Organisational Behaviour
Organisational Behaviour
Organisational Behaviour
Behaviour
Organizational Behavior (OB) is the study and application of knowledge about
how people, individuals, and groups act in organizations. It does this by taking a
system approach. That is, it interprets people-organization relationships in terms
of the whole person, whole group, whole organization, and whole social system.
Its purpose is to build better relationships by achieving human objectives,
organizational objectives, and social objectives. As you can see from the
definition above, organizational behavior encompasses a wide range of topics,
such as human behavior, change, leadership, teams, etc. Since many of these
topics are covered elsewhere in the leadership guide, this paper will focus on a
few parts of OB: elements, models, social systems, OD, work life, action learning,
and change.
Elements of Organizational Behavior :
There are four major models or frameworks that organizations operate out of:
Autocratic - The basis of this model is power with a managerial orientation of
authority. The employees in turn are oriented towards obedience and dependence
on the boss. The employee need that is met is subsistence. The performance
result is minimal.
Custodial - The basis of this model is economic resources with a managerial
orientation of money. The employees in turn are oriented towards security and
benefits and dependence on the organization. The employee need that is met is
security. The performance result is passive cooperation.
Supportive - The basis of this model is leadership with a managerial orientation
of support. The employees in turn are oriented towards job performance and
participation. The employee need that is met is status and recognition. The
performance result is awakened drives.
Collegial - The basis of this model is partnership with a managerial orientation of
teamwork. The employees in turn are oriented towards responsible behavior and
self-discipline. The employee need that is met is self-actualization. The
performance result is moderate enthusiasm.
Although there are four separate models, almost no organization operates
exclusively in one. There will usually be a predominate one, with one or more
areas over-lapping in the other models. The first model, autocratic, has its roots in
the industrial revolution. The managers of this type of organization operate out of
McGregor's Theory X. The next three models begin to build on McGregor's
Theory Y. They have each evolved over a period of time and there is no one
"best" model. The collegial model should not be thought as the last or best model,
but the beginning of a new model or paradigm
Social Systems, Culture, and Individualization :
Socialisation
Isolation Rebellion
Low
Low Low High
The chart above (Schein, 1968) shows how individualization affects different organizations:
Too little socialization and too little individualization creates isolation.
Too high socialization and too little individualization creates conformity.
Too little socialization and too high individualization creates rebellion.
While the match that organizations want to create is high socialization and high
individualization for a creative environment. This is what it takes to survive in a
very competitive environment...having people grow with the organization, but
doing the right thing when others want to follow the easy path.
This can become quite a balancing act. Individualism favors individual rights,
loosely knit social networks, self respect, and personal rewards and careers. It
becomes look out for number 1! Socialization or collectivism favors the group,
harmony, and asks "What is best for the organization?" Organizations need people
to challenge, question, and experiment while still maintaining the culture that
binds them into a social system.
Organization Development:
Accent on
Needs Routine Job Job Enlargement
Lower
Order Few Variet Many
y of
task
The benefits of enriching jobs include :
An unheralded British academic was invited to try out his theories in Belgium -- it led
to an upturn in the Belgian economy. "Unless your ideas are ridiculed by experts they
are worth nothing," says the British academic Reg Revans, creator of action learning [L
= P + Q] -- learning occurs through a combination of programmed knowledge (P) and
the ability to ask insightful questions (Q). Action learning has been widely used in
Europe for combining formal management training with learning from experience. A
typical program is conducted over a period of 6 to 9 months. Teams of learners with
diverse backgrounds conduct field projects on complex organizational problems
requiring use of skills learned in formal training sessions. The learning teams then meet
periodically with a skilled instructor to discuss, analyze, and learn from their
experiences.
Revans basis his learning method on a theory called "System Beta," in that the
learning process should closely approximate the "scientific method." The model is
cyclical - you proceed through the steps and when you reach the last step you relate
the analysis to the original hypothesis and if need be, start the process again. The
six steps are:
Formulate Hypothesis (an idea or concept)
Design Experiment (consider ways of testing truth or validity of idea or concept)
Apply in Practice (put into effect, test of validity or truth)
Observe Results (collect and process data on outcomes of test)
Analyze Results (make sense of data)
Compare Analysis (relate analysis to original hypothesis)
Note that you do not always have to enter this process at step 1, but you do have to
complete the process. Revans suggest that all human learning at the individual level
occurs through this process. Note that it covers what Jim Stewart (Managing
Change Through Training and Development, 1991) calls the levels of existence:
We think - cognitive domain
We feel - affective domain
We do - action domain
All three levels are interconnected -- e.g. what we think influences and is influenced
by what we do and feel.
Change :
In its simplest form, discontinuity in the work place is "change." Our prefrontal cortex
is similar to the RAM memory in a PC -- it is fast and agile computational device that
is able to hold multiple threads of logic at once so that we can perform fast
calculations. However it has its limits in that it can only hold a handful of concepts at
once. In addition, it burns lots of high energy glucose (blood sugar), which is
expensive for the body to produce. Thus when given lots of information, such as when
a change is required, it has a tendency to overload and being directly linked to the
amygdala (the emotional center of the brain) that controls our fight-or-flight response,
it can cause severe physical and psychological discomfort.
Our prefrontal cortex is marvelous for insight when not overloaded. But for normal
everyday use, our brain prefers to run off its "hard-drive" -- the basal ganglia, which
has a much larger storage area and stores memories and our habits. In addition, it sips
rather than gulps food (glucose).
When we do something familiar and predictable, our brain is mainly
using the basal ganglia, which is quite comforting to us. When we use
our prefrontal cortex, then we are looking for fight, flight, or insight.
Too much change produces fight or flight syndromes. As change agents
we want to produce "insight" into our learners so that they are able to
apply their knowledge and skills not just in the classroom, but also on
the job.
And the way to help people come to "insight" is to allow them to come
to their own resolution. These moments of insight or resolutions are
called "epiphanies" -- sudden intuitive leap of understanding that are
quite pleasurable to us and act as rewards. Thus you have to resist the
urge to fill in the entire picture of change, rather you have to leave
enough gaps so that the learners are allowed to make connections of
their own. Doing too much for the learners can be just as bad, if not
worse, than not doing enough.
Doing all the thinking for learners takes their brains out of action which
means they will not invest the energy to make new connections.
Reference:
Cunningham, J. B. & Eberle, T. (1990). "A Guide to Job Enrichment and Redesign,"
Personnel, Feb 1990, p.57 in Newstrom, J. & Davis, K. (1993).
Organization Behavior: Human Behavior at Work. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Knoster, T., Villa, R., & Thousand, J. (2000). A framework for thinking about systems
change. In R. Villa & J. Thousand (Eds.), Restructuring for caring and effective
education: Piecing the puzzle together (pp. 93-128). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes
Publishing Co.
Koch, C. (2006). The New Science of Change. CIO Magazine, Sep 15, 2006 (pp 54-
56). Also available on the web: http://www.cio.com/archive/091506/change.html
Revans, R. W. (1982). The Origin and Growth of Action Learning. Hunt, England:
Chatwell-Bratt, Bickley.
Schein, E. (1968). "Organizational Socialization and the Profession of Management,"
Industrial Management Review, 1968 vol. 9 pp. 1-15 in Newstrom, J. & Davis, K.
(1993). Organization Behavior: Human Behavior at Work. New York: McGraw-Hill.