Organizational Behavior Analysis: Culture, Communication & Leadership

Introduction

Explored here is a former employer whose culture and methods of communication made it difficult for the organization to function effectively as a whole. Many organizations struggle with this particular issue because they are not aware of what changes are needed to allow for better communication in the workplace. The company in question was domineering in the sense that it did not allow for healthy cross-cultural mixing among its employees. There was some mixing, because that is inevitable when a number of people with different cultural backgrounds work in one place. However, there was far less mixing and mutual understanding than would have been ideal. This made it very difficult for people to do their jobs properly, because a significant number of them felt as though they were unable to blend into the organization and be accepted.

The lack of acceptance within an organization is a central concern in organizational behavior analysis, since there is an unspoken understanding that acceptance is important and necessary to organizational success. People need to be able to work well together — to get along and understand one another — for an organization to thrive. That is not to say companies cannot survive without this, but many have found that people who do not mesh well culturally are also unable to mesh well from a work standpoint. That, of course, is a serious problem for any company that wants to be successful. In order to reach its goals, a company needs the proper culture and methods of communication, along with motivation and other factors that keep it moving forward as one unit.

There are three types of organizational culture: pluralism, dualism, and the salad bowl (Sopow, 2007). The former employer appeared to embrace and encourage the salad bowl model of culture. One might assume that would not be a problem, but in practice it did not allow people in the organization to work together effectively. Everyone had their differences, and those differences seemed to be what each person clung to. There were many similarities among employees as well, but these were not emphasized. Because of the salad bowl approach to company culture, the organization appeared to consist simply of a number of different people all doing their own thing in their own way. That was manageable for routine daily tasks, but became very difficult whenever group work was required. People were so different from one another, and had not been encouraged to recognize their similarities or to get to know each other, which made finding common ground extremely challenging when collaboration was necessary.

Type of Culture

Unless people have some familiarity with one another across cultural boundaries, working together successfully in a group can be very difficult (Barney, 1986; Black, 2003). It would have been much easier if the owner had worked to build an organization in which people felt valued for who they were and were also encouraged to learn about and embrace the differences of their coworkers. That would have made teamwork far less stressful and confusing, because there would have been much more harmony within the company. Unfortunately, the owner did not see the value in doing this, and nothing had changed by the time the company became a former employer rather than a current one. The company has still not made any effort to change and continues to stagnate in its field. Until the company focuses on encouraging people to work together properly, little success will be seen.

The way an organization communicates can be a strong indicator of whether its organizational behavior is negative or positive (Papa, 2008). Verbal and written communication both have their place and both are important. The key is knowing when to use one or the other, in order to maintain an appropriate level of formality without allowing bureaucratic process to obstruct decision-making. That was slowly happening at the former employer, as more and more requests and ideas were required to be submitted by email or in writing rather than communicated verbally. The company's official position was that a written record of everything was necessary in case questions or concerns arose at a later date. However, in many situations where written communication was required, verbal communication would have been more than sufficient. This frustrated employees and discouraged them from communicating as much as they should have.

When people are frustrated because communication has been made unnecessarily difficult, they often simply stop communicating (Sopow, 2007). That is a significant problem, because much of the communication that would have taken place — and that was necessary to the successful running of the organization — then does not take place at all. This makes moving the organization forward very difficult. Employees generally have to follow company rules, but excessive communication requirements can increase stress and may even prompt employees to seek work elsewhere. Too much mandatory written communication means too much formality and too much time spent on process. It also slows the pace at which things get done, and that can put a company behind its competitors (Jex & Britt, 2008).

Modes of Communication

The nature of authority within an organization is another critically important area. Those who work for the organization must be aware of who is in charge, but there are meaningfully different ways to exercise that authority. The most commonly discussed distinction is between transactional and transformational leadership (O'Donovan, 2006). Transactional leadership is strongly focused on a boss who tells people what to do and expects compliance, while transformational leadership centers on a leader who, though still in charge, functions as a team player working with others toward a common goal. When transformational leadership is offered, employees are much more likely to be receptive to direction, because they feel included and believe they can make a meaningful difference rather than simply being ordered to complete tasks. The way a leader speaks to employees and how invested those employees perceive the leader to be in outcomes can both make a significant difference. These dynamics should be carefully considered, because they strongly affect how an organization operates.

The former employer discussed here was very much a transactional leader. The entire management approach seemed to consist of telling employees what they were supposed to do, then waiting for them to do it. Naturally, this harmed morale, because employees resented being ordered around by someone who did not appear to be doing any meaningful work alongside them. In all likelihood, the boss was actually doing a great deal of work behind the scenes, but the absence of visible teamwork made it difficult for employees to recognize their own value to the organization. A leader who is more focused on teamwork is better able to help employees see that their contributions matter, and that shared sense of purpose can help keep everyone working toward a common goal.

The way in which employees are motivated is very important. There are two main types of motivation: intrinsic (internal) and extrinsic (external). People can be motivated by things that matter to them personally, or they can be motivated by something offered to them from outside (Barney, 1986). Often, more than one motivational approach is effective for a given individual. The former employer was primarily interested in motivating people through money, which worked well for many employees. However, not everyone is motivated in the same way, and the boss was not adept at thinking creatively and recognizing that different employees might respond to different incentives. Some employees wanted additional time off, a health plan, or simply meaningful praise and recognition for doing a good job, but they received none of these things. They were offered extra pay to take on additional work, and if they declined, someone else would step in. Since most employees were motivated by money, the system worked for the majority.

Conclusion

Sopow, E. (2007). Corporate personality disorder. Lincoln, NB: iUniverse.