Meet Your Teacher

Current Poll

Home

Leadership and Organizational Behavior

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 theleadership guide, this paper will focus on a few parts of OB: elements, models, social systems, OD, work life, action learning, and change.

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.

Models of Organizational Behavior

There are four major models or frameworks that organizations operate out of, Autocratic, Custodial, Supportive, and Collegial (Cunningham, Eberle, 1990; Davis ,1967):

  • 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.
    Autocratic Organizations

     

  • 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.
    Custodial Organization

     

  • 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.
    Supportive Organization

     

  • 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.
    Collegial Organization

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 mostly 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. In addition, the collegial model should not be thought as the last or best model, but the beginning of a new model or paradigm.

Warehouse racking

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.

The quadrant shown below shows how individualization affects different organizations (Schein, 1968):

Impact of Individualization on an Organization

  • Quadrant A — Too little socialization and too little individualization creates isolation.
  • Quadrant B — Too little socialization and too high individualization creates rebellion.
  • Quadrant C — Too high socialization and too little individualization creates conformity.
  • Quadrant D — 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 may become look out for Number One! 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.

Organization 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 (Newstrom, Davis, 1993). 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.

There are seven characteristics of OD (Newstrom, Davis, 1993):

  1. Humanistic Values: Positive beliefs about the potential of employees (McGregor's Theory Y).
  2. Systems Orientation: All parts of the organization, to include structure, technology, and people, must work together.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Contingency Orientation: Actions are selected and adapted to fit the need.
  6. Change Agent: Stimulate, facilitate, and coordinate change.
  7. Levels of Interventions: Problems can occur at one or more level in the organization so the strategy will require one or more interventions.
Bridge

 

Quality of Work Life

Quality of Work Life (QWL) is the favorableness or unfavorableness of the job environment (Newstrom, Davis, 1993). 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 illustrates the differences (Cunningham & Eberle, 1990):

Job Enrichment and Job Performance

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.

For a survey activity, see Hackman & Oldham's Five Dimensions of Motivating Potential.

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.

Action Learning can be viewed as a formula: [L = P + Q]:

  • Learning (L) 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 that require the 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. The six steps are:

  1. Formulate Hypothesis (an idea or concept)
  2. Design Experiment (consider ways of testing truth or validity of idea or concept)
  3. Apply in Practice (put into effect, test of validity or truth)
  4. Observe Results (collect and process data on outcomes of test)
  5. Analyze Results (make sense of data)
  6. 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 (1991) calls the levels of existence:

  • We think — cognitive domain
  • We feel — affective domain
  • We do — action domain

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

Change

In its simplest form, discontinuity in the work place is change. - Knoster & Villa, 2000

Our prefrontal cortex is a fast and agile computational device that is able to hold multiple threads of logic at once so that we can perform fast calculations. However, it has its limits with working memory in that it can only hold a handful of concepts at once, similar to the RAM in a PC. In addition, it burns lots of high energy glucose (blood sugar), which is expensive for the body to produce. Thus when given lots of information, such as when a change is required, it has a tendency to overload and being directly linked to the amygdala (the emotional center of the brain) that controls our fight-or-flight response, it can cause severe physical and psychological discomfort. (Koch, 2006)

Our prefrontal cortex is marvelous for insight when not overloaded. But for normal everyday use, our brain prefers to run off its hard-drive—the basal ganglia, which has a much larger storage area and stores memories and our habits. In addition, it sips rather than gulps food (glucose).

When we do something familiar and predictable, our brain is mainly using the basal ganglia, which is quite comforting to us. When we use our prefrontal cortex, then we are looking for fight, flight, or insight. Too much change produces fight or flight syndromes. As change agents we want to produce insight into our learners so that they are able to apply their knowledge and skills not just in the classroom, but also on the job.

And the way to help people come to insight is to allow them to come to their own resolution. These moments of insight or resolutions are called epiphanies—sudden intuitive leap of understanding that are quite pleasurable to us and act as rewards. Thus you have to resist the urge to fill in the entire picture of change, rather you have to leave enough gaps so that the learners are allowed to make connections of their own. Doing too much for the learners can be just as bad, if not worse, than not doing enough.

Doing all the thinking for learners takes their brains out of action, which means they will not invest the energy to make new connections.

Next Steps

Next chapter: Presentations for Leaders

Learning Activities:

Main Leadership Menu


Organizational studies

posted Jul 29, 2011, 7:57 PM by NU Solihin

Organizational studies, sometimes known as organizational science, encompass the systematic study and careful application of knowledge about how people act withinorganizations. Organizational studies sometimes is considered a sister field for, or overarching designation that includes, the following disciplines: industrial and organizational psychology, organizational behavior, human resources, and management. However, there is no universally accepted classification system for such subfields.Organizational studies encompass the study of organizations from multiple viewpoints, methods, and levels of analysis. For instance, one textbook[1] 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 behaviour — which refers to individual and group dynamics in an organizational setting — and "macro" strategic management and organizational theory which studies whole organizations and industries, how they adapt, and the strategies, structures and contingencies that guide them. To this distinction, some scholars have added an interest in "meso" scale structures - power, culture, and the networks of individuals and ie ronit units in organizations — and "field" level analysis which study how whole populations of organizations interact.

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 controlpredict, and explain. There is some controversy over the ethics of controlling workers' behavior, as well as the manner in which workers are treated (see Taylor's scientific management approach compared to the human relations movement of the 1940s). As such, organizational behaviour or OB (and its cousin, Industrial psychology) have at times been accused of being the scientific tool of the powerful.[citation needed] Those accusations notwithstanding, OB can play a major role in organizational development, enhancing organizational performance, as well as individual and group performance/satisfaction/commitment.

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."[2] An organizational theorist should carefully consider levels assumptions being made in theory,[3] and is concerned to help managers and administrators.[4]

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 Smithadvocated a new form of organizational structure based on the division of labour. 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 began as an academic discipline with the advent of scientific managementin 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 how human factors and psychology affected organizations, a transformation propelled by the identification of the Hawthorne Effect. This Human Relations Movement focused on teamsmotivation, and the actualization of the goals of individuals within organizations.

Prominent early scholars included Chester BarnardHenri FayolFrederick HerzbergAbraham MaslowDavid 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 RationalityInformal OrganizationContingency TheoryResource 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 byanthropologypsychology and sociology. A leading scholar was Karl Weick.

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.

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.

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.

Current state of the field

Organizational behaviour is 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 such as 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 must 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.

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 regressionnon-parametric statisticstime series analysisMeta-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, grounded theory approaches, and other historical methods.

Systems framework

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 Lewinwas 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 traditionalreductionistic methods. In this more recent tradition, systems theory in organizational studies is considered by some as a humanistic extension of the natural sciences.





1-1 of 1