Today‟s organization is predominantly dynamic as it poses large opportunities and challenges to the corporate practitioners and policy makers. Understanding such dynamism is very crucial to pursue the organizational strategic objectives. There have been researches in literature to explore the effect of organizational culture on various human resource development programmes of an organization. For example, scholars including Hofstede, 1980; Ouchi, 1981; Hofstede and Bond, 1988, Kotter and Heskett, 1992; Magee, 2002, claim that organizational culture help to provide opportunity and broad structure for the development of human resources‟ technical and behavioural skills in an organization. This makes sense because good behavior is driven by ethical values. An organization can guide the conduct of its employees by embedding ethical values in its culture. However, organizational excellences could be varied since cultural traits could be source of competitive advantage through casual ambiguity, (Barney, 1991; and Peters and Waterman, 1982). The world is changing rapidly and the level of organizations is also changing due to technological advancements which have affected their human resource developments programmes. Moreover, organizations differ in their cultural content in terms of the relative ordering of beliefs, values and assumptions. Organizations are social systems. If one wishes to work in them or to manage them, it is necessary to understand how they operate. Organizations combine science and people – technology and humanity. Unless we have qualified people to design and implement, techniques alone will not produce desirable results. Human behavior in organizations is rather unpredictable. It is unpredictable because it arises from people‟s deep-seated needs and value systems. However, it can be partially understood in terms of the framework of behavioral science, management and other disciplines. There is no idealistic solution to organizational problems. All that can be done is to increase our understanding and skills so that human relations at work can be enhanced. Organizational Behavior is field of study that investigates the impact that individuals, groups and structure have on behavior within organization. It is the study and application of knowledge about how people act within organizations. It is a human tool for human benefit. It applies broadly to the behavior of people in all types of organizations, such as business, government, schools and services organizations. It covers three determinants of behavior in organizations: individuals, groups, and structure. OB is an applied field. It applies the knowledge gained about individuals, and the effect of structure on behavior, in order to make organizations work more effectively. OB covers the core topics of motivation, leadership behavior and power, interpersonal communication, group structure and

2

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 1.

Work, organization, and job design are three distinct but closely associated processes that establish what work is done in organizations and how it is done. Work design deals with the ways in which things are done in the work system of a business by teams and individuals. Organization design is concerned with deciding how organizations should be structured. Job design is about establishing what people in individual jobs or roles are there to do. Although these three activities are dealt with separately in this book they share one purpose – to ensure that the organization‟s work systems and structure operate effectively, make the best use of people in their jobs and roles and take account of the needs of people at work. In theory, to achieve that purpose, work, organization and job design function sequentially. The work system is designed to meet the specific needs of the business and to deliver value to its customers or clients. An organization structure or system (not all organizations are rigidly structured) has to be developed to enable will maximize the extent to which they can be carried out effectively and provide intrinsic motivation, ie motivation from the work itself. In practice, the processes involved can run concurrently – the work system will involve deciding how the work should be organized, and both the work system and organization design processes will define what sort of jobs or roles are required. At the same time, job design considerations will affect how the work is organized and how the work system functions. Work, organization and job design provide the basic ingredients for operating a business. But it is necessary to see that these processes work well, which is the aim of organization development. In this book, organization development is defined and its somewhat chequered history is described, from its origins as „OD‟ to the more focused and businesslike approaches adopted today. This leads to a discussion of organization development strategy and an examination of organization development in practice, involving the use of diagnostics as the basis for preparing organization development programmes. An organizational behavior perspective helps explain why these various practices affect the productivity and discretionary effort of employees and also how to understand and predict the effects of various human resource management policies. There are many relevant components of an organizational behavior perspective here we highlight three: First, people are social creatures and as such, are concerned with their relationships with others and influenced by what others say and do. As a result, perceptions, preferences, and attitudes are at least partly endogenous, and people derive an important part of their social identity through their affiliations. Second, people are concerned about fairness and justice, both distributive outcomes and also the processes through which those outcomes get determined. Because of this interest in both processes and outcomes being equitable, people will, as economists increasingly have recognized (Fehr and Gachter, 2000), actually expend resources to "punish" individuals who violate norms of fairness. And third, organizations as institutions in their own right are also embedded in a social context and are influenced by and imitate other organizations, in part to achieve legitimacy by acting like or looking like others and in part to conform to social expectations and norms.

MANAGEMENT

In the light of the above expositions, the importance of organisational behaviour in ensuring the effective

long way to determine the character of workers which include their perception and attitude in the organisation, their shared beliefs and assumption about the work place and work environment, how committed workers will be in the organisation, the way organisation combine their material and non-material resources to achieve organisational objective and how workers are motivated in the organisation. Based on the aforementioned gains of organisational behaviour these recommendations will be considered.

• Workers generally in public organisations- the management and staff, should endeavour as much as possible to have a positive attitude and perception about public organisations. This will be manifested in their efficient service delivery, group discussions and team work geared towards improving organisational and workers‟ productivity.

• Motivation which is one of the essential forces that drives workers in actualizing organisational goals and objectives with highest possible result and lowest cost be given very high priority. Areas such as workers allowances, commensurate salary with work, modern equipment and machines for work, staff training and development, adequate and due promotions to name but a few, should be considered by management as essential motivational factors.

• Management of organisations should try as much as possible to engage every worker based on their skills and capabilities in the different functions and tasks in the organisation. By this the workers will in the long run become specialised in their different endeavors and their abilities optimally utilized.

• Culture serves as the bedrock upon which organisational mission and vision is imbibed in the hearts of the workers. Their orientation and assumption about public organisations as the „white man‟s setup‟ or „oruoyibo‟ should be jettisoned and embraced as an institution created by and for Indians to improve and better the lives of the common man in the society.

• Lastly, employment in public organisations should be based on merit and competency as against sentiment and personal affiliation to key figures in the organisation. When merit and competence are used as yard stick for employment, resources of the organisation will be effectively and efficiently utilized in

The key elements in organizational behavior are people, structure, technology and the external elements in which the organization operates. When people join together in an organization to accomplish an objective, some kind of infrastructure is required. People also use technology to help get the job done, so there is an interaction of people, structure and technology. In addition, these elements are influenced by the external environment, and they influence it. Each of the four elements of organizational behavior will be considered briefly.

People make up the internal social system of the organization. They consist of individuals and groups, and large groups as well as small ones. People are the living, thinking, feelings beings who created the organizations. It exists to achieve their objectives. Organizations exist to serve people. People do not exist to serve organizations. The work force is one of the critical resources that need to be managed. In managing human resources, managers have to deal with: i) Individual employee who are expected to perform the tasks allotted to them ii) Dyadic relationships such as superior-subordinate interactions iii) Groups who work as teams and have the responsibility for getting the job done, iv) People outside the organization system such as customers and government officials

Structure defines the official relationships of people in organizations. Different jobs are required to accomplish all of an organization‟s activities. There are managers and employees, accountants and assemblers. These people have to be related in some structural way so that their work can be effective. The main structure relates to power and to duties. For example, one person has authority to make decisions that affect the work of other people. Organizations can be structured as relatively rigid, formalized systems or as relatively loose, flexible systems. Thus the structure of the organizations can range on a continuum of high rigidity to high flexibility. There are two broad categories of organization: i)

4

It is characterized by high levels of complexity, formalization and centralization. A highly mechanistic system is characterized by centralized decision making at the top, a rigid hierarchy of authority, well but narrowly defined job responsibilities especially at lower levels, and extensive rules and regulations which are explicitly make known to employees through written documents. In mechanistic organization, labor is divided and subdivided into many highly specialized tasks (high complexity), workers are granted limited discretion in performing theirs t a sks and rules and procedures are carefully defined (high formalization); and there is limited participation in decision making which tends to be conducted at the highest levels of management high centralization.

A highly organic system is characterized by decentralized decision-making which allows people directly involved with the job to make their own decisions, very few levels in the hierarchy with flexible authority and reporting patters, loosely defined job responsibilities for members, and very few written rules and regulations. It is relatively simple, informal and decentralized. Compared with mechanistic organizations, employees in organic organizations, such as design firms or research labs, tend to be more generalist in their orientation.

Job refers to the sum total of an individual‟s assignment at the workplace. Tasks refer to the various activities that need to be performed to get the job done. The nature of tasks, it‟s executives by various individuals, nature of interdependence and inter-relatedness, group activities etc have implication for organizational effectiveness. Thus the jobs and tasks have to be designed and managed properly.

Organizations have technologies for transforming inputs and outputs. These technologies consist of physical objects, activities and process, knowledge, all of which are brought to bear on raw materials labor and capital inputs during a transformation process. The core technology is that set of productive components most directly associated with the transformation process, for example, production or assembly line in manufacturing firm. Technology provides the physical and economic resources with which people work. They cannot accomplish much with their bare hands, so they build buildings, design machines, create work processes and assemble resources. The technology that results has a significant influence on working relationships. An technology is that it allows people to do more and better work, but it also restricts people in various ways. It has costs as well as benefits.

i) An Interdisciplinary Approach: It is integrating many disciplines. It integrates social sciences and other disciplines that can contribute to the Organizational Behavior. It draws from these disciplines any ideas that will improve the relationships between people and organization. Its interdisciplinary nature is similar to that of medicine, which applies physical, biological and social science into a workable medical practice. Organizations must have people, and people working toward goals must have organizations, so it is desirable to treat the two as a working unit. ii) Scientific Management Approach: The fundamental concern of the scientific management school was to increase the efficiency of the worker basically through good job design and appropriate training of the workers. Taylor is the father of the scientific management movement and he developed many ides to increase organizational efficiency. Taylor showed that through proper job design, worker selection, employee training and incentives, productivity can be increased. The scientific management school advocated that efficiency can be attained by finding the right methods to get the job done, through specialization on the job, by planning and scheduling, by using standard operating mechanisms, establishing standard times to do the job, by proper selection and training of personnel and through wage incentives. iii) A Human Resources (Supportive) Approach: It is developmental approach concerned with the growth and development of people toward higher levels of competency creativity and fulfillment, because people are the central resource in any organizations and any society. It helps people grow in self-control and responsibility and then it tries to create a climate in which all employees may contribute to the limits of their improved abilities. It is assumed that expanded capabilities and opportunities for people will lead directly to improvements in operating effectiveness. Work satisfaction will be a direct result when employees make fuller use of their capabilities. Essentially, the

iv) A Contingency Approach: Traditional management relies on one basic principle – there is one best way of managing things and these things can be applied across the board in all the instances. The situational effect will be totally ignored in this traditional management. Situations are much more complex than first perceived and the different variables may require different behavior which means that different environments required different behavior for effectiveness. Each situation much be analyzed carefully to determine the significant variables that exist in order to establish the kinds of practices that will be more effective. v) A Systems Approach: This implies that organization consists of many inter related and inter dependent elements affecting one another in order to achieve the overall results. Conceptually a system implies that there are a multitude of variables in organization and that each of them affects all the others in complex relationships. An event that appears to affect one individual or one department actually may have significant influences elsewhere in the organization. Systems theorists describe the organization as “open to its external environment”, receiving certain inputs from the environment such as human resources, raw materials etc, and engaging in various operations to transform those raw materials into a finished products and finally turning out the “outputs” in its final form to be sent to the environment. The organization, since it is open to the environment, also receives feedback from the environment and takes corrective action as necessary. This input-transformation process-output model with the feedback mechanism can be illustrated through a simple example.

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. 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.

6

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 largely function by means of managers and supervisors who exercise leadership in order to get their teams into action and ensure that they achieve the results expected of them. Goleman (2000) reported that a study by Hay McBer of 3,871 executives, selected from a database of more than 20,000 executives worldwide, established that leadership had a direct impact on organizational climate, and that climate in turn accounted for nearly one-third of the financial results of organizations. The conclusion from research conducted by Higgs (2006) was that leadership behaviour accounts for almost 50 per cent of the difference between change success and failure. Research by North use (2006) into 167 US firms in 13 industries established that over a 20-year period leadership accounted for more variations in performance than any other variable.

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.

Political behaviour is an inevitable feature of organizational life. The aim of organizational politicians is to get their own way by influencing people to accept their point of view without going through the usual channels or relying on their authority. Some individuals genuinely believe that the best way to get something done is by using political means, especially when they devious, but it can sometimes help to enlist support and overcome obstacles to getting results.

Organization design is the process of deciding how organizations should be structured in terms of the ways in which the responsibility for carrying out the overall task is allocated to individuals and groups of people and how the relationships between them function. The aim is to ensure that people work effectively together to achieve the overall purpose of the organization. The basic question of „Who does what?‟ is answered by line managers but HR specialists are also involved in their capacity of helping the business to make the best use of its people. HR professionals can contribute to organization design or redesign activities by using their understanding of the factors affecting organizational behaviour and their knowledge of the business as a whole. It is generally assumed that organization design is a logical and systematic affair, based on accepted principles and using analytical techniques that produce an inevitable „best‟ result. But as explained below there is always organizational choice. There are certain guidelines to which consideration needs to be given, and organization reviews should be based on analysis, as also discussed below. But, ultimately, the ways in which an organization functions and therefore its structure (or sometimes its lack of structure) are contingent on the situation. In accordance with socio-technical theory this consists of the people who work in the organization and the systems and techniques it uses to achieve its purpose.

There is never one best way of organizing anything. There is always a choice. It is necessary to bear in mind that structural requirements in organizations or organizational units will vary widely according to what they are there to do and the activities they have to carry out. That is why there are no absolute principles such as the traditional precepts of „unity of command‟ (one person, one boss) or the need to limit spans of control (the number of functions or people for which a manager is responsible). It all depends. Burns and Stalker (1961) established in their study of electronic companies in Scotland that in stable conditions a highly structured or „mechanistic‟ organization will emerge that has specialized functions, clearly defined jobs, strict administrative routines and a hierarchical system of exercising control. However, when the environment is volatile, a rigid system of ranks and routine will inhibit the organization‟s speed and sensitivity of response. In these circumstances the structure is, or

of how it should operate. As explained by Cummings and Worley (2005: 516), this means that there are two different types of organization design.

In exercising organizational choice an organizational review, as described below, will help in the evaluation of the alternatives, but the law of the situation, as described originally by Mary Parker Follett (1924), should prevail. This states that the work that people are required to do depends on the objective requirements of the situation. The final choice will depend upon the context and circumstances of the organization – as Lupton (1975) pointed out, it is important to achieve best fit.

Organizations are not static things. Changes are constantly taking place in the business itself, in the environment in which the business operates, and in the people who work in the business. There is no such thing as an „ideal‟ organization. The most that can be done is to optimize the processes involved; remembering that whatever structure evolves it will be contingent on the circumstances of the organization. An important point to bear in mind is that organizations consist of people working more or less cooperatively together. Inevitably, and especially at managerial levels, the organization may have to be adjusted to fit the particular strengths and attributes of the people available. The result may not conform to the ideal, but it is more likely to work than a structure that ignores the human element. It is always desirable to have an ideal structure in mind, but it is equally desirable to modify it to meet particular circumstances, as long as there is awareness of any potential problems that may arise. This may seem an obvious point, but it is frequently ignored by management consultants and others who adopt a doctrinaire approach to organization, often with disastrous results. The worst sin that organization designers can commit is that of imposing their own ideology on the organization. Their job is to be eclectic in their knowledge, sensitive in their analysis of the situation and deliberate in their approach to the evaluation of alternatives. Rewards for Organizational and Group, Not Just Individual, Performance the ideas of fairness and equity imply that individuals expect to benefit when their efforts improve the economic performance of their employers. One of the current sources of dissatisfaction, as evidenced in union-management instances company financial results have improved, but senior management and shareholders, rather than employees, have enjoyed virtually all of the benefits of the improved economic performance. At the same time, differentially rewarding individuals creates distinctions among people, thereby increasing social distance, and can, as typically ad-ministered, produce perceptions of unfair treatment. Thus, it is likely that rewarding group or organizational performance through schemes such as profit- or gain-sharing or through some form of equity ownership will create fewer problems than rewarding individuals. Collective rewards transfer some portion of the eco-nomic gains to employees, consistent with the idea of fairness, while doing so in ways that are less disruptive to valued social relations among employees. Although some economists have noted that collective rewards run into the free-riding problem, the evidence from numerous surveys, even by the compensation consulting firms that often administer performance-based pay systems, typically show widespread dissatisfaction with individual pay for performance both on the part of those subjected to it and those administering the plans (Hewitt, 2004). Consistent with the idea that social relations are important and that people will choose to do things to maintain them, experimental research shows that people choose to allocate rewards more equally than would be expected on the basis of differences in performance and particularly make more equal distributions of rewards when those distributions are going to be public. In work organizations, differentiated individual rewards can create feelings of inequity. That's because few organizations face conditions similar to those of Satellite Glass (Lazear, 2000), where work was independent, performance could be inexpensively and objectively assessed, and performance metrics were essentially Unidimensionality how many windshields got installed. Employees often see differentiated rewards as the result of arbitrary management favoritism, in part because most people see themselves as being "above average." The evidence supports employees' suspicions about performance ratings. One study found that individual performance ratings were more highly correlated with whether the person being rated had been hired by the person doing the rating-who is going to be more committed to the person whom he or she has chosen-than with the individual's objective performance.

From the discussions above, it is obvious that organisational behaviour plays a very vital role in organisations especially in the areas of managing the material and non-material resources towards realisation of goal(s).Organisational behaviour which

8

Several conclusions can be drawn from this overview of organization theory perspectives on human resource management. First, just as economics has, at least to some extent, come to accept the findings of the literature on individual cognitive bias and its implications for human judgment and decision making, it would be useful for economics to explore the extent to which more macro-level theories of organizational bias and irrationality can enrich our understanding of company behavior, including behavior with respect to the implementation of various human resource practices. Such a perspective would almost seem to be required to account for the facts that 1) employee attitudes and related behaviors are generally poor, 2) employees and how they are managed are important sources of company success and competitive advantage, 3) and methods for achieving a culture of high-performance are known, but apparently not implemented. Second, organization theory offers some views of both human motivation and organizations as social institutions that can provide not only assumptions from which to build theory but also perspectives to test empirically.

AGARWALA T. (2009). Strategic Human Resource Management. New York: Oxford University Press Armstrong M. (2012). Armstrong’s Handbok of Huan Resource Management Practice, 12 Edition, London: Ashford Colour Press. BHATIA S. K. (2007). Strategic Human Resource Management. Winning through People. Concepts, Practices and Emerging Trends. New Delhi: Deep and Deep Publication PVT Cole G. A. (1995). Organisational Behaviour, Great Britain: As ford Clour Press. Cummings T. G. and Worley C. G. (2005). Organization Development and Change, Mason, OH, South Western. Davidson S. (2002). How to choose the right coach. People Management, Vol. 8. No. 10. pp. 54-55. Fehr Ernst, and Simon Gachter (2000). "Fair-ness and Retaliation: The Economics of Reciprocity." Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3): pp. 159-81. Ferraro Fabrizio, Jeffrey Pfeffer, and Robert I. Sutton (2005). "Economics Language and Assumptions: How Theories Can Become Ivancevich J.M. and Matteson M.T. (2008).Organisational Behaviour and Management, 8th Edition, New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Lazear Edward P. (2000). "Performance Pay and Productivity." American Economic Review, 90(5): pp. 1346-61. Schuler R. S. and Jackson S. E. (2000). Strategic Human Resource Management, Oxford, Blackwell.

Principal in Kishori Raman Mahavidyalaya, Mathura E-Mail – tyagidra@gmail.com