The paper "How Relationship of Organizational Behaviour Could Affect the Performance of Workers" is a good example of management coursework. Organizational behaviour involves description, understanding, prediction and control of human behaviour within the environment of an organization (Bakker and Schaufeli, 2008). It involves the study of group dynamics, the relationship of individuals in groups, leadership, and the function of organizations and the implementation of change in a firm (Luthans et al. , 2005). Importance of organization behaviour Due to recent economic crisis that has rocked many firms in the world, understanding organization behaviour could alleviate the occurrence of such crisis since organization dynamics, organization culture and talent ideology had a contribution to these problems and all of them have roots in the organization behaviour.
By doing so, organization behaviour can determine the performance of a firm. Thus, the essay provides insights into the organizational behaviour and how individual and group behaviour can contribute to the success or failure of a firm (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). Significance of this topic Leaders in firm influence others in different ways. An individual is capable of influencing the behaviour of others in a firm.
Managers adopt different ways of relating to their employees and this has an impact on the performance of the firm. This essay will shed light on the impact of organizational behaviour the performance of the firm. Aim The aim of this essay is to discuss the relationship between organizational behaviour and performance of employees (Chen and Francesco, 2003). Objectives To determine the shortcomings of organizational behaviour and how to overcome such limitations; to determine the impact of organizational behaviour on performance; To determine the relationship between organizational behaviour and performance; and To determine the role played by organization behaviour in the improvement of performance. Limitations of organizational behaviour and how to overcome them Currently, organization behaviour is based on a systems approach, which has five parts: the individual, the formal organization, the informal organization, the fusion process and the physical environment.
These parts are supposed to coexist (Luthans et al. , 2005). These parts have been founded on three behavioural sciences: anthropology, sociology and psychology. Failure to understand the contribution of one of these subjects to organization behaviour can result in uncalled for organizational behaviour. For instance, failure to understand sociology may result in difficulties in managing groups and formation of teamwork.
Thus, one shortcoming of the organization is that it is based on three broad subjects, which need to be integrated in order to allow employee development, motivation, teamwork and development of organizational culture. To avoid this limitation the management needs to consult or be knowledgeable in the three subjects, which affect organization behaviour (psychology, sociology, and anthropology). Organization behaviour also entails individual behaviour, group behaviour, organization structure and organization processes (Muse et al. , 2008).
These areas have an impact on the personality and perceptions of individuals within a firm, group dynamics, attitudes and job satisfaction, politics and role of leadership, decision-making processes, job design, a chain of communication and culture f the firm and its environment. Various models have been devised to explain the behaviour of individuals within an organization (Luthans et al. , 2005). They include autocratic, custodial, supportive and collegial models. Even though these models may coexist in a firm, one of them is usually dominant. Thus, organization behaviour has a limitation of having unbalanced models of organization behaviour some of which like autocratic model could have a negative impact on the performance of the firm if it is dominant (Wright, Gardner and Moynihan, 2003).
Thus, managers within a firm need to ensure that the dominant model adopted to support the performance of a firm to avoid this limitation. Another limitation of organizational behaviour is that one member of an organization can have an impact on the behaviour of others. This implies that in case the firm recruits a new employee, the new employee could influence others either positively or negatively.
To avoid problems, which arise from the negative influence the management, need to undertake strict and thorough training of the employee. The social system, which influences organization behaviour, has no boundaries and hence the behaviour of a firm may be influenced by other firms. To avoid this, firms need to instil into their employees the values and teach them the culture of the firm. By doing so, the culture of the firm will be able to influence the behaviour of new employees to act in a specified way.
Once the employees understand the culture of the firm, they will acquire a sense of security, stability, and understanding and be able to respond to different situations appropriately (Luthans et al. , 2005). Organization behaviour also entails individualization that can involve the exertion of influence on the social system of the firm by employees. When the culture of a firm is challenged by such employees and the management becomes rigid, this can result in strikes that may influence negatively on the performance of the firm.
To avoid such limitations of organizational behaviour the management ought to balance socialization and individualization of employees in their firm. This will ensure that radical ideas by employees are discussed among employees and the management in order for a negotiated order to be arrived at.
Avey, J., Wernsing, T., and Luthans, F. 2008. Organizational Change? Impact of Psychological Capital and Emotions on Relevant Attitudes and Behaviours. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 44(1), pp. 48-70
Bakker, A., and Schaufeli, W. 2008. Positive organizational behaviour: engaged employees in flourishing organizations. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 29(2), pp. 147-154
Chen, Z., and Francesco, A. 2003. The relationship between the three components of commitment and employee performance in China. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 62(3), pp. 490-510
Coyle-Shapiro, J., Kessler, I. and Purcell, J. 2004. Exploring Organizationally Directed Citizenship Behaviour: Reciprocity or ‘It's my Job’? Journal of Management Studies, 41(1), pp. 85-106
Kim, S. 2005. Individual-Level Factors and Organizational Performance in Government Organizations. J Public Adm Res Theory, 15 (2), pp. 245-261.
Kuvaas, B. 2008. An Exploration of How the Employee–Organization Relationship Affects the Linkage Between Perception of Developmental Human Resource Practices and Employee Outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 45(1), pp. 1-25
Luthans, F., Avolio, B., Walumbwa, F., and Li, W. 2005. The Psychological Capital of Chinese Workers: Exploring the Relationship with Performance. Management and Organisation Review, 1(2), pp. 249-271
Muse, L., Harris, S., Giles, W. and Field, H. 2008. Work-life benefits and positive organizational behaviour: is there a connection? Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 29(2), pp. 171-192
Schaufeli, W, and Bakker, A. 2004. Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 25(3), pp. 293-315
Turnley, W., Bolino, M., Lester, S., and Bloodgood, J. 2003. Fulfillment on the Performance of In-Role and Organizational Citizenship Behaviours. Journal of Management, 29(2), pp. 187-206
Wright, P., Gardner, T., and Moynihan, L. 2003. The impact of HR practices on the performance of business units. Human Resource Management Journal, 13(3), pp. 21-36