Organizational Behavior in the Modern World - Assignment Example

Running Head: Organizational Behavior Organizational Behavior Name: Course: College: Instructor: Date: Organizational Behavior Today’s organizations are faced with various challenges. Organizations face the problem of deciding the best way to motivate workers with diverse skills, values and expectations. This arises from the fact that today’s workers expect work to be more meaningful and involving and seem to focus on integrating work into their daily lives instead of devoting their lives to an organization. As such, organizations are finding it challenging to formulate organizational goals that will improve overall performance while at the same time taking into consideration the expectations and values of workers (Busch, 1998, p.291). Moreover, there arises a problem about goal uncertainty within organizations as workers may not know what they are working to achieve in their responsibilities or what they are asked to accomplish may change from time to time. From these challenges, it is evident that most of them can be solved using organizational behavior, which entails studying human behavior in organizational environments. According to Neck, Nouri and Godwin (2003), the best way to solve challenges inherent in the goal setting process is to embrace “participative goal-setting” (p.691). This gives workers the opportunity to participate in the process implying that their values and expectations will certainly be incorporated in organizational goals. It can also motivate employees since they will be in a position to determine organizational goals and therefore, take them as their own and commit much of their efforts towards goal achievement. To date, various motivational theories have been put forward to help organizations in setting goals that serve to motivate employees. Classical examples include Hierarchy of needs, equity, expectancy, goal-setting, management-by-objectives (MBO), reinforcement and ERG theories etc (Rauch, 2007, p.2). Among these, MBO and goal-setting theories are the two most effective theories that modern day organizations can apply to improve organizational performance while at the same time improving motivation of workers. MBO believes motivation of employees will be improved if the goal setting process is jointly accomplished in four steps by both employees and managers (Miner, 2007, p.119). Goal-setting theory holds that for goals should have some difficulty and specificity, should be accepted by the workers, employees should show commitment towards the goals and management should give feedback to employees regarding their progress (Latham & Locke, 2006). This paper aims to discuss these two motivational theories in regard to their core elements, strengths and weaknesses so as to identify their usefulness in solving goal setting challenges faced by modern day organizations. Goal-Setting Theory This theory is based on the premise that individual’s behavior is influenced by his/her conscious intentions and goals. The initial model of this theory was put forward by Edwin Locke in 1960s who believed that goals are important in guiding individuals’ actions and responses. Locke’s goal setting theory was founded on two characteristics – goal complexity and specificity- which he believed shaped performance of employees. By goal complexity, Locke referred to the extend to which an objective is challenging and demanding in terms of efforts. If individuals work to fulfill certain objectives, it is rational to argue that they will expend more efforts to attain more complex objectives or goals and hence, improve their performance. However, complexity of the objectives should be proportional to the abilities of the workers; otherwise they may not be unachievable. On the other hand, goal specificity refers to the accuracy and lucidity of the objective. Locke argued that workers are motivated to improve their performance if the set goals are specific in terms of the expected performance. Locke and Gary Latham later expanded the model to include two more characteristics – goal acceptance and commitment – so as to address effectively the complexities of setting goals in organizations (Rauch, 2007, p.2-4). The two theorists argued that workers can only be motivated to work harder if the goal setting process encourages them to accept goals as their own and commit efforts to reaching the goals. They further gave factors that foster such acceptance and commitment, which include involving workers in the goal setting process, formulating realistic and challenging goals and reinforcing goal achievement with rewards. The theorists argued that process of goal setting is founded on a) directing attention to the task at hand, b) facilitating search for suitable methods to achieve the task, and c) mobilizing and maintaining effort towards the task. Another factor associated with this theory is feedback that reveals progress to employees in relation to their efforts towards goals. Advantages and Limitations One of the major benefits associated with goal setting theory is improved performance because of improved productivity of workers. This benefit is attributed to the element of goal difficulty included in the theory. According to Yearta, Maitlis and Briner (1995), such a benefit arises from the fact that performance of difficult tasks not only requires employees to expend more efforts and time on their duties, but also motivates them to fully exploit their cognitive abilities to look for the best way to achieve the stated goals (p.238). In addition, the theory ensures that the whole organization strives towards a common and specific performance target. This is because the theory calls for specificity of goals and therefore, it ensures that all employees work towards a common target. For instance, let’s say that a manager asks his/her sales team to increase sales by 20% for the next one month. All of the salespeople will work towards achieving this goal within the given time frame. Another benefit includes improved self-efficacy of employees because of positive feedback about their progress, which serves to motivate employees to improve their productivity (Kozlowski & Bell, 2006, p.912). Also, the theory ensures a teamwork spirit within an organization as all the workers accept to commit their efforts towards particular organizational goals. However, there are various weaknesses inherent in goal setting theory. First, it is believed that the aspect of goal difficulty leads to reduced organizational performance, especially if the level of goal complexity does not correlate to the level of cognitive abilities of the workers (Latham & Locke, 2006, p.332). This is because when employees find that they are not in a position to achieve the stated goals, they loose commitment and motivation altogether. Also, negative feedbacks towards under-performing employees may serve to demotivate them. This is because their under-performance may not necessarily mean that they are unproductive, but rather it may be as a result of goals that were more difficult for them to achieve based on their ability. Moreover, the theory argues that workers are best motivated when they are directed towards achieving a specific goal. However, such specificity may shift focus of workers away from other organizational goals and in the end, lead to poor overall performance of the organization. The theory cannot be applied in leading workers to achieve more than one goal as this has the effect of causing conflict of goals (Latham & Locke, 2006, p.334). Therefore, the perspective is only effective in motivating workers to fulfill one objective at a time. Management-by-Objectives This motivational theory traces its popularity from the 1954 writings of Drucker. It involves a mutual determination by management and subordinate of organizational objectives, principal areas of responsibility and the expected results. This process of mutual determination is guided by about four steps, which form the basis of this perspective (Miner, 2007, p.118-119). The first step involves setting goals to define what the organization as a whole is trying to achieve. According to this theory, the goals should be well-founded, realistic, specific, assign responsibility and mutually derived. It asserts that it is through joint agreement between management and employees that all workers will have strong commitment to achieving the stipulated objectives. Having set the goals, both parties should continue to formulate action plans on how to accomplish the agreed goals. These plans should be formulated for individual workers and departments. The next step involves periodic evaluations of progress of the action plans. This evaluation assists managers and workers to know if they are on target or if corrective actions are required to keep the plans on target. Theorists for MBO assert that the effectiveness of the theory lies on the ability of the workers and superiors to take whatever procedures necessary to produce the desired outcomes. According to Miner (2007), evaluation of general performance should come as the last step of MBO (p.119). This involves evaluating if annual objectives have been accomplished for workers and departments. Failure or success to fulfill the goals becomes the basis of designing performance appraisal program and formulation of wages and other rewards. Advantages and Limitations There are various benefits associated with MBO. First, organizational goals are more likely to be achieved when they focus workers and management’s efforts. This is because giving workers an opportunity to be part of the team that is involved in goal formulation ensures their trust and as such, put more efforts to achieve the promised objectives (Busch, 1998, p.296). In addition, workers and managers meet regularly to discuss progress. At these discussions, some changes can be made to the initial goals or action plans. Major hurdles affecting accomplishment of goals within the agreed time frame are identified. This facilitates identification and acquisition of resources and support needed to keep the action plan on target. The performance appraisal programs developed as part of MBO helps workers know how their job responsibilities and performance lead to the business operations. Moreover, the idea of involving employees in deciding what is expected of them acts to motivate them in improving their performance so as to achieve the agreed goals. Also, MBO gives workers a sense of ownership and commitment towards the set objectives. This is because the workers have an opportunity to set their own goals based on their ability and time frame they feel they can accomplish the goals (Neck, Nouri & Godwin, 2003, p.701). However, the weaknesses inherent in MBO are evident when the organization encounters rapid transformation. The internal operations and environment should have some steadiness for performance to be evaluated and compared against the set objectives. However, this is not possible as rapid changes forces workers and superiors to set objectives every now and then giving the organization no time to develop action plans and appraisal systems (Busch, 1998, p.296). Its over-reliance on the interaction between workers and superiors to set goals can result to ineffectiveness in the whole process when there is poor relationship between the two parties. This is because distrust resulting from such a relationship may lead workers to choose easier and off-target goals that do not contribute towards improved organizational performance. Another limitation inherent in MBO is its emphasis on operational and individual workers’ goals. This greatly hinders commitment of organization as a whole towards attainment of the overall objectives. Moreover, if the theory is implemented as a process of filling out the usual organizational paperwork rather than motivating workers to fulfill goals, it turns out to be unsuccessful strategy. This is because workers forget about the objectives once the paperwork is concluded and hence, decrease organizational performance. Discussion and Conclusion Both theories are effective as organizational tools that can be relied upon by modern day organizations to improve overall performance through setting goals that act to motivate workers. However, they way in which such motivation is achieved differ from one theory to the other. Use of MBO emphasizes on the joint participation of workers and superiors in setting the goals. Such approach ensures that workers know what they are expected to achieve and in turn, improve their self-efficacy and commitment towards achievement of organizational objectives. On the other hand, goal setting theory usefulness lies on its focus on goal difficulty and specificity as the principal motivation elements. According to Latham and Locke (2006), high specific objectives lead to improved productivity of workers provided that the employees have sufficient experience and skills to accomplish the associated tasks (p.332). This is because such objectives motivate workers to put more efforts and remain focused in achieving the set goals. Moreover, it is possible for organizational performance to improve greatly if the two theories can be combined. This is because such combination will not only motivate workers to work hard towards specific goals, but it will also ensure improved commitment and acceptance of the goals by the workers since they will have an opportunity to participate in the goal setting process. In summary, MBO and goal-setting theories are effective tools that organizations can use to motivate their workers towards improved productivity and performance. MBO offers workers opportunity to take part in the process of goal setting indicating that their values and expectations will be incorporated in organizational goals. On the other hand, goal-setting theory ensures improved commitment and acceptance by workers towards organizational objectives. References Busch, T. (1998). Attitudes towards management by objectives: An empirical investigation of self-efficacy and goal commitment. Scandinavian Journal of Management 14(3): pp.289-299. Kozlowski, S.W. & Bell, B.S. (2006). Disentangling achievement orientation and goal setting: Effects on self-regulatory processes. Journal of Applied Psychology 91(4):pp.900-916. Latham, G.P. & Locke, E.A. (2006). Enhancing the benefits and overcoming the pitfalls of goal setting. Organizational Dynamics 35(4): pp.332-340. Miner, J.B. (2007). Organizational behavior: From theory to practice. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Neck, C.P., Nouri, H. & Godwin, J.L. (2003). How self-leadership affects the goal-setting process. Human Resource Management Review 13(4): pp.691-707. Rauch, C. (2007). The goal-setting theory: A short discussion. Munich: GRIN Verlag. Yearta, S.K., Maitlis, S. & Briner, R.B. (1995). An exploratory study of goal setting in theory and practice: A motivational technique that works? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 68: pp.237-252. Read More