Introduction
Organisational group behaviour comprises of a wide array of topics ranging from sociology, psychology, management, to communication among others. All these elementary principles are critical to the formation of an effective group. This area is a dynamic concept that has received a lot of attention because the various theories regarding organisational group behaviour are somewhat novel in their application in this context.
As such, the theories have existed for quite a long time, for instance, the vital quality of communication as an icebreaker in any relationship, but their specific application to an organisational context requires further expertise.
Numerous theorists have attempted to piece together what necessary elements are requisite in achieving this desirable intricate balance, and most of these theorists have ended up writing books that are too complex for lay managers and group leaders.
Subsequently, readers and authors alike are in the quest for a simplistic explanation of what comprises organisational behaviour, as well as analogous case studies and real-life examples of how to apply this knowledge.
Based on this background, this paper seeks to use the publications of two “more comprehendible” authors, Ian Brooks’ “Organisational Behaviour: Individuals, Groups and Organisation” (13 Nov 2008) and John Hunt’s “Managing People at Work: A Manager’s Guide to Behaviour in Organisations” (1 Apr 1992), to provide a better understanding of organisational group behaviour concepts and theory.
Structural context
There are several possible entry views to organisational group behaviour. One such view bases its arguments on the time factor and classifies its discourse within the modern, symbolic, and postmodern view. This view is a very general theory as the finer elements as motivation and communication are lost in the attempt to categorise organisational behaviour into periods.
Conversely, another view subdivides its discourse into a bi-pronged format comprising of macro and micro organisational behaviour.
Under this view, micro-organisational group behaviour focuses on the dynamics of relations between individuals in groups within a particular organisation, whereas macro organisational behaviour focuses on the wider perspective of inter-organisational and inter-industrial relationships of organisational groups.
It follows that this dimension is the preferable view within the context of this paper because the second dimension, (macro) builds on the theories observed with the first (micro) as they are similar but applied on a wider scale.
As such, looking at the macro level simply expounds the initial theories while introducing minimal additional information that becomes significant at the macro level. Both Brooks and Hunt use this perspective in their textbooks, and this aspect assists the reader in further understanding the concepts they are building.
Principle-agent problem and the Incentive Theory (motivation)
This theory is a cocktail of both human resource and management theory and is expounded by both Brooks and Hunt. Conventionally, the incentive theory is one among the variety of motivation theories such as Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs, equity, and the attributive theory. It posits that human beings need some form of incentive that arouses their desire to achieve a certain envisioned goal.
Brooks opines that the motivational force ought to direct the subjects and maintain their concentration upon the attaining of the goal, otherwise the force would be ineffective and the goal would remain elusive. Hunt builds on this opinion by referring to the misguided notion of monetary gain as an incentive.
He asserts that money alone cannot maintain an individual’s focus on achieving some goal; moreover, he observes that other extrinsic factors such as the work environment and labour gratification are key players in maintaining motivation. However, a study conducted by Fehr and Gotte (2007) indicates that monetary rewards are the major driving forces of improved performance.
In this context, Brooks fails to categorise work places and appreciate the fact that in some organisations especially in developing countries, workers would rather work under abusive conditions than to lose their only source of income, something that Fehr and Gotte highlight clearly in their study.
Laffont and Martimort (20012) also note that monetary rewards remain at the top in the hierarchy of employee motivation. In today’s capitalistic market place the majority of workers just want to have money, lots of it and thus money remains a key motivation element.
Industrial Revolution
Brooks and Hunt discuss this concept although in different dimensions. The industrial revolution is responsible for the diversification of labour and the labour market. It follows that individual group members have possibly invested in human capital to attain proficiency in a variety of tasks.
Consequently, organisational groups are often infiltrated with diverse individuals with just as diverse skills; therefore, organisations in need of those skills find themselves at a risk of losing priceless talent and profits if they are incapable of managing the organisation’s staff as per the optimal standards.
Brooks states that, on-the-job trainers invest millions each year to internal educational programs meant to qualify employees and employers to the specific or customised needs of various task forces. However, he adds, such investment can easily turn into loss statements if the firm does not set its house in order in terms of the other elements necessary to retain group satisfaction.
He suggests that organisational group behaviour in the 21st century has since shifted from the scientific approach theory that only required leaders to identify the objectives then appoint customised members to fulfil their respective related obligations.
Instead, it has shifted in line with human relations approach, which was a result of the Hawthorne studies that determined the significance of group norms on human behaviour and work output.
Beyond that, the decision making approach that alludes to principles of opportunity cost comes into play and asserts that for optimal results, group members should be in a position to sacrifice decisions that would not yield optimal conditions for goal achievement when making goal-oriented decisions.
He further states that for such a decision to be made, loyalty to the group is necessary, and that there exists several ways of earning such loyalty including achieving group-member buy-in, which refers to feelings of ownership in the desired objectives that group members are required to achieve. There are several possible ways of accomplishing this starting with involving members in decision and strategy design.
Building a comprehensive group culture that the members identify with, as a constant during turbulent times, also helps along the turbulent journey to achieving loyalty in a group.
Additionally, it is important to ensure that in appointing duties, the process is equitable and uniform in order to avoid social loafing, which refers to the tendency of some group members taking a spectator approach leaving the majority of the tasks to more competent members.
In an attempt to counter this element, Hunt holds that there should be specification of tasks for each group member, to ensure that every group produces results necessary for the comprehensive conclusion of the task. He also suggests that members should be motivated so that they do not feel dispensable and this aspect requires the delegation of equally challenging tasks, which require effort and cooperation to achieve.
Hunt introduces the Neo-Human’s relations school concept that is fit for the modern organisational group due to its allegiance to various famous theories, especially Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. As such, members will work optimally if all five levels of human needs, viz. psychological, love, safety, esteem, and self-actualisation are met.
He adds that the self-transcendence tier that Maslow added to his hierarchy near death also requires attention, as in his opinion, this tier underscores the inexorable force behind the success of philanthropic successes.
Additionally, he suggests theory Y dimensions of management by asserting that members inherently act responsibly while on a task and that the role of leadership is to ensure that they achieve their individual goals through working on the organisation’s objectives.
Hunt favours theory Y and states that it carries the mark of true leadership in any organisation to get the employees to work as if they were building their own personal business, while working for the organisation. This concept builds on Brooks’ buy-in concept.
Nevertheless, Bobic and Davis (2003) note that theory Y has many inherent weaknesses, which underscore why many firms have failed miserably in the contemporary market place; therefore, they insist that theory X would work best for these firms.
Stewart (2010) echoes these sentiments and states that while theory Y might underscore one of the best management techniques, it is not applicable across board and thus it might score poorly in some cases.
Communication
Communication is a vital element of any group’s dynamics and it comes into play when any task is to be executed. Communication in a group can be categorised into two basic faucets. First, there is the leader-member communication that transcends the vertical structure of the group and is made manifest in case a new task is to be achieved.
Groups should set up forums for discussing new responsibilities among members including the best implementation technique, and when there is participation at this initial stage of decision-making, the transition into the new policy becomes smoother.
Secondly, the significance of confidentiality of shared communication cannot be overemphasised. The concept of assessment results is a sensitive issue especially if it is internal and members are required to evaluate each other. Assessors should be sensitive to malice as this element can adversely affect the report done on a member.
As organisations continue to market free and open communication, whistle blowers find themselves in jeopardy of losing their employment or its equivalent in the form of their status at work among peers. Therefore, it is critical to guarantee that their complaints shall be handled with utmost confidentiality and ethical means in order to foster free disclosure and raise the ethical standards of the organisation.
Linked to this concept is the management of unethical conduct. Brooks suggests that any viable organisation should put in place some structured methods of dealing with unethical behaviour within its ranks, and that such a method should be applied uniformly and persistently regardless of who the victim may be. This, he adds, shall be instrumental in inspiring confidence among workers due to the predictability of the system.
Group leadership
Through job design, praise, constructive feedback, and goal setting, a leader can motivate members to perform better. As concerns goals, SMART goals, viz. Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Time bound goals are very effective.
Leadership marks a point of divergence between Brooks and Hunt as the latter’s idea of ideal leadership is one that orders and controls member behaviour to achieve organisational goals, whereas Brooks prefers leadership that advances member interests and manages to accomplish organisational objectives simultaneously.
As per Brooks, such leadership is characterised by extrinsic features of openness such as open offices and regular assessments of performance aimed at improving member’s prospects of advancements.
This argument disappears from Hunt’s notion of a visible gap between the management and human resource departments of an organisation, which features leaders receiving blatant displays of an appreciation for their status in the form of fringe benefits and accolades. Whereas both authors drive a poignant point, this paper insists that, a less-obvious gap between the two groups is more favourable.
However, Schermerhorn, Hunt, and Osborn (2000) note that it is important have clear-cut boundaries defining who is in charge because in the absence of such a distinction, anarchy or chaos could easily emerge and thus lead to the disintegration of a group.
Conclusion
This paper has briefly compared and contrasted the views of two famous authors of organisational group behaviour in a contemporary concept. It has analysed several areas of interest including motivation, the industrial revolution its impact on organisational groups, communication, and leadership.
Both authors are commendable in their brief yet very comprehensive analysis of group behaviour, and the credibility of each other is somewhat reaffirmed when one’s views complement the other’s. However, Mr. Brooks is more convincing of the two and this paper has capitalised on his superior positions on group behaviour.
Reference List
Bobic, M & Davis, W 2003, ‘A Kind Word for Theory X: Or Why So Many Newfangled Management Techniques Quickly Fail’, Journal of Public Admin. Research and Theory, vol. 13 no. 3, pp. 239-264.
Fehr, E & Gotte, L 2007, ‘Do workers work more when wages are high? Evidence from a randomised field experiment’, American Economic Review, vol. 97 no. 1, pp. 298-317.
Laffont, J & Martimort, D 2001, The Theory of Incentives: The Principal Agent Model, Princeton University Press, New Jersey.
Schermerhorn, R, Hunt, J & Osborn, N 2000, Organisational Behaviour, Wiley, New York.
Stewart, M 2010, ‘Theories X and Y Revisited’, Oxford Leadership Journal, vol. 1 no. 3, pp. 81-87.