Understanding Work Behaviour

Effective management can be achieved by understanding individual differences and their relationship with work behaviour. Work behaviour can be defined as “…anything a person does in the work environment” (Ivancevich and Matteson, 2002, p110) which contributes to the effectiveness of workplace productivity.

Woods et al (1998) and Ivancevich and Matteson (2002) identified five common traits in two separate models, which have a bearing on workplace behaviour. Although the five stages have different names, the elements of the models are consistent and are defined below in table 4: Traits Having A Bearing On Workplace Behaviour.

Table 4: Traits Having A Bearing On Workplace Behaviour Ivancevich and Matteson (2002) Woods et al (1998)

Hereditary characteristics Biographical characteristics Abilities and Skills Competency characteristics Perception Values

Attitudes Attitudes and perception

Personality Personality characteristics

The traits which are identified in table 4: traits having a bearing on workplace behaviour are defined below:

2.3.2.1 Hereditary / Biographical Characteristics

Hereditary factors provide justification of some human differences that may impact on work behaviour. Some of these factors include age, gender, ethnic background and seniority. Particular focus is targeted towards gender differences in the workplace with regard to professional and managerial careers (Ivancevich and Matteson, 2002).

2.3.2.2 Abilities and Skills / Competency Characteristics

An employee’s behaviour is distinguished by their ability and skill to perform certain tasks. An ability can be defined as “a person’s talent to perform a mental or physical task”, furthermore a “skill is a learned talent that a person has acquired to perform a task” (Ivancevich and Matteson, 2002, p111).

A manager’s ability to pro-actively plan and identify the competence of the position including a review of behaviours, responsibilities, and formal qualifications will ensure that the right incumbent has been appointed to the position (Ivancevich and Matteson, 2002). This process will ensure that the standards of performance are achieved as the individual’s technical ability is best matched to the demands of the job (The Faculty of Business and Law, 2003).

2.3.2.3 Perception / Values

This element is the differing point of view between the Wood et al (1998) and Ivancevich and Matterson (2002) models although one could argue it’s a difference in terminology. Perception is “…the process that organises sensations into meaningful patterns” (Sdorow, 1998, p152), and “… an individual's values are determined by their attitudes (The Faculty of Business and Law, 2003, p5). Therefore it is logical to assume that an individual's values will influence their perception of the situation and vice a versa.

Perceptions are developed by one's own attitudes, motives, interests, past experiences and expectations (The Faculty of Business and Law, 2003). Individuals try to make sense of situations by observing, selecting and translating the environment to form attitudes which then influence their behaviour.

Further to perceptions in the workplace, Ivancevich and Matteson (2002) articulate that “what an employee perceives to be real is in fact reality for the employee” (Ivancevich & Matteson, 2002, p 116). As personal interpretations of events influence our life experiences, it is no surprise that our perceptual processes contribute to the way in which we behave in different situations. These differences in perception place pressure on managers when conflicting perceptions are held by and between group members.

“Attribution Theory (AT) focuses on process by which individuals interpret events around them as being caused by a relatively stable portion of the

environment” (Ivancevich & Matteson, 2002, p116). AT assists in recognising and appreciating why people interpret certain situations differently and their subsequent behaviour.

In the workplace, AT can provide managers with a mechanism for understanding the behaviours of employees. Conclusions can be drawn by looking at the extent to which a person behaves similarly in different situations (distinctiveness), the extent to which a person engages in the same behaviour at different times (consistency) and the extent to which other people are engaging in the same behaviour (consensus) (Ivancevich & Matteson, 2002). An understanding of these phenomena will provide a holistic view of the behavioural patterns of employees in differing situations.

2.3.2.4 Attitudes

An attitude can be defined as “…a mental state of readiness learned and organised through experience, exerting a specific influence on a person’s response to people, objects and situations to which it is related” (Ivancevich and Matteson, 2002, p118). Our attitudes encompass perception, personality, feelings and motivation all of which combine to shape our behaviour.

In the workplace, managers are confronted with changing attitudes on a regular basis. Given the impact of attitudes on performance, it would be best practice for managers to monitor and promote positive attitudes within the working environment to ensure performance is not hampered. A positive example of an attitude in the workplace is job satisfaction, is the extent to which an individual is satisfied with their job. This attitude is derived from the individual’s perceptions and the extent to which the individual’s goals and organisation’s goals coincide.

2.3.2.5 Personality

Ivancevich and Matteson (2002) suggest that our personality is one of the most complex and difficult aspects of our individuality to understand. Personality can be described as “…an individual’s unique, relatively constant pattern of thinking, feeling and behaving” (Sdorow, 1998, 442).

Personality traits are an element of our individual differences. Traits are “...consistent personality characteristics that are inferred from a person’s behaviour” (Sdorow, 1998, p453). Recent research on personality has taken into consideration unconscious motivations, learning abilities, cognitive processes, experience and biological factors (Sdorow, 1998). Personality inventories will be discussed later in this chapter.