Osemeka Anthony: INTRODUCTION TO ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR

Osemeka Anthony

ID UAD7638HBY14286

Introduction to Organizational Brhavior

(Course Work)

PhD in Psychology

Atlantic International University

School of Social and Human Studies

Table of content

Table of content------------------------------------------------------------------------------2

Introduction-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------3

Overview--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4

Historical Background-----------------------------------------------------------------------4-35

Organizational Structure--------------------------------------------------------------------36-52

Theoretical Knowledge of Organizational Behavior------------------------------------52-54

Values and Knowledge----------------------------------------------------------------------54-57

System Thinking-----------------------------------------------------------------------------57-62

Understanding of Organizational Behavior-----------------------------------------------62-70

Studying the Behavior at work-------------------------------------------------------------70-72

Scientific Management----------------------------------------------------------------------72-77

Nature of Managerial Work----------------------------------------------------------------77-81

Key trends and Challenges affecting today’s organization and managers-----------81-90

Changing Attitude towards work----------------------------------------------------------90-92

Achieving Societal Goals through organization-----------------------------------------92-93

Meeting today’s organization and Management challenges---------------------------93-97

Contemporary Manager and organization Behavior------------------------------------97-98

Perception, Attitude, and Personality-----------------------------------------------------98-123

1.0.Introduction

1.1.An organization is a system of two or more people, engaged in cooperative action, trying to reach an agreed-upon purpose. Organizations are bound-bed systems of structured social interactions featuring the use of incentives, communication systems, and authority relations. Examples of organizations include retail stores, universities, businesses, and hospitals.

Whether we want to be or not, we are all part of organizations. In your daily activities you move from one organization to another. You may deal with a government agency, go to work, or shop at a store. Understanding organizations and their management can give us significant insights into systems that have major effects on us all. Organizational Behavior is the study and application of knowledge about how people, individuals, and groups act in organizations. It does this by taking a system approach. That is, it interprets people-organization relationships in terms of the whole person, whole group, whole organization, and whole social system. Its purpose is to build better relationships by achieving human objectives, organizational objectives, and social objectives. Organizational behavior can help managers identify problems, determine how to correct them, and establish whether the changes would make a difference. Such knowledge can help people better understand situations they face in the workplace and change their behavior so that their performance and the organization’s effectiveness increase. As a field of study, organizational behavior includes a collection of separate theories and models, ways of thinking about particular people and events. It has its roots in the disciplines of psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics, and political science. Organizational behavior can help managers understand the complexity within organizations and that most organizational problems have several causes. Organizational behavior principles play an essential role in assessing and increasing organizational effectiveness, which is a central responsibility of and focus for all managers.

2.0.Overview

2.1.Organizational Behavior studies encompass the study of organizations from multiple viewpoints, methods, and levels of analysis. For instance, one textbook divides these multiple viewpoints into three perspectives: modern, symbolic, and postmodern. Another traditional distinction, present especially in American academia, is between the study of "micro" organizational behavior which refers to individual and group dynamics in an organizational setting and "macro" organizational theory which studies whole organizations, how they adapt, and the strategies and structures that guide them. To this distinction, some scholars have added an interest in "micro" primarily interested in power, culture, and the networks of individuals and units in organizations and "field" level analysis which study how whole populations of organizations interact. In Europe these distinctions do exist as well, but are more rarely reflected in departmental divisions. Whenever people interact in organizations, many factors come into play. Modern organizational studies attempt to understand and model these factors. Like all modernist social sciences, organizational studies seek to control, predict, and explain. There is some controversy over the ethics of controlling workers' behavior. As such, organizational behavior or OB (and its cousin, Industrial psychology) have at times been accused of being the scientific tool of the powerful Those accusations notwithstanding, OB can play a major role in organizational development and success. One of the main goals of organizational theorists is, according to Simms (1994) "to revitalize organizational theory and develop a better conceptualization of organizational life." An organizational theorist should carefully consider levels assumptions being made in theory and is concerned to help managers and administrators.

3.0.Historical Background

The Greek philosopher Plato wrote about the essence of leadership. Aristotle addressed the topic of persuasive communication. The writings of 16th century Italian philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli laid the foundation for contemporary work on organizational power and politics. In 1776, Adam Smith advocated a new form of organizational structure based on the division of labor. One hundred years later, German sociologist Max Weber wrote about rational organizations and initiated discussion of charismatic leadership. Soon after, Frederick Winslow Taylor introduced the systematic use of goal setting and rewards to motivate employees. In the 1920s, Australian-born Harvard professor Elton Mayo and his colleagues conducted productivity studies at Western Electric's Hawthorne plant in the United States. Though it traces its roots back to Max Weber and earlier, organizational studies is generally considered to have begun as an academic discipline with the advent of scientific management in the 1890s, with Taylorism representing the peak of this movement. Proponents of scientific management held that rationalizing the organization with precise sets of instructions and time-motion studies would lead to increased productivity. Studies of different compensation systems were carried out. After the First World War, the focus of organizational studies shifted to analysis of how human factors and psychology affected organizations, a transformation propelled by the identification of the Hawthorne Effect. This Human Relations Movement focused on teams, motivation, and the actualization of the goals of individuals within organizations.

Prominent early scholars included Chester Barnard, Henri Fayol, Frederick Herzberg, Abraham Maslow, David McClelland, and Victor Vroom. The Second World War further shifted the field, as the invention of large-scale logistics and operations research led to a renewed interest in rationalist approaches to the study of organizations. Interest grew in theory and methods native to the sciences, including systems theory, the study of organizations with a complexity theory perspective and complexity strategy. Influential work was done by Herbert Alexander Simon and James G. March and the so-called "Carnegie School" of organizational behavior. In the 1960s and 1970s, the field was strongly influenced by social psychology and the emphasis in academic study was on quantitative research. An explosion of theorizing, much of it at Stanford University and Carnegie Mellon, produced Bounded Rationality, Informal Organization, Contingency Theory, Resource Dependence, Institutional Theory, and Organizational Ecology theories, among many others. Starting in the 1980s, cultural explanations of organizations and change became an important part of study. Qualitative methods of study became more acceptable, informed by anthropology, psychology and sociology. A leading scholar was Karl Weick.

3.1.Chester Irving Barnard

Chester Irving Barnard (1886 – 1961) was an American business executive, public administrator, and the author of pioneering work in management theory and organizational studies. His landmark 1938 book, Functions of the Executive, sets out a theory of organization and of the

functions of executives in organizations. The book has been widely assigned in university courses in management theory and organizational sociology. Barnard looked at organizations as systems of cooperation of human activity, and noted that they are typically short-lived. It is rare for a firm to last more than a century, and the only organization that can claim a substantial age is the Roman Catholic Church. According to Barnard, organizations are not long-lived because they do not meet the two criteria necessary for survival: effectiveness and efficiency. Effectiveness, is defined the usual way: as being able to accomplish stated goals. In contrast, Barnard's meaning of organizational efficiency differed substantially from the conventional use of the word. He defined efficiency of an organization as the degree to which that organization is able to satisfy the motives of the individuals. If an organization satisfies the motives of its members while attaining its explicit goals, cooperation among its members will last. Barnard was a great admirer of Talbot Parsons (1902-1979) and he and Parsons corresponded persistently. The two scholars would send manuscripts for commentary to each other and they would write long letters where they engage in a common theoretical discussion. The first correspondence between Barnard and Parsons began in the end of the 1930s and it persisted essentially to Barnard’s death in 1961.

3.2.Functions of the Executive

Barnard's classic 1938 book Functions of the Executive discusses, as the title suggests, the functions of the executive, but not from a merely intuitive point of view, but instead deriving them from his conception of cooperative systems.

Barnard summarized the functions of the executive as follows:

· Establishing and maintaining a system of communication;

· Securing essential services from other members;

· Formulating organizational purposes and objectives.

3.3.Authority and incentives

Barnard formulated two interesting theories: one of authority and the other of incentives. Both are seen in the context of a communication system grounded in seven essential rules:

The channels of communication should be definite;

· Everyone should know of the channels of communication;

· Everyone should have access to the formal channels of communication;

· Lines of communication should be as short and as direct as possible;

· Competence of persons serving as communication centers should be adequate;

The line of communication should not be interrupted when the organization is functioning;

Every communication should be authenticated.

Thus, what makes a communication authoritative rests with the subordinate rather than with his superior. Barnard's perspective had affinities to that of Mary Parker Follett and was very unusual for his time, and that has remained the case down to the present day. He seemed to argue that managers should obtain authority by treating subordinates with respect and competence.

As for incentives, he proposed two ways of convincing subordinates to cooperate: tangible incentives and persuasion. He gives great importance to persuasion, much more than to economic incentives. He described four general and four specific incentives. The specific incentives were:

· Money and other material inducements;

· Personal non-material opportunities for distinction;

· Desirable physical conditions of work;

· Ideal benefactions, such as pride of workmanship etc.

3.4.0.Henri Fayol

3.4.1.Henri Fayol was a French mining engineer, director of mines, and management theorist, who developed independent of the theory of Scientific Management, a general theory of business administration also known as Fayolism. He was one of the most influential contributors to modern concepts of management.

3.4.2.Fayolism

Fayolism is one of the first comprehensive statements of a general theory of management, developed by Fayol. He has proposed that there are six primary functions of management and 14 principles of management

· forecasting

· planning

· organizing

· commanding

· coordinating

· controlling

Controlling is described in the sense that a manager must receive feedback about a process in order to make necessary adjustments. Principles of Management

· Division of work. This principle is the same as Adam Smith's 'division of labour'. Specialization increases output by making employees more efficient.

· Authority. Managers must be able to give orders. Authority gives them this right. Note that responsibility arises wherever authority is exercised.

· Discipline. Employees must obey and respect the rules that govern the organisation. Good discipline is the result of effective leadership, a clear understanding between management and workers regarding the organization’s rules, and the judicious use of penalties for infractions of the rules.

· Unity of command. Every employee should receive orders from only one superior.

· Unity of direction. Each group of organizational activities that have the same objective should be directed by one manager using one plan.

· Subordination of individual interests to the general interest. The interests of any one employee or group of employees should not take precedence over the interests of the organisation as a whole.

· Remuneration. Workers must be paid a fair wage for their services.

· Centralisation. Centralisation refers to the degree to which subordinates are involved in decision making. Whether decision making is centralised (to management) or decentralised (to subordinates) is a question of proper proportion. The task is to find the optimum degree of centralisation for each situation.

· Scalar chain. The line of authority from top management to the lowest ranks represents the scalar chain. Communications should follow this chain. However, if following the chain creates delays, cross-communications can be allowed if agreed to by all parties and superiors are kept informed.

· Order. People and materials should be in the right place at the right time.

· Equity. Managers should be kind and fair to their subordinates.

· Stability of tenure of personnel. High employee turnover is inefficient. Management should provide orderly personnel planning and ensure that replacements are available to fill vacancies.

· Initiative. Employees who are allowed to originate and carry out plans will exert high levels of effort.

· Esprit de corps. Promoting team spirit will build harmony and unity within the organisation.

Fayol's work has stood the test of time and has been shown to be relevant and appropriate to contemporary management. Many of today’s management texts including Daft have reduced the six functions to four:

· planning;

· organizing;

· leading; and

· controlling.

Daft's text is organized around Fayol's four functions.

3.4.3.0.Frederick Herzberg

3.4.3.1.Frederick Irving Herzberg was an American psychologist who became one of the most influential names in business management. He is most famous for introducing job enrichment and the Motivator-Hygiene theory. His 1968 publication "One More Time, How Do You Motivate Employees?" had sold 1.2 million reprints by 1987 and was the most requested article from the Harvard Business Review. Herzberg attended City College of New York, but left part way through his studies to enlist in the army. As a patrol sergeant, he was a firsthand witness of the Dachau concentration camp. He believed that this experience, as well as the talks he had with other Germans living in the area was what triggered his interest in motivation. Herzberg graduated from City College in 1946 and moved to the University of Pittsburgh to undertake post-graduate workplace while teaching as a professor of psychology at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland and later moved to the University of Utah where he held the position of professor of management in the college of business.

3.4.3.2.Two Factor Theory "The Dual Structure Theory"

Referred to as "The Dual Structure theory"Herzberg proposed the Motivation-Hygiene Theory, also known as the Two factor theory (1959) of job satisfaction. According to his theory, people are influenced by two sets of factors:

Motivator Factors	Hygiene Factors
Achievement Recognition Work Itself Responsibility Promotion Growth	Pay and Benefits Company Policy and Administration Relationships with co-workers Supervision Status Job Security Working Conditions Personal life

He proposed several key findings as a result of this identification.

· People are made dissatisfied by a bad environment, but they are seldom made satisfied by a good environment.

· The prevention of dissatisfaction is just as important as encouragement of motivator satisfaction.

· Hygiene factors operate independently of motivation factors. An individual can be highly motivated in his work and be dissatisfied with his work environment.

· All hygiene factors are equally important, although their frequency of occurrence differs considerably.

· Hygiene improvements have short-term effects. Any improvements result in a short-term removal of, or prevention of, dissatisfaction.

· Hygiene needs are cyclical in nature and come back to a starting point. This leads to the "What have you done for me lately?" syndrome.

· Hygiene needs have an escalating zero point and no final answer.

4.0.Two-factor theory

4.1.The two-factor theory (also known as Herzberg's motivation-hygiene theory) was developed by Frederick Herzberg, a psychologist who found that job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction acted independently of each other. The theory states that there are certain factors in the workplace that cause job satisfaction, while a separate set of factors cause dissatisfaction.

4.2.Two-factor theory fundamentals

Attitudes and their connection with industrial mental health are related to Maslow's theory of motivation. His findings have had a considerable theoretical, as well as a practical, influence on attitudes toward administration.According to Herzberg, individuals are not content with the satisfaction of lower-order needs at work, for example, those associated with minimum salary levels or safe and pleasant working conditions. Rather, individuals look for the gratification of higher-level psychological needs having to do with achievement, recognition, responsibility, advancement, and the nature of the work itself. So far, this appears to parallel Maslow's theory of a need hierarchy. However, Herzberg added a new dimension to this theory by proposing a two-factor model of motivation, based on the notion that the presence of one set of job characteristics or incentives lead to worker satisfaction at work, while another and separate set of job characteristics lead to dissatisfaction at work. Thus, satisfaction and dissatisfaction are not on a continuum with one increasing as the other diminishes, but are independent phenomena. This theory suggests that to improve job attitudes and productivity, administrators must recognize and attend to both sets of characteristics and not assume that an increase in satisfaction leads to decrease in unpleasurable dissatisfaction.

The two-factor, or motivation-hygiene theory, developed from data collected by Herzberg from interviews with a large number of engineers and accountants in the Pittsburgh area. From analyzing these interviews, he found that job characteristics related to what an individual does that is, to the nature of the work he performs apparently have the capacity to gratify such needs as achievement, competency, status, personal worth, and self-realization, thus making him happy and satisfied. However, the absence of such gratifying job characteristics does not appear to lead to unhappiness and dissatisfaction. Instead, dissatisfaction results from unfavorable assessments of such job-related factors as company policies, supervision, technical problems, salary, interpersonal relations on the job, and working conditions. Thus, if management wishes to increase satisfaction on the job, it should be concerned with the nature of the work itself the opportunities it presents for gaining status, assuming responsibility, and for achieving self-realization. If, on the other hand, management wishes to reduce dissatisfaction, then it must focus on the job environment policies, procedures, supervision, and working conditions.If management is equally concerned with both (as is usually the case), then managers must give attention to both sets of job factors.

The theory was based around interviews with 203 American accountants & engineers in Pittsburgh, chosen because of their professions' growing importance in the business world. The subjects were asked to relate times when they felt exceptionally good or bad about their present job or any previous job, and to provide reasons, and a description of the sequence of events giving rise to that positive or negative feeling.

Here is the description of this interview analysis:

Briefly, we asked our respondents to describe periods in their lives when they were exceedingly happy and unhappy with their jobs. Each respondent gave as many "sequences of events" as he could which met certain criteria including a marked change in feeling, a beginning and an end, and contained some substantive description other than feelings and interpretations…

The proposed hypothesis appears verified. The factors on the right that led to satisfaction (achievement, intrinsic interest in the work, responsibility, and advancement) are mostly unipolar; that is, they contribute very little to job dissatisfaction. Conversely, the dis-satisfiers (company policy and administrative practices, supervision, interpersonal relationships, working conditions, and salary) contribute very little to job satisfaction

Two-factor theory distinguishes between:

· Motivators (e.g. challenging work, recognition, responsibility) which give positive satisfaction, arising from intrinsic conditions of the job itself, such as recognition, achievement, or personal growth, and

· Hygiene factors (e.g. status, job security, salary and fringe benefits) which do not give positive satisfaction, although dissatisfaction results from their absence. These are extrinsic to the work itself, and include aspects such as company policies, supervisory practices, or wages/salary

Essentially, hygiene factors are needed to ensure an employee is not dissatisfied. Motivation factors are needed in order to motivate an employee to higher performance, Herzberg also further classified our actions and how and why we do them, for example, if you perform a work related action because you have to then that is classed as movement, but if you perform a work related action because you want to then that is classed as motivation.

Unlike Maslow, who offered little data to support his ideas, Herzberg and others have presented considerable empirical evidence to confirm the motivation-hygiene theory. Their work, however, has been criticized on methodological grounds. Nevertheless, Herzberg and his associates have rendered a valuable service to science and to management through their efforts to apply scientific methods to understanding complex motivational problems at work and have stimulated others to continue the search.

4.3.Validity and criticisms

In 1968 Herzberg stated that his two-factor theory study had already been replicated 16 times in a wide variety of populations including some in Communist countries, and corroborated with studies using different procedures which agreed with his original findings regarding intrinsic employee motivation making it one of the most widely replicated studies on job attitudes.

While the Motivator-Hygiene concept is still well regarded, satisfaction and dissatisfaction are generally no longer considered to exist on separate scales. The separation of satisfaction and dissatisfaction has been shown to be an artifact of the Critical Incident Technique (CIT) used by Herzberg to record events . Furthermore, it has been noted the theory does not allow for individual differences, such as a particular personality traits, which would affect individuals' unique responses to motivating or hygiene factors

A number of behavioral scientists have pointed to inadequacies in the need hierarchy and motivation-hygiene theories. The most basic is the criticism that both of these theories contain the relatively explicit assumption that happy and satisfied workers produce more. Another problem is that these and other statistical theories are concerned with explaining "average" behavior and, on the other hand, if playing a better game of golf is the means he chooses to satisfy his need for recognition, then he will find ways to play and think about golf more often, perhaps resulting in an accompanying lower output on the job. Finally, in his pursuit of status he might take a balanced view and strive to pursue several behavioral paths in an effort to achieve a combination of personal status objectives.

In other words, this individual's expectation or estimated probability that a given behavior will bring a valued outcome determines his choice of means and the effort he will devote to these means. In effect, this diagram of expectancy depicts an employee asking himself the question posed by one investigator, "How much payoff is there for me toward attaining a personal goal while expending so much effort toward the achievement of an assigned organizational objective?" The Expectancy theory by Victor Vroom also provides a framework for motivation based on expectations.

This approach to the study and understanding of motivation would appear to have certain conceptual advantages over other theories: First, unlike Maslow's and Herzberg's theories, it is capable of handling individual differences. Second, its focus is toward the present and the future, in contrast to drive theory, which emphasizes past learning. Third, it specifically relates behavior to a goal and thus eliminates the problem of assumed relationships, such as between motivation and performance. Fourth, it relates motivation to ability: Performance = Motivation*Ability.

That said, a study by the Gallup Organization, as detailed in the book "First, Break All the Rules: What the World's Greatest Managers Do" by Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman, appears to provide strong support for Herzberg's division of satisfaction and dissatisfaction onto two separate scales. In this book, the authors discuss how the study identified twelve questions which provide a framework for determining high-performing individuals and organizations. These twelve questions align squarely with Herzberg's motivation factors, while hygiene factors were determined to have little effect on motivating high performance.

To better understand employee attitudes and motivation, Frederick Herzberg performed studies to determine which factors in an employee's work environment caused satisfaction or dissatisfaction. He published his findings in the 1959 book The Motivation to Work.

The studies included interviews in which employees where asked what pleased and displeased them about their work. Herzberg found that the factors causing job satisfaction (and presumably motivation) were different from those causing job dissatisfaction. He developed the motivation-hygiene theory to explain these results. He called the satisfiers motivators and the dissatisfiers hygiene factors, using the term "hygiene" in the sense that they are considered maintenance factors that are necessary to avoid dissatisfaction but that by themselves do not provide satisfaction.

The following table presents the top six factors causing dissatisfaction and the top six factors causing satisfaction, listed in the order of higher to lower importance.

Leading to satisfaction

Achievement
Recognition
Work itself
Responsibility
Advancement
Growth

Leading to dissatisfaction

Company policy
Supervision
Relationship with boss
Work conditions
Salary
Relationship with peers
Security

Herzberg reasoned that because the factors causing satisfaction are different from those causing dissatisfaction, the two feelings cannot simply be treated as opposites of one another. The opposite of satisfaction is not dissatisfaction, but rather, no satisfaction. Similarly, the opposite of dissatisfaction is no dissatisfaction.

While at first glance this distinction between the two opposites may sound like a play on words, Herzberg argued that there are two distinct human needs portrayed. First, there are physiological needs that can be fulfilled by money, for example, to purchase food and shelter. Second, there is the psychological need to achieve and grow, and this need is fulfilled by activities that cause one to grow.

From the above table of results, one observes that the factors that determine whether there is dissatisfaction or no dissatisfaction are not part of the work itself, but rather, are external factors. Herzberg often referred to these hygiene factors as "KITA" factors, where KITA is an acronym for Kick In The A..., the process of providing incentives or a threat of punishment to cause someone to do something. Herzberg argues that these provide only short-run success because the motivator factors that determine whether there is satisfaction or no satisfaction are intrinsic to the job itself, and do not result from carrot and stick incentives. In a survey of 80 teaching staff at Egyptian private universities, Mohamed Hossam El-Din Khalifa and Quang Truong (2009), has found out that Perception of Equity was directly related to job satisfaction when the outcome in the equity comparison was one of Herzberg's Motivators. On the contrary, perception of equity and job satisfaction were not related when the outcome in the equity comparison was one of Herzberg's Hygiene Factors. The findings of this study provide a kind of an indirect support to Herzberg's findings that improving Hygiene Factors would not lead to improvement in an employee's job satisfaction.

4.4.Implications for management

If the motivation-hygiene theory holds, management not only must provide hygiene factors to avoid employee dissatisfaction, but also must provide factors intrinsic to the work itself in order for employees to be satisfied with their jobs.

Herzberg argued that job enrichment is required for intrinsic motivation, and that it is a continuous management process. According to Herzberg:

· The job should have sufficient challenge to utilize the full ability of the employee.

· Employees who demonstrate increasing levels of ability should be given increasing levels of responsibility.

· If a job cannot be designed to use an employee's full abilities, then the firm should consider automating the task or replacing the employee with one who has a lower level of skill. If a person cannot be fully utilized, then there will be a motivation problem.

Critics of Herzberg's theory argue that the two-factor result is observed because it is natural for people to take credit for satisfaction and to blame dissatisfaction on external factors. Furthermore, job satisfaction does not necessarily imply a high level of motivation or productivity. Herzberg's theory has been broadly read and despite its weaknesses its enduring value is that it recognizes that true motivation comes from within a person and not from KITA factors.(French, 2008)

5.0. Abraham Maslow

5.1. Abraham Harold Maslow was an American psychologist. He is noted for his conceptualization of a "hierarchy of human needs", and is considered the founder of humanistic psychology.

5.2. Humanistic theories of self actualization

Many psychologists have made significant impacts on society's understanding of the world. Abraham Maslow was one of these; he brought a new face to the study of human behavior. He was inspired by great minds, and his own gift of thought created a unique concept of Humanistic Psychology.

Maslow's views throughout his career stemmed from his Orthodox Jewish Background. His family and his experiences influenced the ideas that created a whole new form of psychology. After World War II, Maslow began to question the way psychologists had come to their conclusions, and though he didn’t completely disagree, he had his own ideas on how to understand the Human mind. (The Developing Person through the Life Span, (1983) pg. 42)

Humanistic Psychologists believe that every person has a strong desire to realize his or her full potential, to reach a level of Self-actualization. To prove that humans are not simply blindly reacting to situations, but trying to accomplish something greater, Maslow studied mentally healthy individuals instead of people with serious psychological issues. This enabled him to discover that people experience “peak experiences,” high points in life, when the individual is harmony with himself and his surroundings. Self-actualized people can have many peak experiences throughout a day while others have those experiences less frequently. (The Developing Person through the Life Span, (1983) pg. 43)

A visual aid Maslow created to explain his theory, which he called the Hierarchy of Needs, is a pyramid depicting the levels of human needs, psychological and physical. When a human being ascends the steps of the pyramid he reaches self actualization. At the bottom of the pyramid are the “Basic needs” of a human being, food and water and touch. The next level is “Security and Stability.” These two steps are important to the physical survival of the person. Once individuals have basic nutrition, shelter and safety they attempt to accomplish more. The third level of need is “Love and Belonging,” which are psychological needs; when individuals have taken care of themselves physically, they are ready to share themselves with others. The fourth level is achieved when individuals feel comfortable with what they have accomplished. This is the “Esteem” level, the level of success and status. The top of the pyramid, “Self-actualization,” occurs when individuals reach a state of harmony and understanding. (The Developing Person through the Life Span, (1983) pg. 44)

Maslow based his study on historical figures, including Albert Einstein, as well as people he knew who clearly met the standard of self actualization. Maslow used Einstein's writings and accomplishments to exemplify the characteristics of the self actualized person. He realized that all the individuals he studied had similar personality traits. All were “reality centered,” able to differentiate what was fraudulent from what was genuine. They were also “problem centered,” meaning that they treated life’s difficulties as problems that demanded solutions. These individuals also were comfortable being alone and had healthy personal relationships. They had only a few close friends and family rather than a large number of shallow relationships.^[3] One historical figure Maslow found to be helpful in his journey to understanding self actualization was Lao Tzu, The Father of Taoism. The basis of Taoism is that people do not obtain personal meaning or pleasure by seeking material possessions.

When Maslow introduced these ideas some weren't ready to understand them; others dismissed them as unscientific, a critique often leveled at Freud. Sometimes viewed as disagreeing with Freud and psychoanalytic theory, Maslow actually positioned his work as a vital complement to that of Freud. Maslow stated in his book, “It is as if Freud supplied us the sick half of psychology and we must now fill it out with the healthy half.” (Toward a psychology of being, 1968) There are two faces of human nature--the sick and the healthy--so there should be two faces of psychology.

Consequently, Maslow argued, the way in which essential needs are fulfilled is just as important as the needs themselves. Together, these define the human experience. To the extent a person finds cooperative social fulfillment, he establishes meaningful relationships with other people and the larger world. In other words, he establishes meaningful connections to an external reality--an essential component of self-actualization. In contrast, to the extent that vital needs find selfish and competitive fulfillment, a person acquires hostile emotions and limited external relationships--his awareness remains internal and limited.

Benedict and Wertheimer were Maslow's models of self-actualization. From them he generalized that, among other characteristics, self-actualizing people tend to focus on problems outside themselves; have a clear sense of what is true and what is phony; are spontaneous and creative; and are not bound too strictly by social conventions.

Beyond the routine of needs fulfillment, Maslow envisioned moments of extraordinary experience, known as Peak experiences, which are profound moments of love, understanding, happiness, or rapture, during which a person feels more whole, alive, self-sufficient and yet a part of the world, more aware of truth, justice, harmony, goodness, and so on. Self-actualizing people have many such peak experiences.

Maslow's thinking was surprisingly original most psychologists before him had been concerned with the abnormal and the ill. He wanted to know what constituted positive mental health. Humanistic psychology gave rise to several different therapies, all guided by the idea that people possess the inner resources for growth and healing and that the point of therapy is to help remove obstacles to individuals' achieving them. The most famous of these was client-centered therapy developed by Carl Rogers. Classical Adlerian Psychotherapy, based on the teachings of Alfred Adler, also encourages the optimal psychological development of the individual.

Maslow's influence extended beyond psychology - his work on peak experiences is relevant to religious studies, while his work on management is applicable to transpersonal business studies.

5.3. Hierarchy of needs

Maslow has set up a hierarchy of five levels of basic needs. Beyond these needs, higher levels of needs exist. These include needs for understanding, aesthetic appreciation and purely spiritual needs. In the levels of the five basic needs, it is said that the person does not feel the second need until the demands of the first have been satisfied, nor the third until the second has been satisfied, and so on.

5.4.0.Maslow’s hierarchy of needs

5.4.1.Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a theory in psychology, proposed by Abraham Maslow in his 1943 paper A Theory of Human Motivation. Maslow subsequently extended the idea to include his observations of humans' innate curiosity.

Maslow studied what he called exemplary people such as Albert Einstein, Jane Addams, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Frederick Douglass rather than mentally ill or neurotic people, writing that "the study of crippled, stunted, immature, and unhealthy specimens can yield only a cripple psychology and a cripple philosophy." Maslow also studied the healthiest 1% of the college student population.

5.4.2.Representation

Maslow's hierarchy of needs is represented in the shape of a pyramid, with the largest and lowest levels of needs at the bottom, and the need for self-actualization at the top.

An interpretation of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, represented as a pyramid with the more basic needs at the bottom.

5.4.3.Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a theory in psychology, proposed by Abraham Maslow in his 1943

5.4.4.Deficiency needs

The lower four layers of the pyramid contain what Maslow called "deficiency needs" or "d-needs": physiological (including sexuality), security of position, friendship and love, and esteem. With the exception of the lowest (physiological) needs, if these "deficiency needs" are not met, the body gives no physical indication but the individual feels anxious and tense.

5.4.5.Physiological needs

For the most part, physiological needs are obvious - they are the literal requirements for human survival. If these requirements are not met (with the exception of clothing and shelter), the human body simply cannot continue to function.

Physiological needs include:

· Breathing

· Food

· Sexual activity

· Homeostasis

Air, water, and food are metabolic requirements for survival in all animals, including humans. The intensity of the human sexual instinct is shaped more by sexual competition than maintaining a birth rate adequate to survival of the species. The theme of genetic heritage over survival is treated at length in The Selfish Gene.

The urge to have sex is so powerful that it can drain psychic energy away from other necessary goals. Therefore every culture has to invest great efforts in rechanneling and restraining it, and many complex social institutions exist only in order to regulate this urge. The saying that "love makes the world go round" is a polite reference to the fact that most of our deeds are impelled, either directly or indirectly, by sexual needs.

5.4.6.Safety needs

With their physical needs relatively satisfied, the individual's safety needs take precedence and dominate behavior. These needs have to do with people's yearning for a predictable, orderly world in which injustice and inconsistency are under control, the familiar frequent and the unfamiliar rare. In the world of work, this safety needs manifest themselves in such things as a preference for job security, grievance procedures for protecting the individual from unilateral authority, savings accounts, insurance policies, and the like.

For most of human history many individuals have found their safety needs unmet, but As of 2009^[update] "First World" societies provide most with their satisfaction, although the poor - both those who are poor as a class and those who are temporarily poor (university students would be an example) - must often still address these needs.

Safety and Security needs include:

· Personal security

· Financial security

· Health and well-being

· Safety net against accidents/illness and their adverse impacts

5.4.7.Social needs

After physiological and safety needs are fulfilled, the third layer of human needs is social. This psychological aspect of Maslow's hierarchy involves emotionally-based relationships in general, such as:

· Friendship

· Intimacy

· Having a supportive and communicative family

Humans need to feel a sense of belonging and acceptance, whether it comes from a large social group, such as clubs, office culture, religious groups, professional organizations, sports teams, gangs ("Safety in numbers"), or small social connections (family members, intimate partners, mentors, close colleagues, confidants). They need to love and be loved (sexually and non-sexually) by others. In the absence of these elements, many people become susceptible to loneliness, social anxiety, and clinical depression. This need for belonging can often overcome the physiological and security needs, depending on the strength of the peer pressure; an anorexic, for example, may ignore the need to eat and the security of health for a feeling of control and belonging.

5.4.8.Esteem

All humans have a need to be respected and to have self-esteem and self-respect. Also known as the belonging need, esteem presents the normal human desire to be accepted and valued by others. People need to engage themselves to gain recognition and have an activity or activities that give the person a sense of contribution, to feel accepted and self-valued, be it in a profession or hobby. Imbalances at this level can result in low self-esteem or an inferiority complex. People with low self-esteem need respect from others. They may seek fame or glory, which again depends on others. Note, however, that many people with low self-esteem will not be able to improve their view of themselves simply by receiving fame, respect, and glory externally, but must first accept themselves internally. Psychological imbalances such as depression can also prevent one from obtaining self-esteem on both levels.

Most people have a need for a stable self-respect and self-esteem. Maslow noted two versions of esteem needs, a lower one and a higher one. The lower one is the need for the respect of others, the need for status, recognition, fame, prestige, and attention. The higher one is the need for self-respect, the need for strength, competence, mastery, self-confidence, independence and freedom. The latter one ranks higher because it rests more on inner competence won through experience. Deprivation of these needs can lead to an inferiority complex, weakness and helplessness.

Maslow stresses the dangers associated with self-esteem based on fame and outer recognition instead of inner competence. He sees healthy self-respect as based on earned respect.

5.4.9.Self-actualization

“What a man can be, he must be”. This forms the basis of the perceived need for self-actualization. This level of need pertains to what a person's full potential is and realizing that potential. Maslow describes this desire as the desire to become more and more what one is, to become everything that one is capable of becoming. This is a broad definition of the need for self-actualization, but when applied to individuals the need is specific. For example one individual may have the strong desire to become an ideal parent, in another it may be expressed athletically, and in another it may be expressed in painting, pictures, or inventions As mentioned before, in order to reach a clear understanding of this level of need one must first not only achieve the previous needs, physiological, safety, love, and esteem, but master these needs. Below are Maslow’s descriptions of a self-actualized person’s different needs and personality traits.

6.1.Acceptance

A self-actualized person “can accept their own human nature in the stoic style, with all its shortcomings, with all its discrepancies from the ideal image without feeling real concern” This means that a self-actualized person can clearly see human nature in all its good and evil without the distortion from false social norms. Maslow uses basic animal acceptance to prove this point. He states that self-actualized people tend to be good and lusty animals, hearty in their appetites and enjoying them mightily without regret or shame This involves a basic acceptance of nature and the way things are rather than trying to change things (for example: disgust with body functions or having a food aversion) to suit one's neuroses. This doesn’t mean these people lack morals, guilt, shame, or anxiety; it means that they have the ability to remove all unnecessary forms of these processes.

6.2.Problem Centering

Most people, when thinking of problems in their life, focus on what affects them and their own problems and issues; this applies particularly to insecure people. Self-actualized persons focus not on themselves, but for some greater good. These people attack problems as a “task they must do” and are concerned with “the good of mankind in general”

6.3.The need for privacy

The self-actualized can be solitary, with no human contact, and do no harm to themselves. In fact most of the self-actualized like “solitude and privacy to a definitely greater degree than the average person" This gives them a level of detachment and an ability to remain calm and aloof even in situations where a personal problem or misfortune arises.

6.4.Morality and discrimination between means and ends

Maslow found that those who are self-actualized are very strong ethically. They have definite moral standards and do not experience the daily chaos of discerning right and wrong like most common people. When dealing with means and ends they have the ability to clearly distinguish between the two. Also, Maslow found that they enjoy the means to an end: unlike most people who just see it as a means and want to finish it as soon as possible. For example, driving to a destination annoys most people but a self-actualized person would enjoy the drive, the experience of travel. It is also in their ability to take the most trivial and mundane activities or objects and turn them into a game or perhaps a dance.

6.5.Sense of Humor

Maslow discovered that most self-actualized people do not have the same sense of humor as the average person. For example: they do not laugh at hostile humor (hurting someone to laugh), superiority humor (laughing at someone’s short comings), or authority-rebellion humor (laughing at unfunny, smutty jokes). A self-actualizing person’s sense of humor relates to philosophy and finding humor in humans who forget their place in the universe or when they act foolishly. It doesn’t attack people, rather states a message that happens to be funny. Self-actualized people don’t merely tell jokes to laugh, but to send a message or educate; “akin to parables or fables”

6.6.Imperfections

Discussion thus far may give the impression that a self-actualized person seems perfect and above any problems or shortcomings of the common man, but this is not true. Maslow even states it is a mistake to wish for perfection or expect perfection because it cannot be obtained The self-actualized person also has basic human imperfections such as wasteful habits, vanity, pride, partiality to their family and friends, and temper outbursts. Maslow also discovers that, in the view of normal society, self-actualizing persons can appear quite ruthless. He attributes this to their strength and this makes it possible to make cold calculated decisions based on logic. For example a man who found his life-long, trusted friend was actually dishonest would end the friendship abruptly without any regret or any other emotional pangs (Maslow 229). This may seem brutal to the common man, but it just exemplifies the strength of the self-actualized person at work.

6.7.The desires to Know and to Understand

This becomes the need after a person achieves self-actualization. Maslow understands the quest for knowledge can be the common man simply filling a basic need or the self-actualized man reaching his pinnacle, but these are only parts to the quest for knowledge not the entire picture. The list below shows Maslow’s examples of when the quest for knowledge is to satisfy merely a curiosity and not merely to fill a lesser need:

· Something like human curiosity can easily be observed in the higher animals. The monkey will pick things apart, will poke his finger into holes, will explore in all sorts of situations where it is improbable that hunger, fear, sex, comfort status, etc., are involved. Harlow's experiments (174) have amply demonstrated this in an acceptably experimental way.

· The history of mankind supplies us with a satisfactory number of instances in which man looked for facts and created explanations in the face of the greatest danger, even to life itself. There have been innumerable humbler Galileos.

· Studies of psychologically healthy people indicate that they are, as a defining characteristic, attracted to the mysterious, to the unknown, to the chaotic, unorganized, and unexplained. This seems to be a Per se attractiveness; these areas are in themselves and of their own right interesting. The contrasting reaction to the well known is one of boredom.

· It may be found valid to extrapolate from the psychopathological. The compulsive-obsessive neurotic (and neurotic in general), Goldstein's brain-injured soldiers, Maier's fixated rats (285), all show (at the clinical level of observation) a compulsive and anxious clinging to the familiar and a dread of the unfamiliar, the anarchic, the unexpected, the un-domesticated. On the other hand, there are some phenomena that may turn out to nullify this possibility. Among these are forced unconventionality, a chronic rebellion against any authority whatsoever, Bohemianism, the desire to shock and to startle, all of which may be found in certain neurotic individuals, as well as in those in the process of deacculturation.

· Probably there are true psychopathological effects when the cognitive needs are frustrated (295, 314). The following clinical impression are also pertinent.

· I have seen a few cases in which it seemed clear to me that the pathology (boredom, loss of zest in life, self-dislike, general depression of the bodily functions, steady deterioration of the intellectual life, of tastes, etc.)8 were produced in intelligent people leading stupid lives in stupid jobs. I have at least one case in which the appropriate cognitive therapy (resuming parttime studies, getting a position that was more intellectually demanding, insight) removed the symptoms.
I have seen many women, intelligent, prosperous, and unoccupied, slowly develop these same symptoms of intellectual inanition. Those who followed my recommendation to immerse themselves in something worthy of them showed improvement or cure often enough to impress me with the reality of the cognitive needs. In those countries in which access to the news, to information, and to the facts were cut off, and in those where official theories were profoundly contradicted by obvious facts, at least some people responded with generalized cynicism, mistrust of all values, suspicion even of the obvious, a profound disruption of ordinary interpersonal relationships, hopelessness, loss of morale, etc. Others seem to have responded in the more passive direction with dullness, submission, loss of. capacity, coarctation, and loss of initiative.

· The needs to know and to understand are seen in late infancy and childhood, perhaps even more strongly than in adulthood. Furthermore this seems to be a spontaneous product of maturation rather than of learning, however defined. Children do not have to be taught to be curious. But they may be taught, as by institutionalization, not to be curious, e.g., Goldfarb (158).

· Finally, the gratification of the cognitive impulses is subjectively satisfying and yields end-experience. Though this aspect of insight and understanding has been neglected in favor of achieved results, learning, etc., it nevertheless remains true that insight is usually a bright, happy, emotional spot in any person's life, perhaps even a high spot in the life span. (Maslow 94-95)

Maslow also states that even though these are examples of how the quest for knowledge is separate from basic needs he warns that these “two hierarchies are interrelated rather than sharply separated” (Maslow 97). This means that this level of need as well as the next and highest level are not strict, separate, levels but closely related to others and this is possibly the reason that these two levels of need are left out of most textbooks.

6.8.Comparisons with Taoism and with Zen Buddhism

Comparisons have been drawn between Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and the final stages of Taoism and Zen Buddhism. The comparisons deal directly with the higher needs, starting with the self-actualization need. Maslow regards self-actualizing people as largely free from the power of society’s rules and making decisions based upon their beliefs not the accepted norms of society. In Taoism and Buddhism people free themselves of worldly possessions, thus freeing themselves from societal pressures and power. The self-actualized person most likely will not have the same freedom from society as the Zen Buddhist or Taoist, but all three beliefs find their “perfect” being as one who is independent and makes decisions based upon nature and not the external authority of society or man.

6.9.Marketing

Courses in marketing teach Maslow's hierarchy as one of the first theories as a basis for understanding consumers' motives for action. Marketers have historically looked towards consumers' needs to define their actions in the market. If producers design products meeting consumer needs, consumers will more often choose those products over those of competitors. Whichever product better fulfils this void will be chosen more frequently, thus increasing sales. This makes the model relevant to transpersonal business studies.

6.10.Criticisms

While Maslow's theory was regarded as an improvement over previous theories of personality and motivation, it had its detractors. For example, in their extensive review of research based on Maslow's theory, Wahba and Bridgewell found little evidence for the ranking of needs Maslow described, or even for the existence of a definite hierarchy at all. Chilean economist and philosopher Manfred Max-Neef has also argued fundamental human needs are non-hierarchical, and are ontologically universal and invariant in nature - part of the condition of being human; poverty, he argues, may result from any one of these needs being frustrated, denied or unfulfilled.

The order in which the hierarchy is arranged (with self-actualisation as the highest order need) has been criticised as being ethnocentric by Geert Hofstede.

7.0.Victor Vroom

7.1.Victor Vroom is a business school professor at the Yale School of Management, who was born on 9 August 1932 in Montreal, Canada. He holds a PhD from University of Michigan.

Vroom's primary research was on the expectancy theory of motivation, which attempts to explain why individuals choose to follow certain courses of action in organizations, particularly in decision-making and leadership. His most well-known books are Work and Motivation, Leadership and Decision Making and The New Leadership. Vroom has also been a consultant to a number of corporations such as GE and American Express.

7.2.Expectancy Theory

Vroom's theory assumes that behavior results from conscious choices among alternatives whose purpose it is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. The key elements to this theory are referred to as Expectancy (E), Instrumentality (I), and Valence (V). Critical to the understanding of the theory is the understanding that each of these factors represents a belief.

The Expectancy Theory of Victor Vroom deals with motivation and management. Vroom's theory assumes that behavior results from conscious choices among alternatives whose purpose it is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. Together with Edward Lawler and Lyman Porter, Vroom suggested that the relationship between people's behavior at work and their goals was not as simple as was first imagined by other scientists. Vroom realized that an employee's performance is based on individuals factors such as personality, skills, knowledge, experience and abilities.

The expectancy theory says that individuals have different sets of goals and can be motivated if they believe that:

· There is a positive correlation between efforts and performance,

· Favorable performance will result in a desirable reward,

· The reward will satisfy an important need,

The desire to satisfy the need is strong enough to make the effort worthwhile.

Vroom's Expectancy Theory is based upon the following three beliefs:

· Valence (Valence refers to the emotional orientations people hold with respect to outcomes [rewards]. The depth of the want of an employee for extrinsic [money, promotion, time-off, benefits] or intrinsic [satisfaction] rewards). Management must discover what employees value.

· Expectancy (Employees have different expectations and levels of confidence about what they are capable of doing). Management must discover what resources, training, or supervision employees need.

· Instrumentality (The perception of employees whether they will actually get what they desire even if it has been promised by a manager). Management must ensure that promises of rewards are fulfilled and that employees are aware of that.

Vroom suggests that an employee's beliefs about Expectancy, Instrumentality, and Valence interact psychologically to create a motivational force such that the employee acts in ways that bring pleasure and avoid pain. This force can be 'calculated' via the following formula: Motivation = Valance × Expectancy(Instrumentality). This formula can be used to indicate and predict such things as job satisfaction, one's occupational choice, the likelihood of staying in a job, and the effort one might expend at work.

Vroom's theory suggests that the individual will consider the outcomes associated with various levels of performance (from an entire spectrum of performance possibilities), and elect to pursue the level that generates the greatest reward for him or her.

7.3.Expectancy refers to the strength of a person's belief about whether or not a particular job performance is attainable. Assuming all other things are equal, an employee will be motivated to try a task, if he or she believes that it can be done. This expectancy of performance may be thought of in terms of probabilities ranging from zero (a case of "I can't do it!") to 1.0 ("I have no doubt whatsoever that I can do this job!")

A number of factors can contribute to an employee's expectancy perceptions:

· The level of confidence in the skills required for the task

· The amount of support that may be expected from superiors and subordinates

· The quality of the materials and equipment

· The availability of pertinent information

Previous success at the task has also been shown to strengthen expectancy beliefs.

7.4.Instrumentality

"What's the probability that, if I do a good job, that there will be some kind of outcome in it for me?"

If an employee believes that a high level of performance will be instrumental for the acquisition of outcomes which may be gratifying, then the employee will place a high value on performing well. Vroom defines Instrumentality as a probability belief linking one outcome (a high level of performance, for example) to another outcome (a reward).

Instrumentality may range from a probability of 1.0 (meaning that the attainment of the second outcome — the reward — is certain if the first outcome — excellent job performance — is attained) through zero (meaning there is no likely relationship between the first outcome and the second). An example of zero instrumentality would be exam grades that were distributed randomly (as opposed to be awarded on the basis of excellent exam performance). Commission pay schemes are designed to make employees perceive that performance is positively instrumental for the acquisition of money.

For management to ensure high levels of performance, it must tie desired outcomes (positive valence) to high performance, and ensure that the connection is communicated to employees. The VIE theory holds that people have preferences among various outcomes. These preferences tend to reflect a person's underlying need state.

7.5.Valence

"Is the outcome I get of any value to me?"

The term Valence refers to the emotional orientations people hold with respect to outcomes (rewards). An outcome is positively valent if an employee would prefer having it to not having it. An outcome that the employee would rather avoid ( fatigue, stress, noise, layoffs) is negatively valent. Outcomes towards which the employee appears indifferent are said to have zero valence. Valences refer to the level of satisfaction people expect to get from the outcome (as opposed to the actual satisfaction they get once they have attained the reward).

People elect to pursue levels of job performance that they believe will maximize their overall best interests (their subjective expected utility).

There will be no motivational forces acting on an employee if any of these three conditions hold:

· The person does not believe that he/she can successfully perform the required task

· The person believes that successful task performance will not be associated with positively valent outcomes

· The person believes that outcomes associated with successful task completion will be negatively valent (have no value for that person).

8.0.Specific Contributions

8.1.Frederick Winslow Taylor

Frederick Winslow Taylor (1856-1915) was the first person who attempted to study human behavior at work using a systematic approach. Taylor studied human characteristics, social environment, task, physical environment, capacity, speed, durability, cost and their interaction with each other. His overall objective was to reduce and/or remove human variability. Taylor worked to achieve his goal of making work behaviors stable and predictable so that maximum output could be achieved. He relied strongly upon monetary incentive systems, believing that humans are primarily motivated by money. He faced some strong criticism, including being accused of telling managers to treat workers as machines without minds, but his work was very productive and laid many foundation principles for modern management studies. An enlightening book about the life of Pratik Bang and his studies is that by Kanigel (1997).

8.2.Elton Mayo

Elton Mayo, an Australian national, headed the Hawthorne Studies at Harvard. In his classic writing in 1931, Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization, he advised managers to deal with emotional needs of employees at work.

8.3.Mary Parker Follett

Mary Parker Follett was a pioneer management consultant in the industrial world. As a writer, she provided analyses on workers as having complex combinations of attitude, beliefs, and needs. She told managers to motivate employees on their job performance, a "pull" rather than a "push" strategy.

8.4.Douglas McGregor

Douglas McGregor proposed two theories/assumptions, which are very nearly the opposite of each other, about human nature based on his experience as a management consultant. His first theory was “Theory X”, which is pessimistic and negative; and according to McGregor it is how managers traditionally perceive their workers. Then, in order to help managers replace that theory/assumption, he gave “Theory Y” which takes a more modern and positive approach. He believed that managers could achieve more if they start perceiving their employees as self-energized, committed, responsible and creative beings. By means of his Theory Y, he in fact challenged the traditional theorists to adopt a developmental approach to their employees. He also wrote a book, The Human Side of Enterprise, in 1960; this book has become a foundation for the modern view of employees at work.

8.5.Current state of the field

Organizational behaviour is currently a growing field. Organizational studies departments generally form part of business schools, although many universities also have industrial psychology and industrial economics programs.

The field is highly influential in the business world with practitioners like Peter Drucker and Peter Senge, who turned the academic research into business practices. Organizational behaviour is becoming more important in the global economy as people with diverse backgrounds and cultural values have to work together effectively and efficiently. It is also under increasing criticism as a field for its ethnocentric and pro-capitalist assumptions (see Critical Management Studies). During the last 20 years organizational behavior study and practice has developed and expanded through creating integrations with other domains:

· Anthropology became an interesting prism to understanding firms as communities, by introducing concepts like Organizational culture, 'organizational rituals' and 'symbolic acts' enabling new ways to understand organizations as communities.

· Leadership Understanding: the crucial role of leadership at various level of an organization in the process of change management.

· Ethics and their importance as pillars of any vision and one of the most important driving forces in an organization.

8.6.Methods used in organizational studies

A variety of methods are used in organizational studies. They include quantitative methods found in other social sciences such as multiple regression, non-parametric statistics, time dependent analysis, and ANOVA. In addition, computer simulation in organizational studies has a long history in organizational studies. Qualitative methods are also used, such as ethnography, which involves direct participant observation, single and multiple case analysis, and other historical methods. In the last fifteen years or so, there has been greater focus on language, metaphors, and organizational storytelling.

8.7.Systems framework

Kurt Lewin attended the Macy conferences and is commonly identified as the founder of the movement to study groups scientifically.

The systems framework is also fundamental to organizational theory as organizations are complex dynamic goal-oriented processes. One of the early thinkers in the field was Alexander Bogdanov, who developed his Tectology, a theory widely considered a precursor of Bertalanffy's General Systems Theory, aiming to model and design human organizations. Kurt Lewin was particularly influential in developing the systems perspective within organizational theory and coined the term "systems of ideology", from his frustration with behavioural psychologies that became an obstacle to sustainable work in psychology (see Ash 1992: 198-207). The complexity theory perspective on organizations is another systems view of organizations.

The systems approach to organizations relies heavily upon achieving negative entropy through openness and feedback. A systemic view on organizations is transdisciplinary and integrative. In other words, it transcends the perspectives of individual disciplines, integrating them on the basis of a common "code", or more exactly, on the basis of the formal apparatus provided by systems theory. The systems approach gives primacy to the interrelationships, not to the elements of the system. It is from these dynamic interrelationships that new properties of the system emerge. In recent years, systems thinking has been developed to provide techniques for studying systems in holistic ways to supplement traditional reductionistic methods. In this more recent tradition, systems theory in organizational studies is considered by some as a humanistic extension of the natural sciences.

9.0.Organizational Structure

9.1.An organizational structure is a mainly hierarchical concept of subordination of entities that collaborate and contribute to serve one common aim.

Organizations are a variant of clustered entities. An organization can be structured in many different ways and styles, depending on their objectives and ambiance^. The structure of an organization will determine the modes in which it operates and performs.

Organizational structure allows the expressed allocation of responsibilities for different functions and processes to different entities such as the branch, department, workgroup and individual. Individuals in an organizational structure are normally hired under time-limited work contracts or work orders, or under permanent employment contracts or program orders.

The set organizational structure may not coincide with facts, evolving in operational action. Such divergence decreases performance, when growing. E.g. a wrong organizational structure may hamper cooperation and thus hinder the completion of orders in due time and within limits of resources and budgets. Organizational structures shall be adaptive to process requirements, aiming to optimize the ratio of effort and input to output.

An effective organizational structure shall facilitate working relationships between various entities in the organization and may improve the working efficiency within the organizational units. Organization shall retain a set order and control to enable monitoring the processes. Organization shall support command for coping with a mix of orders and a change of conditions while performing work. Organization shall allow for application of individual skills to enable high flexibility and apply creativity. When a business expands, the chain of command will lengthen and the spans of control will widen. When an organization comes to age, the flexibility will decrease and the creativity will fatigue. Therefore organizational structures shall be altered from time to time to enable recovery. If such alteration is prevented internally, the final escape is to turn down the organization to prepare for a re-launch in an entirely new set up.

9.2.0.Informal organization

9.2.1.The informal organization is the interlocking social structure that governs how people work together in practice. It is the aggregate of behaviors, interactions, norms, personal and professional connections through which work gets done and relationships are built among people who share a common organizational affiliation or cluster of affiliations. It consists of a dynamic set of personal relationships, social networks, communities of common interest, and emotional sources of motivation. The informal organization evolves organically and spontaneously in response to changes in the work environment, the flux of people through its porous boundaries, and the complex social dynamics of its members. Tended effectively, the informal organization complements the more explicit structures, plans, and processes of the formal organization: it can accelerate and enhance responses to unanticipated events, foster innovation, enable people to solve problems that require collaboration across boundaries, and create footpaths showing where the formal organization may someday need to pave a way.

9.2.2.The informal organization and the formal organization

The nature of the informal organization becomes more distinct when its key characteristics are juxtaposed with those of the formal organization.

Key characteristics of the informal organization:

evolving constantly
grass roots
dynamic and responsive
excellent at motivation
requires insider knowledge to be seen
treats people as individuals
flat and fluid
cohered by trust and reciprocity
difficult to pin down

essential for situations that change quickly or are not yet fully understood

9.2.3.Key characteristics of the formal organization:

enduring, unless deliberately altered
top-down
missionary
static
excellent at alignment
plain to see
equates “person” with “role”
hierarchical
bound together by codified rules and order
easily understood and explained
critical for dealing with situations that are known and consistent

Historically, some have regarded the informal organization as the byproduct of insufficient formal organization arguing, for example, that “it can hardly be questioned that the ideal situation in the business organization would be one where no informal organization existed.” However, the contemporary approach one suggested as early as 1925 by Mary Parker Follett, the pioneer of community centers and author of influential works on management philosophy is to integrate the informal organization and the formal organization, recognizing the strengths and limitations of each. Integration, as Follett defined it, means breaking down apparent sources of conflict into their basic elements and then building new solutions that neither allow domination nor require compromise. In other words, integrating the informal organization with the formal organization replaces competition with coherence.

At a societal level, the importance of the relationship between formal and informal structures can be seen in the relationship between civil society and state authority. The power of integrating the formal organization and the informal organization can also be seen in many successful businesses.

9.2.4.Functions of informal organizations

Keith Davis suggests that informal groups serve at least four major functions within the formal organizational structure.

They perpetuate the cultural and social values that the group holds dear. Certain values are usually already held in common among informal group members. Day-to-day interaction reinforces these values that perpetuate a particular lifestyle and preserve group unity and integrity. For example, a college management class of 50 students may contain several informal groups that constitute the informal organization within the formal structure of the class. These groups may develop out of fraternity or sorority relationships, dorm residency, project work teams, or seating arrangements. Dress codes, hairstyles, and political party involvement are reinforced among the group members.
They provide social status and satisfaction that may not be obtained from the formal organization. In a large organization (or classroom), a worker (or student) may feel like an anonymous number rather than a unique individual. Members of informal groups, however, share jokes and gripes, eat together, play and work together, and are friends-which contributes to personal esteem, satisfaction, and a feeling of worth.
They promote communication among members. The informal group develops a communication channel or system (i.e., grapevine) to keep its members informed about what management actions will affect them in various ways. Many astute managers use the grape- vine to "informally" convey certain information about company actions and rumors.
They provide social control by influencing and regulating behavior inside and outside the group. Internal control persuades members of the group to conform to its lifestyle. For example, if a student starts to wear a coat and tie to class, informal group members may razz and convince the student that such attire is not acceptable and therefore to return to sandals, jeans, and T-shirts. External control is directed to such groups as management, union leadership, and other informal groups.

9.2.5.Disadvantages of informal groups

Informal organizations also possess the following potential disadvantages and problems that require astute and careful management attention.

9.2.6.Resistance to change.

Perpetuation of values and lifestyle causes informal groups to become overly protective of their "culture" and therefore resist change. For example, if restriction of output was the norm in an autocratic management group, it must continue to be so, even though management changes have brought about a more participative administration. A minority female student may have a tough time being fully accepted on a project team composed of three white, prejudiced young men-regardless of her academic competency.

9.2.7.Role conflict.

The quest for informal group satisfaction may lead members away from formal organizational objectives. What is good for and desired by informal group members is not always good for the organization. Doubling the number of coffee breaks and the length of the lunch period may be desirable for group members but costly and unprofitable for the firm. Employees' desire to fulfill the requirements and services of both the informal group and management results in role conflict. Role conflict can be reduced by carefully attempting to integrate interests, goals, methods, and evaluation systems of both the informal and formal organizations, resulting in greater productivity and satisfaction on everyone's behalf.

9.2.8.Rumor

The grapevine dispenses truth and rumor with equal vengeance. Ill-informed employees communicate unverified and untrue information that can create a devastating effect on employees. This can undermine morale, establish bad attitudes, and often result in deviant or, even violent behavior. For example, a student who flunks an exam can start a rumor that a professor is making sexually harassing advances toward one of the students in class. This can create all sorts of ill feelings toward the professor and even result in vengeful acts like "egging" the residence or knocking over the mail box.

9.2.9.Conformity

Social control promotes and encourages conformity among informal group members, thereby making them reluctant to act too aggressively or perform at too high a level. This can harm the formal organization by stifling initiative, creativity, and diversity of performance. In some British factories, if a group member gets "out of line”, tools may be hidden, air may be let out of tires, and other group members may refuse to talk to the deviant for days or weeks. Obviously, these types of actions can force a good worker to leave the organization.

10.0.Benefits of the informal organization

Although informal organizations create unique challenges and potential problems for management, they also provide a number of benefits for the formal organization.

10.1.Blend with formal system

Formal plans. policies, procedures, and standards cannot solve every problem in a dynamic organization; therefore, informal systems must blend with formal ones to get work done. As early as 1951, Robert Dubin recognized that "informal relations in the organization serve to preserve the organization from the self-destruction that would result from literal obedience to the formal policies, rules, regulations, and procedures." No college or university could function merely by everyone following the "letter of the law" with respect to written policies and procedures. Faculty, staff, and student informal groups must cooperate in fulfilling the spirit of the law" to effectuate an organized, sensibly run enterprise.

10.2.Lighten management workload

Managers are less inclined to check up on workers when they know the informal organization is cooperating with them. This encourages delegation, decentralization, and greater worker support of the manager, which suggests a probable improvement in performance and overall productivity. When a professor perceives that students are conscientiously working on their term papers and group projects, there are likely to be fewer "pap tests" or impromptu progress reports. This eases the professors load and that of the students and promotes a better relation- ship between both parties.

10.3.Fill gaps in management abilities

For instance, if a manager is weak in financial planning and analysis, a subordinate may informally assist in preparing reports through either suggestions or direct involvement. ' Act as a safety valve. Employees experience frustration, tension, and emotional problems with management and other employees. The informal group provides a means for relieving these emotional and psychological pressures by allowing a person to discuss them among friends openly and candidly. In faculty lounge conversations, frustrations with the dean, department head, or students are "blown off" among empathetic colleagues.

10.4.Encourage improved management practice

Perhaps a subtle benefit of informal groups is that they encourage managers to prepare, plan, organize, and control in a more professional fashion. Managers who comprehend the power of the informal organization recognize that it is a "check and balance" on their use of authority. Changes and projects are introduced with more careful thought and consideration, knowing that the informal organization can easily kill a poorly planned project.

10.5.Understanding and Dealing with the Environmental Crisis

The Information Routine Group (IRG )Solution - hierarchical incompetence and how to overcome it1984, argued, that Central media and government type Hierarchical organizations. could not adequately understand the environmental crisis we were manufacturing, or how to initiate adequate solutions. It argued that what was required, was the widespread introduction of informal networks or Information Routing Groups which were essentially a description of social networking services prior to the internet.

10.6.Business Approaches

Rapid growth. Starbucks, which grew from 100 employees to over 100,000 in just over a decade, provides structures to support improvisation. In a July 1998 Fast Company article on rapid growth. Starbucks chairman Howard Schultz said, “You can’t grow if you’re driven only by process, or only by the creative spirit. You’ve got to achieve a fragile balance between the two sides of the corporate brain.”
Learning organization. Following a four-year study of the Toyota Production System, Steven J. Spear and H. Kent Bowen concluded in Harvard Business Review that the legendary flexibility of Toyota’s operations is due to the way the scientific method is ingrained in its workers not through formal training or manuals (the production system has never been written down) but through unwritten principles that govern how workers work, interact, construct, and learn.
Idea generation. Texas Instruments credits its “Lunatic Fringe” “an informal and amorphous group of IT engineers (and their peers and contacts outside the company),” according to Fortune Magazine for its recent successes. "There's this continuum between total chaos and total order," Gene Frantz, the hub of this informal network, explained to Fortune. “About 95% of the people in TI are total order, and I thank God for them every day, because they create the products that allow me to spend money. I'm down here in total chaos, that total chaos of innovation. As a company we recognize the difference between those two and encourage both to occur."

11.0.Formal organization

11.1.Formal organization is a fixed set of rules of intra-organization procedures and structures. As such, it is usually set out in writing, with a language of rules that ostensibly leave little discretion for interpretation. In some societies and in some organization, such rules may be strictly followed; in others, they may be little more than an empty formalism. File:Reasons for the existence of the formal organization:

To facilitate the accomplishment of the goals of the organization: In a formal organization the work is delegated to each individual of the organization. He/She works towards the attainment of definite goals, which are in compliance with the goals of the organisation.
To facilitate the co-ordination of various activities: The authority, responsibility and accountability of individuals in the organization is very well defined. Hence, facilitating the co-ordination of various activities of the organisation very effectively.
To aid the establishment of logical authority relationship: The responsibilities of the individuals in the organisation are well defined. They have a definite place in the organisation due to a well defined hierarchical structure which is inherent in any formal organisation.
Permit the application of the concept of specialization and division of Labour, division of work amongst individuals according to their capabilities helps in greater specializations and division of work.
Create more group cohesiveness

11.2.Characteristics of a formal organization

Well defined rules and regulation
Arbitrary structure
Determined objectives and policies
Status Symbol
Limitation on the activities of the individual
Strict observance of the principle of Co-ordination

11.3.Distinction from informal organization

Formal rules are often adapted to subjective interests social structures within an enterprise and the personal goals, desires, sympathies and behaviors of the individual workers — so that the practical everyday life of an organization becomes informal. Practical experience shows no organization is ever completely rule-bound: instead, all real organizations represent some mix of formal and informal. Consequently, when attempting to legislate for an organization and to create a formal structure, it is necessary to recognize informal organization in order to create workable structures. However, informal organization can fail, or, if already set in order, can work against mismanagement.

Formal organizations are typically understood to be systems of coordinated and controlled activities that arise when work is embedded in complex networks of technical relations and boundary-spanning exchanges. But in modern societies, formal organizational structures arise in highly institutional contexts. Organizations are driven to incorporate the practices and procedures defined by prevailing rationalized concepts of organizational work and institutionalized in society. Organizations that do so increase their legitimacy and their survival prospects, independent of the immediate efficacy of the acquired practices and procedures. There can develop a tension between on the one hand, the institutionalized products, services, techniques, policies, and programs that function as myths (and may be ceremonially adopted), and efficiency criteria on the other hand. To maintain ceremonial conformity, organizations that reflect institutional rules tend to buffer their formal structures from the uncertainties of the technical activities by developing a loose coupling between their formal structures and actual work activities. - (John Meyer and Brian Rowan, 1976)

11.4.The Hawthorne Experiments

The deviation from rulemaking on a higher level was documented for the first time in the Hawthorne studies (1924-1932) and called informal organization. At first this discovery was ignored and dismissed as the product of avoidable errors, until it finally had to be recognized that these unwritten laws of work of everyday life often had more influence on the fate of the enterprise than those conceived on organizational charts of the executive level. Numerous empirical studies in sociological organization research followed, ever more clearly proving this, particularly during the Human Relations Movement. It is important to analyze informal structures within an enterprise to make use of positive innovations, but also to be able to do away with bad habits that have developed over time.

11.5.Reasons for informal organization

There are many different reasons for informal organization:

Informal standards: personal goals and interests of workers differ from official organizational goals.
Informal communication: changes of communication routes within an enterprise due to personal relations between coworkers.
Informal group: certain groups of coworkers have the same interests, or (for example) the same origin.
Informal leaders: due to charisma and general popularity, certain members of the organization win more influence than originally intended.

Different interests and preferences of coworkers.
Different status of coworkers.
Difficult work requirements.
Unpleasant conditions of work.

Managerial organization theory often still regards informal organization as rather disturbing, but sometimes helpful. In the opinion of systems theory and cybernetics, however, formal organization fades into the background and only serves, if necessary, to supplement or to correct. Changes in structure always redevelop because of the conduct and differences among coworkers, and the ability of self-organization is recognized as a natural characteristic of a social system.

12.0.Organizational culture

12.1.Organizational culture is an idea in the field of Organizational studies and management which describes the psychology, attitudes, experiences, beliefs and values (personal and cultural values) of an organization. It has been defined as "the specific collection of values and norms that are shared by people and groups in an organization and that control the way they interact with each other and with stakeholders outside the organization."

This definition continues to explain organizational values also known as "beliefs and ideas about what kinds of goals members of an organization should pursue and ideas about the appropriate kinds or standards of behavior organizational members should use to achieve these goals. From organizational values develop organizational norms, guidelines or expectations that prescribe appropriate kinds of behavior by employees in particular situations and control the behavior of organizational members towards one another." Organizational culture is not the same as corporate culture. It is wider and deeper concepts, something that an organization 'is' rather than what it 'has' (according to Buchanan and Huczynski ^]"Organizational behaviour: an introductory text" A Huczynski, DA Buchanan - 2007 - Financial Times/Prentice Hall}.

12.2.Corporate culture is the total sum of the values, customs, traditions and meanings that make a company unique. Corporate culture is often called "the character of an organization" since it embodies the vision of the company’s founders. The values of a corporate culture influence the ethical standards within a corporation, as well as managerial behavior. Senior management may try to determine a corporate culture. They may wish to impose corporate values and standards of behavior that specifically reflect the objectives of the organization. In addition, there will also be an extant internal culture within the workforce. Work-groups within the organization have their own behavioral quirks and interactions which, to an extent, affect the whole system. Roger Harrison's four-culture typology, and adapted by Charles Handy, suggests that unlike organizational culture, corporate culture can be 'imported'. For example, computer technicians will have expertise, language and behaviors gained independently of the organization, but their presence can influence the culture of the organization as a whole.

12.3.0.Strong/weak cultures

12.3.1.Strong culture is said to exist where staff respond to stimulus because of their alignment to organizational values. In such environments, strong cultures help firms operate like well-oiled machines, cruising along with outstanding execution and perhaps minor tweaking of existing procedures here and there. Conversely, there is weak culture where there is little alignment with organizational values and control must be exercised through extensive procedures and bureaucracy. Where culture is strong people do things because they believe it is the right thing to do there is a risk of another phenomenon, Groupthink. "Groupthink" was described by Irving L. Janis. He defined it as "...a quick and easy way to refer to a mode of thinking that people engage when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in group, when members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternatives of action." This is a state where people, even if they have different ideas, do not challenge organizational thinking, and therefore there is a reduced capacity for innovative thoughts. This could occur, for example, where there is heavy reliance on a central charismatic figure in the organization, or where there is an evangelical belief in the organization’s values, or also in groups where a friendly climate is at the base of their identity (avoidance of conflict). In fact group think is very common, it happens all the time, in almost every group. Members that are defiant are often turned down or seen as a negative influence by the rest of the group, because they bring conflict.

Innovative organizations need individuals who are prepared to challenge the status quo—be it groupthink or bureaucracy, and also need procedures to implement new ideas effectively.

12.4.0.Typologies of organizational cultures

Several methods have been used to classify organizational culture. Some are described below:

12.4.1.Geert Hofstadter

Geert Hofstadter demonstrated that there are national and regional cultural groupings that affect the behavior of organizations.

Hofstede looked for national differences between over 100,000 of IBM's employees in different parts of the world, in an attempt to find aspects of culture that might influence business behavior.

Hofstede identified five dimensions of culture in his study of national influences:

Power distance - The degree to which a society expects there to be differences in the levels of power. A high score suggests that there is an expectation that some individuals wield larger amounts of power than others. A low score reflects the view that all people should have equal rights.
Uncertainty avoidance reflects the extent to which a society accepts uncertainty and risk.
Individualism vs. collectivism - individualism is contrasted with collectivism, and refers to the extent to which people are expected to stand up for themselves, or alternatively act predominantly as a member of the group or organization. However, recent researches have shown that high individualism may not necessarily mean low collectivism, and vice versa.Research indicates that the two concepts are actually unrelated. Some people and cultures might have both high individualism and high collectivism, for example. Someone who highly values duty to his or her group does not necessarily give a low priority to personal freedom and self-sufficiency
Masculinity vs. femininity - refers to the value placed on traditionally male or female values. Male values for example include competitiveness, assertiveness, ambition, and the accumulation of wealth and material possessions.
Long vs. short term orientation - describes a society's "time horizon," or the importance attached to the future versus the past and present. In long term oriented societies, thrift and perseverance are valued more; in short term oriented societies, respect for tradition and reciprocation of gifts and favors are valued more. Eastern nations tend to score especially high here, with Western nations scoring low and the less developed nations very low; China scored highest and Pakistan lowest.

12.5.Deal and Kennedy

Deal and Kennedy defined organizational culture as the way things get done around here. They measured organizations in respect of:

Feedback - quick feedback means an instant response. This could be in monetary terms, but could also be seen in other ways, such as the impact of a great save in a soccer match.
Risk - represents the degree of uncertainty in the organization’s activities.

Using these parameters, they were able to suggest four classifications of organizational culture:

The Tough-Guy Macho Culture. Feedback is quick and the rewards are high. This often applies to fast moving financial activities such as brokerage, but could also apply to a police force, or athletes competing in team sports. This can be a very stressful culture in which to operate.
The Work Hard/Play Hard Culture is characterized by few risks being taken, all with rapid feedback. This is typical in large organizations, which strive for high quality customer service. It is often characterized by team meetings, jargon and buzzwords.
The Bet your Company Culture, where big stakes decisions are taken, but it may be years before the results are known. Typically, these might involve development or exploration projects, which take years to come to fruition, such as oil prospecting or military aviation.
The Process Culture occurs in organizations where there is little or no feedback. People become bogged down with how things are done not with what is to be achieved. This is often associated with bureaucracies. While it is easy to criticize these cultures for being overly cautious or bogged down in red tape, they do produce consistent results, which is ideal in, for example, public services.

12.6.Charles Handy

Charles Handy (1985) popularized the 1972 work of Roger Harrison of looking at culture which some scholars have used to link organizational structure to organizational culture. He describes Harrison's four types thus:

A Power Culture which concentrates power among a few. Control radiates from the center like a web. Power Cultures have few rules and little bureaucracy; swift decisions can ensue.
In a Role Culture, people have clearly delegated authorities within a highly defined structure. Typically, these organizations form hierarchical bureaucracies. Power derives from a person's position and little scope exists for expert power.
By contrast, in a Task Culture, teams are formed to solve particular problems. Power derives from expertise as long as a team requires expertise. These cultures often feature the multiple reporting lines of a matrix structure.
A Person Culture exists where all individuals believe themselves superior to the organization. Survival can become difficult for such organizations, since the concept of an organization suggests that a group of like-minded individuals pursue the organizational goals. Some professional partnerships can operate as person cultures, because each partner brings a particular expertise and clientele to the firm.

12.7.Edgar Schein

Edgar Schein, defines organizational culture as:

"A pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way you perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems".

According to Schein, culture is the most difficult organizational attribute to change, outlasting organizational products, services, founders and leadership and all other physical attributes of the organization. His organizational model illuminates culture from the standpoint of the observer, described by three cognitive levels of organizational culture.

At the first and most cursory level of Schein's model is organizational attributes that can be seen, felt and heard by the uninitiated observer - collectively known as artifacts. Included are the facilities, offices, furnishings, visible awards and recognition, the way that its members dress, how each person visibly interacts with each other and with organizational outsiders, and even company slogans, mission statements and other operational creeds.

The next level deals with the professed culture of an organization's members - the values. At this level, local and personal values are widely expressed within the organization. Organizational behavior at this level usually can be studied by interviewing the organization's membership and using questionnaires to gather attitudes about organizational membership.

At the third and deepest level, the organization's tacit assumptions are found. These are the elements of culture that are unseen and not cognitively identified in everyday interactions between organizational members. Additionally, these are the elements of culture which are often taboo to discuss inside the organization. Many of these 'unspoken rules' exist without the conscious knowledge of the membership. Those with sufficient experience to understand this deepest level of organizational culture usually become acclimatized to its attributes over time, thus reinforcing the invisibility of their existence. Surveys and casual interviews with organizational members cannot draw out these attributes--rather much more in-depth means is required to first identify then understand organizational culture at this level. Notably, culture at this level is the underlying and driving element often missed by organizational behaviorists.

Using Schein's model, understanding paradoxical organizational behaviors becomes more apparent. For instance, an organization can profess highly aesthetic and moral standards at the second level of Schein's model while simultaneously displaying curiously opposing behavior at the third and deepest level of culture. Superficially, organizational rewards can imply one organizational norm but at the deepest level imply something completely different. This insight offers an understanding of the difficulty that organizational newcomers have in assimilating organizational culture and why it takes time to become acclimatized. It also explains why organizational change agents usually fail to achieve their goals: underlying tacit cultural norms are generally not understood before would-be change agents begin their actions. Merely understanding culture at the deepest level may be insufficient to institute cultural change because the dynamics of interpersonal relationships (often under threatening conditions) are added to the dynamics of organizational culture while attempts are made to institute desired change.

13.0.Theoretical Knowledge of Organizational Behavior

The high visibility of certain formulations that are clearly closer to philosophy than to scientific theory has led some to question whether organizational behavior truly possesses any theories at all (Tosi, 1984). This negative position has received additional support from some individuals, a number of them scientists who place very little stock in theory building in any event and prefer the slow but solid pace of unswerving empiricism. Yet there do appear to be a number of real scientific theories that deal with organizations or at least explanations so advanced that not to call them theories is something of a quibble. This is not to say that these theories are necessarily and entirely valid; some of them have not been fully tested. But overall they have contributed substantially to our knowledge of organizations. Alternatively, there is a rather sizable body of literature that raises serious objections to the scientific concepts we have been considering. If one follows these views, a quite different picture of our theoretical knowledge of organizational behavior emerges.

13.1.Objections to Scientific Dictates

A common method of dealing with antithetical positions is to simply ignore them and thus avoid the need to cite them or to consider the views at all (Martin & Frost, 1996). I clearly could do this here. Yet the concept of science that is set forth in the preceding pages is what underlies the whole field of organizational behavior, and to simply ignore objections to it does not appear to be either intellectually honest or to truly reflect the reality of the times.

13.2.Frontal Attacks

One “contra” position is that science as a whole, and certainly the organizational behavior part of it, has not proven convincing as a superior form of knowledge, that new narratives and new epistemologies are needed to supersede science, and that basically science has had its day and now has run out of steam (Burrell, 1996). This is an across-the-board dismissal, and it applies to all aspects of science. In my opinion, this line of assault requires an equally direct response. Given the realities of the world around us, such arguments for the demise of science make no sense and are best lumped with similar “end of the world” scenarios.

In addition to such blanket attacks, a number of more specific objections have been raised, and they typically focus on some individual aspect of scientific theory or research. One such approach is to challenge the various assumptions of science (Kilduff & Mehra, 1997). For instance, the argument may be that natural groupings of organizations, groups, and individuals do not occur that uniqueness is everywhere and thus generalization from samples is not warranted. Another such argument is that things change so fast that the stability and constancy science requires is nonexistent; science gives way to journalism the recording and detailed and explaining of fleeting phenomena. Yet another challenge asserts either that events are not determined, and thus cause and effect relationships do not exist, or that social science, as distinct from natural science is concerned with meanings and significance, not causes. Finally, the trustworthiness of human pro-present cresses of perception, memory, or reasoning may be questioned, thus introducing challenges to the observation and experience on which science is based. Advocates of these positions tend to give more credence to qualitative research than to quantitative. Qualitative research is accordingly moved from its role as an adjunct to inductive theory building to a central role in theory testing. Other objections are concerned with the objectivity and relevance of scientific research (Behring, 1980). These views emphasize the fact that people as the subjects of research react differently when they become aware of the researchers' hypotheses or when they experience a feeling of being controlled in the experimental situation; thus the research process itself poses a threat to generalization. Alternatively, research studies, especially laboratory studies, may be viewed as lacking the realism required for generalization. Objections of these kinds seem to assert that all organizational behavior research is bad research and that States, researchers cannot overcome these threats to their findings through creative methodologies. Data such as those summarized in Edwin Locke (1986) on the close proximity of laboratory and field research findings are totally ignored.

13.3.Values and Knowledge

Values are conceptions of good and bad that tend to carry with them a great deal of emotion. They attach to certain ideas and patterns of behavior, and they provoke behavior consistent with the values as well.

13.4.Values in Organizational Behavior

Organizational behavior appears to have been influenced by two primary value dimensions throughout much of its history. One dimension extends from humanistic to scientific values. In recent years the humanistic pole increasingly has been joined by the often similar values of postmodernism and its siblings. The other dimension is essentially disciplinary in origin. At one end is psychology, while the other end is anchored primarily in sociology, joined on occasion by anthropology, political science, and economics. Basically, these are values related to micro and macro levels of analysis. This latter disciplinary dimension has undergone some transformation over the years. In an earlier period, the dimension ranged from behavioral science (dominated in large part by psychology) to classical management theory. As classical theory has faded from the scene ( Miner, 1995), the value differentiation involved has been replaced by one within the behavioral science designation itself. At present, it appears to be particularly concerned with variations in the value placed on the study of individuals in organizations (House, Shane, & Herold, 1996; Nord & Fox, 1996).

Values of these kinds can play a useful role in theory construction, in part by focusing attention on specific areas of endeavor, and in part by motivating concerted efforts to construct theories that end by fostering understanding and prediction. However, values other than those that foster objectivity, have no place in the conduct of research and thus in testing theory. To the extent they might intervene at this stage, replications of initial studies should serve to identify them. Finally, values can reappear in the evaluation segment of the overall theory process, the part that involves reaching a consensus among knowledgeable scholars regarding the goodness of a theory, and thus the contribution to knowledge involved (Miner, 1990). The result is that people with different values may evaluate through different lenses; as a consequence, consensus may be hard to obtain.

13.5.Dispositions versus Situations—A Value-Laden Controversy

An example of how values may produce different views and impede consensus is provided by the dispute over the study of individuals in organizations that was previously noted. This dispute simmered over a period of 10 years or more (Alderfer, 1977; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1977, 1978;; Salancik, 1984; Stone, 1984; Stone & Gueutal, 1984) before bursting into flame (DavisBlake & Pfeffer, 1989). Dispositions are defined as unobservable mental states (constructs) such as needs, values, attitudes, and personalities that are relatively stable over time and that, to varying degrees, serve as determinants of attitudes and behavior in organizations. The argument is that dispositions are a mirage and therefore the only significant determinants of individual organizational behavior are situational in nature. Thus an antithesis is created, pitting psychological constructs against sociological. More recently, Walter Nord and Suzy Fox (1996) have authored an essay with the thesis that the individual (and individual personality) has disappeared from organizational behavior, being replaced by a contextual dimension consisting of attributes of the physical and social systems in which people exist (situations). The intent is to document the view that theories and research dealing with individual personality and dispositions have lost status, to the point where organizational behavior is no longer interested in individual differences (and by implication should not be). There is reason to believe that this second attack from the sociological perspective may leave something to be desired in its coverage of the personality-related literature, but as an attack by fait accompli, it clearly reveals the values of the authors. These position statements from the situationalist perspective have not gone unanswered. In defense of the dispositional view, Jennifer George (1992) has organization offered a detailed consideration of much of the theory and research supporting an important role for personality in organizational behavior. House et al. (1996) also make a strong case for the retention of personality based perspectives. The following quotation appears to present a more balanced view of the issues and leaves the door open to both types of theory and research. It provides an instance of how extreme values may be reconciled and consensus thereby achieved.

Personality is important for understanding at least certain classes of organizational phenomena. Obviously, this does not imply that situational factors are unimportant. Rather, it suggests that organizations do not stamp out all individual differences; being a member of an organization does not neutralize or negate one's own enduring predispositions to think, feel, and act in certain ways. An extreme situationalist perspective denies organizational participants their individuality and exaggerates organizations' abilities to manipulate and control their members. Likewise, an extreme dispositional position credits too much power to the individual and ignores important situational influences on feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. Hence, personality and situational factors are needed to understand much of organizational life. (George, 1992, pp. 205–206)

13.7.Role of Consensus

Threats to a unified science of organizational behavior take two major forms those that relate specifically to science, including its theory and method, and those that impair unity by jeopardizing the creation of a stable and widely recognized body of knowledge that might be presented to practitioners as a basis for their actions. The latter is the concern of this discussion.

13.8.The Consensus Problem

A lack of consensus appears to exist in the field of organizational behavior, and as a result the field's limited amount of hard knowledge is often bemoaned. The evidence is there, but the consensus of knowledgeable scholars that makes it knowledge often is out of reach because conflicting values block the way. Testimony to this effect is not hard to find. In the introduction to his volume dealing with organizational behavior's conceptual base, Edwin Hartman (1988) discusses this fragmentation using terms such as “disarray, ” “no consensus, ” “conflict, ” “disunity, ” and “disagreements. ” The authors of a more recent handbook of the field (Clegg et al., 1996) use their introduction to paint a picture that presents organizational behavior as infused with controversy and partisan politics; this latter volume appears in its own way to contribute to the fragmentation as well, even to extol it. A well-argued treatment of the consensus problem is by Pfeiffer (1993), and it subsequently has sparked a great deal of debate pro and con. The thesis of this essay is that when sciences have developed shared theoretical structures and methodological approaches about which there is substantial consensus, these sciences and their members have experienced a number of positive consequences, including increased allocations of monetary and other resources. Organizational behavior, being fragmented as it is, holds a position low in the pecking order when rewards and resources are distributed among the sciences. In short, we are not viewed as doing a very good job, and this is true because of our lack of consensus. Pfeffer argues that consensus can be attained through the efforts of an elite network of individuals who use political positions and processes to impose a uniformity of view on a discipline. He seems to say that this should happen in organizational behavior. This appeal for consensus is reiterated in a later report (Pfeffer, 1995), but it is apparent that he prefers consensus around certain theoretical positions over others. Not surprisingly, a number of organizational behaviorists jumped up to dispute Pfeffer on a variety of grounds (Cannella & Paetzold, 1994; Perrow, 1994; Van Maanen, 1995a, 1995b). In general, the thrust of these views is that consensus is not really a desirable goal after all and that enforced consensus is particularly undesirable. Tolerance for diverse approaches, theories, and methods should not be suppressed, and in any event there is no one best way that clearly deserves a dominant position. On occasion, this rebuttal is mixed with a substantial dose of anti-science rhetoric (Van Maanen, 1995b). All this having been said, it remains true that science relies on some degree of consensus among knowledgeable scholars and that science has proved over and over again that its methods can advance understanding, prediction, and control to the benefit of human society. Certainly, some degree of “disconsensus” can be absorbed and innovative, creative contributions should not just be tolerated but be supported. The questions are how much consensus is needed and in what areas; these are empirical questions, as Pfeffer (1995) notes. It is amazing, once the emotions that values arouse are activated, how difficult it is to see the balanced, middle ground. For a balanced discussion of these issues from a perspective tempered by the passage of time, see Frances Fabian (2000).

14.0.Systems thinking

14.1.A system thinking is the process of predicting, on the basis of anything at all, how something influences another thing. It has been defined as an approach to problem solving, by viewing "problems" as parts of an overall system, rather than reacting to present outcomes or events and potentially contributing to further development of the undesired issue or problem. Systems thinking is a framework that is based on the belief that the component parts of a system can best be understood in the context of relationships with each other and with other systems, rather than in isolation. Systems thinking's focus is on effect, not cause. However, the notion of "systems" has been used by the scientific community who have re-defined "systems thinking" as being focused on "cause" rather than "effect". In science systems, the only way to fully understand why a problem or element occurs and persists is to understand the part in relation to the whole. Standing in contrast to Descartes's scientific reductionism and philosophical analysis, it proposes to view systems in a holistic manner. Consistent with systems philosophy, systems thinking concerns an understanding of a system by examining the linkages and interactions between the elements that compose the entirety of the system. Science systems thinking attempts to illustrate that events are separated by distance and time and that small catalytic events can cause large changes in complex systems. Acknowledging that an improvement in one area of a system can adversely affect another area of the system, it promotes organizational communication at all levels in order to avoid the silo effect. Systems thinking techniques may be used to study any kind of system natural, scientific, engineered, human, or conceptual.

14.2.The concept of a system

Science systems thinkers consider that:

a system is a dynamic and complex whole, interacting as a structured functional unit;
energy, material and information flow among the different elements that compose the system;
a system is a community situated within an environment;
energy, material and information flow from and to the surrounding environment via semi-permeable membranes or boundaries;
systems are often composed of entities seeking equilibrium but can exhibit oscillating, chaotic, or exponential behavior.

A holistic system is any set (group) of interdependent or temporally interacting parts. Parts are generally systems themselves and are composed of other parts, just as systems are generally parts or holons of other systems.

Science systems and the application of science systems thinking has been grouped into three categories based on the techniques used to tackle a system:

Hard systems — involving simulations, often using computers and the techniques of operations research. Useful for problems that can justifiably be quantified. However it cannot easily take into account unquantifiable variables (opinions, culture, politics, etc), and may treat people as being passive, rather than having complex motivations.
Soft systems — For systems that cannot easily be quantified, especially those involving people holding multiple and conflicting frames of reference. Useful for understanding motivations, viewpoints, and interactions and addressing qualitative as well as quantitative dimensions of problem situations. Soft systems are a field that utilizes foundation methodological work developed by Peter Checkland, Brian Wilson and their colleagues at Lancaster University. Morphological analysis is a complementary method for structuring and analysing non-quantifiable problem complexes.
Evolutionary systems Béla H. Bánáthy developed a methodology that is applicable to the design of complex social systems. This technique integrates critical systems inquiry with soft systems methodologies. Evolutionary systems, similar to dynamic systems are understood as open, complex systems, but with the capacity to evolve over time. Bánáthy uniquely integrated the interdisciplinary perspectives of systems research (including chaos, complexity, cybernetics), cultural anthropology, evolutionary theory, and others.

15.0.System approach

The term "systems" is derived from the Greek word "synistanai," which means "to bring together or combine." The term has been used for centuries. Components of the organizational concepts referred to as the "systems approach" have been used to manage armies and governments for millennia. However, it was not until the Industrial Revolution of the 19th and 20th centuries that formal recognition of the "systems" approach to management, philosophy, and science emerged (Whitehead 1925, von Bertalanffy 1968). As the level of precision and efficiency demanded of technology, science, and management increased the complexity of industrial processes, it became increasingly necessary to develop a conceptual basis to avoid being overwhelmed by complexity. The systems approach emerged as scientists and philosophers identified common themes in the approach to managing and organizing complex systems. Four major concepts underlie the systems approach:

Specialization: A system is divided into smaller components allowing more specialized concentration on each component.
Grouping: To avoid generating greater complexity with increasing specialization, it becomes necessary to group related disciplines or sub-disciplines.
Coordination: As the components and subcomponents of a system are grouped, it is necessary to coordinate the interactions among groups.
Emergent properties: Dividing a system into subsystems (groups of component parts within the system), requires recognizing and understanding the "emergent properties" of a system; that is, recognizing why the system as a whole is greater than the sum of its parts. For example, two forest stands may contain the same tree species, but the spatial arrangement and size structure of the individual trees will create different habitats for wildlife species. In this case, an emergent property of each stand is the wildlife habitat.

15.1.What is a system?

The systems approach considers two basic components: elements and processes. ELEMENTS are measurable things that can be linked together. They are also called objects, events, patterns, or structures. PROCESSES change elements from one form to another. They may also be called activities, relations, or functions. In a system the elements or processes are grouped in order to reduce the complexity of the system for conceptual or applied purposes. Depending on the system's design, groups and the interfaces between groups can be either elements or processes. Because elements or processes are grouped, there is variation within each group. Understanding the nature of this variation is central to the application of systems theory to problem-solving.

Ecosystems are composed of elements and processes. (These are usually referred to as ecosystem structures and functions or the patterns and processes of an ecosystem.) As an example, the elements of a forest ecosystem might include trees, shrubs, herbs, birds, and insects, while the processes might include growth, mortality, decomposition, and disturbances.

15.2.Open vs. Closed Systems

Some systems are open with respect to certain elements or processes (e.g., figure below). The elements or processes can flow into or out of the system. For example, an automobile engine is “open” with respect to gasoline--gasoline flows in and exhausts (oxidized gasoline) flows out.

Other systems are closed with respect to certain elements or processes (e.g., figure below). The elements or processes do not leave the system. For example, an automobile engine is largely "closed" with respect to lubricating oil--the oil does not leave the engine.

The system approach views the organization as a unified, purposeful system composed of interrelated parts. This way the manager can look at the organization as a whole or part of the larger outside environment. Activities of any part affect all other parts of the organization.

16.0.Understanding of Organizational Behavior (OB)

Organizational Behavior (OB) is the study and application of knowledge about how people, individuals, and groups act in organizations. It does this by taking a system approach. That is, it interprets people-organization relationships in terms of the whole
person, whole group, whole organization, and whole social system. Its purpose is to build better relationships by achieving human objectives, organizational objectives, and social objectives. As you can see from the definition above, organizational behavior encompasses a wide range of topics, such as human behavior, change, leadership, teams, etc. Since many of these topics are covered elsewhere in the leadership guide, this paper will focus on a few parts of OB: elements, models, social systems, OD, work life, action learning, and change.

16.1.Elements of Organizational Behavior

The organization's base rests on management's philosophy, values, vision and goals. This in turn drives the organizational culture which is composed of the formal organization, informal organization, and the social environment. The culture determines the type of leadership, communication, and group dynamics within the organization. The workers perceive this as the quality of work life which directs their degree of motivation. The final outcome are performance, individual satisfaction, and personal growth and development. All these elements combine to build the model or framework that the organization operates from.

16.2.Models of Organizational Behavior

There are four major models or frameworks that organizations operate out of:

Autocratic - The basis of this model is power with a managerial orientation of authority. The employees in turn are oriented towards obedience and dependence on the boss. The employee need that is met is subsistence. The performance result is minimal.
Custodial - The basis of this model is economic resources with a managerial orientation of money. The employees in turn are oriented towards security and benefits and dependence on the organization. The employee need that is met is security. The performance result is passive cooperation.
Supportive - The basis of this model is leadership with a managerial orientation of support. The employees in turn are oriented towards job performance and participation. The employee need that is met is status and recognition. The performance result is awakened drives.
Collegial - The basis of this model is partnership with a managerial orientation of teamwork. The employees in turn are oriented towards responsible behavior and self-discipline. The employee need that is met is self-actualization. The performance result is moderate enthusiasm.

Although there are four separate models, almost no organization operates exclusively in one. There will usually be a predominate one, with one or more areas over-lapping in the other models.

The first model, autocratic, has its roots in the industrial revolution. The managers of this type of organization operate out of McGregor's Theory X. The next three models begin to build on McGregor's Theory Y. They have each evolved over a period of time and there is no one "best" model. The collegial model should not be thought as the last or best model, but the beginning of a new model or paradigm.

16.3.Social Systems, Culture, and Individualization

A social system is a complex set of human relationships interacting in many ways. Within an organization, the social system includes all the people in it and their relationships to each other and to the outside world. The behavior of one member can have an impact, either directly or indirectly, on the behavior of others. Also, the social system does not have boundaries...it exchanges goods, ideas, culture, etc. with the environment around it.

Culture is the conventional behavior of a society that encompasses beliefs, customs, knowledge, and practices. It influences human behavior, even though it seldom enters into their conscious thought. People depend on culture as it gives them stability, security, understanding, and the ability to respond to a given situation. This is why people fear change. They fear the system will become unstable, their security will be lost, they will not understand the new process, and they will not know how to respond to the new situations.

Individualization is when employees successfully exert influence on the social system by challenging the culture.

16.4.Impact of Individualization on Organization

Conformity Creative Individualism

Isolation Rebellion

High

Socialization

Low
Low Individualization High

The chart above (Schein, 1968) shows how individualization affects different organizations:

Too little socialization and too little individualization creates isolation.
Too high socialization and too little individualization creates conformity.
Too little socialization and too high individualization creates rebellion.
While the match that organizations want to create is high socialization and high individualization for a creative environment.

This is what it takes to survive in a very competitive environment having people grow with the organization, but doing the right thing when others want to follow the easy path.

This can become quite a balancing act. Individualism favors individual rights, loosely knit social networks, self respect, and personal rewards and careers. It becomes look out for number 1! Socialization or collectivism favors the group, harmony, and asks "What is best for the organization?" Organizations need people to challenge, question, and experiment while still maintaining the culture that binds them into a social system.

16.5.Organizational Development

Organization Development (OD) is the systematic application of behavioral science knowledge at various levels, such as group, inter-group, organization, etc., to bring about planned change. Its objectives is a higher quality of work-life, productivity, adaptability, and effectiveness. It accomplishes this by changing attitudes, behaviors, values, strategies, procedures, and structures
so that the organization can adapt to competitive actions, technological advances, and the fast pace of change within the environment.

16.6.There are seven characteristics of OD:

· Humanistic Values: Positive beliefs about the potential of employees (McGregor's Theory Y).

· Systems Orientation: All parts of the organization, to include structure, technology, and people, must work together.

· Experiential Learning: The learners' experiences in the training environment should be the kind of human problems they encounter at work. The training should NOT be all theory and lecture.

· Problem Solving: Problems are identified, data is gathered, corrective action is taken, progress is assessed, and adjustments in the problem solving process are made as needed. This process is known as Action Research.

· Contingency Orientation: Actions are selected and adapted to fit the need.

· Change Agent: Stimulate, facilitate, and coordinate change.

· Levels of Interventions: Problems can occur at one or more level in the organization so the strategy will require one or more interventions.

16.7.Quality of Work Life

Quality of Work Life (QWL) is the favorableness or unfavorableness of the job environment. Its purpose is to develop jobs and working conditions that are excellent for both the employees and the organization. One of the ways of accomplishing QWL is through job design. Some of the options available for improving job design are:

Leave the job as is but employ only people who like the rigid environment or routine work. Some people do enjoy the security and task support of these kinds of jobs.
Leave the job as is, but pay the employees more.
Mechanize and automate the routine jobs.
And the area that OD loves - redesign the job.

When redesigning jobs there are two spectrums to follow - job enlargement and job enrichment. Job enlargement adds a more variety of tasks and duties to the job so that it is not as monotonous. This takes in the breadth of the job. That is, the number of different tasks that an employee performs. This can also be accomplished by job rotation.

Job enrichment, on the other hand, adds additional motivators. It adds depth to the job - more control, responsibility, and discretion to how the job is performed. This gives higher order needs to the employee, as opposed to job enlargement which simply gives more variety. The chart below (Cunningham & Eberle, 1990) illustrates the differences:

16.8.Job Enrichment and Job Performance

Job

Enrichment Job Enrichment and

Enlargement

Routine

Job Job

Enlargement

Higher order

Accent to Needs

Lower order
Few variety of Task Many

16.9.The benefits of enriching jobs include:

Growth of the individual
Individuals have better job satisfaction
Self-actualization of the individual
Better employee performance for the organization
Organization gets intrinsically motivated employees
Less absenteeism, turnover, and grievances for the organization
Full use of human resources for society
Society gains more effective organizations

There are a variety of methods for improving job enrichment (Hackman and Oldham, 1975):

Skill Variety: Perform different tasks that require different skill. This differs from job enlargement which might require the employee to perform more tasks, but require the same set of skills.
Task Identity: Create or perform a complete piece of work. This gives a sense of completion and responsibility for the product.
Task Significant: This is the amount of impact that the work has on other people as the employee perceives.
Autonomy: This gives employees discretion and control over job related decisions.
Feedback: Information that tells workers how well they are performing. It can come directly from the job (task feedback) or verbally form someone else.

16.10.Action Learning

An unheralded British academic was invited to try out his theories in Belgium -- it led to an upturn in the Belgian economy. "Unless your ideas are ridiculed by experts they are worth nothing," says the British academic Reg Revans, creator of action learning [L = P + Q] -- learning occurs through a combination of programmed knowledge
(P) and the ability to ask insightful questions (Q). Action learning has been widely used in Europe for combining formal management training with learning from experience. A typical program is conducted over a period of 6 to 9 months. Teams of learners with diverse backgrounds conduct field projects on complex organizational problems requiring use of skills learned in formal training sessions. The learning teams then meet periodically with a skilled instructor to discuss, analyze, and learn from their experiences. Revans basis his learning method on a theory called "System Beta," in that the learning process should closely approximate the "scientific method." The model is cyclical - you proceed through the steps and when you reach the last step you relate the analysis to the original hypothesis and if need be, start the process again.
16.11.The six steps are:

Formulate Hypothesis (an idea or concept)
Design Experiment (consider ways of testing truth or
validity of idea or concept)
Apply in Practice (put into effect, test of validity or
truth)
Observe Results (collect and process data on outcomes of
test)
Analyze Results (make sense of data)
Compare Analysis (relate analysis to original hypothesis)

Note that you do not always have to enter this process at step 1, but you do have to complete the process. Revans suggest that all human learning at the individual level
occurs through this process. Note that it covers what Jim Stewart (Managing Change Through Training and Development, 1991) calls the levels of existence:

We think - cognitive domain
We feel - affective domain
We do - action domain

All three levels are interconnected e.g. what we think influences and is influenced by what we do and feel.

16.12.Change

In its simplest form, discontinuity in the work place is "change." A popular change framework is Knoster, Villa, & Thousand: Vision - Skills -Incentives - Resources -Action Plan = Change

A vision is the starting point for goals it provides provides the launch pad for action and the parameters for problem-solving.
Once a vision is established, it is necessary to build skills needed to realize the vision.
Incentives help to motivate the workforce to acquire and maintain new skills. Building "buy-in" engages them -- it means they are now stake-holders.
Adequate resources allow the vision to be achieved.

Action Planning is a continuous thread across all phases it is change process. Although presented as the final component of the change framework, it should be viewed as the foundation of the systems change process.

16.13.0.Missing Steps

16.13.1.What happens if you miss a step?

Vision -> Skills -> Incentives -> Resources -> Action Plan = Confusion

Vision -Skills - Incentives -Resources -Action Plan = Anxiety

Vision -> Skills -> Incentives -> Resources -> Action Plan = Gradual Change

Vision -> Skills -> Incentives -> Resources -> Action Plan = Frustration

Vision -> Skills -> Incentives -> Resources -> Action Plan = Treadmill Effect (false starts)

17.0.Studying the Behavior of People at work

Why do employees behave as they do in organizations? Why is one group or individual more productive than another? Why do organizations continually seek ways to delegate authority and empower their employees? These and similar questions are important to successfully managing behavior in today’s organizations. Understanding the behavior of people in organizations has become increasingly important as management concerns such as individual and team productivity, job stress, and career progression continue to make headlines.

At its core, OB is interesting because it is about people and human nature. OB does not have to be exotic to be interesting. Anyone who has negotiated with a recalcitrant bureaucrat or had a really excellent boss has probably wondered what made them behave the way they did. Organizational behavior provides the tools to find out why.

Organizational behavior is important to leaders, managers, employees, and consumers; and understanding it can make us more effective leaders, managers, employees, and consumers. Organizational leaders and managers in organizations are challenged by many changes occurring within and outside their organizations. Increased calls for change and a more diverse workforce points out that organizational leaders are being asked to perform effectively in a changing world. Organizations are also expected to efficiently use and manage the available information technology so that they can compete globally.

Employees were not always so valued as they are today. Today’s sense of caring about individuals has evolved over the years. Many of history’s great philosophers have contributed to our understanding of leading or managing behavior in organizations. Niccolò Machiavelli, a sixteenth-century Florentine statesman and political theorist, wrote The Prince, a cynical guide to ruling people. He assumed that all people were lazy and self-centered and that tricking them into working made good sense. Machiavelli believed that the end justified the means. Indeed, we have come to associate his name with the process of manipulation. Thus, an individual utilizing his principle is called “Machiavellian.”

Throughout history, people were members of various classes. Some were rulers (kings, nobles, and trusted aristocrats) and many more were followers. If one assumed that people of lower social status should be subservient, management of them would likely rely on exerting power or force. Managers with such assumptions did not give much thought to the importance of human relations as a means of effectively managing people—after all, lower-class people were seen as barely human.

The eventual breakdown of the rigid class system with the advent of democratic thinking called for new and different ways to manage. The notion that people are “created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights,” as Thomas Jefferson asserted, was a radically different way of thinking about people and human relationships. Today’s successful organizations and managers must be concerned with the “people element” instead of dictating to their employees as the ancient aristocrats did.

Managers today must continue to find ways to better manage the behavior of people in their organizations. Today, the field of OB is filled with a rich variety of approaches. It is interesting to examine the various ways of viewing employee behavior that have emerged over the years. Taking a historical perspective on attitudes toward employee behavior helps us both understand where the management of organizational behavior stands today and visualize the directions it may take in the future.

The interest in questions such as the nature of leadership, how to motivate people, how to solve interpersonal conflicts, and how to develop effective teams is timeless. We say “timeless” because of the fundamental issues in managing organizational behavior—the rapidly changing workplace notwithstanding aren’t new. In fact, the roots of trying to manage organizational behavior go back thousands of years.

For example, ancient Chinese emperors grappled with how to efficiently organize a vast workforce of civil servants. In the Roman Empire, experiments with tenure-based wage classifications (what are called tiered wage systems today) created problems. But we’ll spare you the details of some 4,000 years of history—you can pursue that on your own. The importance is that concerns about OB have always been with us.

In the next section, we’ll jump ahead with our time line to the late 1800s in the United States, to what is referred to as the Industrial Revolution and Scientific Management the roots of OB.

17.1.Three Levels of Analysis: Individuals, Groups, and Organizations

To appreciate behavior in organizations, researchers and specialists in OB cannot focus exclusively on individuals acting alone. After all, in organizational settings, people frequently work together in groups and increasingly in teams. Furthermore, people whether alone or in groups both influence and are influenced by their work environment. Therefore, OB focuses on three distinct levels of analysis: individuals, groups, and organizations.

The field of OB recognizes that all three levels of analysis must be used to comprehend fully the complex dynamics of behavior in organizations. Careful attention to all three levels is a central theme of modern OB and is fully reflected in this book. For example, at the individual level, we describe how OB and managers are concerned with individual perceptions, attitudes, and personality. At the group level, we describe how people communicate with each other and coordinate their activities in work groups and teams. Finally, at the organizational level, we describe organizations as a whole the way they are structured and operate in their environments, and the effects of their operations on their employees.

17.2.Scientific Management

During the late 1800s some of the earliest attempts to study behavior in organizations came out of a desire to improve worker productivity. During that time period, several famous “experiments” in human behavior were conducted in organizations. Robert Owen, for example, was a textile manufacturer who experimented with “innovations” such as providing breaks and hot meals for his employees. Likewise, the Pullman factory was seen by many as innovative in its day. Today, of course, what was viewed as an attractive workplace in the 1800s comes across as laughable. For example, at the Boston Herald in the 1870s, a company rule stated that “men employees will be given an evening off each week for courting purposes, or two evenings a week if they go regularly to church” (“8 rules for office workers,” 1997).

The Industrial Revolution of the nineteenth century brought about many radical changes in the management of employees as experts in industrial efficiency grappled with the question: What could be done to get people to do more work in less time? In contrast to the work of craftspeople of earlier times, work became centrally located in factories. It was not particularly surprising that attempts to answer this question were made at the dawn of the twentieth century. This was a period of rapid industrialization and technological change in the United States. As engineers attempted to make machines more efficient, extending their efforts to work on the human side of the equation—making people more productive—was only natural. Especially since jobs required less skill because machines controlled produc- tion processes. Given this history, it should not be surprising that the earliest people to receive credit for their contributions to OB were industrial engineers.

Though production increased dramatically, other results of these sweeping changes were not all positive. Some writers, most notably Adam Smith and Karl Marx, pointed out that simplification of work processes beyond a certain point could have diminishing returns and produce feelings of alienation in workers.

Although we recognize the significance of these criticisms of work simplification today, the industrialists of the early twentieth century were not yet ready to do so. They preferred an engineering approach to managing worker behavior called scientific management. Scientific management, developed by Frederick Taylor, called for the detailed analysis of tasks and time-and-motion studies in conjunction with piece-rate pay schemes in order to improve productivity. Believers in scientific management searched for the “one best way” to perform a task. They introduced standard parts and procedures. In the extreme, the scientific management approach subscribes to the belief that one single best solution exists for a given situation.

Beyond identifying ways in which manual labor could be performed more efficiently, Taylor’s scientific management approach was unique in its focus on the role of employees as individuals. Taylor advocated two ideas that hardly seem special today but were quite new a century ago. First, he recommended that employees be carefully selected and trained to perform their jobs—helping them become, in his own words, “first-class” at some task. Second, he believed that increasing workers’ wages would raise their motivation and, in turn, their productivity. Although this idea is unsophisticated by today’s standards—and also is not completely accurate—Taylor may be credited with recognizing the important role of motivation in job performance. Contributions like these stimulated further study of behavior in organizations, and they created an intellectual climate that eventually paved the way for the modern field of OB.

Scientific management stimulated several other scientists to expand on Taylor’s ideas. For example, the psychologist Hugo Munsterberg worked to “humanize” jobs by explaining how the concepts of learning and motivation related to the behavior of people at work (Munsterberg, 1913). Similarly, management writer Mary Parker Follett claimed that organizations could benefit by recognizing the needs of employees (Metcalf and Urwick, 1942). Among Taylor’s most famous disciples were the husband-and-wife consulting team of Frank and Lillian Gilbreth. Devotees of time-and-motion studies, the Gilbreths developed a highly ordered family life that received notoriety in the book Cheaper by the Dozen. Following time-and-motion principles, Frank Gilbreth redesigned the manner in which bricklaying was performed so as to greatly improve productivity. The Gil-breths also developed an elaborate system for redesigning jobs based on the notion of an irreducible time-and-motion unit of work task, termed a therblig (Gilbreth roughly spelled backward). Along with Taylor, the Gilbreths founded an association to promote scientific management.

A legacy of the concepts of time-and-motion studies, external analysis of tasks, and standards for productivity is that many jobs are still designed with the goal of maximizing short-run efficiency. The negative implications of employees performing simplified, repetitive tasks did not concern the advocates of scientific management.

17.3.The Human Relations Movement

Despite its important contributions, scientific management did not go far enough in directing our attention to the many factors that might influence behavior in work settings. Efficient performance of jobs and monetary incentives are important, to be sure, but emphasizing these factors makes people feel like cogs in a machine. In fact, many theorists and employees rejected Taylorism, favoring instead the human relations approach that focused on the employees’ own abilities and emphasized a respect for individuals.

During the same period in which scientific management was popular, the human relations school of thought emerged. The human relations approach, which partially grew out of the field of psychology, emphasized the importance of motivation and attitudes in explaining employee behavior. At the forefront of this new approach was Elton W. Mayo, an organizational scientist and consultant widely regarded as the founder of the human relations movement. Mayo and other proponents of this movement were concerned with task performance, but they also realized that it was greatly influenced by the social conditions in organizations—the way employees were treated by management and the relationships they had with each other.

The approach drew much of its strength and following from the results of a series of studies that began in 1927 at the Hawthorne Plant of the Western Electric Company, located in the western suburbs of Chicago. Inspired by scientific management, these researchers were interested in determining, among other things, the effect of illumination on work productivity. They found that by making the workplace slightly brighter, they could increase output. So they cranked up a carefully measured increase in candlepower and found that the output increased even more. But being good scientific researchers, they also decided to check the other direction by reducing illumination. Output again went up. They reduced it even further. Output continued to increase! What was happening? They found that by either increasing or decreasing illumination, sometimes even dimming the lights to the brightness of a moonlit night, they almost always got increases in productivity. Something that couldn’t be accounted for in terms of their scientific measurement was taking place.

After considerable analysis, the researchers determined that the very fact that the workers were being observed by the research team seemed to affect their output. The workers enjoyed being the center of the research team’s attention and responded by producing more. What resulted is now known as the Hawthorne effect, a situation created when managers or researchers pay special attention to workers that seems to result in improved worker output. But from a scientific management perspective, paying attention to people shouldn’t have caused them to work better. After all, they weren’t being paid any more money! Other forces must have been at work.

Mayo and his group hypothesized that the increased production resulted from changed social situations of the workers (they received more attention), modifications in worker motivation and satisfaction, and altered patterns of supervision. Social and psychological factors were seen as playing a major role in determining worker satisfaction and productivity.

The Hawthorne Studies were important because they demonstrated that in addition to the job itself, certain social factors can influence employees’ behavior. Informal social groups, management–employee relations, and the interrelatedness among the many facts of work setting were found to be quite influential. The Hawthorne Studies represented a major step forward in the attempt to systematically study worker behavior.

Many scholars believe that the Hawthorne Studies show the importance of the social nature of employees. The Hawthorne Studies suggest that to understand behavior on the job, we must fully appreciate the employees’ attitudes and how they communicate with each other. This way of thinking, which is so fundamental to the modern field of OB, may be traced back to Mayo’s pioneering Hawthorne Studies. Considering the scientific management views prevailing at the time, this perspective was quite novel.

Clearly, the impact of the Hawthorne Studies on the field of OB are considerable. The contribution has nothing to do with what the research revealed indirectly about the importance of human needs, attitudes, motives, and relationships in the workplace. In this respect, the work established a close link between the newly emerged field of OB and the behavioral sciences of psychology and sociology—a connection that persists today.

17.5.Contingency Approach

While scientific management and the human relations approaches have an enduring legacy, neither is dominant today. Instead, the contingency approach holds sway over thinking about organizational behavior. The contingency approach acknowledged the difficulty of offering simple general principles to explain or predict behavior in organizational settings. Nonetheless, the contingency approach did not abandon the search for principles, but instead sought to specify the conditions under which we can expect to find certain relationships. As such, it represented a search for the factors that would aid in predicting and explaining behavior.

The contingency approach argues that there’s no single best way to manage behavior. What works in any given context depends on the complex interplay between a variety of personal and situational factors. For example, employees’ needs and sense of motivations are clearly related to their behavior. But also influential are management’s skills, abilities, perceptions, and history of behavior toward employees. Plus, most employees work with others in a team, a department, or a unit. So employees usually behave within a group context of some kind. As a result, group norms, expectations, and cohesiveness—issues we’ll tackle later in this book—can impact behavior as well.

Situational factors are also important. Factors internal to the organization might include the organizational culture, the organization’s procedures, and the organizational structure within which employees work. All can influence individual behavior. Finally, the external context matters, too. For example, when an organization does poorly in the marketplace, employee morale often suffers and anxiety rises. Many people will shift their attention away from their work and worry instead about being fired or updating their resumes. Likewise, when organizations have done well, it can boost employee confidence, if not create an annoying level of hubris.

Throughout this book we embrace the contingency approach while also recognizing the frustration managers have with it. To many, “it depends” means “you have no answers for me.” And in a sense, that’s correct. The key to successful behavior management is for managers to both understand and develop the skills needed to find their own answers.

18.0.The Nature of Managerial Work

Over the years many have described what managers do or prescribed what they should do. For our purposes, we will focus on the classical way of viewing management. The classical management writers were the first to describe managerial work. Writers of the classical school proposed that managerial work consists of distinct, yet interrelated, functions which taken together constitute the managerial process. The view that management should be defined, described, and analyzed in terms of what managers (functions and processes) do has prevailed to this day, but with considerable modification as management functions and processes change in response to changing times and circumstances.

Henry Mintzberg’s influential study identified three primary and overlapping managerial roles: interpersonal role, decisional role, and informational role (Mintzberg, 1980). Each role has several related activities that distinguishes one role from the others. But interpersonal role activities clearly involve the manager with other people both inside and outside the organization. Decisional role activities involve the manager in making decisions about operational matters, resource allocation, and negotiations with the organization’s consequences. The informational role involves the manager as a receiver and sender of information to a variety of individuals and institutions.

The concept of management developed here is based upon the assumption that the necessity for managing arises whenever work is specialized and undertaken by two or more persons. Under such circumstances, the specialized work must be coordinated, creating the necessary managerial work. The nature of managerial work is to coordinate the work of individuals, groups, and organizations by performing four management functions: planning, organizing, leading, and controlling.

The list of management functions can be increased to include other functions, but these four can be defined with sufficient precision to differentiate them and, at the same time, to include others that management writers have proposed. For example, some managers and organizations include functions such as decision making, staffing, coordinating, implementing, and executing. You should remember that management and OB aren’t exact sciences with uniform language and definitions. The various definitions of management reflect the specific expectations of the people who practice management in specific organizations (Drucker, 1998).

While the list provided here may be arbitrary, managers at all levels of the organization generally perform these functions. The relative importance of one function vis-à-vis another function differs depending upon where the manager is in the organization and what problems and issues the manager faces. But the ability to discern the relative importance of planning, organizing, leading, and controlling may distinguish effective managers from ineffective managers (Kraut, Pedigo, McKenna, and Dunnette, 1989).

18.1.Planning

The planning function involves defining and setting goals, figuring out ways for achieving these goals, and developing a comprehensive hierarchy of plans to integrate and coordinate activities to reach the goals. Setting goals keeps the work to be done in its proper perspective and helps organizational members keep their attention on what is most important.

Plans establish boundaries for people making decisions and carrying out assigned activities. Planning helps managers anticipate future events, study problems, and analyze causes of those problems. In an increasingly dynamic world, planning helps managers decide what to do before an action is taken. At the same time, a quality plan will have contingencies for other situations that develop. Planning is considered the central function of management, and it pervades everything a manager does. In planning, a manager looks to the future, saying, “Here is what we want to achieve, and here is how we are going to do it.” Decision making is usually a component of planning, because choices have to be made in the process of finalizing plans. Managers by their own decisions can affect how they and their organizations will be evaluated. They determine what ends are legitimate and, therefore, what criteria are relevant. And once appropriate means are determined, the next managerial function—organizing—must be undertaken.

18.2.Organizing

Organizing is the process of making sure the necessary human and physical resources are available to carry out a plan and achieve organizational goals. Organizing includes all managerial activities that translate required planned activities into a structure of tasks and authority. In a practical sense, the organizing function involves (1) designing the responsibility and authority of each individual job and (2) determining which of these jobs will be grouped in specific departments. For example, managers of an engineering organization will be assigned to the engineering department. The organizing function’s outcome is the organization structure.

The organization structure consists of many different individuals and groups performing different activities. These different activities must be integrated into a coordinated whole. It is management’s responsibility to devise integrating methods and processes. If the differences among jobs and departments aren’t too great, then the simple exercise of authority is sufficient to integrate the differences.

The interrelationships between planning and organizing are apparent. The planning function results in determining organization ends and means; that is, it defines the “whats” and “hows.” The organizing function results in determining the “whos” (who’ll do what with whom to achieve the desired end results). The structure of tasks and authority should facilitate the fulfillment of planned results if the next management function leading is performed properly.

18.3.Leading

The leading function involves the manager in close day-to-day contact with individuals and groups. Thus, the leading function is uniquely personal and interpersonal. Leading is influencing others to achieve organizational objectives . Leading involves dozens of interpersonal processes: motivating, communicating, coaching, and showing employees how they can reach their goals. When managers motivate employees, direct the activities of others, select the most effective communication channel, or resolve conflicts among members, they are engaging in leading.

Leadership is such an important part of management that managing is sometimes defined as accomplishing results through people. Leadership in executive positions represents the organization to its external constituencies. In this role, effective executive leaders use words and symbols to express the organization’s abstract ideals and what the organization stands for. The organization’s mission statement provides a starting point for performing this leadership role. But without the ability to use powerful language and metaphors, the executive leader will fail even if he has effective interpersonal skills.

18.4.Controlling

The final management function is controlling. The controlling function includes activities that managers undertake to ensure that actual outcomes are consistent with planned outcomes. Controlling is ensuring that performance conforms to plans. That is, after the goals are set, the plans formulated, the organizing arrangements determined, and the people hired, trained, and motivated, something may still go amiss. To make sure that things are going as they should, managers must monitor a particular unit of the organization’s performance. Managers must compare actual performance to the previously set goals. If there is a significant difference between actual and desired performance, the manager must take corrective action.

A secondary aspect of controlling is determining whether the original plan needs revision, given the realities of the day. The controlling function sometimes causes a manager to return to the planning function temporarily to fine-tune the original plan.

The large-scale use of computerized information has contributed to the complexity of the controlling process. Compared to the noncomputerized past, there is now much more information available to measure deviations from performance. The process of monitoring, comparing, and correcting is what comprises the controlling function.

The functions of management require technical and administrative skills. They also require human relations skills—the ability to deal with and relate to people. OB literature stresses the importance of people. Many observers and practitioners of management believe that managing people effectively is the key to improving the effectiveness of groups and organizations.

Planning, organizing, leading, and controlling are important management functions. Today’s managers who are concerned with being successful must develop an understanding of and skills in these four functions. They must also become proficient at identifying and responding to important trends or changes occurring in the world of work.

19.0.Key Trends and Challenges affecting today’s Organizations and Managers

In recent years increasing attention has been paid to the importance of effectively managing an organization’s human resources in determining an organization’s competitive advantage. Some have even declared that human resources represent the only enduring source of competitive advantage available to many of today’s organizations. A number of factors have contributed to the increased attention on the value of effectively managing human resources or the behavior of the organization’s employees. For example, there are a number of changes in organizations themselves and broader trends causing these changes to occur. Perhaps most important, organizations today are under intense pressure to be better, faster, and more competitive—there are more and more efforts to squeeze productivity out of organizations while others are merging and downsizing.

Throughout the foreseeable future, managers will have to understand and deal with an increasing number of complex environmental factors and trends that influence them. To be effective in today’s changing world of work, managers must be adaptable and maintain their perspective in the face of a rapidly changing environment. For instance, global competition, the knowledge and information explosion, and diversity represent not only some of the latest buzzwords, but also a harsh reality that will continue to face managers and their organizations.

Twenty years ago issues like workforce diversity and globalization were not that important. Today there are many solutions being offered on how to deal with these complex challenges. Yet the simplest but most profound solutions may be found in the words of Sam Walton, founder of Wal-Mart and the richest person in the world when he died. When asked for the answer to successful organizations and management, Walton quickly replied, “People are the key.”

19.1.Information Availability and Technology Advances

An important environmental development is the second generation of the Information Age. The first generation was characterized by relatively straightforward automated data processing. This second generation has moved to automated decision making, more technology-based telecommunications, and the information superhighway. Now commonplace, decision support systems, expert systems and e-mail allow organizations to make real-time, online decisions backed by quantitative data and multiple input. Many organizations have been completely revamped because of technological advances, computers, robotics, automation, changing markets, and other competitive influences that demand both internal and external adaptations. The great expansion of information technology—computers, e-mail, faxes, beepers, cellular phones, voice mail, and so on—has profoundly changed the workplace. These devices have made it much easier for people to access information and to communicate with each other on the job. In many cases, managers no longer have to be the keepers of all information.

The computerization of tools and machines and the greater use of robots in manufacturing reduce the number of people needed in various jobs and, thus, in turn, the number of managers needed to manage those people. In other words, technology has affected management greatly, either by automating work formerly done by employees directed by managers or by giving employees direct access to information and people without having to go through their immediate supervisor. This change has freed managers to devote more time to other tasks, such as better planning, more coordination of work among teams, management of suppliers or vendors, and assisting their work groups or teams to improve processes.

Increases in information availability and technological change will increasingly require managers to have increased technical skills. Furthermore, these changes require more skilled and trained employees. This then increases the importance of the manager’s role in training and overcoming resistance to change as discussed in Chapter 12. Therefore, managers must keep up to date on the latest developments so that they can effectively train their people. Higher-level skills and training require new approaches to motivation and leadership. Thus, managers need more skills in the interpersonal area.

19.2.Globalization

Managers and other employees throughout an organization must perform at higher and higher levels because the world has been changing more rapidly than ever before. In the last 20 years, both domestic and global competition have increased dramatically. The rise of global organizations—organizations that operate and compete in more than one country—has and will continue to put severe pressure on many organizations to improve their performance and to identify better ways to use their resources.

Many U.S. companies are increasingly challenged to think globally, something that does not come easily to organizations long accustomed to doing business in a large and expanding domestic market with minimal foreign competition. The Internet is fueling globalization, and most large organizations are actively involved in manufacturing overseas, international joint ventures, or collaboration with foreign organizations on specific projects.

The implications of a global economy on organizations and their managers are many. From boosting the productivity of a global labor force to formulating compensation policies for expatriate employees, managing globalization and its effects on competitiveness will thus present major management challenges in the years to come. Global challenges will continue to impact the manager. Substantial investment has been made in U.S. firms by the British, Germans, Swiss, Canadians, Japanese, and others. Identifying the various cultural/value system and work ethic differences is beyond the scope of this book. However, today’s manager must recognize that management practices differ culturally and structurally in these organizations compared to the U.S.-owned and -operated companies. Today’s managers will need to learn to operate in a one-world market made up of differing cultures and leadership styles, especially at the middle manager level.

More than ever before, talented people will be needed to represent firms on a global basis. Clearly, there is increasing evidence that globalization will impact managers and their organizations. Today’s managers who make no attempt to learn and adapt to changes in the global environment will find themselves reacting rather than innovating, and their organizations will often become uncompetitive and fail.

19.3.Diversity in the Workforce

Managers across the United States are confronted almost daily with the increasing diversity of the workforce. Workforce diversity refers to the wider variety of today’s employees, who vary with respect to gender, age, culture, and ethnic background, and who may have physical and/or mental disabilities. Whereas, globalization focuses on differences between people from different countries, workforce diversity addresses differences among people within a given country.

The workforce is continuing to become more diverse as women, minority-group members, and older workers flood the workforce. More specifically, one need only note that in many large urban centers, such as Miami, New York, and Los Angeles, the workforce is already at least half composed of minorities. Women with children under age six have also been one of the fastest-growing segments of the workforce. Additionally, as the workforce gets older, employees will also likely remain there well past the age at which their parents retired, due to Social Security and Medicare funding shortfalls and the termination of traditional benefit plans by many employers.

Workforce diversity has important implications for management prac- tice. An important management challenge will be valuing the uniqueness of each employee, while forming cohesive work groups and teams with people of different backgrounds and values. Managers and their organizations will need to shift their philosophy from treating everyone alike to recognizing differences and responding to those differences in ways that will ensure employee retention and greater productivity while, at the same time, not discriminating. This shift includes, for instance, providing diversity training and revamping benefit programs to make them more “family friendly.” Some organizations are not only changing the range of benefit choices they offer, but also changing the basic structure of their benefits as they recognize that the “one size fits all approach” to employee benefits does not always work.

Increased diversity presents both a significant change and a real opportunity for managers. Diversity, if positively managed, can increase creativity and innovation in organizations as well as improve decision making by providing different perspectives on problems. When diversity is not managed properly, there is potential for higher turnover, more difficult communication, and more interpersonal conflicts.

19.4.The Quality Revolution

Today’s organizations operate quite differently than in past decades. For them the watchword is not “getting by,” but, “making things better,” what has been referred to as the quality revolution. The best organizations are ones that strive to deliver better quality goods and services to customers at lower prices than ever before. Those that do so flourish, and those that do not tend to fade away.

There is increasing evidence that the delivery of quality products and services to customers has a direct impact on the success of organizations. The key, of course, is to realize that the people in the organization, not advertising slogans or statistical quality control, deliver quality goods and services. The challenge for managers and organizations across the world is to have their employees deliver quality products and—especially—services to each other (internal customers) and to customers and clients.

In the future, organizations will continue their efforts to improve quality and service through organizational practices like total quality management (TQM) (an organizational strategy of commitment to improving customer satisfaction by developing techniques to manage output quality carefully and achieving ISO 9000 certification) and reengineering (the fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in performance). Because of the recent optimism toward these approaches it is unlikely that they will become tomorrow’s outdated fads.

19.5.New Organizational Forms

As noted earlier, technology has made it possible for fewer people to do more work than ever before. Unlike the gradual process of automation in the past, today’s technology is occurring so rapidly that the very nature of work is changing as fast as we can keep up. More will be said about the changing nature of work later in this section. With this, many jobs disappeared during the last two decades, leaving organizations (at least the most successful ones) smaller than before.

Downsizing. Indeed, during the 1980s and 1990s organizations rapidly reduced the number of employees needed to operate effectively—a process known as downsizing. Typically, this process involved more than just laying off people in a move to save money. The process is directed at adjusting the number of employees needed to work in newly designed organizations and is therefore also known as rightsizing. Whatever you call it, the bottom line is clear: Even during today’s economic boom many organizations still believe they need fewer people to operate today than in the past—sometimes, far fewer.

Outsourcing. Another way organizations are restructuring and doing more with less is by completely eliminating those parts that focus on noncore sectors of the business (i.e., tasks that are peripheral to the organization) and hiring outside firms to perform these functions instead—a practice known as outsourcing. Contracting with outsiders to do work previously done within the corporation is not a new phenomenon, but it has been rapidly growing. In an effort to cut costs, many organizations are farming out many varieties of work previously done by regular employees, resulting in layoffs and internal reorganization. By outsourcing secondary activities, an organization can focus on what it does best, its key capability—what is known as its core competency. For example, by outsourcing its payroll processing, a company may grow smaller and focus its resources on what it does best. Outsourcing, of course, creates layoffs and the associated problems, including union-management frictions which all undoubtedly pose challenges for managers.

Mergers. Combining two or more companies into one organization continues to be an epidemic frequently resulting in large layoffs. Mergers tend to create issues in addition to those associated with layoffs. For example, who will be in charge and what managers and other employees will be retained or laid off? Who, where, and how will the work be completed? The remaining managers, of course, must address all of these and other issues relative to their own operations if they are to assist the total organization effectively with the merger.

Virtual organization. As more and more organizations are outsourcing various organizational functions and pairing down to their core competencies, they might not be able to perform all the tasks required to complete a project. However, they can perform their own highly specialized part of it very well. If you put together several organizations whose competencies complement each other and have them work together on a special project, you would have a very strong group of collaborators. This is the idea behind an organizational arrangement that is growing in popularity—the virtual organization. A virtual organization is a highly flexible, temporary organization formed by a group of companies that join forces to exploit a specific opportunity.

Although virtual organizations are not an everyday occurrence, experts expect them to grow in popularity in the years ahead. As one consultant has put it, “It’s not just a good idea; it’s inevitable.”

19.6.Changes in the Nature of Work

The trends and changes discussed so far are also changing the nature of jobs and work. For one thing, there has been a pronounced shift from manufacturing jobs to service jobs in North America and Western Europe. As the number of manufacturing jobs have decreased over the past two decades, the number of part-time and service industry jobs in fast food, retailing, legal work, teaching, and consulting have increased. These service jobs will in turn require what have recently been referred to as “knowledge” workers and new human resources management (HRM) methods to manage them and a new focus on human capital.

The knowledge, education, training, skills, and expertise of an organization’s workers refer to an organization’s human capital. And human capital is more important than it has ever been before. Service jobs put a bigger premium on worker education and knowledge than do traditional manufacturing jobs. Even entry-level factory jobs have become more demanding. For example, factory jobs in textiles, auto, rubber, and steel industries are being replaced by knowledge-intensive, high-tech manufacturing in such industries as telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, medical instruments, aerospace, computers, and home electronics, and even heavy manufacturing jobs are becoming more high tech. Human capital is quickly replacing machines as the basis for most organizations’ success.

An important realization for managers and organizations is that these new “knowledge” workers can’t be just ordered around and closely monitored like their parents. New management systems and skills will be required to select, train, and motivate such employees and to win their commitment. In order to attract and retain the most qualified employees, today’s organizations must offer flexible work schedules, telecommuting, opportunities for temporary, part-time, or contract positions, and changes in job design.

Work schedules. Like work rules, work schedules are a major condition of employee’s acceptance of jobs. Work schedules refer to matters such as starting and stopping times, the number and length of work breaks, how work beyond the regularly scheduled day or week is administered, whether the work is done on company premises or at home, and whether the employee is full-time or part-time. Like work rules, work schedules have gained an increasing influence on the satisfaction, and frequently the performance, of employees. The manner in which those work schedules are monitored, administered, and changed is important. From the standpoint of the manager, work schedules are necessary to coordinate and control work. Further, a certain amount of uniformity is required (and expected) to meet employee expectations of equitable treatment. Work schedules are becoming more flexible, however, than has been traditionally assumed in many organizations.

Experimentation with different kinds of work schedules, such as the compressed work week, flextime, permanent part-time work, peak-time work, job sharing, telecommuting, and temporary employment will increasingly be the rule, not the exception. The reasons for this experimentation will undoubtedly continue to change work attitudes and lifestyles, desire for more leisure time, attempts to minimize traffic problems, advances in computer technology, and attempts by management to increase both morale and productivity. Some, if not all, of the experimentation is also partly based on pragmatic attempts by managers to cut costs.

In any case, today’s manager must be sensitive to the importance of changing work schedules in addressing employee needs and problems and the impact these changes may have on employee morale and performance. Managers should conduct case-by-case analyses of the advantages and disadvantages of work schedule practices to evaluate their cost-effectiveness for their specific work units and organizations.

Telecommuting. Question: What current organizational activity simultaneously helps alleviate child-care problems, reduces traffic jams, and cuts air pollution and fuel consumption, while also saving millions of dollars on office space? The answer is telecommuting or teleworking—the practice of using communications technology (i.e., computer, modem, the telephone, and/or fax machine) to enable work to be performed by employees from remote locations, such as the home or a nearby telecenter. Imagine the following example: An after-hour request from one of Marston Technologies’ customers is made for some assistance on a computer problem. Everyone has gone home for the day. A call is made to the on-call computer technician who has a computer/modem at home for diagnosing and addressing customers’ problem. The request is completed, the customer is happy, and no one had to make a trip back to the Marston office.

Telecommuting results in increased separation from the principal office, while, at the same time, it increases connection to the home. Telecommut- ing is perhaps one of the most profound examples of how technology impacts work, jobs, and managers.

Contingent workforce. Increasingly, organizations are employing more part-time employees. That is, instead of eliminating entire organizational functions and buying them back through outside service providers, organizations are eliminating individual jobs and hiring people to perform them on an as-needed basis. Such individuals comprise what has been referred to as a contingent workforce. This workforce is comprised of people hired temporarily, part-time, or as contract employees who work as needed for finite periods of time.

The temporary or contingent workforce has grown rapidly, paralleling the restructuring and layoff phenomena. The contingent workforce is of considerable size and includes specialists of all kinds, including nurses, accountants, lawyers, engineers, and computer and software experts. A growing number of middle managers and top executives are also part of this temporary workforce.

The “leasing” of employees by staffing service companies has become a rapidly growing industry because of the demand for temporary workers. Some analysts predict that in just a few years, half of all working Americans—some 60 million people—will be working on a part-time or freelance basis. Specifically, British consultant Charles Handy has described the organization of the future as being more like an apartment than a home for life, “an association of temporary residents gathered together for mutual convenience.” Although others believe this prospect is far-fetched, it is clear that a growing number of people are seeking the freedom and variety of temporary employment rather than facing repeated layoffs from everdownsizing corporations. They are opting for “permanent impermanence” in their jobs, so to speak.

How will the manager motivate employees who consider themselves, at best, transient—that is, just working at the present organization until something better comes along? Numerous studies have indicated that lower productivity and increased accidents occur when employees are not fully committed to their jobs. Motivating employees who are not fully committed will be another management challenge.

Changes in job design. Changes in job design (the process of determining and organizing the specific tasks and responsibilities to be carried out by each member of the organization and/or teams) has and continues to drastically change the nature of work itself in many instances.

The widespread and growing use of self-managed teams is an example of changes in job design. Organizations have moved toward the use of such teams to increase the flexibility of their workforce. They are redesigning work and jobs to allow employees with unique skills and backgrounds to tackle projects or problems together and to perform a wide variety of tasks, including dividing up the work, monitoring quality, or- daring parts, interviewing applicants, and so on. The use of self-managed teams also frequently involves many organizational changes, including changes in technology, workflow, selection, training, and compensation.

As organizations continue to redesign jobs, they will also reshape the relationship between managers and the people they are supposedly responsible for managing. You will find more and more managers being called coaches, advisors, sponsors, or facilitators. And there will be a continued blurring between the roles of managers and their employees. More and more decision making will be pushed down to the operating level, where workers will be given the freedom to make choices about schedules, procedures, and solving work-related problems. Organizations will also continue to put employees in charge of what they do. And in doing so, managers will have to learn how to give up control to employees who must learn how to take responsibility for their work and make appropriate decisions. Empowerment (putting employees in charge of what they do) will change leadership styles, power relationships, the way work is designed, and the way organizations are structured.

The job skills gap. The U.S. service sector has experienced much faster growth than the manufacturing sector over the past 40 years. Service, technical, and managerial positions that require college degrees will make up half of all manufacturing and service jobs in the coming years. Unfortunately, most available workers will be too unskilled to fill those jobs (i.e., job skills gap). Even now many companies complain that the supply of skilled labor is dwindling and that they must provide their employees with basic training to make up for the shortcomings of public education systems.

Although in the last decade the overall education level of Americans has increased in terms of schooling and even fundamental literacy, so also have the demands of the workplace. As a group, high school graduates are simply not keeping pace with the kinds of skills required in the new business world. The report card on college-educated workers is not particularly flattering either.

To deal with these problems, some businesses have developed agreements in which their companies join with public schools to form a compact that reserves jobs for high school graduates who meet academic and attendance requirements. A second strategy is in-house training for current or prospective employees through formal training and on-the-job training programs. Companies currently spend in excess of an estimated $60 billion a year on a wide variety of training programs. This is in addition to the more than $24 billion spent on training programs by the federal government each year. Nonetheless, the job skills gap or shortage is likely to remain a challenge for managers and their organizations in the United States.

19.8.Changing Attitudes toward Work

American workers are changing their attitudes toward work. Employees now demand better coordination between lifestyle needs, including family and leisure, and employment needs. Leisure pursuits have become more highly valued than work goals. Even previously loyal employees have become cynical of the corporate world. This cynicism has spawned a new interest in organized labor and collective bargaining, even among professionals.

American workers are more interested in jobs with meaningful work, which allow for self-fulfillment and work satisfaction. They want jobs that provide greater challenges and enable them to use more skills and knowledge. These changes in employee attitudes and values require that managers and their organizations use different organizational strategies than those used in the past.

Lifestyles and expectations about life circumstances are also changing. Where people are willing to live and work is becoming a serious issue for a significant number of workers. People are prone to have decided preferences about where they want to live, whether in the city, the suburbs, or a rural setting, and in what region and climate. In addition, more and more people express concern about the appropriate balance of work and family and leisure and other aspects of their lives. They may not want the job interfering with taking a child to a Little League game or to a Girl Scout meeting or going to church. Thus they may be less willing to accept overtime assignments or to work long hours or weekends. However, fear of layoffs undoubtedly produces considerable acquiescence to management’s wishes, but with resulting job dissatisfaction for many people.

19.9.Deregulation

Being better, faster, and more competitive is also more important because for many industries the comfortable protection provided by government regulations continues to be stripped away. Industries from airlines to banks to utilities must now compete nationally and internationally without the protection of government-regulated prices and entry tariffs in the United States and in many other industrialized countries such as England, France, and Japan.

One big consequence of deregulation has been the sudden and dramatic opening of various markets. One need only look at the long-distance phone companies efforts to enter the previously protected monopoly of companies like AT&T and start-ups in the airline industry to compete head-to-head with industry giants like Delta and American Airlines. Just as significant has been the impact that deregulation—and the resulting new competi- tion—has had on prices, requiring these organizations to get and stay “lean and mean.” Prices for hundreds of services like long-distance calls have dropped in some instances which means organizations must get their costs down too.

20.0.Achieving Societal Goals through Organizations

Over the past three decades there has been an increasing trend toward viewing organizations as vehicles for achieving social and political objectives. Most organizations are deeply concerned with potential liability resulting from HRM decisions that may violate laws enacted by local governments, state legislatures, and the U.S. Congress. Legislation like the 1964 Civil Rights Act requires organizations to respond to larger social, political, and legal issues. Other legislation requires that organizations provide reasonable accommodations for the disabled and for employees with HIV.

How successfully an organization manages its human resources depends to a large extent on its ability to deal effectively with government regulations. Operating within the legal framework requires keeping track of the external legal and social environments and developing internal systems (for example, management training and grievance procedures) to ensure compliance and minimize complaints.

Organizational responses to legislative requirements today generally follow a realization that important issues need national attention. As entities within the larger society, organizations can’t help but be influenced by the ideology and culture around them. As changes occur in the larger society, organizations must adapt and change. The results of legislative and social changes are added pressures on organizations. Management and more contemporary practices are not formed in a vacuum but must represent the societal ideology in which they are embedded.

20.1.Managerial Changes

New management approaches are adding to the challenges facing today’s managers. As organizations face more complex problems, they can’t rely mainly or only on their managers to solve them. At the same time, executives have given their employees more autonomy and control over their work as a way of increasing their job satisfaction. Increased employee autonomy has combined with an emphasis on teamwork and collaboration in organizations. As a result, employees have become empowered to make decisions.

Empowerment of employees and self-managed teams are two specific management approaches that are having a significant impact on today’s managers. Empowerment is a form of decentralization that involves giving employees substantial authority to make decisions. Under empowerment, managers express confidence in the ability of employees to perform their work. Employees are also encouraged to accept responsibility for their work. In many organizations now using self-managed teams, groups of employees do not report to a single manager; rather, groups of peers are responsible for a particular area or task. The breadth of changes in areas like managerial and employee responsibilities continues to have a powerful impact on today’s managers.

The empowerment of the workforce and the increased use of self-managing teams in the workplace continue to blur the distinctions between managers and employees. Now employees often assume such responsibilities as planning staffing and rewarding other employees that used to be typically entrusted solely to managers. Managers have become more adept at using technology, often assuming word processing, analysis, and communication roles formerly delegated to staff employees. Managers have moved from a directive to a facilitative role and now coach and counsel employees. They create teams of workers, who often differ from the manager in gender, race, language, values, and lifestyle. Managers must then manage this diverse workforce in an uncertain and changing environment.

Knowledge workers have become a mainstay of computer, health care, communications operations, and those organizations in the information sector of the economy. These well-educated employees perform nonroutine work and make decisions in their organizations. Both blue-collar and white-collar employees are becoming knowledge workers and thus innovators in their organizations. These employees can require different skills from their managers, particularly those focused on helping, coaching, empowering, and listening.

21.0.Meeting Today’s Organizational and Management Challenges

It has often been said that the only thing that remains constant is change—and it’s true! (See Chapter 13 for more discussion on change.) Today’s manager will, more than ever before, need to be prepared for changing events that will have a significant effect on their lives. Some of the more recent changes and challenges have been highlighted throughout this chapter. This section takes a closer summarizing look at how some of these changes are and will continue affecting managers in organizations.

Globalization affects managers in many ways. A boundaryless world introduces new challenges for managers. These range from how managers view people from different countries to how they develop an understanding of these immigrating employees’ cultures. A specific challenge for managers is recognizing differences that might exist and finding ways to make their interactions with all employees more effective. Although downsizing, quality improvements, and changing forms of work are activities that are initiated at the top-management level of an organization, they do have an effect on managers. Managers may be heavily involved in implementing the changes. They must be prepared to deal with the organizational issues these changes bring about. For example, when an organization downsizes, an important challenge for managers is motivating a workforce that feels less secure in their jobs and less committed to their employers. Managers must also ensure that their skills and those of their employees are kept up to date. Employees whose skills become obsolete are more likely to be candidates for downsizing. Those employees who keep their jobs will more than likely be doing the work of two or three people. This situation can create frustration, anxiety, and less motivation. For today’s manager, this, too, can dramatically affect work unit productivity.

An emphasis on quality focuses on the customer, seeks continual improvements, strives to improve the quality of work, seeks accurate measurement, and involves employees. Each manager must clearly define what quality means to the jobs in his or her unit. This needs to be communicated to every staff member. Each individual must then exert the needed effort to move toward “perfection.” Managers and their employees must recognize that failing to do so could lead to unsatisfied customers taking their purchasing power to competitors. Should that happen, jobs in the unit might be in jeopardy.

Effective quality initiatives can generate a positive outcome for managers and employees. Everyone involved may now have input into how work is best done. A focus on quality provides opportunities for managers to build the participation of the people closest to the work. As such, quality can eliminate bottlenecks that have hampered work efforts in the past. Quality can help create more satisfying jobs—for both the manager and his or her employees.

Few jobs today are unaffected by advances in computer technology. How specifically is it changing the manager’s job? One need only to look at how the typical office is set up to answer this question. Today’s organizations have become integrated communications centers. By linking computers, telephones, fax machines, copiers, printers, and the like, managers can get more complete information more quickly than ever before. With that information, managers can better formulate plans, make faster decisions, more clearly define the jobs that workers need to perform, and monitor work activities on an “as-they-happen” basis. In essence, technology today has enhanced managers’ ability to more effectively and efficiently perform their jobs.

Technology is also changing where a manager’s work is performed since they have immediate access to information that helps them in making decisions. Technological advances assist managers who have employees in remote locations, reducing the need for face-to-face interaction with these individuals. On the other hand, effectively communicating with individuals in remote locations (for example, teleworkers), as well as ensuring that performance objectives are being met, has become a major challenge for managers.

The implications of workforce diversity for managers are widespread. However, the most significant implication for managers is the requirement of sensitivity to the differences in each individual. That means they must shift their philosophy from treating everyone alike to recognizing, valuing, and responding to these differences in ways that will ensure employee retention and greater productivity.

Today’s successful managers will be those who have learned to effectively respond to and manage change. Managers will work in an environment in which change is taking place at an unprecedented rate. New competitors spring up overnight and old ones disappear through mergers, acquisitions, or failure to keep up with the changing marketplace and customer demands. Downsized organizations mean fewer workers to complete the necessary work. Constant innovations in computer and telecommunications technologies are making communications instantaneous. These factors, combined with the globalization of product and financial markets, have created an environment of never-ending change. As a result, many traditional management practices—created for a world that was far more stable and predictable—no longer apply.

New governmental and societal issues will continue to complicate the manager’s job in the future. Numerous environmental concerns will remain as serious long-term problems for managers and their organizations. Energy availability and costs will continue to be of great concern internationally and domestically. These types of issues and societal pressures have become part of the managers’ and organizations’ planning and operations. Federal legislation affects managers. In addition, state and local governments have laws and regulations that impact business. The effect of such legislation can be quite costly, and managers and their organizations may be required to change their methods of operations in order to comply.

All indications are that these pressures will remain intense. In some instances today’s manager has to be more like a lawyer, police officer, teacher, accountant, political scientist, and psychologist than a manager. While this may be overstating the point, it reflects a realistic aspect of every manager’s contemporary role. Managers must be more flexible in their styles, smarter in how they work, quicker in making decisions, more efficient in handling scarce resources, better at satisfying the customer, and more confident in enacting massive and revolutionary changes. As management writer Tom Peters captured in one of his best selling books: “Today’s managers must be able to thrive on change and uncertainty.”

In bringing this introductory chapter to a close it is important to recognize that the workplace of today and tomorrow is indeed undergoing immense and permanent changes. Organizations are being challenged to change or be “reengineered” for greater speed, efficiency, and flexibility. Teams are pushing aside the individual as the primary building block of organizations. Command-and-control management is giving way to participative management and empowerment. Authoritative leaders are being replaced by charismatic and transformational leaders. Employees increasingly are being viewed as internal customers. All this creates a mandate for a new kind of manager today.

Managers will need a broader set of skills to achieve and maintain both their own, the department’s, and organization’s success today. The areas in which they will need to develop expertise include strategic planning; budgeting; quality management, benchmarking and best practices; and telecommunications and technology. Aside from honing these skills, managers can better prepare themselves for today’s challenges by gaining a better understanding of the needs of their internal customers, recognizing the need for effective information systems for employees, building relationships with the best service providers, and aligning the manager’s unit and organization strategies and their processes.

Today’s managers, regardless of their level in the organization, must be true strategic partners in the organization. Each manager must effectively respond to the constantly changing world of work and the role managers are expected to successfully play in that world. As the pace of change quickens, managers must become a tougher and more durable, albeit more flexible, interface between their organization and the lumpy road of a changing environment.

22.0.Contemporary Managers and Organizational Behavior

As highlighted in this chapter, today’s world of work is indeed undergoing tremendous and constant change. Organizations are being changed for greater speed, efficiency, and flexibility. Teams are increasingly supplanting the individual as the main building block of organizations. Command-and-control management is giving way to participative management and empowerment. Customer-centered leaders are replacing ego-centered leaders. Employees are increasingly being viewed as internal customers. All of this creates a mandate for a new kind of manager in today’s organizations. Table 1.1 contrasts the characteristics of past and future managers.

Change and challenge are watchwords in organizations during these changing times. Managers and employees alike are challenged to meet Table 1.1

22.1.Evolution of the Contemporary Manager

	Past Managers	Contemporary Managers
Primary role	Order giver, privileged elite, manipulator, controller	Facilitator, team member, teacher, advocate, sponsor, coach
Learning and knowledge	Periodic learning, narrow specialist	Continuous lifelong learning, generalist with multiple specialties
Compensation criteria	Time, effort, rank	Skills, results
Cultural orientation	Monocultural, monolingual	Multicultural, multilingual
Primary source of influence	Formal authority	Knowledge (technical and interpersonal)
View of people	Potential problem	Primary resource
Primary communication pattern	Vertical	Multidirectional
Decision-making style	Limited input for individual decisions	Broad-based input for joint decisions
Ethical considerations	Afterthought	Forethought
Nature of interpersonal relationships	Competitive (win-lose)	Cooperative (win-win)
Handling of power and key information	Hoard and restrict access	Share and broaden access
Approach to change	Resist	Facilitate

change in the workplace, change in how work gets done, change in who is working in the organization, and change in the basis for organizations. The major trends and challenges shaping the changes occurring in organizations throughout the world were discussed earlier in this chapter. For example, the increasing globalization of business has led to intense competition in various industries, and the changing demographics of the workplace have led to increased diversity among working populations.

23.0.Perception, Attitudes, and Personality

23.1.Perception

Perceptions are important because we act based on our interpretation of events. Likewise, at other times we fail to take action because of those same perceptions. So when faced with the same objective events, we may see different things. Perception—like beauty—is in the eye of the beholder. This doesn’t mean that perception is so idiosyncratic that it is not worth studying. To the contrary, it’s a critical building block for effective behavior management.

Individuals use five senses to experience the environment: sight, touch, hearing, taste, and smell. Organizing the information from the environment so that it makes sense is called perception. Perception is a cognitive process. Perception helps individuals select, organize, store, and interpret stimuli into a meaningful and coherent picture of the world. Because each person gives his own meaning to stimuli, different individuals “see” the same thing in different ways (Nicholson, 1998). The way an employee sees a situation often has much greater meaning for understanding behavior than does the situation. The cognitive map of the individual is not, then, a photographic representation of the physical world; it is, rather, a partial, personal construction in which certain objects, selected by the individual for a major role, are perceived in an individual manner. Every perceiver is to some degree a nonrepresentational artist, as it were, painting a picture of the world that express his or her individual view of reality (Krech, Crutchfield, and Ballachey, 1962, p. 20). Each person selects various cues that influence his perceptions of people, objects, and symbols. Because of these factors and their potential imbalance, people often misperceive another person, group, or object. To a considerable extent, people interpret the behavior of others in the context of the setting in which they find themselves. The following organizational examples point out how perception influences behavior:

A manager believes that an employee is given opportunities to use his judgment about how to do the job, while the employee feels that he has absolutely no freedom to make judgments.

A direct report’s response to a supervisor’s request is based on what she thought she heard the supervisor say, not on what was actually requested.

The manager considers the product sold to be of high quality, but the customer making a complaint feels that it’s poorly made.

An employee is viewed by one colleague as a hard worker who gives good effort and by another colleague as a poor worker who expends no effort.

The salesperson regards his pay increase as totally inequitable, while the sales manager considers it a fair raise.

One line operator views working conditions as miserable; a coworker right across the line regards working conditions as pleasant.

These are a few of numerous daily examples of how perception can differ. Managers must recognize that perceptual differences exist. Table 2.1 illustrates how perception works. Suppose the worker has been told that she has the freedom to make decisions about how the job is to be designed. Note that the manager and the employee perceive the job design freedom in different ways; they have different perceptions of the employee’s amount of freedom.

Research has shown that managers and direct reports often have different perceptions of the same events as illustrated in Table 2.1. Managers and direct reports both act based on their perceptions, regardless of their accuracy. And that can create problems. Imagine what might happen over time if managers feel they’ve adequately recognized employee’s accomplishment Table 2.1

23.2.Perceptual Differences and Behavior

Manager’s perception	Freedom employee is given	Worker’s perception
Worker has a lot of freedom to make decisions		I am not given any freedom to make decisions
Manager’s behavior		Worker’s behavior
No concern about freedom given to worker		Feeling of being left out Staying home
Manager’s behavior		Worker’s behavior
Puzzled by the absence record of worker		Belief that no one really cares

while employees feel underappreciated. Managers might feel little need to step up their rewards to employees, even as morale disintegrates. And without recognizing this basic truth about perception, managers are unequipped to handle growing employee dissatisfaction.

23.3.Some Obstacles to accurate Perception

There are a number of obstacles, barriers (or biases) to the precise perception of others’ behavior. Each obstacle is a possible source of misleading or distorted information.

23.4.Stereotyping

Stereotypes are judgments of others that are based on group membership. Such attributes as sex, race, ethnic group, and age are the basis of commonly held stereotypes. For example, the beliefs that older workers are not capable of being trained for new tasks and that younger workers cannot handle responsibility are commonly held stereotypes. Occupational groupings also frequently serve as the basis for stereotypes. For example, consider your own views of, say, politicians, union officials, top-level executives, and police officers. Even relatively superficial attributes can be the basis of stereotypes, as evidenced by such cliches as “redheads are short-tempered.”

This is not to say that stereotypes are totally worthless and inaccurate. In some instances, stereotypes may, in fact, be based on group characteristics; this is the “kernel of truth” notion of stereotypes. The proposal argues that some stereotypical beliefs are based on an element of truth, in that the beliefs are derived from observations that hold for an entire group but that do not hold with much accuracy for given individuals in the group. While the popular stereotype of, say, police officers may have some accuracy, the variability of the traits of individual police officers is so great that it is extremely difficult to classify an individual officer accurately from the stereotypical information alone.

23.5.First Impression Error

First impressions are lasting impressions, so the saying goes. Individuals place a good deal of importance on first impressions, and for good reason. We tend to remember what we perceive first about a person, and sometimes we are quite reluctant to change our initial impressions. First-impression error means that we observe a very brief bit of a person’s behavior in our first encounter and infer that this behavior reflects what the person is really like. Primacy effects can be particularly dangerous in interviews, given that we form first impressions quickly and that these impressions may be the basis for long-term employment relationships.

23.5.0.The Halo Effect

Another obstacle to accurate perceptions is labeled the halo effect: A person is good at one thing and so is assumed to be good at something else. The positive assumption, therefore, creates the halo. For example, assume that you are a supervisor in a machine shop. Ed, your employee, has been one of the best drill press operators in your section for over five years. A lathe operator is unexpectedly needed in another section. You recommend Ed, assuming that he will also do well at the lathe. Ed bombs! He may have excelled at one job, but he lacked the necessary skill or training to accomplish the other. Figuratively you had placed a halo over Ed’s head.

Another instance of the halo effect could occur if two people have a violent fistfight on the job, and one is a personal friend with whom you regularly socialize off the job. Watch out for the tendency to place a halo over your friend’s head by assuming that the other person must have been the cause of the conflict.

23.5.1.Projection

We have a tendency to ascribe our own feelings and attributes to others. This is known as projection. People who engage in projection tend to perceive others according to what they themselves are like rather than according to what the person being observed is really like. When observing others who actually are like them, these observers are quite accurate—not because they are perceptive but because they always judge people as being similar to themselves. So when they finally do find someone who is like them, they are naturally correct. When managers engage in projection, they compromise their ability to respond to individual differences. They tend to see people as more homogeneous than they really are.

23.5.2.Contrast Effects

There’s an old adage among entertainers who perform in variety shows: Never follow an act that has kids or animals in it. Why? The common belief is that audiences love children and animals so much that you’ll look bad in comparison. This example demonstrates how contrast effects can distort perceptions. We don’t evaluate a person in isolation. Our reaction to one person is influenced by other people we have recently encountered.

An illustration of how contrast effects operate is an interview situation in which one sees a pool of job applicants. Distortions in any given candidate’s evaluation can occur as a result of her or his place in the interview schedule. The candidate is likely to receive a more favorable evaluation if preceded by mediocre applicants and a less favorable evaluation if preceded by strong applicants.

23.6.Selective Perception

Yet another obstacle to accurate perceptions arises from the tendency to be influenced by our own interests. As it is not possible to take in all stimuli we receive, we tend to select out certain elements. As an illustration of this, consider the experience that follows the purchase of a car. Suddenly you begin to notice that type of car on the street much more frequently. Selective perception occurs in organizations when managers tend to interpret problem situations in light of their own background and interest. For example, given an ambiguous problematic situation, a sales manager will be inclined to see sales issues as the underlying cause while a production manager will be inclined to see manufacturing-related issues as the cause.

23.7.Implicit Personality Theories

Implicit personality theories can also lead to inaccurate perceptions. We tend to have our own mini-theories about how people look and behave. These theories help us organize our perceptions and take shortcuts instead of integrating new information all the time. We are cognitive misers. Because the world is complex and ambiguous and we have a limited mental capacity, we try to expend the least amount of effort possible in attempting to make sense of the world. We group traits and appearances into clusters that seem to go together. For example, you may believe that introverted people are also worriers and intellectuals, or that fashionable dressers are also up on current events and like modern music. These implicit personality theories are obstacles, because they limit our ability to take in new information when it is available.

23.8.Impression Management

Most people want to make favorable impressions on others. This is particularly true in organizations, where individuals compete for jobs, favorable performance evaluations, and salary increases. The process by which individuals try to control the impressions others have of them is called impression management. Individuals use several techniques to control others’ impressions of them.

Some impression management techniques are self-enhancing. These techniques focus on enhancing others’ impressions of the person using the technique. Name-dropping, which involves mentioning an association with important people in the hopes of improving one’s image, is often used. Managing one’s appearance is another technique for impression management. Individuals dress carefully for interviews because they want to “look the part” in order to get the job. Self-descriptions, or statements about one’s characteristics, are used to influence impressions as well.

Another group of impression management techniques are other-enhancing. The aim of these techniques is to focus on the individual whose impression is to be managed. Flattery is a common other-enhancing technique whereby compliments are given to an individual in order to win her or his approval. Favors are also used to gain the approval of others. Agreement with someone’s opinion is a technique often used to gain a positive impression.

Some employees may engage in impression management to intentionally look bad at work. Methods for creating a poor impression include decreasing performance, not working to one’s potential, skipping work, displaying a bad attitude, or broadcasting one’s limitations. Why would someone try to look bad to others? Sometimes employees want to avoid additional work or a particular task. They may try to look bad in hopes of being laid off, or they may create poor impressions in order to get attention.

Impression management seems to have an impact on others’ impressions. As long as the impressions conveyed are accurate, this process can be a beneficial one in organizations. If the impressions are found to be false, however, a strongly negative overall impression may result. Further, excessive impression management can lead to the perception that the user is manipulative or insincere.

23.9.Lessons about Impression Management

So how can managers avoid being fooled by clever impression management? Alternatively, how can you capitalize on these impression tactics so as to present yourself in a favorable way to others (your direct reports, peers, superiors, etc.)? Let’s start with some basic suggestions that can reduce unwanted impression management.

Try to reduce ambiguity. Impression management becomes more viable when performance criteria are unclear. When clear standards are lacking, resources are more likely to be doled out to those who are well-liked by superiors. Do a better job of making performance criteria specific and you’ll reduce the incentive to manage impressions.

Be aware of how circumstances and status impact your interactions. As a manager, never forget that your status—and your ability to control rewards—can elicit ingratiation and “brown-nosing.” And if you or your organization emphasizes status (special offices, elaborate titles, etc.), then don’t be surprised when employees use such strategies. Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but money and rewards are in the hands of the employer. Reducing the emphasis on status can help curtail unbridled brown-nosing.

Be aware of possible ulterior motives. Often there’s a fine line between impression management and reality. For example, a sports announcer for a local TV station seems very phony and overly dramatic in his delivery. And viewers have criticized him for it. A newspaper article, however, suggests that this style reflects the guy’s real personality and that he has been hurt by the public’s impression of him. Of course, people were skeptical of the announcer’s delivery because they suspected an ulterior motive—that his style was designed to snare viewers in a competitive news market. Yet providing a bad impression isn’t the worst thing here. The worse thing is to provide an inaccurate or phony presentation; that’s unforgivable. So be aware of ulterior motives, but also know that there’s a difference between pure self-promotion and true competence.

And what about the flip side? If impression management can make you more attractive as both a job candidate and an employee, then how can you capitalize on these tactics in presenting yourself?

Looks are important. Unfortunately, looks sometimes carry the day. But we don’t just mean physical attractiveness, although that can be very important. We’re also referring to the general impression that manipulating one’s appearance can create.

Avoid using some presentation methods. Some presentation strategies are best left alone. Excuse-making and justifications—even if legitimate and accurate—are losing propositions. You’re on the defensive to start with and it’s tough to recover. Further, relying on these techniques leads people to suspect other things about you as well. Take a look at the best-selling business books. Most of them present very positive messages; pictures are painted of “servant” leaders, people who lead with their “hearts,” and so on. How many people do you know whose careers have been filled with dispassionate, fair-minded, servant bosses. But the more positive (and less accurate) portrayal of business leaders is what sells. Perhaps this holds lessons for us all.

Rely on more subtle techniques. There’s nothing wrong with a little well-timed and delivered self-promotion, but focus on relatively objective accomplishments. Likewise, indirect compliments about an organization can go a long way in interviews and on the job. A comment such as “I’ve noted that XYZ Corp. is listed as one of the best places to work in the United States” can have positive effects. Subtle agreement with interviewers and bosses (smiling, head nodding, and other nonverbal methods) also can be effective.

24.0.Attributions: Perception the causing of behavior

The attribution process refers to the ways in which people come to understand the causes of their own and others’ behaviors (Baron and Byrne, 1991; Myers, 1993). Attributions play an important role in the process of person perception. Attributions made about the reasons for someone’s behavior may affect judgments about that individual’s fundamental characteristics or traits (what he or she is really like). The attributions that employees and managers make concerning the causes of behavior are important in understanding organizational behavior. For example, managers who attribute poor performance directly to their direct reports tend to behave more punitively than do managers who attribute poor performance to circumstances beyond their direct reports’ control. A manager who believes that an employee failed to perform a task correctly because he lacked proper training might be understanding and give the employee better instructions or more training. The same manager might be quite angry if he believes that the direct report made mistakes simply because he didn’t try very hard. Behavioral reactions to the same outcome can be dramatically different, depending on perceptions of the situation and attributions made. For example, Table 2.2 lists some of the possible differences in managerial behavior when employees are perceived positively versus when they are perceived negatively.

24.1.The Attribution Process

People make attributions to understand the behavior of other people and to make better sense of their environments. Individuals don’t consciously make attributions in all circumstances (although they may do so unconsciously much of the time) (Azar, 1996). However, under certain circumstances, people are likely to make causal attributions consciously. For example, causal attributions are common in the following situations.

• The perceiver has been asked an explicit question about another’s behavior? (Why did Nandi do that?)

Table 2.2 Possible Results Stemming from Differences in Perceptions of Performance

Boss’s Behavior Toward Perceived Strong Performers	Boss’s Behavior Toward Perceived Weak Performers
Discusses project objectives. Gives direct reports the freedom to choose own approach to solving problems or reaching goals.	Gives specific directives when discussing tasks and goals.
Treats mistakes or incorrect judgments as learning opportunities.	Pays close attention to mistakes and incorrect judgments. Quick to emphasize what direct report is doing wrong.
Is open to direct report’s suggestions. Solicits opinions from direct reports.	Pays little attention to direct report’s suggestions. Rarely asks direct report for input.
Gives direct report interesting and challenging assignments.	Gives direct reports routine assignments.
May frequently defer to direct report’s opinions in disagreements.	Usually imposes own views in disagreements.

• An unexpected event occurs. (I’ve never seen Stanley behave that way. I wonder what’s going on.)

• The perceiver depends on another person for a desired outcome. (I wonder why my boss made that comment about my expense account.)

• The perceiver experiences feelings of failure or loss of control. (I can’t believe I failed my midterm exam!)

In a basic model of the attribution process people infer “causes” to behaviors that they observe in others, and these interpretations often largely determine their reactions to those behaviors. The perceived causes of behavior reflect several antecedents: (1) the amount of information the perceiver has about the people and the situation and how that information is organized by the perceiver; (2) the perceiver’s beliefs (implicit personality theories, what other people might do in a similar situation, and so on); and (3) the motivation of the perceiver (e.g., the importance to the perceiver of making an accurate assessment). Internal factors like learning, motivation, and personality influence the attribution process. The perceiver’s information and beliefs depend on previous experiences and are influenced by the perceiver’s personality.

Based on information, beliefs, and motives, the perceiver often distinguishes between internal and external causes of behavior; that is, whether people did something because of a real desire or because of the pressure of circumstances. The assigned cause of the behavior—whether internal or external—helps the perceiver attach meaning to the event and is important for understanding the subsequent consequences for the perceiver. Among the consequences of this attribution process are the subsequent behavior of the perceiver in response to the behavior of others, the impact on feelings or emotions (how the perceiver now feels about events, people, and circumstances), and the effects on the perceiver’s expectations of future events or behavior. A central question in the attribution process concerns how perceivers determine whether the behavior of another person stems from internal causes (personality traits, emotions, motives, or ability) or external causes (other people, the situation, or change). A widely accepted model proposed by Harold Kelley attempts to explain how people determine why others behave as they do (Kelley, 1973). This explanation states that in making attributions, people focus on three major factors:

• Consistency—the extent to which the person perceived behaviors in the same manner on other occasions when faced with the same situation.

• Distinctiveness—the extent to which the person perceived acts in the same manner in different situations.

• Consensus—the extent to which others, faced with the same situation, behave in a manner similar to the person perceived. (Kasof, 1999)

According to one researcher, under conditions of high consistency, high distinctiveness, and high consensus, the perceiver will tend to attribute the behavior of the person perceived to external causes (Myers, 1993). When distinctiveness and consensus are low, the perceiver will tend to attribute the behavior of the person to internal causes. Of course, other combinations of high and low consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus are possible. Some combination, however, may not provide the perceiver with a clear choice between internal and external causes.

One of the more interesting findings from attribution theory is that there are errors or biases that distort attributions. For instance, there is substantial evidence that when we make judgments about the behavior of other people, we have a tendency to underestimate the influence of external factors and overestimate the influence of internal or personal factors (Miller and Lawson, 1989). This is called the fundamental attribution error and can explain why a sales manager is prone to attribute poor performance of her sales agents to laziness rather than to the innovative product line introduced by a competitor. There is also a tendency for individuals to attribute their own successes to internal factors such as ability or effort while putting the blame for failure on external factors such as luck. This is called the self-serving bias and suggests that feedback provided to em- ployees in performance reviews will be predictably distorted by recipients depending on whether it is positive or negative.

24.2.Overcoming Obstacles to Perception of other

In most instances, obstacles or people’s biased perceptions of others do not result from any malicious intent to inflict harm. Instead, these obstacles or biases in perception tend to occur because we, as perceivers, are imperfect processors of information. We assume that people are internally responsible for their behavior; because we cannot be aware of all the possible situational factors that may be involved—hence, we make the fundamental attribution error. Furthermore, it is highly impractical to learn everything about someone that may guide our reactions—hence, we use stereotypes. We can, however, minimize the impact of these other biases. Indeed, several steps can be taken to promote the accurate perception of others in the workplace. The following recommendations are useful in this regard:

• Do not overlook external causes of others’ behavior. The fundamental attribution error leads us to discount the possibility that people’s poor performance may result from conditions beyond their control. Therefore, we may ignore legitimate explanations for poor performance. You should ask yourself if anyone else may have performed just as poorly under the same conditions. If the answer is yes, then you should not automatically assume the poor performer is to blame. Good managers need to make such judgments accurately so that they can decide whether to focus their efforts on developing employees or on changing work conditions.

• Identify and confront your stereotypes. We all rely on stereotypes—especially when it comes to dealing with new people. Although this is natural, erroneous perceptions—quite possibly at the expense of someone else—are bound to result. Therefore, it is good to identify the stereotypes you hold. Doing so helps you become more aware of them, thus taking a giant step toward minimizing their impact on your behavior. After all, unless you are aware of your stereotypes, you may never be able to counter them.

• Evaluate people based on objective factors. The more objective the information you use to judge others, the less your judgments are subjected to perceptual distortion. People tend to bias subjective judgments in self-serving ways, such as positively evaluating the work of those we like and negatively evaluating the work of those we dislike. To the extent that evaluations are based on objective information, however, this is less likely to occur.

• Avoid making rash judgments. It is human nature to jump to conclusions about what people are like—even when we know very little about them. Get to know people better before convincing yourself you already know all you need to about them. What you learn may make a big difference in your opinion. In reality, many of these tactics are far easier to say than to do. To the extent we conscientiously try to apply these suggestions to our everyday interactions with others in the workplace, however, we stand a good chance of perceiving people more accurately, and this is a fundamental ingredient in the recipe for successfully managing others in today’s organizations.

24.4.Attitudes

Attitudes are determinants of behavior because they’re linked with perception, personality, and motivation. An attitude is a positive or negative feeling or mental state of readiness, learned and organized through experience, that exerts specific influence on a person’s response to people, objects, and situations. Each of us has attitudes on numerous topics—dieting, career goals, exercise, tax laws, and unions, for example. This definition of attitude has certain implications for managers. First, attitudes are learned. Second, attitudes define our predispositions toward given aspects of the world. Third, attitudes provide the emotional basis of our interpersonal relations and identification with others. And fourth, attitudes are organized and are close to the core of personality. Some attitudes are persistent and enduring; yet, attitudes are subject to change. An attitude has three separate but related parts:

• Cognitive. Perceptions and beliefs about the object of the attitude; the person’s perception of the distinguishing features of the object.

• Affective. Evaluation and feelings about the object of the attitude; a person’s feeling of like or dislike for the object.

• Behavioral intentions. How the person wants to behave and what the person says about his behavior toward the object. It is not always the same as the behavior observed following the expression of the attitude. (Breckler, 1984)

Attitudes have many sources: family, peer groups, society, and previous job experiences. Early family experiences help shape individuals’ attitudes. Young children’s attitudes usually correspond to their parents’. As children reach their teens, they begin to be more strongly influenced by peers. Peer groups influence attitudes because individuals want to be accepted by others. Teenagers seek approval by sharing similar attitudes or by modifying attitudes to comply with those of a group.

Culture, mores, and language influence attitudes. Attitudes of Americans toward people in Russia, Cubans toward capitalism, and French Canadians toward France are learned in society. Within the United States are subcultures—ethnic communities, ghetto communities, and religious groups—that help shape people’s attitudes.

Through job experiences, employees develop attitudes about pay equity, performance review, managerial capabilities, job design, and work group

affiliation. Previous experiences account for some individual differences in attitudes toward performance, loyalty, and commitment.

Individuals strive to maintain consistency among the components of attitudes. But contradictions and inconsistencies often occur, resulting in a state of disequilibrium. The tension stemming from such a state is reduced only when some form of consistency is achieved.

The term cognitive dissonance describes a situation where there’s a discrepancy between the cognitive and behavioral components of an attitude (Festinger, 1957). Any form of inconsistency is uncomfortable so individuals attempt to reduce dissonance. Dissonance, then, is viewed as a state within a person that, when aroused, elicits actions designed to return the person to a state of equilibrium (Elliott and Devine, 1994). For example, the chief executive officer (CEO) of a tobacco company may experience cognitive dissonance if she believes that she’s honest and hardworking but that cigarettes contribute to lung cancer. She may think, “I’m a good human being, but I’m in charge of a firm producing a cancer-contributing product.” These thoughts create inconsistency. Instead of quitting and giving up her successful career, she’s more likely to modify her thoughts or cognitions. She could state, “Our firm has manufactured a cigarette that’s now very safe and free of cancer-producing products.” Or she may think that cigarette smoking actually improves smokers’ well-being, that it helps them reduce or cope with stress. When inconsistency in attitudes arises, the person can attempt to work out the problem cognitively or behaviorally. Here the CEO used a cognitive process to reduce her dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance has important organizational implications. First, it helps explain the choices made by an individual with attitude inconsistency. Second, it can help predict a person’s propensity to change attitudes. If individuals are required, for example, by the design of their jobs or occupations to say or do things that contradict their personal attitudes, they may change those attitudes to make them more compatible with what they’ve said or done.

24.5.Changing Attitudes

Managers often face the task of changing employees’ attitudes because existing attitudes hinder job performance. Attitude change happens because (1) something persuades the person to shift his attitudes; (2) the norms of a social group important to the person affect her attitudes; or (3) the person becomes uncomfortable with some aspects of her beliefs about certain things.

Common sources of attitude change are the persuasive communications designed to affect our beliefs such as those found in radio, television, newspaper, and magazine advertising. Persuasive communication tries to change the cognitive part of an attitude and assumes the affective part will change in either a positive or negative direction. Persuasive communication changes attitudes through four separate but related processes. First, the communication must win the target’s attention. Television advertising, for example, often plays at a higher volume than the main program to get the attention of the viewer. Second, the target of the attitude change must comprehend the message. A persuasive communication must be presented in a language and format understandable by the target. The third process is acceptance. No matter how logical and persuasive a communication, if the target does not accept it, attitude change will not follow. The last process is retention. If the message is not memorable, attitude change will not last. The latter, of course, is central to the effectiveness of advertising. Our shopping behavior is little affected by advertising we easily forget. The second major approach to attitude change views people as embedded in a social context and affected by the norms or standards held by the social groups a person experiences (Lewin, 1947). People who hold attitudes different from those of a group important to them will feel social pressures to conform to the norms of the group. Such pressures come from the tendency of social groups to reject people who do not conform to their norms. If the person with the differing attitude values membership in the group, he will likely bring the attitude into alignment with the group norms.

Hints for Shaping and Changing Employee Attitudes

It is difficult to change other people’s attitudes. But it can be done. The following hints can help you as a manager to change employee attitudes.

Give employees feedback. Employees must be made aware of their negative attitudes if they are to change. The manager must talk to the employee about the negative attitude. The employee must understand that the attitude has negative consequences for the individual and the department. The manager should offer an alternative attitude.

Accentuate positive conditions. Employees tend to have positive attitudes toward the things they do well. Make working conditions as pleasant as possible; make sure employees have all the necessary resources and training to do a good job.

Provide consequences. Employees tend to repeat activities or events followed by positive consequences. On the other hand, they tend to avoid things followed by negative consequences. Encourage and reward employees with positive attitudes. Try to keep negative attitudes from developing and spreading.

Be a positive role model. If the manager has a positive attitude, employees may, too.

24.6.Attitudes and Values

Values are linked to attitudes in that a value serves as a way of organizing. Values are defined “as the constellation of likes, dislikes, viewpoints, shoulds, inner inclinations, rational and irrational judgments, prejudices, and association patterns that determine a person’s view of the world” (Flowers, 1975; Spranger, 1928). Certainly, a person’s work is an important aspect of her world. Moreover, the importance of a value constellation is that, once internalized, it becomes (consciously or subconsciously) a standard or criterion for guiding one’s actions. The study of values, therefore, is fundamental to the study of managing. There’s evidence that values are also extremely important for understanding effective managerial behavior (Flowers, 1975).

Values affect the perceptions not only of appropriate ends but also of appropriate means to those ends. From the design and development of organizational structures and processes to the utilization of particular leadership styles and the evaluation of the performance of direct reports, value systems are persuasive. An influential theory of leadership is based on the argument that managers can’t be expected to adopt a leadership style that’s contrary to their “need structures” or value orientations (Fiedler, 1967). Moreover, when managers evaluate direct reports’ performance, the effects of the managers’ values are noticeable. For example, one researcher reports that managers can be expected to evaluate direct reports with values similar to their own as more effective than direct reports with dissimilar values (Senger, 1971). The impact of values is more pronounced in decisions involving little objective information and, consequently, a greater degree of subjectivity.

Another aspect of the importance of values occurs when the interpersonal activities of managers bring them into a confrontation with different, and potentially contradictory, values. Assembly-line workers, scientists, and persons in various professional occupations are characterized by particular, if not unique, value orientations. Day-to-day activities create numerous situations in which managers must relate to others with different views of what’s right or wrong. Conflicts between managers and workers, administrators and teachers, and line and staff personnel have been documented and discussed in the literature of management. The manner in which these conflicts are resolved is particularly crucial to the organization’s effectiveness.

24.7.Attitudes and Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction is an attitude that individuals have about their jobs. It results from their perceptions of their jobs, based on factors of the work environment, such as the supervisor’s style, policies and procedures, work group affiliation, working conditions, and fringe benefits. While numerous dimensions have been associated with job satisfaction, five in particular have crucial characteristics (Smith, Kendall and Hulin, 1969).

Pay.The amount received and the perceived equity of pay.

· Job. The extent to which job tasks are considered interesting and provide opportunities for learning and for accepting responsibility.

· Promotion opportunities. The availability of opportunities for advancement.

· Supervisor. The supervisor’s abilities to demonstrate interest in and concern about employees.

Coworkers. The extent to which co-workers are friendly, competent, and supportive.

In some studies, these five job-satisfaction dimensions have been measured by the Job Descriptive Index (JDI). Employees are asked to respond “yes, no, or can’t decide” as to whether a word or phrase describes their attitudes about their jobs. The JDI attempts to measure a person’s satisfaction with specific facts of the job. Other measures of job satisfaction, such as the Brayfield-Rothe measures are more general. A major reason for studying job satisfaction is to provide managers with ideas about how to improve employee attitudes. Many organizations use attitude surveys to determine levels of employee job satisfaction.

24.8.Changing Attitudes

The environment around us influences our attitudes. Usually we cannot control our environment, but we can control our attitudes. We can choose to be optimistic or pessimistic. We can look for the positive and be happier and get more out of life. The following hints can help you change your attitudes:

Be aware of your attitudes. People who are optimistic have higher levels of job satisfaction. Consciously try to have and maintain a positive attitude. If a situation gives you lemons—make lemonade. If you catch yourself complaining or being negative in any way, stop and change to a positive attitude. With time you can become more positive.

Think for yourself. Develop your own attitudes based on others’ input; don’t simply copy others’ attitudes.

Realize that there are few, if any, benefits to harboring negative attitudes. Negative attitudes, like holding a grudge, can only hurt your human relations, and hurt yourself in the end, and it’s stressful.

Keep an open mind. Listen to other people’s input. Use it do develop your positive attitudes.

25.0.Personality

We have all probably heard phases such as “that person has a pleasant personality” or “that person has an outgoing personality.” The word personality carries many meanings for psychologists and lay people. For example, personality is defined by some as a set of traits, characteristics, and predispositions held by a person. For others, personality is the unique and relatively stable pattern of behavior, thoughts, and emotions shown by individuals. In either definition, personality refers to the lasting ways in which any one person is different from all others. And as you can imagine, personality characteristics can be very important when it comes to organizational behavior.

Personality usually matures and stabilizes by age 30. The collection of factors that make up an individual’s personality affects how the person adjusts to different environments.

25.1.Personality Theories

Since the early twentieth century, psychologists have developed three major classes of personality theories. Each theory makes different assumptions about human personality and offers a different perspective of how personality develops.

Cognitive theory describes people as developing their thinking patterns as their lives unfold (Kenrich, Montello, and MacFarlane, 1985). A person’s patterns of thinking affect how the person interprets and internalizes life’s events. People move through a series of cognitive development stages (Shafer, 1988). The stages begin shortly after birth with the reflexive behavior of the infant and proceed through increasingly more complex modes of perceptions and interpretation of events in the child’s environment. This class of personality theory views a child as neither driven by instincts nor unwittingly shaped by environmental influences. Children are curious and actively explore their social world to understand it. They respond to their environments according to how they understand and interpret their environment’s features. Two children in the same environment could interpret and react to it differently.

Learning theories of personality have appeared in several forms since the early 1990s. The earliest versions assumed a child was a blank sheet of paper, shaped almost entirely by the social environment. Instincts played no role in these theories. A need to satisfy a set of internal states, drives, motivated a person’s behavior (Dollard and Miller, 1950; Watson, 1913, 1928).

A person learns behavior from social interaction with other people. The young child learns acceptable behaviors during early family socialization. Adults continuously interact in different social environments and with dif- ferent people. As behavior stabilizes, it forms the basic qualities of an individual’s personality. Some learning theories view personality development as a continuous process from birth to death. The uniqueness of each personality follows from the variability in each person’s social experiences (Dollard and Miller, 1950).

Operant-Learning Theory offers another view of social learning (Skinner, 1953, 1971). People learn behavior because external stimuli reinforce the behavior. Reinforcement increase the likelihood of the behavior in the future. The proper application of reinforcers develops complete behavior patterns, which form an individual’s personality.

The cognitive social-learning theory developed by Bandura accepts the role of reinforcement but sees behavior as largely learned by observation (Bandura, 1977). People learn by observing behavior and its consequences, not by directly responding to reinforcers. They learn by observation and try to imitate the behavior they see.

Biological theories of personality development have developed from two different sets of research. Ethological theory describes the ways in which the members of a given species, say, human beings, develop common characteristics as a result of evolution. Behavior genetics describe how an individual’s unique gene structure affects personality development (Kenrich et al., 1985). The accumulated research evidence points to strong genetic effects on human personality (Bouchard, 1997).

Ethological theory has deep roots in an evolutionary perspective of human behavior (Cairns, 1979; Jones, 1972). Behavioral characteristics that have helped humans survive through successive generations become the inborn characteristics of all humans. The simplest example is the distresslike cry of an infant and the response of a person responsible for the infant’s care. The infant cries because of hunger or other pain. The caregiver responds to the cry by caring for the infant. Ethologists view both behavioral responses as inborn characteristics common to all humans. Ethologists also believe humans learn from their social experiences. A child who cries, but does not consistently get a warm and nurturing response from a caregiver, may develop a personality characterized by distrust of others (Sroufe, Fox, and Pancake, 1983).

Behavior genetics describes personality development as a process of behaviorally expressing a person’s genotype or set of inherited genes. Behavior geneticists do not view emerging behaviors, abilities, predispositions, and other characteristics of the personality as solely a function of genes. They see personality development as an involved series of interactions between a person’s genetically-based predispositions and influences from the person’s social environment.

Although some aspects of personality can come from inborn qualities, others are learned. Modern personality researchers largely agree that per- sonality develops from an interaction of internal qualities and the external environment.

25.2.The Big Five Personality Dimensions

After almost a century of research, scientists largely agree that five basic dimensions can describe personality (Digman, 1990; Salgado, 1997). These dimensions have appeared in many studies, across many samples, and in studies done in several countries outside the United States. Although some psychologists feel the dimensions are not precisely specified, fewer than five dimensions exist, or a different set of five dimensions exist, these dimensions are now widely used in personality psychology (Waller and Ben-Porath, 1987). The “Big Five” factors are:

• Extraversion. This dimension captures one’s comfort level with relationships. Extraverts tend to be gregarious, assertive, and sociable. Introverts tend to be reserved, timid, and quiet.

• Agreeableness. This dimension refers to an individual’s propensity to defer to others. Highly agreeable people are cooperative, warm, and trusting. People who score low on agreeableness are cold, disagreeable, and antagonistic.

• Conscientiousness. This dimension is a measure of reliability. A highly conscientious person is responsible, organized, dependable, and persistent. Those who score low on this dimension are easily distracted, disorganized, and unreliable.

• Emotional stability. This dimension taps a person’s ability to withstand stress. People with positive emotional stability tend to be calm, self-confident, and secure. Those with highly negative scores tend to be nervous, anxious, depressed, and insecure.

• Openness to experience. The final dimension addresses an individual’s range of interests and fascination with novelty. Extremely open people are creative, curious, and artistically sensitive. Those at the other end of the openness category are conventional and find comfort in the familiar.

As you might imagine, the Big Five dimensions of personality play an important role in organizational behavior. For example, research has shown that employees who are highly conscientious tend to perform better than those who are not so conscientious. Organizational scientists also have found that people who are highly extraverted tend to succed on managerial and sales jobs—much as the stereotype suggests (Barrick and Mount, 1993). However, not all research findings are as easily explained. For example, neither agreeableness nor emotional stability have been linked to success in various kinds of jobs. This may well be because large numbers of disagreeable and unstable people leave their jobs early. As a result, those who are left behind, and whose performance is measured by researchers, tend to be relatively agreeable and stable. Clearly, as you can see, person- ality plays an important—but often unpredictable—role when it comes to understanding behavior in organizations.

25.3.Personality Types

Human personality characteristics and dispositions are also described as personality types. Many types are useful for understanding and managing behavior in organizations. The following paragraphs describe some personality types that can give you insight into their behavior.

Locus of control. People differ in whether they feel they control the consequences of their actions or they are controlled by external factors. External control personality types believe that luck, fate, or powerful external forces control their destiny. Internal control personality types believe they control what happens to them (Rotter, 1966).

Machiavellianism. A Machiavellian personality holds cynical views of other people’s motives, places little value on honesty, and approaches the world with manipulative intent. Machiavellians maintain distance between themselves and others and are emotionally detached from other people in their lives. Their suspicious interpersonal orientation can contribute to high interpersonal conflict. Machiavellian personalities focus on personal goals, even if reaching them requires unethical behavior or manipulating other people. Their suspicious orientation also leads them to view their organizational world as a web of political processes (Wilson, Near, and Miller, 1996).

Type A and B personalities. During the 1960s and 1970s, much research focused on personality patterns associated with coronary heart disease. The Type A personality emerged as a significant risk factor for that disease. Type A personalities are “aggressively involved in a chronic, incessant struggle to achieve more in less and less time, and, if required to do so, against the opposing efforts of other things or other persons” (Friedman and Rosenman, 1974; Friedman and Ulmer, 1984). Type A personalities have strong desires to dominate other people and quickly explode in anger over what others consider trivial events. For example, lines at a bank or a stalled vehicle in an intersection can throw a Type A personality into a rage.

In contrast to the Type A personality is the Type B, who is exactly the opposite. Type B’s have no sense of time urgency and often stop to review their achievements and think about where they are headed in the future. They have high self-esteem, a characteristic that distinguishes them from Type A personalities. Type B personalities are even tempered, are not bothered by common everyday events, and approach the world in a calmer way than Type A personalities.

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a popular personality assessment device based on Jung’s person- ality theory (Jung, 1971). This device assigns people to one of 16 personality types based on four bi-polar dimensions: extroverted (E)–introverted (I); sensing (S)–intuitive (I); thinking (T)–feeling (F); perceiving (P)–judging (J). Extroverts look outward; introverts turn inward. Sensers use data; intuitives use hunches. Thinkers are objective; feelers are subjective. Perceivers are flexible; judgers want closure. The letters in parentheses form type indicators. An ESTJ, for example, is an extroverted, sensing, thinking, and judging type.

There is no hard evidence that the MBTI is a valid measure of personality. But lack of evidence doesn’t seem to deter its use in a wide range of organizations. Companies like AT&T, Exxon, and Honeywell have used the MBTI in their management development programs to help employees understand the different viewpoints of others in the organization. The MBTI can be used for team building. Hewlett-Packard and Armstrong World Industries have used the MBTI to help teams realize that diversity and differences lead to successful performance.

Type theory is valued by managers for its simplicity and accuracy in depicting personalities. It is a useful tool for helping managers develop interpersonal skills. Type theory is also used by managers to build teams that capitalize on individuals’ strengths and to help individual team members appreciate differences.

It should be recognized that there is the potential for individuals to misuse the information from the MBTI in organizational settings. Some inappropriate uses include labeling one another, providing a convenient excuse that they simply can’t work with someone else, and avoiding responsibility for their own personal development with respect to working with others and becoming more flexible. One’s type is not an excuse for inappropriate behavior.

26.1.Motivating Today’s Workforce

“Nobody wants to work like they did in the good old days.” “Half the problems we have around here are due to a lack of personal motivation.” “Workers just don’t seem to care.” Such sentiments are often expressed by many of today’s managers. However, motivating employees is not a new problem. Much of the pioneering work in the field of management, which took place early in the twentieth century, was concerned with motivation. One can even find examples showing motivation problems existed back in biblical times. One reason why leading is such an important management activity is that it entails ensuring that each me

mber of a team is motivated to perform highly and help the organization achieve its goals. When managers are effective, the outcome of the leading process is a highly motivated workforce. Managers frequently ask the following questions:

• What does it take to motivate my direct reports?

• How do I get people to do things?

• Why is motivation so complicated and difficult to understand?

• Can basic principles of motivation apply to today’s individual employees and teams?

• Am I motivated?

No two managers will answer these questions in exactly the same manner. Motivation is an individual phenomenon affecting each person in a different way. Although motivation continues to be a popular word, it is extremely difficult to define. Yet its importance cannot be overemphasized. In reality, managers are not evaluated on what they do, but, instead, on what they cause their direct reports to do. The mark of a successful manager is to be able to motivate people, causing them to advance their best efforts to accomplish and possibly exceed organizational goals and objective.

26.2.What is Motivation?

We see examples of motivation all the time. Rocky, the prizefighter down for the count, sees his wife through bleary eyes and rises slowly from the mat, summoning energy from within himself that allows him to attack the challenger and win. During halftime, the lackluster football team is transformed by the coach into screaming, aggressive, and highly motivated players who go on to win the game.

The study of motivation is concerned primarily with the question of why and how people behave as they do. Motivation is derived from the root of the Latin word meaning “to move.” It is, basically, to impel someone to act. An overwhelming amount of time and energy has been devoted to finding the answers to this question.

In many work situations, some managers do not believe that motivation is part of their job. They think that once an employee is hired, it is the employee’s responsibility to ensure that the job is done. They unfortunately envision their job as simply making corrections and adjustments when necessary, and they erroneously believe that motivation is the responsibility of the individual employee.

Today’s organizations cannot be successful if they rely on this premise. Managers and various team leaders are the movers and shakers whose primary responsibility is to get things done through others. The first thing that those in leadership positions must accept is that motivation is a primary part of their job. In order to motivate effectively, they must understand the process and theory of motivation, as well as its components. What is more, they must readily recognize the negative consequences of unmotivated employees.

References

Agger, Ben (1991). Critical Theory, Poststructuralism, Postmodernism: Their Sociological Relevance. Annual Review of Sociology, 17, 105–131.

Alderfer, Clayton P. (1977). A Critique of Salancik and Pfeffer's Examination of Need Satisfaction Theories. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 658–669.

Alvesson, Mats, & KaÂÂrreman, Dan (2000). Taking the Linguistic Turn in Organizational Research Challenges, Responses, Consequences. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36, 136–158.

Argyris, Chris (1980). Inner Contradictions of Rigorous Research. New York: Academic Press.

Astley, W. Graham, & Zammuto, Raymond F. (1992). Organization Science, Managers, and Language Games. Organization Science, 3, 443–460.

Azar, B. (1996).Influences from the mind’s inner layers.

Bacharach, Samuel B. (1989). Organizational Theories: Some Criteria for Evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14, 496–515.

Bagozzi, Richard P.; & Phillips,(1991). Assessing Construct Validity in Organizational Research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 421–458.

Behling, Orlando (1980). The Case for the Natural Science Model for Research in Organizational Behavior and Organization Theory. Academy of Management Review, 5, 483–490.

Belasco, James A., & Trice, Harrison M. (1969). The Assessment of Change in Training andTherapy. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Berelson, Bernard, & Steiner, Gary (1964). Human Behavior: An Inventory of Scientific Findings. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

Beyer, Janice M. (1992). Metaphors, Misunderstandings, and Mischief: A Commentary. Organization Science, 3, 467–474.

Blackburn, Richard S. (1987). Experimental Design in Organizational Settings., Handbook of Organizational Behavior (pp. 126— 139).

Blackburn, Richard S. (1990). Organizational Behavior: Whom Do We Talk to and Who Talks to Us? Journal of Management, 16, 279–305.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Baron, R.A., and Byrne, D. (1991).Social psychology: Understanding human interaction. 6th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Barrick, M.R., and Mount, M.K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between the big five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 78: 111–118.

Bouchard, T.J., Jr. (1997). Genetic influence on mental abilities, personality, vocational interests and work attitudes. In C.L. Cooper and I.T. Robertson (eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology, vol. 12. pp. 373–396.

Breckler, S.J. (1984). Empirical validation of affect, behavior, and cognition as distinct components of attitude. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47: 1191–1205.

Boring, Edwin G. (1950). A History of Experimental Psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Brief, Arthur P., & Dukerich, Janet M. (1991). Theory in Organizational Behavior: Can It Be Useful? Research in Organizational Behavior, 13, 327–352.

Brown, Clarence W., &Ghiselli, Edwin E. (1955). Scientific Method in Psychology. New York: McGrawHill.

Burrell, Gibson (1996). Normal Science, Paradigms, Metaphors, Discourses, and Genealogies of Analysis. Handbook of Organization Studies (pp. 642–658).

Campbell, John P. (1990). The Role of Theory in Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 3973).

Cannella, Albert A., & Ramona L. (1994). Pfeffer's Barriers to the Advance of Organizational Science: A Rejoinder. Academy of Management Review, 19, 331–341.

Clegg, Stewart R. Walter R. (1996). Handbook of Organization Studies. London: Sage.

Cairns, R.B. (1979). Social development: The origins of plasticity of interchanges. New York: W.H. Freeman.

Davis-Blake, Alison, & Pfeffer, Jeffrey (1989). Just a Mirage: The Search for Dispositional Effects in Organizational Research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 385–400.

Donaldson, Lex (1992). The Weick Stuff: Managing beyond Games. Organization Science, 3, 461–466.

Donaldson, Lex (1996). For Positivist Organization Theory. London: Sage.

Doty, D. Harold, & Glick, William H. (1994). Typologies as a Unique Form of Theory Building: Toward Improving Understanding and Modeling. Academy of Management Review, 19, 230–251.

Dubin, Robert (1976). Theory Building in Applied Areas. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 17–39).

Dubin, Robert (1978). Theory Building. New York: Free Press.

Digman, J.M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology 41: 417–440.

Dollard, J., and Miller, N.E. (1950). Personality and psychotherapy: An analysis interms of learning, thinking, and culture. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Elliott, A.J., and Devine, P.G. (1994).On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance: Dissonance as psychological discomfort. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (September): 382–394.

Festinger, L. (1957).A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.

Fiedler, F.E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Flowers, V.S. (1975).Managerial values for working. New York: American Management Association.

Friedman, M., and Rosenman, R. (1974). Type A behavior and your heart. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Friedman, M., and Ulmer, D. (1984). Treating type A behavior and your heart. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Fabian, Frances H. (2000). Keeping the Tension: Pressures to Keep the Controversy in the Management Discipline. Academy of Management Review, 25, 350–371.

Frost, PeterJ., & Stablein, Ralph E. (1992). Doing Exemplary Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

George, Jennifer M. (1992). The Role of Personality in Organizational Life: Issues and Evidence. Journal of Management, 18, 185–213.

Glaser, Barney G., & Strauss, Anselm L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine.

Gottfredson, Linda S. (1983). Creating and Criticizing Theory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 23, 203— 212.

Hartman, Edwin (1988). Conceptual Foundations of Organization Theory. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Herzberg, Frederick; & Snyderman, Barbara S. (1959). The Motivation to Work. New York: Wiley.

Holdnak, B. J.& Bushardt, Stephen C. (1990). Evaluation of Organization Training by the Solomon Four Group Design: A Field Study in Self-Esteem Training. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 5 (5), 25–31.

House, Robert J. & Thomas-Hunt, Melissa (1995). The Meso Paradigm: A Framework for the Integration of Micro and Macro Organizational Behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 71–114.

House, Robert J. & Herold, David M. (1996). Rumors of the Death of Dispositional Research Are Vastly Exaggerated. Academy of Management Review, 21, 203–224.

Hunt, Shelby D. (1990). Truth in Marketing Theory and Research. Journal of Marketing, 54 (July), 1–15.

Hunt, Shelby D. (1992). For Reason and Realism in Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 56 (April), 89–102.

Jones, N.B. (1972). Characteristics of ethological studies of human behavior studies of human behavior. In N.B. Jones (ed.), Ethological studies of child behavior. London: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–33.

Jung, C.J. (1971). The collected works of C.G. Jung, vol. 6: Psychological types.

Kasof, J. (1999). Attribution and creativity. In M.A. Runco and S.R. Pritsker (eds.), Encylopedia of creativity, vol. 1. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 147–156.

Kelley, H.H. (1973). The process of causal attribution. American Psychologist 28: 107–128.

Kaplan, Abraham (1964). The Conduct of Inquiry. San Francisco: Chandler.

Ketchen, David J., & Shook, Christopher, L. (1996). The Application of Cluster Analysis in Strategic Management Research: An Analysis and Critique. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 441–458.

Kilduff, Martin, & Mehra, Ajay (1997). Postmodernism and Organizational Research. Academy of Management Review, 22, 453–481.

Kuhn, Thomas (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kenrich, D.T., Montello, D.R., and MacFarlane, S. (1985). Personality: Social learning, social cognition, or sociobiology?, Perspectives in personality: A research annual, vol. 1. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 215–219.

Krech, D., Crutchfield, R.S., and Ballachey, E.L. (1962). Individual and society. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lewin, K. (1947). Group decision and social change. In T. Newcomb and E. Hartley (eds.), Readings in social psychology. New York: Holt, pp. 330–344.

Lammers, Cornelis (1988). Transience and Persistence of Ideal Types in Organizational Theory. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 6, 203–224.

Latham, Gary P.& Locke, Edwin A. (1988). Resolving Scientific Disputes by the Joint Design of Crucial Experiments by the Antagonists: Application to the Erez-Latham Dispute Regarding Participating in Goal Setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 753–772.

Lawler, Edward E.; & Cummings, Thomas G. (1985). Doing Research ThatIs Useful for Theory and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lewin, Kurt (1945). The Research Center for Group Dynamics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Sociometry, 8, 126–135.

Locke, Edwin A. (1986). Generalizing from Laboratory to Field Settings. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Marsden, Richard, & Townley, Barbara (1996). The Owl of Minerva: Reflections on Theory in Practice. Handbook of Organization Studies (pp. 659— 675).

Martin, Joanne, & Frost, Peter (1996). The Organizational Culture War Games: A Struggle for Intellectual Dominance. Handbook of Organization Studies (pp. 599–621).

Mayo, Elton (1933). The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization. New York: Macmillan.

McKelvey, Bill (1997). Quasi-natural Organization Science. Organization Science, 8, 352–380.

McKinley, William (1995). Commentary on Scherer and Dowling. Advances in Strategic Management, 12A, 249–260.

Medsker, GinaJ.; & Holahan, Patricia J. (1994). A Review of Current Practices for Evaluating Causal Models in Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management Research. Journal of Management, 20, 439–464.

Miles, Robert H. (1980). Resource Book in Macro Organizational Behavior. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.

Miller, Danny (1996). Configurations Revisited. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 505–512.

Miner, John B. (1962). Conformity among University Professors and Business Executives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 7, 96–109.

Miner, John B. (1965). A Statistical Model for the Study of Conformity.Mathematical Explorations in Behavioral Science (pp. 95–111). Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Miner, John B. (1980). Theories of Organizational Behavior. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden.

Miner, John B. (1982). Theories of Organizational Structure and Process. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden.

Miner, John B. (1984). The Validity and Usefulness of Theories in an Emerging Organizational Science. Academy of Management Review, 9, 297–306.

Miner, John B. (1990). The Role of Values in Defining the 'Goodness' of Theories in Organizational Science. Organization Studies, 11, 161–178.

Miner, John B. (1995). Administrative and Management Theory. Aldershot, UK: Dartmouth.

Miner, John B. (1997). A Psychological Typology of Successful Entrepreneurs. Westport, CT: Quorum.

Mone, M. A., & McKinley, William (1993). The Uniqueness Value and Its Consequences for Organization Studies. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2, 284296.

McGuire, W.J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (eds.), Handbook of social psychology, vol. 2. New York: Random House, pp. 233–346.

Miller, A.G., and Lawson, T. (1989). The effect of an informational option on the fundamental attribution error. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (June): 194–204.

Myers, D.G. (1993). Social psychology. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Nam, S. (1992).Cultural and managerial attributions for group performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon. Cited in Steers, R.M., Bischoff, S.J., and Higgins, L.H. (1992) Cross-cultural management research. Journal of Management Inquiry (December): 325–326.

Nicholson, N. (1998).How hardwired is human behavior? Harvard Business Review (July–August): 133–147.

Rotter, J.B. (1966).Generalized expectancies for internal and external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs 80: 1–28.

Salgado, J.F. (1997). The five factor model of personality and job performance in the European Community. Journal of Applied Psychology 82: 30–43.

Senger, J. (1971). Managers’ perceptions of subordinates’ competence as a function of personal value orientations. Academy of Management Journal (December): 415–424.

Shafer, D.R. (1988). Social and personality development. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/ Cole.

Skinner, B.F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Free Press.

Skinner, B.F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Bantam.

Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.M., and Hulin, C.L. (1969). The measurement of satisfactionin work and retirement. Skokie, IL: Rand McNally.

Spranger, E. (1928). Types of men. Halle, Germany: Max Niemeyer Verlag.

Sroufe, L.A., Fox, N.E., and Pancake, V.R. (1983). Attachment and dependence in developmental perspective. Child Development 54: 1615–1627.

Waller, N.G., and Ben-Porath, Y.S. (1987). Is it time for clinical psychology to embrace the five-factor model of personality? American Psychologist 42: 887–889.

Watson, J.B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review 20: 158–177.

Watson, J.B. (1928). Psychological care of the infant and child. New York: Norton.

Wilson, D.S., Near, D., and Miller, R.R. (1996). Machiavellianism: A synthesis of the evolutionary and psychological literatures. Psychological Bulletin 119: 285–299.

Osemeka Anthony

Monday, May 24, 2010

INTRODUCTION TO ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR

1 comment:

About Me

Followers

Blog Archive