Organizational Behaviour Employee Case Study

Question: Describe about the case study for Organizational Behaviour of Employee. Answer: Executive Summary This report is based on a case study which dwells upon the classical issues faced in an organization by a new employee and the different ways an organization reacts to the different problems faced by them. The case study illustrates diverse aspects of employee behavior and attitude with reference to their reactions to particular situations that occur in workplace. There are numerous stakeholders in the situation given wherein the different participants come from a diverse background with varied expectations from their colleagues, subordinates and superiors. The issues that are presented in the case relate to emotional intelligence, attitude and behavior of people in an organization at different hierarchy. People behave differently with the new employee and finally she is left in despondency and confusion. The attitudes of different stakeholders can be evaluated from a cognitive, affective and conative perspective to understand the underlying reason for such behavior so that correctiv e measures can be taken at organizational level. This report critically evaluates every aspect of the employee behavior, identifies the issues which lead to an unhealthy environment at workplace and finally try to recommend certain improvements. At last it is justified to mention that the report makes an attempt to develop a framework for analyzing such workplace aberrations due to emotional conflicts among employees and such frameworks can be used for analysis of other similar workplace related issues. Situation Analysis: The case deals with the event of a new graduate named Barbara from a BMS college joining an organization and the different situations she had to face because of various reasons ranging from tantrums of the boss to disappointment in the expected role that was being offered. The case starts by stating that Barbara attended an interview with Matalvi Engineering, which was into manufacturing dairy equipment, for the post of assistant cost accountant. Although she was quite surprised at getting the job offer and was confused about joining or not but finally she joined. Then after joining she was surprised to understand the internal situation of the company wherein there was no vacancy in the accounting department and was put in management information system (MIS) section which was also a part of the accounting department in the company. After starting work at the organization she found that the job was not challenging enough to render her any job satisfaction. The work was mostly related to collecting and organizing documents related to financial information which she had not signed up for since she was over-qualified for that job. Then after a few days of work she was given the offer to attend a management workshop in Auckland by the chief accountant Bob who was not her immediate boss. Barbaras immediate superior was Peter who was away from work when the opportunity to attend the workshop had arrived and she went on to Auckland without informing her boss. Later when she came back her boss, Peter was furious about the event that she had gone for the workshop without his permission. She was quite depressed by the entire course of things since before going for the tour she was assured by the Chief accountant, Bob that he will talk to Peter and handle the situation (Kraut, 1979). To her surprise everything was quite different from what she had expected and Peter was accusing her of delinquency at work and ordered her colleagues to not talk or spend time with her as she needed to catch up on the work piled up. This entire episode created a sense of despondency and disappointment in the mind of Barbara from her first job and was expecting a better treatment. However she bumped into Vernon one day who was the chief cost accountant and asked her about her miserable demeanor. She opened up to him and he assured of quick review of the entire situation with top management. However, nothing of that happened and the situation worsened as Barbara gave an application for change of department as advised by Vernon. Peter was furious about the application and threatened to finish her career in that company (DELLVE and WIKSTR M, 2009). Problem And Issue Identification: The entire scheme had several issues and problems from the beginning. Barbara who was a high achiever in her college did not analyze the company background and the role that was being offered to her. She joined the organization in spite of considerable doubt in her mind about the job and the company as a whole (Tanguy, 2012). From the companys point of view the chief accountant Bob should have properly evaluated the vacancies that were available in the organization before proceeding with any job offer. Since Barbara was a high achiever in college it was evident that she would be expecting a challenging job at the workplace and putting her in a clerical role of data collection and reporting was completely against the basic principle of job-fit analysis (Brody, 2004). Then moving on to the second and primary issue faced by Barbara was the tour for a management workshop. Every organization has a well-defined hierarchy and one needs to follow the defined communication channels. It was wrong on the part of chief accountant Bob to completely bypass Barbaras immediate superior who was Peter and contacting her for attending the management workshop. Peter should have been consulted before approaching Barbara with the workshop offer. Barbara cannot be blamed for this since she must not be aware of the entire process of communication followed in the company but it has to be mentioned that Barbara should have dropped a message or e-mail for her boss although he was away. This would have covered her back even if Bob did not contact Peter which he had assured to do. Then the most important issue lies with the person Peter who over-reacted and created a mess of the entire situation for the company and the new employee Barbara as well. He had reasons for being offended but he did not behave in a professional way and also did not display any managerial skill to handle the situation (Faber, 2001). The way he reacted to Barbaras tour was completely unwarranted and should have understood that Barbara must not know about the entire process as she was new to the company. They he threatened and maligned her intentions at work with instructions to her colleagues not to interact with her or help her out in any way were completely unprofessional and boorish behavior. He should have sat with Barbara and explained her proper communication channel so that she understands and does not repeat the same behavior again (TOYOTA, 2011). His actions led Barbara to seek help from Vernon and ask for a change of department. Bobs role is also quite contentious since from the beginning he is making false commitments. He promised to give a role of assistant cost accountant to Barbara which was not to be the case and also at every step he promised to handle the situ ation but failed to do so. Finally when he was approached by Vernon also he was not able to put forward the issue in front of the senior management. Overall it can be seen that the organization had made several flaws regarding the management workshop tour intimation and also the job assigned to the new employee (Duffy, 2010). Analysis And Evaluation: The entire situation has been messed up because of the personal attitudes and behaviors of different stakeholders. Before proceeding with further analysis it should be mentioned that the three managerial persons in the organization were of different behavior, while Bob and Vernon were amicable and friendly to their subordinates or colleagues, Peter was particularly infamous because of his attitude towards other employees. Bob was seen as a soft person that is evident from his behavior as every time he was committing something and was not able to fulfil it. He was in a top position and walking the talk was an essential attribute which people would expect from him (Randolph, 2016). It would in turn instill faith and confidence among his subordinates. This is because of the emotional quotient of Bob which was a of a compliant type attitude and was not ready to take up issues with his colleagues which was hurting his organization. Peter was aggressive in his attitude and suffered from a sense of inferiority or insecurity which had driven him to over-react with Barbara. This type of attitude is detrimental for the workplace since one has to shoe team work and collaborative approach is necessary for success which was completely absent from his behavior (McCarthy, Reeves, and Turner, 2010). Moreover since he was in a managerial position Peter should have a more understanding and guiding attitude rather than abusive display of behaviors which resulted in adverse results with the new employee. Barbara being a new member was obviously anxious about the entire episode and showed signs of cognitive attitude which is expected. She also displayed spontaneity while responding to the tour offer and going for it. These are some of the attitudinal aspects of the different employees in the organization which shaped the entire scheme of things (Bartel et al., 2011). Conclusion And Recommendation: All the adversities that originated were a result of non-availability of standardized process for communication channels (Krivis, 2006). Firstly Barbara should been given an induction about the company process and methods for the different decisions she is expected to take during her stay at the company (Metcalf, 2005). Moreover there should have been avenues for escalating the problems faced by Barbara and Peter needed counselling about the entire issue since he was over-reacting. Company should intervene with the behavioral aspects of the employees through seminar workshops, one-to-one sessions and counselling so that they are sensitized about similar events and do not take rash decisions. If proper counselling and standardized processes are established in the organization then these kinds of conflicts can be avoided with ease. References Bartel, A.P., Freeman, R.B., Ichniowski, C. and Kleiner, M.M. (2011) Can a workplace have an attitude problem? Workplace effects on employee attitudes and organizational performance,Labour Economics, 18(4), pp. 411423. Doi: 10.1016/j.labeco.2011.01.008. Brody, N. (2004) Emotional intelligence: Science and myth,Intelligence, 32(1), pp. 109111. Doi: 10.1016/s0160-2896(03)00059-x. DELLVE, L. and WIKSTR MEWA (2009) Managing complex workplace stress in health care organizations: Leaders perceived legitimacy conflicts,Journal of Nursing Management, 17(8), pp. 931941. Doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2834.2009.00996.x. Duffy, J. (2010) Empathy, neutrality and emotional intelligence: A balancing act for the emotional Einstein,QUT Law Review, 10(1), pp. 321342. Doi: 10.5204/qutlr.v10i1.9. Faber, B.D. (2001) Gen/ethics? Organizational ethics and student and instructor conflicts in workplace training,Technical Communication Quarterly, 10(3), pp. 291318. Doi: 10.1207/s15427625tcq1003_4. Kraut, A.I. (1979) The pitfalls and potentials of employee-attitude surveys,PsycCRITIQUES, 24(11), pp. 531543. Doi: 10.1037/017738. Krivis, J. (2006) Can we call a truce? Ten tips for negotiating workplace conflicts,Employment Relations Today, 33(3), pp. 3135. Doi: 10.1002/ert.20115. McCarthy, D., Reeves, E. and Turner, T. (2010) Can employee share ownership improve employee attitudes and behaviour?,Employee Relations, 32(4), pp. 382395. Doi: 10.1108/01425451011051604. Metcalf, D. (2005) Workplace governance and performance,Employee Relations, 17(6), pp. 524. Doi: 10.1108/01425459510147516. Randolph, S.A. (2016) The importance of employee breaks,Workplace Health Safety, 64(7), pp. 344344. Doi: 10.1177/2165079916653416. Tanguy, J. (2012) Collective and individual conflicts in the workplace: Evidence from France,Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 52(1), pp. 102133. Doi: 10.1111/irel.12013. TOYOTA, H. (2011) Individual differences in emotional intelligence and incidental memory of words1,Japanese Psychological Research, 53(3), pp. 213220. Doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5884.2011.00467.x.