Contributing Disciplines to the OB

Field
Psychology
Sociology
Social Psychology
Anthropology
Political Science
EXHIBIT 1-3a
EXHIBIT 1-3b
EXHIBIT 1-3c
EXHIBIT 1-3d
 Behavioural Contribution Unit of Output
science analysis
Learning
Motivation
Perception
Training
Leadership effectiveness
Job satisfaction
Psychology Individual decision making
Performance appraisal
Attitude measurement
Employee selection
Work design
Work stress
Individual

Group dynamics
Work teams
Communication
Power
Conflict
Intergroup behaviour
Sociology

Formal organization theory Study of

Organizational technology Group Organizational
Organizational change Behaviour
Organizational culture

Behavioural change
Attitude change
Social psychology Communication
Group processes
Group decision making
Organization
Comparative values system
Comparative attitudes
Cross-cultural analysis
Anthropology
Organizational culture
Organizational environment

Conflict
Political science Intraorganizational politics
Power
SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT (1900 – 1945)
First developed by Fredrick W. Taylor (1856 – 1915)
Taylor aimed at making management a science
abased on a well recognized, clearly defined and fixed
principles
He replaced the rule of the thumb method of
scientific management
He advocates the use of
Observation
Measurement
Experimentation
Analysis
Rationality
Reasoning
As a chief instrument for developing managerial
systems
The basic components of scientific management
as propounded by Taylor are:
Determination of the standard of performance
Functional foremanship
Responsibilities of management
Differential piecework system of wage payment
Mental revolution
Determining the standards of performance
Taylor introduced the “time and motion study”
to identify exactly how long it takes to do a task
and identify and eliminate wasteful motions
Functional foremanship
Here Taylor called for separation of planning
from doing where the functional foreman
(specialist) did the planning of various aspects of
work
Responsibility and management
Managers should accept responsibility for
planning, directing and organising
Managers should perform these functions in a
scientific way – i.e. analyse all operations and
develop scientific methods of doing them
Workers should be scientifically selected and
trained
Managers should heartily cooperate with workers
to ensure that work is done according to
scientifically selected managers
Differential piece work system of payment
 To ensure that workers turn out optimal production – so that workers
who work hard get more

Mental revolution
 Taylor held that the technique of determining work standards,
delimiting wasteful operations and differential piece rate system of
wage payment should benefit the worker in form of higher wage
payment and the employer in form of higher production and this
would result to a “mental revolution” between ,management and
workers
 They would develop a cooperative rather than antagonistic attitude
towards each other
Criticism of Tailors Study
Saw man as an economic being - man is only
motivated by money
Saw that man can be programmed as a machine – in
the development of standards of performance
The Hawthorne Studies (1924 – 1945)
The Hawthorne Experiments
The experiments were carried out between 1927
and 1933 at the Chicago Hawthorne plant of the
Western Electric Company. Four studies were
carried out namely:
The illumination studies
 The Relay Assembly Test Room Studies
The interviewing Program
The Bank Wiring Room studies
a) The illumination studies
 These studies were expected to determine the
relationship between the level of illumination and
worker’s productivity.
It was expected that worker’s productivity would
increase with increasing levels of illumination.
The studies failed to prove any relationship
between worker’s productivity and level of
illumination
b) The Relay Assembly Test Room Studies
These studies were carried out to determine the
relationship between worker’s productivity and
improved benefits and working conditions.
 The studies found out that there was no cause –
and – effect relationship between working
conditions and output.
Rather, there were other factors that affected
worker’s output such as his/her attitudes and
supervisor behavior
c) The interviewing Program
A group of employees were interviewed to learn more
about their opinions with respect to their work, working
conditions and supervision. The workers suggested that:
Psychological factors help determine whether a worker is
satisfied or dissatisfied in any particular work situation
The person’s need for self-actualization determines
his/her satisfaction in the work.
A person’s work group and his relationship to it, also
determines his/her productivity.
d) The Bank Wiring Room studies
This study was expected to study the effect of
group influence on workers productivity.
The researchers found out that an informal
grouping and relationship was a critical factor in
the workers’ productivity.
The informal group determined the group’s
productivity, and functioned as a protective
mechanism (served both for internal and external
purposes).
Conclusions on Hawthorne experiments
 An industrial organization is a socio technical system.
The socio part is the human aspects that need to be
taken care of in order to increase workers’ productivity
and the technical system is the physical aspects that
also need to be improved.
 Employee attitudes and morale are also important as
determinants of productivity.
 Other factors include worker’s personality and
supervisor’s behavior. These two also affect worker’s
attitude and morale.
 A worker’s social group has a prevailing effect on his or
her attitude and productivity
Criticisms of the Hawthorne studies

The philosophical basis

By emphasizing the social needs of human being rather
than the economic needs and self-interest, these studies
conflict the philosophical basis of economic theory.
Methodology
The study methodology lacks the basis for generalizations.
Findings
The cause – and – effect relationship conclusions lack
general support and scientific verifiability.
Contribution

The Hawthorne Studies have however made the

following contribution OB.
Their finding on the importance of informal groups is
also a key to organization theory.
Their emphasis on employee altitude towards work as
an additional to other factors was a breakthrough in
OB.
OB – Theoretical Framework
Although OB is extremely complex and includes
many inputs and dimensions, three frameworks:
The cognitive,
Behaviouristic,
social cognitive frameworks
Can be used to develop an overall model for OB
The theories
The theories to be discussed will include:
Behaviouristic theories
Classical conditioning
Operant conditioning
Cognitive theory
Social learning
Social cognitive theory
Cognitive Framework
The cognitive approach to human behaviour has
many sources of inputs ( the five senses)
Cognition, which is the basic unit of the cognitive
framework, can be defined as the act of knowing
an item from information
Under this framework, cognition precedes
behaviour and constitutes input into the persons
thinking, perception, problem solving, and
information processing
Edward Tolman Cognitive framework
Although Tolman believed behaviour to be
appropriate unit of analysis, he felt that behaviour
is purposeful, that it is directed towards a goal
He felt that cognitive learning consists of a
relationship between cognitive environmental
cues and expectations
Through experimentation, he found out that a rat
could learn to run through an intricate maze, with
purpose and direction, towards goal (food)
Tolman observed that at each point in the maze,
expectations were established – in other words,
the rat learned to expect a certain cogitative cue
associated with the choice point might eventually
lead to the food
If the rat actually received the food, the
association between the cue and the expectancy
was strengthen, and leaning occurred
Tolman’s approach could be depicted that
learning is an association between the cue and the
expectancy)
In his laboratory experiment, he found that
animals learned to expect a certain event would
follow another – for example, animal learned to
behaviour as if they expect food when a certain
cue appeared.
Thus, Tolman believed that learning consist of
expectancy that a particular event will lead to a
particular consequence
This cognitive concept of expectancy implies
that the organisms is thinking about or is
conscious or aware of, the goal.
Thus Tolman and others espousing the cognitive
approach felt hat behaviour is best explained by these
cognitions
Applied to OB, cognitive approach has dominated
unit of analysis such as perception, personality and
attitudes, motivation, decision making and goal
setting
BEHAVIOURISTIC FRAMEWORK

The roots of behavioristic theory of human

behaviour can be trace back to the work of Ivan
Pavlov and John Watson
These pioneering behaviorists stressed the
importance of dealing with observable behaviour
instead of the elusive mind that had preoccupied
earlier psychologist
They used the classical conditioning experiment
to formulate the stimulus-response (S - R)
explanation of human behaviour
Both Pavlov and Watson felt that behaviour could
be best understood in terms of S-R
A stimulus elicit response
They concentrated mainly on the impact of the
stimulus and felt that learning occurred when the
S -R connection was made
Ivan Pavlov who attributed leaning to the
association or connection between stimulus and
response (S-R
Based on Pavlov classical conditioning
experiment using dogs as subjects
When presented with meat powder
( unconditioned stimulus) - the dog secreted
saliva (unconditioned response)
When he merely rang a bell (neutral stimulus)
the dog did not salivate
When meat was accompanied with the ringing of
the bell several times, then Pavlov rang the bell
without presenting the meat, the dog salivated to
the bell alone
Conclusion - that the dog has become classically
conditioned to salivate (conditioned response) to
the sound of the bell ( conditioned stimulus
Thus classical conditioned can be defined as a
process in which a formerly neutral stimulus,
when paired with an unconditioned stimulus,
becomes a conditioned stimulus that elicit a
conditioned response; in other words, the S-R
connection is learned
Example of Pavlov S - R
Stimulus (S) Response ®
Is stuck by a pin Flinches
Is shocked by an electric Jumps/screams
current Jumps/screams
Is surprised by a loud Flexes lower leg
sound
Is tapped below the
kneecap
B.F Skinner
Another psychologist whose work explains this framework
is B. F. Skinner.

He felt that the early behaviorists helped explain

respondent’s behaviours (those behaviours elicited by
stimulus) but not the more complex operant behaviours

In other words, the S -R approach helped explain the

physical reflexes, for examples, when stuck by a pin (S),
the person will flinch ( R) or when tapped below the
kneecap (S) the Epson will extend the lower leg ( R)
Skinner felt that classical conditioning explains only
respondent (reflexive) behaviours. – i.e. involuntary
responses that are elicited by a stimulus
He felt that more complex, but common human behaviour
cannot be explained by classical conditioning alone.
He noted that the greater part of the behaviour of an
organism was under control of stimuli which were
effective only because they were correlated with
reinforcing consequences
Through his research thus , skinner posited that
behaviour was a function of consequences, not the classical
conditioning eliciting stimuli
He felt that most human behaviour affects, or operates on,
the environment to receive a desirable consequences.
This type of behaviour is learned through operant
conditioning
Operant conditioning is concerned primarily with
learning that occurs as a consequence of behaviour, or R-
S.
It is not concerned with the eliciting causes of behaviour,
as classical , or respondent, conditioning is
The organism has to operate on an environment (thus the
term operant conditioning) in order to receive the
desirable consequences.
The preceding stimulus does not cause the
behaviour in operant conditioning; it serves as a
cue to emit the behaviour. For skinner and other
behaviorists, behaviour is a function of its
contingent environmental consequences
So behavourisitic approach is environmentally
based. It posits that cognitive processes such as
thinking, expectancies, and perception may exist
but are not needed to predict and control or
manage behaviour
On the other hand, Skinner found out through his
operant conditioning experiment, that the
consequences of a response could better explain most
behaviour than elicit stimuli could
He emphasized the importance of the response-
stimulus (R -S) relationship
Example of Skinners operant conditioning
Response ® Stimulus (S)
Works Paid
Talks to others Meets more people
Enters a restaurant
Obtain food
Enters a library
Finds a book
Increases productivity
Receives merit pay
Completes a difficult
assignment Receives praise or a
promotion
Behaviouristic theories
These came out of the behaviorist school of
thought in psychology and derived from the work
of:
Classical behaviorist like Ivan Pavlov who
attributed leaning to the association or
connection between stimulus and response (S-R)
The operant behaviorist, in particular the well
known American psychologist B. F. Skinner who
give more attention to the role that consequences
play in learning or the response –stimulus (R-S)
connection
Classical conditioning
Based on Pavlov classical conditioning
experiment using dogs as subjects
When presented with meat powder
( unconditioned stimulus) - the dog secreted
saliva (unconditioned response)
When he merely rang a bell (neutral stimulus)
the dog did not salivate
When meat was accompanied with the ringing of
the bell several times, then Pavlov rang the bell
without presenting the meat, the dog salivated to
the bell alone
Classical conditioning (cont..)
Conclusion - that the dog has become classically
conditioned to salivate (conditioned response) to
the sound of the bell ( conditioned stimulus
Thus classical conditioned can be defined as a
process in which a formerly neutral stimulus,
when paired with an unconditioned stimulus,
becomes a conditioned stimulus that elicit a
conditioned response; in other words, the S-R
connection is learned
This theory is seen to be used in marketing
Operant conditioning
 Skinner felt that classical conditioning explains only respondent
(reflexive) behaviours. – i.e. involuntary responses that are elicited by
a stimulus
 He felt that more complex, but common human behaviour cannot be
explained by classical conditioning alone.
 He noted that the greater part of the behaviour of an organism was
under control of stimuli which were effective only because they were
correlated with reinforcing consequences
 Through his research thus , skinner posited that behaviour was a
function of consequences, not the classical conditioning eliciting
stimuli
 He felt that most human behaviour affects, or operates on, the
environment to receive a desirable consequences.
 This type of behaviour is learned through operant conditioning
Operant conditioning (cont..)
Operant conditioning is concerned primarily with
learning that occurs as a consequence of behaviour, or
R-S.
It is not concerned with the eliciting causes of
behaviour, as classical , or respondent, conditioning is
Differences
Classical between operant and classical
Operant
A change in the stimulus One particular response
(US to CS ) will elicit a out of many possible ones
particular responses occur in a given stimulus
The strength and The stimulus situation
frequency of classically serves as a cue for person
conditioned behaviour to emit response and
are determined mainly by does not elicit response
the frequency of the
eliciting stimuli ( the
environmental events
that precedes the
behaviour)
Differences between operant and classical
(cont..)
The strength and The strength and
frequency of classically frequency of operantly
conditioned behaviour conditioned behaviours
are determined mainly are determined mainly
by the frequency of the by the consequences
eliciting stimuli ( the (the environmental
environmental events event that follows
that precedes the behaviour)
behaviour)
Differences between operant and classical
(cont..)
During the classical The reward s presented
conditioning process, only after the organism
the unconditioned gives the correct
stimulus, serving as a response
reward is presented The organism must
every time operate in the
environment (thus the
term operant
conditioning) in order
to receive a reward
Examples
Stimulus (S)
of classical conditioning
Response ®
Is stuck by a pin Flinches
Is shocked by an Jumps/screams
electric current
Is surprised by a loud Jumps/screams
sound
Is tapped below the
Flexes lower leg
kneecap
Examples
Response ®
of operant conditioning
Stimulus (S)
Works Paid
Talks to others Meets more people
Enters a restaurant Obtain food
Enters a library Finds a book
Increases productivity Receives merit pay
Completes a difficult Receives praise or a
assignment promotion
Operant conditioning
Today operant conditioning has much greater
impact on human learning than classical
conditioning
It explain much of organizational behaviour
E.g. people go to work to feed, cloth and house
themselves and their families - working
(conditioned response) is instrumental in
obtaining food, shelter and clothing
Managers can analyse the consequences of
organizational behaviour, to change the
environment, and help accomplish goals
Cognitive theories
Edward Tolman is widely recognized as pioneer of
cognitive theorists
He felt that cognitive learning consists of a
relationship between cognitive environmental cues
and expectations
Through experimentation, he found out that a rat
could learn to run through an intricate maze, with
purpose and direction, towards goal (food)
Edward Tolman – Cognitive theory
Tolman observed that at each point in the maze,
expectations were established – in other words, the rat
learned to expect a certain cogitative cue associated with
the choice point might eventually lead to the food
If the rat actually received the food, the association
between the cue and the expectancy was strengthen, and
leaning occurred
In contrast to the S-R and R – S learning in classical and
operant approaches, Tolman’s approach could be
depicted as S-S ( stimulus-stimulus) or learning the
association between the cue and the expectancy)
Social learning and social cognitive theory
This theory combines and integrates both
behaviorist and cognitive concepts and
emphasizes the interactive, reciprocal nature of
cognitive, behavioral, and environmental
determinants
Social learning theory recognizes and draws from
the principles of classical and operant
conditioning but went beyond classical and
operant theory by recognizing that there is more to
leaning than direct learning via antecedent stimuli
and contingent consequences
Social learning takes position that behaviour can best
be explained in terms of continuous interactions
among cognitive, behavioral and environmental
determinants
The person and the environmental situation do not
function as independent unit but in conjunction with
behaviour itself
It is largely through their actions that people produce
the environmental condition that affect their
behaviour in a reciprocal fashion
The experience generated by behaviour also partly
determines what a person becomes and can do which
in tern affects subsequent behaviour
Org. participant, environment and behaviour
- relationship
participant control their own behaviour to the
extent that they rely on cognitive support and
manage relevant environmental cues and
consequences
Cognitive representation of reality helps guide
organizational behaviour
Much of complex behaviour is acquired by directly
observing others in the surrounding environment
Organizational participants

Organizational behaviour

Organizational environment
Social learning theory (cont..)
Social learning theory posits that learning can
also take place via
vicarious/explicit/shocking/juicy, or modeling,
and self –control conditioning processes.
Thus social learning theory agrees with classical
and operant conditioning processes, but says they
too are limiting and adds vicarious, modeling and
self-control processes
Social cognition – Albert Bandura
This theory goes beyond social learning
It extents learning and/or modifying by giving
more attention to self-regulatory mechanisms
Specifically, social cognitive theory identifies five
capabilities that people use to initiate, regulate
and sustain their behaviours.
Theses are (1) symbolizing, (2) forethoughts, (3)
vicarious/ modeling learning (observational) , (4)
self regulation, and (5) self reflection
Learning is one of the fundamental behaviour
processes, involves both the development and the
modification of thoughts and behaviours
Other concepts and aspects of organizational
behaviour 9 for example motivation that will be
discussed in later chapters can be fully explained with
the use of learning principles
New employees will bring with them a set of
previously leaned ways of behaving. They are then
expected to learn additional information than
applies to their jobs.
Established employees continue to develop their
job related skills and abilities
Therefore, learning is a never ending process for
all employees.
The process is also very complex. -an employee who
has already learned one way to perform a job may
have trouble learning a second albeit better way
 An employee motivation to perform is closely linked
to learning.
Therefore a manager who understands leaning
process can use the principles of learning to guide
employees behaviour and performance.
Today operant conditioning has much greater
impact on human learning than classical
conditioning
It explain much of organizational behaviour
E.g. people go to work to feed, cloth and house
themselves and their families - working
(conditioned response) is instrumental in
obtaining food, shelter and clothing
Managers can analyse the consequences of
organizational behaviour, to change the
environment, and help accomplish goals
Social cognitive Framework
The cognitive approach has been accused of being
mentalistic, and the behavioristic approach has been
accused of being deterministic.
Social Cognitive theorists argue that the S-R model and to
a lesser degree the R –S model, are too mechanistic
explanation of human
The social cognitive approach tires to integrate the
contribution so both of these approaches
Social cognitive theory recognizes the importance of
behaviorism’s contingent environmental consequences,
but also includes cognitive processes of self regulation
Based on the work of Albert Bandura social learning
theory and David and Luthans, this framework proposes a
social learning approach to organizational behaviour
Social learning takes the position that behaviour can best
be explained in terms of a continuous reciprocal
interaction among cognitive, behavioral and
environmental determinants.
The persons and the environmental situations do not
function as independent units but, in conjunction with the
behaviour itself, reciprocally interact to determine
behaviour
Bandura explains that “it is largely through their actions
that people produce the environmental conditions that
affect their behavior in a reciprocal fashion
The expediencies generated by behaviour also partly
determine what a person becomes and can do which in
turn, affects subsequent behaviour
A triangular model of Organizational participants,
organizational environment and organizational behaviour
takes this social learning work of Bandura and translates it
into relevant unit of analysis and variables of
organizational behaviour
 Org. participant, environment and behaviour - relationship
 participant control their own behaviour to the extent that they rely on
cognitive support and manage relevant environmental cues and
consequences
 Cognitive representation of reality helps guide organizational
behaviour
 Much of complex behaviour is acquired by directly observing others
in the surrounding environment
 Bandura has taken his social leaning and developed into the more
comprehensive social cognitive theory (SCT). Specifically SCT
recognises the importance of behaviorism’s contingent environmental
consequences, but also includes cognitive processes of self regulation