Organizational Psychology
Introduction
The desire to explore the unknown has long been a part of man, for many centuries now, human beings have been curious to explore the unknown. We often ask the question “why?” from our childhood all through to our adulthood. This question still strikes within us. The role of the psychologist is to use empirical methods to understand the psyche of man and, in the long run, solve societal problems such as depression and anxiety. Psychology does not only deal with those ailing mind, but it has an essential application in many facets of our life through scientific methods; life is a quest and offers a diversity of challenges in every aspect (Graveter et al., 2018). This article we will have a detailed discussion on organizational psychology, its birth, its goals, and some of the theories.
Organizational psychology uses a theoretical and practical approach to study the psychological behaviors of persons belonging to a social or work organization. This specialty began back in the 20th century during the industrial revolution when the majority of people were working in industries on both blue and white-collar jobs. Employees display a difference in their behavioral reasoning, so there was a necessity to technically study their logic to select those who would benefit the industrial setting. In the past century, grand theories have been in cooperated into this discipline through the advert of technologies and stepwise development. Some of the evolved concepts include the Capabilities of Humankind, the impact of social factors on people, and many more.
The definition of Katz and Kahn of characteristic organization shows that there are numerous organizations in the world. Therefore there is a necessity to distinguish between a formal and informal organization (Shibutani, 2017). A formal organization has explicitly displayed their purpose in the form of writing. Because of this, the formal organization tends to last long beyond the life span of the founding members. Business communities are fond of having this formal organization and so as many NGOs and government agencies. In an informal organization, the purpose is more implicit and depends on the emotional attachment or physical presence; they tend to break when some of the members are away from each other.
An excellent example of an application of organizational psychology is the analysis of social exchange theory and voice research in a business environment. The voice intonation is crucial as it shows how the employees can raise their concerns and give essential suggestions and have an impact on the well-being of the company. Hilverda (2018) was drawn to study the effects of the voice. The voice sparks the constructive urge to benefit the organization. It is the employees who talk about the progress of the company, make comments on work-related issues. (Hilverda, 2018). There are two types of voices: promotive voices and prohibitive voice (Huang et al. 2018). The promotive voice is new ideas that are aimed at improving efficiency. Prohibitive voice tends to circle negativity, the problems which the company is facing, and is harmful to the organization.
The present study only focuses on the effect of the two voices (Huang et al. 2018). However, voices share close ties with social interactions, and it is sensitive to situations. (Kakkar et al., 2016). The social relationship between the individual and the manager has a tremendous impact on voice behavior due to the manager’s position as a channel to speak. Therefore we infer from social exchange theory why individuals can either engage in promotive or prohibitive talks. It all depends on the rapport they have with the leader of the firm. The social and work relationship between employees and leaders is essential in predicting the type of voice it will harbor. Better quality relationship promotes voice in that the employees feel free to air out their concerns.
Role of power distance orientation and its moderation
As earlier stated, the relationship between the employee and the leader affects the voice behavior of the employees. Power distance refers to acceptance in the difference in authority between the employer and the employee. Employees who have a high power distance orientation tend to be aware of the existence of power distance. They become sensitive to the presence of their leaders and their behavior, and they respond actively to the act. Employees with low power distance orientation react carelessly to the behavior of their leader. Employees with high power distance orientation do much differently from their leaders and are likely to define their relationship between them and their leaders as being a working relationship. The power distance orientation also has an impact on the voice. Employees with a high power distance orientation tend to be cautious of their opinion towards the company in that they lie between both the promotive and prohibitive voice. however, during a dialogue with the leader individuals with a high power distance tend not to have a prohibitive voice due to their submission to their leaders
Both Promotive and prohibitive voice
Voice is a tool to communicate our ideas and suggestions and to share out issues related to our workplace. However, research has also shown that voice is a tool for employees to make that first good impression (Morrison, 2019), for the long run voice has been perceived as a tool to be used in the workplace to separate the wheat from the chuff. Voice is used in the firms to ease the decision-making process, and the organization is able to perform better. In the teams, voice promotes team innovation and performance. Research shows that at the individual level, voice promotes a heightened sense of commitment. Given the fact that the advantages of voice are overwhelming to the employee, some scholars like Chamberlin (2017) focused on individual characteristics such as the impact of attitudinal factors in promoting the voice. Investigating the effect of situational factors on voice behaviors of the employee shows that employees tend to search for elements in their work environment to make a stand on their voice.
Psychological safety
Psychology safety is the ability to show the employer’s self expressively without being paranoid about the outcomes later. Many employees prefer to remain silent rather than speak out. They remain reluctant to express their concerns to their leaders. Bowen’s (2017) theory on the social information process suggests that the attitude of employees is dependent on contextual factors. Employees study their work and modify their perception of the place. Based on their judgment, they decide to engage in any behavior such as voice. It is risky to engage in voice, especially promotive voice, since it implies questioning the leader, and it might damage the rapport between the employee and the leader. However, the first initiative an employee would take is to find out if it is okay to voice this is to seek psychology safety. According to research, psychological safety is the one that promotes safety among employees. The employee remains cautious about his opinion; he sees it as being problematic. The level of psychological safety is dependent on the relationship between the leader and the employee. The link tends to be weaker up the formal line.
Social currencies
Social currency refers to the relationship between people at a particular instance of time; this entails the majority of concepts such as mutual liking, being loyal, and having respect for someone else’s skills. When a good relationship between the employee and the leader exists, the employee has high psychological safety, and their voice concerning the company can be reviewed. However, this is not always the case even if there is a good relationship between the leader and the employee if he does not feel psychologically safe he will not be able to express his voice to the employer. Promotive voice is impacted significantly by social currency and work-related currency. However, a strong work-currency implies that there will be a promotive voice.
Voice Behavior
The extent to which the employees are willing to give out their opinion is dependent on their leader’s change in behavior when employees realize that their leader is concerned and often crack jokes with them they will tend to have a better psychological safety due to their respect of their leaders. They will take the initiative to make the workplace since they are motivated. This is to say, a quality interaction between employees and leaders promotes better voice behavior; this is achieved by offering team-building exercises. Leaders should never engage in prohibitive voice towards their employees as this tends to kill their morale to work in that they say, “If they despise, I also despise.”
Conclusion
In the ever-changing world, understanding the human psyche plays an important role. “We are what we do” (Bargh, 2017) our behaviors tell much as what we are. Organizational leaders have, for many centuries, tried to understand the notion of their juniors better and to promote their expressiveness. We hope that this paper does just that and supports research in these areas.
Reference
Bargh, J. (2017). Before you know it: The unconscious reasons we do what we do. Simon and Schuster.
Bowen, K. N., Roberts, J. J., Kocian, A., & Bartula, A. (2017). An empirical test of social information processing theory and emotions in violent situations. Actual Probs. Econ. & L., 189.
Gravetter, F. J., & Forzano, L. A. B. (2018). Research methods for the behavioral sciences. Cengage Learning.
Hilverda, F., van Gils, R., & de Graaff, M. C. (2018). Confronting co-workers: role models, attitudes, expectations, and perceived behavioral control as predictors of employee voice in the military. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 2515.
Huang, X., Xu, E., Huang, L., & Liu, W. (2018). Nonlinear consequences of promotive and prohibitive voice for managers’ responses: The roles of voice frequency and LMX. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(10), 1101.
Shibutani, T. (2017). Society and Personality: Interactionist Approach to Social Psychology. Routledge.