Individual and Organizational Behavior

The definition of person and interpersonal behavior has long been debated in the fields of business and psychology. A previous study has concluded that there is a significant connection between the two. However, deciding which of the two impacts the other has been a source of contention. Numerous studies undertaken to shed more light on this subject have yielded contradictory results. Information on this topic is important for psychologists and company managers because it allows them to progress in their respective fields.

Discussion

People are defined by their behavior. Behavior determines the perception people have. It is for this reason that organizations strive to maintain a good organizational behavior. Organizations comprise many employees who have different behaviors. These behaviors are integrated into the organizational behavior. As such, it is evident there is a relationship between these two. However, which one influences the other more is a point of contradiction.

Human beings have the ability to affect their environment through their behavior. The human behavior determines how an individual behaves with the aim of survival or personal gain. People have their individual objectives which they strive to meet daily. These objectives determine how they behave. One’s behavior can influence his or her environment’s behavior in various ways. It is through these ways that individual behavior influences organizational behavior. The first way this can be done is by influencing the organizational behavior to be similar to that of the individual. If an employee is hard working, he or she can influence the other employees to behave in a similar manner which results in a hardworking organizational behavior. Another way this can be done is by altering the organization’s behavior such that it works to the advantage of the specific individual. Such can occur whereby a single individual feels like rebelling for a certain reason and can convince others to be rebellious too. Also, this can be achieved by integrating or disintegrating the objectives of all the employees. This refers to influencing employees to work towards a common organizational objective or for their personal objectives. The type of objective they focus on shapes the organizational behavior.

However, there has also been a strong argument that organizational behavior shapes individual behavior. Upon joining an organization, employees become part of it. As such, to survive, they adapt into the system which includes the organizational behavior. This argument is of the notion that human behavior is a result of the environment’s behavior. It holds that human behavior changes with the environment to enable an individual to survive. As such, an employee takes up the behavior of the organization he or she works for. As a result, the focus should be put on the organizational behavior, and individual behavior will follow suit.

References

Moore, C., Detert, J. R., Klebe Treviño, L., Baker, V. L., & Mayer, D. M. (2012). Why employees do bad things: Moral disengagement and unethical organizational behavior. Personnel Psychology, 65(1), 1-48.

Bizzell, P., & Herzberg, B. (Eds.). (2001). The rhetorical tradition: Readings from classical times to the present. Bedford/St. Martin's.
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. (2013). Organizational behavior.

Task Two

Direct quotation from:
Li, N., Liang, J., & Crant, J. M. (2010). The role of proactive personality in job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior: a relational perspective. Journal of applied psychology, 95(2), 395.

Original paragraph: “Supervisors largely determine important subordinate outcomes (e.g., job assignment, promotion, performance appraisal). The exchange relationship between an employee and her or his supervisor is an important interpersonal connection for proactive employees, in part because it is a central part of the process by which proactive employees experience job satisfaction and exhibit citizenship behaviors. Proactive employees actively manage relationships with their supervisors and ultimately experience greater job satisfaction than do their less proactive coworkers” (Li, Liang, & Crant, 2010, p. 401).

Acceptable paraphrase

The various outcomes of employees’ duties such as promotions are greatly determined by their supervisors. As such, employees keen on preventing challenges from arising are keen on ensuring they maintain a close and personal relationship with their supervisors as it gives them job satisfaction. It is part of their citizenship behavior. They pay attention to their relationship with the supervisors and strive to maintain it. This aspect grants them job satisfaction unlike other employees within their organizations.

Direct quotation

“Supervisors largely determine important subordinate outcomes (e.g., job assignment, promotion, performance appraisal). The exchange relationship between an employee and her or his supervisor is an important interpersonal connection for proactive employees, in part because it is a central part of the process by which proactive employees experience job satisfaction and exhibit citizenship behaviors. Proactive employees actively manage relationships with their supervisors and ultimately experience greater job satisfaction than do their less proactive coworkers” (Li, Liang, & Crant, 2010, p. 401).

Summary

Proactive employees are seen to have a greater job satisfaction than their counterparts. This is mainly attributed to their citizenship behavior which involves maintaining a close relationship with their supervisors.

Paragraph integrating the direct quotation into paraphrased discussion

In their discussion, Li, Liang, & Crant (2010), point out that there is a great relationship between the organizational and the employees’ behavior through their respective supervisors since “Supervisors largely determine important subordinate outcomes” (p. 401). How employees relate with these supervisors determines their job satisfaction. This shows that organizational behavior influences employee behavior. Supervisors are part of the organization's lower management. The fact that they determine the outcomes of employee’s duties makes the proactive workers keen on maintaining a good relationship with them. In return, they obtain great outcomes which give them job satisfaction. As illustrated by the researchers, “Proactive employees actively manage relationships with their supervisors and ultimately experience greater job satisfaction than do their less proactive coworkers” (Li, Liang, & Crant, 2010, p. 401).

Direct quotation from:

Original paraphrase: Umphress, E. E., Bingham, J. B., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Unethical behavior in the name of the company: the moderating effect of organizational identification and positive reciprocity beliefs on unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 769.

Original paragraph: “Our results suggest that the combination of organizational identification and positive reciprocity beliefs influences unethical behavior. These results provide some support for prior theoretical work on the dark side of organizational identification (Ashforth & Anand, 2003; Dukerich et al., 1998) but suggest that strong organizational identification alone does not predict unethical behavior” (Umphress, Bingham, & Mitchell, 2010, p.777).

Acceptable paraphrase

The findings from the research indicate that unethical behavior is a product of various factors such as positive reciprocity and organizational identification. As such, this information goes to shed more light on previous studies conducted which portray the demerits of organizational identification. However, unethical behavior cannot be predicted by organizational identification alone since there are other factors involved (Umphress, Bingham, & Mitchell, 2010, p.777).

Direct quotation

“Our results suggest that the combination of organizational identification and positive reciprocity beliefs influences unethical behavior. These results provide some support for prior theoretical work on the dark side of organizational identification (Ashforth & Anand, 2003; Dukerich et al., 1998) but suggest that strong organizational identification alone does not predict unethical behavior” (Umphress, Bingham, & Mitchell, 2010, p.777).

Summary

Unethical behavior is brought about by both positive reciprocity and organizational identification. As such, one cannot effectively predict unethical behavior using organizational identification alone.

Paragraph integrating the direct quotation into paraphrased discussion

In their study on Unethical Behavior, Umphress, Bingham, & Mitchell (2010), point out that there is a relationship between the subject and other factors such as positive reciprocity and organizational identification. They argue that the combination of these two factors is what brings about unethical behavior. They support their argument by noting that their findings are in line with findings from previous findings on the subject. They argue, “These results provide some support for prior theoretical work on the dark side of organizational identification” (p. 777). Going with this information, one can confidently argue that it is ineffective to have employees align with the organizational behavior. This means that one should not push employees into behaving in a static manner. Instead, employees should be free to embrace their individual behaviors as long as they will go about their affairs in a manner that contributes towards meeting the organization’s set objective.

Useful info: Succeed in your studies with a psychology essay writing service that will help you achieve impressive academic results.

References

Li, N., Liang, J., & Crant, J. M. (2010). The role of proactive personality in job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior: a relational perspective. Journal of applied psychology, 95(2), 395.

Richards, J. (2008). Introduction; What is Rhetoric? Routledge.

Umphress, E. E., Bingham, J. B., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Unethical behavior in the name of the company: the moderating effect of organizational identification and positive reciprocity beliefs on unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 769.