Among the essential components of organizational structure and performance is communication. Communication acts as the prime mechanism through which integration and coordination of activities in an organization among the specific specialized units at various levels can be attained (Shannon & Weaver, 1949). Communication in an organizational setting can be either upward, horizontal, or downward (FAO, 2011).
We will write a custom Case Study on Organizational behaviour specifically for you
301 certified writers online
Horizontal communication, which is used for connecting related functions, work units and segments in an organization, was used in Bradley Metals Company. It facilitated communication between superintendents, supervisors and machine operators. Downward communication also took place in this organization. Since it is a superior-subordinate communication, the superintendents had supervisors who worked under them and had operators to give instructions to (FAO, 2011).
Upward communication, which serves as a feedback system was also used. Operators were to report to the supervisors who would in turn report to the superintendent. However, some employees scratched other people’s cars. Shajan (2007) says that, this can be interpreted as a nonverbal way of sending messages of dissatisfaction to the management.
Analysis of Behaviour using Organizational Behaviour Theory
Organizational behaviour concerns itself with issues of how organizations affect individuals’ behaviour and how ultimately individuals influence the organization (Duncan, 2003). The American Brass Company used administrative theory put forward by Fayol whose elements are accomplishment of tasks (1999). Administrative theory embraces management principles and concepts of line and staff, committee and roles of management (Fayol, 1999).
In Bradley Metal Company, the management acknowledged the need for division of labour, authority and responsibility, discipline, unity of direction, and personnel remuneration. The distinctive feature of Bradley Metal Company was the concept of remuneration of personnel.
In this company, individuals were rewarded bonuses apart from their salaries and this was a motivation factor. Thus, individuals worked hard and would seldom waste time. This facilitated the concept of Esprit de corps among the employees and thus promoting efficiency (Fayol, 1999).
Adams Machine Tools Ltd. instituted some changes that offset the original balance within the organisation. They cancelled the bonuses thus demoralizing the employees. This in turn broke the Esprit de corps that employees had. Because of this, they became lazier. In spite of the management retaining their benefits, they took employees for granted.
The employees were not motivated anymore and did not feel like working hard to meet the goals of the company. Instead of working tirelessly, they wasted a lot of time during tea breaks, slept during night shifts and sometimes left machines running when they were not working.
Duncan (2003) points out that, one assumption of the modern behavioural scientists is that, human beings are unique with regard to deliberate behaviour. As such, whatever employees did was motivated by something. Dissatisfaction was the main motivating factor.
In general, these two companies used the modern organizational behaviour approach (administrative theory and systems theory). Differences occurred in adherence to some concepts like remuneration of personnel. This caused changes in attitude of the employees and led to dissatisfaction among the employees.
Nonetheless, using feedback loops found in the systems theory (Albrecht, 1983), the later company has managed to attain its objective by working over time. This is in contrary to the former where working overtime implied higher outputs. Thus, different employees show different work attitudes when working under different management styles due to the concepts of remuneration, that is, rewards and benefits (Shajan, 2007).
Albrecht, K. (1983). New systems view of the organization: Organization development. New Jersey: Printice-Hall.
Duncan, W. J. (2003). Organizational behavior. Web.
Fayol, H. (1999). General and Industrial Management. London: Pitman.
Get your first paper with 15% OFF
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2011). Management of agricultural research: A training manual. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/w7503e/w7503e03.htm
Shajan, S. (2007). Organization behavior. Sidney: New age international.
Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.