Human Resource Management Essay Example

actions.

According to Leavitt (1), motive plays a significant role in influencing behavior as it drives individuals to pursue their goals. Once a goal is accomplished, the motive diminishes and is replaced by a new one. This idea can be represented through the following diagram. The theory is linked to Maslow's hierarchy, which proposes that people have various hierarchical needs such as security, social interaction, and self-esteem.

According to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, individuals strive to fulfill each need in a hierarchical order, starting from the most immediate need to the highest need. Although Maslow's ideas were widely accepted in the business world, they were based solely on observations and lacked empirical, statistical, or experimental evidence. Managers embraced this model because it seemed logical. However, Murray H A has since updated and improved the Hierarchy Theory, suggesting that needs are not always arranged hierarchically. His model is more flexible and better describes human behavior. Another approach to understanding human behavior is through individual differences, as Steers believes that these differences significantly impact how people behave. In a work context, these individual differences include unique abilities, personality traits, values, ethics, and culture.

A worker's ability, refers to their capacity and desire to respond to any given situation or problem. Capacity to respond include elements such as mental and physical skill, perception capability and stress tolerance, while desire to respond refers to motivation. It could be argued that the characteristic of ability refers more to performance than to behaviour, this maybe true however performance effects behaviour. A good definition of personality for the purposes of organisational behaviour is made by Salvatore Maddi 4 who states that it is

- a stable set of characteristics and tendencies that determine those commonalties and differences in psychological behaviour (thoughts, feelings and actions) of people that have continuity in time and that may not be easily understood as the sole result of social and biological pressures of the moment. How personality effects behaviour?

Influences on Personality

Personality Differences Development e.g. Work- - Physiology - Self esteem Related - Culture - Locus of control - Family/Group - Introversion/ Behaviour - Role Extroversion - Situation - Authoritarianism - Dogmatism - Dependability (Source Steers 3) From the above chart it can be seen that there are a number of different elements, which can effect an individual personality, these are called determinants and effect personality differences.

Recent research has identified over 17,000 personality differences, also known as traits. These traits are important in the context of work and provide insight into an individual's behavior. Traits are measurable and generally stable over time, making it easy to compare individuals based on these qualities. Self-esteem is defined as an individual's own opinion or belief about their self-worth.

Ellis and Taylor (5) suggest that self-esteem plays a significant role in work behavior. Those who have high self-esteem are more at ease with expressing affection and receiving it, as well as setting ambitious goals for themselves. Additionally, they put forth effort to attain those goals. Conversely, locus of control refers to how individuals perceive the causes of events in their lives - whether they attribute them to their own actions or external circumstances. Individuals with an external locus of control credit outside factors for both their successes and failures, while those with an internal locus of control believe these

outcomes are a result of their own actions.

People with an internal locus of control have higher work motivation, stronger beliefs in their ability to succeed at their job through effort, and perform better in problem-solving or learning tasks. The personality trait distinguishing introversion from extroversion relates to a person's level of shyness or social outgoingness. It is widely recognized that extroverts thrive in first-line management roles that involve superficial people skills like sales.

Introverts excel in positions that require introspection, analysis, and sensitivity, such as accounting, personnel management, and computer science. Authoritarianism represents an individual's perspective on authority in the workplace. People with high authoritarian tendencies tend to assert authority over subordinates while being submissive to supervisors. They are intellectually inflexible, resistant to change, judgmental, and mistrustful (Adorno T W 6). Dogmatism refers to closed-mindedness and inflexibility in decision-making. Managers with high levels of dogmatism make hasty decisions based on limited information and exhibit unwavering confidence in their correctness (Taylor 7). Dependability assesses individuals based on their consistent behavior. A dependable person is perceived as self-reliant, responsible, and reliable. Personal values and ethics greatly influence behavior by establishing standards for conduct, guiding decision-making and conflict resolution, and motivating employees. Consequently, many companies now conduct integrity and honesty tests (Taylor 7).The concept implies that an individual's values determine whether they engage in honest or dishonest conduct.

Culture refers to the societal norms and values that shape an individual's worldview and behavior. It has a pervasive impact on every aspect of one's conduct. For instance, Japan and Korea are two countries that highly prioritize diligence, showcasing the influence of their respective cultures. The chart provided below illustrates the disparities

in work habits (Source 8: Steers). In summary, various factors contribute to an individual's behavior, and the modern perspective encompasses all these essential elements while also incorporating some traditional notions.

The factors that influence individual motivations, wants, and needs include their ability, personality, values, ethics, and culture. Understanding these factors helps us comprehend individual behavior.

By utilizing the contemporary perspective, we can compare individual behavior with group behavior. Since a group consists of multiple individuals, its behavior is expected to reflect the collective characteristics of its members. We can determine the actions of a group using the same methods mentioned earlier.

In this case, instead of assessing how culture impacts an individual's work habits, we evaluate its importance on the entire group. If all group members share the same background, it becomes relatively straightforward to ascertain this impact. However, when members come from diverse backgrounds, we can estimate each member's work ethic and then calculate an average by dividing it by the total number of members.

This approach may yield satisfactory results to some extent because a group is logically influenced by the combined abilities, personality traits, values ethics and culture of its members.

Interacting with others can have different impacts on a group's performance and behavior, whether positive or negative. In organizational behavior, it is not always true that 2 + 2 equals 4. The formation of a formal group has two primary objectives. Firstly, certain tasks necessitate the skills and efforts of multiple individuals for their accomplishment. Secondly, even if an individual is capable of working independently, collaborating in a group can enhance outcomes.

During the Organisational Behaviour and Analysis class tutorial sessions, students are assigned a case study

to read and evaluate before the session. The tutorial provides an opportunity for students to discuss their findings and reach a group answer, which is often better than any individual student's answer.

The explanation for this is simply that holding discussions within a group allows for a better understanding of the logical advantages and disadvantages of certain viewpoints by all members involved. Additionally, a group possesses a greater amount of information and knowledge compared to an individual. This phenomenon, known as synergy, occurs when a group is able to surpass the capabilities of its most competent members. Synergy is often visualized by the expression "2 + 2 = 5." Nevertheless, synergy is not always achieved. In 1981, Meredith Beblin conducted a study aimed at identifying the traits of successful groups.

During management courses, managers were required to analyze case studies. Beblin administered tests to identify the most intelligent individuals and grouped them together. However, contrary to expectations, this highly intelligent group performed poorly compared to other groups. Beblin attributed this failure to the mix of individual personalities within the group. He believed that for a group to succeed, individuals must assume specific team roles. Additionally, group dynamics can negatively impact members' logical thinking abilities.

Groupthink occurs when the pursuit of agreement or consensus among members becomes so dominant that it overrides any realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action. The term "groupthink" was coined by Irving Janis, who discovered it while studying high-level policy decisions made by the US Government, including the Bay of Pigs Fiasco during the Kennedy administration. Janis found the development of group norms, which are standard sets of rules shared by individuals in a

group and affect their behavior. Different psychologists have developed the concept of group norms over the years.

Norms, whether formal or informal, govern behavior and can be exemplified in various settings. Take a student group assignment for instance: adhering to punctuality, exerting effort, and finishing tasks are typical norms that shape conduct. The significance attached to being on time may differ depending on individual personality traits or cultural upbringing. Should a student consistently arrive tardy to meetings, their peers would likely urge them to modify this behavior.

Group norms have multiple functions: they promote the group's survival and performance, establish behavioral expectations, prevent discomforting situations, and represent the identity and values of the group. People often conform to these norms, even if it does not benefit their own well-being. Sometimes individuals are influenced by the opinions or actions of the group in ways they would prefer to avoid. Solomon Asch conducted a significant study demonstrating how individuals can adopt the beliefs of the group even when aware of their inaccuracy.

According to the Asch Experiment, participants were asked to identify the longest line from options A, B, C, D, and E. Surprisingly, 32% of people succumbed to group pressure and wrongly identified line A as the longest. Asch concluded that individuals could either conform or comply with the group's influence. Conformity involved genuinely believing that line A was the longest, while compliance meant suppressing their own perception of what was right.

When a person deviates from the group, other members will try to bring them back within the group's acceptable limits. An example of this is seen in Janis's study on the Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba. During

a meeting, Arthur Schlesinger, an advisor to President Kennedy, expressed his opposition to the plan even though he did not have support from others. After listening to Schlesinger's dissent for a significant amount of time, Robert Kennedy discreetly approached him and advised, "We are unsure if you are right or not; however, the President has already made a decision. Please stop persisting."

"Now is the time for everyone to help as much as they can." The pressure to conform to the group norm can be explicit, as demonstrated in the mentioned case, or implicit through exclusion and ridicule. This ultimately results in groupthink. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that not all individuals succumb to the group; compliance and conformity are less probable when people possess high self-esteem and low authoritarianism traits. In a business context, groupthink can lead to significant adverse outcomes.

Groupthink can result in various negative consequences, such as limiting the exploration of alternative solutions, neglecting to consider all available evidence and seek new information, disregarding expert advice and ethical principles, neglecting to create contingency plans, and ignoring the risks associated with a particular plan or project. A notable aspect of groupthink is the phenomenon of polarisation, which was examined by a postgraduate student in Boston (Stoner, 1961). Polarisation pertains to the notion that when decisions are compared or discussed within a group, they tend to become more extreme. In other words, a risky decision would become even riskier while a cautious decision would become even more cautious.

In summary, the main processes that affect how a group behaves include team roles, group norms, groupthink, and polarization. During this assignment, it has been established that

there are several aspects that affect an individual's behavior. When a group is formed, certain group processes can override an individual's personal behavior patterns, resulting in an entirely new group behavior pattern. To illustrate how an individual's behavior may differ from a group, we can consider the case of Citibank 3. Davis Edwards, a senior manager at Citibank, had informed his bosses for over two years about tax evasion and currency-trading violations within his department.

Edwards discovered that his bank was engaging in fraudulent transfers of foreign deposits to shift profits to countries with low tax rates. He also uncovered kickback schemes associated with these illegal transfers. The bank officers involved in the scheme failed to recognize the ethical, legal, or public relations consequences due to ambiguous regulations in this area. There was a prevailing groupthink mentality that believed the bank was right and Edwards was wrong. Edwards recognized the negative impact on business, stating, "It's bad for business. We risk being expelled from these countries." When regulators finally investigated, Citibank faced substantial fines for unpaid taxes in multiple European countries and suffered reputational damage, leading to a loss of business. Despite not being part of the group engaged in the illicit practice, Edwards foresaw the problems it would cause.

The individual behavior of Edward differed from the group, with his own unique characteristics influencing his actions in the situation. Edward possessed the ability to identify the problem and recognize its potential negative impact on the business. Furthermore, his personality traits provided him with the confidence to address the issue with his superiors, while his honesty led him to believe that the practice was unethical. This does

not necessarily imply that Edward was morally superior, more intelligent, or more aware of the risks compared to every other individual in top management involved. Such a notion is highly unlikely. The primary reason for Edward's contrasting behavior from the group was his exclusion from it, resulting in him being unaffected by group processes.

Perhaps if he had been present during the group's decision-making and discussions, his behavior would have been different. It is noteworthy that the bank changed its behavior after the investigation, but Edwards was still fired. It is important to remember that while most literature on organizational behavior focuses on group behavior in decision-making, there are other significant general patterns of behavior. Take, for instance, The Southwestern Company 11, a US direct sales company. This company recruits college and university students to sell educational books door-to-door in North America and Europe. The students undergo a week of sales training and then work independently in a specified sales area on a commission basis during their summer break.

During the 1960's, average sales per student experienced a decline, which continued up to the early 1980's. Recognizing the need for enhancing sales levels, the sales manager, Dan Moore, concluded that improving the work habits of each student was crucial. To achieve this, students were encouraged to work longer hours and with greater intensity. To effectively increase the amount of hours worked and the number of sales presentations made, groups consisting of students from the same universities were formed. These groups were then incentivized through rewards for achieving the highest total sales and average sales per student.

Therefore, the establishment of norms occurred within the group regarding acceptable

levels of work, such as a minimum requirement of 70 working hours per week and 30 sales demonstrations per day. Those who achieved these targets received recognition and were accepted by the group, while individuals who fell short of these targets faced sarcasm and ridicule without formal punishment. Additionally, a sense of loyalty and identity developed within the group, consequently boosting motivation. Although other factors may have contributed to the significant increase in average sales figures, it was widely believed that the creation of formal groups was the primary reason for the improvement in work habits and subsequent rise in sales. This example clearly demonstrates that when a group is formed, its behavior can be distinctly different from that of its individual members.

The text emphasizes that a student's unique qualities such as ability, personality, values, ethics, and culture, which normally shape their work behavior, can be overridden by group norms. The example of Southwestern illustrates that the introduction of sales teams resulted in a decrease in output variability. This occurred because group pressures influenced behavior and most students conformed to the new work habits and conduct, leading to an increase in average sales levels. The essay also acknowledges that groups can exhibit different behavior compared to individuals and discusses the various reasons for this variation. However, it has yet to address the extent to which behavior differs.

This is a subjective and challenging task. Can you assign a specific value to the advantages or disadvantages of working in a group?

Bibliography

1. Brewer M and Miller N (1996) Intergroup Relations

Fincham and Rhodes (1999) Principles of Organizational Behaviour

Huczynski and Buchanan (1991) Organizational Behaviour

Hunt J (1992) Managing People at Work Leavitt H (1972) Managerial Psychology