Three most pressing issues in Organizational Behavior and the practices that might be implemented Organization behavior is the study of behaviors and attitudes of people in an organization. After all human behaviors and attitudes determine effectiveness of any organization. The approach used in studying OB is the system approach. In other words, this approach interprets people-organization relationships in terms of the whole person, whole group, whole organization, and whole social system. Its purpose is to build better relationships by achieving human objectives, organizational objectives, and social objectives. In this paper we propose to study leadership, motivation and organizational conflict, as among the most pressing issues in organizational behavior. Further, we shall discuss how these issues can be addressed. Critical role of motivation
It is critical for managers to understand why and how employees are motivated if they are to make full use of a worker’s capacity to learn and perform. For a manager, motivating employees to learn and perform at their best is a complex and difficult challenge. No two individuals, that is, no two employees including the two who are doing the same job are alike. At any time two different individuals will have two distinct needs and desires. Moreover, what motivates an employee to perform well today may not motivate him the next year, or next week, or even next hour. However, a motivated set of employees represent tremendous promise. When employees are motivated performance, learning, and satisfaction can improve dramatically from which everyone including the organization benefits (Stroh et al, p.62). Douglas McGregor in 1960 saw the merit in the relationship between motivation and behavior. According to him, managers motivate employees by one of the two basic approaches, which he termed Theory X and Theory Y. Theory X is the traditional view which suggests that managers must coerce, force, and threaten the employees in order to motivate them. The alternative philosophy of human nature believes that human beings are responsible by nature. They need not be coerced or controlled by the managers to get the best out of them. While some experts consider McGregor’s work as a basic theory of motivation, others feel it is a philosophy of human nature that is more suited to explain leadership rather than basic motivation theories (Montana and Charnov, p.252). In contemporary Public Administration text books, Taylor appears as an ideal typical management engineer who views workers as machines and reduces all motivation to money. They allude to his man as machine conceptualization with disconcerting moral overtones. His theory focuses on economic man that fails to recognize other aspects of human personality having needs, preferences, attitudes, and commitments. Taylor in contrast to Elton Mayo and other Hawthorne researchers failed to appreciate that social needs can undercut the appeal to economic rewards. The contrast between scientific management of Taylor and the theory of McGregor is even starker. Mc Gregor may be said to have understood the human needs with greater insights just like Maslow, who posited a hierarchy of five human needs – physical, security, social, esteem, and self-actualization. In contrast to McGregor, Taylor is made to appear reductionistic. This comparison is akin to the natural science scholarship model where early theory is seen more primitive than later thoughts (Schachter, p.11-12). However, it must be acknowledged that Taylor’s theory radically altered the sphere of organized work. The work could now be measured and systematized. It could be expressed and evaluated in more scientific terms. A Taylor-McGregor contrast dichotomizes engineering and psychological motivation approaches. “Political theorist Sheldon Wolin turns this bisection into a battle call: ‘The modern manager…must in defense of “human values” stand ready to resist the changes proposed by the...
References: Bennis, W. & Nanus, B. 1985, Leaders: The strategies for Taking Change, Harper & Row, New York.
Chance, Patti L. and Chance, Edward W. 2002, Introduction to Educational Leadership & Organizational Behavior, Eye on Education, Inc
Mauzy, Jeff and Harryman, Richard. 2003 Creativity, Inc.: Building an Inventive Organization, Harvard Business School Press
Miner, John B. 2005 Organizational behavior, M.E. Sharpe.
Montana, Patrick J. and Charnov, Bruce H. 2000, Management, Barron’s Educational Series.
Mumford, M.D. & Doorn, J.R. 2001, ‘The leadership of pragmatism: Reconsidering Franklin in the age of charisma’, The Leadership Quarterly, 12(3), pp. 279-309.
Paglis, L.L. & Green, S.G. 2002, ‘Leadership self-efficacy and manager’s motivation for
leading change’, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 23(2), pp
Schachter, Hindy L. 1989, Frederick Taylor and the Public Administration Community: A Reevaluation, SUNY Press.
Stroh, Linda K., Northcraft, Gregory B. Neale, Ann Margaret. 2002, Organizational Behavior: A Management Challenge, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, ISBN 0805838295, 9780805838299
Thomas, K.W. 1977, Toward multi-dimensional values in teaching: The example in conflict behaviors, Academy of Management Review, 2, 487.
Vroom, V.H. & Jago, A. G. 1988, The New Leadership, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Vroom, V. & Yetton, P. 1973, Leadership and Decision-Making, University of Pittsburgh
Please join StudyMode to read the full document