Organisational Behaviour: Analysing Culture, Politics, Power, Motivation, and Teamwork in Thomas Cook

This assignment delves into the complexities of organizational behaviour, focusing on the influence of culture, politics, and power on individual and team behaviour within Thomas Cook, a prominent travel company. It examines how content and process theories of motivation, along with motivational techniques, contribute to effective goal achievement. The study also explores the dynamics of effective teams, contrasting them with ineffective ones, and applies concepts and philosophies of organizational behaviour to real-world business situations. By analyzing Thomas Cook's organizational structure, leadership styles, and team dynamics, this assignment provides insights into the factors that contribute to successful organizational performance.

E 164 Nicoleta Tomescu Business
Organisational Behaviour

Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................4
L01 Analyse the influence of culture, politics and power on the behaviour of others in an
organisational context......................................................................................................................4
Analysing how an organisation’s culture, politics and power can influence individual and team
behaviour and performance [P1].....................................................................................................4
L02 Evaluate how to motivate individuals and teams to achieve a goal.........................................9
Evaluating how content and process theories of motivation and motivational techniques enable
effective achievement of goals in an organisational context [P2]...................................................9
LO3 Demonstrating and understanding of how to cooperate effectively with others...................14
Demonstrating an understanding of what makes an effective team, as opposed to an ineffective
team [P3]........................................................................................................................................14
LO4 Apply concepts and philosophies of organisational behaviour to a given business situation
.......................................................................................................................................................20
Applying concepts and philosophies of OB within an organisational context and a given business
situation [P4]..................................................................................................................................20
Conclusion:....................................................................................................................................23

Introduction
The way people interact and behave with each other in organizations is known as Organizational
Behaviour or OB. The assignment is to focus on analysing the influence of politics, culture and
power on the behaviour of others in an organizational context, evaluating how process and
content theories of motivation and motivational techniques enable effective achievement of goals
in an organisational context and demonstrating an understanding of what makes an effective
team, as opposed to an ineffective team applying concepts and philosophies of OB within an
organisational context and a given business situation. The company taken into account for
discussing the traits of organizational behaviour is Thomas Cook which is a travelling company
based in the UK. The company was started by Thomas Cook who was then a cabinet maker and
his son in 1872.
L01 Analyse the influence of culture, politics and power on the behaviour of others in an
organisational context.
Analysing how an organisation’s culture, politics and power can influence individual and
team behaviour and performance [P1].
Influence of culture, politics and power on team behaviour and performance:
While running an organization, the human resources are used to convert the material resources
into products. During utilizing the human resources, the managers of the company may need to
make choices. If the company is as huge as Thomas Cook, there will be many managers and each
of them will involve in politics using their power to make sure that his/her choice is accepted.
When a company follows a certain work culture, the performance of the employees gets affected
by the decisions made by the managers which in turn decides the success or failure of the
company (Unger-Aviram and Erez, 2016).
Classification of Culture (Power, Role, Task and Person):
While describing organizational culture Charles Handy informed four types of culture: Power,
Role, Task and Person.

Unlike Thomas Cook, some organizations are there which practice power culture where the
power is limited within some commanding persons and whose decision is the ultimate in the
company. Employees don’t enjoy working in these environments as they’re judged based on
achievements only (Cuddy et al. 2015).
The companies that follow the role culture have different roles and responsibilities for each of
the employees. The power comes from the role and responsibility of an employee. Though it
may seem an ideal work culture, the chances of organizational conflict are high in these
scenarios (Kim et al. 2016).
Thomas Cook follows the task culture where employees work in teams to solve any problem or
work on a project. The power shifts from one person to another as the task is the priority here.
The company is productive because it has successfully used the personalities, leadership qualities
and the skills of the employees to get the best out of them (Dill and Zinn, 2016).
Thomas Cook doesn’t follow or encourage the person culture where people thinks that they’re
superior to the company. There aren’t any connection between the employees who work in a
company with person culture (Mazanec et al. 2015).
The importance of Cultural Difference Awareness:
Different types of cultural values and customs affect the way people dress, talk, behave etc. and
there might be differences of opinion in an organization based on cultural differences of the
employees. Being a huge organization, Thomas Cook has employees from different backgrounds
who feel content working in the company because they’re opinions matter for the growth of the
business (Crane, Kawashima and Kawasaki, 2016). The managers are culturally aware and
they’re able to communicate with people without any cultural biases. Besides, the company has a
diversity policy and is strict in terms of cultural awareness policies.
Hofstede’s theory of culture theory and application:
Thomas Cook is a multinational company that works with people from all around the globe.
Therefore, it’s important for the company to follow Hofstede’s theory of cultural dimension. As
per Greet Hofstede, there are five major factors that influence the workplace culture:

 Power distance: As Thomas Cook has team leaders and managers who are answerable
for their teams’ performance, there are companies that hold each employee responsible
for their task. In the first case, some employees enjoy more power whereas in the second
case, all the employees are treated equally (Engestrom et al. 2018).
 Individualism: Thomas Cook always encourages employees to work as a team as the
company believes that productivity increases when every individual come up with
different ideas. Some companies, on the other hand, prefer employees working
individually.
 Masculinity vs. Feminity: Different companies follow different policies depending on
the number of the male and female employees.
 Uncertainty avoiding: If an organization is as vast as Thomas Cook, there will be
unforeseen situations. The employees of the company are prepared for any kind of
unusual circumstances.
 Long-term orientation: Thomas Cook like many other established organizations offer a
long-term relationship with the employees which in turn encourages the employees to
work hard for the company and aim for betterment.
The rise of globalisation and digital technology and how they have influenced and shaped
organisational culture in the 21st century:
Though the impact of globalization and digital technology is yet to be comprehended, both have
some organizational influences that are evident. The companies have employees working from
all around the world because on the one hand globalization made the diversity possible and on
the other hand they can connect with the help of digital technology. Many organizations choose
outsourcing which helps employees earn more. Many employees working with Thomas Cook
don’t have to attend the office physically as the company allows them to communicate from
home using digital technology (Geppert, Becker-Ritterspach and Mudambi, 2016).
Principles of Network theory and Systems theory as frameworks to understand
organisations:
Network theory is based on how an organization, a person or a group get affected by the social
form of relationships. Thomas Cook follows the network theory by focusing on the relationship

between the employees, instead of focusing on individual characteristics. The company offers
open communication for the employees so that they can share ideas which help the organization
grow further (Hiatt, Grandy and Lee, 2015).
The idea of cybernetics is followed in Thomas Cook where employees are often provided with
feedbacks for their work from the team leaders. The structure and strategies of the company
affect the way the employees deliver their work. Though the system of the company is complex,
the employees adapt to the changes fast and they learn from their experiences.
Organizational Psychology:
Organizational psychology is about having a smooth work culture and a workforce that works
efficiently for the success of the company. The employees should feel happy and content which
will help them in being more productive and strengthen the structure of the organization. Besides
maintaining all the requirements, the managers of Thomas Cook also resolve the organizational
conflicts offering an effective solution.
Influence of politics:
As described earlier, each organization has organizational politics which can be used in favour of
growing the company. The leaders of Thomas Cook understand the basic four types of
organizational politics and use those for the improvement of the company (Laboissiere,
Fernandes and Lage, 2015).
When the company officials use their personal connection and influence informally for the
wellness of the organization, it’s called “the weeds”. There’re many managers in Thomas Cook
who have used their informal network so that the company earns more revenue. Though this
politics can lead to some improvement, some employees may use their personal connections to
stop the growth of the company. Therefore, the officials should keep a check on the weed
politics.
Thomas Cook hasn’t become one of the most successful organizations simply be depending on
the weed politics. It has individuals who use their expertise and resources to create a team or
taskforce that works on particular sectors within the organization. These people are “the rocks”

of the company as they help the organization in stabilizing and keep it steady even during the
crisis period (Kahkonen, 2014).
“The high ground” signifies those who own the decision-making authority within an
organization. These people help the rocks by creating new structural processes. However, unlike
many other companies, Thomas Cook makes sure that the high ground doesn’t stop the
innovation and creativity of the organization by implementing rules and regulations.
Some organizations must follow certain unspoken rules which are a part of the organizational
politics and are considered as “the woods”. The woods can be used in observing the companies
shortcomings through asking various questions and it can help the company not only a better
place to work in but also a good organization to deal with.
Influence of Power:
The managers of Thomas Cook own power and they know how to utilize it to get the most out of
an employee. The power can come from different sources and can be used in different ways.
Depending on the organizational role of a person, he/she exercises legitimate power. Employees
may not always like the use of legitimate power, but still, they need to comply with it.
Owners of a company or managers have the reward power where they can grant rewards like
providing increment or offering promotion. As Thomas Cook grants its employees rewards, they
work hard so that their work reflects on the growth of the company (Gelfand et al. 2017).
In contrary to reward power, some organizations punish their employees for their mistakes and
it’s known as coercive power. Threatening the employees every now and then about firing them
doesn’t help a company in being successful.
People who are experts in their field know beforehand what the customers look for and make the
employees work on that. Understanding the current and the future market is associated with this
kind of power.
Information power is slightly different from the expert power as a person has access to some
certain information. Knowing something that others don’t know strengthens a person while
negotiating for business.

Some people are liked more while some aren’t. The referent power in an organization lies in the
hands of those who are respected, liked and wanted by the employees. Many of the managers in
Thomas Cook enjoy the referent power because of their interaction and connection with the
employees.
L02 Evaluate how to motivate individuals and teams to achieve a goal.
Evaluating how content and process theories of motivation and motivational techniques
enable effective achievement of goals in an organisational context [P2].
Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation:
Extrinsic or outside motivation is an activity or a behaviour of a person so that he can avoid
punishment or earn a reward (D’Lima, Winsler, and Kitsantas, 2014). One example of such
behaviour is working hard to earn revenue.
The behaviour is motivated by the desire of either gaining something or avoiding an adverse
consequence. People don’t always enjoy the behaviours that they perform to achieve something
(Dwenger, 2016). Some employees of Thomas Cook may work overtime without enjoying what
the job simply to get promoted.
Intrinsic or inside motivation, on the other hand, is all about behaving such a way that a person
feels good about oneself (Judson, Volpp and Detsky, 2015). If an employee of Thomas Cook is
working on a creative project because he enjoys being creative, that’s an example of intrinsic
motivation. Behaviour related to intrinsic motivation is about self-satisfaction instead of acting to
avoid unwanted outcomes or earn rewards (Mekler et al. 2017).
Motivational and Content Theories:
Herzberg Two factor theory of Motivation:
As per Fredrick Herzberg, the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of a job depends on two factors,
which are:
 Hygiene Factors:

This includes the job factors that offer positive satisfaction for a shorter period at the
workplace (Kiatkawsin and Han, 2017). However, the absence of the hygiene factors will
lead to dissatisfaction. The hygiene factors are:
 Payment – The competitive and equal pay scale in comparison with the similar
industry.
 Policies – Rigid company policies aren’t good enough for acquiring sustainable
employees.
 Fringe benefits – Companies should offer Mediclaim, employee help schemes etc. for
its employees.
 Working condition – The workplace should be safe and clean to work in. the
machinery should be in working condition with regular updates.
 Job security – Employees shouldn’t be afraid of losing job all the time.
 Designation – The designation of the employee should be retained.
 Interpersonal relationship – There shouldn’t be any organizational conflict between
the employees and the management.
 Motivational Factors:
Herzberg stated that the motivational factors are the important ones that produce positive
satisfaction because these are rewarding for the employees. The motivational factors are:
 Recognition – The managers should praise and recognise the employees for their
achievements.
 The sense of accomplishment – Employees should feel the joy of accomplishing a
task.
 Opportunities for promotion – Good performances must be rewarded with
promotions and increments.
 Responsibility – The employees should have some responsibility for their task.
The managers should supervise instead for controlling the operations.
 Meaningfulness – interesting, challenging and meaningful work motivate the
employees to perform well.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs:

Abraham Maslow came up with his Hierarchy of Needs theory in the year 1943 and his theory
depicts the human motivation. According to Maslow, the five needs are:
 Physiological needs: Simply speaking, the needs for basic amenities are known as
Physiological needs which include air, food, water, shelter and clothing.
 Social needs: Social needs mean the needs of love, care, affection, friendship etc. to
sustain in a society.
 Safety needs: This includes social, environmental, physical and emotional safety like
family security, health safety, job security etc.
 Esteem needs: there are two types of esteem needs – internal (self-confidence, respect,
achievement, competence and independence) and external (power, recognition, status,
admiration and attention)
 Self-actualizing needs: It means the urge of growing and feeling self-content. It also
means the desire for being creative, gaining knowledge, engaging in social service etc.
Process Theories:
Expectancy Theory of Motivation:
Victor Vroom proposed the Expectancy Theory of Motivation in 1964 and he stressed on the
results instead of the needs. According to Vroom, Expectancy Theory is all about believing that
delivering better performance will lead to a reward. The theory of Expectancy depends on the
three factors discussed below:
 The relationship between effort and performance
 The relationship between performance and reward and
 The relationship between rewards and personal targets
Equity Theory of Motivation:
Equity Theory of Motivation depends on the equity or balance, fairness and truthfulness
practised by the management. The better the perception of fairness in a person, the more the level
of motivation and vice versa (Burrai, Font and Cochrane, 2015). Generally, an employee
compares the contribution towards the company and how the company compensates that in
comparison with employees of equal cadre to evaluate fairness. There are four comparisons or

referents that the employees use to evaluate justice and compare himself or herself (Olafsen et al.
2015)
 Self-outside: The experience of an employee in a situation outside the current company
 Self-inside: The experience of an employee in different positions within the current
company
 Other-outside: One or more employees outside the employee’s current company
 Other-inside: One or more employees inside the employee’s current company
The implications of motivational theory on management and leadership within
organisations:
The renowned British travel company Thomas Cook follows some of the theories well. The
managers of the company stress enough on maintaining the hygiene factors so that they can
avoid any kind of employee dissatisfaction. The company rewards its employees on a regular
basis and often arranges stimulation programs to encourage them to perform better (Barrick et al.
2015). Since Thomas Cook is a service providing organization, the equity theory can’t be
followed all the time. The employees who work hard are preferred by the managers and
managers often get biased to those who earn profit for the company (Purvis, Zagenczyk and
McCray, 2015).
Adhering to Maslow’s theory, Thomas Cook has an appropriate salary structure which allows the
employees to purchase their basic amenities and beyond that. The employees work in a hygienic
and safe environment as the security of Thomas Cook is pretty tight. However, the employees
may feel suffocated given the work pressure of the company. Besides, the organizational conflict
between the subordinates and the senior employees sometimes negates the chance of promotion
(Bachman et al. 2016).
Most of the time, the managers ensure that the employees perform well not by controlling them,
rather by letting them take the responsibility. Thomas Cook also has some challenging job
opportunities that not only let the employees work harder but also let them enjoy the sense of
achievement which in turn helps them perform better. The payment of the company is quite
satisfying and is better than the competitive market (Caruso, Fleming and Spector, 2014).

What is Emotional Intelligence?
Emotional intelligence is the ability of a person to control and manage not only own emotion but
others’ emotions as well. Some skills are needed to be emotionally intelligent:
 Emotional awareness (understanding oneself to control the emotional outbursts)
 Self-regulation (regulating oneself to act only after thinking about it)
 Empathy (understanding others’ situations)
 Motivation (staying motivated to stimulate oneself and others as well)
 Social skills (communicating one’s own point of view)
Employees of Thomas Cook are expected to show emotional intelligence in the work place
because those who can’t control their emotions aren’t preferred by the management.
Task vs. relationship leadership:
There are two kinds of leadership theories that are discussed underneath:
 Task-oriented leadership: Leaders who are motivated by achieving targeted tasks and
encourage the employees to accomplish their tasks too made task-oriented leaders. These
kinds of leaders follow a schedule and they are organized.
 Relationship-oriented leadership: Leaders who are motivated and inspired by
interacting with others. These kinds of leaders are more approachable and the employees
treat them like mentors which make the workplace more enjoyable.
The managers of Thomas Cook motivate the employees to perform well within time yet are
approachable making the work environment friendlier which results in better workforce
management (Cronin et al. 2015).
Psychodynamic Approach to Behaviour:
According to Sigmund Freud, Psychodynamic Approach is the combined theory of behaviour
and functionality based on the interaction of the unconscious forces within a person and the
different forms of personality. To simplify it can be said that a person’s behaviour is based on the
unconscious motives. The managers of Thomas Cook encourage as well as rectifies its
employees so that they can strive for betterment.

LO3 Demonstrating and understanding of how to cooperate effectively with others
Demonstrating an understanding of what makes an effective team, as opposed to an
ineffective team [P3].
Different types of organizational teams:
Most of the workplaces including Thomas Cook have a culture of team-working where
individuals work as teams to increase the productivity of the company. This is because the
leaders believe that when different people work together, they’re creativity and innovation
always come up with some new ideas that are fruitful (Tuncdogan et al. 2017). There are five
types of teams in general in a workplace.
 Departmental teams: These kinds of teams work in a special department that the
team members are master in. For example, Thomas Cook has different teams for
sales, marketing, retail, corporate functions etc.
 Problem-solving teams: Companies form these kinds of teams only during the crisis
period to come up with an instant solution regarding the problem.
 Self-directed teams: Self-directed teams have the power of taking a decision on
behalf of the companies. When the managers of Thomas Cook work together in a
team to make some important and informed decision based on their skill and
knowledge, that’s the example of a self-directed team.
 Cross-functional teams: Even if there are individual teams in an organization,
sometimes the team members of different teams have to work together to handle
certain events. While Thomas Cook has different teams for marketing, sales and
corporate functions, the teams may need to join hands together while taking some
important decision (Gilson et al. 2015).
The impact of technology on organisational teams:
More and more companies are relying on their organizational teams for the betterment of the
company. The teams work in collaboration with each other to introduce diverse resources which
result in better outcome (Kozlowski, 2015). Thomas Cook encourages its employees to display

their skills and the company uses technology as it’s changing the organizational approach
rapidly. The points below will show how technology impacts a business:
Structure: As the technology has evolved and is still evolving, the organizations must be
updated so that they can empower the employees. As soon as new software is installed, the
company must provide the employees with training. Thomas Cook has modified its structure
depending on the requirements of the departments and job positions.
Significance: Different companies have criteria for different software, systems and specialized
technology apart from the standard desktop and laptop. The companies that incorporate the
changes that are in significance with the growth of the business become successful over the
period.
Expenses: All the companies are not as huge as Thomas Cook. Therefore, while introducing a
new technology, the small organizations should evaluate the importance of incorporating the
technology and the cost of the same. However, significant technology improves the operations of
an organization which in turn becomes profitable.
Processes: Organizations can now install processes that help in easing the operations of the
company with the development of technology. Processes like CRM, ERP help them in maintain a
relationship with the customer and bookkeeping. Cloud-based processes help the companies to
store their valuable data in safety.
Team Dynamics and Teamwork:
When a group of people join their hands together to work in an organization, the group is known
as a team. Managers or team leaders are in charge of these teams to ensure the teamwork. The
team leaders or the managers are responsible for creating team dynamics which are the
unconscious psychological power that changes the performance of the team (Song et al. 2015).
Team dynamics is greatly influenced by the personalities of the team members, the type of the
team’s work, the relationship between the teammates and the place they’re working in. Managers
can use the team dynamics by following certain methods to ensure that the teamwork is intact.

Clear purpose: It’s utterly necessary for the manager to know what’s the purpose of the team so
that he/she can brief it and make it clear to the teammates for the best result.
Job satisfaction: It’s the job of the manager to make sure that his/her team members are satisfied
with their jobs because that’s what people strive for in a company.
Creative ideas: Encouraging the teammates to come up with fresh and creative ideas will make
them feel connected to the team and they’ll give their best for the company’s improvement.
Understanding: The manager must be understanding and compassionate towards the teammates
as it creates a positivity within the team and the members feel boosted to work in the team (Raes
et al. 2015).
Team Development Model of Tuckman and the impact of development stages on individual
development:
According to Bruce Tuckman, a team needs to go through four phases to grow and develop:
Forming: People interact with each other to know their strengths and weaknesses. The team in
Thomas Cook is formed by gathering knowledge about the team members. The manager
discusses the objective of the team.
Storming: Different people start coming up with their diverse ideas and working styles that
creates conflicts in the team. Team leaders in Thomas Cook are responsible for steering the team
to the right direction during this phase.
Norming: Despite the conflicts, the team starts to work together and make plans that help in the
development of the company. Managers in Thomas Cook ensure to facilitate the process by
leading the teammates during the norming phase (Chae, Seo and Lee, 2015).
Performing: The most important phase as the team starts to perform and it has clear goals with
the constant encouragement from the team leader. Since Thomas Cook is a huge organization,
team leaders reward the team members for the success of the team.

Tuckman later introduced another phase which he notified as the ‘Mourning’ phase when a team
is broken to create another team and the teammates become friends within this time (Mathieu et
al. 2015).
Belbin’s typology for management of effective teams:
Dr Meredith Belbin came up with some team roles that help in the success of the team.
Implementer: There’re persons in Thomas Cook who works in a team and ensure that the ideas
of the team come into actions. They work efficiently and are systematic.
Shaper: The team members who are dynamic and outgoing are known as the shapers. They
motivate other team members and can increase the productivity of the team.
Co-ordinator: The calm and confident people who focus on the teamwork to get the most out of
the teammates. Generally, managers in Thomas Cook are the co-ordinators.
Completer-Finisher: People who feel responsible for completing a project perfectly with
minimum too no errors. Thomas Cook has come so far because of the presence of many
completer-finisher in the teams (Stokes et al. 2014).
Team Worker: All the team members working in Thomas Cook are team workers who support
each other so that the team works efficiently.
Resource Investigator: People working in Thomas Cook continuously look for resources that
can be used for enhancing the performance of the teams and for the company.
Plant: Those who come up with new and innovative ideas for the development of the team and
the company are mentioned as the Plant.
Specialist: Some people working in Thomas Cook are experts in some fields. They guide the
teams with their valuable insights and knowledge.
Monitor-Evaluator: Team leaders in Thomas Cook are given the position of monitoring and
evaluating the performance of the teammates so that they can strive for betterment (Kistruck et
al. 2016).

Roles and Skills needed for effective teams:
Every team needs a set of skills and roles that help them in being successful (Liu, Saito and Oi,
2015).
Planning: The managers in Thomas Cook give the responsibility on some teammates for
planning how the team is going to work on a process.
Deciding: Some team members are good at making decisions and the team leaders often consult
with them before deciding something
Problem-solving: People who are focused are able to solve the problems as they see each of the
problems as an opportunity.
Communicating: Each team member of Thomas Cook stress on the communication skill to
ensure that the team is working smoothly
Influencing and facilitating: The managers always influence and facilitate the team members
for coming up with innovative ideas and for achieving targets.
Proving feedback: Even after a project is completed, it’s necessary to provide feedback so that
the weak teammates can act on their weaknesses.
Hard and Soft Communication:
Though many people think that communication is only a soft skill, it may involve some
processes that are part of hard skills as well. Technical writing is a form of communication by
writing on technology, computing, engineering, health science etc. Some other forms of
communication are producing videos, creating websites, emailing etc. which don’t need soft
skills.
People working in Thomas Cook often communicate via phones or video conferences and they
need to have some technical abilities other than soft skills that help them in the process of
communication. Communication requires both the hard and the soft skill depending on the form
it’s being used.
Cooperation and Competition:

Thomas Cook is an organization that follows the method of cooperation and competition within
the organization to get the most out of its employees.
The company has incorporated cooperation because it wants the employees to grow along with
the organization, the departments function smoothly as the employees carry on the process of
production and a healthy work culture is maintained.
On the other hand, the company also encourages healthy competition among the employees so
that the workforce keeps improving, innovative ideas come to the surface, the efficiency of the
employees increase and the managers understand the potential of each employee (Fisher, 2016).
Advantages and Disadvantages of Teams in organization
Like any other organization, Thomas Cook too encounters the advantages and disadvantages of
teamwork within the company.
Advantages:
 Better production: As the team members work together for a particular project, they
offer better production for the company. Some team leaders encourage healthy
competition within the team that boosts up the productivity.
 Better solutions: When multiple brains work together, the team members discuss the
various types of solutions to the problems to come up with the best solution.
Disadvantages:
 Inter-team conflict: Different teams sometimes work together on some projects and
because of their different work methods sometimes there may be the rise of conflict
between the teams which in turn can hamper the productivity of the company.
 Intra-team conflict: While working in a team, employees come up with different ideas
and each thinks that his/her idea is the best. Accepting some ideas may create a conflict
between the team members.
Conflict Resolution:
The managers working in Thomas Cook are responsible for the resolution of the conflicts. They
follow certain methods to solve the conflict:

Identify the source: It’s important to know the source of the conflict so that both the parties get
chance to voice their opinions.
Requesting solution: As soon as the source is identified, now, the manager offers a solution to
both the parties making sure that none is hurt with the solution provided. Occasionally both the
parties share their views and come up with solutions as well (Hoch and Kozlowski, 2014).
Agreement: As both, the parties agree to the solution, the manager asks them to shake hands as a
gesture of friendliness and ensures that both avoid conflicts in the future.
LO4 Apply concepts and philosophies of organisational behaviour to a given business
situation
Applying concepts and philosophies of OB within an organisational context and a given
business situation [P4]
Path-goal theory leadership styles that improve team performance and productivity:
Path-goal theory focuses on the behaviour of the leader within a company. The leaders adjust
their behaviour so that they can motivate the employees to make them shine in their job. There
are four types of path-goal leaders:
Directive: The leaders that are very clear about their objective and they direct the employees on
how to perform on a project, how to schedule their timing etc. Though these leaders are
particular about the work, employees don’t feel motivated working under such leaders. When the
leaders don’t trust them with responsibilities and decide everything on their behalf, employees
don’t enjoy job satisfaction which later leads to unproductivity in the organization (De Hoogh,
Greer and Den Hartog, 2015).
Achievement: Some leaders set challenges for the employees even though the target is hard to
achieve. They expect the employees to perform well and meet the expectations of the leaders in
any way. Employees may feel burdened working under these kinds of leaders as their work is
evaluated only based on their performance rather than appreciating their effort.

Participative: Leaders who consult with their team members before taking any decision and
make sure that every teammate inputs his/her opinion are participative leaders. Employees often
excel while working under these leaders because they can showcase skills and creativity while
improving the overall performance of the company (Wang, Waldman and Zhang, 2014).
Supportive: Some leaders show friendly gesture towards their teammates and offer support all
the time. The employees feel confident while working with supportive leaders. Their opinions
are heard and the leaders let them take decisions as well which empowers the employees to
directly be the part of the development of the company.
Different people have different styles and behaviours of leading. Employees connect with their
leaders based on the behaviour of the leaders, their impulse of controlling, affiliation, their
ability level etc. While some leaders in Thomas Cook support the employees to perform well and
let them be an active part of decision-making, there are some leaders who focus only on the
result without understanding their teammates (Hmieleski, Carr and Baron, 2015). Occasionally,
employees produce false claims to the customers simply to achieve the target set by directive
leaders. Eventually, when the customers get to know the truth, it can harm the company’s
goodwill. Therefore, teams that have participative and supportive leaders outshine while
performing a certain task whereas the team with achievement and directive leaders often fail to
accomplish the desired (Morgan, 2017).
Contemporary barriers to effective behaviour, situational resistance, social capital theory
and contingency theory:
While working in a team where different people work together, differences of opinions are
obvious concerns that lead to organizational conflict. There are some common problems that the
teams encounter while working in an organization.
Effective behaviour:
People have different opinions about where to start a project from. Each one of the teammates
come up with own idea which may not e liked by the others. On the other hand, the dominating
team members try to make sure that their opinions get accepted. In order to make themselves
superior within a team, they often hurt the fellow members. Some of the teams don’t perform

well because of the poor performance of the teammates. While some members strive to achieve
more, some people don’t give their best output for the company’s welfare. Leaders are
accountable for the conflicts in the team as they’re not only responsible for resolution of the
conflicts, but they must also ensure that the teammates work in accord (Byrne et al. 2016).
Situational Resistance:
When the team members resist the approach of the leader, it gives rise to the situational
resistance. Leaders should understand how to align the role and task with three simple ways:
 Death ground: While working on a project, the leaders present a situation where either
the project is going to win the market competition or its going to die.
 Contentious ground: Providing employees with the support that the competitive
companies are providing.
 Dispersive grounds: Problematic situations faced by the employees should be solved
one at a time so that uniqueness of the company is derived from the type of situations
encountered by the employees (Heidenreich, Kraemer and Handrich, 2016).
In some cases, the employees may demand more support from the company.
 Bad ground: Employees’ behaviour in the complex situations that are supported by the
company.
 Deep ground: Though employees behave depending on the adverse situation, company
isn’t able to help them.
 Frontier ground: The company has incorporated complex support for the employees but
that isn’t sufficient.
Thomas Cook has been able to incorporate some factors to handle the situation tactfully.
 Focal ground: The employees need limited support and Thomas Cook has more complex
structure of support system.
 Encircled ground: Leaders working in Thomas Cook understand the opportunities open
for the company and the employees and make the information available to the employees
to support them.

 Communicating ground: Though the complex structure of support in Thomas Cook
helps competitors, the company’s primary focus is to support its own employees.
Social capital theory:
The usefulness and importance of social capital theory have been discussed over the time and
there are five issues that should be addressed by the company. While studying the social capital
structure, Thomas Cook doesn’t leave any issue unresolved so that it can’t cause any barrier in
the future. However, sometimes the company fails to determine the need of measuring and
implicating social capital. Thomas Cook has encountered issues because of the negative sides of
the social capital. The company has also faced problem related to the individual social capital
theory and social capital of organizations. Lastly, there’s a lot of research that are yet to be done
so that the barrier can be avoided (Huang, 2016).
Contingency theory:
Contingency theory helps in understanding the effectiveness of a leader considering both
situational and individual factors. For example, the effectiveness of a leader isn’t dependent only
on the leadership quality of the person, but it’s influenced by the degree of power enjoyed by the
person, the relationship of the leader with the teammates and the task structure. However, the
more psychologically mature the teammates are, the better a leader can lead the team and make it
productive. On the other hand, team members often work hard when the leader is participative
and supportive. Therefore, the barrier of teamwork can be broken by changing the behaviour of
the leader (Alexander, 2017).
Conclusion:
Thomas Cook is a company where most leaders and managers encourage the employees to
achieve better target. Though there are some organizational conflicts that arise from time to time,
the managers are capable enough to mitigate the issues by acting promptly. The disputes within
the team members are handled by the team leader with care. Employees are rewarded for their
accomplishments. Thomas Cook has also started incorporating technology to take the business to
the next level. Teams are developed so that every individual can voice his/her idea for the
betterment of the company. Besides, people who are emotionally controlled are praised. As

Thomas Cook has diverse work culture, people from different genre and background come
together and work in a friendly environment. After all, good leadership can lead an organization
to success as the employees feel satisfied and motivated.

Reference List:
Alexander, E., 2017. After rationality: Towards a contingency theory for planning. In
Explorations in planning theory (pp. 45-64). Routledge.
Bachman, J.R., Norman, W.C., Hopkins, C.D. and Brookover, R.S., 2016. Examining the role of
self-concept theory on motivation, satisfaction, and intent to return of music festival volunteers.
Event Management, 20(1), pp.41-52.
Barrick, M.R., Thurgood, G.R., Smith, T.A. and Courtright, S.H., 2015. Collective
organizational engagement: Linking motivational antecedents, strategic implementation, and
firm performance. Academy of Management journal, 58(1), pp.111-135.
Burrai, E., Font, X. and Cochrane, J., 2015. Destination stakeholders' perceptions of volunteer
tourism: An equity theory approach. International Journal of Tourism Research, 17(5), pp.451-
459.
Byrne, M., Mc Sharry, J., Allom, V., Marques, M. and Sainsbury, K., 2016. Systematic
approaches to designing effective behaviour change interventions to impact health. International
Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 23, pp.S44-S45.
Caruso, D.R., Fleming, K. and Spector, E.D., 2014. Emotional intelligence and leadership. In
Conceptions of Leadership (pp. 93-110). Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Chae, S., Seo, Y. and Lee, K.C., 2015. Effects of task complexity on individual creativity
through knowledge interaction: A comparison of temporary and permanent teams. Computers in
Human Behavior, 42, pp.138-148.
Crane, D., Kawashima, N. and Kawasaki, K.I., 2016. Culture and globalization theoretical
models and emerging trends. In Global culture (pp. 11-36). Routledge.
Cronin, L.D., Arthur, C.A., Hardy, J. and Callow, N., 2015. Transformational leadership and task
cohesion in sport: The mediating role of inside sacrifice. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 37(1), pp.23-36.

Cuddy, A.J., Wolf, E.B., Glick, P., Crotty, S., Chong, J. and Norton, M.I., 2015. Men as cultural
ideals: Cultural values moderate gender stereotype content. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 109(4), p.622.
D’Lima, G.M., Winsler, A. and Kitsantas, A., 2014. Ethnic and gender differences in first-year
college students’ goal orientation, self-efficacy, and extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. The
Journal of Educational Research, 107(5), pp.341-356.
De Hoogh, A.H., Greer, L.L. and Den Hartog, D.N., 2015. Diabolical dictators or capable
commanders? An investigation of the differential effects of autocratic leadership on team
performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(5), pp.687-701.
Dill, B.T. and Zinn, M.B., 2016. Theorizing difference from multiracial feminism. In Race,
Gender and Class (pp. 76-82). Routledge.
Dwenger, N., Kleven, H., Rasul, I. and Rincke, J., 2016. Extrinsic and intrinsic motivations for
tax compliance: Evidence from a field experiment in Germany. American Economic Journal:
Economic Policy, 8(3), pp.203-32.
Engeström, Y., 2018. Expansive learning: Towards an activity-theoretical reconceptualization. In
Contemporary theories of learning (pp. 46-65). Routledge.
Fisher, R.J., 2016. Third party consultation: A method for the study and resolution of conflict. In
Ronald J. Fisher: A North American Pioneer in Interactive Conflict Resolution (pp. 37-71).
Springer, Cham.
Gelfand, M.J., Aycan, Z., Erez, M. and Leung, K., 2017. Cross-cultural industrial organizational
psychology and organizational behavior: A hundred-year journey. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 102(3), p.514.
Geppert, M., Becker-Ritterspach, F. and Mudambi, R., 2016. Politics and power in multinational
companies: Integrating the international business and organization studies perspectives.
Organization Studies, 37(9), pp.1209-1225.

Gilson, L.L., Maynard, M.T., Jones Young, N.C., Vartiainen, M. and Hakonen, M., 2015. Virtual
teams research: 10 years, 10 themes, and 10 opportunities. Journal of Management, 41(5),
pp.1313-1337.
Heidenreich, S., Kraemer, T. and Handrich, M., 2016. Satisfied and unwilling: Exploring
cognitive and situational resistance to innovations. Journal of Business Research, 69(7), pp.2440-
2447.
Hiatt, S.R., Grandy, J.B. and Lee, B.H., 2015. Organizational responses to public and private
politics: An analysis of climate change activists and US oil and gas firms. Organization Science,
26(6), pp.1769-1786.
Hmieleski, K.M., Carr, J.C. and Baron, R.A., 2015. Integrating discovery and creation
perspectives of entrepreneurial action: The relative roles of founding CEO human capital, social
capital, and psychological capital in contexts of risk versus uncertainty. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 9(4), pp.289-312.
Hoch, J.E. and Kozlowski, S.W., 2014. Leading virtual teams: Hierarchical leadership, structural
supports, and shared team leadership. Journal of applied psychology, 99(3), p.390.
Huang, L.T., 2016. Flow and social capital theory in online impulse buying. Journal of Business
Research, 69(6), pp.2277-2283.
Judson, T.J., Volpp, K.G. and Detsky, A.S., 2015. Harnessing the right combination of extrinsic
and intrinsic motivation to change physician behavior. Jama, 314(21), pp.2233-2234.
Kähkönen, A.K., 2014. The influence of power position on the depth of collaboration. Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, 19(1), pp.17-30.
Kiatkawsin, K. and Han, H., 2017. Young travelers' intention to behave pro-environmentally:
Merging the value-belief-norm theory and the expectancy theory. Tourism Management, 59,
pp.76-88.
Kim, S., Carruthers, N., Lee, J., Chinni, S. and Stemmer, P., 2016. Classification-based
quantitative analysis of stable isotope labeling by amino acids in cell culture (SILAC) data.
Computer methods and programs in biomedicine, 137, pp.137-148.

Kistruck, G.M., Lount Jr, R.B., Smith, B.R., Bergman Jr, B.J. and Moss, T.W., 2016.
Cooperation vs. competition: Alternative goal structures for motivating groups in a resource
scarce environment. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4), pp.1174-1198.
Kozlowski, S.W., 2015. Advancing research on team process dynamics: Theoretical,
methodological, and measurement considerations. Organizational Psychology Review, 5(4),
pp.270-299.
Laboissiere, L.A., Fernandes, R.A. and Lage, G.G., 2015. Maximum and minimum stock price
forecasting of Brazilian power distribution companies based on artificial neural networks.
Applied Soft Computing, 35, pp.66-74.
Liu, T., Saito, H. and Oi, M., 2015. Role of the right inferior frontal gyrus in turn-based
cooperation and competition: a near-infrared spectroscopy study. Brain and cognition, 99, pp.17-
23.
Mathieu, J.E., Tannenbaum, S.I., Kukenberger, M.R., Donsbach, J.S. and Alliger, G.M., 2015.
Team role experience and orientation: A measure and tests of construct validity. Group &
Organization Management, 40(1), pp.6-34.
Mazanec, J.A., Crotts, J.C., Gursoy, D. and Lu, L., 2015. Homogeneity versus heterogeneity of
cultural values: An item-response theoretical approach applying Hofstede's cultural dimensions
in a single nation. Tourism Management, 48, pp.299-304.
Mekler, E.D., Brühlmann, F., Tuch, A.N. and Opwis, K., 2017. Towards understanding the
effects of individual gamification elements on intrinsic motivation and performance. Computers
in Human Behavior, 71, pp.525-534.
Morgan, E., 2017. Breaking the Zero-Sum Game: Transforming Societies through Inclusive
Leadership. In Breaking the Zero-Sum Game: Transforming Societies Through Inclusive
Leadership (pp. 5-27). Emerald Publishing Limited.
Olafsen, A.H., Halvari, H., Forest, J. and Deci, E.L., 2015. Show them the money? The role of
pay, managerial need support, and justice in a self‐determination theory model of intrinsic work
motivation. Scandinavian journal of psychology, 56(4), pp.447-457.

Purvis, R.L., Zagenczyk, T.J. and McCray, G.E., 2015. What's in it for me? Using expectancy
theory and climate to explain stakeholder participation, its direction and intensity. International
Journal of Project Management, 33(1), pp.3-14.
Raes, E., Kyndt, E., Decuyper, S., Van den Bossche, P. and Dochy, F., 2015. An exploratory
study of group development and team learning. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 26(1),
pp.5-30.
Song, H., Chien, A.T., Fisher, J., Martin, J., Peters, A.S., Hacker, K., Rosenthal, M.B. and
Singer, S.J., 2015. Development and validation of the primary care team dynamics survey.
Health services research, 50(3), pp.897-921.
Stokes, A.A., Shepherd, R.F., Morin, S.A., Ilievski, F. and Whitesides, G.M., 2014. A hybrid
combining hard and soft robots. Soft Robotics, 1(1), pp.70-74.
Tuncdogan, A., Boon, A., Mom, T., Van Den Bosch, F. and Volberda, H., 2017. Management
teams' regulatory foci and organizational units' exploratory innovation: The mediating role of
coordination mechanisms. Long Range Planning, 50(5), pp.621-635.
Unger-Aviram, E. and Erez, M., 2016. The effects of situational goal orientation and cultural
learning values on team performance and adaptation to change. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 25(2), pp.239-253.
Wang, D., Waldman, D.A. and Zhang, Z., 2014. A meta-analysis of shared leadership and team
effectiveness. Journal of applied psychology, 99(2), p.181.