Assessing organizational behaviour and corporate culture
Organizational behaviour is an academic discipline concerned with describing, understanding, predicting, and controlling human behaviour in an organizational environment. "The task of getting organizations to function effectively is a difficult one," wrote David A. Nadler and Michael L. Tushman in Hackman, Lawler, and Porter's Perspectives on Behaviours in Organizations. "Understanding one individual's behaviour is a challenging problem in and of itself. A group, made up of different individuals and multiple relationships among those individuals, is even more complex…. In the fact of this overwhelming complexity, organizational behaviour must be managed. Ultimately the work of organizations gets done through the behaviour of people, individually or collectively, on their own or in partnership with technology. Thus, central to the management duty is the management of organizational behaviour. To do this, there must be the capacity to understand the patterns of behaviour at individual, group, and organization levels, to forecast what behaviour responses will be elicited by different managerial performance, and finally to use understanding and prediction to achieve control.
Organizational Behaviour And Corporate Culture
The terms "corporate culture" and "organizational behaviour" are sometimes used interchangeably, but in actuality, there are differences between the two. Corporate culture encompasses the collective values, attitudes, standards, and beliefs and other characteristics that define an organization's operating philosophy. Organizational behaviour, meanwhile, can be under-stood in some ways as the academic study of corporate culture and its various elements, as well as other important components of behaviour such as organization structure and organization processes. Organizational behaviour, said Gibson, Ivancevich, and Donnelly, is "the field of study that draws on theory, methods, and principles from various disciplines to learn about individual perceptions, values, learning capacities, and actions while working in groups and within the total organization; analyzing the external environment's effect on the organization and its human resources, missions, objectives, and strategies.…Effective managers know what to look for in terms of structure, process, and culture and how to under-stand what they find. Therefore, managers must develop diagnostic skills; they must be trained to identify conditions symptomatic of a problem requiring further concentration. Problem indicators include declining profits, declining quantity or quality of work, increases in non-attendance or tardiness, and negative employee attitudes. Each of these problems is an issue of organizational behaviour."
Types of Organizational Behaviours
Organizational behaviour is concerned with predicting, controlling and explaining the behaviour of individuals and groups pertaining to a collective whole. For example, a company of any size is a social structure involving people. Organizing their behaviour and assigning specific tasks to bring about a specific goal is "organizational behaviour" at work. In an organizational model, individuals and groups are categorized as parts of a whole and conceptualized in a context of an agenda larger than them.
Types of organizational behaviour addresses particular behaviours a manager wishes to modify regulate and optimize for the purpose of achieving an end objective. For example, "Incentive Theory" is concerned with predicting, controlling and explaining behaviour by means of providing a reward; determining exactly what reward best sparks the impulse to contribute with someone else's schedule is the art behind the science.
Organizational culture is the particular set of experiences defining the needs, wants, values and beliefs that is often distinctive and is a notable attribute defining an organization. A common example that large business contend with is the "culture of fear" versus a "culture of innovation." The premise is that innovation, flexibility and the robust exchanges of profitable ideas are often suppressed in environments where employees are troubled to speak their minds. Why employees are fearful to speak their mind belong to a distinct set of circumstances behaviourist attempt to determine. A particular arrangement of a company's values and managing strategies against how employees within that organization internalize those experiences helps to define its culture. Organizational culture is the invisible hand that shapes and moles behaviours en masse.
Emotional labour is a term describing an employee's requirement to make use of specific emotions as part of his job description. For example, retail outlets have their sales staff smile and project cheerfulness to their customers this is not encouraged, it's required if the employee wishes to stay employable, but the requirement of emotional labour may be disguised as a type of encouragement.
A prolonged show of fake emotions is laborious, concerning a great deal of concentration and effort, like digging a drain, hence I think in the term "labour." It is understood that projecting emotions (fake or authentic) can be catching, possibly changing the emotional condition of the recipient, all in hopes of facilitating a sale.
Implementing emotional labour is easily observable and obvious within the workforce. However, what is without being seen is the profound accomplishment involved from an organizational viewpoint. For example, it's an incredible achievement of behavioural modification having free-thinking cognitive adults allowing themselves to be micromanaged down to precisely how a personalized emotion should be executed and for how long; this is essentially surgically replacing a person's intent with a collective agenda, all at the sometime calling it "professional" to compromise authenticity for compliance.
Expectations of how and when employees are to participate in activities manufactured by organizations are the significant aspects of organizational behaviour. For example, the ceremony of the "morning motivational rallies" or the ceremonies of "frowning security guards when checking bags before you clock out from work" are example of types of organizational behaviour.
Management Styles and Structures
Participatory Management Style
The premise of the participatory management style is the belief that the worker can make a contribution to the design of their own work. The belief system that lead managers to this conclusion was originally put forth as a management theory by McGregor, who called it Theory Y. Theory Y advocates believe that workers are internally motivated. They take satisfaction in their work, and would like to perform at their best. Symptoms of indifference are a result of the modern workplace, which restricts what a worker can do and separates him from the final results of his efforts. It is management’s job to change the workplace so that the worker can, once again, recapture his pride of workmanship. Elements of Theory Y are evident in Deming’s discussion of the role of a manager of people, presented earlier.
Managers who practice the participatory style of management tend to engage in certain types of behaviour. To engage the workers they establish and communicate the purpose and direction of the organization. This is used to help develop a shared vision of what the organization should be, which is used to develop a set of shared plans for achieving the vision. The manager’s role is that of a leader. By her actions and words she shows the way to her employees. She is also a coach, evaluating the results of her people’s efforts and helping them use the results to improve their processes. She works with the leaders above her in the organization to improve the organization’s systems and the organization as a whole.
Autocratic Management Style
The premise of the autocratic management style is the belief that in most cases the worker cannot make a contribution to their own work, and that even if they could, they wouldn’t. McGregor called the belief system that leads to this mindset Theory X. Under Theory X workers have no interest in work in general, including the quality of their work. Because civilization has mitigated the challenges of nature, modern man has become lazy and soft. The job of mangers is to deal with this by using "carrots and sticks." The "carrot" is usually a monetary incentive, such as piece-rate pay schemes. The "stick" is docked pay for poor quality or missed production targets. Only money and threats can motivate the lazy, disinterested worker.
Management By Wandering Around (MBWA)
Peters and Austin (1985, 8) call MBWA "The technology of the obvious." MBWA addresses a major problem with modern managers: lack of direct contact with reality. Many, perhaps most, managers don’t have enough direct contact with their employees, their suppliers, or, especially, their customers. They maintain superficial contact with the world through meetings, presentations, reports, phone calls, email, and a hundred other ways that don’t engage all of their senses. This is not enough. Without more intense contact the manager simply can’t fully internalize the other person’s experience. They need to give reality a chance to make them really experience the world. The difference between reality and many managers’ perception of reality is as great as the difference between an icy blast of arctic air piercing thin indoor clothing versus watching a weather report of a blizzard from a sunny beach in the Bahamas.
MBWA is another, more personal way, to collect data. Statistical purists disdain and often dismiss data obtained from opportunistic encounters or unstructured observations. But the information obtained from listening to an employee or a customer pour their heart out is no less "scientifically valid" than a computer printout of customer survey results. And MBWA data is of a different type. Science has yet to develop reliable instruments for capturing the information contained in angry or excited voice pitch, facial expressions, the heavy sigh—but humans have no trouble understanding the meaning these convey in the context of a face-to-face encounter. It may be that nature has hard-wired us to receive and understand these signals through eons of evolution.
The techniques employed by managers who practice MBWA are as varied as the people themselves. The important thing is to get yourself into direct contact with the customer, employee, or supplier, up close and personal. This may involve visiting a customer at his place of business, or bringing them to yours, manning the order desk or complaint line every month, spontaneously sitting down with employees in the cafeteria, either one-on-one or in groups, inviting the supplier’s truck driver to your office for coffee. Use your imagination. One tip: be sure to schedule regular MBWA time. If it’s not on your calendar, you probably won’t do it.
Choosing your own Management Style
As I mentioned earlier, choosing a management style is a strategic decision. It should be included in the regular planning cycle of the organisation and your work unit. The process for determining the most suitable management style should follow the same steps as are used in other strategic planning. For your enterprise this involves analysis of
the environment you are working in
the expectations of all your stakeholders, and
your strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.
This analysis should lead to a clear definition of the attitudes, behaviours, skills and knowledge of your staff that will bring about high performance in their jobs.
The selection of the most appropriate management style is derived from this analysis. It is affected by the demands of clients, the type of work to be done and the individual natures of your staff.
Managing for Performance
The complexity of today's world makes it progressively more difficult to provide rules for all situations. Furthermore, it is frequently not possible to provide full time supervision of all staff. Many work away from the office for prolonged periods and the costs of continuous supervision are exorbitant.
More importantly, the organisation has a key expectation of their managers, which is that they will change things for the better. This means better quality, faster, at less cost, happier clients or customers, increased profit, improved environmental effects and sustainability. Managers are expected to change things!
This raises the question of which style of management will achieve the highest performance from the staff we manage and contribute most to the success of the organisation. The performance of management as a boss or the extreme alternative of abdication creates significant constraints on people's performance. How might management style be designed to create exceptional performance?
Your planning process may suggest that a leadership style (coach, motivate, lead) is most likely to deliver the results needed by the workplace. In line with our commitment to consistency, leadership then needs to be applied to everything we do.
Factors Affecting Organizational Design
Although many things can affect the choice of an suitable structure for an organization, the following five factors are the nearly everyone common size, life cycle, strategy, environment, and technology.
The larger an organization becomes, the more complicated its structure. When an organization is small such as a single put on the market store, a two-person consulting firm, or a restaurant its structure can be simple.
In reality, if the organization is very small, it may not even have a official structure. As a replacement for of following an organizational chart or specified job functions, individuals simply act upon tasks based on their likes, dislikes, ability, and/or need. Rules and guiding principle are not established and may exist only to make available the parameters within which organizational members can make decisions. Small organizations are very often natural systems.
As an organization grows, however, it becomes increasingly difficult to supervise without more formal work assignments and some delegation of authority. Therefore, large organizations develop formal structures. Tasks are highly specialized and detailed rules and guidelines dictate work procedures. Inter organizational communication flows first and foremost from superior to subordinate and hierarchical relationships serve up as the foundation for authority, responsibility, and control. The type of configuration that develops will be one that provides the organization with the capability to function effectively. That's one reason larger organizations are often mechanistic—mechanistic systems are usually designed to maximize specialization and improve efficiency.
Organization life cycle
Organizations, like humans, have a tendency to progress through stages known as a life cycle. Like humans, a large amount organization goes through the following four stages: birth, youth, midlife, and prime of life. Each stage has characteristics that have implications for the structure of the firm.
Birth: In the birth state, a firm is just beginning. An organization in the birth stage does not yet have a formal configuration. In a young organization, there is not much delegation of authority. The founder usually “calls the shots.”
Youth: In this phase, the organization is trying to grow up The emphasis in this stage is on becoming larger. The company shifts its consideration from the wishes of the founder to the wishes of the customer. The organization becomes more natural in structure during this phase. It is during this phase that the official structure is designed, and some delegation of authority occurs.
Midlife: This phase occurs when the organization has achieved a high level of success. An organization in midlife is larger, with a more complex and more and more formal structure. More levels appear in the chain of command, and the founder may have difficulty remaining in control. As the organization becomes older, it may also become more mechanistic in structure.
Maturity: Once a firm has reached the maturity phase, it tends to become less innovative, less interested in expanding, and more interested in maintaining itself in a stable, secure environment. The emphasis is on improving good organization and profitability. However, in an attempt to improve efficiency and profitability, the firm often tends to become less innovative. Stale products result in sales declines and reduced profitability. Organizations in this stage are slowly dying. However, maturity is not an to be predictable stage. Firms experiencing the decline of maturity may institute the changes necessary to revitalize.
Although an organization may keep on sequentially through all four stages, it does not have to. An organization may leave out a phase, or it may cycle back to an earlier phase. An organization may even try to change its position in the life cycle by changing its structure.
As the life-cycle concept implies, a relationship exists between an organization's size and age. As organizations age, they be liable to get larger; thus, the structural changes a firm experiences as it gets larger and the changes it experiences as it progresses through the life cycle are corresponding. Therefore, the older the organization and the larger the organization, the greater its need for more structure, more specialization of tasks, and more rules. As a result, the older and larger the organization becomes, the greater the likelihood that it will move from an organic structure to a mechanistic structure.
In strategy I describe how an organization is going to position itself in the market in requirements of its product is considered its strategy. A company may come to a judgment to be always the first on the market with the newest and best product (differentiation strategy), or it may come to a decision that it will produce a product already on the market more efficiently and more cost successfully (cost-leadership strategy). Each of these strategies requires a structure that helps the organization obtain in touch with its objectives. In other words, the structure must fit the strategy.
Companies that want to be the first on the market with the newest and best product in all probability are organic, because organic structures authorize organizations to respond speedily to changes. Companies that choose to produce the same products more professionally and effectively will in all probability be mechanistic.
In the environment the world in which the organization operates, and includes circumstances that manipulate the organization such as financial, social-cultural, legal-political, technological, and natural environment conditions. Environments are frequently described as either established or dynamic.
In a stable environment, the customers' desires are well understood and probably will remain dependable for a relatively long time. Examples of organizations that face relatively stable environments include manufacturers of staple items such as detergent, clean-up supplies, and paper products.
In a dynamic environment, the customers' needs are continuously changing—the opposite of a stable environment. This condition is often reflection of as turbulent. In addition, the technology that a company uses while in this environment may need to be continuously improved and simplified. An example of an industry functioning in a dynamic environment is electronics. Technology changes create competitive pressures for all electronics industries, because as technology changes, so do the requirements of consumers.
In general, organizations that operate in stable external environments find mechanistic structures to be advantageous. This system provides a level of efficiency that enhances the long-term performances of organizations that enjoy comparatively stable operating environments. In contrast, organizations that operate in volatile and frequently changing environments are more likely to find that an organic structure provides the utmost benefits. This structure allows the organization to respond to environment modify more proactively.
In technology the most frequent cause of change in organizations since they generally result in superior efficiency and lower costs for the firm. Technology is the way responsibilities are accomplished using tools, equipment, techniques, and human knowledge.
Small-batch production is used to produce a multiplicity of tradition, made-to-order goods. Each piece of writing is made somewhat differently to get together a customer's specifications. A print shop is an example of a business that uses small-batch production.
Mass production is used to create a large number of uniform goods in an assembly-line system. Workers are highly dependent on one another, as the product passes from stage to stage until completion. Equipment may be sophisticated, and workers frequently follow comprehensive instructions at the same time as performing simplified jobs. A company that bottles soda pop is an example of an organization that utilizes mass production.
Organizations using continuous-process production create goods by continuously feeding raw materials, such as liquid, solids, and gases, through a highly automated system. Such systems are equipment intensive, but can often be operated by a relatively small labor force. Classic examples are automated chemical plants and oil refineries.
Woodward discovered that small-batch and continuous processes had more flexible structures, and the best mass-production operations were more rigid structures.
Once again, organizational design depends on the type of business. The small-batch and continuous processes work well in organic structures and mass production operations work best in mechanistic structures
Obstacles to Organization Performance
Here i discuses some obstacles that effects organization performance and we can check how well your business performs is the outcome of an effective organizational effectiveness model. Our study revealed that many business leaders struggle to align and engage employees with the company’s strategy – a fundamental element in a successful model. So how do businesses achieve sustainable organizational effectiveness? As stated, a key element is to align employees with the company’s strategy by
(1) helping them to understand the part they play in achieving success, and
(2) engaging employees in their jobs and with the organization. Strategy alignment is achieved through a “fit-for purpose” structure, capable leadership, and effective people systems and culture. Integrating efforts across these areas will lead to more highly engaged employees who are willing and capable of helping the organization achieve its goals. However, sustainable organizational effectiveness requires that attention be paid to all of these elements—focusing attention on just one without the others will not deliver long-term engagement
The leader’s role
Fewer than half of all employees work in an organization that is perceived as having capable leaders and people systems that drive the right behaviours. Leaders play a key role in creating a culture of engagement by directly or indirectly impacting all factors of engagement. They can directly influence engagement by valuing employees and providing career developing opportunities. Leaders also indirectly impact engagement by ensuring employees has the resources needed to be successful in their roles.
Create “fit for Purpose”
Only marginally higher numbers of employees reported they worked in organizations that promote a positive culture, with capable people performing the right work with clearly defined role accountabilities and relationships through a “fit for purpose” structure. Individual and team assessments can help a company assess high-performing talent, and identify needed competencies and skills gaps, allowing the organization to develop the right talent and the right skills needed to meet business objectives.
• Senior leaders effectively implement the organization’s strategy.
• Customers think highly of products and services.
• Senior leaders have the capability to make the organization successful.
• The organization invests in people’s learning and development.
• Pay is competitive with similar jobs in other organizations.
I refer the given below case to give my evaluation on management and its effect on organization also what type of obstacles the company faces according to management point view. So every organization, regardless of industry or country, seeks to be more effective and achieve superior grades. Business strategy is developed to gain this. It amounts to nothing, though, if it remains on the drawing board and is never executed. Execution occurs when structure, roles, capability, leadership, systems, and culture are all pulling together and aligned with the strategy. One without the other will create misalignment and success will not be realized.
While the elements of success are the same for all organizations, the answer for your business is unique to your strategy, your customers, and your people. It is easy to discover the current reality and the drivers of success, but the big challenge is in equipping your business to act and embed the change, remaining focused and aligned with your strategy.
The challenge brings a substantial benefit that ensures survival in a downturn and creates a competitive advantage when economic upturns arrive. Business can’t afford not to get it right.
General Electric established its worked process in the early 1990s. it continues to be a mainstay in GE’s efforts to has also been adopted by such divers organizations as General Motors, Home Depot, Frito-Lay, L.L. Bean, Sears, IBM, and the World Bank.
The impetus for the Work- Out was the belief by GE’s CEO that the company’s culture was too bureaucratic and slow to respond to change. He wanted to create a vehicle that would effectively engage and empower GE workers.
Essentially, Work-Out brings together employees and managers from many different functions and levels within an organization for an informal 3-day meeting to discuss and solve problems that have been identified by employees or senior management. Set into small teams, people are encouraged to challenge prevailing assumptions about “the way we have always done things” and develop recommendations for significant improvements in organizational processes. The Work-Out teams then present their recommendations to a senior manager in a public gathering called a Town Meeting.
At the town Meeting, the manager in charge oversees a discussion about the recommendation and then is required to make a yes-or-no decision on the spot. Only in unusual circumstances can a recommendation be tabled for further study. Recommendations that are accepted are assigned to managers who have volunteered to carry them out. Typically, a recommendation will move from inception in 90 days or less. The logic behind the Work-Out is to identify problems, stimulate divers input, and provide a mechanism for speedy decision and action.
More recently GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt has extended the Work-Out concept to build capabilities in anticipating future technologies and engage in long range planning. GE wants all its managers to be adept at the kind of strategic thinking that most companies entrust only to senior management. For example, GE is offering managers new classes focused on learning how to create new lines of business.
What type of change process would you call this? Explain.
Why should it work?
What negative consequences do you think might result from this process?
Why so you think new GE CEO Jeff Immelt has revised the Work-Out concept?
If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK Essays website then please click on the link below to request removal: