Organization Behavior

ORGANIZATION BEHAVIOR 6

OrganizationBehavior

Employeeproductivity and high customer satisfaction levels occur when theworkers engage within a team based environment. Besides, highperformance heavily depends on the ability of employees to practicethe basic tenets of respect and dignity for each other. However, theexistence of a perfect teamwork environment is never always the casedue to the presence of inappropriate behaviors by disruptiveemployees. The presence of disruptive behavior challenges thedevelopment of consistent conduct to the core and professionalanticipations within the workplace. It can cause adverse consequencesto the workers and the organization at large (Branch, Ramsay, &ampBarker, 2013).

Research associates workplace hostility to severe consequences.Workers who experience incivility and bullying or interpersonalconflicts are likely to quit their jobs. They develop a sense of lowself-esteem and well-being that results to little job satisfaction.Such employees end up having poor relationships with their colleaguesas well as their bosses. Hostility results in job stress, anxiety,reduced commitment to work and anger that affects productivity(Verkuil, Atasayi, &amp Molendijk, 2015).

A good example of disruptive behavior is that caused by George. Hehas indicated the tendency to play practical jokes during the workinghours and specifically, dropping the F-bomb after every word. Hisperformance at the organization is poor despite his long experiencein the company. It is evident that George’s behavior creates anegative working environment and may cause unhealthy consequences tohis colleagues. For example, his toxic behavior can spread to otheremployees who may begin behaving differently and believing that theorganization has a high tolerance for such mischief (Pidd, Roche &ampBuisman, 2011).

Employees like George provide a great challenge in deciding whetherto accept the situation and put up with it. However, long-termemployment does not transfer the rights for George to serve hispersonal interests. Besides, it does not earn him the right to bedisruptive to other hard working employees aiming to serve theorganization’s mission. His poor performance further presents achallenge of following and often cleaning his mistakes (Sullivan,2011).

The first option to addressing the case is through damage control.The process entails reducing George’s impact on his colleagues byreducing his responsibilities and reducing any meaningful work toothers. The strategy works since it reduces George’s impact onothers and eliminates the intentional aim to make him unhappy (Pidd,Roche &amp Buisman, 2011).

Second, it is imperative to develop a performance improvement planfor George. The process entails involving the human resources inidentifying specific performance improvements and setting goals. Thegoals should include specific targets and must be bound within agiven period. The process entails communicating to George that theset objectives should be permanent. Afterward, there is need toevaluate his performance and communicate any dissatisfaction with hisoutput. The failure to meet and maintain the required workingstandards should prompt documentation for his termination (Marques etal., 2014).

Josephine represents the second case of disruptive behavior. She is a45-year-old employee who exhibits her aggression through her bodylanguage towards some of the softer women. However, it is worthnoting that she is one of the best performing workers in the company.Josephine’s behavior is tantamount to bullying. Workplace bullyingrelates to severe organizational and personal effects as it hindersthe development and maintenance of a vital diverse and productiveworking environment. Buying is a phenomenon where an individualperceives himself or herself to be on the receiving end of adversetreatment for a significant amount of time. Such individuals have thetrouble of expressing and defending themselves against harshtreatment (Marques et al., 2014).

Research observes that the most critical step to managing Josephine’sbehavior is discussing her conduct privately. It is imperative toaddress her inadequate performance in a manner that maintains thecoexisting manager- worker relationship. Therefore, the meeting withJosephine should be held in private as a strategy to avoidinterruptions and distraction. The meeting should begin with themanager stating the purpose of the convention and depict the need tounderstand Josephine’s perception about her behavior withoutraising guilt or a sense of innocence. Afterward, it is imperative todescribe Josephine’s disruptive behavior and attempt to get her toaccept that there is a problem with her behavior (Marques et al.,2014).

A discussion on how to address Josephine’s conduct should followand lead to a concrete solution. During the process, the managershould anticipate Josephine’s response through anger orintimidation. In the case of anger, research observes that the bestsolution is allowing her to vent. Afterward, the manager shouldparaphrase her feelings and specify that her behavior is a seriousone that deserves address despite her attempts to divert attentionfrom the issue. In the case of tears or emotional despair, themanager should respect the genuine response. In the case of silence,the manager should wait until the employee chooses to talk and deviseways to resolve the problem. In the case where she is unwilling toresolve the issue, it is agreeable to reiterate the expectations fromthe meeting by rescheduling another time to discuss the issues. Inthe case where Josephine fails to accept accountability, theorganization should establish that Josephine had a fair opportunityto participate in the problem-solving process (Pidd, Roche &ampBuisman, 2011).

In the case of Helen, she is twenty-six years and always comes lateto work. She is always frazzled and whines while working. Her lack ofconsistency is clearly depicted by moments when she is at the topwith production and times when she gets nothing done. Helen`s caseillustrates the effect of drug abuse within the workplace. As amanager, there are various intervention measures based on Helen`sstage of drug abuse. Therefore, the first step entails understandingthe level of addiction to marijuana. Afterward, it is imperative todesign an Employee assistance program (EAP) through the in-housecorporate staff or by using the available external resources. As amanager, there is the option of referring the employee to medicalprofessionals. Besides, the employee can undergo treatment at arehabilitation facility. However, in addition to treatment, themanager should ensure that Helen has access to education and trainingon the effect of drugs on her health and overall productivity at work(Marques et al., 2014).

Drug education is a proven way to change employee’s attitudes andenhance a change of behavior. Brief interventions should be conductedon Helen as a strategy to help her in changing her consumptionpatterns. The manager can use peer interventions by identifyingHelen`s co-workers who are in the best position to respond andrecognize the marijuana-related problems. Helen should get access totraining on mental skills including motivational interviews, goalsetting, contingency management, coping with stress and cognitivebehavior therapy (Pidd, Roche &amp Buisman, 2011).

The case ofDavid presents a disruptive working behavior since he pinches bothmen and women who are on the line at their bottom. The fundamentalproblem emanates from the fact that he is not caught despite theconsistent complaints from his colleagues. David might be motivatedby a psychological problem to continue with his behavior. As amanager, it is imperative to clarify the suspicion by talking toDavid. First, the manager should inform David about the complaints byhis colleagues. Specifically, he should be informed about theaccusations made by his colleagues, and make it known to him thatsuch misconduct is unacceptable within the work environment.Afterward, the manager should let David confirm whether theaccusations made by employees about him are true or false. In thecase where David submits to the allegations, the manager shouldindicate the current need for behavior change. In the case where hedenies the accusations, it is once again imperative to echo theimportance of the meeting by rescheduling another session in thefuture. As the manager, it is imperative to follow up on the nextmeeting and establish David’s position regarding their behavior.Incase Davis fails to comply with the organizational problem-solvingprocess, the management should not be reluctant to dismiss him fromoffice (Verkuil, Atasayi, &amp Molendijk, 2015).

In conclusion, it is imperative for a manager to understand thecommon sources of disruptive employee behavior. According toresearch, some employees exhibit disruptive behavior due to existentpsychological disorders and chronic physical conditions. Besides,other employees may depict disorderly due to drug or alcohol abuse.Family related or financial problems affect employee behavior andhamper their capacity to interact professionally with theircolleagues. Some employees develop reckless behaviors when they areunable or unwilling to tolerate with the workplace stressors in thecontemporary world. However, some employees develop unprofessionalbehaviors after acquiring the belief that they are more often likelyto get the results they desire through bullying, intimidating andabusing their colleagues. A successful manager should set up aproblem-solving process and have working policy guidelines onacceptable and non-acceptable behaviors at the workplace.

References

Branch,S., Ramsay,S.&ampBarkerM.(2013).Workplace bullying, mobbing and general harassment: A review.InternationalJournal of Management Reviews,Vol. 15, 280–299Retrievedfrom https://www.sc.edu/ombuds/doc/Branch_Ramsay_and_Barker_2013.pdf

Marques, P.,Jesus, V., Olea, S.,Varinhos, V &amp Jacinto, C. (2014). The effectof alcohol and drug testing at the workplace on individual’soccupational accident risk. SafetyScience, 68(1),108-120Retrieved fromhttp://ac.els-cdn.com/S0925753514000769/1-s2.0-S0925753514000769-main.pdf?_tid=de99e7a4-8772-11e6-9e0e-00000aacb35e&ampacdnat=1475283991_3394c62856eab829f43847aa1f869fe9

Pidd, K., Roche, A&ampBuisman,F. (2011). Intoxicated workers: findings from a national Australiansurvey.Addiction,106, 1623-1633.

Sullivan, A.(2011).The importance ofeffective listening skills: implications for the workplace anddealing with difficultpeople. Theses&amp Dissertations. Paper 11.Retrieved fromhttp://digitalcommons.usm.maine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&ampcontext=etd

Verkuil, B.,Atasayi, S.&amp Molendijk M.(2015). Workplace bullying and mentalhealth: a meta-analysis on cross-sectional and longitudinal data.PlosOne.Retrieved on 01 October 2016 fromhttp://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135225