The competence of organizational management is required to cope with complexity of technology and diversity of social demands for maintaining good interpersonal relationship by the support of advanced technology. The competencies, such as self-management, interpersonal relationship management, play a crucial role in improving individual and organizational performance. Experiences of interpersonal relationship at work are multifaceted with value consciousness, mood states at work, members’ work attitudes in addition with technical knowledge and skills which are constituted of explicit cognitive information. Organizational climate or culture is focused in recent studies to improve human performance by avoiding erroneous actions, accidental occurrences, or withdrawal attitudes such as absent, turnover intention. The participants to organization are expected to act as an actor or some of them as a leader to help in developing themselves and coworkers, building bonds to collaborate with team members, for improving organizational performance and for providing high quality of service. This chapter is focused on the effect of mood states at work on workers perceived health and perceived performance, and on the effect of the competence of interpersonal relationship management on organizational performances.
Key Terms in this Chapter
Dynamic Collaboration Type of Care: Assessment of the quality of care has been inquired, but we thought that classification of care is required before assessment. We made a classification by using two axes: the axis of care, higher or lower; and the axis of care-provider, individual or group/social. We found four types of care: egoistic, bureaucratic, specialist, and dynamic collaborate. Our study results suggest that dynamic collaborate type of care plays an important role in improving quality of team care. This type of care leverages organizational performance.
Team Resources: Team resources were measured by applying the TMX (Team Member Exchange Quality) developed by Seers (1989). Team resource was evaluated in this article to define mutual support, group cohesiveness, trust, responsibility for team goals, and team reciprocity, as defined by the developer.
Perceived Performance: Perceived performance used in this article was measured by the use of methodology developed by Beer (1979) and applied by many other researchers such as Flood (1993), Espejo, Schumann, Schwaninger & Bilello (1996), Schwaninger (2000), and their co-workers. Perceived performance = Actuality/Potentiality, whereas actuality means actual work dealing with daily working time; potentiality is the best possible work when all the constraints in work environment are removed and you think it is your potential resource.
Performance Reliability: Developed by Hollnagel (1998) in predicting human error during work, measured by using nine common performance conditions (CPCs) with a four-point scale: very efficient, efficient, inefficient, and deficient. Improved reliability and reduced reliability are also measurable by using CPCs.
Perceived health: The measurement of the pattern of perceived health was made by using 12 scales of vague complaints (SUSY), respiratory (RESP), eye and skin (EYSK), mouth and anal (MOUT), digestive (DIGE), irritabilities (IMPU), lie scale (LISC), mental instability (MENT), depressiveness (DEPR), aggressiveness (AGGR), nervousness (NERV), life irregularity (LIFE), and a health level also made by using DF (discriminate function) values for psychosomatics and neurotics, which were developed by Suzuki, et al. (1976).