Chapter 2: Literature Review
Organizational behavior affects learning teams and learning institutions. OB (Organizational behavior) is defined as a discipline focusing on people, teams, and individuals in organizations in a systematic manner. The purpose of the field is in coming up with a better way employees can interact. Several researchers on OB have come up with aspects that have resulted from the field. The aspects can be listed as knowledge sharing, leadership, organizational culture, management style, organizational structure and process, and organizational climate (Aliel et al., 2011; Jinyun et al., 2010; Olsen et al., 2010; & Pudruc & Radic, 2011). In this literature review, the role of OB on leadership and management styles will be investigated. It is hypothesized that there is a direct relationship between the specific model of organizational behavior and that of leadership and management style in an institute.
A study by Aliel et al., (2011), investigated the relationship of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) on knowledge sharing. OCB in this case is the discretion managers give employees so that that they can carry out job requirements not part of their specifics. In their study, 114 managers and subordinates from knowledge based organizations in Iran were used in coming up with the relationship. The results showed that all the types of OCB’s like helping, sportsmanship, loyalty, compliance, initiative, civic virtue, and self-development were very high in institutes that exhibited knowledge sharing (Aliel et al., 2011). Hence, leadership is would determine the knowledge sharing of an organization. In this study, it was also discovered that authoritative leadership resulted in minimal knowledge sharing concluding that restrictive management style was not suitable for an innovative atmosphere.
Similarly, Jinyun et al., (2010) concluded that unfair treatment from superiors in an organization resulted in negative behaviors common in institutes and organizations. The study was a relationship between justice and negative behaviors such as employee silence and retaliatory behavior in a Chinese context. The sampled people were 361 employees from 17 different state owned Chinese businesses. Results were in tandem with the hypothesis where fair treatment synonymous with leadership justice resulted in positive employee behaviors in organizations. Hence from the study, it was noted that management in institutions must adhere to fair treatment of employees and protection of their rights. This would ensure that negative and destructive behaviors did not spring up. However, there was still an issue on investigating the relationship of one negative behavior one by one with justice in an organization. Jinyun et al., (2010) posited that simultaneous studying of negative behaviors with justice in an organization would bring better results, which was predicted to be an indirect relationship between negative behavior and justice.
Still on justice behavior in organizations, Olsen et al., (2010), carried out a study that explored a link between leadership behavior and moral behavior in a high moral intensity context such as in an army camp. The results showed that there was a strong ethical behavior component that was seen in transformational and transactional leadership styles (Olsen et al., 2010). These findings are instrumental in understanding ethical behaviors amongst employees in institutes that require the highest morality. The business ethics quarterly (2011), reinforced Olsen and others assertions by concluding in their study that organizations experiencing authentic leadership had employees who displayed strong moral courage. In addition, in the study the employees’ moral courage was seen to completely mediate the effects of authentic leadership on employees’ ethical and social behaviors (Business Ethics Quarterly, 2011).
Furthermore, in many organizations there are two levels of corporate governance experienced, and that corporate governance was a learning process (Podrug & Racic, 2011). The same authors highlighted that at the organizational level where debates are common; the concentration is attaining a relationship between CEO’s and board of directors, shareholders. At the level it was seen that other stakeholders were coerced to exert some influence on issues that were environmental, social or economic. Societal level of corporate governance is ignored when developed legal frameworks, financial markets, and effective judiciary are assumed (Podrug & Racic, 2011). The authors insisted that at the societal level there are networks of organizations and institutions that control managerial and corporate behavior through legal and habitual instruments. At a societal level it was also asserted that corporate governance was a learning process operating through dialogue and interaction amongst various stakeholders. Effectiveness of governance is analyzed through processes terms such as accountability and outcomes that are societal, environmental, or economic. In concluding their study, Podruc and Radic, (2011), posited that effective governance required a balancing process between macro-level wider institutional frameworks, middle level opportunities for stakeholder interaction, and micro-level managerial independence and liability.
Rosenstiel, (2011), analyzed and discussed numerous individual behaviors in organizations. The reason for his analysis was that organizational behavior was a difficult topic to understand hence required more clarification. The difficulty was contributed by the many school of thoughts on human behavior psychology such as biological, scientific, social scientific, and humanistic psychology (Rosenstiel, 2011). The study also reported on the major conditions of employee behavior which were individual skills, personal desire, empowerment and desire, and situational enabling. Rosentiel, (2011), in his conclusion stipulated that there was a lot of rational knowledge about employee skills, but when it came to employee behavior there was a notable ignorance, which was found to have no linkage to performance and on the influences of an exact work and organizational environment. Therefore, Rosentiel came up with a different conclusion from many scholars when he established that employee behavior was not linked to organizational performance.
Similarly, a contradiction that leadership had no effect on outcomes and organizational behavior was analyzed by Koh et al., (2006). They examined the theory of transformational leadership in eighty nine educational institutes in Singapore. The aspects investigated were organizational commitment, teacher satisfaction with the leader, OCB behavior, and academic performance of students. In the results, it was found that transformational leadership had an indirect effect on student performance and that transactional leadership was inconsequential in predicting outcomes in organizations.
In conclusion, it is evident that employees’ behavior in organization is directly related with the leadership and management style employed. Employees given most discretions hence more OCB (Organizational Culture Behavior) have higher knowledge sharing. Furthermore, employees treated unfairly exhibited negative behaviors such as silence and retaliatory behavior. Effectiveness of governance in institutes is also attained through identification and implementation of corporate governance. However, even though there are contradictions of the relationship between leadership and organizational behavior, further studies should be conducted in specifying the instances where the relationship does not hold.
Chapter 3: Research Methodology
The suitable research methodology that would be used in analyzing problems in the Rocky Mountain Academy of Evergreen Foundation would be qualitative methods. Qualitative methods are suitable in this study because they provide an in-depth understanding of human behavior and reasons governing such behavior (Marshall & Rossman, 2011). In this study, the leadership and organizational behavior of RMAEF is being investigated and the results from selected types of qualitative research instruments would be helpful in coming up with conclusions and recommendations of averting similar problems in the future. Furthermore, the method will also be instrumental in answering the question of how success would be measured in the institute, and proving the hypothesis that there is no indication that the foundation has helped improved the academy or the education that students are receiving.
Sample and Procedure
The three forms of qualitative research—participant observation, focus groups, and in-depth interviews—would be used since it would be critical in obtaining the three types of data; natural, personal or individual, and group culture. The sample would consist of 25 students, 5 managers, and 10 parents who would make a total of 40 participants. To ensure that genuine responses, each participant would be issued with a questionnaire accompanied with an envelope. Participants wanting privacy would be allowed to submit their views without indicating their names. Two focus groups which would be selected amongst the students would be instrumental in attaining cultural norms or organization behaviors of students. One focus group would consist of 13 students while the other 12 students. Information from these students would be attained through narrative discourse, interviews, and questionnaires for those wanting anonymity. Managers and parents would also be interviewed and their responses recorded in a tape recorder and note books. Furthermore, participative observation would also be incorporated in the study where students, teachers, and subordinate behaviors would be noted and recorded. Behaviors to be noted are; socialization, conflict resolution methodology, and punctuality.
Therefore, data would be collected in the order of students, managers, and parents respectively. Subordinates and teachers would only be observed mainly because it is assumed that they contribute minimally to the institutes success and failure. The internal environmental considerations are; support of stakeholders; the commitment of employees; performance of students; and support of parents. The listed aspects would be useful in answering research study questions and testing hypothesis. Similarly, the external environment considerations useful in testing hypothesis and answering research questions are; sources of funding; societal image of the institute; and future projects of the institute.
Data Analysis
The major analysis would be through the impression of the research observer where data would be examined and then an impression submitted in a structured form. The impression would be tabulated for each group of participants so that their behaviors can be easily identified. In addition recursive abstraction would also be employed where the data and information obtained would be summarized and put in a compact manner that would allow for easy discerning. Coding of data from questionnaires would also be used where they would be categorized into segments and how they would address the research questions and test the hypothesis.
The validity or credibility of the study would be maintained through methods such as using a member check to check for accuracy or viability of data; interviewer collaboration, lengthy engagement with participants, confirmation of received information, and peer engagement.
References
Aliei, M., Ashrafi, B., & Aghayan, S. (2011). Studying the Relationship between Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Knowledge Sharing (Case study Knowledge-Based Organizations). Interdisciplinary Journal Of Contemporary Research In Business, 3(3), 341-348.
JINYUN, D., WING, L., ZIGUANG, C., & JIAN AN, Z. (2010). LEADERSHIP JUSTICE, NEGATIVE ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIORS, AND THE MEDIATING EFFECT OF AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 38(9), 1287-1296. doi:10.2224/sbp.2010.38.9.1287
Koh, W.L., Steers, R.M., & Terbog, R.J. (2006). The effects of transformational leadership on teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Vol. 16, 4. 319-333
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G.B. (2011). Designing Qualitative Research (5th ed.). California: Sage Publishers. Pp. 2+
Olsen, O., Eid, J., & Larsson, G. (2010). Leadership and Ethical Justice Behavior in a High Moral Intensity Operational Context. Military Psychology, 22137-156. doi:10.1080/08995601003644437
Podrug, N., & Račić, D. (2011). CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AS A LEARNING PROCESS: ORGANISATIONAL AND SOCIETAL LEVELS.Megatrend Review, 8(1), 95-111.
Relationships between Authentic Leadership, Moral Courage, and Ethical and Pro-Social Behaviors. (2011). Business Ethics Quarterly,21(4), 555-578.
von Rosenstiel, L. (2011). Employee Behavior in Organizations. On the Current State of Research. Management Revue, 22(4), 344-366. doi:10.1688/1861-9908_;mrev_2011_04_Rosenstiel
