Organizational behavior or organisational behaviour (see spelling differences) is the "study of human behavior in organizational settings, the interface between human behavior and the organization, and the organization itself".^[1] Organizational behavioral research can be categorized in at least three ways:^[2]

• individuals in organizations (micro-level)
• work groups (meso-level)
• how organizations behave (macro-level)

Chester Barnard recognized that individuals behave differently when acting in their organizational role than when acting separately from the organization.^[3] Organizational behavior researchers study the behavior of individuals primarily in their organizational roles. One of the main goals of organizational behavior research is "to revitalize organizational theory and develop a better conceptualization of organizational life".^[4]

Relation to industrial and organizational psychology

Miner (2006) mentioned that "there is a certain arbitrariness" in identifying a "point at which organizational behavior became established as a distinct discipline" (p. 56), suggesting that it could have emerged in the 1940s or 1950s.^[5] He also underlined the fact that the industrial psychology division of the American Psychological Association did not add "organizational" to its name until 1970, "long after organizational behavior had clearly come into existence" (p. 56), noting that a similar situation arose in sociology. Although there are similarities and differences between the two disciplines, there is still confusion around differentiating organizational behavior and organizational psychology.^[6][7]

History

As a multi-disciplinary science, organizational behavior has been influenced by developments in a number of related disciplines, including sociology, industrial/organizational psychology, and economics.

The Industrial Revolution is a period from the 1760s where new technologies resulted in the adoption of new manufacturing techniques and increased mechanization. In his famous iron cage metaphor, Max Weber raised concerns over the reduction in religious and vocational work experiences. Weber claimed that the Industrial Revolution's focus on efficiency constrained the worker to a kind of "prison" and "stripped a worker of their individuality".^[8] The significant social and cultural changes caused by the Industrial Revolution also gave rise to new forms of organization. Weber analyzed one of these organizations and came to the conclusion that bureaucracy was "an organization that rested on rational-legal principles and maximized technical efficiency."^[9]

A number of organizational behavioral practitioners documented their ideas about management and organization. The best known theories today originate from Henri Fayol, Chester Barnard, and Mary Parker Follet. All three of them drew from their experience to develop a model of effective organizational management, and each of their theories independently shared a focus on human behavior and motivation.^[3][10][11] One of the first management consultants, Frederick Taylor, was a 19th-century engineer who applied an approach known as the scientific management. Taylor advocated for maximizing task efficiency through the scientific method.^[12] The scientific method was further refined by Lillian and Frank Gilbreth, who utilized time and motion study to further improve worker efficiency.^[13] In the early 20th century the idea of Fordism emerged. Named after automobile mogul Henry Ford, the method relied on the standardization of production through the use of assembly lines. This allowed unskilled workers to produce complex products efficiently. Sorenson later clarified that Fordism developed independently of Taylor.^[14] Fordism can be explained as the application of bureaucratic and scientific management principles to whole manufacturing process. The success of the scientific method and Fordism resulted in the widespread adoption of these methods.

In the 1920s, the Hawthorne Works Western Electric factory commissioned the first of what was to become known as the Hawthorne Studies. These studies initially adhered to the traditional scientific method, but also investigated whether workers would be more productive with higher or lower lighting levels. The results showed that regardless of lighting levels, when workers were being studied, productivity increased, but when the studies ended, worker productivity would return to normal. In following experiments, Elton Mayo concluded that job performance and the so-called Hawthorne Effect was strongly correlated to social relationships and job content.^[15] Following the Hawthorne Studies motivation became a focal point in the Organizational behavioral community. A range of theories emerged in the 1950s and 1960s and include theories from notable Organizational behavioral researchers such as: Frederick Herzberg, Abraham Maslow, David McClelland, Victor Vroom, and Douglas McGregor. These theories underline employee motivation, work performance, and job satisfaction.^[5]

Herbert Simon's Administrative Behavior introduced a number of important Organizational behavior concepts, most notably decision-making. Simon, along with Chester Barnard, argued that people make decisions differently inside an organization when compared to their decisions outside of an organization. While classical economic theories assume that people are rational decision-makers, Simon argued a contrary point. He argued that cognition is limited because of bounded rationality For example, decision-makers often employ satisficing, the process of utilizing the first marginally acceptable solution rather than the most optimal solution.^[16] Simon was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics for his work on organizational decision-making.^[17] In the 1960s and 1970s, the field started to become more quantitative and resource dependent. This gave rise to contingency theory, institutional theory, and organizational ecology.^[18] Starting in the 1980s, cultural explanations of organizations and organizational change became areas of study, in concert with fields such as anthropology, psychology and sociology.

Current state of the field

Research in and the teaching of Organizational behavior primarily takes place in university management departments in colleges of business. Sometimes Organizational Behavioral topics are taught in industrial and organizational psychology graduate programs.

There have been additional developments in Organizational behavior research and practice. Anthropology has become increasingly influential, and led to the idea that one can understand firms as communities, by introducing concepts such as organizational culture, organizational rituals, and symbolic acts.^[1] Leadership studies have also become part of Organizational behavior, although a single unifying theory remains elusive.^[19][20] Organizational behavioral researchers have shown increased interest in ethics and its importance in an organization.^{[citation needed]} Some Organizational behavioral researchers have become interested in the aesthetic sphere of organizations.^[21]

Research methods used

A variety of methods are used in organizational behavior, many of which are found in other social sciences.

Quantitative methods

Quantitative research allows organizational behavior to be studied/compared through numerical data. A key advantage of quantitative studies is that their efficient examinations of large groups can be studied at lower costs and in less time. This form of research studies more of the broad study.^[22]

Statistical methods used in OB research commonly include correlation, analysis of variance, meta-analysis, multilevel modeling, multiple regression, structural equation modeling, and time series analysis^[23][24]

Computer simulation

Computer simulation is a prominent method in organizational behavior.^[25] While there are many uses for computer simulation, most Organizational behavioral researchers have used computer simulation to understand how organizations or firms operate. More recently, however, researchers have also started to apply computer simulation to understand individual behavior at a micro-level, focusing on individual and interpersonal cognition and behavior^[26] such as the thought processes and behaviors that make up teamwork.^[27]

Qualitative methods

Qualitative research^[23] consists of several methods of inquiry that generally do not involve the quantification of variables.This procedure builds and structure patterns of individual behavior.^[22] An advantage of qualitative research is that it provides a clearer picture of an organization. Qualitative methods can range from the content analysis of interviews or written material to written narratives of observations. Meaning that qualitative research goes more in depth of their studies as opposed to the entirety.^[22] Common methods include ethnography, case studies, historical methods, and interviews.

Topics

Consulting

Consultants use principles developed in organizational behavior research to assess clients' organizational problems and provide high quality services.^[28] A robust framework to analyze the consultant-client relationship is key in the success of any consulting engagement.^[29]

Counterproductive work behavior

Counterproductive work behavior is employee behavior that harms or intends to harm an organization.^[30]

Decision-making

Many Organizational behavior researchers embrace the rational planning model.^{[citation needed]} Decision-making research often focuses on how decisions are ordinarily made (normative decision-making), how thinkers arrive at a particular judgement (descriptive decision-making), and how to improve this decision-making (descriptive decision-making).^{[citation needed]}

Effects of diversity and inclusion

Companies that focus on diversity and inclusion are able to benefit from advantages such as better retention and less intention by staff to quit, increased job satisfaction, lower levels of stress and job withdrawal, higher levels of creativity and innovation, as well as less on-the-job conflict. Diversity, or focusing on differences between individuals and groups is of course important, organizations that have a culture that values the unique perspectives and contributions of all employees, also known as inclusion, may be able to move the needle from not engaged to engaged.^[31]

Employee mistreatment

There are several types of mistreatments that employees endure in organizations, including: Abusive supervision, bullying, incivility, and sexual harassment. Employees in an organization being mistreated also can suffer work withdrawal. Withdrawing from an organization can be in the form of being late, not fully participating in work duties, or looking for a new job. Employees may file grievances in an organization with retrospect to a procedure or policy or mistreatment with human interactions.^[32]

Abusive supervision

Abusive supervision is the extent to which a supervisor engages in a pattern of behavior that harms subordinates.^[33]

Bullying

Although definitions of workplace bullying vary, it involves a repeated pattern of harmful behaviors directed towards an individual.^[34] In order for a behavior to be termed bullying, the individual or individuals doing the harm have to possess (either singly or jointly) more power on any level than the victim.^{[citation needed]} Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Organizational_behavior
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.