HRM Organizational Behavior: Theories, Frameworks, and Performance

Introduction: Defining HRM and Organizational Behavior

Defining and measuring the effectiveness and performance of workers is a central part of the HRM manager's work. A key question is how the skills, behaviors, and attitudes that workers need to successfully and effectively perform their roles should be defined. One way of measuring this is by linking the performance of individuals to organizational goals. This is generally accomplished through the use of competencies, which are described as "the integrated knowledge, skills, judgment, and attributes that people need to perform a job effectively. By having a defined set of competencies for each role in the business, it shows workers the kinds of behaviors the organization values" (MindTools, 2011).

Lawrence (1998) reports that people are "multifaceted and complex" and that organizations are "complex open social systems" that undergo adaptation in order to survive and remain profitable. Schein (1990) holds that organizations develop a persistent "pattern of behavior" over time. Managers are reported by Schneider (1994) to have a tendency to "attract and select people based on how similar they are to those already in the organization." Because organizational behavior is resistant to change, human characteristics serve to drive the persistence of organizational policies and practices unless the organization develops new modes of inquiry (Argyris and Schon, 1996). Beer (1980) holds that organizational behavior is "a product of the confluence of several forces whose interaction and mutual adaptation governs the evolution of the organization over time."

Human Resources Management (HRM) deals with the management of people within the organization. Responsibilities inherent to HRM include hiring staff, attracting employees, and sustaining individuals in their positions. HRM is also responsible for clarifying and setting the organization's goals and for organizational planning related to future initiatives and objectives involving employees (Handy, 1999). The primary objective of HRM is to "bring out the best in their employees and thus contribute to the success of the company" (Young HR Manager, 2011). The work of Liu (2004), entitled "Perceived Organizational Support: Linking Human Resource Management Practices with Important Outcomes," reports the widely held belief that the "implementation of progressive HR practices that affect employee skills, motivation, and behaviors results in the creation of a strategic advantage for the organization."

Organizational Behavior Theories and Perceived Organizational Support

Social Exchange Theory suggests that the "exchange relationship between two parties" often goes beyond pure economic exchange and entails social exchange (Liu, 2004). Liu further notes that it has been widely agreed upon among organizational researchers that employer and employee exchange is inclusive not only of impersonal resources such as money, services, and information, but also of socio-emotional resources such as approval, respect, and support (Liu, 2004). Social Exchange Theory specifies the motivation behind behaviors in organizations.

Eisenberger and colleagues utilized the concept of "perceived organizational support" (POS) to describe the perceptions of employees regarding the degree to which the organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being, as a means of describing the social exchange relationship between the organization and its employees (Liu, 2004). Employees who have higher levels of POS are "more likely to repay the organization with positive attitudes and favorable work behaviors" (Liu, 2004). Research by Eisenberger et al. (1990), Settoon et al. (1996), and Wayne, Shore, and Liden (1997) has found that employees are "likely to develop higher levels of POS when the organization cares about their wellbeing and values their contributions" (Liu, 2004).

Liu (2004) states that while HRM "plays a key role in developing and maintaining the exchange relationship between the employee and the organization, extant research offers little insight on how the implementation of appropriate human resource practices can help build high levels of POS, which in turn contribute to positive work attitudes and organizational behaviors." Two types of HR practices are considered of primary importance in developing higher POS: (1) discretionary practices that imply organizational caring but are not mandated by company policy or union contract, and (2) HR practices that symbolize organizational recognition of the employee's contribution (Liu, 2004).

Theories of motivation are important in directing HR efforts toward practices that demonstrate support for employees. The ERG Theory proposed by Alderfer (1972) is useful in thinking about employee motivation, as it conceptualizes three elements of human needs relevant to organizational settings that may operate simultaneously (Liu, 2004). ERG Theory holds that individuals attempt to satisfy three levels of needs: (1) physiological needs; (2) relatedness needs, or interpersonal relationships; and (3) growth needs (Liu, 2004). Satisfactory pay is a requirement for meeting physiological needs, while growth needs "can be met by sufficient career development opportunities that help employees extend their potential and expand their capabilities." Additionally, HR practices that provide social support — such as helping employees maintain good work-family relationships and develop positive leader-member exchange relationships — can be instrumental in fulfilling employees' need for relatedness (Liu, 2004).

The work of Pfeffer (2007), in his study "Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained," reports that American workplaces exhibit three facts that, taken together, "could constitute anomalous or paradoxical organizational behavior, especially when seen through the lens of the rationality and competitive market efficiency concepts so often used in economic theory." Pfeffer additionally states:

Organizational Behavior Frameworks and Goal Models

"Theories and empirical research in organizational behavior and social psychology offer insights and explanations about how these three facts can coexist and even persist. These explanations are built on the fundamental insights that both employees and organizations are embedded in a social context that provides taken-for-granted ways of thinking and doing things; social influence matters so that companies imitate others even if such imitation is maladaptive; and social relations in the workplace are important." (Pfeffer, 2007)

Three key components of organizational behavior identified by Pfeffer are: (1) people are social creatures concerned with their relationships with others, and are influenced by what others say and do — as a result, perceptions, preferences, and attitudes are at least partly endogenous (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978), and people derive an important part of their social identity through their affiliations; (2) people are concerned about fairness and justice, both in terms of distributive outcomes and the processes through which those outcomes are determined — because of this concern, people will actually expend resources to punish individuals who violate norms of fairness (Fehr and Gachter, 2000); and (3) organizations as institutions are also embedded in a social context and are influenced by and imitate other organizations, partly to achieve legitimacy by acting like others and partly to conform to social expectations and norms (Scott, 1995, cited in Pfeffer, 2007).

Jangla (nd) states that "an organizational goal is the desired state of affairs." The framework of organizational behavior forms a construct upon which the entire organizational culture, principles, mission, vision, goals, and outcomes rest, and this dictates the behavioral characteristics of the organization in ways that spread throughout its various layers. For example, Walmart has become a price leader by concentrating on the bottom line for both the customer and the organization. However, such a framework may not suit all organizations, as some are constructed upon very different principles.

Jangla (nd) specifically addresses the danger of over-measurement: "Organizations are constructed to be the most efficient and effective social units. The actual effectiveness of a specific organization is determined by the degree to which it realizes its goals. The efficiency of an organization is determined by the amount of resources used to produce a unit of output. Measuring effectiveness and efficiency raises several thorny problems. When an organization has a goal which is limited and concrete, it is comparatively easy to measure effectiveness. But when we come to organizations whose output is not material, statements about effectiveness are extremely difficult to validate." Jangla's goal model approach "defines success as a complete or at least substantial realization of the organizational goal," and suggests that rather than comparing existing organizations to ideals, we may assess their performances relative to one another (nd). Limitations of the system model include the costs in both time and money when used for research purposes (Jangla, 2007). Three indices constructed within the system model each measured a basic system element: (1) station productivity; (2) intra-organizational strain as indicated by the incidence of tension and conflict among organizational subgroups; and (3) organizational flexibility (Jangla, nd).

Ho (nd) writes that human resource management "has been and remains highly controversial," a position recently reconfirmed by Keenoy (1999) in his description of the current state of HRM. The theory of HRM is stated to have been an ongoing "source of controversy, confusion, and misapprehension. At the center of this unfolding obfuscation lies an infuriating but curious paradox: despite mounting evidence of conceptual fragmentation, theoretical vacuity, and empirical incoherence, HRM-ism has gone from strength to strength. In short, the more researchers have undermined the normative, prescriptive, and descriptive integrity of HRM-ism, the stronger it gets" (Ho, nd).