Exceptional Proff 600

An understanding of how organizations function and how people behave in them is important to HR professionals, indeed to all managers, as pointed out by Nadler and Tushman (1980).

Source review

The significance of organizational behaviour theory – Nadler and Tushman (1980: 30)

Managers perform their jobs within complex social systems called organizations. In many senses, the task of the manager is to influence behaviour in a desired direction, usually towards the accomplishment of a specific task or performance goal. Given this definition of the managerial role, skills in the diagnosis of patterns of organizational behaviour become vital. Specifically, the manager needs to understand the patterns of behaviour that are observed, predict in what direction behaviour will move (particularly in the light of managerial action), and to use this knowledge to control behaviour over the course of time.

Organizational behaviour defined

Organizational behaviour was defined by Huczynski and Buchanan (2007: 843) as the term used to describe ‘the study of the structure, functioning, and performance of organizations and the behaviour of groups and individuals within them’. The following are the characteristics of organizational behaviour theory.

Source review

Characteristics of organizational behaviour – Ivancevich et al (2008: 11)

· It is a way of thinking – about individuals, groups and organizations.

· It is multidisciplinary – it uses principles, models, theories and methods from other disciplines.

· There is a distinctly humanistic orientation – people and their attitudes, perceptions, learning capacities, feelings and goals are of major importance.

· It is performance-oriented – it deals with the factors affecting performance and how it can be improved.

· The use of scientific method is important in studying variables and relationships.

· It is applications-oriented in the sense of being concerned with providing useful answers to questions that arise when managing organizations.

The sources and applications of organizational behaviour theory

Organizational behaviour theory is based on the main behavioural science disciplines. These are defined as the fields of enquiry dedicated to the study of human behaviour through sophisticated and rigorous methods. The ways in which they contribute to different aspects of organizational behaviour theory and how they in turn influence HRM practices are summarized in Figure 10.1.

How organizations function

An organization is an entity that exists to achieve a purpose through the collective efforts of the people who work in or for it. Organizing is the process of making arrangements in the form of defined or understood responsibilities and relationships to enable those people to work cooperatively together. Organizations can be described as systems that, as affected by their environment, have a structure that has both formal and informal elements.

Organization structures are frameworks for getting things done. Traditional formal structures were based on laid down hierarchies (lines of command) represented in organization charts, and use was made of closely defined job descriptions. But to varying extents organizations operate informally as well as formally by means of a network of roles and relationships that cut across formal organizational boundaries and lines of command. Organization structures can evolve almost spontaneously as circumstances change and new activities have to be carried out.

The processes that take place in organizations – interaction and networking, leadership, group behaviour, the exercise of power and the use of politics – may well have much more effect on how organizations function than can be shown in a defined organization chart supported by elaborate job descriptions and an organization manual. Moreover, the way in which an organization functions will be largely contingent on its purpose, technology, methods of working and external environment. A number of theories have been developed, summarized in Table 10.1, to explain how organizations function, culminating in the contingency and post-bureaucratic schools that now predominate.

The main types of organization are described briefly below:

· Line and staff – a traditional organization based on the military model in which a hierarchy of ‘line managers’ carry out the fundamental operations such as manufacturing, sales or customer service while the ‘staff’ functions such as finance and personnel provides them with services, advice and support.

· Mechanistic – a formal organization that is hierarchical with rigid chains of command and control, distinct departments and tightly defined and specialized jobs (usually a characteristic of a line and staff organization).

· Organic – a relatively informal organization with a non-hierarchical, flat structure where the emphasis is on horizontal processes, the elimination of boundaries between functions, teamwork and flexible roles (also known as a lattice organization).

· Matrix organization – an organization that consists of a functional structure with a number of different disciplines and a project structure consisting of project teams drawn from the disciplines.

· Network organization – a collection of interrelated organizations that extends beyond the boundaries of any single organization.

· Virtual organization – an organization that mainly uses electronic means for its members to interact with one another thus minimizing face-to-face contacts.

Organizational culture

The culture of an organization has been described by Deal and Kennedy (2000: 4) as ‘the way we do things around here’. It is more complex than that, as other definitions given below indicate. But this simplistic definition at least demonstrates that it is an all-pervading notion that affects the way in which people behave and has to be taken into account as a contingency factor in any programme for developing organizations and HR policies and practices. Organizational culture offers a shared system of meanings which is the basis for communications and mutual understanding. If these functions are not fulfilled in a satisfactory way, culture may significantly reduce the effectiveness of an organization. This is why it is important for HR specialists to understand the concept of organizational culture and how it affects organizations.

Organizational or corporate culture is the pattern of values, norms, beliefs, attitudes and assumptions that may not have been articulated but shape the ways in which people in organizations behave and things get done. ‘Values’ refer to what is believed to be important about how people and organizations behave. ‘Norms’ are the unwritten rules of behaviour.

This definition emphasizes that organizational culture is concerned with the subjective aspect of what goes on in organizations. It refers to abstractions such as values and norms that pervade the whole or part of a business, which may not be defined, discussed or even noticed. Nevertheless, culture can have a significant influence on people’s behaviour. The following are some other definitions of organizational culture:

· A strong culture is a system of informal rules that spells out how people are to behave most of the time. (Deal and Kennedy, 2000: 15)

· The culture of an organization refers to the unique configuration of norms, values, beliefs and ways of behaving that characterize the manner in which groups and individuals combine to get things done. (Eldridge and Crombie, 1974: 89)

· Organizational culture offers a shared system of meanings that is the basis for communications and mutual understanding. (Furnham and Gunter, 1993: 70–71)

· Culture is a pattern of basic assumptions – invented, discovered or developed by a given group as it learns to cope with the problems of external adaptation and internal integration – that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think and feel in relation to these problems. (Schein, 1990: 110)

The values and norms that are the basis of culture are formed in four ways. First, by the leaders in the organization, especially those who have shaped it in the past. Schein (1990) indicates that people identify with visionary leaders – how they behave and what they expect. They note what such leaders pay attention to and treat them as role models. Second, as Schein also points out, culture is formed around critical incidents – important events from which lessons are learnt about desirable or undesirable behaviour. Third, culture develops from the need to maintain effective working relationships among organization members that establishes values and expectations. Finally, culture is influenced by the organization’s environment, which may tend to be dynamic or unchanging.

Culture evolves over time as a result of shared experiences. Schein (1984) suggested that this is a learning process which takes place either through the trauma model, in which members of the organization learn to cope with some threat by the erection of defence mechanisms, or by means of the positive reinforcement model, where things that seem to work become embedded and entrenched. Learning takes place as people adapt to and cope with external pressures, and as they develop successful approaches and mechanisms to handle the internal challenges, processes and technologies in their organization. Where culture has developed over long periods of time and has become firmly embedded it may be difficult to change quickly, if at all, unless a traumatic event occurs.

The development process described above may result in a culture that characterizes the whole organization. But there may be different cultures within organizations. For example, the culture of an outward-looking marketing department may be substantially different from that of an internally focused manufacturing function. There may be some common organizational values or norms, but in some respects these will vary between different work environments.

Organizational culture can be described in terms of values, norms, artefacts and management or leadership style.

Values are beliefs in what is best or good for the organization and what should or ought to happen. The ‘value set’ of an organization may only be recognized at top level, or it may be shared throughout the business, in which case the business could be described as value-driven.

The stronger the values the more they will influence behaviour. This does not depend upon their having been articulated. Implicit values that are deeply embedded in the culture of an organization and are reinforced by the behaviour of management can be influential, while espoused values that are mere rhetoric and are not reflected in managerial behaviour may have little or no effect. When values are acted on they are called ‘values in use’. Examples are listed below.

Areas in which values may be expressed – explicitly or implicitly

· Care and consideration for people.

· Competence.

· Competitiveness.

· Customer service.

· Innovation.

· Performance.

· Quality.

· Teamwork.

Values may be expressed through norms and artefacts, as described below. They may also be expressed through the media of language (organizational jargon), rituals, stories and myths.

Norms are the unwritten rules of behaviour, the ‘rules of the game’ that provide informal guidelines on how to behave. Norms tell people what they are supposed to be doing, saying, believing, even wearing. They are never expressed in writing – if they were, they would be policies or procedures. They are passed on by word of mouth or behaviour and can be enforced by the reactions of people if they are violated. They can exert very powerful pressure on behaviour because of these reactions – we control others by the way we react to them.

Typical norms

· How managers treat the members of their teams (management style) and how the latter relate to their managers. The prevailing work ethic, eg ‘work hard, play hard’, ‘come in early, stay late’, ‘if you cannot finish your work during business hours you are obviously inefficient’, ‘look busy at all times’, ‘look relaxed at all times’.

· Status – how much importance is attached to it; the existence or lack of obvious status symbols.

· Ambition – naked ambition is expected and approved of, or a more subtle approach is the norm.

· Performance – exacting performance standards are general; the highest praise that can be given in the organization is to be referred to as ‘very professional’.

· Power – recognized as a way of life; executed by political means, dependent on expertise and ability rather than position; concentrated at the top; shared at different levels in different parts of the organization.

· Politics – rife throughout the organization and treated as normal behaviour; not accepted as overt behaviour.

· Loyalty – expected, a cradle-to-grave approach to careers; discounted, the emphasis is on results and contribution in the short term.

· Anger – openly expressed; hidden, but expressed through other, possibly political, means.

· Approachability – managers are expected to be approachable and visible; everything happens behind closed doors.

· Formality – a cool, formal approach is the norm; forenames are/are not used at all levels; there are unwritten but clearly understood rules about dress.

Artefacts are the visible and tangible aspects of an organization that people hear, see or feel and which contribute to their understanding of the organization’s culture. Artefacts can include such things as the working environment, the tone and language used in e-mails, letters or memoranda, the manner in which people address each other at meetings or over the telephone, the welcome (or lack of welcome) given to visitors and the way in which receptionists deal with outside calls. Artefacts can be very revealing.

The approach managers use to deal with people – their management or leadership style – is a significant part of the culture of an organization. Management style can be described in terms of the following extremes:

Most managers adopt an approach somewhere between the extremes. Some will vary it according to the situation or their feelings at the time; others will stick to the same style whatever happens. Every manager has his or her own style but this will be influenced by the organizational culture, which may produce a prevailing management style that represents a behavioural norm for managers that is generally expected and adopted.

There have been many attempts to classify or categorize organizational cultures as a basis for analysis and for taking action to support or change them. Most of these classifications are expressed in four dimensions; three of the best-known ones are summarized below. Note that following the lead of Harrison (1972), there is much common ground between them.

Harrison (1972) – organization ideologies

· Power-oriented – competitive, responsive to personality rather than expertise.

· People-oriented – consensual, management control rejected.

· Task-oriented – focus on competency, dynamic.

· Role-oriented – focus on legality, legitimacy and bureaucracy.

Handy (1981) – culture typology

· The power culture is one with a central power source that exercises control. There are few rules or procedures and the atmosphere is competitive, power-oriented and political.

· The role culture in which work is controlled by procedures and rules and the role, or job description, is more important than the person who fills it. Power is associated with positions not people.

· The task culture in which the aim is to bring together the right people and let them get on with it. Influence is based more on expert power than in position or personal power. The culture is adaptable and teamwork is important.

· The person culture in which the individual is the central point. The organization exists only to serve and assist the individuals in it.

It is not possible to say that one culture is better than another, only that a culture is to a greater or lesser extent appropriate in the sense that it is relevant to the needs and circumstances of the organization and helps rather than hinders its performance. However, embedded cultures can exert considerable influence on organizational behaviour. If there is an appropriate and effective culture it would therefore be desirable to take steps to support or reinforce it. If the culture is inappropriate attempts should be made to determine what needs to be changed and to develop and implement plans for change. A culture will be more effective if it is consistent in its components and shared amongst organizational members, and if it makes the organization unique, thus differentiating it from other organizations.

Schein (1984) – classification of cultures

· Power culture in which leadership resides in a few and rests on their ability and tends to be entrepreneurial.

· Role culture in which power is balanced between the leader and the bureaucratic structure. The environment is likely to be stable and roles and rules are clearly defined.

· Achievement culture in which personal motivation and commitment are stressed and action, excitement and impact are valued.

· Support culture in which people contribute out of a sense of commitment and solidarity.

Organizational climate

As defined by Harrison and Shirom (1999: 263), organizational climate refers to ‘members’ perceptions of organizational features such as decision-making, leadership and norms about work’. Ivancevich et al (2008: 528) described organizational climate as: ‘A set of properties of the work environment, perceived directly or indirectly by the employees, that is assumed to be a major force in influencing employee behaviour.’

The term ‘organizational climate’ is sometimes confused with ‘organizational culture’ and there has been much debate on what distinguishes them from one another. In Denison’s (1996) analysis of this issue, he suggested that ‘culture’ refers to the deep structure of organizations, which is rooted in the values, beliefs and assumptions held by organizational members. In contrast, ‘climate’ refers to those aspects of the environment that are consciously perceived by organizational members. Rousseau (1988) stated that climate is a perception and is descriptive. Perceptions are sensations or realizations experienced by an individual. Descriptions are what a person reports of these sensations.

The debate about the meanings of these terms can become academic. It is easiest to regard organizational climate as how people perceive (see and feel about) the culture existing in their organization. French et al (1985) distinguish between the actual situation (ie culture) and the perception of it (ie climate).

Organizational processes

A number of social processes take place in organizations that affect how they function. These are: interaction and networking, communication, group behaviour, leadership, power, politics and conflict.

Interactions between people criss-cross the organization, creating networks for getting things done and exchanging information that is not catered for in the formal structure. ‘Networking’ is an increasingly important process in flexible and delayered organizations where more fluid interactions across the structure are required between individuals and teams. Networking means that people canvass opinion and enlist support to promote their projects or ideas. In this way they may get more done than by going through formal channels. People also get things done in organizations by creating alliances – getting agreement on a course of action with other people and joining forces to put the proposed action into effect.

The communications processes used in organizations have a marked effect on how it functions, especially if they take place through the network, which can then turn into the ‘grapevine’. E-mails encourage the instant flow of information (and sometimes produce information overload) but may inhibit face-to-face interactions, which are often the best ways of doing things.

Organizations consist of groups or teams of people working together. They may be set up formally as part of the structure or they may be informal gatherings. A group can be a permanent or a temporary feature in an organization. Interactions take place within and between groups and the degree to which these processes are formalized varies according to the organizational context.

Formal groups or teams are created by organizations to achieve a defined purpose. People are brought together with the necessary skills to carry out the tasks and a system exists for directing, coordinating and controlling the group’s activities. Informal groups are set up by people in organizations who have some affinity for one another. It could be said that formal groups satisfy the needs of the organization while informal groups satisfy the needs of their members.

Groups develop an ideology that affects the attitudes and actions of their members and the degree of satisfaction they feel. If the group ideology is strong and individual members identify closely with the group, it will become increasingly cohesive. Group norms or implicit rules will be evolved that define what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. This is described as a ‘reference group’, which consists of the group of people with whom an individual identifies. The individual accepts the group’s norms and, if in doubt about what to do or say, reference is made to these norms or to other group members before action is taken. Most people in organizations belong to a reference group and this can significantly affect the ways in which they behave.

Four stages of group development were identified by Tuckman (1965):

1. Forming, when there is anxiety, dependence on the leader and testing to find out the nature of the situation and the task, and what behaviour is acceptable.

2. Storming, where there is conflict, emotional resistance to the demands of the task, resistance to control and even rebellion against the leader.

3. Norming, when group cohesion is developed, norms emerge, views are exchanged openly, mutual support and cooperation increase and the group acquires a sense of its identity.

4. Performing, when interpersonal problems are resolved, roles are flexible and functional, there are constructive attempts to complete tasks and energy is available for effective work.

Organizations exist to get things done; in the process of doing this, people or groups exercise power. Directly or indirectly, the use of power in influencing behaviour is a pervading feature of organizations, whether it is exerted by managers, specialists, informal groups or trade union officials. It is a way of achieving results, but it can be misused.

Conflict is also inevitable in organizations because they function by means of adjustments and compromises among competitive elements in their structure and membership. Conflict also arises when there is change, because it may be seen as a threat to be challenged or resisted, or when there is frustration. Conflict is not always deplorable. It can be a result of progress and change and it can be used constructively.

Characteristics of people

To manage people effectively, it is necessary to take into account the factors that affect how they behave at work. The development of HR processes and the design of organizations are often predicated on the belief that everyone is the same and that they will behave rationally when faced with change or other demands. But the behaviour of people differs because of their characteristics and individual differences and it is not always rational.

The management of people would be much easier if everyone were the same, but they are not. As discussed below, they are, of course, different because of variations in personal characteristics and the influence of their background (the way in which they were brought up). Some people also consider sex, race or disability as factors that affect people’s behaviour at work, although holding this view readily leads to discrimination. In addition, there will be differences in ability, intelligence and personality.

The headings under which personal characteristics can vary have been classified by Mischel (1968) as follows.

Source review

Variations in personal characteristics – Mischel (1968)

· Competencies – abilities and skills.

· Constructs – the conceptual frameworks which govern how people perceive their environment.

· Expectations – what people have learnt to expect about their own and others’ behaviour.

Ability is the quality possessed by people that makes an action possible. Abilities have been analysed by Burt (1954) and Vernon (1961). They classified them into two major groups: V:ed – verbal, numerical, memory and reasoning abilities; and K:m – spatial and mechanical abilities, as well as perceptual (memory) and motor skills relating to physical operations such as eye/hand coordination and mental dexterity.

They also suggested that overriding these abilities there is general mental ability (GMA), which accounts for most variations in performance. Following a meta-analysis of 85 years of research findings, Schmidt and Hunter (1998) established that GMA was the most valid predictor of future performance and learning for selecting people without previous experience.

Intelligence has been variously defined as:

· The capacity to solve problems, apply principles, make inferences and perceive relationships. (Argyle, 1989: 53)

· The capacity for abstract thinking and reasoning with a range of different contents and media. (Toplis et al, 2004: 20)

· What is measured by intelligence tests. (Wright and Taylor, 1970: 31)

The last, tautological definition is not facetious. As an operational definition, it can be related to the specific aspects of reasoning, inference, cognition (ie knowing, conceiving) and perception (ie understanding, recognition), which intelligence tests attempt to measure.

General intelligence (GI) consists of a number of mental abilities that enable a person to succeed at a wide variety of intellectual tasks that use the faculties of knowing and reasoning. It can be measured by an intelligence test and is sometimes expressed as an intelligence quotient (IQ), which is the ratio of an individual’s mental age to the individual’s actual age as measured by an intelligence test.

The concept of emotional intelligence (as described later) stresses that emotional maturity – in the sense of the ability to identify, assess and manage the emotions of one’s self and others – is also important.

Personality has been defined by Huczynski and Buchanan (2007: 138) as: ‘The psychological qualities that influence an individual’s characteristic behaviour patterns in a stable and distinctive manner.’ As noted by Ivancevich et al (2008), personality appears to be organized into patterns that are, to some degree, observable and measurable and involves both common and unique characteristics – every person is different from every other person in some respects but similar to other people in other respects. Personality is a product of both nature (hereditary) and nurture (the pattern of life experience). Personality can be described in terms of traits or types.

Traits are predispositions to behave in certain ways in a variety of different situations. The leading model of personality traits is the following ‘big five’ classification (Costa and McRae, 1992; Digman, 1990):

· Openness – inventive/curious or consistent/cautious.

· Conscientiousness – efficient/organized or easy-going/careless.

· Extraversion – outgoing/energetic or solitary/reserved.

· Agreeableness – friendly/compassionate or cold/unkind.

· Neuroticism – sensitive/nervous or secure/confident.

The assumption that people are consistent in the ways they express these traits is the basis for making predictions about their future behaviour. We all attribute traits to people in an attempt to understand why they behave in the way they do. But people do not necessarily express the same trait across different situations or even the same trait in the same situation. Different people may exhibit consistency in some traits and exhibit considerable variability in others.

Type theories of personality identify a number of types of personality that can be used to categorize people and may form the basis of a personality test. The types may be linked to descriptions of various traits. One of the most widely used type theories is that of Jung (1923). He identified four major preferences:

· relating to other people – extraversion or introversion;

· gathering information – sensing (dealing with facts that can be objectively verified), or intuitive (generating information through insight);

· using information – thinking (emphasizing logical analysis as the basis for decision-making), or feeling (making decisions based on internal values and beliefs);

· making decisions – perceiving (collecting all the relevant information before making a decision), or judging (resolving the issue without waiting for a large quantity of data).

This is the basis of personality tests such as the Myers-Briggs Types Indicator.

Types should be distinguished from traits. As Huczynski and Buchanan (2007: 142) put it: ‘Type approaches fit people into categories possessing common behaviour patterns. A personality trait, on the other hand, is an enduring behaviour that occurs in a variety of settings. While individuals belong to types, traits belong to individuals.’

An attitude can broadly be defined as a settled mode of thinking. Attitudes are evaluative. They are developed through experience but they are less stable than traits and can change as new experiences are gained or influences absorbed. Within organizations they are affected by cultural factors (values and norms); the behaviour of management (management style); policies such as those concerned with pay, recognition, promotion and the quality of working life; and the influence of the ‘reference group’ (the group with whom people identify). Sometimes there may be a discrepancy between attitudes and behaviour, ie someone may believe in one thing – such as being fair to people – but act differently. This is called ‘cognitive dissonance’.

Emotions are feelings that arouse people and therefore influence their behaviour such as anger, fear, sadness, joy, anticipation and acceptance. The mildest forms of emotions are called ‘moods’, which are low intensity, long-lasting emotional states.

The notion of emotional intelligence was first defined by Salovey and Mayer (1990), who proposed that it involves the capacity to perceive emotion, integrate emotion in thought, understand emotion and manage emotions effectively. Goleman (1995) popularized the concept. He defined emotional intelligence as: ‘The capacity for recognizing our own feelings and that of others, for motivating ourselves, for managing emotions well in ourselves as well as others.’ He suggested that its four components are:

1. Self-management – the ability to control or redirect disruptive impulses and moods and regulate own behaviour coupled with a propensity to pursue goals with energy and persistence. The six competencies associated with this component are self-control, trustworthiness and integrity, initiative, adaptability – comfort with ambiguity, openness to change and strong desire to achieve.

2. Self-awareness – the ability to recognize and understand your moods, emotions and drives as well as their effect on others. This is linked to three competencies: self-confidence, realistic self-assessment and emotional self-awareness.

3. Social awareness – the ability to understand the emotional make-up of other people, and skill in treating people according to their emotional reactions. This is linked to six competencies: empathy, expertise in building and retaining talent, organizational awareness, cross-cultural sensitivity, valuing diversity, and service to clients and customers.

4. Social skills – proficiency in managing relationships and building networks to get the desired result from others and reach personal goals, and the ability to find common ground and build rapport. The five competencies associated with this component are: leadership, effectiveness in leading change, conflict management, influence/communication, and expertise in building and leading teams.

According to Goleman, it is not enough to have a high IQ; emotional intelligence is also required. Since Goleman’s contribution, three major models of emotional intelligence, as summarized by Clarke (2007), have dominated thinking in this area:

· Personality models have become the most popular theory of emotional intelligence following Goleman. Here, emotional intelligence is viewed as comprising a range of emotional dispositions as well as competencies, from individual traits to a number of learnt capabilities. These are all contained within the components of emotional intelligence listed above.

· Mixed models comprise aspects of personality as well as abilities to perceive emotional intelligence and manage emotions.

· The ability model views emotional intelligence more narrowly as a set of four cognitive abilities that involve the capacity to identify, reason with, and utilize emotions effectively.

As Clarke comments, the first two models have come under criticism in terms of the ambiguity associated with the areas included and the measurement approaches employed. The ability model has received more positive commentary as possessing greater validity.

The notion that there is more to being effective as a manager or working with people than having a high IQ is persuasive. What matters is how that intelligence is used, especially when relating to people. The term ‘emotional intelligence’ has become a convenient and recognizable label for this requirement: someone who is poor at dealing with people is described as lacking in emotional intelligence.

Instruments are available for measuring emotional intelligence such as the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (Petrides and Furnham, 2000). On the basis of such questionnaires, learning and development programmes can be created for individuals or groups, which focus on any weaknesses revealed.

But doubts have been expressed about the notion of emotional intelligence. Locke (2005: 426), a well-respected occupational psychologist, made the following observation:

The concept of emotional intelligence has now become so broad and the components so variegated that no one concept could possibly encompass or integrate all of them, no matter what the concept was called; it is no longer even an intelligible concept. What is the common or integrating element in a concept that includes: introspection about emotions, emotional expression, non-verbal communication with others, empathy, self-regulation, planning, creative thinking and the direction of attention? There is none.

He suggested that emotional intelligence should be renamed as a skill.

Goleman’s mixed model of emotional intelligence, although the most popular, has been heavily criticized. Mayer et al (2008) described it as mere ‘pop psychology’. There is also the question of whether the concept of emotional intelligence adds anything significant to that of behavioural competencies. Dulewicz and Higgs (1999) have produced a detailed analysis of how the emotional intelligence elements of self-awareness, emotional management, empathy, relationships, communication and personal style correspond to competencies such as sensitivity, flexibility, adaptability, resilience, impact, listening, leadership, persuasiveness, motivating others, energy, decisiveness and achievement motivation. They conclude that there are distinct associations between competency modes and elements of emotional intelligence. There is a danger of confusion if emotional intelligence notions and competency frameworks overlap.

The main implications of organizational behaviour theory for HR specialists are summarized below.

When involved in organization design bear in mind that, while the highly structured classical model with clearly defined roles and lines of control and communication may appear to be the ideal solution, in practice organizations function differently. It is necessary to take into account the post-bureaucratic school and think of the organization as a portfolio of dynamic processes that overlay and often dominate the vertical, authority-based processes of the hierarchical structure. Similarly, organizational development activities should be based on an analysis and understanding of these dynamic processes.

The social processes of interaction and networking, communication, group behaviour, leadership, power, politics and conflict need to be understood and considered when considering ways of improving organizational effectiveness (the ability of an organization to achieve its goals by making effective use of the resources available to it). Social and political factors can affect how HR decisions are made and how well they are implemented.

When designing jobs, preparing learning and development programmes, assessing and counselling staff, developing reward systems and dealing with grievances and disciplinary problems, it is necessary to remember that all people are different. What fulfils or motivates one person may not fulfil or motivate another. Abilities, aptitudes and intelligence differ widely and it is necessary to take particular care in fitting the right people in the right jobs and giving them the right training. Personalities, attitudes and emotions also differ. It is important to focus on how to manage diversity. This should take account of individual differences, which will include any issues arising from the employment of women, people from different ethnic groups, those with disabilities and older people. The predictive effectiveness of GMA tests as selection aids should be noted.

Personality should not be judged or measured simplistically in terms of stereotyped traits. People are complex and they change, and account has to be taken of this. The problem for HR specialists and managers in general is that, while they have to accept and understand these differences and take full account of them, they have ultimately to proceed on the basis of fitting them to the requirements of the situation, which are essentially what the organization needs to achieve. There is always a limit to the extent to which an organization that relies on collective effort to achieve its goals can adjust itself to the specific needs of individuals. But the organization has to appreciate that the pressures it places on people can result in stress and therefore can become counterproductive.

Key learning points: Organizational behaviour

People perform their roles within complex systems called organizations. The study of organizational behaviour focuses on how this happens.