Employee Motivational Organisation And Management: Theoretical Concepts And Managerial Patterns

Discussion on Person-Organization Fit

Discuss about the Employee Motivational Organisation and Management.

Person-organization fit can be identified as an organizational or employee motivational idea that advocates that compatibility between the organization and the employees. This idea states that compatibility can be attained if any of the two units supply the needs of the other or both share the same values. For the successful completion of this essay the author has discussed the theoretical concept of person-organization fit in reference to the values of the employees. A discussion has been made on how different managerial process can create diverse pattern of organizational values and behavioural model which needs to be compatible with the employees’ value base and expectations. The author has also provided a self reflection depending on the result of the Mayer and Briggs model of personality assessment and what will be the right managerial process for the author to attain the person-organization fit. Finally, the author has concluded the essay with a summary of the discussion.

As mentioned by Chen, Sparrow and Cooper (2016), management mainly the human resource management largely involves creating motivation and satisfaction among the employees. Hence, it is important for the employees to relate themselves with the organizational values and culture. As mentioned by Resick et al. (2013), an organizational management pattern which strictly follows systematic norms, codes for behaving and an authoritarian hierarchy cannot be successful in a creative operational field like film industry or the academia. On the other hand, in an industrial manufacturing company a flexible management can create issues like confusion about the job role, lack of clarity about the directions and many other organizational issues. However, Lau et al. (2016), have identified that this collapse of the management often occurs due to the mismatch between the personal profile of the employees and the organizational culture and values.

As discussed by Fields (2015), the idea of person-organization fit can be identified as the compatibility between the employees and the organizations which can be obtained when “one entity provides what the other needs” or both of them share same fundamental features or does the both. Different work values drive the employees to seek different organizational needs. As mentioned by Ruiz-Palomino and Martínez-Cañas (2014), the employees with “instrumental work value” seek for “desired ends, and refer to work benefits, work security, and success at work”. On the other hand, the “cognitive work value” seeks a meaningful professional behaviour, contribution to the society and the broadening of one’s self. Last but not the least, Chen, Sparrow and Cooper (2016) have identified that the “affective work value” is related to opinion and emotions, happiness, effective human dealings, and friendships at the workplace. As opined by Ruiz-Palomino and Martínez-Cañas (2014), “the Person-organization fit essentially argues that people are attracted to and selected by organizations that match their values, and they leave organizations that are not compatible with their personalities”.

Different Managerial Theories and their Impact

Different management theories uphold diverse organizational culture and value. However, as mentioned by Hatch and Cunliffe (2013), the Theory of Scientific management developed by Teylor has identified that the interest of the employers and the employees need to be fully harmonized so as to secure a reciprocal success. In this particular theory of management, the organizational leader believes on the value of maximising the output. The organizational behavioural pattern that this management follows is task specialization. As identified by Hill, Jones and Schilling (2014), this particular management theory advocates that the best way of motivating the employees is to provide them “money”. However, not every personality pattern of employees seeks for “money” from his or her organization. As mentioned earlier, the employees who have the priority of “instrumental work value” will be satisfied to work under such a management procedure. In such a context, an employee who is seeking a job satisfaction and wants to indentify his role in the society with his organizational role, person-organization fit can never be achieved. On the other hand, an employee who has the priority of satisfying his or her “cognitive work value” can never be able to relate himself with the value of the profit making or the “maximisation of the output of the organization. As mentioned by Chen, Sparrow and Cooper (2016), the failure in identifying the employees need and its satisfaction decreases the production and motivation of the employees, which in turn creates decreased level of customer service. Thus, the absence of Person-organization fit may lead a company to experience market failure.

On the other hand, as mentioned by Alexander (2013), the human relation theory of management, talks about creating a participatory organization. As mentioned by this particular management theory advocates that in receiving of special attention and an encouragement to participate within the decision making process creates a sense of value within the employees. As identified by Alexander (2013), the philosophy job satisfaction and team work directs this managerial process to promote the organizational behaviour of paying attention to the psychological needs of the employers and its satisfaction. As mentioned by Hatch and Cunliffe (2013), the companies operating in the creative sector i.e. entertainment industry often follow this particular managerial pattern. In such a context, an employee with less creative or innovative stance and less preference of change will feel less competent and confused. Moreover, as mentioned by Barrick, Mount and Li (2013), not every employee likes to join in the decision making process. With a personality of a follower, an employee may seek satisfaction in following the rules.  In such a context, being an employee under the participative management will create dissatisfaction for that employee. As mentioned by Chen, Sparrow and Cooper (2016), the failure in attainting “Person-organisation fit” may create an inferiority complex within the employee. With such a psychological dissatisfaction an employee certainly opts for resignation. The attainment of the Person-organisation fit is also typically important for the employees to have a successful and satisfactory professional life.

Bureaucratic Management Theory

As mentioned by Bullock (2014), the bureaucratic management theory, developed by Max Weber, advocates the management system that follows a strict code of conduct. This particular management theory is the most widely used management process all over the world. As mentioned by Hatch and Cunliffe (2013), the bureaucratic theory largely concentrates on the use and practice of power within the organization. The employees who seek instrumental work value find satisfaction within the “management by rules” of the bureaucratic management. As criticised by Hill Jones and Schilling (2014), the formal interpersonal relationship and the formal hierarchical order create an organizational culture which hardly promotes a friendly working environment. In most of the complex and large organizations, this particular management pattern provides control over the employees. However, the people who seek “cognitive work value” and the “affective work value” find it difficult to work in such a controlling and formal environment. As mentioned by Spain Harms and LeBreton (2014), in the industrial manufacturing sector which follows a mass production system in its production management procedure, can opt for the bureaucratic management procedure. The organizations which need employees who needs to follow the set norms and not a much creative input from the employees can grow a value of order and discipline. The employees who need systematic leadership, documented job role, clear code of conduct or a structured and formal relation within the workplace can feel satisfied and contented with the organizational behavioural pattern of the bureaucratic management. On the other hand, the companies which follow a job production process or customised production procedure or a touch of creativity within the production, need to hire employees of different kind. Hence, they employees f such organization crave for the “cognitive work value” and the “affective work value”. They need an organization which calls for participative decision making procedure, a flexible job role and work pattern, open working environment, lack of strict codes, coordinating relationship among co-workers, value for their contribution to the organization and a sense of self-satisfaction and actualization. Hence, it is important for them to join an organization that follows a participative management under the human relation or behavioural management. The employees and the organizations need to choose each other as per their value base and the model of decision making. As mentioned by Piazza and Castellucci (2014), the person-organization fit helps the organization in providing satisfaction to its employees which is crucial for the attainment of the desired level of productivity, commitment and improved customer service.

Importance of Person-Organization Fit for Employee Satisfaction

As per the personality test model developed by Myers and Briggs, I can identify myself with the INFP personality. According to this test model, I am Introvert, Intuitive, Feeling and of Perceiving nature. As mentioned by Cohen, Ornoy and Keren (2013), in this said model an INFP model personality is inclined to creative and humanistic occupation and culture. According to this framework, I am a reserved and introspective personality, who loves to analyse a situation and make intuitive decisions. I love innovation and open to change in the personal and professional life. However, I am an empathetic personality, who makes decisions based on its impact upon people. Moreover, as mentioned by Kun, Kiss and Kapitány (2015), the INFP personality is largely guided by his/her personal values and believe on justice. On the other hand, Aranda and Tilton (2013), have described the INFP personality as one who believes taking risk for growth and focuses on starting a project, curious, open minded and do not hesitate to change. As mentioned by Huang et al. (2014), as an INFP personality I prefer a workplace which promotes effective interpersonal relationship and an open workplace that provides me the opportunity to work on my own terms. Strict code of conduct, formal organizational culture and the rule of managerial laws are likely to make me frustrated and decrease my productivity.  

Hence, as an employee I need an organization that follows the human relations movement theory developed by George Elton Mayo. As mentioned by Barrick, Mount and Li (2013), the concentration on the psychological factors like job satisfaction of this management pattern is a prerequisite for me to be professionally successful and providing my best potential to the company. The company holding the values advocated by the human relations management theory will be the best fit for the INFP personality of me. As discussed by Cohen, Ornoy and Keren (2013), the participative decision-making behaviour of such an organization will provide me the option of using my creativity or my own way of performing the task which I fundamentally need for providing my best output.  As per the Y theory of the Behavioural theory of Douglas McGregor, the employees love to work in an organization that serves their personal aim in life (Barrick, Mount & Li, 2013). This particular management theory supports imagination, creativity and ingenuity as the way of solving the issues related to the Human resources of an organization. Hence, I need an organization that follows this particular management process.

Conclusion

As an employee I personally seek for the cognitive and affective work value. Hence an organization that believes in exercising participatory decision making and promotes transformational leadership will be the person-organization fit for me. As mentioned by Kun, Kiss and Kapitány (2015), an organization that promotes diversity, informal working condition, encourage innovation and creates a sense of value within the workers serve best the psychological needs of the INFP personality.

Conclusion:

In conclusion it can be said that attainment of the person-organization fit is crucial for obtaining organizational as well as personal success of an employee. Being an employee who does not prefer to take risks or organizational challenges, a participatory organization that asks for innovation can create frustration. It can influence his or her productivity negatively and the organization may face the issue of employee turnover. On the other hand, a creative employee is more likely to attain dissatisfaction within a bureaucratic management procedure. Hence, it is important for the organizations to select the employees depending on this product requirements and chosen management culture. Otherwise, the lack of person-organization fit will lead them to experience lack of productivity, decreased employee motivation, increased employee turnover rate and organizational failure.

References:

Alexander, K. (2013). Facilities management: theory and practice. Routledge.

Aranda, R., & Tilton, S. (2013). Myers-Briggs personality preferences may enhance physician leadership success in non-clinical jobs. Physician executive, 39(3), 14-19.

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Li, N. (2013). The theory of purposeful work behavior: The role of personality, higher-order goals, and job characteristics. Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 132-153.

Bullock, J. B. (2014, January). Theory of Bureaucratic Error. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2014, No. 1, p. 17469). Academy of Management.

Chen, P., Sparrow, P., & Cooper, C. (2016). The relationship between person-organization fit and job satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(5).

Cohen, Y., Ornoy, H., & Keren, B. (2013). MBTI personality types of project managers and their success: A field survey. Project Management Journal, 44(3), 78-87.

Fields, R. L. (2015). The Relationship between Perceptions of Diversity Climate and Value Congruence/Person-Organization Fit: A Focus on Nonminority and Minority Employees’ Differences in Perceptions (Doctoral dissertation, REGENT UNIVERSITY).

Hatch, M. J., & Cunliffe, A. L. (2013). Organization theory: modern, symbolic and postmodern perspectives. Oxford university press.

Hill, C. W., Jones, G. R., & Schilling, M. A. (2014). Strategic management: theory: an integrated approach. Cengage Learning.

Huang, J. L., Ryan, A. M., Zabel, K. L., & Palmer, A. (2014). Personality and adaptive performance at work: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(1), 162.

Kun, A. I., Kiss, M., & Kapitány, A. (2015). The Effect of Personality on Academic Performance: Evidence from Two University Majors. Business Education & Accreditation, 7(1), 13-24.

Lau, P. Y. Y., McLean, G. N., Hsu, Y. C., & Lien, B. Y. H. (2016). Learning organization, organizational culture, and affective commitment in Malaysia: A person–organization fit theory. Human Resource Development International, 1-21.

Piazza, A., & Castellucci, F. (2014). Status in organization and management theory. Journal of Management, 40(1), 287-315.

Resick, C. J., Giberson, T. R., Dickson, M. W., Wynne, K. T., & Bajdo, L. M. (2013). Person-Organization Fit, Organizational Citizenship, and Social-Cognitive Motivational Mechanisms. A. Kristof-Brown, y J. Billsberry, Organizational Fit: Key Issues and New Directions, 99-123.

Ruiz-Palomino, P., & Martínez-Cañas, R. (2014). Ethical culture, ethical intent, and organizational citizenship behavior: The moderating and mediating role of person–organization fit. Journal of business ethics, 120(1), 95-108.

Spain, S. M., Harms, P., & LeBreton, J. M. (2014). The dark side of personality at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(S1), S41-S60.