ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR 1

ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR

by

Course

Professor

Institution

Date
 ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR 2

Analysis of different organisational structures

An organisational structure can be referred to as the composition and system design

applied on the interconnections and coordination among the organisation's employees, groups,

divisions and activities for the purpose of channelling authority and decision making (Ashkenas

et al, 2015, p1). An organisational structure is important because it serves as a guide for the

employees through the provision of an official reporting relationship which governs how

particular activities are carried out in an organisation. An organisation structure creates a formal

outline that enables an organisation to add a new position, remain flexible, adjust with ease to

changes in business environment and also provide a ready means for growth. Different factors

both internal and external business environment factors determine which organisational structure

best suits an organisation. A good organisational structure should put into consideration these

factors and ensure that the structure is aligned with the organisation’s objectives and the strategy

chosen to achieve those objectives. Having this in mind, an organisation can choose from a

variety of structures which include departmentalized, delegation, centralized, decentralized,

contingency, situational, managerial, line and staff authority, organic, divisional and matrix. This

paper will analyse a few of these structures especially those used by large organisations to

determine their different aspects and the impact they have on an organisation

Centralized vs decentralized

In a centralized organisational structure, the top manager makes all the important

decisions and the lower-level managers and the organisation’s employees act on their orders.

This method is most suitable for small business owners and is also often used by start-up

businesses. Although this type of structure is also common in a large organisation it cannot exist

on its own given the different aspects of the business, its size, geographical locations, knowledge
 ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR 3

requirement and ability to monitor decisions and outcomes in large businesses (Griffin R, 2013

pp.106). In such an organisation, centralization is combined with decentralization. Therefore the

concept of centralization and decentralization is relative; it is not absolute because such large

organisations can never use either of these structures without the other.

When the centralized structure is preferred in an organisation the upper-level managers

can make quick decisions to react swiftly to market dynamics. Knowledge is quickly shared

among a small group and decisions are rapidly made to adjust to a particular situation. There is

reduced conflict as the top level managers have more control and more freedom to make

decisions. In addition, the increased control makes top-level managers more open to market,

technological, organisational change and opportunities. More to this, centralization facilitates

control, accountability, commitment, and cooperation in relation to conflict resolution, job roles,

knowledge distribution and improved innovation efforts (Kalay and Lynn, 2016 pp.125-137).

Centralization also has its disadvantages which arise from its inability to engage other

stakeholders or ensure the flow of information in two ways. Consequently, there is a narrower

flow of information due to increased layers of communication. This also limits knowledge

sharing from top-bottom which limits creativity and idea sharing. The employees are less

engaged and have to seek approval from the head office before making a decision. This could

greatly affect the employees' productivity and the organisation performance in general.

In a decentralized organisational structure top-level manager delegate decision managers

to the middle-level managers who can also delegate the decision to the lower managers. In

simple terms, decisions are delegated to the managers who are closest to the action. Thriving

organisations like Nike have over the years led their way in decentralized structures. However, it
 ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR 4

should be noted that whether an organisation is centralized or decentralized is based on the

degree of a continuum between the level of decision making power at lower levels and the

location of decision-making authority. It is interesting to note that companies like though widely

portrayed as decentralized have a centralized aspect also important to its sustainability. Putting

both internal and external business environment factors and the different organisation needs,

objectives and goals, decentralization cannot work without centralization. Very few organisations

can function effectively if only a few individuals from the top management made all decisions

neither would they survive if decision making was delegated to the lowest level employees

(Griffin R, 2013, pp112). Nike and Nestle's companies are aware of this fact and both use

decentralization extensively for marketing and sales while they opt for centralization for their

production, supply chain management and logistics (Wong et al, 2014, pp.1207-1228).

Decentralization main advantage is that the top management is left to make the major and

more critical decision while smaller decisions are left to the lower levels of management. In this

case, there is a flow of communication from both top-bottom and bottom-up which makes sure

all stakeholders are involved and top-level decisions are arrived at. The employees are

empowered to actively participate in the organisation, give their views and work towards

achieving goals and objectives that they participated in creating. Decentralization is increases

flexibility to expand to different locations or to diversify in terms of production. The lower

managers and the employees have more detailed knowledge of the problems within the

organisation. Increased information flow between the lower level employees and the top level

managers enables information sharing about this knowledge and provide insight on how best to

solve the problems (Oyugi, pp.3-25). Toyota uses decentralized decision making and allows its

employees to solve problems. The company trained and equipped its employees with the right
 ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR 5

tools and guaranteed them permission to solve issues as they arose. This, in turn, increased the

companies output and yielded more desirable results compared to its other competitor companies

(Bashir, 2015 p2).

Decentralized structures are more likely to increase conflict between individuals in an

organisation. This is because different people have different ideas or actions taken do not reflect

the consensus arrived at by the majority. Managers have to relinquish control and trust other

leaders or group of individuals within the decision-making process. Moving to a decentralized

structure could be costly to an organisation as more leadership positions are required to monitor

activities in different areas. Decentralization may be difficult to achieve because managers whose

controls are reduced may likely compete for power promoting an unhealthy competition among

co-workers they used to get along with.

Whether an organisation needs to choose a decentralized or centralized structure is

dependent on a number of things affecting the business and the effects of the structure of choice

on its goal. For example, it would be unrealistic to have a centralized structure for a large

company that is located in different geographical location. On the other hand, it would be too

expensive for a small start-up company to use a decentralized system. A combination of

centralized and decentralized structure would be more preferable where the organisation can

choose different business aspects to centralize or decentralized. For example, management could

be centralized while at the same time the production or logic aspect is decentralized. It all

depends on the nature of the business, a structures advantage over its advantage in a particular

function and the ability to utilize the two structures simultaneously to improve the organisational

efficiency.
 ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR 6

Hierarchical managerial organisational structure

In a hierarchical structure, there is a direct chain of command which ensures every

employee in the organisation is subordinate to another person except for the CEO. Information

and leadership start from the top with different management levels from the top management to

the lowest management. In such a structure, the senior management makes the important

decisions which are then passed to others in the lower management levels. The subordinates or

the managers in the different level of management have defined roles tasked by the CEO to

enable execution of decisions at different levels of management. There are different managers at

each level of organisation and each manager could have other lower level managers. This allows

the use of specialist managers at different levels of the organisation.

If a hierarchy contains several layers of management it is referred to as a tall structure. In

tall structures, managers tend to monitor a smaller number of employees which makes it easier to

ensure activities are completed as required. On the other hand, where there are fewer layers of

management between workers and top-level management, the structure is referred to as a flat

structure. In this structure, the managers tend to have a large number of workers who report to

them. This makes it harder for them to monitor and supervise the employee activities. Flat

structures can provide employees with higher levels of motivation and self-actualization

(Ghiselli & Johson, 2014 pp 569-576). In flat structures, there might also be a disadvantage of

employees who need guidance especially because of role ambiguity and confusion of what is

expected of them. There is also a lower likelihood of advancement of opportunities given that

there are only a few layers of management (Alavi et al, 2014. Pp. 6273-6295). Large companies

opt for tall hierarchical structures for better control; in comparison with flat structures, it is

possible that employees enjoy more freedom, advancement opportunities, and job security.
 ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR 7

This type of structure is best suited where the organisation deals with a few products that

are sold in high quantities. This is because the structure allows a tight control of the production

processes, the design, and quality of the products and the supply chain. An example of a

company that has used this structure is IKEA a Swedish furniture manufacturer and retailer. The

company has successfully employed a flat hierarchical structure within its stores. This was done

in a bid to improve employee attitudes of job involvement and to create a sense of ownership

(Deligonul et al, 2013 pp.506-515). However given the bureaucratic nature of hierarchical

structures it is important to note that elaborate structures need to be put in place to improve

communication, rapidity of response and to handle high cost associated with multiple managers

and departments. In terms of cost, it is likely that the turnover rates of companies such as IKEA

enable it to sustain its wage bill.

Situational organisational structure

The situational structure is based on the assumption that there is no one best

organisational structure that can be used to ensure efficiency, to organize, coordinate or control

an organisation. The situational organisational structure contends that an organisation faces

different situations and a structure must be tailored to fit the different circumstances faced

(McCleskey, 2014 pp.117). In today’s business world, organisations operate in a highly unstable

environment. This means the organisation strategic plan must be flexible to allow change to

ensure business continuity. The situational organisational structure design is based on variables

of the external business environment and the external needs of the business, and variables of the

internal business environment and internal business needs (Hellriegel and Solomon, 2003 pp.59-

68).
 ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR 8

Compared to other organisational structures, situational organisational structure is more

realistic. Consider a large company that uses a tall hierarchical structure which is extremely

expensive but its return rates allow it to maximize the benefits of the hierarchical structure.

However, at some point factors like completion, globalization and government policies affects its

capabilities leading to lower profits. A tall hierarchical structure would be difficult to sustain and

the company could opt to switch to a flat structure or other cheaper structure that would fit the

organisation situation and its objective at that time. The sustainability asserts that in a stable

environment predefine mechanistic organisational structures like centralization, hierarchical and

formalization can be used to ensure consistency and efficiency. These structures are based on

certainty and ability to predict the business dynamics. Therefore, an organisation can create

policies, definer rules and create definite procedures that help in coordination activities, decision

making and problem-solving. On the contrary, unstable environments require the use of organic

structures like decentralization which is more flexible. General problem-solving techniques are

required to solve problems in an unstable environment and this requires a business to be ready to

accept structural changes to minimize damage.

As we have seen every organisational structure has its advantages and disadvantages.

Using the situational organisational structure school of thought, an organisation should make use

of structures in situations where their advantages outweigh their disadvantage and supplement

the structures with a suitable one where the situation, business function or unit demands. While

structures ensure smooth coordination in the organisation, this alone should not be a reason to

use an organisation structure. While designing a structure, the organisation should remember that

it was created for some purpose. The sole goal of an organisation is to generate profit. An

organisation structure can be a key component in achieving this goal or else could significantly
 ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR 9

influence failure in the organization. Therefore understand which structure suits the organisation,

an organisation has to understand its current position and its future aspirations. This ensures that

the organisational structure solves the current problems of the organisation and that it is aligned

with the organisations' goals and objectives. The organisation be open to changes and understand

in different circumstances their current organisational structure may not be suitable in future

Organisation culture and its impact on organisation

An organisation culture is usually defined by the prevailing ideas, values, attitudes, and

beliefs that determine the appropriate behaviour and guides the way the employees and the

management interact and handle outside business interactions (Alvesson, M., 2012 p4). An

organisation culture is made up of invisible aspects like value, attitude, assumptions and beliefs

and visible aspects such as artefacts and behaviours. The culture is often reflected in an

organisations dress code, office setup or interior architecture, employee benefits, product line,

hiring and firing practices, turnover, client treatment and satisfaction and practices in every other

aspect of operations. Culture, therefore, is found in espoused values that are championed by the

leadership of the organisations, basic assumptions which are often unconscious determinants of

attitudes, thought process or actions and observable artefacts which range from mission

statements, architecture, product, technologies and style (Tharp, 2015 pp1-4).

Organisation culture is a very powerful force in an organisation’s strategy implementation

process as it has a great influence on an organisation performance (Ahmadi et al, 2012). Culture

touches on many aspects of an organisation and this requires the management to recognize and

understand all the organisational factors that affect culture and the how they affect organisation

performance factors like employee satisfaction, strategy implementation, employee performance,

commitment, and cohesion (Buchen, 2013 pp.30-42). Culture influences how employees create

and achieve personal or professional goals and also complete tasks to achieve set goals. They are

consciously and subconsciously influenced to think, make decisions, perceive and act by the

culture of the organisation. This is important because an organisation gets things done through

their employees and the ways employees learn to handle issues, perceive, make decisions, act or

behave in the organisation will always affect their overall performance. This is important for

strategy implementation as employees are self-driven and motivated by culture to complete their

tasks assigned for the implementation processes.

A culture that gives employees a sense of ownership by considering them as an integral

part of an organisation motivates employees and improves their commitments towards the

organisation. In such a culture the employees feel that they are responsible for the growth of the

organisation. They are motivated to align their personal goals to the goals and objectives of the

organisations as they believe they can develop and achieve their set goals with the organisation.

In a positive culture, employees are more aware of how to act in a different situation and have

perceptions of response they receive. The way the management treats its employees will also

contribute to the culture and determines employee perception, action, and motivation. A good

culture is characterized by positive perceptions by both employees and customers, improved

relations between employees and management and overall productivity of an organisation.

A bad organisation culture is characterized by poor perception from employees and

clients, high turnover rate, fear, poor relations between individual employees and management,

low motivation, low enthusiasm and lack of individual development. The effectiveness of an

organisation is greatly affected in such an environment. It becomes difficult to get employees to

work cohesively or perform tasks as required. Weak organisation cultures affect the performance
 ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR 11

of an organisation both internally and externally due to low employee productivity and poor

perception by clients in the markets.

How learning affects employee’s effectiveness

Learning improves employee’s capabilities, knowledge base, skills and motivation and

serves as a major source of competitive advantage for many organisations. There is a positive

correlation between learning and improved employee performance as employees are more

exposed and better equipped to fit a particular job description. However, research shows that the

impact of learning on employee performance is dependent on what is being learned, how close

the learning is aligned to the employee performance goals, and the time delay between learning

and performance (Buchen, 2013 pp.30-32). To develop the relevant abilities, knowledge and skill

organisations must come up with effective training programs to ensure that acquired knowledge

and skills are compatible with the employee characteristics, his or her abilities, and the job

requirements (Diab and Ajlouni, 2015 p.117).

Learning not only to equip the employee with skills for their current job position but can

also be used to acquire new knowledge and skills for a future position in the organisation.

Organisations can invest in helping their employees acquire new skills to help cope with

uncertain future conditions. This improves the effectiveness of the employees through a superior

level of motivation and commitment. The employees are motivated by seeing that their

employers show interest in them and reciprocate by being more productive to attain the

organisational goals (Sung and Choi, 2014 pp.393-412). Without learning, employees cannot

develop to their full potential because they have little knowledge of their responsibility or

because they lack the capabilities to perform as expected.

How working in teams improve employee efficiency

A team is made of a group of employees working jointly for a common purpose to

achieve goals collectively by providing an excellent quality of service. The importance of

teamwork in an organisation cannot be underestimated. This is because employees working in a

team or a group feel a sense of emotional security, have improved confidence and have the

ability to not only plan together but also encourage each other in a positive manner (Duhigg,

p.20). On the other hand in organisations where there is no strong concept of working in groups,

there is low productivity which limits the effectiveness of the employees. Employees in these

organisations usually unproductive are incapable of achieving the set organisational goals is

limited.

Sometimes the required tasks in an organisation may require a broader scope of

knowledge, experience, perception or opinion. This requires that the employees work together

and share their knowledge and input their skills and experiences to help complete a certain task.

In this case, the organisation can save time and cost to complete its tasks in addition to

improving the outcomes of the tasks (Appelbaum, 2013p.120). A project in an organisation may

be divided into different parts and each part can be assigned to different teams which have

different knowledge and experience to complete the task in different project units. This

eventually translates to improve the effectiveness of the employees as they are more involved in

ensuring that they complete tasks collectively. The experience gained through working in teams

helps the employees to develop their skills and perspectives. This because through the teamwork

there is an automatic exchange of ideas, positive opinions, experience, positive feedbacks a range

of viewpoints as they interact with each other (Katzenbach and Smith 2015, pp.22-35). This
 ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR 13

process enables the employees to develop constantly and become more effective in providing

services to the organisation.

When organizing teamwork, the organisation should be aware of factors that affect the

effectiveness of teamwork and take necessary actions to deal with issues within those factors if it

wants to achieve the maximum benefits of teams. Some of the factors that affect teamwork in an

organisation include leadership and leadership structures, organisational communication,

performance appraisal, trust among members, finance, conflict resolution, and team

compatibility (Salas et al, 2012 pp.63-75). The organisation must come up with structures that

solve issues that arise pertaining to these factors. Without the correct leadership, teamwork is

likely to be inefficient. This because leadership is important to ensure communication between

the teams and the organisation team management, to request and allocate funds to teams, to

resolve conflicts and monitor how teams work. There is a lot of monitoring required to ensure

that teams focus on the required goals, lazy members are eliminated or members are compatible

according to experience and knowledge (Rapp et al, 2014 p.976). Without proper leadership

teams can be a waste of time and resources making it difficult for an organisation to maximize

the advantages of teams.

An example of how working in teamwork improves the effectiveness of employees can

be seen in a case study carried by Edith Cowan University. The university noticed that there was

improved performance when individuals worked in groups but there was a great difference in

performance between different student groups where some teams were exceptionally effective

while other failed miserably. The case study sought to determine why some teams were more

effective while others failed. The case study concluded that the effectiveness of teams was highly

influenced by a commitment to the success of team members, interdependence between

members, interpersonal skills of individuals, appropriate team composition and the commitment

to team processes. Teams that failed lacked these attributes; they lacked focus, had poor

communication, low commitment and lacked interdependent. Only a few members in the less

effective groups committed to complete the tasks which lead to poor performance attributed to

lack of cohesion (Tarricone and Luca, 2002 pp. 640-646).

An evaluation of leadership behaviour theories

Behavioural leadership theories assert that a leader is made and not born. The theories

focus on the leader’s specific leaders behaviour, their effectiveness and the impact on an

organisation. Behaviourist focus on the attributes that differentiate individuals from other

employees and the ability of these individuals to use these attributes to succeeded with

excellence. According to proponents of the theories, the best predictor of a leaders influence is

the leader’s behaviour which is a major determinant of the leadership success (Germain,

2012,pp.32-39). Behavioural leadership theories include change oriented behaviour, task-

oriented behaviour, passive leadership, and relational oriented behaviour.

Task oriented behavioural theory

In task-oriented behaviour, leaders initiate structure and use selective transactional

leadership behaviours that include task supervision, the organisation of tasks and achievement of

goals. Initiating structures include behaviours that are defined through how task roles are defined

and relationships between individual team members, coordination of tasks between team

members, supervising groups to ensure groups and individuals perform as required and creation

of standards to gauge the performance of groups (Folkman, 2010, pp2-10). Behaviour in task-

oriented theory is described by the intelligence, openness to experience, emotional stability and
 ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR 15

conscientiousness as seen in how a leader views, deals or react to a particular task (Derue et al,

2011 pp.7-52).

Task orient behaviour requires a leader to be knowledgeable about a task, show

experience when dealing with tasks, be imaginative and open-minded to come up with the best

solution to complete tasks. Emotional stability pertains to the ability of a leader to remain calm

and composed if they face a challenging task (Tomczak et al, 2007, pp.13-22). Task-oriented

behaviourist asserts that leaders are more focused on the commitment of employees. Therefore

the initiatives were taken stresses on performance standards which are then used to define with

clarity the expectations of employees. The leader uses these standards to shape the commitment

of employees, their motivation and behaviour required to perform tasks with excellence. From a

personal opinion point of view, task-oriented behaviour is effective in achieving organisational

goals through improved employee productivity (Tabernero et al, 2009 pp.1391-1404). A task-

oriented leader would ensure that the right initiatives are taken to motivate employees through

rewards, and other incentives making them more effective. Task-oriented leaders are analytical

and make logical decisions due to improved understanding of tasks how to get things done to

complete those tasks.

Relational oriented behaviour

Relationally oriented behaviour theorist asserts that while leaders are aware of the

importance of tasks they pay particular attention to the relationship between them and the

employees. They care and show great willingness to work and help employees who are working

to achieve a set objective. They are highly considerate, respectful, friendly and easily

approachable (Uhl-Bien, 2011 pp. 75-108). They are also open to ideas and input from others.
 ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR 16

These leaders understand that to achieve positive productivity they have to build a positive

environment. This environment encourages the exchange of ideas between employees,

minimizes conflict, and creates respect and positive interaction between the leader, the group and

individual group members.

The difference between relational and task-oriented behaviour is on the approach taken

by leaders to achieve organisational goals. Task-oriented behaviour focuses on the completion

and quality of goals as an important factor of organisation performance. The relational

behavioural approach focuses on the quality of the process to ensure the quality of tasks

completed. According to relational proponents, productivity and process quality is important for

the achievement of organisational goals. Leaders work to ensure that employees are fully

engaged and problems such as resentment and job dissatisfaction are kept to the minimum

(Derue et al, 2011 pp.7-52). The relational behavioural approach can complement the task orient

behavioural approach by improving interpersonal and intrapersonal skills, leader-member

exchange and promoting compatibility between individual members in groups.

Change oriented behaviour

This theory asserts that a change-oriented leader influences change within the

organisation, groups or individual employees by trying to uncover hidden potential in people

things and different situation or circumstances. A change-oriented leader communicates and

compels the vision of change. He is more like a transformational leader who values the

perspectives of employees, team and groups and challenges assumptions in order to bring

positive change (Alyusef and Zhang, 2016 pp.109-116). Change-oriented leaders can positively

transform an organisation and prepare it to deal with uncertain situations. These leaders are more
 ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR 17

open to organisational change which can help an organisation to deal with changing market

dynamics and other factors in the external business environment.

The different behavioural leadership approaches affect organisation culture differently

based on their weaknesses and strength. In a task-oriented approach, employees are likely to

understand the expectation of the organisation. This promotes their perceptions, assumptions,

and understanding of the values of the organisation. However, there is a high likelihood that this

type of leadership can result in a culture characterized by fear. This is because leaders are only

focused on the result and not the wellbeing of the employees. Consequently, employees are likely

to be dissatisfied in their jobs resulting in decreased motivation, increased turnover and poor

relationships between the employees and the leader (Fayyaz et al, 2014 pp.1-9). The negative

effects on organisational culture can, however, be minimized by creating incentives that will

motivate employees.

Change and relational oriented behaviour have a higher likelihood to create a positive

organisational culture. This is because in both approaches employees are engaged and their well-

being is taken into consideration. Relational oriented behaviour ensures that there is a good

relationship between the employee and the leader. Change-oriented behaviour ensures that issues

are detected and measures are taken to bring positive change. This creates a culture where

employees feel as if they were part of the organisation and productivity is encouraged by

ensuring the quality of the process rather than focusing on goals (House et al, 2014 pp.102-139).

This creates a culture characterized by low turnover rates, high job satisfaction, good

relationships between individual employees and leaders and high productivity.

An evaluation of theories related to work relationships and interactions

The type of relationships that a leader is able to forge with the organisation employees

plays a major role in shaping how the employees behave. Leaders should pay attention to how

different leadership styles affect relationships and make adjustment accordingly. Theories that

relate to work relationships and interactions include unitarism, scientific management theory,

human relations theory, human resource management, Marxism, labour process theory among

others (Abbot, 2012 pp.187-199). This paper will look into some of the theories to evaluate

which works best in what particular situation and the strength and weaknesses of each of the

theory.

Unitarism

Proponents of the unitarism theory assert that conflict is not an inevitable characteristic in

relations between employees and their leaders. Conflicts emerge periodically within a work

environment although it is seen as an anomaly from the expected cooperative relationship.

Unitarism theorist states that although there are conflicts, the managers and the employees share

a common interest. Therefore it is impossible for a firm to dissolve as a result of conflicts. Issues

that arise within a relationship are caused by poor recruitment, personality disorders, poor

communication and deviance from set standards (Abbott, 2012 pp.187-199). Conflicts are

inevitable in real life practice but they can be avoided or resolved. An organisation should have a

relational management team which would work to build employee relationships and deal with

conflicts that arise between the organisational leadership and the employees.

Pluralism
 ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR 19

Pluralist theorists assert that conflict is an inevitable characteristic in relations between

employees and their leaders. The theorist asserts that the organisation is multifaceted and is

usually consist of many different groups, tasks and operations which mean that there are many

different interests within the organisation. The employees and the management of an organisation

are two different groups that might have different interests. For example, the management may

push the employees to work harder but the employees may feel that the wages they are paid do

not cover for the tasks they perform. This becomes a source of conflict as employees demand for

higher pay but the organisation is not in a position to increase their salaries. Conflicts, therefore,

will always exist over the allocation of work task or demands for a particular task and the

allocation of rewards to employees. Pluralist acknowledges that workplace conflict is inevitable

but it is healthy and necessary as it brings out the grievances at work. Consequently, leaders can

come up with innovative ways to deal with these conflicts and improve relationships and

interactions with their employees. Conflicts are necessary especially in situations where the

leadership is authoritarian or where the leadership style does not accommodate the needs or well-

being of the employees. In such situations, employees can take charge and demand changes

through boycotts, go-slows or trade unions.

Marxist perspective

Marx view employee relationship from a social perspective. He argues that capitalist

societies are characterized by perpetual class struggle. Political and economic systems create a

false consciousness among workers to coerce them to accept the status quo. However, Marx

argued that the political and economic social systems were incapable of maintaining and

controlling inconsistencies in capitalist societies. Workers in such societies are impoverished and

dissatisfied and with time they begin to recognize class interest. Eventually, employees protest
 ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR 20

against the exploitation and demands for better treatment. Applying this theory to employee

relationships conflicts within an organisation is viewed as something that occurs naturaly due to

capitalism and the fight to end the inequalities created by capitalism over time.

Benefits and issues with involving employees in the organisation making decisions

Decisions made by organisations can greatly affect its workers effectiveness and can be

reflected in their workers performance and productivity of the company. Engaging the employees

when making decisions will strengthen the relationships between employees and their managers.

It also increases commitment to complete tasks with a sense of responsibility. In cultures that

emphasize on collective participation, the entire team is held responsible for the actions of

individual members within the groups (Tomczak, et al 2013 pp.13-22).

Involving employees in decision making has four positive corresponding outcomes.

These include improvement of quality, improved commitment, improved morale and better trust

(Ahmadi et al 2012 p.4). In this case, there is an improved flow of information and clarity of

tasks and goals. This makes the employees more productive in that they are more aware of what

is expected of them and are able to make more qualitative decisions. Employees are more

committed because there is more acceptance of the decisions made and ownership of ideas

because they were involved in decision making. Involving employees in decision making also

supports participative approach and creates a culture of learning over time through behavioral

practice. It increases the employee's morale, raises the job satisfaction rates and improves their

productivity. Employees get the opportunity to provide ideas which help in making a better

decision in the organisation. Different ideas are incorporated leading to improvement in

organisational flexibility, productivity, and product quality. It contributes to improved trust and a
 ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR 21

sense of self-actualization (Thomson and Kahnweiler, 2013 pp.271-288). However, to maximize

the benefits of employee involvement in decision making, the interests of the employees have to

be aligned with the interest of the organisation.

Employee involvement in decision making can be beneficial for the organisation but at

the same time, there are several issues regarding employee participation which could make it a

detrimental factor to the organisation. These issues arise from the fact that employees interest

may differ from the overall interest of the organisation. Employees may not have the desire to

achieve goals within the organisation or might have other interest that satisfies their interests

outside the organisation (Appelbaum, 2013, pp.120). This means that employees are not

interested in investing in the overall success of the organisation. As a result, their low

commitment could lead to poor ideas and low quality of decisions made. In the early stages of

decision making, employees get exposed to a lot of information. The information that is shared

could be critical at later stages. This makes it a security risk because employees with self-interest

may leak this information to competitors. Another disadvantage is that involving many people

could be time-consuming which makes it difficult for an organisation to react and adjust in time

to dynamic business environments (Spreitzer and Mishra, 2014 pp.155-187) and. Lastly, there is

the issue of cohesion and conflicts of interests between the management and the employees. In

this case, employees may unite against change or against the management resulting in low

productivity and rigidity.

Considering the benefits and issues above organisations can come up with a favourable

position and ways to deal with the harmful effects of employee participation. In a perfect

organisation, employee participation in decision making can facilitate the adoption of better

choices to build creativity, innovation and boost production. Participative decision making
 ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR 22

creates a positive organisational culture and an environment that promotes just procedures,

associations and relationships between the employees and the leadership of the organisation. For

an organisation to maximize the benefits of participative decision making it has to create

structures to resolve issues or have a culture that looks into the wellbeing of the employees,

motivates them and hooks them to align their interests with the interest of the organisation.

Different ways to motivate employees

There are different theories that explain motivation and models that organisations can use

to motivate their employees. Organisations can apply these theories and come up with the right

incentives to motivate their employees. This paper will discuss Maslow’s theory of needs,

Herzberg’s two-factor theory and theory X and Y to identify different ways to motivate

employees.

Maslow’s theory can be used to inform how managers motivate their employees through

an understanding of the hierarchy of needs to determine the factors that motivate or demotivate

employees. The managers can use this to create structures or come up with incentives that

promote self-actualization, esteem, affiliation, security, and psychological well-being. To

motivate employees with self-actualization in mind, managers can come up with incentives like

encouraging competition between members in groups for bonuses, rewards and promotions

(Burton, 2012 pp. 232-234). This allows employees to feel achievement to a relatively higher

degree compared to others. Managers can also travel with employees to show them their worth or

also create elaborate communication systems that improve the confidence and value the

participation of workers. Motivation with the self-esteem needs in mind would require the

manager to treat their employees fairly and consistently. This would require that the manager
 ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR 23

avoids demotivating industrious employee by ensuring efforts are recognized using an elaborate

process.

Herzberg's two-factor theory can also be an important factor in informing how managers

motivate their employees. Herzberg's theory is based on motivators that are related to the job

itself and hygiene factor related to the work environment (Dartey-Baah, and Amoako, 2011 pp.1-

8). Understanding the theory can help managers understand factors that cause job dissatisfaction

and improve motivation through incentives that promote job satisfaction. Different ways that

managers can motivate employee using knowledge from this theory includes the provision of job

security, provision of opportunities for achievement, creating and supporting the culture of

respect, making sure that the wages or salaries are competitive, rewarding employees and match

jobs with skills and abilities.

Motivation incentives can also be designed using McGregor's theory x and y. Theory x

asserts that it is natural for individuals hate work and individuals will do anything to avoid

working. There is a lack of ambition, resistance to change and individuals are self-centred.

Theory Y is the opposite and its proponent believe that individuals can find joy in work and that

those individuals show a sense of self-actualization, individuals show commitment and most

people can handle responsibility (Uzonna, 2013 pp.199-211). Motivational incentives that can be

created from the perspective of theory x and y may include performance appraisals to get

employees to participate in setting objectives, creating participative management to create a

sense of ownership among employees and decentralizing control to reach out to more

individuals.
 ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR 24

In conclusion, based on the different motivation theories and different motivation

incentives they propose conclusion can be made that motivation is either intrinsic or extrinsic.

Intrinsic motivation is dependent on the employee and arises from self-generated factors that

influence how an employee behaves. Extrinsic motivation is factors that are caused by the

organisation environment (Dysvik and Kuvaas, 2013pp.412-430). They can be referred to as

factors that are done to individuals to motivate them. Consequently, organisations have to

understand these factors and create motivational incentives that positively affect both the

intrinsic and extrinsic factors. A good example of how this has been applied is Southwest

Airlines. The airline has identified seven elements for employee’s motivation. The values come

from the employee’s intrinsic factors as well as from the organisation intrinsic factors. The seven

elements include putting the employees fast, transparency, reward, and recognition, organisation

mission, distributed leadership and performance management. The company views these

elements as essential for understanding the employees and the organisation environment. This, in

turn, helps the organisation to ensure that the work environment is a motivational factor by itself

and employees are motivated as well. The organisation values the motivation of its employees

and creates a benchmark for other organisation that wants to keep a highly motivated and

productive workforce (Burton, 2012, pp.232-234).

References

Abbott, K., 2006. A review of employment relations theories and their application. Problems and
Perspectives in Management, 1(2006), pp.187-199.

Ahmadi, A., Ali, S., Salamzadeh, Y., Daraei, M. and Akbari, J., 2012. Relationship between

Organisational Culture and Strategy Implementation: Typologies and

Dimensions. Global Business & Management Research, pp.4.

Alyusef, M.I.G. and Zhang, P., 2016. The Impact Of Change-Oriented Leadership On Voice

Behavior And Intent To Quit With Employee Personality As Moderator And Perceived

Issue Threat As Mediator. European Scientific Journal, ESJ, 12(2).pp.109-116

Appelbaum, E., 2013. The impact of new forms of work organisation on workers. Work and

Employment in the High Performance Workplace, 120.

Ashkenas, R., Ulrich, D., Jick, T. and Kerr, S., 2015. The boundaryless organisation: Breaking

the chains of organisational structure. John Wiley & Sons. Pp 1

Ashkenas, R., Ulrich, D., Jick, T. and Kerr, S., 2015. The boundaryless organisation: Breaking

the chains of organisational structure. John Wiley & Sons.

Buchen, I.H., 2013. Aligning performance evaluation with professional development and vice

versa. Performance Improvement, 42(4), pp.30-32.

Burton, K., 2012. A study of motivation: How to get your employees moving.Management, 3(2),

pp.232-234.
 ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR 26

Dartey-Baah, K. and Amoako, G.K., 2011. Application of Frederick Herzberg’s Two-Factor

theory in assessing and understanding employee motivation at work: a Ghanaian

Perspective. European Journal of Business and Management, 3(9), pp.1-8.

Derue, D.S., Nahrgang, J.D., Wellman, N.E.D. and Humphrey, S.E., 2011. Trait and behavioral

theories of leadership: An integration and meta‐analytic test of their relative

validity. Personnel psychology, 64(1), pp.7-52

Diab, S.M. and Ajlouni, M.T., 2015. The influence of training on employee’s performance,

organisational commitment, and quality of medical services at Jordanian private

hospitals. International Journal of Business and Management, 10(2), p.117..

Duhigg, C., 2016. What Google learned from its quest to build the perfect team. The New York

Times Magazine, 26, p.20

Dysvik, A. and Kuvaas, B., 2013. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation as predictors of work effort:

The moderating role of achievement goals. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52(3),

pp.412-430.

Fayyaz, H., Naheed, R. and Hasan, A., 2014. Effect of task oriented and relational leadership

style on employee performance; moderating impact of communicator

competence. Journal of Marketing and Consumer Research-An Open Access

International Journal, 3, pp.1-9.

Folkman, J., 2010. Top 9 leadership behaviors that drive employee commitment. Retrieved on

May, 1, pp.2-10.
 ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR 27

Germain, M.L., 2012. Traits and skills theories as the nexus between leadership and expertise:

Reality or fallacy?. Performance Improvement, 51(5), pp.32-39.

Griffin, R.W., 2013. Fundamentals of management. Cengage Learning.pp.106-112

House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. eds., 2014. Culture,

leadership, and organisations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Pp.102-139

Kalay, F. and Lynn, G.S., 2016. the impact of organisational structure on management

innovation: an empirical research in turkey. Journal of Business Economics and

Finance, 5(1), pp.125-137.

Katzenbach, J.R. and Smith, D.K., 2015. The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance

organisation. Harvard Business Review Press. Pp.22-35

Rapp, T.L., Bachrach, D.G., Rapp, A.A. and Mullins, R., 2014. The role of team goal monitoring

in the curvilinear relationship between team efficacy and team performance. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 99(5), p.976.

Salas, E., Prince, C., Baker, D.P. and Shrestha, L., 2017. Situation awareness in team

performance: Implications for measurement and training. In Situational Awareness pp.

63-76.

Spreitzer, G.M. and Mishra, A.K., 2014. Giving up control without losing control: Trust and its

substitutes’ effects on managers’ involving employees in decision making. Group &

Organisation Management, 24(2), pp.155-187.

Sung, S.Y. and Choi, J.N., 2014. Do organisations spend wisely on employees? Effects of

training and development investments on learning and innovation in

organisations. Journal of organisational behavior, 35(3), pp.393-412.

Tabernero, C., Chambel, M.J., Curral, L. and Arana, J.M., 2009. The role of task-oriented versus

relationship-oriented leadership on normative contract and group performance. Social

Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 37(10), pp.1391-1404.

Tarricone, P. and Luca, J., 2002. Successful teamwork: A case study.pp.640-646.

Tharp, B.M., 2015. Four organisational culture types. Hawort Organisational Culture White

Paper. pp1-4

Thompson, M.A. and Kahnweiler, W.M., 2002. An exploratory investigation of learning culture

theory and employee participation in decision making. Human Resource Development

Quarterly, 13(3), pp.271-288.

Tomczak, T., Reinecke, S. and Mühlmeier, S., 2013. The Task-Oriented Approach A Contribution

to Marketing Theory Concerning the Development of the Resource-Based View. Pp13-22

Uhl-Bien, M., 2011. Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership

and organizing. In Leadership, gender, and organisation (pp. 75-108)

Uzonna, U.R., 2013. Impact of motivation on employees performance: A case study of

CreditWest Bank Cyprus. Journal of Economics and International Finance, 5(5), pp.199-

211.
 ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR 29

Wong, E.M., Ormiston, M.E. and Tetlock, P.E., 2014. The effects of top management team

integrative complexity and decentralized decision making on corporate social

performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), pp.1207-1228.

Bashir, S., 2015. Impact of Decentralized Decision Making on Firm’s Performance. Arabian J

Bus Manag Review, 5(135), p.2.

Oyugi, W.O., 2013. Decentralization for good governance and development: concepts and

issues. Regional Development Dialogue, 21(1), pp.3-25.

Ghiselli, E.E. and Johnson, D.A., 2014. Need satisfaction, managerial success, and organisational

structure. Personnel Psychology, 23(4), pp.569-576.

Alavi, S., Abd. Wahab, D., Muhamad, N. and Arbab Shirani, B., 2014. Organic structure and

organisational learning as the main antecedents of workforce agility. International

Journal of Production Research, 52(21), pp.6273-6295.

Deligonul, S., Elg, U., Cavusgil, E. and Ghauri, P.N., 2013. Developing strategic supplier

networks: An institutional perspective. Journal of Business Research, 66(4), pp.506-515.

Hellriegel, D. and Slocum Jr, J.W., 2003. Organisational design: A contingency approach: A

model for organic management design. Business Horizons, 16(2), pp.59-68.

McCleskey, J.A., 2014. Situational, transformational, and transactional leadership and leadership

development. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 5(4), p.117.