EFFECTS OF WORKPLACE RELATIONAL DYNAMICS ON FIRMS’
PRODUCTIVITY
A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of Senior High School Department,
Kidapawan Doctors College Incorporated,
Kidapawan City
In partial fulfillment of the requirement for the strand of
ACCOUNTANCY, BUSINESS, AND MANAGEMENT
ANGEL CHRIST C. QUIAMCO
MISSY ROSE S. LEGARA
OCTOBER 2019
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
As relationship been crucial in the social role, it is also critical in every
business especially within the workers and employees inside the workplace. Every
individual firm considered the dynamism of workplace particularly in interaction and
relationship. The general features of workplace dynamics involve the relationships
of the workplace, including organizational, team and personal relationships. The
organizational form of workplace dynamics relates to operations on a quite
different level. This is a planning and management policy level which defines a full
spectrum of business operations. Workplace relational dynamics can include how
people interact with each other and treat each other, the chain of command,
employer expectations, and even the expected level of decorum within the
workplace. It tends to differ from company to company and are often heavily
influenced by the specific corporate or organizational culture.
The relational theory of working (Blustein, 2011) provides a framework for
understanding how working is embedded in external and internal relational
contexts and how it can be viewed as an inherently relational act. Also, it has been
suggested that relational schemas introduced as “coherent frameworks of
relational knowledge that are used to derive relational implications of messages
and are modified in accord with ongoing experience with relationships. They
provide the cognitive equivalent of ‘definitions of relationships’ that guide message
interpretation and production” (Planalp, 1985).
According to Petryni (2019), relationships between employees and
management are of substantial value in any workplace. Human relations is the
process of training employees, addressing their needs, fostering a workplace
culture and resolving conflicts between different employees or between employees
and management. Understanding some of the ways that human relations can
impact the costs, competitiveness and long-term economic sustainability of a
business helps to underscore their importance.
Job design and training are fundamental issues in workplace dynamics. The
job design process is based on productivity, and it creates the team, personal and
organizational relationships in the workplace. Training provides incentives and
enhances productivity. This is an operational dynamic, providing the business with
improved performance and functional benefits, while offering career opportunities
and upgrade for staff.
With the statement mentioned, the researchers want to find out if the
workplace relational dynamics can affect one’s firm’s productivity and if there could
be a significant increase or decrease of productivity in relation to relational
dynamics.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
This study aims to identify the effects of workplace relational dynamics on
firm’s productivity. Specifically, this study aims to answer the following:
1. Is there a significant decrease or increase of firm’s productivity in relation to
workplace relational dynamics?
HYPOTHESIS
Ho: There is no significant effect of workplace relational dynamics on firm’s
productivity.
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Employee is a blood stream of any business. Investing in training and
development programs is necessary for improving employee’s performance. The
accomplishment or disaster of the firm depends on its employee performance. The
effect of employee performance and on the basis of the review of the current
evidence of such a relationship, offers suggestions for the top management in form
of a checklist, appropriate for all businesses, to assess the employee performance
and to find out the true cause(s) of the performance problem so the problem could
be solved in time through desired training program.
Workplace Dynamic
Workplace Relational Dynamics
There is a special case known as relational role (Barley, 1990; Nadel, 1957),
defined as a set of characteristic behaviors that can only be performed in
conjunction with a corresponding counter role and which designate patterns of
interpersonal behavior by one status occupant toward the occupant of a specific
other status (Nadel, 1957). For example, a business organization includes the
parts of employee and manager. Both are statuses that involve different role
behaviors. It is important to note that the manager cannot meaningfully enact a
supervisor role without someone in the employee part enacting the complementary
subordinate role, and vice versa. Further, by performing the behaviors associated
with the subordinate role (e.g., obeying others), employees respond to and
reinforce enactment of the supervisor role. In this sense, enactment of relational
roles by a pair of status occupants tends to mutually cue and sanction their actions
toward each other. Our core idea is that victimization of one person by another is
a relational phenomenon involving their mutual role behaviors vice versa each
other. It is not meaningful to talk about a bully aggressing in the absence of a victim
to target. In addition, we argue that enactment of the roles associated with victims
and perpetrators is likely to be mutually reinforcing by cueing responses that are
perceived as legitimate and normal. We argue that within the context of enacting
such relational roles, identifiable patterns of victimization are likely to rise.
There are many social roles that people might enact in an organization.
Because no theory can take into account all of these roles, we consider four
specific roles that prior theory and research suggest may explain how parties in a
dyadic relationship might victimize each other over time. In our discussion, we
argue that there are two statuses, victim and perpetrator, each of which can be
associated with different relational roles that people enact. Given that enactment
of roles depend on the social situation and personal goals of the involved
individuals (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1997; Baker & Faulkner, 1991), we identify
different role archetypes that characterize various players, the relations between
them, and the different forms of victimization that might emerge in these relations.
We begin by considering the behavior of victims described in past studies that
provides the empirical basis for our analytical classification of two of the archetypal
social roles.
The Reactive Perpetrator Role
The organizational literature suggests that a second perpetrator type is one
for whom aggressive or coercive actions are a response to some kind of norm
violation or identity threat by another party (Anderson & Pearson, 199; Aquino &
Douglas, 2003). Unlike the domineering perpetrator type described above, the type
we refer to here as the reactive perpetrator exhibits retaliatory aggression that aims
to harm the intended target for violating an established norm governing social
interaction. In the absence of such provocation, the reactive perpetrator does not
knowingly cause harm to others. Theoretical models of revenge (Bies, Tripp, &
Kramer, 1997) and aggression as a form of social exchange (Glomb & Liao, 2003)
support the notion that some perpetrators of harmful interpersonal behavior are
motivated primarily by anger over interpersonal transgressions or the desire to
reciprocate negative behavior. This perpetrator type is also implied in dynamic
models of conflict escalation (e.g., Anderson & Pearson, 1999; Glomb, 2002),
which suggest that minor violations of social norms can elicit a retaliatory response
from the offended party that lays the groundwork for a repeating pattern of revenge
and counter-revenge. This particular behavior pattern appears to relate to
interpersonal processes that motivate one actor to become a perpetrator because
he or she interprets another person’s behavior as a reasonable cue for enacting a
retaliator role. As was the case for the provocative victim behavior pattern, the
reactive perpetrator type illustrates the relational nature of victimization as role
performance: Behavior is understood in terms of what occurs between individuals.
Having described various roles associated with the victim and perpetrator
statuses, we now consider how the interaction among people who enact of these
roles can lead to different kinds of victimization.
Access to Social Capital
The context of role relations beyond dyadic power by examining how access
to social capital might influence victimization patterns. Social capital is defined as
the amount of goodwill and support available to an actor through the web of social
relationships in which he or she is involved (Adler & Kwon, 2002). Social capital
can be deployed to facilitate action by mobilizing social resources, such as
influence, information, and solidarity (Burt, 1992; Podolny & Baron, 1997).
Pertinent outcomes associated with a person’s access to social capital in
organizations include career progression (Podonly & Baron, 1997), role innovation
(Ibarra, 1993), and conflict reduction (Labianca, Brass, & Gray, 1998). Two
sources of social capital may furnish social resources that provide protection from
victimization, and these show how the web of social relationships takes different
structural forms.
Relational Justice and Organizational Productivity
The concept of relational justice describes the relation between employees
and their managers, who supposedly represent their respective organization. The
consideration of employee viewpoints in matters concerning the employee’s
welfare and organization’s growth is very essential. In relational justice, employees
are expected to be treated equally without bias, from supervisors or the
management. Moliner and colleagues developed the concept of relational justice
and associated it to the group-or work-unit level and to employee burnout
suggesting that perceived justice among employees can explain well-being
beyond the individual level. Tyler and his colleagues opined that interpersonal
treatment and procedures, viewed as fair, are prime indicators, for the individual,
of respect from authorities and from their group, the contrary implying marginality
and disrespect (Tyler et al, 1996).
However, organizations that expect efficiency and high level of productivity
from their employees should adopt relational justice interactive strategy. When an
employee feels accepted and is appreciated by his supervisors for task well
executed, he feels better motivated and confident to attain greater tasks.
Cumulatively, when a good number of a company’s employee feels comfortable
with their work environment and existing supervisor’s relational skills, it impacts on
their work culture positively which could lead to improve organizational
productivity.
Firms’ productivity
Productivity is a measure of the efficiency of a person, machine, factory,
system in converting inputs into useful outputs. Productive workplaces are built on
team work and shared vision. Workplace productivity is essential to employees,
employers, and organization. Therefore, workplace productivity is pivotal for
economic growth. Being productive is fundamental to business success as well as
personal satisfaction.
Organizational productivity is the amount of goods and services that a
worker produces in a given amount of time. Workforce or organizational
productivity is a measure for an organization or company, a process, an industry
or a country (Goodman, 2003).
Researchers have obtained measures of individual performance to include
speed, accuracy, and time needed to learn, and have used these to estimate
individual productivity at the workplace. The implicit and explicit assumption
underlying these efforts has been that increased individual productivity will
increase organizational productivity. (Locke an Latham 2005).
However, at its most basic, productivity is the amount of value produced by
the amount of cost (or times) required to do so. And while this equation seems
simple enough on the surface, the strategies for optimizing it have evolved
dramatically over the last two decades (Goodman, 2003; Locke and Latham,
2005). With the advent of technology massive personal productivity gains have
been enabled. Computers, spreadsheets, email and other advances have made it
possible for an average employee to seemingly produce more in the day than was
previously possible in a year. arguably, it is important to affirm that if individuals
are able to perform their work much better and faster, overall organizational
productivity is inevitable.
Team Building and Organizational Productivity
Team work over the years has remained the ultimate competitive advantage
adopted by most organizations. In today’s scenario, teams have come to be
considered as a central element in the functioning of organizations. The use of
teams has been facilitated by many studies reporting the positive relationship
between team-based working and the quality of products and services offered by
an organization (Neelam and Shilpi 2015)
Organizations have realized that highly effective teams can positively affect
the company and help them stay competitive. Therefore, businesses continue to
search for ways to improve teamwork through training and development. Buller
and Bell (2000) has remarked that “one of the most popular intervention techniques
in organizational development is team building. Notably, most of the research
literature indicates that the concept of team building becomes potentially, a
powerful intervention for enhancing organizational performance through employee
development when the circumstances of the specific team and organizational
context are appropriate (Woodcok, 1989, Dyer, 1997, De Meuse and Liebowitz,
1981). Managers must recognize that they play a central role in effective team
building. Team building involves a wide variety of activities presented to
organizations and aimed at improving team performance. It is a philosophy of job
design that sees employees as members of interdependent teams rather than
individual workers (Fapohunda, 2013)
Fajana (2002) asserts that team work is an integration of resources and
inputs working in harmony to achieve organizational goals, where roles are
prescribed for every organizational member, challenges are equally faced and
incremental improvements are sought continually. More so, Dianna (2006) affirms
that teamwork is a form of collective work that might involve individual tasks, but
usually include some kind of collective task where each member is contributing
part of a collective written document that is supposed to reflect the collective
wisdom of the group. Remarkably, recent studies show that employee working
within the team can produce more output as compared to individual (Jones, et al
2007).
One research study concluded that the good manager is the one who
assigns the responsibilities to his/her employee in a form of group or team in order
to make maximum output from employees (Ingram, 2000). Another study
concluded that it should be possible to design a system of team building within
every organization for employees in order to promote and distribute best practice
and maximize output or productivity. Conti and Kleiner (2003) opined that
organizations with teams will attract and retain the best people. This in turn will
create a high performance organization that is flexible, efficient, and most
importantly, profitable. From the foregoing discussion, it seems that the
relationship exists between teambuilding and organizational productivity. The
researchers also agree with the views of the previous scholars and therefore
conclude that team building influences organizational productivity.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Relational Cognition Theory
AccordiRelational cognition theory offers a theoretically rich lens for
uncovering the complex cognitive processes involved with mentoring and other
positive relationships at work. Relational cognition theory extends social cognition
theory to relationships for the purpose of understanding the cognitive processes
underlying social interactions (cf. Berscheid, 1994; Fiske, 2004; Haslam, 2004).
Social cognition theory examines how people mentally organize and
represent information about themselves and others (Fiske, 1992). The building
block of social cognition theory is schemas (Markus & Zajonc, 1985). Schemas are
mental knowledge structures that guide an individual’s behaviors in social
interactions (Bersheid, 1994; Fiske & Taylor, 1984; Schneider, 1973). Schemas
are developed through past experiences and affect our expectations about our own
behavior, the behavior of others, and the nature and outcomes of our future social
interactions (Markus & Zajonc, 1985). Schemas influence the kinds of social
information that we attend to, the categorization and interpretation of new
information, and the storage and retrieval of the information from our memory
(Berscheid, 1994; Markus & Zajonc, 1985). In essence, schemas are organized
structure of tacit knowledge that serve to construct, construe, and evaluate the
behavior of self, others, and the relationship (Baldwin, 1992; Planalp, 1987).
Relational Schemas.
Relational Schemas. Planalp (1985, 1987)
introduced relational schemas as “coherent frameworks of relational knowledge
that are used to derive relational implications of messages and are modified in
accord with ongoing experience with relationships. They provide the cognitive
equivalent of ‘definitions of relationships’ that guide message interpretation and
production” (Planalp, 1985, p. 9). Baldwin’s framework of relational schemas
(Baldwin, 1992, 1997, 1999) integrates and extends Planalp’s ideas by drawing
from symbolic interactionist theory (Cooley, 1902; Mead, 1934), social-cognitive
models of personality (Schneider, 1973), relational models theory (Fiske, 1992),
interpersonal theory (Safran, 1990), attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969), script
theory (Tomkins, 1987), and relational-self theory (Horowitz, 1989; Ogilvie &
Ashmore, 1991).
Baldwin (1992) defined relational schemas as “cognitive structures
representing regularities in patterns of interpersonal relatedness” (p. 461) with
three interrelated components: a self-schema, an other-schema, and an
interpersonal script that guides patterns of interactions in the relationship. Selfschemas denote mental representations about one’s self in a given relationship.
This idea is grounded in the view that individuals have multiple selves and that a
particular subset of the self, the working self-concept, is activated in a given
relational context (Markus & Kunda, 1986).
Ogilvie and Ashmore’s (1991) model of relational self-elaborates the
process of internalizing relationships into the working model of the self: “We not
only internalize and mentally represent ourselves and others; we also form images
of what we are like and how we feel when we are with specific other people in our
lives” (p. 286). They observed that self-schemas of “who I am when I’m with you”
are influenced by past experiences and affect future behavior (Ogilvie, Fleming, &
Pennell, 1998). Finally, they offered the provocative idea that individuals develop
constellations of self with other structures that reflect more generalized patterns of
experiences across similar types of relationships (Ogilvie & Ashmore, 1991). In
essence, self-schemas encompass both cognitive structures envisioning “who I
am when I’m with you” and, more generally, “who I am when I’m with someone like
you.” Individuals therefore use both specific relationships and generic prototypes
in their self-schemas. In addition to self and other schemas, relational schemas
also include interpersonal scripts that guide roles and behaviors in the relationship
(Baldwin, 1992). Drawing on script theory (Tomkins, 1987) and other models of
interpersonal scripts (Abelson, 1981; Anderson, 1983; Schank & Abelson, 1977),
Baldwin (1992) defined interpersonal scripts as “a cognitive structure representing
a sequence of actions and events that defines a stereotyped relational pattern” (p.
468). Interpersonal scripts develop from past experiences and interactions
(Tomkins, 1987) and reflect culturally shared systems of meaning (Stryker &
Statham, 1985).
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
The conceptual framework presents the schematic diagram about the
relationship of the variables. The independent variable is the workplace relational
dynamics of the business and the dependent variable is the firm’s productivity.
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE
WORKPLACE
RELATIONAL DYNAMICS
DEPENDENT VARIABLE
FIRMS’ PRODUCTIVITY
Figure 1. represents the conceptualized relationship between variables used
in this study.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
This study would be beneficial to the following proponents as they will use
the results of the study in supporting their claims on their research and issues in
their firms’ community.
Manager, the results of the study will help them decide on the possible matters
concerning the firm’s productivity and also make them understand the different
cultivation of their works. It can also help them to estimate better choices and
elaborate options.
Employees, the results of the study can be used as their assistance of controlling
one’s self and knowing their limitations inside the organization or in their
workplace.
Future researchers, it can give them background or references as they conduct
their own study. Also, it can widen up their research as they fill up the unseen
lapses of their study. Hence, the researchers will study more about the effects of
workplace relational dynamics on firm’s productivity.
Through this study the manager, employees, and future researchers will be
guided as they go through situations that are quantifiable enough that relates to
workplace relational dynamics as it affects the firm’s productivity.
OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF TERMS
The following terms are consistently used in the research which were
operationally defined by the researchers to clearly understand the context of the
study.
Firm refers to the different random businesses in Kidapawan City.
Relational Dynamics refers to the model of relationship used by businesses in
Kidapawan City.
Productivity refers to the growth gained by businesses in Kidapawan City.
Workplace refers to the place and the area inside a business wherein working is
visible.
SCOPE AND LIMITATION OF THE STUDY
This study is limited in finding the effects of workplace relational dynamics
on firm’s productivity. The respondents of this study will be 60 employees from at
least three identified big businesses in Kidapawan City. The data for the firm’s
productivity will be gathered from the month of September 2019 only and will
further focus on the employee’s response on the effects of workplace relational
dynamics on firm’s productivity. Extraneous variables, such as the performances
in the business are not explored in the study.
CHAPTER II
METHODOLOGY
This chapter contains the research design, research locale, population and
sample, research instrument, data collection, data analysis, statistical tools, and
ethical considerations used during the experimentation.
RESEARCH DESIGN
Correlational research design was used in collecting data from the
respondents since it uses quantitative data analysis. A correlational study was
carefully designed to ensure that there was no bias in the collection of data. The
design is preferred because it is concerned with determining the level of relation
between two or more quantifiable variables.
RESEARCH LOCALE
This study was conducted at Kidapawan Doctors Hospital Inc., Madonna
Medical Center, Inc., and Kidapawan Medical Specialist Center Inc.
researchers took three days for their survey.
The
POPULATION AND SAMPLE
The sample of the population of this study stood at 60 employees, 20
employees in each of the three known hospitals’ in Kidapawan City.
The
Kidapawan Doctors Hospital Inc., Madonna Medical Center, Inc., and Kidapawan
Medical Specialist Center Inc. are known hospitals’ in Kidapawan City with its high
standard operating system when it comes to rendering services. Where in the
researchers will surely have a reliable and credible sources of their study about
the effects of workplace relational dynamics on firms’ productivity.
RESEARCH INSTRUMENT
The researchers used survey questionnaire in collecting data from the
respondents. The researchers designed an survey schedule as one of the data
collection instrument for this study. The employees in the three hospitals were
surveyed. The interview questions were aimed in eliciting relevant information
concerning to the effects of workplace relational dynamics on firms’ productivity.
A questionnaire designed by the researchers entitled “Effect of Workplace
Relational Dynamics on Firms’ Productivity” was used in the study. The content of
the instrument was based on the findings of the survey conducted.
The questionnaire has sections:
The instrument was structured in the modified Likert fashion, on a 4 – point
scale, ranging from (4) “strongly agree”, through (3) agree, (2) “disagree” to (1)
“strongly disagree”. Subjects were then instructed to respond to their degree of
agreement with the statements contained in the instrument. The results were
tagged as G+ numeric for good results and B+ numeric for bad results.
DATA COLLECTION
The data collection for this study was carried out through a survey
questionnaire. The researchers first secured a letter of consent to where the study
will be conducted. After which, the researchers proceeded to the actual survey in
which the researchers provided and handed the questionnaires to the respondents
for them to answer. Together with the research instrument, attached was the
informed consent contained the purpose and the procedure of the study for the
respondents. After the respondents answered the survey questionnaire, the
researchers evaluated the results. Then, the researchers analyzed and finalized
the gathered information of the respondents.
DATA ANALYSIS
After the data were collected, identified and encoded all the data
information, researchers carefully scrutinize and analyze the information gathered.
The researchers made a simple technique that help them easily identified the
effects of workplace relational dynamics on firms’ productivity. They provided
symbols that directly represent either the effects of workplace relational dynamics
on firm’s productivity were good or not. The effects were tagged as G plus numeric
for good and B plus numeric for bad. As soon as the researchers get the response
of every employee they automatically proceeded to finalizing the data gathered.
The researchers accurately followed the ethics in research and analyzed the data
to ensure the validity and reliability of the results of this study.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
STATISTICAL TOOLS
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Many ethical issues concerning confidentiality, authorization, credibility, and
access to information protection will be dealt and pass with. Precisely, to assure
the confidentiality of the employment contracts to be gathered and either the
information is unveiling, an operation for the ethical approval will be politely and
properly complied prior to the start of this correlational quantitative research study.
The correlational quantitative research is bound within the Ethics of
Research that shows the sensitivity and consideration of the study. The ethics of
research include the following: honesty, objectivity, integrity, carefulness, respect
for intellectual property, openness, confidentiality, legality and competence. The
study is fair and truthful and the information gathered by the researchers should
be factual and sincere to all scientific communications. Avoid bias in data analysis,
data interpretation, peer review and other aspects that are expected to the goal of
the study. The assurance of the promises and the agreements are being kept. The
research information and the data gathered are carefully analyze and critically
examined. The researchers should give proper and polite acknowledgement for all
the contributions to research and never plagiarize. The protection of confidential
communication and the personal information of the respondents. The researchers
know and obey laws, and institutional policies. The maintenance and improvement
of personal professional competence and expertise on lifelong education and
learning.
Things that being mention above are the most important thing to be
considered in doing a research for the study.