Balzer, W. K. & Gillespie, J. Z. (2007). Job satisfaction. In Rogelberg, S. G. (Ed.). Encyclopedia of industrial and organizational psychology Vol. 1 (pp. 406-413). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  29. ↑ Allen, N. J. Organizational commitment. In Rogelberg, S. G. (Ed.). Encyclopedia of industrial and organizational psychology Vol. 2 (pp. 548-551). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  30. ↑ Ashkanasy, N. M.; Härtel, C. E. J.; Daus, C. S. (2002). "Diversity and emotion: The new frontiers in organizational behavior research". Journal of Management. 28 (3): 307–338. doi:10.1177/014920630202800304.
  31. ↑ Fiedler, F. E. (1978). The contingency model and the dynamics of the leadership process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 59-112). New York: Academic Press.
  32. ↑ Fleishman, E. A.; Harris, E. F. (1962). "Patterns of leadership behavior related to employee grievances and turnover". Personnel Psychology. 15: 43–56. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1962.tb01845.x.
  33. ↑ Levy, P. E. (2006). Industrial/organizational psychology: Understanding the workplace. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  34. ↑ Graen, G. B.; Novak, M. A.; Sommerkamp, P. (1982). "The effects of leader-member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model". Organizational Behavior & Human Performance. 30 (1): 109–131. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(82)90236-7.
  35. ↑ House, R. J.; Mitchell, T. R. (1974). "Path-goal theory of leadership". Contemporary business. 3: 81–98.
  36. ↑ Bass, B. M.; Avolio, B. J.; Atwater, L. E. (1996). "The transformational and transactional leadership of men and women". Applied Psychology: An International Review. 45: 5–34. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.1996.tb00847.x.
  37. ↑ Robbins, S. P. (2009). Organizational behaviour. Cape Town, Pearson.
  38. ↑ Baron, Robert A., and Greenberg, Jerald. Behavior in organizations – 9th edition. Pearson Education Inc., New Jersey: 2008. p.248
  39. ↑ Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 276-299). New York: Academic Press.
  40. ↑ Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley.
  41. ↑ Maslow, A. H. (1943). "A theory of human motivation". Psychological Review. 50: 370–396. doi:10.1037/h0054346.
  42. ↑ Greenberg, J (1987). "A taxonomy of organizational justice theories". Academy of Management Review. 12: 9–22. doi:10.5465/amr.1987.4306437.
  43. ↑ Herzberg, F. (1968, January/February). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review, 52-62.
  44. ↑ McGregor, D. M. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  45. ↑ Hofstede, Geert, Gert Jan Hofstede and Michael Minkov.Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. 2010
  46. ↑ Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA, England: Lexington Books/D C Heath and Com.f
  47. ↑ Shein, Edgar (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership: A Dynamic View. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  48. ↑ Kotter, John and Heskett, James L. (1992) Corporate Culture and Performance, Free Press; ISBN 0-02-918467-3
  49. ↑ Denison, Daniel R. (1990) Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness, Wiley.
  50. ↑ Michel, W., Shoda, Y., & Smith, R. E. (2004). Introduction to personality: Toward an integration. New York: Wiley
  51. ↑ Demerouti, E.; Bakker, A. B.; Nachreiner, F.; Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). "The job demands-resources model of burnout". Journal of Applied Psychology. 86 (3): 499–512. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499.
  52. ↑ Greenhaus, J. H.; Beutell, N. J. (1985). "Sources and conflict between work and family roles". Academy of Management Review. 10 (1): 76–88. doi:10.5465/amr.1985.4277352.
  53. ↑ Perrow, C. (1986). Complex organizations: A critical essay (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  54. ↑ French, J. R. P., Jr., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
  55. ↑ Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2 ed.). New York: Wiley.
  56. ↑ Ash, M.G. (1992). "Cultural contexts and scientific change in psychology: Kurt Lewin in Iowa". American Psychologist. 47: 198–207. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.47.2.198.
  57. ↑ "Academy of Management Journal".
  58. ↑ "Academy of Management Review".
  59. ↑ "Johnson at Cornell - Administrative Science Quarterly".
  60. ↑ "Human Resource Management - Wiley Online Library".
  61. ↑ "Human Resource Management Review". Elsevier.
  62. ↑ "Journal of Business and Psychology". springer.com.
  63. ↑ "Journal of Management".

Further reading

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.