Effect of Climate Inclusion to Individual, Team, Organization Outcome - Literature review Example

Effect of climate inclusion to individual, team, organization outcome (Name) (University) Introduction To the get the best out of people, Belias and Koustelios, 2014, posits that organizations have been stressing on the need to have team work among the employees. It has been presumed to be the norm towards success of most organizations considering the competitive nature. This has not been easy for many organizations and at times end up affecting the performance of individuals in general (Oswick and Noon, 2014). Among the employees, there exist the norm of diversity; diversity is seen as the difference between individuals, it may be the difference in color, nationality, age, or sex (Guillaume et al., 2014). The prime objective for much research has been to identify the relationship between people in relation to their performance in the organization as a team and as individuals (Blommaert et al, 2012). This paper looks at how the favorable climate for diversity will affect the productivity of the individual workers, team and the organization at large. It also looks at the relationship between individuals, team, and the organization and how it affects their performance. Outcome of Climate Inclusion in the Working Environment For; Individuals As discussed by Blommaert et al, 2012, individuals in work place are different and thus their performance definitely differs from one another. From the deontological theory perspective, it can be noted that the ability of these individuals to perform their duties effectively depends on how the individuals perceive the act to be. This is because the theory shows that individuals perform actions that they believe to be moral and therefore the individuals will be, motivated to perform activities when they intent to do so (van Dijk et al, 2012). As a matter of fact, from the deontological perspective, it is possible to draw conclusions that the climate within the workplaces are created to encourage individual developments of the people through mentoring programs which are intended to focus on coaching of the individuals (van Dijk et al, 2012). Such skilled individuals are in turn essential for defending of minority groups like women. Individuals are presumed to feel included in the group when involved in decision making as they definitely end up loving the final outcome as part of their hard work; this makes them to perform better as they feel good to be identified by the success in the final outcome (Levi, 2016). This further is discussed under the utilitarian theory in which the actions of such individuals are determined to be good when the outcome of such acts has more positive consequences. For instance, the success of the organization depends on the actions of each individual and therefore the utilitarian perspective perceives the success of the organization as investing in activities that have positive consequences to the overall organization (Belias and Koustelios, 2014). As such, when the individuals in an organization have diverse views on a given aspect, the resulting conclusion from bringing such ideas together will have a positive impact on the success of the business (Kalev et al, 2006). Team performance From the novel perspective on the managing of diversity within organizations as discussed by van Dijk et al, 2012, the individuals are organized under groups that work together as teams within the society. For the team to perform well there must be cohesion between individuals and the management within the organization (Levi, 2016). Generally, there has to be diversity at various stages of organization ranging from recruitment to performance after recruitment. From the role theory perspective, it can be noted that the people in a group or a society hold specific positions with defined roles. These roles are dependent on individual traits that are shaped by the situation in which these roles exist and the positions held by the individual (Blommaert et al, 2012). Therefore, diversity in the behaviors demonstrated by these individuals is contingent on the expectations such individuals have for their own roles and those of others (Kalev et al, 2006). Thus the success of the teams or groups will be facilitated by the conceptualization of these roles from the individuals in the team. Interestingly, the recruitment of the individuals depict both implicit and explicit interethnic attitudes (Kalev et al, 2006). Consideration of the ethnic backgrounds of individuals before recruitment and interviews contribute to discrimination. This was seen in the research where one Chinese was allowed to enter 250 business enterprises out of 251. When the same businesses were reached over telephone, it was established that 91% of the individuals could not allow the Chinese into their premises. This indicated that stereotyping contributes to the change of attitudes towards a given group of people in the society (Van Knippenberg et al, 2004). From the dual attitude model, it can be noted that the individuals demonstrate different attitudes when faced with different conditions to suit the situation. For example, an individual may feign verbal friendliness as a deliberate action but at another instance demonstrate nonverbal unfriendliness towards the same person (Blommaert et al, 2012). Thus, interethnic diversity within the workplace climate will alleviate the negative attitude the individuals depict (Kalinoski et al, 2013). As a matter of fact, van Dijk et al, 2012 posits that proper communication contribute to positive understanding between the individuals in the team. Leaders communicating with subordinates to generate a two way communication system contribute to commitment of the subordinates to their roles. From the theory of planned behavior, one notices that stereotyping is most prevalent in lower management levels (Blommaert et al, 2012). This suggests that creating regular interaction system between the leaders and the subordinates will create stronger interethnic relationships which will reduce the stereotyping attitudes within the organizations (Van Knippenberg et al, 2004). Organization Creating an inclusive diversity climate in an organization involves recognition of the differences and similarities existing between individuals working in the organization (Van Knippenberg et al, 2004). For organization to prosper, there should be understanding acceptance of individual differences which in most cases leads to great productivity due to creativity of the people. Organizations should aim to take each and every individual’s views into considerations, this will make people feel part of the organization and issues of discriminations will be avoided (Blommaert et al, 2012). The great performance of organizations is seen by how it handles the issue of individual differences, how it allocates salaries to individuals. A positive diversity climate in organization has been seen to be very much effective in the general performance. Individuals feel much motivated; the motivation is automatically reflected in the general performance of the organization (Rhode & Packel 2014). There is increased employee turnover, high quality work is also seen, productivity is highly improved due to improved cooperation among the workers and there is improved innovation and creativity in the organization (Van Knippenberg et al, 2004). Market share profit improves due to cohesiveness and cooperation and as a result the organization finds it easy to achieve its intended goals and objectives. Interaction between Individual, Team and Organization in Diversity Diversity in organization considers the interaction between the personal traits and the positive impact the individual has on the overall success of the organization (Belias and Koustelios, 2014). The differences in organization may be due education level creativity, comprehension in individuals, learning and problem solving ability (Blommaert et al, 2012). Diversity is a critical aspect that affects the individual’s behavior and performance, team, and generally the entire organization. For the team to be successful, the individuals are to work together for a common goal and in most cases strive to share common ideas (Kirton & Greene 2015). In a group, there are individuals who are outstanding in the way they do their work; these kinds of individuals are supposed to work together with others to achieve the best out of the team. Lack of cooperation among individuals eventually leads to hindrances in achieving the major objectives for the organization. From the findings by American association review, it can be noted that approximately 49 percent of organizations combination of programs like mentoring, training and evaluation result in a more successful structure in the business climate (Oswick and Noon, 2014). This demonstrates that organizational responsibility positively impacts on the individuals through providing training and mentorship whereby the individuals gain more experience and skills needed in the business (Kalinoski et al, 2013). Consequently, basing on the self-categorization theory, the organizational responsibility is dependent on interaction between comparative, cognitive and normative fit which contribute to the individuals perception of the self-image. This is in the view that people strive to attain positive and distinctive view from the others and therefore will perform their roles at their best to contribute to the success of the team and consequently the organization (Moran et al, 2014). In order to establish the relationship between individuals, team and organizations, Kalev et al, 2006 points out that it is important to consider the individual’s culture, attitudes and how diversified their beliefs are when working as a team under organizations. The diversity in the beliefs and cultures for the individuals determine the composition of these aspects when these individuals work as a group of a team (van Dijk et al, 2012). For instance, homogeneity in these factors will result in competition amongst the individuals in the team. As such, the cooperation, which is equally essential is not developed. Therefore, the categorization of the group members should be focused on heterogeneity of the beliefs and cultures through interethnic inclusion. As such, organizations embracing heterogeneity will ultimately gain competitive advantage through reducing intergroup bias (Blommaert et al, 2012). Affirmative action enacted upon organizations contribute to the formulation and enforcement of policies that are to be complied to by the individuals and the groups under the organization (Kalev et al, 2006). From the research by a human resource under American Sociological Review indicated that the compliance of the individuals to the policies set up within the organizations depended on the implementation of the affirmative action. For example, the individuals in organizations will change their perception of black men when working under scrutiny and oversight as stipulated under the affirmative action (Guillaume et al, 2014). As a result, the alleviated stereotyping will lead to improved innovativeness of the individuals. The diversity in the innovativeness of different individuals in the subgroups under the organization will facilitate to creation of conducive working climate and thus allowing for creativity in resolving job related problems in the organizations (Kalinoski et al, 2013). In the same manner, the climate in the team dictates the performance by looking at things such as the safety of the individuals working in the team to create a favorable climate where the members feel secure and more involved in the day to day running of the team (Kalev et al, 2006). The positive feeling among the workers means the team will definitely be in a position to perform better. It can thus be proven that the individual’s performance is highly linked to the general performance of the team. In the organization, there are various teams which work with a common objective; the high performance of individuals will lead to better performance of the teams and a general better performance for organization (Guillaume et al., 2014). Inclusion in an organization is beneficial as people feel to be part of the organization rather than being seen as outsiders. Therefore, the productivity and participation levels will increase and this is effective to the general growth of the organization. For example, workers at a mining site will be most effective when provided with safety equipment like helmets and reliable compensation plan put in place (Blommaert et al, 2012). Conclusion Conclusively, it has been established that the climate at the workplaces impact on the individual performance which contribute to the overall performance of the organization (Kalinoski et al, 2013). This is further demonstrated through the theoretical background whereby theories such as feminism deontological and utilitarianism are interlinked to facilitate development of competitive advantage for the organization (Van Knippenberg et al, 2004). Similarly, the categorization theory demonstrates that individuals interact cooperatively when there is diversity in their culture and beliefs rather than homogeneity in these aspects. Thus, diversity in the workplace climate facilitates to the development in performance of the individuals and the organization in general (Kalev et al, 2006). References Belias, D., & Koustelios, A. (2014). Organizational culture and job satisfaction: A review. International Review of Management and Marketing,4(2), 132. Blommaert, L., van Tubergen, F., & Coenders, M. (2012). Implicit and explicit interethnic attitudes and ethnic discrimination in hiring. Social science research, 41(1), 61-73. Guillaume, Y. R., Dawson, J. F., Priola, V., Sacramento, C. A., Woods, S. A., Higson, H. E., ... & West, M. A. (2014). Managing diversity in organizations: An integrative model and agenda for future research. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(5), 783- 802. Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American sociological review, 71(4), 589-617. Kalinoski, Z. T., Steele‐Johnson, D., Peyton, E. J., Leas, K. A., Steinke, J., & Bowling, N. A. q (2013). A meta‐analytic evaluation of diversity training outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(8), 1076-1104. Kirton, G., & Greene, A. M. (2015). The dynamics of managing diversity: A critical approach. Routledge. Levi, D. (2016). Group dynamics for teams. Sage Publications. Moran, R. T., Abramson, N. R., & Moran, S. V. (2014). Managing cultural differences. Routledge. Oswick, C., & Noon, M. (2014). Discourses of diversity, equality and inclusion: trenchant formulations or transient fashions?. British Journal of Management, 25(1), 23-39. Rhode, D. L., & Packel, A. K. (2014). Diversity on corporate boards: How much difference does difference make. Del. J. Corp. L., 39, 377. van Dijk, H., van Engen, M. L., & van Knippenberg, D. (2012). Defying conventional wisdom: A meta-analytical examination of the differences between demographic and job-related diversity relationships with performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119(1), 38-53. van Dijk, H., van Engen, M., & Paauwe, J. (2012). Reframing the business case for diversity: A values and virtues perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(1), 73-84. Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: an integrative model and research agenda. Journal of applied psychology, 89(6), 1008. Read More