CHAPTER 20
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND THEORY
RESUME by Alamanda
Modern management makes more sense when viewed in the lights of its foundation; the search for a harmony of people and organizations undertaken by the modern behavioralists actually began many years earlier. These efforts were directed at a just adaptation of humans need and aspirations to the requirements and goals of the organization.
PEOPLE AND ORGANIZATION
The behavioral sciences were seen as one way in which more powerful analytical and conceptual toes could be put to use in handling the problems of human behavior.
Organization and management theory was abridge between those who groups, but it was clear that those from behavioral scientist brought substantial influence to management teaching and research in the years following the Gordon and Howell report.
HUMAN RELATIONS AND ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR
Davis defined human relation as” the integration of people into a work situation in a way that motivates them to work together productively, cooperatively, and with economic, physiological, and social satisfaction. This marked the beginning of a modern view a human relations that was more empirically rigorous in understanding organizational behavior philosophically broader in understanding people’s interaction in a more complex network of societal forces.
Davis held that modern humans relation really had two facets; one was concerned with understanding, describing, and identifying causes and effects of human behavior through empirical investigation.
Chris Argyris thought that some basic trend existed in the personality growth of healthy, more individuals.
Faced with demands of the organization, individual might seek more autonomy, day dream become aggressive, become apathetic, create and formalize informal groups, restrict output, and so on through a host of defensive reactions. Management, faced with the reactions of the workers, might respond by using more autocratic and directive leadership, tightening organizational controls, or turning to human relation.
According to Argyis and Schon, echoed Lewin and resided in ‘unfreezing’ and altering the defensive reasoning of individuals and to encourage productive reasoning that led to “double-loop” learning, that is, to learn by doing and make correction as needed based on the information fed back from that action.
THEORIES X AND Y
Theories X and Y were set of assumptions about human nature and represented a twentieth-century reemergence of the ideas of earlier philosophers such as Robert Owen and Jean Jacques Rousseau. Owen’s “new harmony” would rebuild society ti fit humanity’s basic goodness. Rossseau, a French philosopher of eighteenth century,felt that people were basically good but their nurturing institutions (familiy, school,etc) made them bad. Assumption about human nature guide our thoughts, but no one set of assumptions is going to cover all the people all the time.
PERSONNEL/HUMAN RESOURCESS MANAGEMENT AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
The preceding pages traced the evolution of the staffing job of the manager as recruiting, selecting, training, developing compensating, appraising, and performing other task with respect to providing for the attraction, placement, reward, and retention of employees. From these beginning personnel management gradually evolved as a standard label for this task of advising managers about recruitment, selection, and so forth.
Personnel management is a field which has had a particularly small based of significant generalization with which to work (beyond what is important in the area of human relations) and partly for this reason, it is an area which has not been held in high regard in the better school.
The central concern of the human resources function was not “personal happiness” but “productive work”, and human had to be integrated into the total task of every organization. A substantial period of time would pass before managing the human resource became every manager’s job.
In the resource-based, knowledge based, and dynamic evolutionary theorities of the firm, the human resource is crucial to gaming a competitive edge. The history of personnel/human resource management illustrates the need to look to industrial relations, industrial/organizational psychology, and economics for better practices and to practitioners for how well theory meets their needs. Human resource management has the potential to draw from multiple discipline to discover what is of practical, if not always statistical, significance.
WORK DESIGN
Allan Mogensen started the work simplification movement ih the hipe that people could learn to work smarter, not harder. The brief history of work design indicates a long-standing assumption that management has a responsibility to make jobs more meaningful as well as to improve performance.
The key job characteristics examined were task identity, task significant, skill variety, and knowledge of result (feedback). If these characteristics could be enhanced, for example by increasing variety of skills used or by providing information about how well a person was performing, then the employees would experience more ”meaningfulness” on the job. Hackman and Oldham added a situational flavor by suggesting that the degree of success of this approach depend on the individual’s “growth-need strength”. If a person already felt sufficiently challenged and experienced the job as meaningful, growth-need strength would be low and further efforts to improve the job would be less effective. Job characteristics theory provided a way to provide a closer match between the nature of the job and employee needs.
MOTIVATION
The utilitarian movements of early economists believed that human tried to calculate what action would bring the most utility with the least cost, opening the way for expectancy theory.
Expectancy theory, was a developed by Victor H. Vroom and based on early psychological theories, such as Kurt Lewin’s “force field” notion. The premise of expectancy theory was that motivation was a process of making choices between a behaviors and that people pursued the behaviors that they hoped would lead to pleasurable outcomes. According to expectancy theory, motivation was a product of valence, the value of the particular reward to the individual, and expectancy, the individual’s perception of whether or not a given pattern of behavior was likely to lead the satisfaction of his or her needs.
Expectancy theory helped explain the choosing process involved in motivation. Motivation to perform was an interaction between the goals sought, the value placed on these goals, and the worker’s expectation that a certain path would lead to hose goals.
So far equity their focused on pay, although this does not preclude future research on other rewards or recognitions that are seen by a worker as relative. Equity theory contributed to notions of why people might be dissatisfied, but contributed less to an understanding of how they might be motivated.
Goal-setting theory, with is roots in Frederick Taylor’s task management, Frank Gilberth’s “three position plan” of promotion, Peter Drucker’s MBO, and Cecil Mace’s pioneering studies, also gained renewed vigor in the modern era.
Goal-setting as a motivational force appeared to work equally well whether goals were assigned by management or with group of participation. The assignments of goals by management worked best with people already internally motivated to do the job, such as those persons with a high need for achievement or high self-efficacy.
LEADERSHIP
Leadership fits into general management theory because it focuses on the attainment of organizational goals by working with and through people and other resources. The earliest leadership notions were dominated by trait theory, meaning that leaders could be characterized as having different traits from non leaders. Technical ability, intelligence, energy, initiative, honesty, and other personal qualities joined the tribal remnants of the idea that those in charge were taller, stronger, wiser, better warriors, or whatever. The second stage in the evolution of leadership notion sought to identify the behaviors that could be connected to those who were the leaders.
Rensis Likert (1903-1981) spent of most his life studying leadership in organizations and thought that of all the tasks of management, leading the human component was the central and most important one because all else depended on how it was done. He identified four types of behavior;
1. Exploitive authoritative system
2. Benevolent authoritative system
3. Consultative system
4. Participative group system
Superior in system 4 organizations would have high performance aspirations, as would every work group member. Employees were involved in setting the high level goals required for the satisfaction of their own needs.
Authority would depend on the interpersonal skills of creative leaders who had the ability to get others commited and working toward organizational goals.
A leader must have a charismatic. Charismatic leaders got things done by virtue of their ability to attract followers to their cause. Follower would trust, share the vision of, often attribute mystical posers to, and offer blind obedience to their leader. Further, it is important that charisma was an unstable situation and that after the charismatic leader departed there could be chaos.
Evidence has been provided that adding managerial activities to leader behavior increased the ability to understand employee satisfaction, commitment, and performance.
ORGANIZATIONS
In contrast to the organizational behavioralists who looked to leadership, motivation, and group processes within the organization.
The organization also as open system. As open system, organization faced an environment that might be placid and benevolent, or turbulent, and harsh. Economic, social, political, and technological changes could come rapidly or slowly, and some organizational arrangements might be better able to cope with the changing environment than others. Could it be that there was no one way to structure the organization, that design was influenced by environmental factors and could vary depending on technology.
Paul Lawrence and Jay Lorsch look the position that structure depend on environmental factors. They found that the more successful firms where those that adjusted to their relevant environment. Technology was not an overriding factor in determining structure, nor did environmental factors provide clear guides to organizational design.
Neither technology, nor environment, nor stage of the life cycle provided any best way of organizing. Although this outcome appeared discouraging, perhaps internal processes could provide answers.
BEHAVIORAL THEORITIES OF THE FIRM
Behavioral theorities of the firm emphasized organization roles, role conflict and ambiguity, the organization as an open input-output system, and circumstances when the hierarchy was preferable to participate styles. Also emphasized the organizing process rather than the organizational product and suggested that action precede goals.
All but one of those mentioned above was a psychologist by education, so it should not be surprising that their view of organization theory emphasizes internal processes and resembles the micro approach of organizational behavior, for example; managers form coalitions to gather support in an open system of external relationships in which there are constraint that create either a munificent or scarce resource situation.
There are variations, refinements, added authors, and numerous critiques of these notions. The purpose has been to show theories of organization have evolved from examining formal structures to contingency notions to emphasizing internal processes to recognizing external forces.
THE PARADIGM WARS
A paradigm is a normative, informing and showing us what is reasonable way to view situations and events, or, as, in this case, an organization. Although these paradigms may be confusing and lacking empirical support, but sees this a healthy sign of the pursuit of knowledge. Miner analyzed seventy three theories, finding no organization theory high in “estimated scientific validity” and “estimated” usefulness in applications.
STRATEGI AND STRUCTURE
Structure follows strategy. For example , observed that an organization’s structure had to be consistent with the objectives, resources, and requirements of the firm
Organization integrated vertically to optimize their input throughput-output operations, and they integrated horizontally to expand the scope of their distribution or production functions. Examining the U.S economy since the 1960s, a period of increasing paradigm spinning, we can see changing strategies and structures. The 1960s and early 1970s were characterized by two dominant forces; one political and more economic.
The higher levels of diversification made it increasingly difficult for corporate executives to use strategic controls.
In the last of the twentieth century, industrial growth was fueled by science and its handmaiden, technology, in pharmaceuticals, petrochemistry, aerospace, and firm employing, integrated circuitry.
Rather the implication is that the firms that grew and survived were able to take advantage of changing technologies and market, design the appropriate corporate structures to seize the opportunities offered by these developments, and foster staying power by adapting to changes over the long term.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar