The Role Of Organizational Behavior In Organizations: An Essay Analysis.

For this week’s assignment, prepare an analysis of the role of organizational behavior in organizations. Be sure your paper addresses the following:

Find three scholarly articles where the researchers evaluated the role of organizational behavior in organizations. For each of these articles, provide the following:

Overview of the research method used in the study presented within the article

Compare the three articles by evaluating the similarities and differences in their findings.

Use the findings from these articles to evaluate how this can all be applied within an actual organization in alignment with the scholar-practitioner concept. How does the theory and research translate into practice?

Analysis

Organizational behavior means the study of the relationship between various organizations and people. In enterprise management, it is to study the actions of employees' work, and thus analyze the movement rules and psychological activities of employees. The dynamic behavior and psychological behavior of company employees can be divided into the following three types: individual psychological dynamics and behavior, group psychological dynamics and behavior, organizational psychological dynamics and behavior. Compared with individual psychological behavior, group psychological behavior is more important (Hill, Eckerd, Wilson & Greer, 2009). Group psychological behavior is the key to improving company performance in enterprise management. Group psychological dynamics and behaviors are mainly determined by factors such as the tasks released by the group, the characteristics of the group, the structure of the group, and the objective conditions of the group. There are different organizational behaviors. These include ethical and unethical behaviors, trust, justice, and fairness (Detert, Treviño & Sweitzer, 2008). Organizational behaviors directly affect employees. Studies that measure the links between organizational behaviors and overall performance of an organization or employees are limited. Consequently, this paper will focus on some of existing studies designed to determine the role of organizational behaviors. The paper will specifically attempt to answer a number of questions. The first question is to determine the impact of violation of trust in organization. This question is based on the fact that some organizations tend to engage in organizational behaviors of violating trust. The second question is to determine the impact of breach of psychological contract. Breach of psychological contract is an organizational behavior that is common in many organizations. The paper will be based on thesis statement that organizational behaviors influences the motivation and satisfaction of employees as well as the productivity of an organization.

Ni & Li (2017) conducted a study to evaluate the consequences of organizational behaviors on employees and organization. To achieve this goal, they sent 500 questionnaires to 47 high-tech enterprises in Shanghai. The questionnaires were designed to capture four variables. These include the employee’s unethical behavior, psychological contract breach, organizational disidentification and organizational ethical climate. All these are variables that can measure organizational behavior. From the responses, Ni & Li (2017) carried out descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients of the variables. The findings revealed that when an organization engages in psychological contract breach, it results in organizational disidentification, which, in turn result in employees’ unethical behaviors. The ultimate product of this is poor productivity and performance among employees. The findings Ni & Li (2017) are true because employees, who represent the backbone of an organization expect an organization to display organizational justice. In the employee's view, a psychological contract exists between himself and the organization, as "as a whole of beliefs in the existence of mutual obligations between himself and another party [another individual or entity such as than the company] "(Rousseau and Tijoriwala, 1998). The role of organizational justice is crucial if one is interested in the psychological contract. In fact, the individual's perception of the organization's ability to maintain a certain level of equity among employees can be fully reflected in the organization's contributions to protect the "weak" part of the contract. That is to say, the employee linked to his employer by a legal contract of subordination. The term "violation of the psychological contract" refers to the subjective experience experienced by one of the parties (most often the employee) when he / she perceives that the other party (the employer) has not correctly respected the promised obligations (Rousseau, 1989). It is therefore the way in which the individual interprets the circumstances of this non-compliance that determines the perception of the violation of the contract. Theories of controlled action and self-regulation of motivation tell us that it is the psychological contract that serves as a point of reference. reference on which the individual relies to judge the quality of the employment relationship. These theories also tells us that depending on the extent of the divergence, the individual will have either an action orientation if the divergence is small ( which will lead him to act, so to try to restore the contract) or, on the contrary, a direction towards the resignation if the divergence is strong (passive state of putting forward of the affective aspects of the violation and thus increase of the violence of the resentment and difficulty in continuing the relationship) (Fu & Deshpande, 2012).

Vantilborgh (2015) also conducted a study to determine the role of organizational behaviors such as trust fulfillment and violations.  It should be noted that there are organizations that are known for fulfilling trust and at the same time those which are known for violating trust. This must have been the force that compelled Vantilborgh (2015) to engage in the study. To achieve this Vantilborgh (2015) sampled volunteers from a diverse set of organizations in various Belgian nonprofit sectors. The study was based on the fact that when an organization fulfil the psychological contract with its employees, the employees would be satisfied and will be able to work optimally. The key organizational behaviors variables include trust, violation.  Vantilborgh (2015) concluded that violation of trust can result in deviant behaviors such as exit, considerate voice, aggressive voice and neglect. Thus, according to the type of violation (distributive, interactional or procedural injustice) and the extent of the divergence, and depending on the transactional or relational nature of the psychological contract, one can expect different reactions from the employee. Robinson (1995) thus suggested that, in the face of dissatisfaction at work, five reactions were possible: exit and voice (according to the distinction made by Hirschman, 1970), destruction (theft, aggression, vandalism, sabotage), withdrawal (absenteeism, delay, long breaks). It can be seen in the behavior of voice -oriented behavior action, which aims to maintain or raise the contract, while other behaviors are more oriented towards resignation, they drive the individual to try to support the violation either by lowering its obligations and those of the company (destruction, withdrawal and silence), or by withdrawing from the employment relationship (exit) (Grimmer & Oddy, 2007). In the case of a transactional contract, a distributive injustice will cause a voice behavior, in order to return to the original terms of the contract (Jaramillo, Mulki & Solomon, 2006). In case of failure, the employee can hide behind a behavior of destruction, withdrawal or silence, or more likely exit. In the case of a relational contract, an interactional unfairness will cause a behavior of voice, in order to revise the terms of the contract probably in a more transactional sense, since this form of contract is less subject to the violation than the relational contracts (Rousseau and McLean Parks, 1993). In the event of failure, the employee will retreat behind a behavior of exit more likely to be destruction, withdrawal or silence (Johnson & O’Leary-Kelly, 2003). On the other hand, if, whatever the nature of the contract, the violation is also accompanied by a procedural injustice, or if the divergence is very strong, the employee will not resort to a voice behavior, but rather to an exit, destruction, withdrawal or silence. From the findings of the study, it can be deduced that if an enterprise wants to improve the company's performance and motivate the efficiency of its employees' work, it is necessary to grasp the behavioral dynamics and ideological dynamics of the employees, and finally achieve the company's expected revenue goals (Guest & Conway, 2002).  Consequently, it can be deduced that by creating a good corporate atmosphere and laying a solid foundation for the development of employees and the long-term healthy development of the company, the company can develop healthily and realize enterprise management and scientific operation (Gino, Ayal & Ariely, 2009). Enterprises should fully guide the behavior of employees and transform their individual behavior into group behaviors, thus reflecting the value of employees in the enterprise.

A study by Thakur (2017) specifically explored the impact of abusive supervision. Abusive supervision is one of the organizational behaviors common in some organizations. The goal of the study was to determine the link between abusive supervision and perceived organizational support, organizational citizenship behavior and turnover intention.  The study involved 41 employees working in different organizations from the city of Mumbai. Thakur (2017) administered Abusive Supervision Questionnaire, Perceived Organizational Support Scale, Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale and Turnover Intention Scale. The findings from the study revealed that there is negative relationship between abusive behavior and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) (Ashforth, Joshi, Anand & O’Leary-Kelly, 2013). The findings also showed that abusive behaviors reduces the turnover.

Conclusion

In the fierce competitive environment of market economy, companies and leaders use organizational behavior to actively manage and guide employees, adopt innovative management models to mobilize the enthusiasm of employees, and actively engage employees (Kaptein, 2011). Deviant behaviors such as destruction may originate in the employee's perception of a violation of the psychological contract, which is related to the perception of a certain form of injustice (procedural and / or interactional, for example) ; the latter eroding, in turn, the level of trust of the employee (emotional trust in particular). Furthermore, the existence of deviant behaviors, directed this time, not towards the organization but also towards the individual, is usefully enlightened, it seems to us, by the introduction of the study of interpersonal trust, associated with the perceptions of Interactional injustice. Indeed, taking up the typology proposed by Robinson and Bennett (1997), we can explain the behavior of political deviance (spread of rumors) or of personal aggression (physical or verbal) by a decrease in the level of interpersonal trust of the employee, itself favored by a perception of interactional injustice (injustice of interpersonal treatment). It remains to specify the potential links between each of the forms (affective or calculated) and each level (towards leaders, the superior and, possibly, colleagues) of confidence with the four major types of deviant behavior (production deviance, deviance ownership, political deviance and personal aggression).

References

Ashforth, B. E., Joshi, M., Anand, V., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (2013). Extending the expanded model of organizational identification to occupations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 2426–2448

Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., & Sweitzer, V. L. (2008). Moral disengagement in ethical decision making: A study of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 374–391

Fu, W., & Deshpande, S. P. (2012). Factors impacting ethical behavior in a Chinese state-owned steel company. Journal of Business Ethics, 105, 231–237

Gino, F., Ayal, S., & Ariely, D. (2009). Contagion and differentiation in unethical behavior: The effect of one bad apple on the barrel. Psychological Science, 20, 393–398

Grimmer, M., & Oddy, M. (2007). Violation of the psychological contract: The mediating effect of relational versus transactional beliefs. Australian Journal of Management, 32(1), 153–174

Guest, D. E., & Conway, N. (2002). Communicating the psychological contract: An employer perspective. Human Resource Management Journal, 12, 22–38.

Hill, J. A., Eckerd, S., Wilson, D., & Greer, B. (2009). The effect of unethical behavior on trust in a buyer–supplier relationship: The mediating role of psychological contract violation. Journal of Operations Management, 27, 281–293

Jaramillo, F., Mulki, J. P., & Solomon, P. (2006). The role of ethical climate on salesperson’s role stress, job attitudes, turnover intention, and job performance. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 26, 271–282

Johnson, J. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (2003). The effects of psychological contract breach and organizational cynicism: Not all social exchange violations are created equal. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(5), 627–647

Kaptein, M. (2011). Understanding unethical behavior by unraveling ethical culture. Human Relations, 64, 843–869.

Ni, N., & Li, Z. (2017). Psychological Contract Breach, Organizational Disidentification, And Employees' Unethical Behavior: Organizational Ethical Climate as Moderator. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 45(9), 1409-1424. doi:10.2224/sbp.6708

Robinson, S. L., and Morrison, E. W. (2000). The development of psychological contract breach and violation: a longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 525-546.

Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks: Sage

Rousseau, D. M. and Tijoriwala, S. A. [1998]. "Assessing psychological contracts: issues, alternatives and measures". Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 679-695.

Starnes, B. (2007). An analysis of psychological contracts in volunteerism and the effect of contract breach on volunteer contributions to the organization. The International Journal of Volunteer Administration, XXIV(3), 31–41

Thakur, M. B. (2017). Abusive Supervision and Related Factors: The Indian Context. Journal Of Psychosocial Research, 12(1), 97-105.

Vantilborgh, T. (2015). Volunteers' Reactions to Psychological Contract Fulfillment in Terms of Exit, Voice, Loyalty, and Neglect Behavior. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary & Nonprofit Organizations, 26(2), 604-628. doi:10.1007/s11266-014-9441-6