The layers of organisational behaviour

Introduction

Organisational behaviour refers to a multidisciplinary field of study that focuses on the impacts that employees, teams, social relationships among employees, and organisational structure have on the behaviour and performance that is perceptible within organisations (Bozkus, 2023). This article explores four key layers of organisational behaviour—the individual employee, teamwork, leadership, and the organisation itself—which are interconnected within the broader framework of organisational behaviour research. In this field of study, a key area of interest is how different layers and units of analysis affect organisational performance and outcomes (Robbins & Judge, 2015). In this article, this perspective is also present in my examination, ranging from the role of individual employees’ work motivation in performance (Riyanto et al., 2021; Rita et al., 2018) to the elements that boost team efficiency and productivity (Friedrich & Ulber, 2017), while not forgetting the significant impact of leadership practices on employee performance through trust, motivation, and goal achievement (Robbins & Judge, 2015).

By discussing these dimensions and layers of organisational behaviour in dialogue with relevant research literature, I aim to provide a deeper understanding of the interplay between behaviours in organisations, on both individual and collective levels, and the ways in which motivation, social interactions, leadership and other aspects shape various individual and organisational outcomes, for instance, with regard to work-related well-being and productivity. I seek to demonstrate that perspectives borrowed from administrative sciences also offer intriguing insights into organisational behaviour, enriching approaches provided by educational sciences, for example, in understanding work-related well-being. Organisational behaviour is an applied science, as it offers important practical perspectives for effective practices to boost well-being and productivity within organisations (Ahmad et al., 2008). With the help of the various perspectives I will discuss here, I have also gained a better understanding of my own past work experiences and the factors that drive me as an employee. Finally, I also aim to offer theoretical, conceptual, and empirical perspectives on structuring daily work activity from the individual level to the level of the entire organisation, seeking to illustrate how various organisational elements intertwine.

The individual employee

When exploring organisational behaviour literature, the first dimension of all the different layers of organisations—such as teamwork, leadership and organisational level—regards the micro-level of an individual employee. As individuals, people approach social interaction, different work-related situations, and the work itself through their personality. One of the most influential views on personality is the Five Factor Model by McCrae and Costa Jr. (2008), according to whom personality can be divided into five distinct dimensions: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness to experience. Extraversion is defined as being assertive and sociable. Conscientious employees, on the other hand, tend to be organised, more persistent and plan ahead. Employees with higher emotional stability tend to have fewer negative emotions and be more confident, but they also tend to experience higher job satisfaction. (Robbins & Judge, 2015) Highly agreeable employees are usually more compliant and display higher performance at work, while openness to experience is understood as being creative, innovative, and more adaptable to change (McCrae & Costa Jr., 2008).

According to Furnham (2017), agreeableness is connected to work engagement, which can be defined as dedication, absorption and feeling energetic at work (Hakanen, 2011). What is more, Robbins and Judge (2015) argue that agreeable people are better liked as co-workers, and this could also affect which work environment they are likely to thrive in. In addition, people scoring high on conscientiousness are expected to have higher productivity and lower absenteeism. Related to this, the relationship between work engagement and conscientiousness is also significant (Furnham, 2017), and conscientiousness additionally predicts job satisfaction (Furnham et al., 2009) and job performance (Hurtz & Donovan, 2000). 

These findings highlight how personality can shape employees’ workplace experiences, interactions, and overall performance. From an organisational behaviour perspective, understanding these traits is important for fostering productive work environments and effective team dynamics. Ultimately, personality can also be a key factor influencing broader organisational outcomes.

Another key factor in terms of the individual employee is motivation. Motivation is often defined as the intensity, direction, and persistence of an individual’s effort to achieve their goal, and it is of high importance in terms of work-related wellbeing and organisational success (Kanfer et al., 2017). One of the most cited views on motivation is McClelland’s (1987) theory in which he distinguishes between three different needs. The first is the need for achievement, which can be understood as the search for challenges and the need to be productive and attain measurable results. The second is the need for power, which refers to the pursuit of respected professional positions and the need to have an influence on the decisions of others. The third motivational drive is the need for affiliation, which refers to the desire to have good relationships in the work community and to be accepted, valued, and respected.

In practice, employees who strive for productivity are likely to be more motivated in work environments characterised by task variety and sufficient challenge. Similarly, an employee seeking power is likely to be motivated in a team where decision-making is shared or where they work at the managerial level. However, it has been argued that these are important motivating factors in general (see Lehtonen et al., 2021). Employees who value social relationships, on the other hand, thrive in teams characterised by close collaboration, a sense of belonging, collegial and supervisory support, and encouraging leadership. Adequately meeting these needs is important, as motivated employees are also generally more satisfied at work and more committed to the organisation’s goals than their less motivated colleagues.

Another frequently-cited theory on motivation is the self-determination theory (SDT) by Ryan and Deci (2008; 2000). Ryan and Deci (2008) argue that a crucial precondition for an individual’s well-being, growth, development, and motivation is satisfactory needs fulfilment. SDT includes six so-called “mini theories,” one of which categorises an individual’s motivational orientations into extrinsic and intrinsic types. Within this category, intrinsic motivation is seen to arise from an individuals’ personal and inner desires, such as being able to work at a job that is meaningful and satisfying on its own. Extrinsic motivation refers to the influence of an external aspect, such as a higher salary or the prospect of a promotion, that drives employees to achieve certain goals. SDT also presents three different psychological needs—autonomy, competence, and relatedness—which influence people’s well-being and development (Ryan & Deci, 2008). Within this distinction, by autonomy Ryan and Deci (2000) refer to being able to experience agency and self-reliance in one’s work. Competence, on the other hand, arises from the experience of being adept at something and in control of what one is doing. Finally, relatedness refers to the need to have close relationships and to experience a sense of belonging in those relationships and other communities in and outside work.

Both of these motivation theories rely on the idea that employees have needs, not ‘wants,’ that they seek to fulfil. These theories both also consider social relationships and connections as important motivational orientations. Although McClelland does not distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, the basic assumption of having ‘needs’ instead of ‘wants’ suggests that his conception of having ‘needs for something’ has an inherent and intrinsic nature. Still, at the heart of motivation theories regarding the world of work is the general notion that motivation leads to positive work-related outcomes, such as work engagement, individual learning and development, and job satisfaction (e.g., Rauramo, 2012; Paais & Pattihuru, 2020; Riyanto et al., 2021).

Teamwork

Friedrich and Ulber (2017) define a team as a reflexive and bounded whole that has task interdependence and shared objectives. By task interdependence, they refer to the degree to which team members are mutually dependent on one another in terms of exchanging resources and expertise. Shared objectives are key for this, as teams need a concrete goal to pursue (Schaubroeck & Yu, 2016). Boundedness, on the other hand, can be understood as a sense of belonging within the team (Friedrich & Ulber, 2017). According to a meta-analysis by Richter et al. (2011), effective and successful teamwork has significant benefits on the overall organisational performance and on the job satisfaction and organisational commitment of individuals.

Teamwork can be highly motivating and lead to rich innovations, but it can also hold some challenges, as seen by Aubé and Rousseau (2014) who examined four different counterproductive team behaviours: interpersonal aggression, misuse of resources, parasitism and boastfulness. The first two are rather straightforward, but the last two warrant some clarification: parasitism is understood as a lack of participation, while boastfulness refers to taking credit for the team’s success. Aubé and Rousseau (2014) found that counterproductive behaviour styles can affect the team’s collaboration and performance, and they also noticed that the strongest negative connection to collaboration results from interpersonal aggression and misuse of resources. However, because Aubé and Rousseau discuss these behaviours separately and do not consider how they are linked, it is worth noting that parasitism, for instance, can lead to interpersonal aggression and cause boastfulness in the form of taking credit for others’ accomplishments. In other words, also the relationships between these behaviours are important.

In today’s work environment, where remote work has become increasingly common, another topical perspective on teamwork is whether it takes place in virtual or in physical surroundings. However, Schaubroeck and Yu (2016) argue that the distinction between face-to-face and virtual teams is somewhat artificial since most face-to-face teams use technology-mediated communication, such as email and Teams meetings. Still, one of the key differences between virtual and non-virtual teams is how they communicate and exchange information. Schaubroeck and Yu (2016) argue that technology-mediated communication leads to a loss in communication richness, which could also affect team effectiveness. Driskell et al. (2003) name this phenomenon semantic information distance, which refers to the gap in informational exchange. This loss of information value in virtual meetings can create misunderstandings and interpersonal tension. When communication is not synchronous, the threshold for asking for clarification might also be higher than if the interaction takes place in real time or face-to-face. Working mainly in virtual teams can also limit the informal, everyday conversations in the breakroom or the office hallway that often foster a sense of community and sharing tacit knowledge.

The role of the team leader is also noteworthy in its variations, as it can differ significantly depending on the leadership style and on whether the team operates primarily in virtual settings. For instance, a laissez-faire leader is someone whose leadership is passive and indifferent, and they usually let the team make the decisions (Sosik & Godshalk, 2000). By definition, a leader with laissez-faire tendencies is rather absent and delegates responsibility for decision-making to the team. In shared leadership, on the other hand, leadership and decision-making are shared among peers, and, for example, between teams, in a lateral fashion (Pearce & Conger, 2003). In virtual teams, the leader’s responsibilities can revolve more around finding ways to observe the progress and around making sure the flow of information is adequate (Robbins & Judge, 2015). In addition to this, in virtual teams the team leaders also tend to spend more time enforcing the norms and rewarding the team (Malhotra et al., 2007). Indeed, it has been pointed out that team leaders should invest in building trust within the team, as it is usually more challenging in virtual teams, especially if the collaboration is short-term (Schaubroeck & Yu, 2016). Regardless of whether teamwork takes place primarily virtually or in person, fairness is one key quality of a team leader in both settings. Perceived unfair treatment can have negative effects on team effectiveness, team cohesion, and trust between team members and their leader (see also organisational justice, Robbins & Judge, 2015).

Leadership

Interestingly, there is some variation in how leadership is understood in organisational behaviour research (see Ropo, 2011). Robbins and Judge (2015) define leadership as “the ability to influence a group toward the achievement of a vision or set of goals,” while Ulrich (2016) understands it as the leaders’ ability to guide their followers’ behaviour. Lastly, Northouse (2010) views leadership as an interactional process of influencing the followers’ behaviour to achieve goals.

Previous leadership research has gone through distinguishing trends, starting from trait theories, which emphasised specific personal traits and social, intellectual, and physical attributes that distinguish leaders from followers (Robbins & Judge, 2015; Ropo, 2011). Later, leadership research started to focus on behavioural aspects (Alimo-Metcalfe, 2013), regarding what leaders do rather than what qualities they have (Kelloway & Gilbert, 2017). Eventually, this shifted towards contingency theories (Ropo, 2011), which emphasised that leaders’ behaviours should be context-specific and that the right course of action might not be the same in every situation (see Kelloway & Gilbert, 2017). For instance, House’s (1971) path-goal theory makes a distinction between four different leadership styles: participative, supportive, directive and achievement-oriented leadership. The main argument of path-goal theory is that leaders must align the goals of the organisation with those of their followers and help them achieve those goals.

The next trend following contingency theories is still disputed: this includes theories that view leadership as heroic (see Alimo-Metcalfe, 2013) but also modern leadership theory (Kelloway & Gilbert, 2017). Transformational leadership is one strong example of heroic leadership models (Ropo, 2011), consisting of four dimensions: idealised influence, individualised consideration, inspirational motivation and intellectual stimulation (Kelloway & Gilbert, 2017). Idealised influence occurs when leaders provide a vision and instil pride in their followers, while individualised consideration refers to treating employees as individuals (Robbins & Judge, 2015). Inspirational motivation, on the other hand, refers to having high expectations, while intellectual stimulation is defined as promoting intelligence.

During the 21^st century, there have been significant changes in organisations and working life (e.g. internationalisation and technological advancements) which have required new insights and approaches from leadership research. Among the newer perspectives is the previously mentioned shared leadership, which focuses on the relational aspect of leadership. This shift of focus to the relationship and interactional process between a leader and a follower has been viewed as a fundamental change in leadership research. (Ropo, 2011) Still, researchers have argued whether leadership is an individual or a collective, universal or context-specific, objective or constructionistic phenomenon, or whether leadership is about influencing or experiencing (Ropo, 2011). According to Alvesson and Sveningsson (2003), research should start to focus on the everyday aspects of leadership. Their study from the early 2000s highlighted ordinary elements of leadership, such as listening, talking, and supporting, rather than emphasising grand leadership behavioural styles.

Ropo (2011) concretises her notion about the change in leadership research by reviewing different perspectives, such as ethical leadership. More ethically-oriented leaders have the tendency to make balanced decisions and place value on considering the ethical consequences of those decisions (Brown et al., 2005). As Ropo (2011) points out, integrity is an essential aspect to ethical leadership. It refers to the consistency of the explicit values that leaders verbalise and the actual behaviour they exhibit. Brown et al. (2005) found that ethical leadership is associated with considerate behaviour, trust between leaders and followers, as well as perceived fairness and honesty. They also noted that ethical leadership often leads to leadership effectiveness, job satisfaction, and commitment amongst the followers.

In short, leadership plays an important role in shaping organisational behaviour, as it directly influences not only the achievement of goals but also the dynamics between leaders and followers. While early theories focused on traits and behaviours, modern approaches emphasise the importance of context and relational processes. In this light, leadership is not a fixed position but a dynamic and distributed process that occurs through collaboration and interaction.

Organisation

After individual employees, teamwork and leadership, the next layer of organisational behaviour refers to the organisation itself. Looking at organisational culture and climate help to understand how an organisation’s daily life and practices take shape. Starting with organisational culture, its central dichotomy is whether an organisation has a culture or if it is a culture (see Smircich, 1983). From the first perspective, an organisation’s culture can be changed (Mauno & Ruokolainen, 2005). It is worth noting that Robbins and Judge (2015) as well as Ulrich (2016) seem to lean towards the perspective that an organisation has a culture, as they clarify that culture can be strengthened through leadership, recruitment, and socialisation. If an organisation is a culture, on the other hand, it is inherent and very difficult to change or mould.

Organisational culture refers to the shared, often implicit norms, values, and assumptions that guide the employees’ behaviour (Schneider et al., 2013; Schein & Schein, 2017). Related to this, Hofstede (2001) differentiates four levels according to how explicit a culture’s manifestations are, varying from shared values to visible symbols such as dress codes, logos, and interior decor. He defines organisational culture as a collective phenomenon that has concrete and non-concrete internalised, often unconscious, and relatively permanent patterns of thought and action, shared by an organisation or its sub-groups (e.g., departments).

According to Hofstede (2001), the deepest layer of an organisation’s culture consists of the unconscious values that guide the actions of its members. While uncovering these is usually the main focus of researchers, to access implicit values they often need to observe the employees’ daily lives within the organisation (Denison, 1996). In his categorisation of the four levels of work culture’s manifestation, Hofstede (2001) defines rituals as the collective activities that are viewed as essential (e.g., annual celebrations). Heroes, on the other hand, are understood as admired heroic figures in an organisation (e.g., founders). Symbols refer to verbal and non-verbal communication, images (e.g., logos) and objects (e.g., uniforms) that have cultural meanings. Finally, these practices penetrate all the layers and vary between different organisations.

In terms of the impact that organisational culture can have on its effectiveness, in their meta-analysis Hartnell et al. (2011) found four distinct organisational culture types that correlate from moderate to large degree with employees’ job satisfaction and organisational commitment. Within this distinction, the clan culture type, which values human affiliation and puts effort into teamwork, had the strongest relationship to job satisfaction. Overall, Hartnell et al. (2011) suggest that knowing the organisation’s culture type is important, as leaders of specific culture types should espouse and reward the values that replicate the desired culture type. It is important to note, however, that organisational culture also has a subjective dimension, as culture and its meanings can be experienced in different ways by different individuals. For instance, competitive, ambitious, and achievement-oriented employees (Feldt et al., 2005) are more likely to be effective, satisfied and more committed to an organisational culture type that values competitiveness, achievement and competence (Hartnell et al., 2011).

Organisational climate, as Denison (1996) points out, on the other hand refers to the shared perceptions and attitudes that an organisation’s members have about their organisation and work environment. Organisational climate is essentially a collective phenomenon, much like the previously discussed organisational culture.  However, the nature of prior research is usually quantitative, comparing different climate types and employee behaviour outcomes (Schneider et al., 2013). Perceptions of organisational climate are rooted in the organisation’s value system in accordance with its culture, but organisational climate research is considered to give a more short-term view into the organisation’s climate, focusing on the moment when it is measured (Denison, 1996).

According to Robbins and Judge (2015), research on organisational climate has focused on innovation, creativity, support, justice, safety, communication, and warmth, to name a few. Taking a more specific approach, Viitala et al. (2015) divided organisational climates into five distinct types: 1) relaxed and friendly, 2) encouraging and supportive of new ideas, 3) prejudiced and clinging to old ways, 4) strained and quarrelsome, and 5) tense and competitive. They also compared the relationships between these climates to various dimensions of well-being. Such work-related well-being consists of, for instance, fair management, interactivity, and opportunities for competence development and the holistic health of the individual (Manka, 2012). In the study by Viitala et al. (2015), the most significant relationships were found between stress and the “relaxed and friendly” climate type, as well as cynicism and “encouraging and supportive of new ideas.” In short, more positive climate types boosted work-related well-being more than negative climate types dampened it.

Conclusion

In this article, I have discussed four distinct themes—the individual employee, teamwork, leadership, and organisation—as the different layers of organisational behaviour. Each layer offers important and multidisciplinary perspectives on understanding organisational behaviour.  While discussing these themes in separate chapters might give the illusion that these perspectives do not overlap, it is important to note that a team always consists of individuals, and leadership, by definition, involves leading and guiding individual employees or teams. In addition, individual employees, teams and leaders are always situated within a certain organisation and their cultures and climates.

Finally, I would like to note that the discussion in this article is not exhaustive, as limited space has necessitated selective framing of the perspectives through which I examined the layers of organisational behaviour. To conclude, it can be said that organisational behaviour is an intricate whole with a multitude of relationships to different organisational phenomena. Importantly, organisational behaviour research offers rich opportunities to apply theoretical and empirical perspectives to practical action as an applied science. Moreover, on an individual level the theoretical and empirical perspectives I have discussed here may serve to reflect on what most motivates one as an individual employee and what kind of organisation or team would one be most content with. This, in turn, can allow work to act as a source of well-being and positive emotionality. Overall, the tools, insights, and empirical findings that organisational behaviour research provides can be especially useful to managers, leaders, and HR professionals in fostering well-being at work, competence development, effective leadership, and commitment within organisations.

Author

Taina Civil

Researcher

taina.civil@hamk.fi

+358503139580

More information