Organizational behavior is defined as the way people interact with one another in a group setting, especially with their workmates. The study of organizational behavior is mainly directed to the management of employees in an organization. Research has introduced different models and approaches that have defined and explored the topic of organizational behavior. The main aim, however, is to ensure that the management can use the right tools to properly motivate its employees to be proactive in their jobs (Elangovan, Pinder, & McLean, 2010, p.433). When employees are at their optimum performance, they are likely to yield more returns for the organization.
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!Essay Writing Service
Every individual has deep-rooted cultures that they ascribe to and believe. It is due to one’s family background, race, gender, age, geographical location, and language. These cultures define the behavior of an individual. It is essential to understand these cultures when interacting with individuals in an organization. Cultural differences are expected to arise in every organization due to the diversity in the world today (Ashkanasy & Humphrey, 2011, p.221). Cultural awareness through accepting and understanding our own cultures while still respecting those of others is vital to the success of any organization. It was the case in the class activity.
Cooperation in every group to achieve a frequent target is what assists in the achievements of those objectives. Our activity needed to portray the importance and dynamics of teamwork. They were experienced in the first phase when we came together in the group (Andersson, Jackson, & Russell, 2013, p.153). Each member had his/her fear and beautiful relationships that were to be formed. Personal opinions on little matters that would lead us astray from the aim of the group arise. However, after some time we listened to each other and started having conversations. There was order, and the group members gained a shared focus on the vision of the group. It led us to the second stage where we had to divide the roles that each member would take. The group was more comfortable in airing its opinion to one another. Members sought clarity on the issues that were vague. I also observed that there were members who were not satisfied with the roles that they got. It led to the compromise of other group members to accommodate each member (Salehi & Gholtash, 2011, p.309). Due to issues like these, some disagreements arose, and the group leader had to step in to assist in resolving the conflict. Some members asked for rewards if they completed their roles and some suggested a form of penalty for those who would not play their roles.
Group members who had formed alignments due to their shared perceptions started to show a sign of tolerance. The conversation got intense and different views were aired in a non-conflict manner. The group leader gave direction while other group members gave recommendations. Some group members were highly informed and creative in the exercise the interaction had a sense of cohesion. Members felt a sense of reassurance and belonging in the group. I noticed that some other groups ad disagreed and were no longer cooperating in the exercise (Pieterse, Van Knippenberg, Schippers, & Stam, 2010, p.611). These groups probably had the wrong leadership, or the group members had not tolerance of each other.
Our group leader showed commitment and passion by seeking every group members’ idea and views before going to the next issue of discussion. Divergent perspectives were tolerated by the leader, and he gave space and opportunity for every member to debate their opinion in a respectful manner (O’Boyle, Forsyth, & O’Boyle, 2011, p.54). The leader was audible and precise in his statements. He made sure that his information in communication was direct and consistent. When conflicts arose, he made his stand very clear that the group should take part in the resolution of the matter. It means that the resolution process was not biased. When decisions that required other members to debate and resolute on, the group leader delegated this to other members. He also suggested that we should all be accountable for the roles that we were expected to play and to report to him in case of any difficulties.
The relationship between motivation and management is significant. Employees when given enough motivation by the management yield higher results. Taking into consideration that motivation is caused by desire an ambition. Using Maslow’s theory and hierarchy of needs, he states that it is crucial to fulfilling one need before going to another. This theory applies to every organization. The management should be in a position to notice what aspects are missing for better employee performance and actualize the fulfillment of those needs. Motivation may vary with different employees requiring different things (Moore, Detert, Klebe-Treviño, Baker, & Mayer, 2012, p.30). Research shows that in organizations where salary increase is a norm, money stops becoming a motivator while it shows that when employees get older the more work gets exciting me. The more motivated they become.
Many organizations for employee motivation can take standard measures. In the case of an employee experiencing a personal problem that the organization is aware. The management may decide to be sympathetic and assist the employee (Li, Liang, & Crant, 2010, p.395). For example, in the assistance of the loss of a relative, the management may decide to plan a way of comforting the bereaved.
The administration may look for ways to promote employees that have yielded excellent results for the organization. Awards like the employee of the month or year motivate employees to work extra hard. The working conditions of employees in every organization should give them a reason to have maximum input. They should feel safe, secure and comfortable. It leads to better performance in the following aspects. Employees lower absenteeism will not be experienced since there is a belief in the system. Change in any organization by the management is usually faced with resistance (Lazaroiu, 2015, p.66). However, motivated employees accept change due to their expectation of better results from the switch. Motivated employees are in a position to take roles and responsibilities that arise in the organization.
Our academic experts are ready and waiting to assist with any writing project you may have. From simple essay plans, through to full dissertations, you can guarantee we have a service perfectly matched to your needs.View our services
Examples of organizations that use motivation theories to enhance employee productivity include Toyota and Geo Television. Geo Television is a Pakistan television channel that is a German-language pay-tv station (Harms & Luthans, 2012, p.591) The company used specific tools to motivate their employees and according to the performance, the tools were a success. They used performance-based incentives where employees were granted incentives equivalent to their performance. It was done through annual evaluation of employee’s performance. The Chief Executive Officer of the company who is heading it himself developed an idea box in the reception area (Elangovan, Pinder, & McLean, 2010, p.432).
Employees or visitors who dropped their ideas in the box had their ideas implemented. The individual who came up with the idea is rewarded with an award or prize for their efforts. The Chief Executive Officer also introduced the annual employees’ function. It is done by a committee which listens and follow-ups on the success story of an employee and selects the best. The employees of every department who have done outstanding jobs and have achieved recognizable excellence are awarded at the annual employees of the year. They are each given dinner coupons for each prize (Carpenter, Berry, & Houston, 2014, p.571) The CEO has also made sure that the environment is comfortable and that it is friendly for every employee to do their work.
The second organization is Toyota. Toyota is a Japanese manufacturer of auto motives that is based in Aichi. It was founded in 1937 by Kiichiiro Toyoda. It manufactures automobiles, luxury vehicles, commercial vehicles and engines (Bolino, Klotz, Turnley, & Harvey, 2013, p.557). Toyota embraces the two theories in its operations. It uses Maslow’s need Hierarchy and Herzberg’s job Enrichment theory to motivate its employees. The international manufacturer has invested heavily in the welfare of their employees. It is because the performance of every employee is directly related to motivation. Using the Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs the company noticed that the employees appreciated the following. They were very sensitive about the surety of their jobs (Ashkanasy & Humphrey, 2011, p.220). Their motivation was stronger when the organization gave them good salaries. The manufacturing company was sensitive to their working conditions and ensured that they were safe. Basic needs of employees were given a priority by Toyota, and it made sure that they were satisfied. The manufacturer invested in a culture of continuous improvement in its policy for its employees’ welfare alleviation. It finally supported the growth of their employees towards self-actualization.
While referring to Herzberg’s job enrichment theory the company took the following approaches to motivate their employees (Andersson, Jackson, & Russell, 2013, p.152). Toyota came up with a plan to take care of the healthcare of its employees. It introduced healthcare policies to cater for them due to the conditions of their work. It also ensured that there were safe working conditions for the employees. The company invested in the natural skills and training that assured that the employees were always up to date. In conclusion, it is therefore essential to know that that organizational behavior is critical to understand the management of employees through extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Every command should appreciate the approach of behavioral psychology and implement it in their organization.
- Andersson, L., Jackson, S.E. and Russell, S.V., 2013. Greening organizational behavior: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(2), pp.151-155.
- Ashkanasy, N.M. and Humphrey, R.H., 2011. Current emotion research in organizational behavior. Emotion Review, 3(2), pp.214-224.
- Bolino, M.C., Klotz, A.C., Turnley, W.H. and Harvey, J., 2013. Exploring the dark side of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(4), pp.542-559.
- Carpenter, N.C., Berry, C.M. and Houston, L., 2014. A meta‐analytic comparison of self‐reported and other‐reported organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(4), pp.547-574.
- Elangovan, A.R., Pinder, C.C. and McLean, M., 2010. Callings and organizational behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(3), pp.428-440.
- Harms, P.D. and Luthans, F., 2012. Measuring implicit psychological constructs in organizational behavior: An example using psychological capital. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(4), pp.589-594.
- Lazaroiu, G., 2015. Work motivation and organizational behavior. Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice, 7(2), p.66.
- Li, N., Liang, J. and Crant, J.M., 2010. The role of proactive personality in job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior: A relational perspective. Journal of applied psychology, 95(2), p.395.
- Moore, C., Detert, J.R., Klebe Treviño, L., Baker, V.L. and Mayer, D.M., 2012. Why employees do bad things: Moral disengagement and unethical organizational behavior. Personnel Psychology, 65(1), pp.1-48.
- O’Boyle, E.H., Forsyth, D.R. and O’Boyle, A.S., 2011. Bad apples or bad barrels: An examination of group-and organizational-level effects in the study of counterproductive work behavior. Group & Organization Management, 36(1), pp.39-69.
- Pieterse, A.N., Van Knippenberg, D., Schippers, M. and Stam, D., 2010. Transformational and transactional leadership and innovative behavior: The moderating role of psychological empowerment. Journal of organizational behavior, 31(4), pp.609-623.
- Salehi, M. and Gholtash, A., 2011. The relationship between job satisfaction, job burnout and organizational commitment with the organizational citizenship behavior among members of faculty in the Islamic Azad University–first district branches, in order to provide the appropriate model. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15(1), pp.306-310.
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: