The primary aim and value of organizational and individual actions is to create a conducive atmosphere that takes into account all of the factors that affect group dynamics or individual employees in a specific company, so that all employees in various organizations can function more efficiently and effectively.
The analysis of individual and group success in an organization is referred to as organizational behaviour. It examines how people behave in a working environment. The impact of human behavior on communication, job structure, motivation, success, leadership, and decision-making capacity is determined by organizational style (Chun, Shin, Choi, & Kim, 2013). As such, the purpose of this assignment is to argue that the importance of organizational behavior is more about the one of the individuals working in an enterprise than the conduct of the company.
In the analysis of individual behavior level, organizational conduct involves the study of identity, discernment, innovation, inspiration, learning, agreeable conduct, degenerate behavior, assignment execution, morals, turnover, and perception. At this stage of inquiry, organizational behavior relies hugely upon engineering, psychology, plus medicine. Furthermore, at the group level of analyzing, organizational conduct includes the research on conflict and resolution among groups, group dynamics, norms, networks, leadership, interpersonal communication, power, and roles (Moore, Detert, Klebe Treviño, Baker, & Mayer, 2012). In the above level of analysis, organizational behavior relies upon socio-psychological sciences. As such, the above explanations prove that organizational conduct is less about the settings of the organization or an enterprise but more about the individual behavior of the personnel working within that organization. Therefore, the importance of organizational conduct lies in its ability to use the behavior of workers.
However, the above argument can be contradicted when it comes to the organizational level of analysis in regards to organizational behavior. Therefore, at the organizational level of analysis, organizational conduct relies heavily on the culture of the company, the organizational structure, change, technology, cultural diversity, inter-organizational cooperation, and external environmental factors (Simon, 2013). In the above case, the settings of the enterprise will affect the individual behavior of the employees. Nonetheless, if the individual conduct of the workers of a company is put into consideration, then the organizational level of analysis of an enterprise can be well managed.
Various critical patterns that include organizational behavior are involved in a lot of concentration of research works. Initially, an assortment of study ponders has analyzed points on the group level of investigation instead of only focusing on research at the individual level. An example is how the field of motivation is explored, as a task at the individual level analysts are considering the method of strengthening groups strengthening will be a way of understanding differences around association executions. Comparative research is concentrating on raising the amount of research for personality qualities plus agreeable conduct from the individual to the group level (Scott & Davis, 2015). The above discussion contributes to the argument that the importance of organizational behavior is on the individual manner more than the conduct of the organizational structure.
A supervisor who does not have the knowledge and comprehension of an enterprise cannot be a compelling supervisor. The general purpose of administration is to guide a given organization on a particular course while guaranteeing ideal results, for example, in the amount and nature of items created or the increase of benefits to be circulated among investors. Additionally, another exploration slant is a growing research involving the factor of personality in individual to group level execution. This begins at the development towards normal organization plans, an increased supervisory crisscross of control, and extra independent work outlines (OBoyle, Forsyth, Banks, & McDaniel, 2012). These elements assist in building the chunk that compacts with identity and acts as the determinant of outcomes such as helpful, stress or freak conduct, and implementation.
The explanation above concerning the research that has been conducted on personality traits and group relations tend to enhance the subject, organizational behavior. When organizational conduct is focused on the personality traits of individuals that work in the enterprises, then the workplace can be improved to facilitate a better working environment. Thus, the importance of organizational behavior, according to the studies done, should engage more in individual conduct which will bring about good working relationships among workers thereby increasing efficiency in the workplace.
More so, the importance of organizational behavior administration lies on how it uses studies of authoritative conduct as an instrument to enhance efficiency and profit within the enterprises. There are attempts to come up with a logical statute which improves the execution of employees. This drives outside the essential task and potential to grip the overall principles of human behavior in an organizational context and focusses on other precise issues like employee safety. Other issues that are addressed include evaluation and feedback systems of employee satisfaction, development of self-managed processes, programmed instructions, and computer-aided instruction, and most importantly, systems analysis in how the duties in an organization get done, measured, and assessed (DuBrin, 2013).
The argument that individual behavior plays a crucial role in determining the atmosphere of any workplace has been supported by the different research projects that have been recently conducted. For instance, identity traits that are identified with stress hardiness, flexibility, and personal initiative are likewise the focus of research. Instances of such identity attributes include a tendency towards independence, receptiveness to involvement, self-observing, and a proactive identity. Such types of behavior which are valuable and can easily be changed are also contemplated. These organizational conducts are mostly proactive in nature and act to enhance some circumstances for the enterprise, group, or an individual (Chun et al., 2013). Cases of these practices incorporate issues such as offering, taking the initiative, useful change-oriented correspondence, proactive socialization, and innovation.
To emphasize on the above argument, organizational behavior is alluded to as the investigation of the combination of singular practices inside an enterprise. The definition itself explains that authoritative conduct is an individual behavior factor. Every worker inside an organization possesses some unique individual conduct. These diverse practices are incorporated in such a way that they decide the sort of administrative behavior will exist in a particular workplace (Moore et al., 2012). If they are appropriately adjusted, it is at that point that a valid and legitimate organizational behavior is produced which leads to employees meeting the set targets by the specific enterprise.
Moreover, another reasoning that can support the argument that the importance of organizational behavior lies on the individual manner is employment protocols. An example is how an analysis of both performing and non-performing organizations shows that the companies that perform better have good organizational behavior. However, these firms conduct thorough researches on their workers before hiring them to ensure they have proper work ethics and teamwork skills. Such acts lead to a company hiring workers with outstanding individual behavior thereby leading to the existence of an effective and efficient work environment that contributes to meeting the objectives put forth by an organization.
Nevertheless, there has been a similar contention which implies that individual behavior is at times altered by organizational conduct. This contention is the possibility that this manner is a more predominant power and subsequently in a superior position. It clarifies that after joining an enterprise, workers have no choice but to work with the behavioral culture that exists in the company. As such, they build up a conduct that is by the existing organizational behavior. The conduct of the workers changes into one coordinated with that of the organization thereby creating a similar behavior (Simon, 2013).
Furthermore, people seeking to work with organizations are made aware of the existing behavior in the enterprise which the representatives know about before they go along with it. In that capacity, when they are enrolled, they are rationally arranged to adjust their conduct by the organization. It is important to mention that there is a limitation to the above argument. This is because the argument above has an assumption that organizational behavior is superior compared to individual one (Scott & Davis, 2015). To some extent, this may not be the case because an organizational behavior is as a result of individual one.
Therefore, this contributes to the initial argument that the importance of organizational behavior lies more on the individual one. From the different categories of managers employed in an organization, the above aspect is quite evident because proactive managers alter the company into adopting a proactive behavior while a reactive manager will sway the organization into embracing a similar one (DuBrin, 2013). Given that it is quite evident that individual behavior influences organizational conduct, enterprises should be careful with the personality traits of the employees they hire in their workplaces.
The various outcomes of the duties of employees in a workplace influence the relationships they have with their supervisors, which also relies on the individual behavior. Accordingly, employees who are enthusiastic about keeping challenges from emerging are excited about guaranteeing they keep up a nearby and individual association with their supervisors as it gives them work fulfillment. It is part of their citizenship conduct. They focus on their relationship with their superiors and focus on ways to look after it. This viewpoint gives them work fulfillment which is different from other workers inside their organization (Moore et al., 2012). This shows how the importance of organizational behavior in having good working relationships depends on individual one more than organizational conduct.
In regards to persons and groups, scientists are attempting to explain why individuals behave how they do. Researchers have built an assortment of models with the aim of clarifying the behavior of people in organizational structures. They study the modules that influence identity advancement such as genetics, ecological, situational, and social variables. Furthermore, analysts scrutinize different types of personality and their result on business and various firms. Among the essential instruments of organizational behavior scientists which they use in diverse ranges of research works, is the job fulfillment study. The devices are not limited to gauging work fulfillment in substantial zones such as payments, benefits, unique open opportunities, and working conditions (OBoyle et al., 2012). They also assess how individual and groups behavior designs impact corporate culture, both emphatically and adversely.
In conclusion, individual behavior is quite critical to the success of organizations and companies across the globe. As such, enterprises and organizations, in general, are always advised to ensure they watch out for declining quality and quantity of work, falling profits, negative attitude from employees and increased absenteeism. Such individual behavior can negatively influence the organizational conduct of an enterprise.
Chun, J. S., Shin, Y., Choi, J. N., & Kim, M. S. (2013). How does corporate ethics contribute to firm financial performance? The mediating role of collective organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Management, 39(4), 853-877.
DuBrin, A. J. (2013). Fundamentals of organizational behavior: An applied perspective. Elsevier.
Moore, C., Detert, J. R., Klebe Treviño, L., Baker, V. L., & Mayer, D. M. (2012). Why employees do bad things: Moral disengagement and unethical organizational behavior. Personnel Psychology, 65(1), 1-48.
O’Boyle Jr, E. H., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012). A meta-analysis of the dark triad and work behavior: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 557.
Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2015). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural and open systems perspectives. Routledge.
Simon, H. A. (2013). Administrative behavior. Simon and Schuster.