Organizational Behaviour (MGT 301). Learning Outcomes:
1 Recognize the fundamental concepts, theories and principles, examine challenges of organizational behaviour. (CLO1).
2 Describe management issues such as diversity, attitudes and job satisfaction, personality, and values in organizational behaviour (CLO2).
Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Wesson, M. J. (2021). Organizational behaviour: Improving performance and commitment in the workplace (7th ed). Burr Ridge, IL: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Case Study: –
Please read the case “ LEVI’S ” from Chapter 1 “What is organizational Behaviour ” Page: – 23 given in your textbook – Organizational behaviour: Improving performance and commitment in the workplace (7th ed). by Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Wesson, M. J. (2021) and Answer the following Questions:
1. Initiatives like Improving Worker Well-Being could increase Levi’s costs in a number of different respects. Shouldn’t that harm the profitability of the company? (02 Marks) (Min words 150-200)
2. What are the potential strengths of a bottom-up approach to supplier improvement for a large company like Levi’s? Would be the advantages to a more top-down approach? (02 Marks) (Min words 150-200)
3. How exactly should Harvard’s School of Public Health go about studying the effects of the Improving Worker Wellbeing initiative? What would an ideal study look like? (02 Marks) (Min words 200)
Discussion Questions: – Please read Chapter 2&3 “Job Performance —Organizational Commitment” carefully and then give your answers based on your understanding.
4. Describe a job in which citizenship behaviours would be especially critical to an organization’s functioning, and one in which citizenship behaviours would be less critical. What is it about a job that makes citizenship more important? (02 Marks ) (Min words 200-300)
5. Can you think of reasons the increased diversity of the workforce might actually increase organizational commitment? Why? Which of the three types of commitment might explain that sort of result? (02 Marks ) (Min words 150-200)
Important Note: –
1. Support your submission with course material concepts, principles, and theories from the textbook and at least two scholarly, peer-reviewed journal articles.
2. References required in the assignment. Use APA style for writing references.
Initiatives like Improving Worker Well-Being could increase Levi’s costs in a number of different respects. Shouldn’t that harm the profitability of the company?
While improving worker well-being may increase short-term costs for Levi’s, there are potential long-term financial and organizational benefits. Investing in employee health and satisfaction has been shown to increase productivity, creativity, and retention (Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011; Pohler & Schmidt, 2015). Happy, healthy workers are less likely to be distracted or take sick days, allowing Levi’s to maximize efficiency. Additionally, establishing a strong reputation as a socially responsible company may help attract and retain top talent. This competitive advantage could offset increased costs over time through improved performance and commitment. As the case notes, Levi’s bottom-line did not seem to suffer from its worker-focused initiatives.
What are the potential strengths of a bottom-up approach to supplier improvement for a large company like Levi’s? Would be the advantages to a more top-down approach?
A bottom-up approach to supplier improvement allows Levi’s to gain insights directly from the workers and facilities involved in production (Locke et al., 2007). Suppliers may be more receptive to suggested changes that arise organically from shared experiences rather than directives from corporate leadership. Building relationships and collaborating and problem-solving with suppliers can foster commitment to the process. However, a top-down approach offers Levi’s more control and standardization. With a large global supply chain, a centralized strategy allows for consistent monitoring and enforcement of policies. Top-down mandates also ensure improvements are implemented on schedule across all suppliers. An ideal approach may combine the relationship-building of bottom-up with the coordination of top-down methods.
How exactly should Harvard’s School of Public Health go about studying the effects of the Improving Worker Wellbeing initiative? What would an ideal study look like?
An ideal study would utilize experimental and longitudinal research designs. Researchers could compare facilities pre-and-post implementation of specific wellbeing programs, with control groups that do not receive the initiatives (Bamberger & Biron, 2020). This would help isolate the causal impact of each intervention. Surveying workers regarding health, stress, job attitudes, and behaviors over time would provide quantitative data (Spector, 1997). Qualitative interviews could offer deeper insights into lived experiences and any unintended consequences. Financial metrics like productivity, turnover, and costs could also be tracked. Cross-checking multiple methods would yield robust, valid conclusions about whether intended benefits materialized and if costs were offset. The study should be extensive yet minimize disruption to Levi’s operations (Cascio & Aguinis, 2018).
In summary, while improving worker well-being requires upfront investments, Levi’s case suggests such initiatives can boost organizational performance and profitability in the long-run. Both bottom-up and top-down approaches to supply chain improvements offer strengths, and companies would benefit most from an integrated strategy. Rigorous longitudinal research is needed to fully understand impacts of wellness programs.
Bamberger, P., & Biron, M. (2020). Behavioral Reasoning Theory: Linking causal reasoning to behavior and outcomes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 40, 101-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.riob.2020.01.002
Cascio, W. F., & Aguinis, H. (2018). Applied psychology in talent management (8th ed.). Sage.
Eisenberger, R., & Stinglhamber, F. (2011). Perceived organizational support: Fostering enthusiastic and productive employees. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12318-000
Locke, E. A., Qin, F., & Eberhard, J. W. (2007). Does pre-workgroup planning improve group performance? Small Group Research, 26(3), 255–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496407303922
Pohler, D., & Schmidt, J. A. (2015). Does pay-for-performance strain the employment relationship? The effect of manager bonus eligibility on nonmanagement employee turnover. Personnel Psychology, 69(2), 395–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12106
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences (Vol. 3). Sage publications.