Strengths and Weaknesses of Various Organizational Behavior Theories

A Review of Organizational Behavior Theories
Because organizations are the primary means by which capital is earned and job are created, it is not surprising that there has been a great deal of scholarship concerning how organizations actually “behave” in the real world. The purpose of this paper is to provide a current definition of organizational behavior together with a statement of three prominent theories of organizational behavior, French and Raven's Five Bases of Power, Complexity Theory and Resource Dependence Theory. An explanation concerning the fundamental concepts of each of these three theories is followed by an analysis of their respective importance to a business. In addition, an evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of each of these three theories as well as the positive and negative ways that the theories impact the workforce behavior of organizations. Finally, in the context of Air India, the paper presents a critical analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of interrelationships between organizational functions and the impact that can have upon organizational structure, how structure, size and scope of different organizations link to the business objectives and product and services offered by the organization and the complexities of different types of business structures and interrelationships of different organizational functions. A summary of the research and key findings concerning the foregoing organizational behavior issues are presented in the paper’s conclusion.
Define organizational behavior
Although there is no universally agreed upon definition, Seidel (2019, p. 2) provides a useful conceptualization of organizational behavior by stating: “Organizational behaviors outline the mission and goals of a business and define how its people interact within one another within its setting. But they also speak to where an organization fits into the bigger picture.” As a salient example, Seidel cites the case of a health care organization that is required to manage numerous internal issues, including facilitating collaboration among members of multidisciplinary teams, identifying optimal conflict resolution strategies, and what type of leadership is most effective in achieving its overarching goals and mission.
In addition, the health care organization must also develop a clear understanding concerning where it is situated within the broader health care industry. For instance, Seidel (2019, p. 2) asks, “Will its organization be a leader in research or cutting-edge procedures? Will it be a teaching hospital? Will it serve mainly as a community health center? Or perhaps it will be some combination of all of these.” In sum, organizational behavior concerns not only the internal factors that fuel business success, it also involves external factors that can have a profound impact on its ability to compete effectively. There are also several prominent organizational theories that have been advanced in recent years to help practitioners navigate the challenges that are associated with organizational behavior, and three of these theories are discussed below.
Three theories of organizational behavior
French and Raven's Five Bases of Power
The organizational behavior theory developed by French and Raven (1959) conceptualizes social power within a framework consisting of five discrete bases of power: (a) coercive power (i.e., managers can mediate punishments); (b) legitimate power (i.e., managers possess the authority to prescribe desired behaviors); (c) reward power (i.e., managers can mediate rewards); (d) referent power (i.e., identification with and attraction to managers); and (e) expert power (i.e., managers possess unique or specialized skills or knowledge). In other words, this organizational behavior theory focuses on the internal workings of an organization to describe the fashion in which personal and professional dynamics operate on a day-to-day basis in “getting things done.”
This view of organizational behavior is highly congruent with the guidance provided by Seidel (2019, p. 3) who points out that, “An organizational behavior definition of power is often more dependent on relationships than titles.” Therefore, French and Raven's Five Bases of Power serves to facilitate the identification of the real holders of power in organizations by identifying and examining the respective sources they rely upon for their influence within the organization (Braunstein and Zhang 2005).
A description of the five bases of power that were originally conceptualized by French and Raven (1959) are set forth in Table 1 below.
Table 1
Description of the five bases of power in French and Raven’s organizational behavior theory
Base of power
Description
Coercive
People who have coercive power tend to be the company manipulators who don't always have the best people skills. In contrast to those who have power through reward, these characters accumulate power through emotional punishment of others. These are generally not the healthiest people to team up with in your leadership, although awareness of them is important to managing them so they don't stand in the way of those who hold more positive and helpful forms of power. Coercive power caused by his/her ability to exert negative influence using punishment and threats
Legitimate
Those with legitimate power are those who actually do hold the titles of power within your organization. These are managers, team leaders and executives. How much power they have depends on whether they also gain power from the other sources listed here or team up with others who do.
Reward
People who have this kind of power earn it through their ability to reward others for doing what they're supposed to do. Reward is not always financial and comes in the form of positive reinforcement or cheering others on.
Referent
This type of power comes through the ability to relate with others and practice incredible relational skills in the workplace. These individuals are well liked and respected because of who they are, their personality and their ability to unify people across their differences.
Expert
Most professional settings have someone in the mix that is famous for being incredibly knowledgeable and skilled at what they do. When others need information, they go to the expert who helps them learn what they need to know in order to succeed.
Source: Adapted from Kinsey (2019)
Importance of French and Raven's Five Bases of Power to a business
Determining how managers pursue their objectives in the short term can help reveal instances of inappropriate uses of power which can have an adverse effect on employee performance and morale over the long term. For example, managers that consistently use punishment as a means of motivating their employees may cause unplanned turnover and diminished employee morale while still achieving their short-term goals. Conversely, managers that rely strictly on rewards as a motivational strategy may be wasting scarce organizational resources by rewarding suboptimal or even counterproductive employee performance.
Evaluation of strengths and weaknesses of French and Raven’s Five Bases of Power
Strengths. The primary strength of the French and Raven’s Five Bases of Power organizational behavior theory relates to its enduring widespread use among many business practitioners to develop a better understanding concerning the relative power wielded by the members of a group, a testament to its perceived effectiveness in achieving its intended purpose. In this regard, Jain (2018, p. 397) points out that French and Raven's Five Bases of Power “is one of the frameworks most widely used by researchers to study the concept [of organizational behavior].”
Weaknesses. Although French and Raven’s Five Bases of Power organizational behavior theory provides a useful framework in which to conceptualize in the inner workings and dynamics of organizations of all sizes and types, it does not provide a means by which the organization’s place in the broader industry can be evaluated. As noted above, this element is considered an integral part of a definition of organizational behavior.
How French and Raven’s Five Bases of Power impacts the behavior within an organization
On the one hand, French and Raven’s Five Bases of Power impacts the workforce behavior of the organization in a positive manner because it provides a viable framework that can explicate the interrelationships within an organization in ways that might not otherwise be possible (Seidel 2019). In addition, this theoretical perspective recognizes that actual power within an organization is based on different factors, any one of which can have a more forceful effect at a given point in time. Finally, French and Raven’s Five Bases of Power impacts the workforce behavior of the organization in a positive manner by recognizing both legitimate sources of power as well as others that might be overlooked in a formal analysis of organizational behavior.
On the other hand, though, French and Raven’s Five Bases of Power impacts the workforce behavior of the organization in a negative manner because it is hazardous to rely strictly on the results of its use since many business managers may use a wide variety of power sources and a combination of leadership styles in their day-to-day work that defy pigeonholing into specific categories (Buble & Juras, 2014). Likewise, this organizational theory impacts the workforce behavior of the organization in a negative manner by distinguishing between rewards and punishments as motivational tools since both of these strategies may be used in tandem. Finally, French and Raven’s Five Bases of Power impacts the workforce behavior of the organization in a negative manner by conflating referent and coercive power which may assume essentially the same form.
Complexity Theory
Despite its name, the underlying tenets of complexity theory are fairly straightforward in concept. In this regard, Arena (2009, p. 50) advises that, “In contrast to the dominant theories of organizational change, which rely on traditional assumptions of reductionism, linear causality, and objective observation, complexity theory adopts the emerging assumptions of holism, mutual causality, and perspectival observation.” In other words, complexity theory holds that people in organizations may adopt radically different strategies from time to time and over time for achieving their objectives depending on the specific circumstances and challenges that they face. For instance, Kinsey (2019, p. 5) notes that:
An organizational behavior definition of complexity theory in business settings states that companies and workplace teams are more dynamic than rigid. Instead of functioning like a machine, they function as dynamic ecosystems, where every part impacts and is dependent on the other parts in order to be successful.
One of the more interesting and potentially valuable aspects of complexity theory is its recognition that not only do employees tend to adopt different strategies to achieve their objectives depending on the existing environment, their relationships with each other can also change, sometimes in dramatic ways as well. Business practitioners that rely on complexity theory to develop a better understanding of organizational behavior will therefore tend to focus on the here and now rather than what roles employees have played in the past. For example, according to Kinsey (2019, p. 6), “Your team members' level of engagement and role can shift over time with new projects, illnesses, the introduction of new team members, new policies and more. Instead of crafting rigid ideas about how the team must function forever, complexity theory leaves room for a certain level of dynamic flexibility and change.” Moreover, there are also some other strengths that are associated with complexity theory, as well as some corresponding weaknesses, and these are discussed below.
Evaluation of strengths and weaknesses of Complexity Theory
Strengths. Like French and Raven’s Five Bases of Power theoretical framework, the main strength of Complexity Theory relates to its widespread relevance for organizational behavior theorists and practitioners. For example, according to Arena (2009, p. 49), “Over the past 40 years, complexity theory has become an increasingly important tool for explaining a range of phenomena in such sciences as physics, chemistry, biology, and meteorology. More recently, it has diffused into the social sciences, where it may have even greater relevance.” This increasing relevance is related to complexity theory’s ability to take into account both internal and external forces that can have an effect on organizational performance, an attribute that is regarded as integral to a viable theory of organizational behavior (Seidel 2019).
Weaknesses. Although complexity theory has been the focus of a growing body of scholarship, there are still some gaps in the existing body of knowledge that require additional research in order to optimize this organizational behavior theory. As Arena (2009, p. 51) concludes, “While complexity theory has received growing attention as an emerging direction in organizational change, the tools, methods, and processes necessary to facilitate complex organizational change in strategic direction, corporate culture, or organizational design have yet to be adequately identified.”
How Complexity Theory impacts the behavior within an organization
A positive manner in which complexity theory impacts the workforce behavior of the organization relates to its incorporation of a holistic perspective that can help determine what employees are actually doing at a given point in time to achieve their goals. In addition, another positive manner in which complexity theory impacts the workforce behavior of the organization is its emphasis on the importance of interpersonal relationships that can provide the synergy which companies of all sizes and types need to remain competitive in an increasingly globalized marketplace. Finally, yet another positive manner in which complexity theory impacts the workforce behavior of the organization is its flexibility in application to real-world situations that are characterized by forces that may be overlooked or disregarded using other organizational behavior theories.
Complexity theory, though, may also have a negative effect on the workforce behavior of the organization simply because its title may dissuade some business practitioners that do not possess formal training in organizational behavior from examining how it can benefit them and their organization. Likewise, another negative effect on the workforce behavior of the organization of complexity theory is its heavy emphasis on identifying new and innovative ways that employees may be performing their jobs even though nothing substantive has really changed since many employees resist changes and may rely on tried-and-true methods. Finally, complexity theory can also have a negative effect on the workforce behavior of the organization is its dependence on empirical observations by managers that may be clouded by bias or misperceptions that can result in inappropriate motivational interventions.
Resource Dependence Theory
This organizational behavior theory focuses on how organizations use resources to achieve their corporate objectives. In this regard, Nienhuser (2008, p. 9) reports that, “A fundamental assumption of Resource Dependence Theory is that dependence on "critical" and important resources influences the actions of organizations and that organizational decisions and actions can be explained depending on the particular dependency situation.” It is important to note, however, that in this context, resources can assume a number of different forms. For example, according to Hillman, Withers and Collins (2009, p. 1404), the following represent the basic units that are needed for developing a comprehensive understanding concerning resource dependence theory:
· Organizations are not autonomous, but rather are constrained by a network of interdependencies with other organizations;
· Interdependence, when coupled with uncertainty about what the actions will be of those with which the organizations interdependent, leads to a situation in which survival and continued success are uncertain;
· Therefore, organizations take actions to manage external interdependencies,
· Such actions are inevitably never completely successful and produce new patterns of dependence and interdependence; and,
· These patterns of dependence produce interorganizational as well as intraorganizational power, where such power has some effect on organizational behavior.
Resource Dependence Theory was developed by Pfeffer and Salanick (1978) in response to the growing recognition that better ways of understanding organizational behavior were needed in an increasingly competitive marketplace where corporations’ supply chains may extend across the globe (Kinsey 2009). From a Resource Dependence Perspective, organizational performance is frequently affected by what types and levels of external resources are available. In this regard, Kinsey (2019, p. 7) notes that, “This theory states that performance is often influenced by the availability of outside resources. For instance, the toy manufacturer relies on toy wheels from China to manufacture its toy cars.”
Besides these types of resources, though, Resource Dependence Theory also maintains that other sources of resources are important to take into account when analyzing the behavior of organizations. In fact, some practitioners even regard customers as a primary resource since they are essential for organizational survival (Kinsey 2019). Other streams of resources are also needed to provide managers and employees with the sense of security that is needed for risk taking and innovation (Kinsey 2019).
Evaluation of strengths and weaknesses of Resource Dependence Theory
Strengths. Like Complexity Theory, one of the mains strengths of the Resource Dependence theory is the fact that it takes the external environment in which organizations operate into account when analyzing their behaviors. As Hillman et al. (2009, p. 1405) emphasize, “This perspective, as well as its proposition that organizations must respond to the external environment, has reached near-axiom-like status in organizational theory and strategic management.
Weaknesses. Although the pragmatic approach used by Resource Dependence Theory can help identify the rationale behind different types of organizational behavior, it fails to take into account the effects of different management strategies as well as what responses are best suited for a specific situation.
How Resource Dependence Theory impacts the behavior within an organization
Resource Dependence Theory impacts the workforce behavior of the organization in a positive way by explicating the internal and external resources that can be used to further an organization’s mission. In addition, this theory also impacts the workforce behavior of the organization in a positive way by extending the analysis of organizational behavior along the entire continuum of the supply chain. Finally, Resource Dependence Theory impacts the workforce behavior of the organization by identifying both interorganizational as well as intraorganizational sources of power.
By contrast, Resource Dependence Theory impacts the workforce behavior of the organization in a negative way by overlooking the effects of interpersonal relationships and leadership styles that may also affect the organization’s behavior. In addition, this theory also impacts the workforce behavior of the organization in a negative way because determining what resources are “critical” may be a subjective process that misses more important resources to the detriment of the intended outcome. Finally, Resource Dependence Theory impacts the workforce behavior of the organization in a negative way due to its narrow focus that failed to take into account newer research concerning organizational behavior (What happened to resource dependence theory? 2019).
Organizational Behavior at Air India
1. Critical analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of interrelationships between organizational functions and the impact that can have upon organizational structure
The primary advantages of developing and maintaining effective interrelationships between organizational functions include the synergistic effects that can accrue to companies that take advantage of expertise and strengths that different departments can bring to bear on a problem or opportunity (Moldoveanu and Dobrin 2012).
Succeeding in developing effective interrelationships between organizational functions in an enormous organization such as Air India, however, is an especially daunting enterprise given the organization’s far-flung global operations, its major subsidiary in Alliance Air, its large fleet of aircraft and its tens of thousands of employees (About Air India 2019). Therefore, a corresponding weakness of attempting to force effective interrelationships between organizational functions is the potential for it to backfire and create silos where cooperation and information sharing is diminished. For example, according to Sherman and Thompson (2019, p. 3), “You can end up with departments that don't talk to each other or cooperate well. A customer may get bounced from department to department if his problem doesn't relate to one particular function.”
2. Critical analysis concerning how structure, size and scope of different organizations link to the business objectives and product and services offered by the organization
Achieving both short- and long-term business objectives requires organizations to develop an appropriate structure that is closely aligned with these outcomes. It would make little sense for Air India to apply a business structure that was appropriate for the oil and gas industry, for example, or limit its scope by ignoring new opportunities for regional and global growth. Because the services that are offered by Air India depend on the coordination of its vast network of fellow Star Alliance members, its cadre of executives as well as its administrative, support personnel and flight crews, structuring this airline in an appropriate fashion in order to facilitate this coordination is essential.
This issue assumed even greater importance in 2012 when Air India was stricken by a series of strikes, one last 58 days, in response to its failure to effectively merge with Indian Airlines (Sen 2012). In fact, Air India’s approach to this merger seems to have been comprised of a series of reactive strategies and brinksmanship rather than legitimate efforts to develop a new business structure that took its new size into account. For example, Sen (2012, p. 188) cites the following as representative of this pattern:
· Problem issues have emerged and discussions started;
· Dead-locked discussions have led to work stoppages and/or declaration of strikes;
· Flights have been cancelled with substantial loss of revenue;
· Government and management have invariably come out as strong critics of union action and remained firm in disapproval;
· Unions have been derecognized and their offices shut down;
· Employees have been dismissed, but reinstated later;
· Unions have been recognized again and continued to function;
· Operations have been resumed after various lengths of partial shutdown.
Clearly, these efforts ignored the new reality faced by Air India in its post-merger situation, but it is to its credit that it eventually succeeded in overcoming these constraints to become a competitive partner in the Star Alliance.
3. Critical analysis of the complexities of different types of business structures and interrelationships of different organizational functions
The corporate business structure used by Air India embraces a wide array of different organizations functions that vary dramatically in terms of their complexities. For example, the aircraft maintenance division at Air India is charged with keeping its fleet operating at top efficiency while simultaneously placing a high priority on ensuring the safety of these aircraft. Although the complexities faced by this division may be especially challenging in comparison to other divisions such as administration or customer service (Gruia and Kavan 2013), each of these divisions is confronted with its own unique set of complexities that may not be readily understood or recognized by the others.
As noted above, developing and maintaining effective interrelationships between these divisions is critical, perhaps more so in the aviation industry than virtually anywhere else because of the potential disastrous effects that failures anywhere along the network may cause in terms of loss of human life and destruction of property. Indeed, it is reasonable to posit that the executive and employees of Air India are still grappling with the aftermath of the 2012 bombing of Flight 182 over Ireland that claimed the lives of 329 people, including passengers and crew members (Ribkoff 2012). This tragedy underscored the seriousness involved in Air India’s operations as well as the need for good working interrelationships between its numerous divisions in order to provide the safest and most reliable air transport that the aviation industry demands.
Conclusion
While organizations do not “behave” in the same manner as humans, the research showed that they do have some predominant features that can be used to gain a better understanding concerning why they succeed or fail, as well as what types of practices contributed to these outcomes. The three organizational behavior theories reviewed above all provide some valuable strategies for this purpose, but each has its respective strengths and weaknesses that must be taken into account when applying them and evaluating the results. Although the Resource Dependence Theory and French and Raven’s Five Bases of Power both had some significant strengths, it is reasonable to conclude the Complexity Theory represents the optimal organizational behavior theory since it focuses on both internal and external factors that can have a profound effect on workplace behaviors. With respect to Air India, the research also showed that larger organizations in particular are faced with some particularly intractable problems that defy easy solutions, especially with respect to aligning different corporate cultures in a post-merger environment. In addition, the importance of aligning Air India’s business structure with its overarching objectives was shown to be a critical requirement in order to ensure that this airline maintains the highest standards of safety and customer service.
References
‘About Air India.’ Air India. [online] available: http://www.airindia.in/about-airindia.htm.
Arena, MJ ‘Understanding Large Group Intervention Processes: A Complexity Theory Perspective.’ Organization Development Journal, 27, no. 1 (Spring 2009): 49-53
Braunstein, JR and Zhang, JJ ‘Dimensions of Athletic Star Power Associated with Generation Y Sports Consumption.’ International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 6, no. 4 (July 2005): 242-245.
Buble, M and Juras, A ‘The Relationship between Managers' Leadership Styles and Motivation.’ Management: Journal of Contemporary Management Issues, 19, no. 1 (June 2014): 161-165.
French, JRP & Raven, B ‘Bases of power.’ In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in Social Power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, 1959.
Gruia, GC and Kavan, M ‘An Off-Line Dual Maximum Resource Bin Packing Model for Solving the Maintenance Problem in the Aviation Industry.’ Global Economic Observer, 1, no. 1 (January 1, 2013): 135-140.
Hillman, AJ, Withers, MC and Collins, BJ ‘Resource dependence theory: A Review.’ Journal of Management, 35, no. 6 (2009): 1404-1427.
Jain, AK ‘Organizational Citizenship Behaviour as a Potential Source of Social Power.’ Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 45, no. 3 (January 2010): 396-401.
Kinsey, A (2019, March 18). ‘What Are Some Theories of Organizational Behavior?’ BizFluent. [online] available: https://bizfluent.com/info-7742116-theories-organizational-behavior.html.
Moldoveanu, G and Dobrin, C ‘Unity of the Organizational Functions Flexibility.’ Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, 7, no. 3 (August 2012): 53-55.
Nienhuser, W ‘Resource Dependence Theory - How Well Does It Explain Behavior of Organizations?’ Management Revue, 19, no. 1/2 (January 1, 2008): 9-12.
Ribkoff, F ‘The Management of Grief and the Politics of Mourning in the Aftermath of the Air India Bombing.’ Cross / Cultures, 145 (January 1, 2012): 507-511.
Seidel, M (2019, March 6). ‘How to explain the importance of organizational behavior.’ Chron. [online] available: https://smallbusiness.chron.com/explain-importance-organizational-behaviors-26383.html.
Sen, R ‘Air India Merger: A Tale of Messed Up Industrial Relations.’ Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 48, no. 2 (October 2012): 187-192.
Sherman, F and Thompson, J ‘What Is the Relationship Between Organizational Functions & Organizational Structure?’ Chron. [online] available: https://smallbusiness.chron.com/ relationship-between-organizational-functions-organizational-structure-18571.html.
‘What happened to resource dependence theory?’ Organizational Theory. [online] available: https://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2011/08/03/what-happened-to-resource-dependence-theory/.