The Fundamental Focus of Organizational Behavior
The fundamental focus of organizational behavior is how structures, groups, and individuals affect behaviors inside the company. We examine how individuals behave in organizations as we analyze organizational behavior. Given that it is difficult to forecast human behavior, it is therefore a dynamic field. However, it is possible to comprehend how people respond in various contexts using frameworks from behavioral science. We can better comprehend how people act and, consequently, respond to them by knowing the ideas of organizational behavior. It has been fascinating for me to learn organizational behavior theory. Not only has it helped me understand my own attitudes and behaviors, but also of those around me. In addition, through organizational behavior theories, I have come to understand better the changes that happen in the corporate world particularly on how firms strive to motivate employees for achievement of goals. In this paper, I am reflecting on how organizational behavior theories have shaped my skills and knowledge in the way I interact and work with others. Therefore, I reflect on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, goal-setting theory, and Two Factor Theory by Herzberg.
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs
One of the biggest contributors to the field of organizational behavior is Abraham Maslow. Through his Needs Hierarchy Theory, how people behave in organizations can be understood. Although the theory was advanced in 1943, it is still very much relevant in today's organizational setting. According to Jerome (2013), the theory is still relevant particularly in regards to motivation and can play an immense role in helping managers lead their employees better. Maslow's theory categorizes needs into various levels.
The first level, according to the theory, is physiological needs. Jerome (2013) notes that the needs under this category are biological and is made up of the need for food, oxygen, constant body temperature, and water. It is important to note that these are basic and strongest needs and are thus necessary for one to survive (Gambrel & Cianci, 2003). Therefore, if one is denied all possible needs, in order for that person to derive satisfaction, these physiological needs would have to be met first. I agree with these assertions, and I think these are basic needs, and one cannot function without them. In the context of an organization, I think for the satisfaction of employees, these are the needs that have to be met first. However, I think that in most cases, these needs are already met. Personally, my physiological needs are met because I can breathe, I have water and food, and my body temperature is fairly constant. Therefore, I think that in the organizational context, the management cannot meet these needs since they are already covered.
The level that follows from the theory is safety needs. These needs become necessary to be met only after one's behaviors and thoughts are no longer controlled by physiological needs described above (Oleson, 2004). This level describes the needs for the emotional and physical environment (Benson & Dundis., 2003). I agree fully with the notion advanced by the theory that these needs have to be met after the basic ones are met. I think safety in the context of the organization means safe working environment, benefits, and fair work practices. I, therefore, think that managers ought to ensure that these needs of employees are met so that they are able to move to next level. These needs have already been met to a great extent in my life.
The next level relates to the need for belongingness, affection, and love. The needs in this level emerge after those in the first two levels have been met. According to the theory, human beings seek to rise above the feelings of alienation and alienation (Sadri & Bowen, 2011). As such, we tend to give and receive affection and love. Personally, I am in need of the sense of belonging, affection, and love and I get them from my family.
The needs for esteem form the next level, and I think it is the one I relate to the most. According to Jerome (2013), the needs at this level involve the esteem received from others as well self-esteem. In this case, one requires some self-respect from others in order to feel valuable and confident. I feel I relate the most to this part of the theory. I am at a point where I need to be respected by colleagues and friends. I also need to be given valuable job assignments. Therefore, I think this organizational behavior theory relates to a great extent to my life.
At the final level, we have the needs for self-actualization, and we seek to satisfy them after all other needs in the lower levels have been met. If one lacks self-esteem, is not loved, is unsafe, and hungry, the management can easily figure out what to do in order to satisfy his or her needs. However, in the case of the need for self-actualization, Jerome (2013) points out that it is hard to figure out what can be done in order satisfy a person. I am in total agreement with this notion, and I think once an organization satisfies the needs of employees in other levels, they find it hard what to do in order to motivate those seeking self-actualization.
Understanding this theory is particularly important for HR managers as they need to know how to motivate employees for better productivity. Satisfying the needs of employees as stipulated by the theory can be instrumental towards improving their productivity as well as that of the organization.
Goal Setting Theory
This theory plays a big role in helping us understand the work behavior of people. In addition, we get to know why human beings strive and achieve their goals (Locke & Latham, 2002). I think it is one of the most practical ones in the discipline of organizational behavior. In fact, according to Miner (2003), the theory has been ranked as the most important one among organizational behavior theories. The four key components of the theory include the development of challenging goals, the creation of specific goals, the setting of participation objectives, and knowledge of results of previous goals.
The setting of challenging goals is essential in the theory. This plays a significant role in improving the productivity levels of employees (Erez & Judge, 2001). This is where I am in total agreement with the theory. Setting of stretch goals can help us work harder, not only in the context of the organization but also in other facets of life. In my life, if I want to achieve something, I set my goals above the par I want to achieve. Therefore, when the organization set hard goals for challenging goals for its employees, their productivity can greatly be increased.
It is also important that the goals set be specific. One needs to know exactly what he or she seeks to achieve. In this case, enumeration or quantification of the goals set is critical. Attaching numerical figures to goals can aid in its achievement (King, 2003).
Participation is also an important ingredient in trying to boost the productivity of employees. When employees get involved in the decision making of the firm, they feel as part and parcel of the organization and thus can work better towards the achievement of its goals (Bhatti & Qureshi., 2007). In my group assignments, when the leader allows every member to contribute right from the first meeting, you find that more is achieved.
Another key factor is feedback. When employees know the results of their previous objectives, they get to work harder in order to improve (King, 2003). We all need to know our performance in order to determine whether we are getting better or not. It is thus my opinion that the goal theory is relevant in today's organizational setting and can be used to boost performance. Microsoft is one of the firms using this theory in order to boost employee productivity (Shaw, 2004).
Two Factor Theory
This is another theory that has shaped my skills and knowledge in the way I understand and interact with other people. The author divided job factors into two classifications; hygiene and motivational ones. According to the theory, although hygiene factors do not lead to long-term satisfaction, their absence causes dissatisfaction. These hygiene factors revolve around working conditions, fringe benefits, employee status, job security, policies of the organization, salaries, and interpersonal relationships (Lundberg et al., 2009). It is first important that these basic factors are fulfilled first before the organization focuses on motivating employees. As such, these factors are essential to prevent dissatisfaction.
The second classification of Hertzberg theory is the motivational factors. From the theory, the hygiene factors described above cannot act as motivators. Therefore, they cannot be used to encourage employees to perform better. Instead, motivational factors such as responsibility, work meaningfulness, promotion and career growth opportunities, and recognition play a role in improving employees' performance. This theory can be linked to Maslow's hierarchy needs theory in that hygiene factors are found on lower levels while motivators are on higher levels. This theory can be applied in the case of higher education institutions that have to strive to satisfy the needs of students admitted. In order to keep retention high, it is essential that the institutions keep us satisfied through valuing our long-term interests other than focusing on the basic 'hygiene' factors only.
Conclusion
Learning the concepts of organizational behavior is interesting because you get to experience them in real life. The theories of organizational behavior, in particular, help us understand various phenomena happening at the workplace. Through understanding these theories, managers in organizations can find ways to motivate employees for better performance. Through Maslow's Need Theory, for example, when the manager knows the level in which an employee belongs in, he or she can easily determine what to do in order to get that person motivated thereby increasing the productivity of the organization. Goal Setting and Two Factor Theory are also useful in improving our understanding behavior of people at the workplace as demonstrated in this paper.
References
Benson, S.G. & Dundis., S.P., 2003. Understanding and motivating health care employees: integrating Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, training and technology. Journal of nursing management, 11(5), pp.315-20.
Bhatti, K.K. & Qureshi., T.M., 2007. Impact of employee participation on job satisfaction, employee commitment and employee productivity. International Review of Business Research Papers, 3(2), pp.54-68.
Erez, A. & Judge, T.A., 2001. Relationship of core self-evaluations to goal setting, motivation, and performance. Journal of applied psychology, 18(6).
Gambrel, P.A. & Cianci, a.R., 2003. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: Does it apply in a collectivist culture. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 8(2).
Jerome, N., 2013. Application of the Maslow’s hierarchy of need theory; impacts and implications on organizational culture, human resource and employee’s performance. International Journal of Business and Management Invention , 2(3), pp.39-45.
King, K.M., 2003. The Relationship between Participation in Goal Setting, Company Size and Performance, Commitment, Acceptance and Job Satisfaction in the United States and Macedonia.
Locke, E.A. & Latham., G.P., 2002. Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American psychologist, 57(9).
Lundberg, C., Gudmundson, A. & Andersson, T.D., 2009. Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory of work motivation tested empirically on seasonal workers in hospitality and tourism. Tourism management, 30(6), pp.890-99.
Miner, J.B., 2003. The rated importance, scientific validity, and practical usefulness of organizational behavior theories. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2, pp.250-68.
Oleson, M., 2004. Exploring the relationship between money attitudes and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 28(1), pp.83-92.
Sadri, G. & Bowen, C.R., 2011. Meeting employee requirements: Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is still a reliable guide to motivating staff. Industrial engineer , 43(10), pp.44-49.
Shaw, K.N., 2004. Changing the goal-setting process at Microsoft. The Academy of Management Executive, 18(4), pp.139-42.
