Organizational behavior concepts and applications

Management Theory

Organizational Behavior Management Theory

Article Review Scavenger Hunt

Psychology

Wilpert, B. (1995). Organizational behavior.

In his review of organizational behavior and psychology, Wilpert (1995) reviews subjects pertinent to the field of psychology and organizational behavior and leadership, including language, technology, leadership and social constructs created in the workforce using a multivariate analysis approach. On reviewing theoretical developments in the field of organizational behavior and psychology, Wilpert notes many researchers now view organizational phenomena including behavior as something that is "constructed through the interaction of relevant actors" and that said constructions may be more myth than reality; more gossip or visionary goal than something of a more concrete nature (p. 59).

Wilpert provides a meta-analysis of multiple studies including those reviewing organizational behavior from a cultural, sociological and anthropological approach. He concludes that within the organization, environmental relations are contingent on socially constructed ideals reflecting the organizations leadership, culture, belief system and the behaviors and characteristics of leaders who direct an organization. Clearly psychology is a science deeply embedded in the field of organizational behavior. One cannot using this information extrapolate one from the other; rather one must realize that any behavior that is psychologically-based will influence an organization no matter its context.

Sociology

Mowday, R.T. & Sutton, R.L. (1993). Organizational Behavior: Linking individuals and groups to organizational contexts.

In a meta-analysis of research similar to that of Wilpert (1995), Mowday & Sutton (1993) review the field of organizational behavior and science from a sociological perspective. They conclude that powerful sociological forces are at work within the organization that lead to behaviors, and influence organizations to plan strategically and either successfully or unsuccessfully. Of note, the authors claim that the primary influences on organizational behavior include: (1) "powerful groups" which may include the thoughts of members of the group, which can affect the entire organization; (2) "aggregate member thoughts, feelings and behaviors" from which one may create a model of how effective a team will be at decision-making; and (3) "interactions of individuals in groups," which represent as the authors note a complex "interplay" between the "context" of an organization and individual behaviors (Mowday & Sutton, p. 196).

Social Psychology

Robertson, P.J., & Tang, S.Y. (1995). The role of commitment in collective action: Comparing the organizational behavior and rational choice perspectives.

In this study, Robertson & Tang (1995) review how commitment interplays and affects collective action in the organization. To accomplish their aims they compare organizational behavior using rational choice perspectives. The authors suggest that for organizations to flourish throughout the next decade, they must "reduce their managerial structure, allow greater discretion among front-line employees and operate more innovatively" (p. 68). How does an organization do this? The authors propose that the level of commitment employees and managers have to collective action will determine whether an organization succeeds or fails in their attempt to transform to a more democratic style management system. The authors compare the shift that needs to occur in organizational behavior as similar to that adopted in "school-based management" where decision-making is moving away from a centralized core and taken down to the level of middle management and employees (Robertson & Tang, p. 69). Of note, the authors cite how literature focusing on organizational behavior has focused primarily on work organizations, or in cases where organizations must pay members to work; further, for commitment to abound in an organization, it is necessary to address the presence of "intergroup and interdepartmental conflict" (p. 69) which naturally would serve as an undermining force for managers seeking to create a culture where members of the organization became part of a collective force, driving organizational success.

Anthropology

Maier, M. & Messerschmidt, J.W. (1998) Commonalities, conflicts and contradictions in organizational masculinities: Exploring the gendered genesis of the challenger disaster.

Maier & Messerschmidt (1998) attempt to tie organizational behaviors to anthropology in their analysis of the Challenger disaster. The researchers hypothesize that gender played "a key factor in the decision-making practices, organizational processes, and ethical context of the Challenger disaster" (p. 325). The authors suggest multiple conditions, processes and decision-making that occurs within organizational enterprises often reflect "contextually dependent masculinities" (Maier & Messerschmidt, 1998, p. 325).

Further the authors show that gender has become embedded deeply into organizations, and that organizational behavior is influenced through "gender-oriented" activities, which only serve to further distinguish the divisions that exist within an organization, rather than serve to create an organization that is unified in front and purpose. Their review of organizational behavior and management from this stance is new and intriguing, offering other peers and researchers the opportunity to explore how humanity and the physical or gender related characteristics of individual's may influence culture, not only at the social level but also at the organizational level.

Political Science

Cohen, D.B., Krause, G.A. (2000). Presidents, chiefs of staff, and White House organizational behavior: Survey evidence from the Reagan and Bush Administrations.

Cohen & Krause (2000) provide an ideal example of how politics influences organizational behavior and management. In their review they note the "extensive body of research" linking organizational behavior to American presidencies (p. 421). The researchers use the White House to demonstrate how politics influences the organizational structure and often subsequent management styles and organizational culture that resides within an organization. In politics, some are seen as "indispensable" with organizational behavior and decision-making processes deeply rooted in the political foundations serving the organization at hand (Cohen & Krause, 2000). Using this information, one may suggest that to better understand organizational behavior, a thorough review of politics within an organization would prove not only useful but beneficial.

Part II- Question and Answer

Q1. How have the fields of psychology and sociology contributed to our understanding of organizational behavior?

Wilpert (1995) and Mowday & Sutton (1993) note that sociology and psychology are inextricably linked to one's understanding of organizational behavior. As Wilpert (1995) notes, "leadership, language, technology" and other factors are all influenced by the psyche, and by one's psychological state of mind (p. 50). Of most importance according to Wilpert (1995) is the "psyche" of the leader that leads the organization, because through the leader organizational behavior and management is shaped and formed (p. 49). Mowday & Sutton (1993) support this analysis but lean more on the sociological influences that contribute to organizational behavior, stating "how individuals act and react in group contexts" often is a testimony to the organizational structure, management style and behaviors reflected in the business enterprise as a whole (p. 196).

Q2. How does globalization affect a manager's people skills?

Increasingly organizational leaders are forced to contend with change; change occurs through many ways, including through "cultural diversity" or the lack of cultural diversity in the workplace (Maier & Messerschmidt, 1998, p.325). For an international organization to compete and remain competitive, it must asses the "level of commitment" exhibited by leaders within the organization, but also by "members" or employees of the organization (Robertson & Tang, 1995, p. 68). Without a verifiable level of commitment, then an organization is less likely to compete well in the global climate, because systematic analysis and strategic planning can only occur in an environment that supports the members supporting the organization itself; that requires not only commitment but also motivation (Robertson & Tang, 1995).