Individual vs. Organizational Influence on Workplace Behavior
This paper examines the interplay between individual employee behavior and organizational influence within workplace settings. Rather than treating the two as mutually exclusive forces, the paper argues that both can operate simultaneously and in varying degrees depending on context. Drawing on peer-reviewed literature, it explores performance management in public-sector organizations, the balance between customer stewardship and agency control, the behavioral effects of business process outsourcing and workplace commuting, and employer-driven brand alignment strategies. The paper concludes that neither organizational culture nor individual behavior alone determines workplace conduct — both phenomena are consistently present, and identifying which is dominant in a given situation is the key to effective management.
- Introduction: Frames the dual research question and thesis
- Individual Behavior and Its Influence on Others: Performance management and peer behavioral impact
- Organizational Control vs. Employee Autonomy: Customer stewardship versus agency control findings
- External and Internal Forces Shaping Behavior: BPO, commuting, and brand alignment as behavioral drivers
- Conclusion: Both forces coexist; context determines which dominates
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It resists an oversimplified either/or framing from the outset, establishing a nuanced thesis that both individual and organizational forces are simultaneously at play.
- Each body paragraph is anchored to a specific peer-reviewed source, giving the argument scholarly credibility across multiple real-world contexts (public sector, BPO, commuting, brand management).
- Concrete examples — such as a disruptive employee slamming doors or outsourced janitorial staff affecting morale — ground abstract concepts in recognizable workplace scenarios.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates a literature-review synthesis technique: rather than building an argument from a single study, it stitches together findings from five distinct sources to triangulate a multi-directional answer. Each source addresses a different dimension of the same central question, showing the writer's ability to map a conceptual problem across varied research contexts.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a clearly stated thesis that rejects binary thinking. The body (labeled "Summary" in the original) develops three thematic clusters: individual-to-individual behavioral influence, the tension between organizational control and employee autonomy, and the role of external/internal forces such as outsourcing and brand positioning. The conclusion synthesizes these threads without introducing new material, reinforcing the thesis that both phenomena coexist. The structure is lean and well-matched to a short research report format.
Introduction
This paper addresses a two-part question about behavior in organizations. The first part asks whether an individual's behavior genuinely affects the behavior of others within the organization. The second asks whether the organization itself is the primary driver of changes in a person's behavior. Based on both personal reflection and the scholarly literature reviewed below, this is not an either/or question. It is more accurately a question of what is happening in a given instance — and the answer could be either or even both of the concepts simultaneously. While organizational culture and structure can shape individual behavior, the individuals within an organization can also exert powerful influence on those around them.
Individual Behavior and Its Influence on Others
Rather than rely on anecdotal evidence alone, this paper answers the questions above through a scholarly literature review. One of the major reasons performance management is used in organizations is precisely because individual behavior affects others. While whether an employee gets their work done is certainly relevant, it is equally important to examine how that employee interacts with and treats colleagues, and what perceptions and influences they project onto others.
For example, if an employee in an office environment consistently speaks loudly and handles objects — doors, equipment — in a disruptive manner, even mildly, the perceptions levied against that employee will be unfavorable, and the influences they exert on colleagues are unlikely to be positive. It would be expected, therefore, that an employer would notice and correct that behavior. This dynamic takes on additional weight in the public sector, where employees are expected to serve the public and the work is often more demanding and less visibly rewarded than in other occupations. As a result, managing both individual performance and attitude — as well as the collective whole — becomes especially critical. Many researchers argue that a strong organizational culture is necessary to keep employees behaving appropriately, particularly when individuals may be prone to motivational or behavioral drift (Campbell, 2015).
Organizational Control vs. Employee Autonomy
When examining the relationship between individual employee behavior and the control or influence exerted by the organization, at least one important research question emerges: are customer stewardship and agency control competing forces, or do they complement one another? One study directly examined whether employer (agency) control over employee behavior helps or hinders employees' capacity to take ownership of their ability to serve customers effectively.
The general finding is that a sound organizational culture is important, but that employees and teams must be granted autonomy when they are already performing as expected. In terms of the group versus individual behavior dynamic, this means that when employees are exerting a positive influence, they should be left to thrive. When they are performing poorly, however, the mechanisms of agency control need to be applied, because the behavior of those employees can influence others around them (Schepers, Falk, de Ruyter, de Jong, & Hammerschmidt, 2012).
Conclusion
As made clear in both the thesis and the research reviewed, there is no single broad answer to whether organizations influence people or whether people influence others through their own behavior. There are ample examples of both, and both can be true within a single organization at the same time. Attempting to force this question into a rigid either/or framework is unwise. What is accurate — and practically useful — is recognizing that both phenomena occur constantly. The key lies in determining which force is dominant in a given situation and why. That understanding can then lead to meaningful solutions and informed adjustments in organizational management.
References
Campbell, J. W. (2015). Identification and performance management: An assessment of change-oriented behavior in public organizations. Public Personnel Management, 44(1), 46–69. doi:10.1177/0091026014549473
Dwivedi, S., Kaushik, S., & Luxmi. (2015). Organizational citizenship behaviors and demographic variables of employees in Indian business process outsourcing (BPO) sector. IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(1), 39–57.
Santhosh, V. A. (2015). A study on the impact of workplace commuting on citizenship behaviour of employees working with public and private sector organizations. Vision, 19(1), 13–24. doi:10.1177/0972262914564043
Schepers, J., Falk, T., de Ruyter, K., de Jong, A., & Hammerschmidt, M. (2012). Principles and principals: Do customer stewardship and agency control compete or complement when shaping frontline employee behavior? Journal of Marketing, 76(6), 1–20.
Sirianni, N. J., Bitner, M. J., Brown, S. W., & Mandel, N. (2013). Branded service encounters: Strategically aligning employee behavior with the brand positioning. Journal of Marketing, 77(6), 108–123.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.