THEORIES AND RELEVANCE

TO PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION
(The Behavioral Science
Approach)

Presented by:
JOEMAR JHON B. ATECIO
DPA 2
INTRODUCTION
Behavioral movement came into existence in the discipline of
public administration in the late 1930s and early 1940s along with the
Human Relations Movement. Both of these movements primarily deal
with human element in the organization which was not given due
importance previously by the classical scholars. However, the former has
a bearing with the inter-personal relationships of the organizational
employees while the latter deals with the inside of human being having
focus on the place of his values and sense of rationality.
Behaviorists believed in the philosophy that understanding of
inside of the man is as important as inside of the organization. A
comprehensive understanding of organizational working is difficult
without an inside understanding of its employees. Initiated with the
Human Relations Movement it was later extended and developed by
Chester Barnard and Simon. This movement in this discipline gained
popularity after Second World War.
 This approach primarily focused on the study of
human behavior in different administrative settings. It
emerged as an alternative to provide realistic
description of how people actually behave in the
organization. It considers administrative system as a
pattern of behavior that depends on a network of
human relations. It emphasizes on conducting and
promoting scientific research relating to human
behavior.
Various scholars adopted this approach while
conducting several cross-national, cross– cultural,
cross-temporal and inter-institutional studies in
administrative behavior. These studies ultimately
proved significant in the development of the sub-
discipline of comparative public administration.
 DEFINITION

Behavioral approach refers to the scientific study of

human beings in diverse administrative settings.
The subject matter of this approach is human behavior and
it derives all conclusions there from.
It tries to understand why officials and public
employees act as they do. It applies various tools from
behavioral science to understand human behavior in
varied administrative situations.
Instead of focusing on rules and regulations; it
conducts scientific study of individual and group behavior
in different cultural contexts.
 To this end the organizations have been
viewed as a social system where
interpersonal relations among the employees
and their informal communication are given
due weight.

It is believed that understanding of

internal dynamics of administration has a
direct bearing with the behavioral
understanding of its employees.
 CHESTER IRVING BARNARD’S EFFICIENCY AND
EFFECTIVENESS

Chester Irving Barnard (1886-1961) – Barnard,

who is often called the “erudite executive”, did his
Bachelor studies in economics at Harvard University (but
never graduated). He is considered by many a true
sociologist. Yet, not graduating from college did not
prevent him from becoming an executive at the phone
company (AT&T and later Bell) and having a large effect on
the evolution of management thought through his teaching
and writings on social and human processes of
organizations.
In his 1938 book, The Functions of the Executive,
a book he wrote based on lectures he gave at Lowell
Institute (Boston) in the 1930s, he discusses the theory of
organization (what he called “cooperative system”) and the
need for an organization to reach internal “equilibrium” and
stability and confront external environmental forces.
Barnard may be the first architect of a general theory of
collective action and was an influence on Roethlisberger
and Dickson’s Hawthorne studies
 “The Functions of the Executive” is the only
major book of Barnard. It was actually the revision and
expansion of the manuscript prepared for the Lowell
Institute Lectures. This book won him fame and helped
him carve a niche for himself in the history of
management thought.
Describing the organization through the
function of the executive, Barnard emphasizes that the
goal is the change of individuals’ motives and
alternative activities through influence and control. He
admits that attempts of influence and control are not
always successful in achieving goals of the
organization and its members. The difference between
personal and organizational motives induced Barnard
to differentiate between effectiveness and efficiency.
 The formal system of cooperation demanded
the achievement of a goal or aim and in case the
cooperation was successful and the goal achieved,
the system was efficient. Barnard had a different
view of the issue of efficiency.
He considered corporative efficiency to be
the result of individual efficiencies because
individuals only cooperated in order to fulfill their
own motives. Efficiency back then was a standard
by which individual motives were fulfilled and only
an individual could determine whether such a
condition was fulfilled
 According to Barnard, efficiency and effectiveness are
irrevocable and universal assumptions of formal organizations.
Barnard differentiated between individual and organizational goals
by using the terms effectiveness and efficiency:
• Effective – to fulfill the goals of organization.
• Efficient –to fulfill individual motives, which only the individuals
themselves can confirm to be true or not
Critical turnaround on Barnard’s understanding of
effectiveness and efficiency can be reduced to today’s connotations
of these concepts which are given by authors.
Effectiveness (to do the right things) is linked to company’s
environment and market, and efficiency (to do it the right way) is
linked to internal company’s environment whose goal is reducing
costs by the product units with simultaneously quality improvement
– know as paradoxical way of thinking. Only efficient measures
provide quality for the organization to persist, that is, to provide
adequate incentives in order to fulfill individual motives and provide
cooperation among individuals and organizations.
 CHESTER BARNARD’S VISION OF ORGANIZATION

Barnard’s vision in today’s conditions is archaic, because today

a well planned vision is consisted of two main components: fundamental
ideology and wished (imagined) future. Fundamental ideology comprises
of basic values and basic purpose of a company, and wished future
comprises of bold goals (which last from ten to thirty years) and
figurative description of how to achieve desired goals.
 FUSION THEORY
The fusion process is one
of the two models of the theory of
behavior in formal organization.
The framework of the theory of
organizational behavior, as
indicated by Bakke, includes:
• A concept of the organization
• A concept of the individual
• A model of the fusion process
which is the interaction of the
individual and the organization
resulting in reconstruction of each
other
con’t..

• A model of the problem-solving process

• A concept of the individual emphasizes that the individual lives

to fulfill his needs and achieve his goals, but finds out that he
cannot do this without the organization.

• On the other hand, the organization exists also to fulfill its

needs and achieve its goals but again realizes that non-human
materials alone cannot perform all of the jobs.

• The point at which the “individual obtains the maximal

expression of his personality that is possible”, and
simultaneously, the organization has its demands and
expectations fulfilled at the highest possible level is when the
fusion process is said to occur.
con’t..

• This process is concerned with the scientific approach to study of

human problems as it relates to those principles of human
difficulties applicable to the behavior of people within and in relation
to organization as both attempt to fulfill their respective demands
and expectations.

• The other model of the theory of organization, as indicated in the

foregoing discussion, is the problem-solving process.

• This process pertains to the mode of steps the individual and the
organization, together, undertake when faced with a problem.

• However, for any organization to go about problem-solving

effectively, Bakke indicates its needs to establish a degree of
internal harmony and integration which enables it to utilize its
material, ideas and human resources effectively in response to the
problems it faces.
con’t..
• As a result the major objective of the research project at Yale has been
the further
development of a frame of reference for analysis of such organizational
activity and relations and for the analysis of the problem arising in
connection with them.
• This latter was referred to as the common core of theory for
interpretation of the
behavior of men in an organization and societal setting.
• Fusion theory, as defined by Bakke, is the simultaneous operation of the
socialization and personalizing processes, both viewed as highly
dynamic behavior
processes.
• Absolutely essential to an understanding of the fusion process is the
basic generalization in that both the individual and the organization are
unique whole entities. Both the individual and agents of the organization
try to maintain, develop, express and realize this conception of unique
wholeness which is the basis for their self- actualization.
 INDIVIDUAL OR
ORGANIZATION CONFLICT
Chris Argyris feels conflicts could
easily occur between individual and the
organization.
The magnitude of this conflict
between personality and organization is a
function of several factors. The strongest
conflict can be expected under conditions
where employees are very mature,
organization are highly structured and
rules and procedures are formalized, and
jobs are fragmented and mechanized.
Hence, we would expect the strongest
conflict to be at the lower levels of the
organization, among blue-collar and
clerical workers. Managers tend to have
jobs that are less mechanized and tend to
be less subject to formalized rules and
procedures.
 Organizational Principles and its Effects to Human
Personality
Task Specialization - The human personality is constantly
attempting to actualize its unique organization of parts
resulting from a continuous, emotionally laden, ego-
involving process of growth. It seeks to be different from
others and recognized for that difference, Task specialization
tends to ignore those differences.
Another problem is that only a few of a man's abilities
are used in task specialization. Those few that are used are
often less complex motor abilities, " …which research
suggests is of lesser psychological importance to the
individual.
With task specialization " what you can do" becomes
more important than “who you are."
con’t..

Chain of Command - As the hierarchy of authority is

established those on the lower levels tend to become more
"dependent upon, passive toward, and subordinate to their
leader." In addition their time pe1spective is shortened
because they often have little control over the information
necessary to predict their future.

Unity of Direction - When the leader is totally responsible for

the assigning of goals, the individual employee is denied that
essential activity for attaining psychological success, i.e.,
defining one ' s own goals.
con’t..

Span of Control - Line criticism of this principle is that it

increases the "administrative distance" between individuals .
This results in more red tape, problems in communications,
and decreased control and time perspective for the
individuals who are at the bottom of the ladder.
Another criticism is that minimized numbers of
subordinates creates closer supervision. This in turn leads to
greater dependence, passivity, and submissiveness on the
part of the subordinates
Argyris asserts that when the preceding conflicts
occur, growth toward healthy personalities and effective
organization s is blocked.
con’t..

He further hypothesizes that these incongruences will

continue to increase as:
(l) the employees are of increasing maturity,
(2) the formal structure is made more clear-cut and logically tight
for maximum formal organizational effectiveness ,
(3) one goes down the line of command, and
(4) the jobs become more and more mechanized (i.e., take on
assembly line characteristics).
con’t..

In light of the foregoing discussion of what

happens to employees when they come in contact with
formal organizations, Argyris advances three propositions
to summarize the occurrence:
Proposition I. There i s a lack of congruency between the
needs of individuals aspiring for psychological success
and the demands of the (initial) formal organization,
Proposition II. The resultants of this disturbance are
frustration, failure, short-time perspective, and conflict.
Proposition Ill. Under certain conditions the degree of
frustration, failure, short-time perspective, and conflict will
tend to increase.
con’t..

As conflict and frustration develop within and between the individual

and the organization, the individual may attempt to deal with the conflict in any
number of the following ways :
(l) Using any of the defense mechanisms listed under human personality in
order to defend his self concept .
(2) Regressing, i.e., becoming less mature and less efficient,
(3) Giving up and leaving the organization. This confronts him with the problem
of where to go. Most other companies are organized the same way.
(4) Becoming aggressive, hostile, and attacking what is frustrating him while
developing a tendency to blame others.
(5) Remaining frustrated by doing nothing. This choice will lead to still more
tension,
(6) Working hard to climb the ladder in order to arrive at a position where he will
no longer face the conflicts, The problem with this lies in the limited
opportunities for advancement.
(7) Becoming apathetic and resigning oneself to the situation. By becoming
passive and unconcerned the hurt of the conflict may not be quiet so bad.
 GETZELS GUBA MODEL
One of the most widely recognized and most useful framework
for studying and understanding administrative and supervisory behavior
is the social systems analysis developed primarily for educators by
Jacob Getzels and Egon Guba. These social systems theorists view
administration and supervision as a social process that occurs within a
social system. Process and context can be examined according to this
view, from structural, functional, and operational perspectives.
Structurally, administration and supervision are considered to be
a series of superordinate-subordinate relationships within a social
system. Functionally, this hierarchy of relationships (executive to
manager, manager to foreman, foreman to worker, etc.) is the basis for
allocating and integrating roles, personnel, and facilities to accomplish
organizational goals. Operationally, the process occurs in person-to-
person interaction. Getzels and Guba use the term social system in a
conceptual rather than a descriptive way.
 They conceive of the social system as involving two
major classes of phenomena, which are at once conceptually
independent and phenomenally interactive. There are, first, the
institutions with certain roles and expectations that will fulfill
the goals of the system. Second, inhabiting the system there
are the individuals with certain personalities and need-
dispositions whose interactions comprise what we generally
call "social behavior.”
Social behavior may be apprehended as a function of
the following major elements: institution, role, and expectation,
which together constitute the nomothetic, or normative,
dimension of activity in a social system; and individual,
personality, and need-disposition, which together constitute the
idiographic or personal, dimension of activity in a social
system.
 To understand the nature of the observed
behavior and to be able to predict and control it,
understanding the nature and relationships of those
elements is necessary.
The term "institution“ has received a variety of
definitions, but for our purposes it is sufficient to point
out that all social systems have certain imperative
functions that come in time to be carried out in certain
routinized patterns.
These functions- governing, educating, policing,
for example-may be said to have become
"institutionalized,“ and the agencies established to
carry out these institutionalized functions for the
social system as a whole may be termed
"institutions.”
 CHARACTERISTICS OF INSTITUTIONS

a. Institutions are purposive. They are established to carry out

certain ends, and these ends serve as the criteria against which
institutional practices are ultimately evaluated.
b. Institutions are peopled. If institutions are to carry out their
prescribed goals, human agents are required. It should be
noted, however, that here we are concerned with people, not in
the personalistic sense, but in the actuarial sense. To avoid the
possibility of confusion, we may adopt the term "actor“ in stead
of "person“ for this level of analysis.
c. Institutions are structural. To carry out a specific purpose
requires an organization, and organization implies component
parts and some rules about how these parts should be
interrelated.
d. Institutions are normative. The fact that tasks for achieving
the institutional goals are organized into roles implies that
the roles serve as "norms“ for the behavior of the role
incumbents or actors. The role expectations are obligatory
upon the actor if he is to retain his legitimate place in the
institution.
e. Institutions are sanction-bearing. The existence of norms
is of no consequence unless there is adherence to them.
Accordingly institutions must have at their disposal
appropriate positive and negative sanctions for insuring
compliance with the norms, at least within broad limits.
 The most important sub-unit of the institution is the role. Roles
are the structural elements defining the behavior of the role
incumbents or actors. The following generalizations may be made
about the nature of roles:
a) Roles represent positions, offices, or statuses within the institution.
The role itself may be described, in the words of Linton, as the
"dynamic aspect" of such positions, offices, or statuses.
b) Roles are defined in terms of role expectations. A role has certain
normative rights and duties, which may be termed "role expectations.”
When the role incumbent puts these rights and duties into effect, he is
said to be performing his role. The expectations define for the actor,
whoever he may be, what he should do under various circumstances
as long as he is the incumbent of the particular role.
c) Roles are institutional givens. Since the role expectations may be
formulated without reference to the particular individuals who will
serve as the role incumbents, it is clear that the prescriptions do not
depend on individual perception or even on typical behavior
d) The behaviors associated with a role may be
thought of as lying along a continuum from "required“
to “prohibited.” Certain expectations are held to be
crucial to the role, and the appropriate behaviors are
absolutely required of the incumbent. Other behaviors
are absolutely forbidden.
e) Roles are complementary. Roles are interdependent
in that each role derives its meaning from other related
roles in the institution. In a sense, a role is not only a
prescription for the role incumbent but also for
incumbents of other roles within the organization, so
that in a hierarchical setting the expectations for one
role may, to some extent, form the sanctions for a
second interlocking role.
 Analyzing the individual dimension into the
component elements of personality and need
disposition:

The term "personality,“ like that of "institution,“

has been given a variety of meanings. For our
purposes, “personality” may be defined as the
dynamic organization within the individual of those
need-dispositions that govern his unique reactions to
the environment.
The central analytic elements of personality are
the need-dispositions defined as individual
"tendencies to orient and act with respect to objects
in certain manners and to expect certain
consequences from these actions.”
 GETZELS - GUBA MODEL

The Getzels-Guba model says the following:

a. Behavior is a function of Need-disposition and Expectation, which are
functions of each other;
b. Expectation is a function of Role which is a function of Institution which
is a function of Social System;
c. Need-Disposition is a function of Personality which is a function of
Individual which is a function of Social System;
d. Personality and Role are functions of each other; and
e. Individual and Institution are functions of each other.
 Getzels and Guba identify a number of conflict situations
that could potentially result from the organization’s interaction
with its human inhabitants.
Among them are role-personality conflicts that result from
a discrepancy between the pattern of expectations attached to a
given role and the pattern of need dispositions of the role
incumbent.
A manager with a high dependence orientation would find
a role characterized by autonomous and independent action quite
uncomfortable; employees with a professional and technical need
to interact with organizational policy makers who are defensive,
authoritarian, and non-communicative experience similar role-
personality conflict.
Multiple but conflicting expectations for the same role are
another source of role conflict. Supervisors who are expected by
some employees to provide frequent direction and by others to
stay away experience this type of conflict.
 HIERARCHY OF NEEDS THEORY
Man by nature is a “need - er”, as he will continue to
yearn for one thing or the other. As a matter of fact, without
the request for and satisfaction of these needs, man may
cease to exist. The satisfaction of these needs guarantees our
existence. As a matter of fact, the most unifying factor of ‘all’
organizational theories is human motivation and needs.
One may ask how so? Well, in every kind of
organization where there exists an employer-employee
relationship, there is bound to be a motivator, except that it
varies. The employer is motivated either by the “need” for
profit, organizational growth, prestige etc. Likewise the
employee who is motivated by the ‘need’ to either “keep” a
job, make a living, set a record, attain a particular class, get
busy or even add value. The most pronounced idea is that
there is a motivator for these set of people; whether it is
justifiable or not is another factor entirely.
MASLOW’S HIERARCHY OF NEEDS
 IMPLICATIONS OF THE THEORY

To the individual
Putting Maslow’s theory in mind, an individual first
of all recognizes that he has needs which starts with his
continued existence upon which all other needs are
based. This consciousness motivates the individual to
provide for his ‘basic’ needs so as to continue to stay
alive. Man is at first an individual before he is an
employee.
Even as an employee, he begins to understand
what is expected of him. This is a healthy development
which will fuel the employee’s drive for productivity and
will translate to organizational productivity.
con’t..

To the organization
The rationale behind this theory lies on the fact
that it’s able to suggest to managers how they can
make their employees or subordinates become self-
actualized. This is because self-actualized employees
are likely to work at their maximum creative
potentials.
Therefore it is important to make employees
meet this stage by helping meet their need. Self-
actualization is the intended-final destination of all
employees and employers should help them get there.
This can be done by guaranteeing that all other stages
are achieved.
con’t..

For productivity
Productivity can be adequately guaranteed, achieved
and sustained if both the employer and employee understand
their role in satisfaction of their needs with respect to the
indispensable and dispensable needs categories. In other
words, increased productivity is a direct function of the
interplay between the employer and employee to gratification
of their needs.
 DOUGLAS MCGREGOR’S THEORY X AND
THEORY Y

What is Theory X management?

Theory X management assumes that employees work best

when they have external leadership from a supervisor who
directly manages them. The assumption built into Theory X is
that most employees work to earn a paycheck, that they are
not naturally self-motivated, and that the best performance is
to be had when management sets goals and drives forward to
completion.

Under this theory, your employees work to earn money and

avoid negative consequences, such as write-ups and
termination for substandard performance.
con’t..

Managers who apply Theory X usually lead from the front

with regular meetings and impose goals on their workers
from above. Theory X management is substantially a matter
of crafting positive and negative incentives, such as bonuses
or other rewards for meeting targets, or progressive
discipline for falling short, which may include remedial
training.

Employees who are managed in this style are often asked

to check in with management and report progress toward
goals, usually getting feedback in the form of direct
instructions from a supervisor.
con’t..
What is Theory Y management?

Theory Y management proceeds from the assumption that

employees can motivate themselves and are generally eager to
do a good job, even above and beyond the minimum
requirements of the tasks they’ve been assigned. Employees who
can self-motivate and find work that is fulfilling beyond just a
paycheck are expected to develop a strong work ethic and drive
themselves toward goals with minimal supervision.

Managers who take this approach can still closely monitor their
workers’ progress, but the attitude of a Theory Y manager is
much more hands-off than their Theory X counterpart. The focus
of a Theory Y supervisor is typically on building a team and
infusing it with a sense of the company’s mission. The emphasis
for this type of management is to foster creativity and let each
employee use their talents to the best effect more or less on their
own.
con’t..
Managers also have assumptions about their employees in Theory Y:
 Workers are willing to accept challenges and are proud of the work
that they do.
 Workers do not need to be micromanaged; they are self-directed.
 Workers are eager to participate in decision-making.
 Workers are happy to contribute and feel internally satisfied.

These assumptions lead to a better managerial approach and this

greater satisfaction in the workplace. McGregor encouraged
organizations to adopt more of a Theory Y leadership style.
It is much more decentralized and requires more participation
from the managers, but assumes that workers would also be committed
to the long-term goals of the company. He believed that by following
Theory Y, supervisors could motivate their workers to achieve their
highest potential.
When is Theory X management appropriate?

Theory X management is generally appropriate when your workers

have routine tasks that limit opportunities for creative expression, but which
lend themselves to simple performance metrics. A good example would be line
workers at a factory or customer service reps in a call center. You can also
think about adopting elements of this style when you hear employees express
a desire for more guidance and feedback, since it tends to be a very hands-on
approach to leadership.

When is Theory Y management appropriate?

Theory Y management tends to get good results in highly skilled,

independent and creative environments where individual expression is valued
far more than rote operations. Creative staff at a marketing agency, for
example, are generally encouraged to think independently and try out new
ideas. Even very structured environments may benefit from a Theory Y
approach. Police detectives, for instance, often work in the field with minimal
supervision, think creatively about problems and develop personal contacts
that don’t lend themselves to simple metrics of achievement.
 BENEFITS OF THESE THEORIES
THEORY X THEORY Y

 Theory X has a strong upside in that it drives Theory Y can be very beneficial in
toward simple, intelligible goals and easily unstructured or loosely monitored
definable metrics for success. environments, such as with workers who
 The approach allows direct management of operate in the field, away from the
methods and objectives, which shifts control up supervision of a team leader.
toward project planners, and the close It encourages self-starters to give their best
monitoring it encourages can make some effort to a project, and when done correctly
employees feel that they have the support they it can be an extremely efficient way to lead
need from their managers. without expending too much effort on
 A solid Theory X implementation can also take relatively routine supervisory work.
even very poorly motivated employees and Employees who thrive in these
encourage them toward success and future environments often do so because they feel
advancement in the company by playing toward their management is supporting them with
the incentives they really care about. freedom and the headspace they need to
independently work toward shared goals.
 DISADVANTAGES

THEORY X THEORY Y
 Some employees do not work well  Not everyone will be comfortable
under such strict enforcement with undefined working boundaries
 Not everyone is motivated by  It would be easy to abuse the
financial gain, so they might not freedom and trust
make much of an effort to achieve  Can be harder to measure success,
more as there is less focus on quantifiable
 Can be detrimental to employee metrics
learning and development
 ASSUMPTIONS MADE UNDER THESE
THEORIES

THEORY
THEORY
X X THEORY
THEORY
Y Y
1. The average
averageperson
person
dislikes
dislikes
work and
1. will
Effort
avoid
in work1. is Effort
as natural
in work
as work
is asand
natural
play.as work and play.
work
it if he/she
and will
can. avoid it if he/she 2. People will 2. applyPeople
self-control
will apply
and self-direction
self-control andin the
self-direction
pursuit of
2. can.
Therefore most people must be forced organizational
with the objectives,
in the pursuit
without external
of organizational
control or theobjectives,
threat of
2. Thereforeofmost
threat punishment
people musttobe work punishment.
towards without external control or the threat of
forced with objectives.
organizational the threat of 3. Commitment to objectives punishment.is a function of rewards associated with
3. punishment
The average person
to workprefers
towards
to be directed
their
; avoid
achievement.
3. Commitment to objectives is a function of
organizational objectives.
responsibility; is relatively unambitious,
4. Peopleand usually accept
rewards
andassociated
often seekwith
responsibility.
their achievement.
3. The average
wants security
person
aboveprefers
all else.to be 5. The capacity4.to use People
a highusually
degree ofaccept
imagination,
and ingenuity
often seekand
directed ; avoid responsibility; is creativity in solving
responsibility.
organizational problems is widely distributed
relatively unambitious, and among the population.
5. The capacity to use a high degree of imagination,
wants security above all else. 6. In industry, the intellectual
ingenuity and
potential
creativity
of the
in average
solving person
organizational
is only
partly utilized. problems is widely distributed among the
population.
6. In industry, the intellectual potential of the
average person is only partly utilized.
SUMMARY
 TWO-FACTOR THEORY
The two-factor motivation theory,
otherwise known as “Herzberg’s
motivation-hygiene theory” or “dual-factor
theory”, argues that there are separate
sets of mutually exclusive factors in the
workplace that either cause job
satisfaction or dissatisfaction .
Generally, these factors
encouraging job satisfaction relate to self-
growth and self-actualization.
The two-factor motivation theory
has become one of the most commonly
used theoretical frameworks in job
satisfaction research .
To Herzberg, motivators ensured
job satisfaction, while a lack of hygiene
factors spawned job dissatisfaction.
con’t..

Frederick Herzberg and his two collaborators, Mausner and

Snyderman, developed the motivation-hygiene theory in their book Motivation
to Work.
Influenced by Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, Herzberg concluded that
satisfaction and dissatisfaction could not be measured reliably on the same
continuum and conducted a series of studies where he attempted to
determine what factors in work environments cause satisfaction or
dissatisfaction.
Herzberg and his colleagues explored the impact of fourteen factors
on job satisfaction and dissatisfaction in terms of their frequency and
duration of impact.
In the first of these studies, Heizberg asked 13 laborers, clerical
workers, foremen, plant engineers, and accountants to describe, in detail,
situations where they felt exceptionally good or bad about their jobs.
Generally, respondents, when describing situations where they felt
good about their jobs, cited factors intrinsic to their work, while those
describing situations where they felt bad about their jobs cited
extrinsic factors.
Herzberg considers two factors that can add to or detract from job
satisfaction: hygiene and motivation.
 MOTIVATION FACTORS
Herzberg argued that motivation factors are necessary to improve job
satisfaction.
According to Herzberg, these motivators are intrinsic to the job and lead to job
satisfaction because they satisfy the needs for growth and self-actualization.
In his original paper, Herzberg examines 14 motivational and hygiene factors, of
which there are notable examples:
Advancement: Herzberg defined advancement as the upward and positive status
or position of someone in a workplace.
Meanwhile, a negative or neutral status at work represents negative
advancement.
The work itself: The content of job tasks can positively or negatively affect
employees.
The job’s difficulty and level of engagement can dramatically impact satisfaction
or dissatisfaction in the workplace.
Possibility for growth: Possibilities for growth exist in the same vein as Maslow’s
self-actualization; they are opportunities for a person to experience personal
growth and promotion in the workplace.
Personal growth can result in professional growth, increased opportunities to
develop new skills and techniques, and gaining professional knowledge.
con’t..

Responsibility: Responsibility encompasses both the responsibilities

held by the individual and the authority granted to the individual in
their role.
People gain satisfaction from being given the responsibility and
authority to make decisions. Conversely, a mismatch between
responsibility and level of authority negatively affects job
satisfaction.
Recognition: When employees receive praise or rewards for reaching
goals or producing high-quality work, they receive recognition.
Negative recognition involves criticism or blame for a poorly done
job.
Achievement: Positive achievement can involve, for example,
completing a difficult task on time, solving a job-related problem, or
seeing positive results from one’s work.
Negative achievement includes failure to progress at work or poor
job-related decision-making
 HYGIENE FACTORS
Hygiene factors are those which decrease job dissatisfaction. Herzberg,
Mausner, and Snyderman used the term hygiene as “medical hygiene…[which]
operates to remove health hazards from the environment.”
Herzberg also states that hygiene factors are extrinsic to the job and function
in “the need to avoid unpleasantness.”
Hygiene factors, rather than relating to the content of the job in itself, tend to
relate to contextual factors such as interpersonal relations, salary, company policies,
and administration, relationship with supervisors, and working conditions:
Interpersonal relations: Interpersonal relationships involve the personal and working
relationships between an employee and his supervisors, subordinates, and peers.
This can manifest in, for example, job-related interactions as well as social
discussions in both the work environment and during informal break times.
Salary: Salary includes wage or salary increases and negative unfulfilled
expectations of wage or salary increases.
Company policies and administration: Company policies and administration include
factors such as the extent to which company organization and management policies
and guidelines are clear or unclear.
For example, a lack of delegation of authority, vague policies and procedures, and
communication may lead to job dissatisfaction.
con’t..

Supervision: Supervision involves an employee’s judgments of

the competence or incompetence and fairness or unfairness of
the supervisor or supervision.
For example, this could include a supervisor’s willingness to
delegate responsibility or teach and their knowledge of the job.
Poor leadership and management can decrease job
dissatisfaction.
Working conditions: Finally, working conditions involve the
physical surroundings of the job and whether or not they are
good or poor.
Factors leading to a good or poor workspace could involve the
amount of work, space, ventilation, tools, temperature, and
safety
 LIKERT’S MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Rensis Likert and his

associates studied the patterns
and styles of managers for
three decades at the University
of Michigan, USA, and
identified a four-fold model of
management systems.
Advantages of Likert’s Management System
With the help of the profile developed by Likert, it became
possible to quantify the results of the work done in the field of group
dynamics.
Likert theory also facilitated the measurement of the “soft” areas
of management, such as trust and communication.
The nature of these four management systems has been
described by Likert through a profile of organizational characteristics. In
this profile, the four management systems have been compared with one
another on the basis of certain organizational variables which are:
Leadership processes
Motivational forces
Communication process
Interaction-influence process
Decision-making process
Goal-setting or ordering
Control processes
 MANAGERIAL GRID MODEL (THE BLAKE AND
MOUTON MANAGERIAL GRID MODEL)

The managerial grid model (The Blake and

Mouton Managerial Grid model)is a self-assessment tool by
which individuals and organizations can identify a
manager's or leader's style. The grid was originally
developed by Robert R. Blake and Jane S. Mouton in the
1960s and has evolved in subsequent decades.
Robert R. Blake was a pioneer in organizational
dynamics and an American management theoretician. Jane
S. Mouton was also a management theoretician. Both Blake
and Mouton focused on the human side of business
leadership in the 1950s and 1960s.
During their work to improve effective leadership
at Exxon, they noted that management behavior worked on
axes (i.e., concern for production and concern for people)
and moved along a continuum. Based on this observation,
they went on to create the Managerial Grid theory and model
of leadership styles.
The Blake and Mouton Managerial Grid model --
also known simply as the Blake Mouton Grid -- shows the
degree to which a manager or leader focuses on production,
people or both. Depending on where the person falls on the
grid, their behavioral or managerial style can be determined.
 The Blake & Mouton Grid is created using a horizontal axis
and a vertical axis that meet at a right angle and are rated on a
nine-point scale:
Horizontal axis -- concern for production. A one, or low concern for
production, is placed to the far left of the horizontal axis, close to
the right angle; a nine, or high concern for production, is located
on the far right of the horizontal line. A high concern for
production indicates that the leader prioritizes objectives, results
and productivity when determining how a task should be
accomplished.
Vertical axis -- concern for people. A one, or low concern, falls at
the bottom of the vertical line, close to the base near the right
angle, while a nine, or high concern for people, is placed at the top
of this vertical axis. A high concern for people indicates that the
leader prioritizes the needs and interests of people when
determining how a task should be accomplished.
THE BLAKE & MOUTON MANAGERIAL GRID MODEL
 Leadership styles according to the Blake
Mouton Grid

The Blake & Mouton Grid shows whether an organization's leader is more
people centric or production centric. On the basis of these focus areas, Blake
and Mouton identified five leadership or management styles:
Impoverished management
This is represented by a manager who rates a 1/1 and falls on the grid's lower
left quadrant. They have a low concern for both production and people. This is
known as the impoverished management style, according to Blake and
Mouton.
The impoverished management style is mostly ineffective both at meeting
people's needs and at generating positive results for the organization. If
anything, this style frequently leads to a disharmonious work environment and
fails to resolve conflicts among team members.
Produce-or-perish management
A manager rated 9/1 will be positioned in the grid's lower right quadrant. This
person has a high concern for production and results but low concern for
people. They have a produce-or-perish management style.
Another term for a produce-or-perish manager is authoritarian or authority-
compliance manager. This person can drive impressive results using strict
rules and punitive measures. However, their unstinting focus on results over
people adversely affects team morale and motivation, which then leads to an
eventual decline in the quality and timeliness of desired results.
Middle-of-the-road management
A rating of 5/5 means that the leader falls in the center of the grid and is said to have a
middle-of-the-road management style that suggests that the manager is equally concerned about both production
and people. They try to balance both. However, the style can be ineffective because they are unable to prioritize
either aspect.
Country club management
A manager with a 1/9 rating will be positioned in the top left quadrant. This person has a low concern for
production but high concern for people and is said to have a country club management style.
Managers with a country club style of management try to make their people happy and satisfied at work. They
believe that happy people will work hard and generate good results for the company. However, they trust people
to manage themselves, so they may not provide adequate direction and coaching. As a result, they frequently find
that productivity suffers and results are not what they expected or wanted.
Team management
A 9/9 rating would place the manager in the grid's upper right quadrant, indicating a team management leadership
style. This person is highly committed to both production and people. These managers harness this commitment
to creating a positive work environment where people feel respected, seen and heard.
This environment motivates and inspires people to give their best effort to the organization. In doing so,
productivity goes up, and the leader can generate desirable results for the organization. By increasing employee
satisfaction, they can also reduce absenteeism and turnover.
Additional management styles
In addition to those five leadership styles, Blake later identified two more styles:
Paternalistic management. This leader is supportive of their people but also concerned with their own power and
position, which they will guard zealously.
Opportunistic management. An opportunistic manager puts their needs above the needs of their people or the
organization. They are also willing to manipulate others to achieve their own goals.
 FIEDLER’S CONTINGENCY THEORY

Fiedler’s Contingency Theory, also known

as Fiedler’s Contingency Model or Fiedler’s Theory of
Leadership, states that there is not one best style of
leadership. Rather, the most effective leadership style
for any given situation is one that aligns with the
situation at hand.
The theory was developed in the 1960s by
Austrian psychologist, Professor Fred Fiedler. He
studied leaders’ personalities and characteristics and
came to the conclusion that leadership style, since it is
formed through one’s life experiences, is incredibly
difficult, if not impossible, to change.
For this reason, Fiedler believed the right
leader must be chosen for each job based on their skill
set and the requirements of the situation. In order to
best match leaders with situations, each leader must
first understand their natural leadership style. Then,
they need to evaluate whether their leadership style is
right for the situation. To put it simply, Fiedler
determined that a leaders’ ability to succeed rests on
two factors:
Natural leadership style
Situational favorableness
 ELEMENTS OF FIEDLER’S CONTINGENCY
MODEL

1. Leadership style
To help you determine your leadership style, Fiedler
developed the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale. The scale
asks you to describe the coworker you least prefer to work with.
The more positively you rate your least preferred coworker on a
variety of different criteria, the more relationship-oriented you are.
The less favorably you rate them on the same criteria, the more
task-oriented you are.
Essentially:
If you’re a high LPC leader, you’re a relationship-oriented leader.
If you’re a low LPC leader, you’re a task-oriented leader.
Relationship-oriented leaders are great at building
relationships, facilitating team synergy, and managing interpersonal
conflict. Task-oriented leaders tend to be skilled at organizing
projects and teams to accomplish tasks efficiently and effectively.
 Determining your LPC score
Now that you’ve filled out the test, add up every number
you marked to calculate your LPC score. Interpret your score as
follows:
 If you scored 73 and above (a high LPC score), you are a
relationship-oriented leader.
 If you scored 54 and below (a low LPC score), you are a task-
oriented leader.
 If you scored between 55 and 72, you have the qualities of
both a relationship-oriented and a task-oriented leader.
Deciding which style fits you better will take further
exploration through other leadership theories.

Note: If you’re a task-oriented leader, you’re the best fit to tackle

highly favorable and highly unfavorable situations. The extremes are
where you’ll serve your team best.
If you’re a relationship-oriented leader, your style is best suited to
lead in situations with moderate favorability.
2. Situational favorableness
Next, Fiedler’s model requires you to assess the situation at hand. Situational
contingency theory, also known as situational leadership, states that every situation
that requires leadership is different and requires a specific type of leader. The
favorability of a situation depends on how much influence and power you have as a
leader.
Situational favorableness is determined by three variables:
Leader-member relations
Task structure
Position power
Leader-member relations are all about trust. Does your team trust you as a leader?
The more they do, the higher your degree of leader-member relations and the more
favorable the situation is.
Task structure refers to the clarity of the tasks required to complete a project. Higher
task structure results in a more favorable situation. The more clear-cut and precise
tasks are, the higher the situation’s task structure—whereas the vaguer they are, the
lower the situation’s task structure.
Finally, position power refers to the authority you have over your team as a leader. If
you can reward them, punish them, or tell them what to do, your position power is
high. As you can imagine, higher position power makes the situation more favorable.
 The rationale behind these two
leadership styles is pretty straightforward:
Rating your least preferred coworker
favorably means that you see the best in people—
even those who you wouldn’t necessarily choose to
work with.
Rating your least preferred coworker
unfavorably suggests that you struggle to see their
contributions, since you value efficiency and
effectiveness over other attributes.
 SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP THEORY
Situational Leadership Model
The situational theory of leadership
suggests that no single leadership style is
“best” – the type of leadership and
strategies that are best-suited to the task
depends on the situation at hand.
According to this theory, the
most effective leaders are those that are
able to adapt their style to the situation
and look at cues such as the type of task,
the nature of the group, and other factors
that might contribute to getting the job
done.
Situational leadership theory is
often referred to as the Hersey-Blanchard
Situational Leadership Theory, after its
developers Dr. Paul Hershey, author of
The Situational Leader, and Ken
Blanchard, author of One-Minute
Manager.
 FOUR (4) STYLES OF SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP

1. Telling, Directing or Guiding

The leader tells, directs and guides their team on what to do and how
to do a specific task.
2. Selling, Coaching or Explaining
In this leadership style, the leader engages more with their
team members and tries to 'sell' them their ideas, processes or a
certain way of doing things.
3. Participating, Collaborating or Facilitating
This leadership style offers less direction and encourages team
members to get involved, collaborate with one another and
make more decisions.
4. Delegating, Empowering or Monitoring
As a hands-off approach, this style of leadership takes a step back
and monitors from the sidelines. Team members make the majority
of decisions and take responsibility for what happens after those
decisions are made.
 KEY CHARACTERISTICS AND SKILLS OF
A SITUATIONAL LEADER

Courage: Situational leaders are not afraid to make changes and

decisions to drive a project forward.
Adaptability: Being a situational leader means you change your
leadership style depending on the needs of the situation and task at
hand.
Delegation: From daily activities to large projects, a situational leader
will focus more on goals rather than the tasks needed to be done to
meet them.
Curiosity: Be curious about yourself, what you are doing and about
your teams and how they respond to you.
A Clear Sense of Direction: Every situational leader needs a vision and
clear goals in place for the team to achieve.
Active listening: To understand situations and how to deal with them,
the most important element is to listen. Engage with situations and
employees to understand the best route to take.
 HOW CAN PUBLIC SECTOR LEADERS USE SITUATIONAL
LEADERSHIP TO MEET EVERYDAY DEMANDS?

Developing a new hybrid working policy for your organization

involves bringing together all four classic situational leadership
styles of telling, selling, participating and delegating.

 You will need to tell your team the parameters of the task that the
Board have agreed on and clarify points of detail.
 You will sell the project to your team creating buy-in and
understanding, giving team members space to debate, discuss
and contribute.
 You will participate alongside team members to make sure they
all feel aligned with the project.
 And you will delegate by extending autonomy to individual team
members.”
CONCLUSION

Public administration is an integral part of the society. Its

importance is pivotal in both developed and developing countries.
Public administration as a specialized academic field deal
essentially with the machinery and procedure of government as
these are used in the effective performance of government activities.
In simple public administration is a combination of theory and
Practice.
Theory is a concise presentation of facts and a logical set up
of assumptions from which empirical laws or principle scan be
derives, Its task is to tie significant knowledge together to give a
framework
According to Stephen Bailey, “the objectives of public
administration theory are to draw together the insights of the
humanities and validated propositions of the social and behavioral
sciences and apply to these insights and propositions to the task of
improving the process of government aimed at achieving politically
legitimized goals by constitutionally mandated means”.
THANK YOU !