Organizational Behavior Facilitates Success - Book Report/Review Example

?Article Review--Organizational Behavior Organizational behavior facilitates success. That is commonly described nowadays by numerous pundits and practitioners. This writing will explicate three collaborative journal articles from five various authors. Each one is interrelated, and they are depicted with two paragraphs each. Researcher’s arguments will then be perceived in every second paragraph for each journal article. Organizational learning has been depicted as the ultimate source to attain competitive advantage (Fang, Jiang, Makino, & Beamish, 2010 as cited in Teh & Yong, 2011, p. 11). Teh and Yong’s journal article depicts about knowledge sharing as an organizational behavior perspective. Initially, the learning of the organization, including that of the people, the process, the organization and products and services can make the whole firm achieve competitive advantage. However, theory of reasoned action is believed to impact the intention of personnel to share information. Even if these people have the sufficient knowledge of the organization, they could still be presumed to act a certain behavior that is based on their purpose. That is why those people attempt to act such behavior with a purpose that can be determined through their attitude towards their work (Bock, Shin, Suh, & Hu, 2010 as cited in Teh & Yong, 2011, p. 12). As the result, attitude with subjective responses to other persons makes these personnel act a certain behavior. It has also been found that self-importance, in-role behavior and organizational behavior, is an important factor that can impact the desire of such employees to deliver unbiased information. Consequently, from that view, it can be concluded that a feeling of self-importance and in-role behavior of the personnel can be regarded as the creators of their attitude towards organizational sharing of information. I agree with this notion since the intention to disperse information to other members of the organization can be affected by the same factors delineated. However, the article missed including other factors; in the absence of self-importance, or in-role behavior, as long as the objective norm is present in an organization or an entity, there will still be the intention for someone to share knowledge. This suggests that organizational policies should have a strong foundation because those can compel organizational sharing of information. The article may implicate significant aspects, but it forgot to include notions such as corporate and individual objectives. Incentives such as health and monetary factors may somehow create alterations towards an entity’s behavior (Gibbs, Heywood, & Pettigrew, 2012). For example, employees are motivated to work when they know that the company provisions them with a health insurance system, or a reward system in the form of money. This can trigger alterations on the performance of employees towards their job. Moreover, creating teams in the workforce can also affect organizational performance (Choi, Lee, & Yoo, 2010, p. 856). This is to have a good communication with a good flow of information from one employee to another. The effectiveness may depict that implementing the idea of making teams can further achieve competitive advantage. Reward systems, however, do not affect organizational behavior (Organ, 1988 as cited in Lathalavanya & Thenmozhi, 2011, p. 24). Lathalavanya and Thenmozhi’s journal article describes that knowledge sharing can facilitate success and efficiency through the concept of organizational citizenship behavior. Similar to the previous journal article, this one tells that, as embedded by Organ’s disposition, an entity behavior is not objective but subjective; thus, personnel are not influenced by any formal reward framework. Because personnel participation in sharing of information is very significant, it is also very significant to learn on how to achieve its effectiveness and efficiency. Specifically, entities should focus on knowledge dissemination and organizational citizenship behavior. These factors are interrelated because without the effectiveness of the latter, the former could not be disseminated well. That is because knowledge distribution is a cost chain method, wherein organizational learning moves from one entity to another. It can be fathomed that aside from self-importance or in-role behavior of personnel, there must be an integrated purpose of sharing information following the line of an effective knowledge sharing and organizational behavior. Further, knowledge sharing has manifold factors that affect organizational behavior. First, it can facilitate the flow of information all throughout an organization. Second, the dissemination of learning can trigger integration of knowledge and can generate new ideas. Lastly, ineffective knowledge sharing can hinder entity’s attitude and competencies. Therefore, from this point of view, issues such as sense of self-importance and in-role behavior should be amended first before an organization can achieve effective dissemination of information. I certainly agree with the how the arguments are delineated because effective dissemination of organizational learning is really an essential motivator for organizational success. However, these notions should be supported with the issue of trust. Trust is a significant element impacting knowledge distribution in the community. In the absence of trust, information will not be properly disseminated (Zalta, 2006 as cited in Sangmi, Das, & Rao, 2011, p. 314). It is, therefore, apparent that one person may not be effective because of the absence of trust with regard to the entity who shares the certain information. As a matter of fact, sharing of information in the organization with a great amount of trust can further deliver an effective and efficient operation. Moreover, a journal article by Mohamed and Anisa suggests that organizational citizenship behavior is the behavior that is willfully exerted by personnel in the external facet of the entity and the said behaviors are not influenced by any reward framework (Organ, 1988 as cited in Mohamed & Anisa, 2012, p. 7). In the conceptual framework of the study, it was stated that there are only three broad paths that connect to organizational citizenship behavior: (1) affective, (2) continuance, and (3) normative commitments (Mohamed & Anisa, 2012, p. 10). In the later conduct of the research, it was found that affective commitment has the least possible force that can affect the organizational citizen behavior while normative commitment has the greatest. This is because affective commitment is the one that is made by the firm, and not by the personnel themselves. Normative commitment, in contrast, is stipulated by the personnel themselves and whether the company does not like it or not, personnel will behave according to their normal perspectives. Aside from that, the continuance commitment may be depicted as both organizational and personal efforts because an entity may deem to perceive risk, such as whether to continue working in the business firm or find another firm. Because of this, the role of the business is to retain employee satisfaction through motivation assumption framework, and employee’s role is to render satisfactory services to the management. In conclusion, the study depicts that the three said variables can forecast the organizational citizenship behavior. However, the study limits onto the organizational commitment and their various impacts to the personnel and to the entire organization (Mohamed & Anisa, 2012, p. 15). Furthermore, the notions aforementioned may lead one entity to do things in purpose (Cohen, 2003 as cited in Dey, 2012, p. 63). From this point, I agree with the Mohamed and Anisa’s rationale of choosing organizational commitments to predict the citizenship behavior of an organization because persons can be influenced by the things that they bind themselves into. One way to achieve efficiency is working with clear job description. I thought that the study will separate the precise and ambiguous perceptions of organizational commitment since these two are broad and should be classified. Angle and Perry (1986) depicted that organizational commitments can be extremely hard to identify because of the interpersonal conflicts in an organization (as cited in Dey, 2012, p. 65). In other terms, the study should classify two sectors such as those that are satisfied with their jobs and those that are not. References Choi, S. Y., Lee, H., & Yoo, Y. (2010). The impact of information technology and transactive memory systems on knowledge sharing, application, and team performance: A field study. MIS Quarterly, 34(4), 855-870. Dey, T. (2012). Predictors of organizational commitment and union commitment: A conceptual study. IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11(4), 62-75. Gibbs, T., Heywood, S., & Pettigrew, M. (2012). Encouraging your people to take the long view. McKinsey Quarterly, 1(4), 129-133. Lathalavanya, B., & Thenmozhi, R. (2011). Organizational citizenship behavior evaluating organizational efficiency and success through knowledge sharing. Journal of Contemporary Management Research, 5(1), 24-29. Mohamed, M. S., & Anisa, H. (2012). Relationship between organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11(3), 7-22. Sangmi, C., Das, S., & Rao, H. R. (2011). Factors affecting Blogger’s knowledge sharing: An investigation across gender. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28(3), 309-342. Teh, P. L., & Yong, C. C. (2011). Knowledge sharing in is personnel: Organizational behavior’s perspective. Journal of Computer Information System, 51(4), 11-21. Read More