Leadership is one of the most salient aspects of the organizational context. However, defining leadership has been challenging. In reviewing the leadership literature Stogdill argued that “there are almost as many definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the concept” (Stogdill, 1974, p. 259). Even though leadership is a term that is commonly used, defining leadership in specific terms can prove difficult likely leading to such a large number of definitions.
Despite the multitude of leadership definitions, Zaccaro and Klimoski (2001) argued there are several common elements that transcend the many available definitions. Specifically, leadership involves a) processes and proximal outcomes that contribute to the organizational objectives, b) the application of non-routine influence, and c) is contextually defined and caused. Proximal outcomes that leaders could facilitate in the pursuit of achieving organizational objectives could include developing organizational commitment among subordinates.
Non-routine influence implies that leaders must to have discretion in their actions and that their behavior should differ from influence provided through organizational routines. Finally, leadership needs to be considered with respect to the context in which it is occurring. One example is examining how leadership changes across levels of the organization. More broadly, leadership refers to organizing collective effort in the pursuit of solving problems facing the group (Kaiser, Hogan, & Craig, 2008).
Thus, leadership includes social problem solving (Mumford, 1986; Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, Jacobs, & Fleishman, 2000) and setting direction in social domains (Jacobs & Jaques, 1987), often to achieve collective action or organizational adaptation (Mumford et al. , 2000; Yukl, 2006). Overall, it is important to note that leadership necessitates the presence of followers and it is inherently discretionary (Jacobs & Jaques, 1990)—without people to lead or the element of choice, leadership cannot truly be exerted.
For a more thorough of comparisons between definitions of leadership as well as a summary of different styles of leadership please refer to reviews by Gary A. Yukl – Yukl (2006), Avolio, Sosik, Jung, and Berson (2003), Avolio, Walumbwa, and Weber (in press), and Den Hartog and Koopman (2002).  Do Leaders Matter? In the past, some researchers have argued that the actual influence of leaders on organizational outcomes is overrated and romanticized as a result of biased attributions about leaders (Meindl & Ehrlich, 1987).
Despite these assertions however, it is largely recognized and accepted by practitioners and researchers that leadership is important, and research supports the notion that leaders do contribute to key organizational outcomes (Day & Lord, 1988; Kaiser, Hogan, & Craig, 2008). Identifying the relationship between leadership and organizational outcomes often becomes more difficult because of the manner in which leadership performance is often measured and that organizational outcomes are rarely accounted for (Kaiser et al. , 2008).  Leadership Performance
The criterion space with regard to leadership has been muddied by varying conceptualizations and operationalizations of leadership outcomes. Many distinct constructs are often lumped together under the umbrella of leadership performance, including outcomes such as leader effectiveness, leader advancement, and leader emergence (Kaiser et al. , 2008). While these constructs may be related, they are different outcomes and their inclusion should depend on the applied/research focus. As in discussions of performance more broadly (discussed in more detail below), it is important to distinguish between performance and effectiveness.
That is, performance reflects behavior, while effectiveness implies the assessment of actual organizational outcomes (see Campbell, 1990 for a more detailed discussion). Specifically, it is important to delineate the particular behaviors expected to contribute to key organizational outcomes, versus the actual organizational outcomes. Outcomes may be subject to external factors beyond the control of the leader making it difficult to determine exactly what is driving the particular outcome of interest.
This is a problem in the leadership domain as leadership performance may be used to refer to the career success of the individual leader, performance of the group or organization, or even leader emergence. Each of these measures can be considered conceptually distinct, however. Leadership effectiveness refers to the ability to influence others and achieve collective goals (Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002). Some advocate leadership success should be based on the effectiveness of the team, group, or organization (Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994).
However, leadership effectiveness is more often based on the perceptions of subordinates, peers, or supervisors (Judge et al. , 2002). Alternatively, leadership emergence addresses whether an individual is perceived as the leader or being “leaderlike” (Hogan et al. , 1994; Judge et al. , 2002). Emergence involves distinguishing between leaders and non-leaders and making comparisons. Many studies rely on peer rankings or ratings to determine who emerges as a leader in a given situation. Several stable personality traits have been associated with leadership outcomes.
For instance, extraversion and openness to experience were positively associated with leader effectiveness, while neuroticism was negatively related to leader effectiveness (Judge et al. , 2002). In terms of leader emergence, Judge, Bono, Ilies, and Gerhardt (2002) also found that extraversion, consciousness, and openness to experience were positively related to leader emergence. The relationships between personality and these leader outcomes were stronger for leader emergence than for effectiveness.
Recent theoretical developments have also shown the efficacy of the leader attribute pattern approach in examining leader attribute and performance relationships. Another related concept is leadership advancement, which involves the attainment of leadership roles over a career span. Early longitudinal research using assessment center data suggested that factors such as interpersonal, cognitive, and administrative skills were related to leader advancement (Bray, Campbell, & Grant, 1974; Howard & Bray, 1988). edit] Distinguishing performance from effectiveness While overlap exists among these constructs, some distinctions should also be made (Lord, De Vader, & Alliger, 1986). Similar to definitions of job performance, it is important to distinguish between performance and effectiveness (Campbell, 1990; Campbell, McCloy, Oppler, & Sager, 1993). Job performance refers to the expected contributions of behavior to organizational goal accomplishment (Motowidlo, 2003).
On the other hand, job effectiveness refers the evaluation of the results of such performance (Campbell, 1990; Campbell, McCloy, Oppler, & Sager, 1993). Effectiveness can be influenced by a variety of external factors, outside of one’s immediate control (Campbell et al. , 1993). As such, it may not be accurate to attribute the responsibility of some measures of effectiveness (e. g. , total revenue) to an individual’s leadership capabilities, because it neglects to consider other external factors, such as the current economic state.
Thus, when assessing performance, it is more appropriate to examine elements within the leader’s control, such as specific behaviors that facilitate collective action and goal achievement. Evaluating leadership in such a manner is important for more accurately identifying predictors of leader performance; similarly researchers need to more carefully address the relationship of those behaviors with effectiveness measures in order to more clearly establish the importance of leadership to organizational outcomes (Kaiser et al. , 2008).
In comparison to effectiveness or emergence measures, measuring performance or behavior allows for an explicit consideration of those behaviors that would be expected to contribute to organizational outcomes without confounding measurement with the inclusion of factors outside of the leader’s control as is the case with effectiveness measures. Not surprisingly, in developing a taxonomy of job performance, Campbell (1990) identified two factors related to leadership: supervision, or influencing the performance of supervisees, and management, or organizing people and resources for accomplishing unit work.
He suggested that a variety of behaviors may fall under these broad categories. Research in the leadership domain has proven useful in identifying some of these more specific behaviors.  Functional leadership theory Functional leadership theory (Hackman & Walton, 1986; McGrath, 1962) is a particularly useful theory for addressing specific leader behaviors expected to contribute to organizational or unit effectiveness.
This theory posits that the leader’s main job is to see that whatever is necessary to group needs is taken care of; thus, a leader can be said to have done their job well when they have contributed to group effectiveness and cohesion (Fleishman et al. , 1991; Hackman & Wageman, 2005; Hackman & Walton, 1986). While functional leadership theory has most often been applied to team leadership (Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001), it has also been effectively applied to broader organizational leadership as well (Zaccaro, 2001).
In summarizing literature on functional leadership (see Kozlowski et al. (1996), Zaccaro et al. (2001), Hackman and Walton (1986), Hackman & Wageman (2005), Morgeson (2005)), Klein, Zeigert, Knight, and Xiao (2006) observed five broad functions a leader provides when promoting unit effectiveness. These functions include: (1) environmental monitoring, (2) organizing subordinate activities, (3) teaching and coaching subordinates, (4) motivating others, and (5) intervening actively in the group’s work. A variety of leadership behaviors are expected to facilitate these functions.
In initial work identifying leader behavior, Fleishman (Fleishman, 1953) observed that subordinates perceived their supervisors’ behavior in terms of two broad categories referred to as consideration and initiating structure. Consideration includes behavior involved in fostering effective relationships. Examples of such behavior would include showing concern for a subordinate or acting in a supportive manner towards others. Initiating structure involves the actions of the leader focused specifically on task accomplishment.
This could include role clarification, setting performance standards, and holding subordinates accountable to those standards.  Taxonomy of leader behavior More recently, Fleishman et al. (1991) examined previous leader behavior classifications to develop a conceptually based taxonomy describing the functional behavior requirements for effective leadership. Four broad superordinate dimensions of behavior were identified: (1) information search and structuring, (2) information use and problem solving, (3) managing personnel resources, and (4) managing material resources.
Information search and structuring involves the leader’s acquisition of information, organizing that information, and providing guidance or feedback to subordinates based upon that information. Information use and problem solving involves applying information in the pursuit of solving problems through identifying needs and requirements of the group, communicating that information, and coordinating unit efforts. The latter two dimensions involve implementation. Managing personnel resources involves obtaining and allocating personnel resources, developing personnel resources, and motivating unit personnel.
Managing material resources involves obtaining and allocating material resources, and utilizing and monitoring the use of those resources.  Taxonomy of managerial performance While a distinction is often made between leadership and management (Bass, 1990; Yukl, 2006), many scholars agree that successful management often involves leading (Yukl, 2006). Taxonomy development of managerial performance requirements can thus be useful in identifying behaviors important for successful leadership (to the degree that there is overlap in these terms).
In developing such a taxonomy Borman and Brush (1993) identified four broad categories of managerial performance: interpersonal dealings and communication, leadership and supervision, technical activities of management, and personal behavior and skills. In comparing these taxonomies, it is evident that many of the dimensions included in the more broad categories of managerial performance are directly related to those behaviors identified by Fleishman and colleagues.
Examples include planning and organizing, guiding and motivating subordinates, developing subordinates, communicating, maintaining good working relationships, problem solving, and monitoring and controlling.  Conclusion In summary, leadership performance has been conceptualized very broadly, often incorporating outcomes such as effectiveness, emergence, and advancement. As with more general considerations of job performance (Campbell, 1990), it is important to distinguish between leader performance and effectiveness. While it is important to evaluate the influence of leadership on organizational outcomes (Kasier et al. 2008), specifically assessing leader performance, or behaviors that have expected value to organizational outcomes, allows practitioners and researchers to avoid conceptual confusion. Various taxonomies that have been developed in the leadership and management literatures, specifically with regards to functional leadership theory. These taxonomies are useful for identifying behaviors that are likely to contribute to organizational outcomes, and thus those behaviors that should be considered when evaluating leadership performance.
In addition to emphasizing the importance of behaviors over outcome oriented effectiveness measures, it is also worthy to note the nature of leadership changes across organizational levels, and as a consequence so does the criteria for success. Generally speaking, leadership can be conceptualized in terms of three higher order levels (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Jacobs & Jaques, 1987). At the lower level, leaders are responsible for the administration of structure (Katz & Kahn, 1978) and solving everyday problems, focusing on short-term results (Jacobs & Jaques, 1987).
At the middle level, leaders are responsible for clarifying the structure imposed by upper level leaders and translating in into a workable plan (Katz & Kahn, 1978). At the upper level, leaders originate structure to pass down the levels (Katz & Kahn, 1978), create corporate culture, and manage transactions between the organization and the external environment (Jacobs & Jaques, 1987). As leaders move up through the levels of an organization, the performance standards they will be responsible for and the criteria and they be evaluated against will change.
Thus, the way leadership should be defined relies upon the context that it is occurring in; similarly, leadership may have a different influence on organizational outcomes based upon the level at which leadership is occurring.  References | This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate. (October 2008)| * Avolio, B. J. , Sosik, J. J. , Jung, D. I. , & Berson, Y. (2003). Leadership models, methods, and applications. In W. C. Borman, D.
R. Ilgen & R. J. *Klimoski (Eds. ), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 12. (pp. 277–307): John Wiley & Sons, Inc. * Avolio, B. J. , Walumbwa, F. , & Weber, T. J. (in press). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology. * Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed. ). New York, NY, US: Free Press. * Borman, W. C. , & Brush, D. H. (1993). More progress toward a taxonomy of managerial performance requirements. Human Performance, 6(1), 1-21. * Bray, D. W. , Campbell, R. J. & Grant, D. L. (1974). Formative years in business: a long-term AT&T study of managerial lives: Wiley, New York. * Campbell, J. (1990). An overview of the Army selection and classification project. Personnel Psychology, 43, 231-240. * Campbell, J. , McCloy, R. , Oppler, S. , & Sager, C. (1993). A theory of performance. In N. Schmitt & W. Borman (Eds. ), Personnel Selection in organizations (pp. 35–71). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. * Day, D. V. , & Lord, R. G. (1988). Executive leadership and organizational performance: suggestions for a new theory and methodology. Journal of Management, 14(3), 453-464. * Den Hartog, D. N. & Koopman, P. L. (2002). Leadership in organizations. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil & C. Viswesvaran (Eds. ), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology, Volume 2: Organizational psychology. (pp. 166–187): Sage Publications, Inc. * Fleishman, E. A. (1953). The description of supervisory behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37(1), 1-6. * Fleishman, E. A. , Mumford, M. D. , Zaccaro, S. J. , Levin, K. Y. , Korotkin, A. L. , & Hein, M. B. (1991). Taxonomic efforts in the description of leader behavior: A synthesis and functional interpretation. Leadership Quarterly, 2(4), 245-287. * Hackman, J. R. & Wageman, R. (2005). A Theory of Team Coaching. Academy of Management Review, 30(2), 269-287. * Hackman, J. R. , & Walton, R. E. (1986). Leading groups in organizations. In P. S. Goodman (Ed. ), Designing effective work groups (pp. 72–119). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. * Hogan, R. , Curphy, C. J. , & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: effectiveness and personality. American Psychologist, 49(6), 493-504. * Howard, A. , & Bray, D. W. (1988). Managerial lives in transition: advancing age and changing times: New York: Guilford Press. * Jacobs, T. O. , & Jaques, E. (1987). Leadership in Complex Systems In Praeger (Ed. , Human Productivity Enhancement (Vol. 2, pp. 7–65). New York. * Jacobs, T. O. , & Jaques, E. (1990). Military executive leadership. Measures of leadership, 281-295. * Judge, T. A. , Bono, J. E. , Ilies, R. , & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765-780. * Kaiser, R. B. , Hogan, R. , & Craig, S. B. (2008). Leadership and the Fate of Organizations. American Psychologist, 63(2), 96. * Klein, K. J. , Ziegert, J. C. , Knight, A. P. , & Xiao, Y. (2006). Dynamic delegation: Shared, hierarchical, and deindividualized leadership in extreme action teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(4), 590-621. * Kozlowski, S. W. J. , Gully, S. M. , Salas, E. , Cannon-Bowers, J. A. , Beyerlein, M. M. , Johnson, D. A. , et al. (1996). Team leadership and development: *Theory, principles, and guidelines for training leaders and teams. In Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams: Team leadership, Vol. 3. (pp. 253–291): Elsevier Science/JAI Press. * Lord, R. G. , De Vader, C. L. , & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generlization procedures.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 402-410. * McGrath, J. E. (1962). Leadership behavior: Some requirements for leadership training. Washington, D. C. : U. S. Civil Service Commission. * Meindl, J. R. , & Ehrlich, S. B. (1987). The romance of leadership and the evaluation of organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 30(1), 91-109. * Morgeson, F. P. (2005). The External Leadership of Self-Managing Teams: Intervening in the Context of Novel and Disruptive Events. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 497-508. * Motowidlo, S. J. (2003). Job performance. Borman, Walter C (Ed); Ilgen, Daniel R (Ed); et al. (2003). Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology, NY, US: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. * Mumford, M. D. (1986). Leadership in the organizational context: Conceptual approach and its application. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16(6), 508-531. * Mumford, M. D. , Zaccaro, S. J. , Harding, F. D. , Jacobs, T. O. , & Fleishman, E. A. (2000). Leadership skills for a changing world solving complex social problems. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(1), 11-35. * Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of the literature. New York: Free Press * Yukl, G. A. (2006). Leadership in Organizations.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. * Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). The nature of executive leadership: A conceptual and empirical analysis of success. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. * Zaccaro, S. J. , & Klimoski, R. J. (2001). The nature of organizational leadership: An introduction. In S. J. Zaccaro & R. J. Klimoski (Eds. ), The nature of organizational leadership: Understanding the performance imperatives confronting today’s leaders (pp. 3–41). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. * Zaccaro, S. J. , Rittman, A. L. , & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 12(4), 451-483. Performance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Uncovering the history of Performance is a complex task and yet there are some clues in the root of the word performance itself. Performance was first used as a term relating to the performing arts by the Egyptians, taking time off from the building of the pyramids. “Performancey” was a ritual gathering of itinerant artists who at the end of a long day hauling stone, would sing and dance and make simple stories come alive for the many thousands of tired workers. It’s use in modern times, as a generic term for multidisciplinary arts may well have its roots in these early rituals.
A performance, in performing arts, generally comprises an event in which one group of people (the performer or performers) behave in a particular way for another group of people (the audience). Sometimes the dividing line between performer and the audience may become blurred, as in the example of “participatory theatre” where audience members might get involved in the production. Singing choral music, and performing in a ballet are examples. Usually the performers participate in rehearsals beforehand. Afterwards audience members often clap, indicating appreciation. However, sometimes this rule is reversed.
In Japan, the greatest compliment is complete silence.  Performances, for example in theatre, can take place daily, or at some other regular interval. Performances can take place at designated performance spaces (such as a theatre or concert hall), or in a non-conventional space, such as a subway station, on the street, or in someone’s home.  Performance genres Music performance (a concert or a recital) may take place indoors in a concert hall or outdoors in a field, and may require the audience to remain very quiet, or encourage them to sing and dance along with the music.
A performance may also describe the way in which an actor performs. In a solo capacity, it may also refer to a mime artist, comedian, conjurer, or other entertainer. ? Erika Fischer-Lichte: The Transformative Power of Performance: A new aesthetics, Routledge 2008, ISBN 0415458560 Effectiveness Effectiveness means the capability of producing an effect. In mathematics, effective is sometimes used as a synonym of algorithmically computable.
In physics, an effective theory is, similar to a phenomenological theory, a framework intended to explain certain (observed) effects without the claim that the theory correctly models the underlying (unobserved) processes. An example is an effective field theory that “pretends” that certain effects are caused by a field even if it is known that this is not actually the case. In a way, any theory of Physics is fundamentally an effective theory, since there is no meaningful distinction of observables and reality within the scope of Physics (see also FAPP, cogito ergo sum, Phenomenalism, Pragmatism).
In heat transfer, effectiveness is a measure of the performance of a heat exchanger when using the NTU method. In medicine, effectiveness relates to how well a treatment works in practice, as opposed to efficacy, which measures how well it works in clinical trials or laboratory studies. In management, effectiveness relates to getting the right things done. Peter Drucker reminds us that effectiveness is an important discipline which “can be learned and must be earned. ”. In human–computer interaction, effectiveness is defined as “the accuracy and completeness of users’ tasks while using a system”.
The word effective is sometimes used in a quantitative way, “being very or not much effective”. However it does not inform on the direction (positive or negative) and the comparison to a standard of the given effect. Efficacy, on the other hand, is the ability to produce a desired amount of the desired effect, or success in achieving a given goal. Contrary to efficiency, the focus of efficacy is the achievement as such, not the resources spent in achieving the desired effect. Therefore, what is effective is not necessarily efficacious, and what is efficacious is not necessarily efficient.
An ordinary way to distinguish among effectiveness, efficacy, and efficiency: * efficiency: doing things in the most economical way (good input to output ratio) * efficacy: getting things done, i. e. meeting targets * effectiveness: doing “right” things, i. e. setting right targets to achieve an overall goal (the effect) * (effectivity: synonymous to effectiveness; usage is rather rare)  References 1. ^ Drucker, Peter F. The Effective Executive The Definitive Guide to Getting the Right Things Done (Harperbusiness Essentials).
New York: Collins, 2006 2. ^ DIN EN ISO 9241-11. Ergonomic Requirements for office with visual display terminals – Guidance on usability. Beuth, Berlin (1998) Leadership and Organizational Behavior Organizational Behavior (OB) is the study and application of knowledge about how people, individuals, and groups act in organizations. It does this by taking a system approach. That is, it interprets people-organization relationships in terms of the whole person, whole group, whole organization, and whole social system.
Its purpose is to build better relationships by achieving human objectives, organizational objectives, and social objectives. As you can see from the definition above, organizational behavior encompasses a wide range of topics, such as human behavior, change, leadership, teams, etc. Since many of these topics are covered elsewhere in the leadership guide, this paper will focus on a few parts of OB: elements, models, social systems, OD, work life, action learning, and change. Elements of Organizational Behavior The organization’s base rests on management’s philosophy, values, vision and goals.
This in turn drives the organizational culture which is composed of the formal organization, informal organization, and the social environment. The culture determines the type of leadership, communication, and group dynamics within the organization. The workers perceive this as the quality of work life which directs their degree of motivation. The final outcome are performance, individual satisfaction, and personal growth and development. All these elements combine to build the model or framework that the organization operates from. Models of Organizational Behavior
There are four major models or frameworks that organizations operate out of, Autocratic, Custodial, Supportive, and Collegial: * Autocratic — The basis of this model is power with a managerial orientation of authority. The employees in turn are oriented towards obedience and dependence on the boss. The employee need that is met is subsistence. The performance result is minimal. * Custodial — The basis of this model is economic resources with a managerial orientation of money. The employees in turn are oriented towards security and benefits and dependence on the organization. The employee need that is met is security.
The performance result is passive cooperation. * Supportive — The basis of this model is leadership with a managerial orientation of support. The employees in turn are oriented towards job performance and participation. The employee need that is met is status and recognition. The performance result is awakened drives. * Collegial — The basis of this model is partnership with a managerial orientation of teamwork. The employees in turn are oriented towards responsible behavior and self-discipline. The employee need that is met is self-actualization. The performance result is moderate enthusiasm. Although there are four separate models, almost no organization operates exclusively in one. There will usually be a predominate one, with one or more areas over-lapping in the other models. The first model, autocratic, has its roots in the industrial revolution. The managers of this type of organization operate mostly out of McGregor’s Theory X. The next three models begin to build on McGregor’s Theory Y. They have each evolved over a period of time and there is no one best model. In addition, the collegial model should not be thought as the last or best model, but the beginning of a new model or paradigm.
Social Systems, Culture, and Individualization A social system is a complex set of human relationships interacting in many ways. Within an organization, the social system includes all the people in it and their relationships to each other and to the outside world. The behavior of one member can have an impact, either directly or indirectly, on the behavior of others. Also, the social system does not have boundaries… it exchanges goods, ideas, culture, etc. with the environment around it. Culture is the conventional behavior of a society that encompasses beliefs, customs, knowledge, and practices.
It influences human behavior, even though it seldom enters into their conscious thought. People depend on culture as it gives them stability, security, understanding, and the ability to respond to a given situation. This is why people fear change. They fear the system will become unstable, their security will be lost, they will not understand the new process, and they will not know how to respond to the new situations. Individualization is when employees successfully exert influence on the social system by challenging the culture. The quadrant shown below shows how individualization affects different organizations (Schein, 1968): Quadrant A — Too little socialization and too little individualization creates isolation. * Quadrant B — Too little socialization and too high individualization creates rebellion. * Quadrant C — Too high socialization and too little individualization creates conformity. * Quadrant D — While the match that organizations want to create is high socialization and high individualization for a creative environment. This is what it takes to survive in a very competitive environment… having people grow with the organization, but doing the right thing when others want to follow the easy path. This can become quite a balancing act.
Individualism favors individual rights, loosely knit social networks, self respect, and personal rewards and careers — it may become look out for Number One! Socialization or collectivism favors the group, harmony, and asks “What is best for the organization? ” Organizations need people to challenge, question, and experiment while still maintaining the culture that binds them into a social system. Organization Development Organization Development (OD) is the systematic application of behavioral science knowledge at various levels, such as group, inter-group, organization, etc. , to bring about planned change (Newstrom, Davis, 1993).
Its objectives is a higher quality of work-life, productivity, adaptability, and effectiveness. It accomplishes this by changing attitudes, behaviors, values, strategies, procedures, and structures so that the organization can adapt to competitive actions, technological advances, and the fast pace of change within the environment. There are seven ch