Organizational studies, organizational behavior, and organizational approach is the

systematic study and careful application of knowledge about how people - as individuals and
as groups - act within organizations.

Organizational Behavior Approaches

Organizational behavior, as we have been showing in the previous articles, relates to the
relationship between employees and the employers in an organization. Both are working
towards the realization of the goals and objectives of any organization, and a close and
fruitful coordination between the two is one of the major factors towards this realization.
Organizational behavior approaches are a result of the research done by experts in this field.
These experts studied and attempted to quantify research done about actions and reactions of
employees, with regard to their work environments. It is a field that has begun developing
only recently and new approaches and results are being expounded everyday, as more and
more data comes to the forefront. There are various aspects of these theories, since each one
deals with complex human behavior. The most important ones are the approaches about
motivation. All of them are aimed towards motivating the members of the organization into
optimizing their performance and thereby resulting in better and more improved
performances. The more popular theories in this field are:

Alderfer's approach of motivation

Herzberg's approach

Expectancy approach

Maslow's approach

In the field of Leadership, the most commonly followed theories are Houses Path-Goal
approach and McGregor's approach X and approach Y. As we begin to understand the
importance of leaders and their role in an organization, the study of leadership theories
assumes greater importance. Selecting a good leader is possible only if you understand the
qualities and the strategies that a good leader needs to adopt. Another approach that is being
studied in greater depth is the communication approach. Since organizational behavior is
concerned mainly with interpersonal relationships, communication or the lack of it, is being
studied in great depth. Effective communication has become an influential tool in the overall
running of any organization. Group theories are also an important component of any
organizational behavior study. The dynamics of group behavior and of the formation and
cohesiveness of any group need to be understood and implemented well, in order to achieve a
harmonious working environment. It is a complex series of equations and analysis that leads
to the formation of any theories, and each approach normally has many variable factors
which are a part of its basis. Hence, it is important to realize that these theories are a
necessary part of any study of organizational behavior, but that they are fluid and will change
as new research comes up.

Organizational behavior is an academic discipline concerned with describing,

understanding, predicting, and controlling human behavior in an organizational
environment. The field is particularly concerned with group dynamics, how
individuals relate to and participate in groups, how leadership is exercised, how
organizations function, and how change is effected in organizational settings. When
organizational behavior theory is directed specifically at ways in which management
can control an organization, it is sometimes known as organizational behavior
management, or OBM.

Organizational behavior is a fairly new discipline, dating back to the early 20th
century, although some experts suggest that it came into existence right after the U.S.
Civil War. Organizational behavior has evolved from early classical management
theories into a complex school of thought, and it continues to change in response to
the dynamic workforce in which today's businesses operate.

THE CLASSICAL MANAGEMENT SCHOOL

In 1911, Frederick W. Taylor's book, Principles of Scientific Management, was

published. This book marked the first serious attempt to publish the results of
scientific management studies aimed at motivating workers to produce more. Taylor
was the best known of a group of people, primarily mechanical engineers, who
applied time-and-motion study concepts in the workplace. These engineers focused
on the task concept to show that workers could be motivated to produce more,
especially if they were offered an incentive to do so.

The task concept centered around the idea that if managers planned workers' tasks at
least one day in advance, production would increase. Taylor devised a differential
piece-rate system based on two different rates of pay. His system was simple:
workers who did less than the expected output received a low rate of pay. Those who
exceeded the standard earned more money. That was a radical idea for the time. It
separated the worker from the machine and indicated that employees could control
how much they produced. Taylor also suggested in his approach that money
motivated workers. This, too, was a unique idea. This approach became known as
Theory X, and it would later be distinguished from other theories that took a
different view of worker motivation and human nature. What Taylor did not do,
however, was take into account group behavior. He, like most classical managers,
had no concept of the importance of workers as members of groups. The next wave of
theorists, the human relations experts, addressed the issue of group behavior.
THE HAWTHORNE EXPERIMENTS

Human relationists tried to add a human dimension to classical theory in their

studies. They did not try to refute the classical management proponents. Rather, they
introduced the idea that workers would be willing to accept as part of their reward
humane treatment, personal attention, and a chance to feel wanted. To prove their
point, human relationists embarked on a series of experiments.

Perhaps the most significant experiments were the Hawthorne experiments. The
studies began in 1924 at the Hawthorne Works, part of the Western Electric
Company, located in Cicero, Illinois. The researchers' original goal was to measure
the effect of illumination on output. In simplified terms, what they actually learned
was that an individual's work performance, position, and status in an organization
are determined not only by the individual, but by group members, too. They also
learned that workers formed cliques that affected their production and that there
were certain codes of conduct members of individual cliques were expected to follow.
The Hawthorne studies opened the door to more experiments by other human
relationists.

HUMAN RESOURCES THEORY

The next group to take center stage in the organizational behavior arena postulated
that a manager's role was not to control workers, but to facilitate employee
performance. According to human resources experts, people work to make a living,
but their efforts go far beyond just laboring. They also work to fulfill certain needs,
e.g., contributing to organizational objectives, attaining a feeling of accomplishment,
and using their creativity in the work environment. Managers were well advised to
keep all these needs in mind when dealing with workers. According to the human
resources theorists, managers should apply mutual goal-setting and problem-solving
approaches to their workforce members. Their approach has been termed Theory Y.

Managers were encouraged to make use of whatever training was necessary to ensure
maximum performance. The training could take a variety of forms, i.e., technical,
human, or conceptual. They were also advised to open communication lines in all
directions to promote organizational effectiveness. After all, the theorists
emphasized, workers welcome self-direction and self-control and will perform well
when managers take an interest in their lives. In short, the human resources
advocates said, managers should place their primary emphasis on using workers as if
they are important human assets.

THE SYSTEM APPROACH TO

ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR

Modem theorists apply a five-part system approach to organizational behavior:

 the individual
 the formal organization
 the informal organization
 the fusion process, in which the first three modify and shape one another
 the physical environment

Each part is essential. None can exist alone in the system. This system approach is
the basis for modem organizational theory, which is founded on behavioral science
studies.

THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

There are three behavioral sciences: psychology (the study of individual behavior),
sociology (the study of social behavior within societies, institutions, and groups), and
anthropology (the study of the origin, cultural development, and behavior of
humans). Each has made important contributions to the study of organizational
behavior.

From an organizational standpoint, psychologists are concerned with the processes

of learning, perception, and motivation. Sociologists study the various organizations
that compose society, e.g., political, legal, business, governmental, and religious
bodies. Finally, anthropologists are interested in the impact of culture on behavior.
The three disciplines have had a major impact on the study of organizational
behavior.

Organizational behavior scientists study four areas: individual behavior, group

behavior, organizational structure, and organizational processes. They investigate
facets of these areas like personality and perception, attitudes and job satisfaction,
group dynamics, politics and the role of leadership in the organization, job design,
the impact of stress on work, decision-making processes, the communications chain,
and company cultures and climates. They use a variety of techniques and approaches
to evaluate each facet and its impact on individuals, groups, and organizational
efficiency and effectiveness.

In regard to individuals and groups, researchers try to ascertain why people behave
the way they do. They have developed a variety of models designed to explain
individuals' behavior. They investigate the factors that influence personality
development, including genetic, situational, environmental, cultural, and social
factors. Researchers also look at personality types such as authoritarian (people who
adhere closely to conventional values) and dogmatic (people who are extremely rigid
in their beliefs). They want to find out what causes a person to form either type of
personality and learn whether one or the other—or neither—is a positive trait for
people in the business world.

Researchers have also studied a number of concepts, including:

1. Stereotyping—the process of categorizing people based on limited information

2. Halo effect—the use of known personal traits as the basis for an overall evaluation
3. Perceptual defense—the process of screening out or distorting information that is
disturbing or that people do not care to acknowledge
4. Projection—people attribute their own undesirable traits or characteristics to others.

They evaluate perception versus reality, individuals' locus of control (whether they
believe they or outside forces are in control of their lives), and common problems
resulting from these personality traits and characteristics. Finally, they look at an
individual's attitudes and correlate them to job satisfaction and job performance.

THE IMPORTANCE OF JOB

SATISFACTION STUDIES

The study of job satisfaction is central to organizational behavioral scientists.

Companies want to know why their employees are or are not satisfied. If they are not
happy, executives look to the behavioral scientists for ways to improve individuals'
attitudes and to suggest ways of improving the work environment. This implies that
the theorists have to look well beyond the tangible factors influencing job
satisfaction, such as pay, benefits, promotional opportunities, and working
conditions. They have to study how groups influence the workplace and individuals'
expectations.

THE DYNAMICS OF GROUP BEHAVIOR

Perhaps the most basic issue scholars have addressed in the area of group behavior is
the definition of "group." They have agreed that there is no one definition. Therefore,
they have looked more at why people join groups, types of groups, and group
activities and goals. Studies have focused on group norms, individuals' behavior
within groups and how it changed, their roles within groups, and what groups could
accomplish that individuals could not. Many researchers believe that a group is more
than the sum of the individual members, even though its goals, interactions, and
performance are determined primarily by the individuals within it.

In an era when teamwork and collaboration figure prominently in many

corporations' stated values, organizational behavior theory suggests some models for
how people work together well, and conversely, how collaboration breaks down. As in
most social science theories, there is no exact formula for how people collaborate in a
work environment, but there are some significant social and psychological
dimensions that influence these behaviors. Many of them relate to communication
styles and methods. While electronic mail has been extolled as an important tool
for efficient, speedy, and inexpensive communications, some evidence (mostly
anecdotal at this stage) suggests that mechanical means of communication like e-
mail hinder effective group work by fostering feelings of mistrust, distance, and
apathy. By contrast, removing hierarchical and personal barriers and engendering
open, face-to-face discussion appear to improve group interactions.

In another important area, organizational behavior scientists draw a distinction

between leadership and management. They define management as the process of
accomplishing tasks, whereas leadership is the process of getting things done by
influencing other people. Another question is whether leaders are "born or made." In
order to answer that question, researchers have sought common characteristics
shared by leaders. They have found a few—intelligence, dependability, responsibility,
social activity, and high originality—but there appear to be too many competing
variables to form any universal conclusions of common leadership characteristics.
POWER, POLITICS, AND CONFLICT

Organizational behavior scientists have identified five basic types of power managers
and leaders use to influence their subordinates: reward, coercive, legitimate,
referent, and expert.

Reward power, which is based on an individual's expectation of receiving desired

outcomes, was found to be a positive force. However, if the members of a group do
not believe they will be rewarded for their efforts, the person in a position to offer
rewards will not be able to influence the individuals. Similarly, managers who rely on
coercive power, which is based on fear, will probably be unable to influence workers,
especially group members, for a long period of time.

The other three types of power also have advantages and disadvantages. For
instance, legitimate power, which exists as part of a manager's position in the
hierarchy, is often ignored by workers who do not respect the individual filling the
role. Referent power, which is based on the manager's charisma, influences only
those individuals or group members who are swayed by the charismatic leader.
Finally, expert power, which is power acquired from experience and learning, is a
positive force, but only to the degree managers can convince individuals and group
members that their leadership skills go beyond expertise alone.

People attempting to exercise power in the organization often resort to political

tactics to do so. They blame others for mistakes, form power coalitions, praise co-
workers and subordinates when they think it will help them achieve goals and
reinforce their images. In short, they use every stratagem possible to win friends and
influence people. In the process, however, they often create conflict. This prompted
researchers to study conflict and its possible solutions.

Organizational behavior scientists recognize that conflict exists at both the individual
and group levels. They have devised a number of ways to deal with it. Among them
are mutual problem solving, compromise, and avoidance. Significantly, they
discovered that conflict resolutions are most often temporary, and they have looked
for ways to make them more permanent. In order to find permanent solutions, they
have performed more in-depth studies of organizational structure and processes and
how both affect individuals and groups.
ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN AND
PROCESSES

Organizational behavior scientists have conducted extensive studies on job

definitions and the tasks a job comprises. They have looked at how each job fit into
different groups within the organization, a process called departmentalization. The
researchers have studied managerial spans of control, i.e., the number of people an
individual manager can manage most effectively. The process required that
researchers reduce to its most basic level each task performed and then find ways to
perform jobs more efficiently and effectively.

Many researchers have suggested viable ways that organizations could restructure
jobs and relationships to stimulate job satisfaction and productivity simultaneously.
They have devised better communications programs, identified the elements that
create stress, and explained how it could be better managed.

Organizational behavior scientists performed extensive studies on company cultures

and climates with an eye to upgrading employees' quality of life in the workplace.
They have sought ways to include more people in the managerial and decision-
making processes. Their suggestions have included such techniques as quality
circles and participative management programs.

Quality circles, which are team approaches to identifying and resolving work-related
problems, became popular in some businesses. So, too, did participative
management efforts, which gave a wider variety of people opportunities to comment
on—and implement—new ideas in the workplace. One prominent organizational
behavior scientist, William Ouchi, recommended that American companies integrate
more Japanese management concepts into their management practices. His
approach became known as Theory Z.

The ideas promulgated by organizational behavior scientists have caught on in

managerial circles. Not surprisingly, not all of the programs can be used by all
companies. If there is one thing that researchers have recognized, it is that no two
companies are alike. To compensate for the dissimilarities, behavioral scientists
reformed detailed cultural profiles to determine which programs fit individual
companies' needs. These profiles have illustrated the importance of culture in the
field of organizational behavior. Researchers have examined how company cultures
control individual and group behavior, promote innovation, foster personnel
commitment, and so on.

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

Another subject of special interest to organizational behavior scholars is how change

affects people in an organization and how the process of change can be managed to
maximize its success and minimize unintended disruptions. Change is compelled by
many sources: social and demographic trends, economic cycles, competition,
technology, and politics and regulation, to name a few. Scholars distinguish between
change that is incremental and ongoing, sometimes called first-order change, and
change that is radical and episodic, termed second-order change. While each form
can have both positive and negative consequences, radical changes are commonly
seen as requiring the most caution and skill at pulling off.

For example, one of the most visible trends in corporate America since the 1980s has
been the rise of sudden mass layoffs at large corporations, or downsizing. This clearly
represents one of the largest kinds of changes a company might face, and its scope
affects not only the workers who lose their jobs but also those who remain.

Researchers have found that downsizing can have both positive and negative effects
on the employees who stay on. In some cases, for example, layoffs can induce
employees to work harder and engage in other behaviors that benefit the company.
One obvious explanation is that these workers might fear losing their jobs if they
don't improve their performance, but there are likely other reasons as well, such as a
move to fill a performance vacuum left by the departing workers. Still, other workers
may respond by diminishing their performance; they may be demoralized by the
corporate policies and may lower their mental and emotional investment in their
jobs.

However, studies in organizational behavior suggest that all of these responses aren't
inevitable. Scholars have suggested that the way in which the company goes about
managing the change, in this case, the events leading up to and following downsizing,
can have a significant effect on how employees react. This is not to say all negative
reactions can be eliminated, but that there is a good chance they can be reduced. In
the downsizing example, taking actions that foster trust in the management (such as
open communication or demonstrating objective and consistent criteria for decision
making) and that increase employee feelings of empowerment (letting workers have
a say in some aspects of change) have been posited as methods of reducing some of
the negative shocks of massive organizational change. Similar principles apply to
managing other forms of organizational change.

More broadly, scholars like psychologist Kurt Lewin have identified basic models for
managing change in organizations. In Lewin's widely cited three-step process,
outlined in his 1951 classic Field Theory in Social Science, management must first
"unfreeze" the status quo in the organization, facilitate a move to a new set of
practices or environment, and then solidify or "refreeze" the new practices or
environment into a permanent state. The process of unfreezing the current status
involves introducing new policies or initiatives that begin to actively move employees
away from the old way of doing things and/or removing policies or practices that tie
them to the old. The second step, the shift to the new practices, is the formal
implementation of the changes, for example, reorganizing a division or closing a
branch office. Third, during refreezing management must solidify the changes by
ensuring all the policies and practices are now geared toward maintaining the new
equilibrium, and not throwbacks to the supplanted practices or lingering transition
measures that create an atmosphere of instability or uncertainty.

THE FUTURE OF ORGANIZATIONAL

BEHAVIOR

The international economy has taken on added importance in organizational

behavior circles in recent years, as international companies have special
requirements and dynamics to contend with. Researchers currently are studying
such things as communications between and among foreign business operations,
cultural differences and their impact on individuals, language difficulties, motivation
techniques in different cultures, as well as the differences in leadership and decision-
making practices from country to country.

Today, organizational behavior scientists are dealing with a wide range of problems
confronting the business world. For instance, they continue to study downsizing,
career development in the global economy, social issues such as substance abuse and
changes in family composition, and the global economy. They are trying to determine
just what effects such factors are having on the workplace and what can be done to
alleviate associated problems.