Organisational Behaviour: Power, Culture, and Motivation

This report analyzes the impact of power, culture, and politics on team and individual performance in Unilever. It discusses the theories of motivation and effective team formation. The report also provides recommendations for improving team performance and achieving organizational goals.

Organisational Behaviour

INTRODUCTION
Organisational behaviour refers to the study of performance of both an individual and
the group activity within an organisation. It helps to assess human behaviour within the
working environment along with determining its influence on the performance, communication,
motivation and job structure, etc. In present report chosen organisation is Unilever which is a
public limited company deals in consumers goods manufacturing industry. Company was
founded in 1929 and its founders are James Darcy lever, William lever, etc. the headquarters of
company are situated in Unilever house, London, UK Rotterdam, Netherlands. Its products are
beauty and personal care, cleaning products, food and refreshments. The report will analyses
organisational culture, power and politics for influencing team and group performances. The
study will be on theories of motivation that enable the organisation to achieve the goal.
Discussion will present the ways in which an effective team can be created against an ineffective
team . The report will study different situations in firm with applying concept of philosophies of
organisational behaviour.
MAIN BODY
LO 1
P 1 analysing of organisational power, culture and politics which helps to influence team and
individual performance.
In Unilever the organisational power, politics and team culture influences team and individual
performance due to following reasons.
Organisational power: It refers to ability to influence people that is capacity for affecting the
behaviour of employees con control the organisational resources. For example the local
governments has power to collect taxes (Barry and Wilkinson, 2016). Power is an important part
of an organisation as it helps to fulfil one's goal. As more power given to individual or group will
wield organisation to influence for more achievement. There are five sources of power: reward,
coercive, legitimate power, referent power and expert power which are explained below
Reward power: power of reward is controlled by the managers like salary increment,
promotions and bonuses.
Coercive power: it is the ability of manager to cause unpleasant experience for its
employees like threat for employees for demotion, dismissal, suspension, etc.

legitimate power: the power is based on mutual agreement between the target and agent
for the right to influence the employees.
Referent power: the power is based on the interpersonal attraction as the individual get
influence to have the power. For example to follow and behaves according to ideal person at
some stages.
Expert power: when the agents has expert knowledge or information that is required by
target then it can termed knowledge based power (Zayas-Ortiz and et.al., 2015). There are some
condition to satisfy this, as the target must trust that information is accurate and correct, the
information must relevant and useful for the target and target must consider agent as expert.
Unilever influence team and individual by using rewards power as the manager tries to
motivate its employee to give their best in work by providing incentives, chances to get
promoted on higher position and increment in salary.
Organisational politics: It can also be termed as the office politics. It is the use of social
networking or power within the organisation for the achievement of changes that benefits
individuals or the organisation. As the influence by individual may serve the organisation due to
personal interest without regards to effect organisation. As due to use politic it lower the output
and affects the productivity of organisation. The observation says that individual who plays more
politics pays less attention on their work (Namada, 2018). As these employees are more
interested in back biting and leg pulling. In Unilever, there is less politics best informal structure
of company and employee have good maintenances of personal relations with their colleagues.
As it helps to influence employees in the organisation work efficiently which improves the
productivity of Unilever. If the organization is engaged in criticising their employees and back
biting about them, then this can lead to negative impact on the mind of employees. This can
impact the individual team behaviour and performance.
Organisational culture: It refers to the beliefs, values, assumptions and ways to interact
for contribution in psychological environment in the company. It is very important to ensure that
members are aligned with the purpose of organisation. In Unilever the organisational culture is
Hierarchy which is a structured and formalised work environment. As the producer decide upon
what people will do (Hanaysha, 2016). Leaders are happy with the organisation and efficiency
based coordination. Due to hierarchy organisational culture the organisation is able to work
smoothly. The values that Unilever derive are timeliness, consistencies, uniformity and

efficiency. If the culture of organization is peaceful then it will be easy for the employees to
adjust in that, so this will positively impact the individual team behaviour and performance.
Recommendation
The company is recommended to give more powers to its subordinates which will help to
generate more efficiency and consistency for the achievement of team and individual goal.
Unilever can give training to its employee to increase their expert knowledge and they can give
guidance to their junior also. The company decrease politics at all level by checking the
productivity of each employee (Newman and et.al., 2016). The organisation culture can be
improved by involving employees to improve their social relations in informal structure of
organisation. All these will influence team and individual behaviour positively and motivate
employees to give their best in organisation.
LO 2
P 2 Evaluation of motivational theories which helps for effective achievement of goal of
organisation.
Process theory Content theory
It involves the process which is being used by
organization in order to motivate employees.
Content theory basically deals with the factors
that can be used to enhance the efficiency and
motivating people.
Motivation helps to simulate action in employee for accomplishments of organisational
goals. There two types of motivational theories that id contents theory and process theory. In
content theory Maslow’s hierarchy need theory will be discussed and in content theory Vroom's
expectancy theory will be discussed.
Maslow's hierarchy need theory: The theory explains five important and basic stage that
human requires to get in their life (Butler and et.al., 2016). These stages are physiological needs,
safety and security stages, social needs, self-esteem needs, self-actualisation needs all these are
explained below
Physiological needs: in this stage the basic needs of human are required to be fulfilled
that is food, shelter, cloth, etc. the employees in Unilever are being provided with these facilities
when the employee does not possess any of these facilities.

Safety and security stages: In this stage the human should feel safe and secure from the
physical threat, fear from blackmailing, etc. Unilever provide security for safety and security of
job and income of employees.
Social needs: the humans ate this stage require social recognition that is affection, love
and belongingness etc. the Unilever gives its employees the need.
Self-esteem needs: At this stage humans have a feeling of confidence and of getting
respect from others.
Self-actualisation– It refers to the desire of achieving everything that is possible and
becoming most that an individual could be.
As per need's hierarchy an individual should have good health, secure and safe relationships and
confident before an individual could become most that he could is important.
According to the hierarchy of needs, you must be in good health, safe and secure with
meaningful relationships and confidence before you are able to be the most that can be most
important (Satardien, Jano and Mahembe, 2019).
Process theory- This theory basically defines what can be the process which can be taken for
motivating employees. In this Vroom expectancy theory can be used
Vroom's expectancy theory: Expectancy theory is developed by professor Victor
Vroom of psychology in 1964 in Canada. In this theory research is made on motivation of
people and came with outcomes that theory is dependent on 3 factors that are valence,
instrumentality and expectancy (Shanker and et.al., 2017). Fredrick Herzberg and Abraham
Maslow researched on relation between needs of people and efforts made by them for achieving
their needs. Distinguish between efforts of the people that is put in, performance and final results
is made by Vroom. The theory is primarily related to motivation in work environment. When
employees are given options in work they adopt for most motiving work according to Vroom.
Motivational force formula
For calculating the motivational force Vroom used the formula
Instrumentality x Expectancy x Valence
Expectancy: It deals with the expectation from efforts given by employees and relation
of good performance. Difficulty level experienced by the employees is also part of the
expectation theory. Organisations could respond over these factors by identifying the other

factors that can best motivate employees for delivering their best performances. The factors
include training & support or facilities by supervisors for building the confidence of employees.
As per Victor Vroom increased efforts are required to be made for better performances (Osland
Devine and Turner, 2015). Efforts of employees can be increased by offering the employees
juicy carrot on accurate and timely completion of task.
Valence: Final results that are generated by employees are differently valued by every
individual. These values are based on the basic needs of employees. Through this organisations
can identify what are the values of employees and their personal needs.
Instrumentality: Every employee of company is like cog in machine & an instrument
that is contributing to the results of business. From those perspective it is not difficult to grasp
instrumentality. It refers that performance of employees should be good enough for achieving
the desired results.. An organisation could stimulate this through actual promises for additional
reward like bonus, incentives or promotion. Employees should develop a belief that their
performance will be appreciated.
LO 3
P 3 Effective Teams as opposed teams
Behind the successful organisations effective team are the main reasons. Companies that
do not have effective teams have to struggle where the companies with effective teams perfectly
and more accurately perform the given tasks. Effective teams help in improving the quality,
timely completion of projects and increasing the efficiency and productivity (Williams and et.al.,
2017). Companies have to come with effective teams for working at optimal levels, team
members should bring their skills and talents contributing in the overall success of the
organisation.

(Source:Stages of Group Formation, 2019)
Bruce Tuckman has proposed 5 stages for the team developments. These are first forming,
second storming, third norming, fourth performing & fifth adjourning. In 1965 Bruce Tuckman
decide as every team goes during these stages unpredictably.
First stage: At this stage teams along with group of people are required to come together
for accomplishing shared purposes and the results generated could be unpredictable. At the initial
stage anxiety is high and people are more pleasant. At this stage people interact with each other
and the success of teams depend on the similarity of the working styles, working experiences
before the team. This stage do not last for long.
Second Storming: It is hardest in the development of team. A team that is undoubted is
least effective. This stage is marked by competition and conflicts as personality. Teams do not
agree on goals & this may leas to formation of sub groups. Mostly teams fails over this stage
therefore it is essential for reducing and addressing the conflicts so the problems at later stage do
not arise.
Thirds Stage Norming: At this stage teams start resolving the interpersonal differences
appreciate work of other and forms working relations. This increases unity and cohesion that
Illustration 1: Stages of Group Formation

allows team to work together efficiently for achieving the end goals. Over this point performance
is increased as teams starts cooperating and focusing on goals of organisation.
Fourth stage: performing: Over this stage , there is clear & stable structure and also
the relations are formed. Teams are matured, much organised & have sense of cooperation and
consensus (Lee, Shiue and Chen, 2016). Conflicts and problems a this stage are dealt efficiently
and effectively by the teams. Primary focus of teams is on solving problems and meeting
organisational goals.
Fifth stages: adjourning: This explains that project comes from to the end and separates
teams speed some members find it difficult and because teams find the routine of group and
have established close relation ship friendships for future.
There are number of factors that make effective team and one of them is proper
understanding about each other and belief. Many times, it is observed that two employees are
working together but they have different mindset and conflict arise between them. Such kind of
things make any team weak. Employees have specific belief about each other nature and working
style and this lead to conflict between them. Again, this thing make team ineffective.
Thus, effective team is formed when individuals does not consider each other personal
behaviour and work towards achievement of objectives of group. In such case automatically
understanding develop between employees and group solidarity happened which lead to good
team work.
LO 4
P 4 Applying of different concepts of organisational behaviour in business situations.
In the view point of Keith Davis, OB is been defined as the knowledge of the human
behaviour at the workplace so that appropriate solution could be developed for resolving the
human problems. It is an application of the knowledge regarding the way in which the people
behave within a work environment. It is been considered as the tool for benefit of the human and
is been applied towards the people behaviour with all kinds of an enterprise (Thunnissen, 2016).
Organizational behaviour is mainly concerned with understanding the prediction and the control
of the human behaviour within the firm. It is counted as the branch of the science where human
is been studied, channelized and concluded.
Problem firm faced: Conflict between management and subordinates

Fundamental concepts of organisational behaviour:
Individual Differences: in this concept individual difference comes from psychology.
As each person has unique different speciality and various different experiences.
Perception: Everyone in the organisation has different perception to see the objective.
Manager must take all employees with it and must form common perception towards goal so that
entire energy can be channelize towards specific target.
Motivated Behaviour: The basic needs of the employees must be get fulfilled by
the organisation. Some motivation are necessary to enhance quality of work from the employees.
The desire for Involvement: every employee is seeking the knowledge opportunity to
work to involve indecision making process. Chances for the sharing the experiences, opinions,
ideas, suggestions.
The value of the Person: Each individual has value system and accordingly one have
some expectations from the firm. Manager must try to understand value system of employees
and accordingly must bring new change at workplace so that conflict between management and
employee can be avoid.
Human Dignity: it make assure that human rights are not higher in order to define the
older respect them as and when they are treated unfairly.
Organizations are Social System: In the social terms the employees should be treated
fairly and they should feel the social roles and status.
Mutuality Interest: It is been represented through the statement that an entity need
human resource and vice versa.
Holistic Concept: It is stated as people oriented concept which reflects relationship
regarding the the whole person, organisation and whole systems. It takes around the broad views
of human in the organisation for understanding different kind of human behaviour that impacts.
As the issues are been assessed on the terms of totals situation that affects instead of isolated
events or problems .
Path goal theory:
It is the model that is based on providing specification regarding the leadership style or
the behaviour which best fits with the employees and the work environment for achieving the
goal (Hanaysha, 2016). This theory runs on the basis of Vroom's expectancy within which an

individual will be acting in a specific way on basis of expectation that an act will have to be
followed by the generated outcome or an attractiveness of the resulted outcome.
There are four styles of path goal theory that are explained as below:
The directive path-goal determines an achievement oriented, participative, supportive
and the directed behaviour that clarifies the leadership behaviour to the situations where leader
followers are well versed known about the expectation of them and guiding them the ways in
which they need to perform.
The achievement-oriented poses mainly 3 constructs that are states of the goal involved,
goal climates and goal orientation. It represents the state of the person in achieving goal which
indicates aim, objective and focus of an achievement behaviour in the particular context at one
point of time.
The participative leader is the managerial style which invites an input from the
employees on most decisions of the company. By using this managerial style consensus can be
built between management and subordinates about business situations and their problems. By
doing so conflict can be eliminated between both entities. Under this, staff has been given a
pertinent information relating to the issues of company and majority vote which identifies action
course that an entity will be taking.
The supportive leader is the behaviour that attempts fro reducing stress and the
frustration within the work premises (Shanker and et.al., 2017). This method is been said as
effective at the time when the task are been seen as dangerous, stressful and tedious but is not
said as effective in case the work task are motivating as in accordance with this theory an
employee does not need motivation for performing the work.
Leadership styles
 Autocratic leadership style: It is a sort of leadership style where manager does not
consult with its subordinate’s and make decisions. Currently firm is facing problem of
labour and management conflict (Namada, 2018). This happened because manager is
making business decisions without taking into consideration employees opinion.
 Democratic leadership style: It is the leadership style under which manager consult with
its subordinates and make business decisions. Firm must follow democratic leadership
style because by following it problem can be resolved.

 Situational leadership style: It is another option under which according to situation
manager adopt leadership style. Thus, in every situation manager manage its subordinates
in better way. Firm can also use this leadership style to solve problem.
Organization behaviour model
Clashes between management and employees is the one of the main problem and in order to
solve problem multiple organization behaviour model can be used like custodial model. Under
this model it is stated that manager must think about social and economic security of the
employees at the workplace. Manager must focus on developing better relation with the
employees and must ensure that problem they faced in the work is addressed properly. Moreover,
according to work salary must be given to the employees with financial incentives (Barry and
Wilkinson, 2016). Such kind of things increase employee retention rate in the business and sort
business problems.
Supportive model state that manager must give full support to the employees so that they
can work in better way at the workplace. There is room for power in this model. Supportive
nature of manager will bring unity at the workplace between management and employees.
Collegial model can also be used to solve problem of management and subordinate conflict.
Under this, structure at workplace is developed in such a way that there is no boss and no
subordinate no team. All employees work in cooperation with each other at floor towards
achievement of objective.
Autocratic model does not suit to current requirement as it indicate that managers must
instruct employees so that they motivate and give maximum productivity at the workplace.
CONCLUSION
From the above report it can be concluded that In Unilever the organisational power,
politics and team culture influences team and individual performance due to following reasons.
Unilever influence team and individual by using rewards power as the manager tries to motivate
its employee to give their best in work by providing incentives, chances to get promoted on
higher position and increment in salary. The company is recommended to give more powers to
its subordinates which will help to generate more efficiency and consistency for the achievement
of team and individual goal. Unilever can give training to its employee to increase their expert
knowledge and they can give guidance to their junior also. Expectancy theory has been
developed by Vroom in the year 1964 where it has been identified that an individual behaves

differently in certain situations as they are been motivated fro selecting a particular behaviour
over the others. Moreover, in order to gain growing success in the future, a team of an
organization must contain all the traits of an effective team that are time management, directed
towards common goals, solving the problems practically and effectively.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Barry, M. and Wilkinson, A., 2016. Pro‐social or pro‐management? A critique of the conception
of employee voice as a pro‐social behaviour within organizational behaviour. British
Journal of Industrial Relations. 54(2). pp.261-284.
Butler, M. J. and et.al., 2016. How organizational cognitive neuroscience can deepen
understanding of managerial decision‐making: A review of the recent literature and future
directions. International Journal of Management Reviews. 18(4). pp.542-559.
Hanaysha, J., 2016. Testing the effects of employee engagement, work environment, and
organizational learning on organizational commitment. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences. 229. pp.289-297.
Lee, J. C., Shiue, Y. C. and Chen, C. Y., 2016. Examining the impacts of organizational culture
and top management support of knowledge sharing on the success of software process
improvement. Computers in Human Behavior. 54. pp.462-474.
Namada, J. M., 2018. Organizational learning and competitive advantage. In Handbook of
Research on Knowledge Management for Contemporary Business Environments (pp. 86-
104). IGI Global.
Newman, A. and et.al., 2016. The impact of socially responsible human resource management
on employees' organizational citizenship behaviour: the mediating role of organizational
identification. The international journal of human resource management. 27(4). pp.440-
455.
Osland, J., Devine, K. and Turner, M., 2015. Organizational behavior. Wiley Encyclopedia of
Management. pp.1-5.
Shanker, R. and et.al., 2017. Organizational climate for innovation and organizational
performance: The mediating effect of innovative work behavior. Journal of vocational
behavior. 100. pp.67-77.
Thunnissen, M., 2016. Talent management: For what, how and how well? An empirical
exploration of talent management in practice. Employee Relations. 38(1). pp.57-72.
Williams, T. A. and et.al., 2017. Organizational response to adversity: Fusing crisis management
and resilience research streams. Academy of Management Annals. 11(2). pp.733-769.

Zayas-Ortiz, M. and et.al., 2015. Relationship between organizational commitments and
organizational citizenship behaviour in a sample of private banking
employees. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy. 35(1/2). pp.91-106.