Introduction
Organisational cultures and behaviour mainly impact the overall performance of an organisation. This report explains Organisational behaviour by exploring various sections of this topic and how they each play a role in the organisation. The report shall describe what Organisational behaviour is and distinguish between types of Organisational structure. It shall then explain the inextricable bond between Organisational performance and Organisational culture, thus delving deeper into how Organisational structure affects human behaviour in the organisation. A comparison between the manager and leader shall be drawn herein, discussing the impact they have on employee motivation. Further, an elucidation on the difference between the concepts of leadership and management shall be drawn. Motivational theories will be dissected, looking at the nature of motives and motivation processes on behaviour. Dynamics of how individual behaviors are influenced shall also be explored, thus distinguishing between formal and informal groups and how directions taken by individual behavior can be modified by a group.
Organisational Behaviour
Organisational behaviour has been defined by various scholars, among them Raman J. Aldag, who defined it as “Organisational behaviour is a branch of the Social Sciences that seeks to build theories that can be applied” to predicting, understanding, and controlling behaviour in work organisations (Your Article Library, 2017). Organisational behaviour revolves around two concepts: the first being the nature of man, and the second being the nature of a given organisation. Human resource management and growth form the founding basis of Organisational behaviour. Organisational behaviour has some unique characteristics. They include a behaviour approach to management, three levels of analysis, namely individual behaviour, group behaviour, and Organisational behaviour. It is an art as well as a science, in that the knowledge is a science and the application of this knowledge is an art. It encourages rational thinking and is of benefit to both the organisation and the individuals in the organisation.
Organisational structures
An Organisational structure has been defined as a system that entails overt and inherent institutional rubrics and policies intended to outline how numerous work roles and tasks are controlled, coordinated, and delegated. There are various types of Organisational structures they including traditional hierarchy structure, flatter Organisational structure, flat organisational structure, flatarchies Organisational structure, and holacratic organisational structure. They include traditional hierarchy structure, flatter Organisational structure, organizational structure,flatarchies Organisational structure, and holacratorganisationalons structure.
A hierarchy simply ranks people in an organisation or societal setting according to level of authority. It’s a model that has existed for a long time and can be traced back to the 5th and 6th centuries. It has since been adapted by the various militaries and organisations. In this structure, employees are ranked in various levels. Thus, each level is above the other to mean that the chain of command is in a pyramid shape. Each employee’s role is defined within the organisation's structure. Towards the end of the 20th century, this type of structure in an organisation was very popular, and many had adapted it. The onset of the 21st century saw the rush of globalization, which was largely characterised by technological advancement that saw most of the roles previously played by humans become digitised. Some of the advantages of this structure are that responsibilities and authority are defined, the promotion path is also clearly defined, managers are skilled in specific areas, and employees are loyal to a specific department. The main disadvantage of this structure is that communication is not so clear, especially horizontally.
This type of structure seeks to create more channels for communication within the structure. This structure has within it some element of a hierarchy. This structure focuses on collaboration. This is then achieved by the presence of crucial elements, among them a rigorous set of technologies, which enable the employees to communicate and collaborate effectively. The other thing is the understanding of the fact that managers exist to provide support for the employees to enable them to work effectively together. Finally, it is important to understand that employees enjoy working of their own volition. Hence, it is crucial to involve them in making key decisions. This approach has been embraced by some companies, among them Pandora and Cisco.
The flat Organisational structure does not have any seniority or title. They are also referred to as self-managed organisations. Ciplex, a marketing agency, is among the companies that have embraced this type of structure. Another notable example that has also embraced this Organisational structure is Valve, an American gaming company. The advantages of this structure are, there is greater communication between the management and employees (Appannaiah, Reddy and Kavitha, 2010). There is easier decision-making where everyone is involved, hence serving the clients in a greater way. There is improved performance because the employee’s skills are fully utilised, hence this leads to better production, which finally translates into profit. This structure has some challenges, among them, it can hinder growth because it’s limited to smaller companies.
This is a type a structure that combines hierarchy and flat structures. They have a hierarchy set up that has flat teams within itself. This type of structure has been said to be best for startup incubators or any companies that have innovation hubs. Dynamic organisations embrace this structure. Some of the companies that have embraced this type of structure are Google, LinkedIn, and Adobe (Appannaiah, Reddy, and Kavitha, 2010). It can work for both small and large companies. The focus on innovation gives an organisation some competitive advantage, but as much as it is, it’s equally disruptive to an organisation.
This is a relatively new and the latest structure. This is a model that can work for small, medium, and large organisations. It revolves around the company, and roles are defined around the work in the organisation, and people are given regular updates. Authority is defined around teams, and thus decisions are made locally. The team is bound by the same set of rules across the board. This concept is still emerging. Thus, it may improve, but so far, the most notable company that took up this structure is Zappos.
Link between organisational culture and performance
Organisational culture is a set of shared principles, values, assumptions, and beliefs. These govern how people behave and work in an organisation. This culture varies between organisations. Culture in an organisation is characterised by seven characteristics (Ross and Murdick, 1977). They are aggressiveness, teamwork, and innovation, emphasis on outcome, attention to detail, and emphasis on people. Organisational performance is the measure of output regarding results weighed against those of the input. Thus, this is basically how the culture is utilised to achieve the company goals (Martin, 2002). Organisational structure stipulates a laid-down strategy that defines a working plan for all the employees; thus, when the employees join the organisation, they are introduced to the semantics around which the organisation works.
Leadership and management
A manager is an individual who is in charge of assured group tasks or a department in a company. A leader, on the other hand, is a person who leads or commands an organisation. Leadership and management have been said to be the same, but they do vary (Harvard Business Review, 2017). Leadership is essential to an organization, mainly because the employees need inspiration and motivation. Leadership embodies the following qualities: focus, confidence, empathy, accountability, and inspiration, as well as optimism, the ability to challenge, vision, and decisiveness.
Various leaders employ varying leadership styles. This is attributed to the different leadership styles that have been shown to exist. These types of leaders include: Democratic leaders, coercive leaders, Pace-setting leaders, affiliative leaders, and coaching leaders. Authoritative leaders unite employees towards a common goal, while coercive leaders demand instantaneous acquiescence from their employees. On the other hand, pace-setting, affiliative, and coaching leaders employ a style of leadership that includes reflective servant leadership. They use consensus to make decisions (Harvard Business Review, 2017). They also work towards helping their employee to meet their needs in the course of their work. Additionally, there is transactional and charismatic leadership. In transactional leadership, a leader offers inspiration and expects their employees to reciprocate that by being extra productive (Managers as leaders, 1991). In charismatic leadership, leaders use charisma to get the employees to move forward.
Further, there is bureaucratic leadership where a leader follows every rule and expects the employees to do so as well. Leaders aim to create new approaches to tackle huddles that may arise. They achieve the effective effect by projecting their plans into exciting visions that the people they are leading relate to. They work from high-risk positions and react to mundane work.
A manager is in charge of keeping the employees up to date with the company's goals and vision. Managers are instrumental in executing the company's goals and vision (Goldstein, n.d.). They are bequeathed with the responsibilities of running the day-to-day operations of a company. Managers are deeply embedded in the culture of an organisation because their goals arise out of necessities and not personal desire. Managers incline towards building a culture that incorporates the input of every stakeholder. They trigger empowering processes that help in connecting people and ideas. They also empower them to take part in decision-making processes (Leadership, 2017).
Managers are also known to work towards limiting choices (Leadership, 2017). They work with people and maintain low levels of emotional excitement and involvement (Goldstein, n.d.). They relate to people according to the specific role they play in the decision-making process. A manager is focused on how things get done, while a leader is inclined towards what the processes of getting things done mean for the employees.
Motivational theories
Motivation in an organisation has become a key factor that helps drive employees. Several theories have been developed to explain this phenomenon. There are five known motivational theories. The first, Hertzberg’s two-factor theory, the second is Maslow’s hierarchy of needs; the third is the Hawthorne effect, the fourth is the expectancy theory, and the three-dimensional theory of attribution (Hellriegel and Slocum, 2011). The Hertzberg two-factor theory was developed in 1950 by Fredrick Herzberg, a psychologist. He had analysed the responses of 200 engineers and accountants about the feelings they had towards their jobs, and he found that two factors were constant throughout these reactions that influenced employee satisfaction and motivation. The factors were motivation factors, which were the ones that motivated the employees to work harder, and there were the hygiene factors, which could have led to dissatisfaction and demotivation of employees. This theory is anchored on the fact that for one to have a motivated and satisfied workforce, one must continuously improve the motivational factors and hygiene factors. This can be done by making sure that the employees feel appreciated for the work they are doing, and this can be done by getting feedback from the employees.
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs motivation theory was initiated by yet another psychologist, known as Abraham Maslow, in 1943. Maslow pitched the idea that an individual’s basic needs must be met before they can be motivated to achieve more. Five levels then make up the hierarchy, with these being psychological, safety, belonging, esteem,eem, and self-actualisation. This means that before you can be motivated to do more, you must be safe, in good health, and have some relationships going on for you. This method has been proven to work by various organisational managers. Henry A. Landsberger was the first to describe the Hawthorne effect in 1950, but the effect is named after a factory in Chicago where social experiments had been conducted with regard to physical conditions affecting outcomes of the employees.
The expectancy theory argues that employees will choose how to carry themselves depending on the results they expect their code of conduct to bear. It emphasises that the expected rewards of a particular behaviour will ultimately influence the behaviour of the individual. This theory is based on three key pillars they are instrumentality, valence, and expectancy (Altman, 2013). Thus, this theory dictates that if one believes the desired goal can be achieved by changing a behavior, ur they certainly become motivated to take up that behavior. This means that in an organization, to motivate employees, you give them the desired rewards.
The three-dimensional theory of attribution was coined by Bernard Weiner. It stipulates that the reasons attributed to one’s behaviour currently may influence our future behaviour. It’s based on three essential characteristics. They are a locus of control, controllability, and stability. This theory advocates for positive employee feedback, thus motivating them to become better as time goes by.
Formal and informal groups
Formal groups are groups that are created by organisations to achieve certain goals or perform a specific task to the end (Organizational behavior, 2005). They are large in size and are deliberate. The structure of the group is well defined, and the relationship within the group is professional. The communication moves in a defined direction, and a lot of importance is placed on a position. There are three types of formal groups, and they are task forces, command groups, and committees. An informal group, on the other handisis created by the employees themselves for their purposes, thus they are voluntary (Organizational behavior, 2005). They are comparatively small in size, and the life of the group depends on the members. Its structure is ill-defined, and importance is given to the individuals. Relationships within the groups are personal, and communication is stretched in all directions. The individual behaviour of an employee can be influenced to change on a positive note and also on a negative note. If an employee becomes part of a group of hardworking employees, he becomes as hardworking as they are. If he joins a group of underperforming employees, and he was previously hardworking, he becomes underperforming.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this paper identifies that organisational behaviour varies and can actually influence organisational behaviour in the workplace. There exist different organisational structures from which companies can choose. The type of organisational structure to be chosen by a company depends on the size of the company and the nature of its goals and management. Some of these structures have been used and tested by major organisations and cooperation’s hence yielding great results.
Managers and Leaders are both vital to an organisation, and it is important that an individual fits both. Many leaders have different styles that vary, and even the managers take up various techniques when running these companies and organisations. The concept of leadership and management, and the difference between these tw, has paved the way for how they may relate in some instances. Motivational theories and the motivation process are interlinked. The difference between formal and informal groups has been brought to light, and therefore, showing in what way a group may influence individuals. It is vital to note that these types of groups are both found within the organisation.
References
Your Article Library. (2017). Organisational Behaviour: Definition, Characteristics and Nature.
Ross, J. and Murdick, R. (1977). What are the Principles of "Principles of Management"?. Academy of Management Review, 2(1), pp.143-146.
Martin, J. (2002). Organisational behaviour. [London]: Thomson Learning.
Appannaiah, H., Reddy, PP.P.and Kavitha, B. (2010). Organisational behaviour. Mumbai [India]: Himalaya Pub. House.
Morgan, J. (2015). Flatarchies.
Morgan, J. (2015). Hierarchical Organisations.
Morgan, J. (2015). Flatter Organisations.
Morgan, J. (2015). Flat Organisations.
Morgan, J. (2015). Holacratic Organisations.
Harvard Business Review. (2017). Managers and Leaders: Are They Different?
Goldstein, I. (n.d.). The federal management playbook.
Leadership, 4. (2017). 4 Ways to Define Leadership.
Managers as leaders. (1991). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Hellriegel, D. and Slocum, J. (2011). Organizational behavior. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Altman, S. (2013). Organizational Behavior. Elsevier Science.
Organizational behavior. (2005). Beijing: Zhongguo ren min da xue chu ban she.
