Actions and Behaviour of Employees at Work

Introduction

Management academics and practitioners agree over the significance of employees in the enhancement of organisational productivity and achievement of organisational success (Bratton & Gold, 2012). Employees are in fact considered to be the most critical of organisational assets for the enhancement of competitive advantage (Bratton & Gold, 2012). The need for controlling employee behaviour and output was taken up in detail by management experts like Fredrick Taylor (1911) and Fayol (1949) in the first quarter of the 20th century (Gomez-Mejia et al., 2008). Their research and ideas resulted in the development of scientific management principles and a linear, managerialist and authoritarian approach to employee control (Gomez-Mejia et al., 2008).

Management literature on control is replete with control through accounting systems, information systems, bureaucracies and performance management (Ball & Milne, 2005). The control of employee behaviour is on the other hand informed by theories in areas of scientific management, motivation, leadership and organisational behaviour (Thompson & Van den Broek, 2010). This paper is employee focused and thus places greater stress on the issues that directly affect organisational control over employees. Organisational attitudes towards influencing and control of employee behaviour have changed significantly in recent decades, influenced by the advancement of various motivational theories, the evolution of HR management and change management theories and the development and elucidation of best practice and best-fit approaches (Berry, 1994).

Notwithstanding such evolution of management theory and practice towards control of employee behaviour, failures in controlling of employee behaviour keep on happening and are considered to be one of the main reasons behind the continuing difficulties in the management of change (Chenhall, 2003). This area of organisational behaviour continues to attract significant attention (Chenhall, 2003).

Scientific Management Principles

The scientific management principles espoused by Fredrick Taylor and Henry Ford posited that the majority of organisational workers and employees took up employment and came to the workplace only to earn money (Crainer, 1998). They had little interest in organisational productivity or success, tended to shirk responsibility and effort and were inclined to put in as little effort, as possible without compromising their employment (Crainer, 1998). Employee behaviour thus needed to be controlled through clear direction, specific instructions and close supervisory control over the actions of workers (Monks & McMackin, 2001). Such close supervision needed to be augmented with the standardisation of work and the linkage of output with remuneration (Monks & McMackin, 2001).

Scientific management principles came to be accepted and used by the majority of business firms in Western countries with varying degrees of success (Sennett, 1998). Hauser (2006) stated that these principles were often inadequate in controlling employee behaviour because they failed to recognise the needs of individual employees and their distinctive features. Their universal application and their one-shoe-fits-all approach often resulted in employee dissatisfaction, resistance and attrition (Hauser, 2006). Employees tended to work only when they were subjected to close supervision and to shirk whenever such supervision was reduced or eliminated (Sennett, 1998).

The failure of scientific management theory to successfully control employee behaviour resulted in the development of various motivational theories, like those advanced by Maslow (1954), Herzberg (1966), McGregor (1960) and Vroom (1973). Such motivational theories were augmented by the advancement and development of several leadership models, especially transactional and transformational leadership (Antonakis & House, 2014). These theories and models aimed to understand employee behaviour and devise ways and means to influence them as comprehensively as possible (Antonakis & House, 2014). Control over employee behaviour was seen to be critical in the accomplishment of important organisational change and the failure of most change management initiatives was attributed to failures in overcoming change resistance amongst employees (Thompson & Van den Broek, 2010).

Motivational Theories

Maslow advanced his theory of needs in 1954, stating that individuals have specific needs, which they aim to satisfy through the adoption of different actions and behaviours. He stated that these needs are arranged hierarchically; starting from physiological needs, they move on to security needs, section needs, esteem needs and self-actualisation needs (Maslow, 1954). Employees can thus be influenced in their behaviour in the workplace through the adoption of organisational strategies that satisfy these needs (Maslow, 1954). Herzberg (1966) advanced his two–factor theory of motivation stating that organisational employees were influenced by two specific types of forces in their workplace activity, namely hygiene factors and motivational factors. Hygiene factors, which comprised items like remuneration, leave policies, working environment and organisational esteem helped in attracting workers and in their retention but had little effect in motivating them to work harder and in accordance with organisational objectives and expectations (Herzberg, 1966). Motivational factors, which included items like workplace appreciation and recognition, high degrees of communication, responsibility and advancement opportunities, on the other hand, motivated employees to put in the effort and work towards the achievement of organisational objectives (Kanfer & Ackerman, 2000). Organisational managements were thus advised to devise HR strategies with appropriate elements of hygiene factors and motivational factors in order to comprehensively influence and shape the behaviour of organisational employees (Kanfer & Ackerman, 2000).

Vroom’s (1973) theory of motivation states that modern organisations should fit their HR and employee-oriented strategies in accordance with employee characteristics, the employee environment, the organisational environment and organisational objectives. The development of an appropriate organisational HR strategy, accounting for these factors, could help significantly in controlling employee behaviour and in aligning it with organisational objectives (Beardwell & Thompson, 2014).

Transactional and Transformational Leadership Theories

The transactional leadership theory stresses on shaping and controlling of employee behaviour by the adoption of a linear and methodical approach, wherein employees are rewarded for good performance and penalised for poor performance (Berson & Avolio, 2004). The application and threat of penalties deter employees from engaging in behaviours that could adversely affect organisational activity and objectives, whereas the promise of rewards spurs them to follow the directions of supervisors and work in line with the desires of their managements (Berson & Avolio, 2004).

Transformational leadership approaches controlling of employee behaviour through a different approach (Bono & Judge, 2004). Transformational leaders engage in continuous communication with their juniors and establish one-to-one relationships with them (Bono & Judge, 2004). They get to know the concerns, apprehensions, desires and ambitions of their juniors and at the same time brief them about organisational objectives, thereby generating a buy-in of organisational objectives by the employees (Connell et al., 2005). They explain the reasons behind the establishment of organisational objectives and the ways in which the achievement of these objectives could help the organisations, as well as the employees. Such a strategy leads to employee identification and commitment to organisational strategies and objectives and continuous and strong efforts to realise them on their own without continuous supervision (Connell et al., 2005).

Transformational leadership has proved to be effective in shaping of employee behaviour and in motivating employees to work in accordance with organisational objectives on their own and with minimal supervision (Berson & Avolio, 2004).

Best Fit and Best Practice

The Best Fit theory of organisational control states that organisational managers should adopt employee-oriented strategies in areas of remuneration, job design, communication and motivation that are best fitted for the achievement of organisational objectives (Cushen & Thompson, 2012). Such strategies could differ from department to department and for different types of employees. It could also be changed in accordance with environmental needs (Cushen & Thompson, 2012). The Best Practice theory on the other hand states that organisational managements should frame HR policies that aim at the achievement of high degrees of employee empowerment through communication, motivation, delegation of responsibility, training and the treatment of employees with respect and empathy (Legge, 2005). The Best Practice theory posits that the adoption of these practices on a uniform basis, along with their communication to employees is bound to result in comprehensive shaping of employee behaviour and high levels of effort for satisfying organisational objectives (Legge, 2005).

Change Resistance

Change management theory states that the majority of organisational efforts to bring about comprehensive and important organisational change fail on account of employee resistance to the proposed changes (Hayes, 2006). Such resistance occurs because of various types of employee worries and concerns, which are not effectively advanced by organisational managements (Atkinson, 2005). Such worries among employees lead to organisation-wide resistance to the proposed change and to the failure of the change initiative (Hayes, 2006).

Reasons for Organisational Failure in Controlling Employee Behaviour

Several modern experts have researched and studied at length on continuous organisational failures in control of employee behaviour, despite the availability of numerous models and theories, which explain the reasons behind employee behaviour and the steps that can be taken to control and shape such behaviour with effectiveness and efficiency (Chenhall, 2007). Ball and Milne (2005) stated that failure to control employee behaviour can stem from several reasons like (1) inadequate resources, in terms of money, supplies and organisational infrastructure to complete tasks, (2) different types of obstacles, like, for example, collaboration with other departments or swift decisions by seniors that are necessary for task completion, (3) unclear or exaggerated expectations, (4) absence of skills necessary for completing tasks, (5) inadequate rewards or praise for good work, (6) absence of penalties for poor performance and (7) employee burnout on account of excessive organisational pressure.

Manzoni and Barsoux (1998), in an article for the Harvard Business Review, stated that managers typically do not blame themselves for employees who perform poorly or do not function as they are instructed. They often give various reasons for employee failure including lack of job understanding, inadequate knowledge and skills or an inherent desire for shirking work (Manzoni & Barsoux, 1998). Lazear and Gibbs (2009) stated from their research on employee behaviour in various organisations that employee behaviour is adversely affected because of high levels of micro-management, including excessive paperwork requirements, the need for approval for small decisions and high levels of supervision. Employees often interpret high levels of supervision as a lack of trust in their abilities, which, in turn, undermines their confidence, as well as their desire to put in additional effort (Lazear & Gibbs, 2009).

Recommendations

The information examined for this paper revealed that theories and models for controlling and shaping employee behaviour have been enriched and contributed by various experts. These theories and models approach the issue from organisational, motivational, leadership, HR and change management perspectives, amongst others. The application of scientific management principles is frequently ineffective in controlling employee behaviour because their utilisation results in employee resentment and disinterest, as well as tendencies to minimise work to the extent possible without harming oneself (Blyton et al., 2011).

Employees could be motivated to put in high levels of effort by the adoption of various organisational initiatives that empowered them in different ways (Kanfer & Ackerman, 2000). The Best Fit theory stated that organisational managements should adopt HR strategies that were suited for the achievement of organisational objectives in order to influence and control employee behaviour in line with organisational expectations (Bratton & Gold, 2012).

Most strategies at controlling employee behaviour failed because of various types of organisational inadequacies in terms of balancing between rewards and punishment, ambiguity in instructions, lack of availability of required resources and mismatch between job requirements and employee skills and abilities (Beardwell & Thompson, 2014). Change management initiatives often failed because the apprehensions of employees were not addressed, which in turn led to a lack of cooperation and willingness to work (Hayes, 2006).

The practice of transformational leadership, which was based upon high levels of employee empowerment and communication, has been found to be extremely effective in ensuring employee effort and compliance with organisational objectives (Berson & Avolio, 2004). Organisational managements must take note of the inadequacies and organisational factors that result in inadequate employee compliance with organisational needs and take appropriate care to formulate effective strategies (Antonakis & House, 2014).

References

Antonakis, J., & House, R,J., (2014), “Instrumental leadership: Measurement and extension of transformational–transactional leadership theory”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 25, Iss (4): p. 746. 

Atkinson, P., (2005), “Managing resistance to change”, Management Services, Vol. 49, Iss (1): pp. 14-19.

Ball, A., Milne, M.J., (2005), “Sustainability and management control”, In: Berry, A.J., Broadbent, J., Otley, D.T. (Eds.), Management Control: Theories, Issues and Performance, second ed. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp. 314–337.

Beardwell, J., & Thompson, A., (2014), Human Resource Management: A Contemporary Approach, (7^th edition), Harlow: FT Prentice Hall.

Berry, A.J., (1994), “Spanning traditional boundaries: organization and control of embedded operations”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 15, Iss (7): pp. 4–10.

Berson, Y., & Avolio, B., (2004), “Transformational leadership and the dissemination of organizational goals: A case study of a telecommunication firm”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15: pp. 625-646.

Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A., (2004), “Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89: pp. 901-910.

Bratton, J., & Gold, J., (2012), Human Resource Management: Theory and Practice, 5^th edition, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Blyton, P., Heery, E., & Turnbull, P., (2011), Reassessing the Employment Relationship, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Chenhall, R.H., (2003), “Management control systems design within its organizational context: findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 28, Iss (1): pp. 127–168.

Chenhall, R.H., (2007), “Theorising contingencies in management control research”, In: Chapman, C.S., Hopwood, A., Shields, M.D. (Eds.), Handbook of Management Accounting Research, Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 163–206.

Connell, J., Cross, B., & Parry, K., (2005), “Leadership in the 21st Century: Where is it Leading Us?”, International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, Vol. 5, Iss (2): pp. 139-149.

Crainer, S., (1998), Key Management Ideas: Thinkers That Changed the Management World, third edition, NJ: Financial Times Prentice Hall.

Cushen, J., & Thompson, P., (2012), Doing the right thing? HRM and the angry knowledge worker”, New Technology, Work and Employment, Vol. 27, Iss (2): pp.79-92.

Fayol, H., (1949), General and Industrial Management, Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons: London.

Gomez-Mejia, L. R., David, B. B., & Cardy, R. L., (2008), Management: People, Performance, Change, 3rd edition, New York, USA: McGraw-Hill. 

Green, H., (2010), The Company Town: The Industrial Edens and Satanic Mills That Shaped the American Economy, Basic Books: New York.

Hayes, J, (2006), The Theory and Practice of Change Management, 2nd revised edition, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hauser, M. D., (2006), Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong, Harper Collins: New York.

Herzberg, F., (1966), Work and the nature of man, Cleveland: World Publishing.

Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L., (2000), “Individual differences in work motivation: Further explorations of a trait framework”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49(3): 470-482.

Lazear, E.P., & Gibbs, M., (2009), Personnel Economics in Practice, NY: Wiley.

Legge, K., (2005), Human Resource Management: Rhetorics and Realities, (Anniversary edition), Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Manzoni, J-F., & Barsoux, J-L., (1998), “The Set-Up-To-Fail Syndrome”, Harvard Business Review, Available at: https://hbr.org/1998/03/the-set-up-to-fail-syndrome (Accessed June 05, 2017).

Maslow, A., (1954), Motivation and Personality, New York: Harper, pp. 236. 

McGregor, D., (1960), The Human Side of Enterprise, New York: McGraw Hill.

Monks, K., & McMackin, J., (2001), “Designing and aligning an HR system”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 11, Iss (2): pp. 57–72.

Sennett, R., (1998), The Corrosion of Character: The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism, Norton: New York.

Taylor, F.W., (1911), The Principles of Scientific Management, New York, NY, USA and London, UK: Harper & Brothers. 

Thompson, P., & Van den Broek, D., (2010), “Managerial control and workplace regimes: an introduction”, Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 24, Iss (3): pp.1-12.

Vroom, V.H., (1973), Work and Motivation, 1st Edition, NY: Jossey Bass.