Systematic Study of Organizational Behavior Explained

Introduction to Organizational Behavior

As the name suggests, organizational behavior studies both the way in which people act within an organization and the attitudes they display within that context, on a non-random basis. Consequently, this discipline aims at providing an accurate, scientifically rigorous overview of the behavioral traits characteristic of employees by replacing intuition with systematic study. In other words, it is not grounded in simple observation but in data that are appropriately collected, measured, and interpreted.

From a historical point of view, organizational behavior as a discipline dates back to the era of scientific management — a concept that implied rationalizing organizations in order to achieve higher productivity. Over time, the trajectory of the discipline was shaped by different trends. After the First World War, a major emphasis was placed on human factors, while the Second World War re-introduced the rationalist perspective into the limelight. These shifts were also driven by contributions from various behavioral sciences, including psychology, sociology, social psychology, anthropology, and political science.

Behavioral Sciences Contributing to Organizational Behavior

Psychology takes a close look at individual behavior and attempts to explain the reasons that determine it. In doing so, psychology links observable conduct to its underlying causes, providing a complete perspective on a person's actions. Its contribution is therefore valuable because it explains human motivation, perception, and personality traits.

Unlike psychology, sociology focuses less on persons as individual entities and is more concerned with persons as members of a social system. An additional dimension thus emerges: the relationships that an individual forms in order to be part of an organization and, by extension, society. In other words, sociology takes individuals out of the "ivory tower" and studies their interaction with other human beings.

A related discipline, social psychology, studies the influence that people exert on one another. The main problem this science addresses involves identifying the behavioral patterns to which individuals conform when they are part of a group.

Anthropology can be defined as the science of humankind, focusing extensively on the norms, beliefs, customs, and values that shape individuals' perceptions. Consequently, anthropology is particularly concerned with cultural differences — a highly relevant subject given the cross-cultural encounters that have become nearly ubiquitous in contemporary organizational environments.

Finally, political science focuses on the power dynamics within an organization. It examines the conflicts that may arise, the way in which power is distributed, and the strategies people employ in pursuit of self-interest. Each of these sciences contributes a distinct analytical dimension to organizational behavior by virtue of its specific scientific focus.

Globalization and Diversity as Emerging Challenges

Over time, organizational behavior has come to face new challenges as a result of the highly dynamic environment with which organizations must cope. One of the most significant is globalization. Initially, globalization was a phenomenon whose most visible face was represented by large American, European, and Japanese corporations. Today, according to C. Bartlett, many companies from smaller countries move rapidly onto the global stage because their domestic markets are not large enough to sustain them. As a result, many organizations are now "born global" (Bartlett cited in Churchwell, 2003).

This development leads directly to the challenge of diversity. When working in a multinational corporation as country subsidiary managers, people must be "sensitive and responsive to national differences" (Bartlett cited in Churchwell, 2003), because these differences are, as Geert Hofstede (2003) noted, "a nuisance at best and often a disaster." Moreover, managers must learn how to leverage these differences to achieve goals such as high employee retention and productivity. They should also attend to the external market, which has become extremely heterogeneous.

For instance, Bartlett presented the case of Procter & Gamble in Japan. Japanese women were found to be far more sophisticated and demanding than their American counterparts. Rather than applying a strategy that had proven successful in the United States, the company developed a portfolio of products specifically tailored to the Japanese market. One notable outcome was Skin II, a premium skincare product that was sold at a significant price and was highly appreciated by customers (Bartlett cited in Churchwell, 2003).

Bartlett (cited in Churchwell, 2003) also underlined that, in the past, managing diversity was largely synonymous with providing equal opportunities to people of different genders or races. Today, he emphasized, diversity means "legitimizing diverse views in an organization, including those based in cultural differences." Managing diversity under contemporary circumstances therefore does not consist solely of providing equal treatment. It also requires the knowledge and skill to properly handle cultural differences in order to generate competitive results. For example, research has shown that teams whose members come from different cultural backgrounds tend to be more creative. If a manager knows how to stimulate synergy among such team members, the likelihood of innovation increases — an outcome that can only benefit the organization.

Conclusion

The systematic study of organizational behavior is valuable because it pays considerable attention to human factors and attempts to measure behaviors and attitudes in a scientifically rigorous way. However, its relevance remains questionable given the persistent gap that exists between theory and practice. Addressing this divide is essential if the discipline is to fulfill its promise as a guide for real-world organizational management.