FHTM

Delivered by:
musliha.ahmed@mnu.edu.mv

Session 4

Organizational behavior (The Hawthorne

Studies);

The systems approach;

The contingency approach

Organizational behavior
(The Hawthorne Studies)

Organizational behavioris defined as the

actions and attitudes of people in
organizations. The field of organizational
behavior (OB) covers the body of knowledge
derived from these actions and attitudes. It
can help managers understand the
complexity within organizations, identify
problems, determine the best ways to
correct them, and establish whether the
changes would make a significant
difference.

Organizational behavior(OB) is the study of human behavior

in organizational settings, how human behavior interacts
with the organization, and the organization itself.

Although we can focus on any one of these three areas

independently, we must remember that all three are
ultimately connected and necessary for a comprehensive
understanding of organizational behavior.

For example, we can study individual behavior (such as the

behavior of a company`s CEO or of one of its employees)
without explicitly considering the organization. But because
the organization influences and is influenced by the
individual, we cannot fully understand the individual`s
behavior without knowing something about the
organization.

Similarly, we can study an organization without focusing

specifically on each individual within it. But again, we are
looking at only one piece of the puzzle.

The central themes of both scientific

management and classical organization
theory are rationality, efficiency, and
standardization. The roles of individuals and
groups in organizations were either ignored
altogether of given only minimal attention.
A few early writers and managers, however,
recognized the importance of individual and
social processes in organizations.

THE HAWTHORNE STUDIES

The Hawthorne studies were conducted

between 1927 and 1932 at Western Electric`s
Hawthorne plant near Chicago. (General
Electric initially sponsored the research but
withdrew its support after the first study was
finished.) Several researchers were involved,
the best known being Elton Mayo and Fritz
Roethlisberger, Harvard faculty members and
consultants, and William Dickson, chief of
Hawthorne`s Employee Relations Research
Department.

The first major experiment at Hawthorne

studied the effects of different levels of
lighting on productivity. The researchers
systematically manipulated the lighting in
the area in which a group of women worked.
The group`s productivity was measured and
compared with that of another group (the
control group) whose lighting was left
unchanged.

As lighting was increased for the experimental

group, productivity went up-but, interestingly,
so did the productivity of the control group.
Even when lighting was subsequently reduced,
the productivity of both groups continued to
increase. Not until the lighting had become
almost as dim as moonlight did productivity
start to decline. This led the researchers to
conclude that lighting had no relationship to
productivity-and at this point General Electric
withdrew its sponsorship of the project!

In another major experiment, a piecework

incentive system was established for a nineman group that assembled terminal banks
for telephone exchanges. Proponents of
scientific management expected each man
to work as hard as he could to maximize his
personal income. But the Hawthorne
researchers found instead that the group as
a whole established an acceptable level of
output of its members.

Individuals who failed to meet this level

were dubbed "chiselers," and those who
exceeded it by too much were branded
"rate busters." A worker who wanted to be
accepted by the group could not produce at
too high or too low a level. Thus, as a
worker approached the accepted level each
day, he slowed down to avoid
overproducing.

After a follow-up interview program with

several thousand workers, the Hawthorne
researchers concluded that the human element
in the workplace was considerably more
important that previously believed.
The lighting experiment, for example,
suggested that productivity might increase
simply because workers were singled out for
special treatment and thus perhaps felt more
valued or more pressured to perform well.
In the incentive system experiment, being
accepted as a part of the group evidently
meant more to the workers than earning extra
money. Several other studies supported the
general conclusion that individual and social
processes are too important to ignore.

Like the work of Taylor, the Hawthorne

studies have recently been called into
question. Critics cite deficiencies in research
methods and offer alternative explanations
of the findings. Again, however, these
studies were a major factor in the
advancement of organizational behavior
and are still among its most frequently cited
works.

The Hawthorne studies created quite a stir among

managers, providing the foundation for an entirely
new school of management thought that came to be
known as the human relations movement.

The basic premises underlying the human relations

movement are that people respond primarily to their
social environment, that motivation depends more
on social needs than on economic needs, and that
satisfied employees work harder than unsatisfied
employees.

This perspective represented a fundamental shift

away form the philosophy and values of scientific
management and classical organization theory.

The Systems approach to

management

Systems approach to management

developed after 1950. Many pioneers during
as E.L Trist, AK Ria, F.E. Kast, and R.A
Johnsm have made significant contributions
to this approach.

This systems approach looks upon the

management as a System of as an
organized whole make up of subsystems integrated into a unity or
orderly totality. The attention should be
given so overall effectiveness of the
system rather than effectiveness of any
sub-system if isolation.

The systems approach took where

management process school left off in
attempting to unify management theory. It
emphasizes the inter-relatedness and interdependence of all activities within an
organisation. It is based on system analysis.
It attempts to identify the nature of
relationships of various parts of the system.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

A system is a set of inter-connected

elements or component parts to
achieve certain goals. An organisation
is viewed by the modern authors as an
open system. An organisation as a
system hasfive basic parts:
Input,
Process,
Output,
Feedback and
Environment.

Systems approach to management provides

a conceptual basis as well as guidelines for
establishing a more efficient system for
planning, organisation, directing and
controlling. It forces the manager to look
upon his business as an open adaptive
system. Information is an important part of
the system because an organisation must
act and interact with its environment.

How does the system approach

view the organization?

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. Activity of any part affects all
other parts of the organization. A system
can be biological.physical or social.

What are the parts which make

up the whole system?
Parts which make up the whole system are
called Subsystems. Each system is a
subsystem of a larger system
Eg. Department
Plant
Company
Industry
Economy
World economy

What is meant by
synergy?

Synergy means that if all the parts are

working together and with full cooperation,
the output will be more than the output by
each department working alone separately.

What do you understand with by

Open and Closed system?

Open system means the organization which

interacts with the environment like a steel
Plant. The boundary in this system must be
flexible .

Closed system which the organization which

does not interact with environment like any
Jail. The boundary in this system is very
rigid.

The contingency approach

The contingency approach to

management is based on the idea that
there is no one best way to manage
and that to be effective, planning,
organizing, leading, and controlling
must be tailored to the particular
circumstances faced by an
organization.

Managers have always asked questions such as:

What is the right thing to do?
Should we have:

a mechanistic or an organic structure?

a functional or divisional structure?
Wide or narrow spans of management?
Tall or flat organizational structures?
Simple or complex control and coordination mechanisms?

Should we be centralized or decentralized?

Should we use task or people oriented leadership
styles?
What motivational approaches and incentive programs
should we use?"

The contingency approach to management

(also called the situational approach)
assumes that there is no universal answer
to such questions because organizations,
people, and situations vary and change over
time. Thus, the right thing to do depends on
a complex variety of critical environmental
and internal contingencies.

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW of the contingency

appraoch

Classical management theorists such

as Henri Fayol and Frederick Taylor
identified and emphasized
management principles that they
believed would make companies more
successful. However, the classicists
came under fire in the 1950s and 1960s
from management thinkers who
believed that their approach was
inflexible and did not consider
environmental contingencies.

Although the criticisms were largely invalid

(both Fayol and Taylor, for example,
recognized that situational factors were
relevant), they spawned what has come to
be called the contingency school of
management.

Research conducted in the 1960s and 1970s

focused on situational factors that affected
the appropriate structure of organizations
and the appropriate leadership styles for
different situations.

Although the contingency perspective

purports to apply to all aspects of
management, and not just organizing and
leading, there has been little development
of contingency approaches outside
organization theory and leadership theory.
The following sections provide brief
overviews of the contingency perspective as
relevant to organization theory and
leadership.

CONTINGENCY PERSPECTIVE AND

ORGANIZATION THEORY

Environmental change and uncertainty, work

technology, and the size of a company are all
identified as environmental factors impacting
the effectiveness of different organizational
forms.

According to the contingency perspective, stable

environments suggest mechanistic structures
that emphasize centralization, formalization,
standardization, and specialization to achieve
efficiency and consistency.

Certainty and predictability permit the use of policies,

rules, and procedures to guide decision making for
routine tasks and problems. Unstable environments
suggest organic structures which emphasize
decentralization to achieve flexibility and adaptability.

Uncertainty and unpredictability require general

problem solving methods for nonroutine tasks and
problems. Paul Lawrence and Jay Lorsch suggest that
organizational units operating in differing environments
develop different internal unit characteristics, and that
the greater the internal differences, the greater the
need for coordination between units.

Joan Woodward found that financially

successful manufacturing organizations
with different types of work
technologies (such as unit or small
batch; large-batch or mass-production;
or continuous-process) differed in the
number of management levels, span of
management, and the degree of worker
specialization. She linked differences in
organization to firm performance and
suggested that certain organizational
forms were appropriate for certain
types of work technologies.

Organizational size is another contingency variable

thought to impact the effectiveness of different
organizational forms. Small organizations can behave
informally while larger organizations tend to become
more formalized.

The owner of a small organization may directly control

most things, but large organizations require more
complex and indirect control mechanisms. Large
organizations can have more specialized staff, units,
and jobs. Hence, a divisional structure is not
appropriate for a small organization but may be for a
large organization.

In addition to the contingencies identified

above, customer diversity and the
globalization of business may require
product or service diversity, employee
diversity, and even the creation of special
units or divisions. Organizations operating
within the United States may have to
adapt to variations in local, state, and
federal laws and regulations.

Organizations operating internationally

may have to adapt their organizational
structures, managerial practices, and
products or services to differing cultural
values, expectations, and preferences.

The availability of support institutions and the

availability and cost of financial resources may
influence an organization's decision to produce or
purchase new products. Economic conditions can
affect an organization's hiring and layoff practices
as well as wage, salary, and incentive structures.

Technological change can significantly affect an

organization. The use of robotics affects the level
and types of skills needed in employees. Modern
information technology both permits and requires
changes in communication and interaction
patterns within and between organizations.