Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
The Hawthorne Studies underscored a fundamental truth obscured by scientific management theories. The employees of an organization constitute its basis, and ...
Typology: Study notes
1 / 88
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
by
Presented to the Public Administration Faculty in partial^ at fulfillmentThe^ University of theof^ Michigan-Flintrequirements for the Master of Public Administration Degree Fall 1983
Second Reader Albert Price, Ph.D.
ABSTRACT iii
Introduction Improving the performance of individual members of organizations has always been a challenge faced by managers and administrators. The development of organizational theory and the systematic study of organizations, however, is a relatively recent development with the first work in the field being done in the late 1800's. Since that time, industrial, organizational, and social psychology, management science, and public administration have all made contributions to the growing body of literature regarding management and organizations. Although many articles have been published recommending various supervisory techniques based on management theory, individuals still manage human resources in a haphazard manner. The wide variety of seemingly disparate theories may be the cause of this, or perhaps the recommendations ask too much of the average administrator. Whatever the cause, it is clear that new directions should be sought offering practical and effective ways to improve employee performance. Statement of the Problem Administrators in any type of organization experience problems in improving employee performance. This is especially true in the public sector which lacks access to incentives common in the private sector, such as raises, promotions, or bonuses. In addition, today's public administrator must often function with a declining budget and constant threats of staff reductions, leaving more work to be accomplished by the remaining staff.
There is a clear need for specific management techniques that can be used by public administrators to accomplish organizational goals. These techniques must be derived from organizational theory and empirically supported. These techniques must also be practical, effective, functional, and easy to learn. Organizational behavior modification (OBM), a newly developing field in management theory, presents techniques that meet these criteria. Purpose of the Paper The purpose of this paper is to review the historical development of management theory as it relates to organizational behavior modification theory and review the relevant empirical literature that lends scientific support to OBM theory. Following these reviews, a flow chart and management model utilizing OBM in the public sector will be developed and examined in detail. The overall goal of this process will be to present realistic possibilities for the use of OBM in the public sector work place and to offer specific applications of OBM to managers in the field and those contemplating research. Historical Overview To gain a thorough understanding of any conceptual framework or theory, it is important to review the historical developments which precede them, OBM is no exception to this, especially in light of the rejection of OBM by managers based on their misconceptions about the principles of OBM. Many managers and students of management theory view OBM as a new and totally different way of addressing organizational behavior involving complicated methods, autocracy,
standards of work performance. Second, Taylor introduced techniques such as instruction cards, routing sequences, material specifications, and material handling standards to ensure work was carried out in the most efficient manner. Third, Taylor believed that workers should be selected that were best suited for each specific task. For example, only large men should be hired for jobs that require lifting and individuals with small fingers for exacting piece work. Each worker was then trained carefully to perform tasks according to standards. Fourth, Taylor saw the need for good supervision of the employees and their work conditions. He developed his concepts of functional foremanship, with specialists employed in every phase of supervision to ensure excellence of the operation. Finally, Taylor believed that workers should receive incentive pay, based on levels of productivity, to increase performance (George, 1968). Taylor often achieved dramatic success in increasing productivity and his emphasis on accurate measurement allowed his results to be replicated and widely communicated. Organizations and labor unions both applauded his efforts, which were viewed as being in everyone's best interest. Taylor recognized broader applications of his management systems and expanded his concepts to a philosophy envisioning that the maximum good for all society could come only "through the cooperation of management and labor in the application of scientific methods to all common endeavors" (George, 1968, p. 89). Taylor believed that the qjplication of his principles to management required a complete mental revolution on the part of managers and workers. Under his system of
shop management, the workers 1 main responsibilities were to perform assigned tasks as efficiently as possible. The responsibilities of management were to set standards, plan, organize, and control (George, 1968). Taylor discussed three levels of concern in his philosophy of management. The first, called ’'mechanisms” , referred to the research techniques, time studies, and standard settings, which have been previously discussed. "Mechanisms" also referred to three assumptions about work and workers. The first of these assumptions was that society itself could and would operate like a machine if the right techniques and procedures were utilized. This, of course, involved "controlling the social experience of the workers and attempting to change the workers to think and act consistently with the dictates of the mechanisms" (Golembiewski, 1962, P. 13). The second assumption was that only the "physiological man" was important to the work situation. Only those physical characteristics which allowed a worker to perform ,his task were of interest to Taylor. The third assumption was the efficiency of minute specialization. Taylor believed that the highest production would be achieved when a worker could perform a small task repeatedly without thinking. Thinking was the responsibility of the manager, not the worker. Taylor’s second level of concern, called "underlying principles", related to the more philosophical issue of what the purpose of the techniques of Scientific Management ought to be. Taylor identified four great "underlying principles" to define this purpose: First. The development of a true science.
however, were lost amidst the successes and ease of understanding of the mechanical aspects of his system and were not to surface for many years. The precise measurement and goal setting of Taylor’s scientific management are clearly a part of OBM, as they should be in any model or conceptual framework that is intended to generate useful hypotheses. Furthermore, Taylor's understanding of pay for productivity (piece-rate pay) shows some of the earliest attempts to change behavior by changing its consequences. Taylor also emphasized clear definitions of tasks, and training of workers to complete them. Several followers of Taylor's principles made contributions to the study of scientific management and began to expand its use into other related disciplines. Frank B. and Lillian M. Gilbreth refined the field of time and motion study to an exact science. They were the first to use motion picture films to analyze and to improve motion sequences. The Gilbreths also developed the process chart and flow diagrams widely used in organizations today (Wren, 1972). Lillian Gilbreth, educated in the field of psychology, published works on human factors in industry, especially in the ways that workers' fatigue affected productivity. The Gilbreths' perspective, like Taylor's,exceeded the bounds of the work place. Their interest lay in "the development of man to his fullest potential through effective training, work methods, improved environment and tools, and a healthy psychological outlook"
(George, 1968, p. 98). This philosophy, in addition to their detailed analysis and observation of behavior within the organization, relate the Gilbreths' work to the present study of OBM. Henry R. Gantt’s major contributions to the field of scientific management were twofold. He developed:(a) output as a function of time; and (b) the base wage system, an alternative to the strict piece-rate pay scale. Gantt also began to recognize that financial incentives were only one of many that influenced employee behavior (George, 1968). The identification and use of incentives other than money remains a major component of OBM attempts to achieve behavior change. Hugo Munsterburg was the first to propose the application of psychology to industry. A strong proponent of Taylor's principles of management, Munsterburg published Psychology and Industrial Efficiency in 1913. According to Munsterburg, the role of the psychologist should be;(a) to help find the men best fitted to the work; (b) to determine under what psychological conditions the greatest output could be achieved; and (c) to produce influences on the human mind desired in the interest of management (George, 1968). Munsterburg is often referred to as the father of industrial psychology. Munsterburg’s primary contribution was to apply psychology to management. OBM is an excellent example of this. Behavior modification, developed within the realm of psychology, is now being used in the work place.
need to determine who should be reinforcing whom. This can only be accomplished through an understanding of organizational structure. Human Relations Approach The realization that human factors in organizations could not be ignored spawned the development of the human relations approach to management in the 1940's. Whereas classic organizational and management theory concentrated on the physical environment, human relations theory stressed the social environment. The human relations movement evolved in part from work done by Mary Parker Follett in the 1920's, Follett stressed the importance of coordinating the psychological and sociological aspects of management. Conceiving of organizations as social systems and processes, she considered subordination offensive, Follett also believed that new principles of association were needed to understand groups and how they worked together. She proposed that leadership could be taught and this education should include studies in group dynamics and human behavior (George, 1968). The famous Hawthorne Studies, conducted at Western Electric by Elton Mayo and Fritz Roethlisberger, provided some of the early impetus and inspiration to proponents of the human relations approach. Utilizing an empirical approach to management, as recommended by Taylor, researchers set out to find the relationship between the quantity and quality of light and the efficiency of industrial workers. Instead of determining optimal illumination levels, however, Mayo and Roethlisberger found that the relationships
between workers and supervisors, and among workers, had as much or more impact on productivity as the formal physical surroundings and economic benefits derived from the job (Stillman, 1980). The Hawthorne Studies underscored a fundamental truth obscured by scientific management theories. The employees of an organization constitute its basis, and upon their attitudes, behavior, and morale within their primary groups depends industrial effectiveness and productivity. Inspired by the work of Mayo, Follett, and others, Chester Barnard logically analyzed organizational structures and applied sociological concepts to management. He presented his views in the classic volume The Functions of the Executive. Barnard emphasized human factors and their relationship to production and management, pointing out that the continuance of an organization depends on the balance between the contributions of individuals and the satisfaction these individuals derived from their work (George, 1968). Barnard viewed the functions of the manager as the maintenance of the organization; formation of the purposes and objectives of the organization; and most importantly, to allocate satisfactions, money, status, and the like, to elicit specific behaviors from individuals in the organization. Believing that the individual was the basic strategic factor in the organization and that individual contributions to the organization are only accomplished because of incentives, Barnard proposed a system he named the "economy of incentives" (Barnard, 1948),
factors as social compatibility in work groups, allowing workers to develop personal methods to achieve desired results, job enlargement and enrichment, and the opportunity for comradarie and mutual support among workers within an organization. Although managers cannot use these incentives in dealing with individual employees, they can be instrumental in influencing policies aimed at creating conditions conducive to these incentives. Specific incentives can be offered to the individual worker. Barnard places specific incentives into four categories: (a) material inducement, (b) personal non-material opportunities, (c) desirable physical conditions, and (d) ideal benefactors. Material inducements include money, things, or physical conditions. Barnard felt material inducement was necessary to meet one's physiological necessities of food, shelter, and clothing. He felt material incentives were weak once these needs were met, except in a very limited proportion of men. Barnard believed that material incentives were weak unless supported by other incentives. Personal non-material opportunities are of great importance to secure efforts beyond the minimal material rewards necessary to subsist. Barnard (1948) stated: The opportunities for distinction, prestige, personal power, and the attainment of a dominating position are much more important than material rewards in the development of all sorts of organizations... money without distinction, prestige, position, is so utterly ineffective that it is rare that greater income can be made to serve even temporarily as an inducement if accompanied by suppression of prestige (p. 145).
Desirable physical conditions dealing with the environment and general surroundings are important inducements to cooperation. These incentives often meet unconscious needs on the part of the worker and are usually more obvious in their absence than in their presence. Ideal benefactors include the ability of the organization to satisfy personal ideals, usually related to non-material or altruistic needs; i.e., pride of workmanship or sense of adequacy. Ideal benefactors are among the most powerful and most neglected incentives, To deal with the failure of incentives, Barnard developed three methods of persuasion. The first, coercion, was used to change worker behavior or to exclude workers. Coercion was accomplished through creating fear, ostracism, punishment, withholding benefits, discharge, etc. Although Barnard saw coercion as necessary in some cases, he believed it should not be used alone. The second method of persuasion is described as rationalization of opportunity. The main thrust of this method is to stress opportunities that will be available to individuals who accept authority and organization goals. The third method, the inculcation of motives, carries the second method further into the realm of propaganda. The purpose of this method is to actually attempt to change the needs and desires of the individual through deliberate education. Good examples of this method of persuasion would be the techniques employed in religious and political organizations to ensure individual dedication to organizational goals.
A number of authors (e.g., Fry, 1974; Deci, 1972) believe that OBM opposes the human relations approach. Upon closer examination, however, it can be seen that there is really minimal conflict between the two approaches. Follett's work is reflected in OBM as the understanding that there are many complex relationships in organizations that can be reinforcing or punishing. Peers, as well as those in authority, have control over reinforcing consequences. The Hawthorne Studies supported the concept that many relationships in organizations were influential in behavior change. Barnard, in particular, appears to support many of the principles of OBM. The importance of the individual worker in the organization, allocation of incentives, and the notion that managers ought to question their choices of incentives if workers are not responding, are all concepts found in the realm of OBM. Motivation Approach Motivation theories have been particularly appealing in explaining organizational behavior for two major reasons. First, they attempt to explain why individuals are productive or act in a certain way, or in other words, what energizes their behavior. Second, motivation theories attempt to explain the direction organizational behavior takes when it is energized. Two approaches have emerged which are commonly called "content theory" and "process theory". The content theories of motivation attempt to identify what the energizers of behavior are. The process theories attempt to identify the cognitive processes which give behavior purposeful direction (Luthans & Kreitner, 1975).
Abraham Maslow initiated the content approach in 1943 with his development of a hierarchy of needs theory. Maslow placed human needs into five categories: physiological, safety, love, esteem, and self-actualization. The first three needs are considered lower level needs while esteem and self-actualization are considered higher level needs. Maslow also believed that in most cases, an individual must have all needs met at one level before proceeding to the next. Maslow’s work was general in nature, and ignored the more complex factors in human needs and motivation. His work has, however, been very influential in management and stimulated subsequent research. In the 1960's, Frederick Herzberg used Maslow’s proposals as a theoretical framework to conduct interviews with employees about job situations they found satisfying and dissatisfying. Following these interviews, Herzberg proposed a two factor theory of work and motivation, delineating two types of needs: hygenic and motivational. Job security, salary, and status are examples of hygenic needs and correspond to lower level needs in Maslow’s hierarchy. Motivational factors include responsibility, recognition, and achievement and relate to the higher level needs of the hierarchy. Hygenic factors are considered necessary, but not sufficient, conditions for satisfaction to occur. Motivational factors are thought to create job satisfaction and stimulate greater performance (Frederiksen & Johnson, 1983).
