Group and Organizational Behaviour - Annotated Bibliography Example

Title page: Report title: Organizational behavior in context Student name: Student id number: Subject code: Workshop time: Workshop facilitator name: Due date: INTRODUCTION In an organization there are different sub sections that when grouped together forms one system that runs efficiently as a whole business without hitches. In an organization, employees are required to work together to achieve the main objectives that it was established for, therefore there is a need for a scientifical approach that can be applied to manage the employees. The approach is known as organizational behaviour. This is the study of the way people interact within groups and is applied in an attempt to come up with more efficient business organizations. Under the Organizational behaviour, organizational behaviour in context is one of the topics that I will discuss regarding the approach that can be applied to manage workers in an organization. Three journal articles have been written regarding organizational behaviour in context namely: group and organization management; journal of organizational behavior; organizational behavior and Human decision processes. In these three articles, there are similarities, differences and reconciliation of opposing points that are featured in them. These is captured in the main body of the report. BODY Group and organizational behaviour (Griffin & Moorhead, Organizational Behaviour: managing people and organization, 2010). According to Ricky W. Griffin, organizational behaviour is the study of behavior of humans in organizational settings, of the interface between human behavior and the organization and the organization itself. According to the article, we can study individual behavior without explicitly considering the organization. But because the organization influences and it is also influenced by individuals, we cannot fully understand the individual’s behavior without learningsomething about the organization. Similar, we can study organizations without focusing explicitly on people within them. In every setting of an organization there are individuals with different human behaviors. Each individual brings to an organization a unique set of personal background and characteristics, and experiences from other organizations. A manager must look at the unique perspective each individual brings to the work setting before considering the people who work in the organization. To show how this organizational behavior aspect connect, an example of a company where the managers have noticed that the employee turnover is consistently and gradually increasing. A consultant is hired to solve the problem and help the managers understand the problem. The type of people the company hires would be a starting point for the consultant to start analyzing. The objective would be to know as much as possible about the company’s workforce nature as individuals. In a variety of ways in an organization, individuals come into contact with people. Due to functions both of personal experiences and maturityand of work experiences and organization, individuals changes too. The presence and eventual absence of the individuals affects the organization in turn. Therefore the way the organization and individuals interact must be clearly considered by the managers. The organization should have a keen look at the initial training and orientation procedures for new comers as observed by the consultant as a good remedy for better organizational behavior. The organizational behavior field is both exciting and complex as clearly seen. Myriad variables and concepts accompany the interactions just described and together these factors greatly complicate the manager’s ability to understand, manage and appreciate others in the organization. The greatest importance of organizational behavior is that it separates the aspects that are of important the manager’s job and offers specific perspectives on the side of human management: people as resources, people as people and people as organizations. To play a vital role in managerial work, clearly then one has to have an understanding of organizational behavior. Journal of organizational behaviour. (Hartnell, Ou, & Kinieki, 2011) Organizational culture topic has been examined by many articles since 1990. The reason that leads to this much research is the belief that organizational culture is an important social characteristic that influences organizational, group, and individual behaviour. There are numerous meanings and connotations about organizational culture. (Courtright, Thurgood, Stewart, & AJ, 2015) Schein defined organizational culture as the set of shared, taken for granted implicit assumptions that a group holds and that determines how it views it, think about and reacts to its various environments.(Courtright, McCormick, & Reeves, A meta-analysis of sex differences in physical ability: Revised estimates and strategies for reducing differences in selection contexts, 2013). Social psychological, sociological and anthropological discipline is where much of our knowledge about organizational culture comes from. Little attention was given on previous works to empirically investigate the organizational culture and organizational effectiveness relationship.Hence organizational culture’s theoretical boundaries is what the researchers were concerned with developing and a single- organization qualitative studies is where much of the cultures theoretical boundaries was derived from. The conceptual development that comes up from the organizational cultures is research on culture types. (Stewart, Barrick, & Courtright, 2012) Numerous culture types have been used by researchers therefore our conclusion is premature, thereby it’s challenging in making a quantitative summary and interpretation of findings. Competing values framework (CVF) as an organizing taxonomy in conducting a meta-analysis of the relationship between culture types and organizational effectives is the first goal after our conclusion. The analysis will be useful in explaining past research works because individual studies are subject to the effects of sampling error and artifacts that can lead to inaccurate conclusions.(Kalinoski & Steele-Johnson, 2013)CVF was the most preferred because it is an organizational culture taxonomy widely used in literature. an example is organizational culture that directly or indirectly assess the CVF have been administered in over 10000 organizations globally within, management, marketing, supply-chain management , accounting, social services, hospitality and health care academic disciplines.(Lai & Lam, 2015) The CVF theory infers that various culture types are most strongly associated with a specific set of effectiveness criteria. The nomological validity of CVF has not been examined to date. To examine the CVF’s underlying theoretical assumptions or internal structure is our second goal under this study. There are four ways in which this study contributes to the literature. First we meta-analytically test the association between three culture types and three indices of organizational effectiveness. Second we test the nomological validity of the CVF’s theoretical underpinnings by investigating whether the pattern of relationships between culture types and measures of organizational effectiveness are consistent with those promulgated by the CVF. Third we evaluate whether or not interrelationships among culture types are consistent with propositions derived from the CVF. As aresult, we use meta-analytic techniques to test theoretically derived hypotheses in an effort to extend knowledge about organizational culture theory as well as culture’s relationship with firm effectiveness. Fourth, we compare our findings with existing research to identify gaps in literature, consider an alternative theoretical approach to culture research, recommendations for future research are suggested. A three dimensional orthogonal solution was the best representation of effectiveness criteria relevant for organizational effectiveness and analyzed responses with multidimensional scaling. The dimensions that were underlying were referred to as focus, structure and means-ends, were proposed to represent competing core values that “represent what people value about an organizations performance(Marcus & Le, 2015). The CVF has culture types underlying it. These are the clan culture type, the adhocracy culture, the market culture and hierarchy culture. In conclusion CVF suggests that culture types consist of a combination of the organization’s focus and structure. The unique set of values, beliefs behavior they possess and assumptions that influence the organization’s attention and effort to attain distinct organizational ends. Organizational behaviour and human decision processes. (Argote & Ingram, 2011) This article is based on a framework to show why knowledge transfer can be difficult and to identify the kinds of knowledge that are most difficult to transfer to different context. Theoretical result is how organizations can derive competitive advantage by transferring knowledge internally while preventing its external transfer to competitors. Knowledge transfer from one unit to another has been found to contribute to the organizational performance of firms in both the manufacturing and service sectors. (Argote & Ingram, 2011) Knowledge transfer in organizations is the process which one unit is affected by the experience of another. Knowledge transfer in organization is always felt through changes in the performance or knowledge of the recipient units. Knowledge reservoirs is where knowledge is embedded in organizations and is used to demonstrate why knowledge transfer can be difficult and to organize the evidence on the kinds of knowledge that are more readily transferred. Competitive advantage in firms is what the articles is trying to create and have a smooth transfer. The knowledge reservoir created was to serve the purpose that the knowledge can be used again. Knowledge can be embedded in different ways that is in individual’s members of the organization, tools and technology of an organization, organization tasks and their interrelationship. Knowledge can be embedded in various networks formed by combining members, tools, and tasks. Knowledge can be transferred by moving a knowledge reservoir from one unit to another or by modifying a knowledge reservoir at a recipient site, in general terms. In conclusion in the transfer of knowledge shows both that transfer often occurs and that is often incomplete. The more a better framework is presented it provides a better understanding of the conditions under which technology occurs and under which knowledge transfer is problematic or incomplete. On the other side of the coin knowledge from one context to another can be capably adapted among people. As noted earlier, transferring tasks or technology from one site to another has been found to be more efficient and effective when accompanied by moving people because people are capable of adapting the tools and technology to the new context. Differences in the subnetworks involving people across contexts make knowledge transfer problematic.to achieve knowledge transfer the reservoirs imported from one context should be able to fit the new context. Fitting across contexts of subnetworks involving people is difficult because people vary more across contexts than tools or tasks. Some of the similarities that are depicted in these three journal articles above is that Organizational behavior is a major requirement in studying different groups in the organization be it the CEO, managers, junior managers, staffs and even the subordinate. Both the articles have the organization looked in three perspectives that is: the organization, employees, and the organization itself. The organization must first be in place then the employees are hired and the employees are the one who turn out to take the organization to great heights. However, the employees play a greater role in the organizational behavior, when the relationship between the manager and employee is good, it’s most likely to happen that the objectives of the organization will be achieved with ease. The differences that I have come across in the articles is that, the first article majored its argument on individual and group behaviors and the relationship among them in the organization. The approach is that the way a person behaves will in a big way affect the performance of individuals and theorganizationitself. The second one based its argument on the culture of individuals and the manner it affects the individuals. The social characteristic is the main influence on the groups and individuals and competing value frameworks answers the research questions that want the relationship between the culture and the behaviors of individuals and groups. The third article, bases on the knowledge transfer from one site to another through the knowledge reservoirs. Though there are challenges of transferring knowledge from one site to another it is problematic when people are involved rather than when tools and tasks are the one just transferred because people vary in context. In general terms, organizations need to observe each sub networks in order to have a smooth and well-coordinated networks. Therefore there need be to observe the relation of individuals in an organization, the manner in which the social characteristics would influence the organization that is majorly the culture. The organization should also have in place a knowledge reservoirs that they can use to transfer knowledge from one site to another without majorly affecting the organization day to day work. Therefore all the articles correlate in one way that is it requires a keen observation of the organization to monitor the behavior of individuals and social characteristics or culture that affects the organization and the transfer of knowledge from one context to another. REFERENCES Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2011). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive Advantage in Firms. Organizational behaviout and human decision processes, 150- 169 Courtright, S., McCormick, B., & Reeves, C. (2013). A meta-analysis of sex differences in physical ability: Revised estimates and strategies for reducing differences in selection contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 623-641. Courtright, S., Thurgood, G., Stewart, G., & AJ, P. (2015). Structural Interdependence in teams:An integrative framework and meta-analysis. Journal of applied psychology, 1825-1846. Griffin, R. W., & Gregory, M. (n.d.). Griffin, R. W., & Moorhead, G. (2010). Organizational Behaviour: managing people and organization. SOUTH-WESTERN CENAGAGE learning, 28. Hartnell, C. A., Ou, Y. A., & Kinieki, A. (2011). Organizational Culture and Organizational Effectives: A Meta-Analytic Investigation of the Competing Values Framework's Theoretical Suppositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 18. Kalinoski, Z., & Steele-Johnson, D. (2013). A Meta-analytic evaluation of diversity training outcomes. Journal of Organizational behavior, 30-39. Lai, J., & Lam, L. (2015). Organizational citizenship behavior in work groups:A team cultural perspective. Journal of organizational behavior, 34-40. Marcus, J., & Le, H. (2015). Interactive effects of levels of individualism-collectivism on cooperation: A meta analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 50-62. Ostroff, K. C., & M, T. (2003). Organizational Culture and Climate. Hand of psychology, 50. Stewart, G., Barrick, M., & Courtright, S. (2012). Peer-based control in self-managing teams:linking rational and normative influence with individual and group performance . Journal of Applied Psychology, 435-480. Appendix Group and organization management Journal of organizational behavior Organizational behaviour and human decision processes Read More