DEFINING ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR

With a rich historical background such as the Hawthorne studies and an

accepted scientific methodology as outlined above, the field of organizational
behavior is beginning to develop and mature as an academic discipline. As with
any other relatively new academic endeavor, however, there have been some
rough spots and sidetracks in its development. Besides the healthy academic
controversies over theoretical approach or research findings, perhaps the
biggest problem that organizational behavior has had to face is an identity
crisis. Exactly what is meant by organizational behavior? Is it an attempt to
replace all management with behavioral science concepts and techniques? How,
if at all, does it differ from good old applied or industrial psychology?
Fortunately, these questions have now largely been answered to the satisfaction
of most management academicians, behavioral scientists, and management
practitioners.
Figure 1.2 shows in very general terms the relationships between and emphases
of organizational behavior (OB) and the related disciplines of organization theory
(OT), organization development (OD), and personnel/human resources (P/HR).
As shown, OB tends to be more theoretically oriented and at the micro level of
analysis.
Specifically, OB draws from many theoretical frameworks of the behavioral
sciences that are focused at understanding and explaining individual and group
behavior in organizations. As with other sciences, OB accumulates knowledge
and tests theories
by accepred scientific methods of research. In summary, organizational behavior
can
be defined as the understanding, prediction, and management of human
behavior in organizations.
Although Figure 1.2 is not intended to portray mutually exclusive domains for
the related fields, because the lines are becoming increasingly blurred and there
is not universal agreement of what belongs to what among academics or
practitioners, most people in the field would generally agree with what is shown.
Organization theory tends to be more macro-oriented than OB and is concerned
primarily with organization structure and design. Yet, as in this text (Chapter 17
specifically and macro-oriented chapters such as 15, 16, and 18), OT topics are
included in the study and application of OB. Organization development, on the
other hand, tends to be both more macro and more applied than OB. But also
like OT, as in this text (Chapter 20), OD topics are included in the study and
application of OB. Finally, as shown, P/HR tends to have a more applied focus
than OB. The personnel/human resources function is a part of practicing
organizations as much as the marketing, finance, or production/operations
functions are.
Personnel or human resource managers (the more modern term is the latter) are
hired and found with this title in practicing organizations; organizational
behaviorists are not. Yet, somewhat confusingly, those managers who apply and
draw from the field of organizational behavior (whether they be marketing
managers, finance managers, hospital administrators, operations managers,
store managers, academic administrators, office managers, or personnel/human
resource managers) are called
"human resource managers." They are called human resource managers and
have a human resource management role (in addition to their other technical,
functional role), because they all manage people. Thus, all managers, regardless
of their technical function, are human resource managers in this view because
they deal with human behavior in organizations. All managers need to have an
understanding and perspective of organizational behavior.
Organizational behavior represents the behavioral approach to management,
not the whole of management. Other recognized approaches to management
include the process, quantitative, systems, and contingency approaches. In
other words, organizational behavior does not intend to portray the whole of
management. The charge that old wine (applied or industrial psychology) has
merely been poured into a new bottle (organizational behavior) has proved to be
groundless. Although it is certainly true that the behavioral sciences make a
significant contribution to both the theoretical and the research foundations of
organizational behavior, it is equally true that applied or industrial psychology
should not be equated with organizational behavior. For example, organization
structure and management processes (decision making and communication)
play an integral, direct role in organizational behavior, as in this text (Part 4),
but have at most an indirect role in applied or industrial psychology. The same is
true of many important dynamics and applications of organizational behavior.
Although there will probably never be total agreement on the exact meaning or
domain of organizational behavior —which is not necessarily bad, because it
makes the field more exciting-there is little doubt that organizational behavior
has come into its own as a field of study, research, and application.
This text on organizational behavior attempts to provide the specific, necessary
background and skills to make the managers of today and tomorrow as effective
with the conceptual and human dimensions of management as they have been
in the past with its technical, functional dimensions.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS
Although organizational behavior is extremely complex and includes many
inputs, the cognitive, behavioristic, and social learning theoretical frameworks
can be used to develop an overall model. After the theoretical frameworks are
examined, the last section of the chapter presents an organizational behavior
model that conceptually links and structures the rest of the text.
Cognitive Framework
The cognitive approach to human behavior has many sources of input. The
micro-oriented chapters in the next part provide some of this background. For
now, however, it can be said simply that the cognitive approach gives people
much more
"credit" than the other approaches. The cognitive approach emphasizes the
positive and free-will aspects of human behavior and uses concepts such as
expectancy, demand, and incentive. Cognition, which is the basic unit of the
cognitive framework, is the act of knowing an item of information. Under this
framework, cognitions precede behavior and constitute input into the person's
thinking, perception, problem solving, and processing information. Concepts
such as cognitive maps can be used as pictures or visual aids in comprehending
a person's "understanding of particular, and selective, elements of the thoughts
(rather than thinking) of an individual, group or organization. "22
The classic work of Edward Tolman can be used to represent the cognitive
theoretical approach. Although Tolman believed behavior to be the appropriate
unit of analysis, he felt that behavior is purposive, that it is directed toward a
goal. In his laboratory experiments, he found that animals learned to expect
that certain events would follow one another. For example, animals learned to
behave as if they expected food when a certain cue appeared. Thus, Tolman
believed that learning consists of the expectancy that a particular event will
lead to a particular consequence. This cognitive concept of expectancy implies
that the organism is thinking about, or is conscious or aware of, the goal. Thus,
Tolman and others espousing the cognitive approach felt that behavior is best
explained by these cognitions.
Contemporary psychologists carefully point out that a cognitive concept such as
expectancy does not reflect a guess about what is going on in the mind; it is a
term that describes behavior. In other words, the cognitive and behavioristic
theories are not as opposite as they appear on the surface and sometimes are
made out to be—for example, Tolman considered himself a behaviorist. Yet,
despite some conceptual similarities, there has been a controversy throughout
the years in the behavioral sciences on the relative contributions of the
cognitive versus the behavioristic frame-work. As often happens in other
academic fields, debate has gone back and forth through the years.
Because of the recent advances from both theory development and research
findings, there has been what some have termed a "cognitive explosion" in the
field of psychology.23 Applied to the field of organizational behavior, a cognitive
approach has traditionally dominated through units of analysis such as
perception (Chapter 4), personality and attitudes (Chapter 5), motivation
(Chapter 6), and goal setting (Chapter 7). Very recently, there has been renewed
interest in the role that cognitions can play in organizational behavior in terms
of advancement in research on how managers make decisions and in the area of
social cognition. The behavioral decision-making area is concerned with the
cognitions involved in judgment and choice?4 and is given attention in Chapter
16. Social cognition involves the process of understanding or making sense of
people's behavior25 and is especially relevant to organizational behavior in
terms of social perception (Chapter 4). In other words, both the traditional and
newer approaches to cognitive theory and application play an important role in
the theoretical framework of this text. However, before discussing the specific
input that the cognitive approach can make to the study of organizational
behavior, it is necessary to have an understanding of the behavioristic approach
as well.
Behavioristic Framework
Chapter 8 discusses in detail the behavioristic theory in psychology. Its roots can
be traced to the work of Ivan Pavlov and John B. Watson. These pioneering
behaviorists stressed the importance of dealing with observable behaviors
instead of the elusive mind that had preoccupied earlier psychologists. They
used classical conditioning experiments to formulate the stimulus-response (S-
R) explanation of human behav-ior. Both Pavlov and Watson felt that behavior
could be best understood in terms of S-R. A stimulus elicits a response. They
concentrated mainly on the impact of the stimulus and felt that learning
occurred when the S-R connection was made.
Modern behaviorism marks its beginnings with the work of B. F. Skinner. Now
deceased, Skinner is widely recognized for his contributions to psychology. He
felt that the early behaviorists helped explain respondent behaviors (those
behaviors elicited by stimuli) but not the more complex operant behaviors. In
other words, the
S-R approach helped explain physical reflexes; for example, when stuck by a pin
(S), the person will flinch (R), or when tapped below the kneecap (S), the person
will extend the lower leg (R). On the other hand, Skinner found through his
operant conditioning experiments that the consequences of a response could
better explain most behaviors than eliciting stimuli could. He emphasized the
importance of the response-stimulus (R-S) relationship. The organism has to
operate on the environment in order to receive the desirable consequence. The
preceding stimulus does not cause the behavior in operant conditioning; it
serves as a cue to emit the behavior. For Skinner, behavior is a function of its
consequences.
Both classical and operant conditioning and the important role of reinforcing
consequences are given detailed
attention in Chapter 8. For now, however, it is
important to understand that the behavioristic approach is environmentally
based. It posits that cognitive processes such as thinking, expectancies, and
perception may exist, but are not needed to predict and control or manage
behavior. However, as in the case of the cognitive approach, which also includes
behavioristic concepts, some behavioral scientists feel that there is room for
cognitive variables in the behavioristic approach. In particular, a social learning
approach has emerged in recent years that incorporates both cognitive and
behavioristic concepts and principles.
Social Learning Framework
The cognitive approach has been accused of being mentalistic, and the
behavioristic approach has been accused of being deterministic. Cognitive
theorists argue that the
S-R model, and to a lesser degree the R-S model, is much too mechanistic an
explanation of human behavior. A strict S-R interpretation of behavior seems
justifiably open to the criticism of being too mechanistic, but because of the
scientific approach that has been meticulously employed by behaviorists, the
operant model in particular has made a tremendous contribution to the study of
human behavior. The ***

structive criticism between the two approaches, it now seems time to recognize
that each can make an important contribution to the understanding, prediction,
and control of human behavior. The social learning approach tries to integrate
the contributions of both approaches.
It must be emphasized that the social learning approach is a behavioral
approach. It recognizes that behavior is the appropriate unit of analysis.
However, unlike a strict or radical behavioristic approach, the social learning
approach suggests that people are self-aware and engage in purposeful
behavior. Under a social learning approach, people are thought to learn about
their environment, alter and construct their environment to make reinforcers
available, and note the importance of rules and symbolic processes in
learning.26
Although a number of psychologists are associated with social learning, the
work of Albert Bandura is probably the most representative of this approach.27
He takes the position that behavior can best be explained in terms of a
continuous reciprocal interaction between cognitive, behavioral, and
environmental determi-nants. The person and the environmental situation do
not function as independent units but, in conjunction with the behavior itself,
reciprocally interact to determine behavior. Bandura explains that "it is largely
through their actions that people produce the environmental conditions that
affect their behavior in a reciprocal fashion. The experiences generated by
behavior also partly determine what a person becomes and can do, which, in
turn, affects subsequent behavior. "28 The triangular model shown in Figure 1.3
takes this work of Bandura and translates it into relevant units of analysis and
variables in organizational behavior.
The specifics of social learning, such as vicarious or modeling processes, the
role of cognitive mediating processes, and the importance of self-efficacy are
discussed in Chapter 8. But for now, it can be said that social learning, with its
very comprehensive, interactive nature, serves as an appropriate theoretical
framework for developing a model of organizational behavior.
Organisational Behavior
A field of study that investigates the impact that individuals, groups, and
structure have on behavior within organizations, for the purpose of applying
such knowledge toward improving an organization's effectiveness.

(Organizational behavior (often abbreviated as OB) is a field of study that

investigates the impact that individuals, groups, and structure have on behavior
within organizations for the purpose of applying such knowledge toward
improving an organization's effectiveness. That's a lot of words, so let's break it
down.
(Organizational behavior is a field of study. This statement means that it is a
distinct area of expertise with a common body of knowledge. What does it
study? It studies three determinants of behavior in organizations: individuals,
groups, and struc-ture. In addition, OB applies the knowledge gained about
individuals, groups, and the effect of structure on behavior in order to make
organizations work more effectively.)
To sum up our definition OB is concerned with the study of what people do in an
organization and how that behavior affects the performance of the organi-
zation. And because OB is concerned specifically with employment-related situa-
tions, you should not be surprised to find that it emphasizes behavior as related
to concerns such as jobs, work, absenteeism, employment turnover,
productivity, human performance, and management)
There is increasing agreement as to the components or topics that constitute
the subject area of OB. Although there is still considerable debate as to the
relative importance of each, there appears to be general agreement that OB
includes the core topics of motivation, leader behavior and power, interpersonal
communica-tion, group structure and processes, learning, attitude development
and percep-tion, change processes, conflict, work design, and work stress?

Behavior generally is predictable if we know how the person perceived the

situation and what is important to him or her.
While people'sbehavior may not appear to be rational to an outsider, there is
reason to believe it usually is intended to be
rational and it is seen as rational by them. An observer often sees behavior as
nonrational because the observer does not have access to the same information
or does not perceive the environment in the same way. 10
Certainly there are differences between individuals. Placed in similar situa-tions,
all people don't act exactly alike. However, there are certain fundamental
consistencies underlying the behavior of all individuals that can be identified
and then modified to reflect individual differences.
These fundamental consistencies are very important. Why? Because they allow
predictability. When you get into your car, you make some definite and usually
highly accurate predictions about how other people will behave. In North
America, for instance, you would predict that other drivers will stop at stop signs
and red lights, drive on the right side of the road, pass on your left, and not
cross the solid double line on mountain roads. Notice that your predictions about
the behavior of people behind the wheels of their cars are almost always
correct. Obviously, the rules of driving make predictions about driving behavior
fairly easy.

Organizational behaviour is based on the knowledge generated through

systematic researches over a period of time. Prior to systematic researches,
various management practitioners have also tried to find out answers of the
problems involved in the complexity of human behaviour in organizations.
However, such attempts have been mostly in the area of organizational
planning, designing of organization structure, and controlling of human
behaviour in organizations. With the result, these attempts have led to the
development of structural approaches of organizations and have missed the
significant aspects of analyzing human behaviour in organizations Such
approaches have been in the form of scientific management, administrative
management, and bureaucracy. Combination of these is termed as classical
approach in management literature. The real beginning of researches in the
area of human behaviour in organizations was made by Hawthorne experiments
whose findings were termed as human relations approach, This approach was
followed by the development of social systems approach and behavioural
science or human behaviour approach. All these approaches fall in the category
of neoclassical approach, Thereafter, behavioural scientists along with game
theorists started to find out the answers of those issues which were either not
studied at all or not studied in a satisfactory way in earlier approaches. With the
result, systems approach and contingency approach have emerged. These
approaches cover various organizational phenomena including organizational
behaviour. Taken together, these approaches are termed as modern approach.
Thus, there are three basic approaches of organizational behaviour:
1. Classical approach.
2. Neoclassical approach

Classical Approach
(The term classical means something traditionally accepted or long established.
While three approaches of classical approach of organizational behaviour-
scientific management, administrative management, and bureaucracy—have
given different ways of managing human behaviour in organizations these may
be integrated into a single approach. Thus, classical approach of organizational
behaviour has the following implications:
1. Interrelated Management Functions. What managers do in an organization
can be explained by management functions-planning, organizing, staffing,
directing, and controlling with coordination being the essence of management.
All these functions are interrelated. Further, these functions may be iterative,
that is, a particular function may involve in other functions, planning in
organizing, staffing, and so on.
2. Guiding Principles. Classical approach has given some management principles
which provide guidelines for managerial actions, including managing human
behaviour in organizations, These principles are prescriptive in nature, that is,
what to do, and are supposed to be universally applicable.
3. Rigid Organization Structure. Classical writers have prescribed rigid
organization structure to get the things done and to control human behaviour.
Such a/structure tends to be tall with large number of hierarchical levels to
ensure that each lower-level position is closely controlled by the immediate
higher level.
4. Financial Incentives for Motivation.
For motivating people in organizations, classical
approach suggests financial incentives implying that more money means higher
motivation for performance. In some cases, provisions have been made to pay
much lower to non-performers.

Classical approach is like classical music which appeals only to some. In the
same way, classical approach has very few takers. As mentioned earlier, there
are three approaches in classical approach. Let us go through these approaches.
SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT
(The concept of scientific management was introduced by Taylor in the USA in
the beginning of 20th century. This concept was further carried on by-Frank and
Lillian Gilbreth, Henry Gantt, George Berth, Edward Felen, etc. Scientific
management was concerned essentially with improving the operational
efficiency at the shop floor level. Taylor has defined scientific mant ment as
antoniScentman do entitheest and cheapest way what you
Taylor has given certain basic principles of scientific management. The
fundamental principles that Taylor saw underlying the scientific management
are given below:
1 Replacing Rule of Thumb with Science. Taylor has emphasized that in scientific
management, organized knowledge should be applied which will replace rule of
thumb. While the use of scientific method denotes precision in determining any
aspect of work, rule of thumb emphasizes estimation. Since exactness of various
aspects of work like day's fair work, standardization in work, differential piece
rate for payment, etc., is the basic core of scientific management, it is essential
that all these are measured precisely and should not be based on mere
estimates. This approach can be adopted in all aspects of managing.
2 armony in Group Action. Taylor has emphasized that attempts should be made
to Obtain harmony in group action rather than discord Group harmony suggests
that there should be mutual give and take situation and proper understanding
so that group as a whole contributes to the maximum.
3. Cooperation. Scientific management involves achieving cooperation rather
than chaotic individualism. Scientific management is based on mutual
confidence, cooperation, and goodwill. Cooperation between management and
workers can be developed through mutual understanding and change in
thinking. Taylor has suggested "substitution of war for peace, hearty and
brotherly cooperation for contentment and strife, replacement of suspicious
watchfulness with mutual confidence, of becoming friends instead of enemies. It
is along this line, I say, that scientific management must be developed.
4 Maximum Output. Scientific management involves continuous increase in
production and productivity instead of restricted production, either by
management or by workers. Taylor hated inefficiency and deliberate curtailment
of production. His concern was with the large size of the cake. In his opinion,
"there is hardly any worse crime to my mind than that of deliberately restricting
output." He decried quarrel over production but welcomed quarrel over
distribution, provided the product to be distributed had outgrown in size.
Therefore, he advised the management and workers to "turn their attention
towards increasing the size of the surplus until the size of the surplus becomes
so large that it is necessary to quarrel over how it shall be divided."
5. Development of Workers. In scientific management, all workers should be
developed to the fullest extent possible for their own and for the company's
highest prosperity Development of workers requires their scientific selection and
providing them training at the workplace:
Training should be provided to workers to keep them fully fit according to the
requirement of new methods of working which may be different from the non-
scientific methods.
Critical Analysis of Scientific Management
Scientific management created awareness about increasing operational
efficiency at the shop floor level by adopting systematic methods as against the
rule of thumb which was prevalent at that time. However, from the point of view
of the development of theoretical framework, the principles of scientific
management were more concerned with problems at the operational levels and
did not emphasize management of an organization from the manager's point of
view. Therefore, it was more relevant from engineering point of view rather than
management point of view. In fact, one author has later suggested that Taylor
can be regarded as the father of industrial engineering rather than the father of
scientific management. Similarly, persons advocating scientific management
have emphasized physiological variables affecting human behaviour at
workplace, both in terms of work efficiency and methods of motivating the
workers. As such, the scientific management is more relevant to mechanization
and automation-technical aspect of efficiency-than the broader aspects of
management of an organization.
Apart from the theoretical considerations, Taylor's scientific management was
opposed by trade unions, industrialists, and general public. The opposition was
so grave that Taylor had to defend his scientific management before a special
US Congressional Committee in
1912. The introduction of scientific management led to the agitation by trade
unions in different production units. The major reasons for the opposition of
scientific management were as follows:
1. There were many of the followers of Taylor who took aggressive mechanical
view of production and sidelined human aspect at the workplace. This created
aggressive attitudes among workers.
2. The work used to be performed under close and strict supervision based on
authoritarian approach. Workers were not allowed to raise their voice even for
genuine grievances.
3. There was lack of scientific standardization of work and whatever standards
used to be set by the management, the workers had to follow strictly. Such
standards often used to raise production norm without taking into consideration
the factors affecting such a norm.
4. The most crucial element which was under contention was the differential
piece rate system. The workers, even the efficient ones, and their unions
opposed this system on the plea that it was a new method of exploiting workers
by the industrialists. It may be mentioned that trade unions were quite popular
at that time.
ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT
Henry Fayol, a French industrialist, looked at the problems of managing an
organization from top management point of view. He has used the term
'administration' instead of management' emphasizing that there is unity of
science of administration. He has divided his approach of studying management
into three parts: (1) managerial qualities (physical, mental, moral, educational,
technical, and experience); (2) elements of management (planning,
organization, commanding, coordination, and controlling); and (3) general
principles of management. These principles have been used by managers
globally. Let us see what these principles are and how they contribute to the
effective managing of an organization.
General Principles of Management
Fayol has given fourteen principles of management. While giving the
management principles, Fayol has emphasized two things: (i) The list of
management principles is not exhaustive but suggestive and has discussed only
those principles which he followed on most occasions. (ti) Principles of
management are not rigid but flexible. Various principles of management are as
follows:?
1
Division of Work. Fayol has advocated division of work to take the advantage of
specialization. Specialization belongs to natural order. The workers who always
work on the same part, the managers who are always concerned with the same
matters, acquire ability, sureness, and accuracy which increase their output.
Each change of work brings need for training and adaptation which reduces
output. This division of work can be applied at all levels of the organization.
2. Authority and Responsibility. The authority and responsibility are related, with
the latter being the corollary of the former and arising from it. Fayol finds
authority as a continuation of official and personal factors. Official authority is
derived from the manager's position and personal authority is derived from
personal qualities, such as intelligence, experience, moral worth, past services,
etc. Responsibility arises out of assignment of activity. In order to discharge the
responsibility properly, there should be parity of authority and responsibility.
Discipline. All the personnel serving in an organization should be disciplined.
Discipline is obedience, application, energy, behaviour, and outward mark of
respect shown by employees.
Discipline may be of two types: self-imposed discipline and command discipline.
Self-imposed discipline springs from within the individual and is in the nature of
spontaneous response to a skilful leader. Command discipline stems from a
recognized authority and utilizes deterrents to secure compliance with a desired
action, which is expressed by established customs, rules, and regulations.
V4. Unity of Command. Unity of command means that a person should get
orders and Instructions from only one superior. The more completely an
individual has a reporting relationship to a single superior, the less is the
problem of conflict in instructions and the greater is the feeling of personal
responsibility for results.
5. Unity of Direction. According to this principle, each group of activitics with the
same objective must have one head and one plan. Unity of direction is different
from unity of command in the sense that the former is concerned with
functioning of the organization in respect of its grouping of activities or planning
while the latter is concerned with personnel at all levels in the organization in
terms of reporting relationship. Unity of direction provides better coordination
among various activities to be undertaken by an organization.
6. Subordination of Individual Interest to General Interest. Common interest is
above the individual interest. Individual interest must be subordinate to general
interest when there is conflict between the two. However, factors like ambition,
laziness, weakness, etc., tend to reduce the importance of general interest.
Therefore, superiors should set an example in fairness and goodness. The
agreement between the employers and the employees should be fair and there
should be constant vigilance and supervision.
7. Remuneration of Personnel. Remuneration of employees should be fair and
provide maximum possible satisfaction to employees and employers. Fayol did
not favour profit-sharing plan for workers but advocated it for managers. He was
also in favour of non-financial benefits though these were possible only in the
case of large-scale organizations.
8. Centralization. Everything which goes to increase the importance of
subordinate's role is decentralization; cverything which goes to reduce it is
centralization. Without using the term centralization of authority, Fayol refers
the extent to which authority is centralized or decentralized. Centralization and
decentralization are the question of proportion. In small firms, centralization is
the natural order, but in large firms, a series of intermediaries is required.
9. Scalar Chain. There should be a scalar chain of authority and of
communication ranging from the highest to the lowest. It suggests that each
communication going up or coming down must flow through each position in the
line of authority. It can be short-circuited only in special circumstances when its
rigid following would be detrimental to the organization. For this purpose, Fayol
has suggested 'gang plank' which is used to prevent the scalar chain from
bogging down action. Gang plank involves an employee communicating to
another employee at the same hierarchical level but working under different
superior.
10. Order. This is a principle relating to the arrangement of things and people. In
material order, there should be a place for everything and everything should be
in its place. Similarly, in social order, there should be the right man in the right
place. This kind of order demands precise knowledge of the human
requirements and resources of the organization and a constant balance between
these requirements and resources. Normally, bigger the size of the organization,
more difficult this balance is.
11. Equity. Equity is the combination of justice and kindness. Equity in treatment
and behaviour is liked by everyone and it brings loyalty in the organization. The
application of equity requires good sense, experience, and good nature for
soliciting loyalty and devotion from subordinates.
12. Stability of Tenure. No employee should be removed within short time. There
should be reasonable security of jobs. Stability of tenure is essential to get an
employee accustomed to new work and succeeding in doing it well.
Unnecessary turnover is both cause and effect of bad management.
13. Initiative. Within the limits of authority and discipline, managers should
encourage their employees for taking initiative. Initiative is concerned with
thinking out and execution of a plan. Initiative increases zeal and energy on the
part of human beings.
14. Esprit de Corps. This is the principle of 'union is strength' and extension of
unity of command for establishing teamwork. The manager should encourage
esprit de corps among his cmployees. The erring employees should be set right
by oral directions and not by demanding written explanations. Written
explanations complicate the matters.
Relevance of Fayol's Principles
According to the classification of era of management development, Fayol's
principles are treated as classical while present-day management adopts
systems and contingency approach. This approach suggests that while
managing an organization, it should be treated as a system and management
action should take into account the contingent factors both within and outside
an organization. However, this does not mean that Fayol's principles are not
relevant to modern management; in fact, they have relevance to modern
management and most of Fayol's principles are being applied today. However, it
can be said that not all principles can be applied in all organizations. In fact,
Fayol also recognized that fact and suggested that management principles are
not rigid but flexible and their use requires intelligence, experience, and
proportion.
Contributions of Taylor and Fayol: A Comparison
At this stage, it may be worthwhile to compare the contributions of both Taylor
and Fayol as both of them have made attempts for the development of
management principles in somewhat more systematic way. Both were
contemporary though from different countries. When' we compare the
contributions of Taylor and Fayol, we find that both are complementary to each
other and have somewhat similarity. Even Fayol commented in 1925 that his
contributions and those of Taylor are complementary to each other. There are
some similarity as well as dissimilarity in the contributions of both.
Stmilarity. Both Taylor and Fayol have seen and analyzed the problems of
managing from practitioners' point of view. Therefore, there must be some
similarity between the two. The similarity exists on the following lines:
1. Both have attempted to overcome managerial problems in systematic way.
2. Both have developed some principles which can be applied in solving
managerial problems.
3. Both have emphasized that management actions can be effective if these are
based on sound principles.
4. Both of them have emphasized that managerial qualities are acquirable and
can be acquired through training. Therefore, organizations should make
attempts to develop these.
* 5. Both have emphasized harmonious relationships between management and
workers for the achievement of organizational objectives.
Dissimilarity. There is more dissimilarity between the approaches of Taylor and
Fayol as compared to similarity. This is because of the fact that Taylor has
concentrated on the shop floor efficiency while Fayol has concentrated on higher
managerial levels. The dissimilarity between the two is presented in Table 2.1.
BUREAUCRACY
The term bureaucracy has been used widely with invidious connotations
directed at government and business. Bureaucracy is an administrative system
designed to accomplish large-scale administrative tasks by systematically
coordinating the work of many individuals. Weber has observed three types of
power in organizations: traditional, charismatic, and rational-legal or
bureaucratic. He has emphasized that bureaucratic type of power is the ideal
one.
Features of Bureaucracy
Weber has given a number of features of bureaucracy. Accordingly, the following
features suggest the characteristics of bureaucratic organizations:
Administrative Class. Bureaucratic organizations generally have administrative
class responsible for maintaining coordinative activities of the members. Main
features of this class are as follows: (t) People are paid and are wholetime
employees. (i) They receive salary and other perquisites normally based on their
positions. (itt) Their tenure in the organization is determined by the rules and
regulations of the organization. (iv) They do not have any proprietary interest in
the organization. (v) They are selected for the purpose of employment based on
their competence.
2. Hierarchy. The basic feature of bureaucratic organization is that there is a
hierarchy of scale from top to boatiorahan stem unkie strip ofes lso follow the
principle of hierarchy, that is, each lower office is subject to control and
supervision by a higher office Thus, no office is left uncontrolled in the
organization This is the fundamental concept of hierarchy in bureaucratic
organization. This hierarchy serves as lines of communication and delegation of
authority. It implies that communication coming down or going up must pass
through each position. Similarly, a subordinate will get authority from his
immediate superior. However, this hierarchy is not unitary but sub-pyramids of
officials within the large organization corresponding to functional divisions. Thus,
there are offices with same amount of authority but with different kinds of
functions operating in different areas of competence. For example, in
Government organizations, we can observe separate offices looking after
particular functions. This happens in business organizations too.
3. Division of Work. Work of the organization is divided on the basis of
specialization to take the advantages of division of labour Each office in the
bureaucratic organization has specific sphere of competence This involves (i) a
sphere of obligations to periorm tunctions which have been marked off as part
of a systematic division of labour; (it) the provision of the incumbent with
necessary authority to carry out these functions; and (iti) the necessary means
of compulsion are clearly defined and their use is subject to definite conditions.
Thus, division of labour tries to ensure that each office has a clearly-defined
area of competence within the organization and each official knows the areas in
which he operates and the areas in which he must abstain from action so that
he does not overstep the boundary between his role and those of others.
Further, division of labour also tries to ensure that no work is left uncovered.
4. Official Rules. A basic and most emphasized feature of bureaucratic
organization is that administrative process is continuous and governed by
official rules Bureaucratic organization is the antithesis of ad hoc, temporary,
and unstable relations. A rational approach to organization calls for a system of
maintaining rules to ensure twin requirements of uniformity and coordination of
efforts by individual members in the organization. These rules are more or less
stable and more or less exhaustive. When there is no rule on any aspect of
organizational operation, the matter is referred upward for decision which
subsequently becomes precedent for future decision on the similar matter. Rules
provide the benefits of stability, continuity, and predictability and each official
knows precisely the outcome of his behaviour in a particular matter
5. Impersonal Relationships. A notable feature of bureaucracy is that
relationships among individuals are governed through the system of official
authority and rules. Official positions are iree trom personal involvement,
emotions, and sentiments. Thus, decisions are governed by by rational factors
rather than personal factors This impersonality concept is used in dealing with
organizational relations as well as relations between the organization and
outsiders.
6. Official Records. Bureaucratic organization is characterized by maintenance of
proper official records. The decisions and activities of the organization are
formally recorded and preserved for future reference. This is made possible by
extensive use of filing system in the organization. An official record is almost
regarded as encyclopaedia of various activities performed by the people in the
organization.
Problems in Bureaucracy
Bureaucratic organization has been considered once superior than ad hoc or
temporary structure. It has been termed as rational and ideal leading to
efficiency. The efficiency in bureaucratic organization comes through rationality
and predictability of behaviour because everyone knows the consequence of his
action before actually the action is undertaken. However, bureaucracy has been
criticized because of its inefficiency and it has been termed as a symbol of
inefficiency. There are many dysfunctional aspects of bureaucracy which is
referred to as bureaupathology. Looking into the needs of modern organizations,
bureaucracy has many shortcomings and is, therefore, not suitable. The major
problems of bureaucracy are because of the following factors: invalidity of
bureaucratic assumptions, goal displacement, unintended consequences,
inhuman organization, and closed-system perspective.
Invalidity of Bureaucratic Assumptions. In fact, the sources of bureaupathology
lie in the invalidity of various assumptions of ideal bureaucracy. Many authors
have questioned the validity of bureaucracy. In most of the cases, either the
conditions are not found in practice, or even if found, may not result in
efficiency. Specially the following aspects of bureaucracy work against efficiency
of the organization, though they are supposed to contribute to efficiency.
1 Rules are normally provided for guidelines but often they become source of
inefficiency because of too much emphasis on rules, their misuse, and people's
apathy from rules.
Rigid organizational hierarchy works against efficiency. It over-emphasizes
superior-subordinate relationships unnecessarily which is detrimental to
congenial organizational climate.
3. In dealing with people, total impersonal approach cannot be adopted because
people have feelings, emotions, and sentiments which affect decision making.
Thus, people cannot work totally according to rules and prescriptions.
Goal Displacement. Goal displacement occurs when resources are used for a
purpose other than for which the organization exists) The purpose that has
replaced the original goats and values may be followed too excessively that this
itself becomes end for the organization. Over the périod, people are provided
incentives on such behaviour. For example, rules are means for achieving
organizational goals but following of rules may become the objective of the
organization and organizational objectives may become secondary. People may
be judged on the basis of observance of rules and not results. For example, in
government organizations, the performance may be judged on the basis of
whether expenditure has been incurred on the lines of rules and regulations.
Thus, expenditure becomes the criterion of performance measurement and not
the results achieved through expenditure.
Unintended Consequences. In bureaucratic organization, there may be many
consequences which have not been visualized but which emerge because of the
system. Such unintended consequences may be of the following nature:
1. There may be trained incapacity in the organization. Trained incapacity
relates to a phenomenon where a person is trained at the matter from a single
point of view. Thus, he does not see beyond his training and tries to correlate
the matter with total situation on the basis of his training. This happens because
of excessive specialization.
2. There is conflict between professionals and bureaucrats. The basic reason of
conflict is the difference in orientation of professionals and bureaucrats.
Professionals try to work according to their discipline for efficiency while
bureaucrats try to emphasize rules and regulations.
3. Often, there is conflict between organization and individuals. There are many
characteristics of bureaucratic organization which work against human nature.
For example, human beings work better when there is comparatively free
environment but bureaucratic organization puts more restrictions through rules
and regulations. Thus, people try to avoid these rules and regulations.
Inhuman Organization. Perhaps the most important criticism of bureaucracy has
come from behavioural scientists who have emphasized human behaviour in the
organization. According to them, bureaucratic organization is inhuman and
works like machine in which there is no importance of human beings. For
example, Argyris holds the view that individual moves from immaturity to
maturity and over the period he matures, while bureaucratic organization is
designed to suit immature personality. 4 A mature personality requires less
control, innovation in behaviour, and flexibility in working. The design of
bureaucratic structure is against these features. Thus, bureaucracy works
against the basic nature of human behaviour.
A pioneering criticism of bureaucracy comes from organizational psychologist,
Warren Bennis. He sees the model as overly mechanical and no longer useful.5
The flaws and dysfunctions of the bureaucratic organization are extensive, but
the main are as follows:
1. It is inhuman and denies man's needs.
2. It is incompatible with the development of a mature personality.
3. It promotes conformity.
4. It does not consider the informal organization and interpersonal difficulties.
5. The hierarchy interferes with communication.
6. Innovation and new knowledge are stifled.
7. It is ineffective in a turbulent environment.
These criticisms are representative of the lack of human aspect of bureaucracy.
The thrust of these criticisms is that bureaucratic organization makes
inadequate assumptions about the real nature of human beings and does not
address itself to the interaction of people within the organization.
Closed-System Perspective. Bureaucratic organization has closed-system
perspective, Though a social organization cannot be a totally closed system but
it may lean towards closed system in its working. A closed system is self-
contained and self-maintaining. It is generally rigid and static. It ignores external
conditions and makes no allowances for adapting to changes in the
environment. In other words, it is viewed as operating within a vacuum. Specific
characteristics of closed-system social organization include predictability,
rationality, optimization, internal efficiency, and certainty. Since behaviour is
assumed to be functional and all outcomes predictable, those activities that
take place in the environment-that is, changes in social, political, and economic
and other factors-can be ignored.

Bureaucratic organization can work well when environment is highly static and
predictable.
However, the nature of environment for large organizations of today is highly
dynamic and heterogenous. In dynamic environment, more interaction between
organization and environment is required. There is high need for information
monitoring and processing. Thus, an open-system perspective is more suitable
for the management of modern-day organizations while bureaucratic
organization has closed-system perspective.

Neoclassical Approach
The propositions of classical approach consisting of organizational behaviour of
human relations, social system, and human behaviour approaches are quite
contrasting to those of classical approach in many ways. This is due to the fact
that while classical approach has emphasized physiological aspects in managing
human behaviour in organizations, neoclassical
- approach has emphasized socio-psychological aspects The main propositions
of classical approach are as follows:
V. The organization in general is a social system.
2. The social environments on the job affect people and are also affected by
them and not management alone.
3. In the formal organization, informal organization also exists and it affects and
is affected by formal organization.
4. A conflict between organizational and individual goals often exists which
increases the importance of integration between these two.
Jo. Man is interdependent and his behaviour can be predicted in terms of social
and
psychological factors.
6. Man is diversely motivated and wants to fulfil different types of needs.
7. Man's approach is not always rational. Often, he behaves irrationally in terms
of rewards which he seeks from the work,
8. Communication is necessary as it carries information to the functioning of the
organization and the feelings and sentiments of the people who work in it.
9. Teamwork is essential for cooperation and sound organizational functioning.
This work is not automatic but achieved through behavioural approach.
Now, let us discuss three approaches of neoclassical approach.

dererpnate and analysis of social organization at work, bank wiring observation

Fort experiments, 1931-32.
huplications of Hawthorne Ixperiments
Hawthorne experiments have opened a new chapter in management by
suggesting management through good human relations. Human relations
involves motivating people in organization in orter to develop teamwork which
effectively fulfills their needs and achieves organizational goals. Hawtherne
experiments have tried to unearth those factors which are important Ry moting
people at workplace. The major findings of the experiments are presented
below:
1. Social Factors in Output. An organization is basically influenced by social
factors. In fact, Elton Maya, one of the researchers engaged in Hawthorne
experiments, has described an organization as "a social system, a system of
cliques, informal status system, rituals, and a miture of logical, non-logical
behaviour." Thus, an organization is not merely a formal structure of functions in
which production is determined by the official prescription but the production
norm is set by social norms. Since people are social beings, their social
characteristics determine the output and efficiency in the organization.
Economic rewards and productivity do not necessarily go together. Many non-
economic rewards and sanctions affect the behaviour of workers and modify the
impact of economic rewards. While motivating workers, these factors should be
taken into account.
2. Group Influence. Workers being social beings, they create groups which may
be different from their official group. In fact, groups are formed to overcome the
shortcomings of formal relationships. The group determines the norm of
behaviour of members. If a person resists a particular norm of group behaviour,
he tries to change the group norm because any deviation from the group norm
will make him unacceptable to the group. Thus, management cannot deal with
workers as individuals but as members of work group subject to the influence of
the group.
3. Conflict. The informal relations of workers create groups, and there may be
conflict between organization and groups so created. The conflict may be
because of incompatible objectives of the two. However, groups may help to
achieve organizational objectives by overcoming the restraining aspect of the
formal relations which produce hindrance in productivity. (Conflict may also arise
because of maladjustment of workers and organization.
As the individual moves through the time and space within the organization,
there constantly arises the need for adjustment of the individual to the total
structure. In the absence of such adjustment, either individual progresses
upward at a rapid pace or the organization structure itself may change over the
time while the individual remains standstill. In either event, the change takes
place in the position of the individual with respect to organization structure,
hence adjustment is required.
4. Leadership. Leadership is important for directing group behaviour, and this is
one of the most important aspects of managerial functions. However, leadership
cannot come only from a formally-appointed superior as held by earlier thinkers.
There may be informal leader as shown by bank wiring experiments. In some
areas, informal leader is more important in directing group behaviour because of
his identity with group objective. However, a superior is more acceptable as a
leader if his style is in accordance with human relations approach, that is, the
superior should identify himself with the workers.

5. Supervision. Supervisory climate is an important aspect in detexthi g

efficiency and output. Friendly to the workers, attentive, genuinely concerned
supervisiom affeels the productivity favourably. For example, in the bank wiring
room experiments, an entirely different supervisory climate—more friendly to
the workers and less use of authority in issuing orders existed which helped in
productivity, while in regular departments, supervisors were concerned with
maintaining order and control which produced inhibiting atmosphere and
resulted in lower productivity.
6. Communication. The experiments show that communication is an important
aspect of organization. Through communication, workers can be explained the
rationality of a particular action, participation of workers can be sought in
decision making concerning the matter of their importance, problems faced by
them can be identified, and attempts can be made to remove these. A better
understanding between management and workers can be developed by
identifying their attitudes, opinions, and methods of working and taking suitable
actions on these.
2 00
Evaluation of Hawthorne Experiments
Though Hawthorne experiments have opened a new chapter in management by
emphasizing the importance of social factors in output, it is not without fault.
The experiments have been widely criticized by some behavioural scientists
because of lack of scientific objectivity used in arriving at various conclusions.
Some critics feel that there was bias and preconception on the part of the
Harvard researchers. One writer developed a detailed comparison between the
conclusions drawn by the researchers and the evidence presented, and found
that their conclusions were almost entirely unsupported. He asked the question,
"how was it possible for studies so nearly devoid of scientific merit, and
conclusions so little supported by evidence, to gain so influential and a
respected place within scientific disciplines and to hold this place for so long."
The following other criticisms have also been made against the Hawthorne
experiments:
1. The Hawthorne researchers did not give sufficient attention to the attitudes
that people bring with them to the workplace. They did not recognize such
forces as class consciousness, the role of unions, and other extra-plant forces on
attitudes of workers.
2. The Hawthorne plant was a typical plant because it was a thoroughly
unpleasant place to work. Therefore, the results could not be valid for others.
3. The Hawthorne studies look upon the worker as a means to an end, and not
an end himself. They assume acceptance of management's goals and look on
the worker as someone to be manipulated by management.
In spite of these shortcomings, Hawthorne experiments will be known for
discovering the importance of human factor in managing an organization. The
experiments have stimulated many researchers to study the human problems in
management.
SOCIAL SYSTEMS APPROACH
Social systems approach of management has extended the implications of
human relations approach further. This approach was introduced by Vilfredo
Pareto, a sociologist. His ideas were later developed by Chester Barnard who
synthesized the concept of social systems approach. According to this approach,
an organization is essentially a cultural system composed of people who work in
cooperation. As such, for achieving organizational goals, a cooperative system
can be developed by understanding the behaviour of people in groups. The
major features of this approach are as follows:
1. Organization is a social system, a system of cultural relationships.
2. Relationships exist among the external as well as internal environments of the
organization.
3. Cooperation among group members is necessary for the achievement of
organizational objectives.
4. For effective management, efforts should be made for establishing harmony
between the goals of the organization and the various groups therein.
HUMAN BEHAVIOUR APPROACH
Human behaviour approach is the outcome of the thoughts developed by
behavioural scientists who have looked at the organization as collectivity of
people for certain specified objectives.
Since management involves getting things done by people, the study of
management must revolve around human behaviour. This approach, also known
as leadership, behavioural science or human resource approach, brings to bear
the existing and newly-developed theories and methods of the relevant
behavioural sciences upon the study of human behaviour. In contrast to human
relations approach which assumes that happy workers are productive workers,
human behaviour approach has been goal-and efficiency-oriented and considers
the understanding of human behaviour to be the major means to that end. The
major differences between human relations and human behaviour approaches
have been presented in Table 2.2.

The human behaviour approach emphasizes human resources in an organization

more as compared to physical and financial resources. Since this approach
studies human behaviour ranging from personality dynamics of individuals at
one extreme to the relations of culture at the other, this can be divided into two
groups: interpersonal behaviour approach and group behaviour approach.
Writers on interpersonal behaviour approach are heavily oriented towards
individual psychology while writers on group behaviour approach rely on social
psychology and emphasize organizational behaviour.
Among the many individual and social psychologists who have contributed to
management are Maslow (need hierarchy), Herberg (motivation-hygiene theory
and job enrichment), McGregor (theory X and Y), Likert (management systems
and linking pin model), Argyris (immaturity-maturity theory, integration of
individual and organizational goals, and pattern of AB analysis), Blake and
Mouton (managerial grid), Sayles (interpersonal behaviour), Bennis
(organization development), Fiedler (contingency model of leadership styles),
Tannenbaum and others (continuum approach of leadership). Besides, notable
contributions have come from those who have expanded a particular concept
formulated earlier to make it more practicable. They include Leavitt, Stogdill,
Vroom, Reddin, etc.
Apart from psychologists who have concentrated more on individual behaviour
in organization, significant contributions have come from sociologists who have
studied human behaviour in group and have emphasized group behaviour.
Notable among them are Homans (human group), Bakke (fusion process), Lewin
(group dynamics), Katz and Kahn (social psychology of organizations). Some
others have attempted to integrate the various views such as Dubin, Dalton,
Selznick, etc.
Major conclusions of the contributions made by behaviouralists can be
presented as follows:
1. People do not dislike work. If they have been helped to establish objectives,
they will want to achieve them. in fact, job itself is a source of motivation and
satisfaction to employees.
2. Most people can exercise a great deal of self-direction, self-control, and
creativity than are required in their current job. Therefore, there remains
untapped potential among them.
3. The manager's basic job is to use the untapped human potential in the
service of the organization.
4. The manager should create a healthy environment wherein all subordinates
can contribute to the best of their capacity. The environment should provide a
healthy, safe, comfortable, and convenient place to work.
5. The manager should provide for self-direction by subordinates and they must
be encouraged to participate fully in all important matters.
6. Operational efficiency can be improved by expanding subordinate influence,
self-direction, and self-control.
7. Work satisfaction may improve as a 'by-product' of subordinates making full
use of their potential.