FUNDAMENTALS OF ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOR AS A SOCIAL SCIENCE -Organisation has goals, path, resources(people) and a group of people compbine

their effort to accomplish one goal. -management is commonly defined as getting work done through other people. The work will not be done unless "people" want to do this work and if the work is not done then there will be no organisation. - Hence it is the understanding and the co-operation of the organisational workers which is crucial to the success or failure of the organisation. - However, the basic premise and assumptions of the field of organisation behavior in general and of this text in particular are that managing the people. -The human resources of an organisation - have been, are and will continue to be the major challenge and critical competitive advantage. - Technologies can be copied but people cannot be copied. -People have various needs irrespective of status, age, achievements, could be unfulfilled needs. In order to satisfy unfulfilled needs more effectively, poeple have learned to organise themselves into group. - helps to develop specialised skills and enhances the productivity and efficient functioning of the organisation. - the organisational system consits of social, technical and economic elements which coordinate human and material resources to achieve various org objectives. - some of the objectives may be - to maximise profits, to produce goods & services of good quality, to compete with other players in the industry, to ensure welfare of its employees, to make efficient use of resources and achieve growth. - human behaviour in organisation is as complex as the social system. People differ from each other in other needs & values, which can be understood better with the help of behaviorial science. - It improves people's understanding of interpersonal skills and so also their ability to work together as a team to achieve organisational goals effectively. - Organisational behavior is the study and application of knowledge about how people as individuals and as groups act within organisations. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OB AND RELATED FIELDS OF STUDY -Most significant contributors are psychology (social & industrial), sociology, anthropology, economics & political science. - Psychology gives micro concept of human behavior. Rest of them gives macro concept of human behavior. PSYCHOLOGY: its a social science that helps explain measure and remodel human behavior. Social scientists from various areas of psychology have contributed such as learning theorists. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY: It is a blend of psychology and sociology that focuses on the influence of people on one another.this field has provided many useful insights in attitude change, communication patterns, group processes and group decision-making. Social psychologistshave contributed greatlyto the study of the implementation of change in organizatins and the way in which barriers to change implementation can be reduced. INDUSTRIAL PSYCHOLOGY: Industrial psychology applies the principles and theories of psychology to the industrial context. It has contributed to OB by providing a better understanding of individual differences, various processes of selection and placement, the influence of physical environment on human performance, accident and safety, moraleand mental health. SOCIOLOGY: It is the scientific study of the nature and development of society and social behavior. The major contribution of sociologists to OB has been their analysis of group behavior in formal and complex organisations at the group and organisation level.

ANTHROPOLOGY: It involves the study of mankind, especially of its origin, development, customs, beliefs. The work of anthropologists has provided insights into the basic differences in values, attitudes and behavior of people from different countries and in different organisations. ECONOMICS: Economics is a science of production, distribution and consumption of goods and services. POLITICAL SCIENCE: Political science involves the study of individual and group behavior within a particular political environment. It has made significant contribution in the areas of structuring of conflict, allocation of power, politics within the organisation and the overall administrative process.

The Hawthorne Experiments
The term gets its name from a factory called the Hawthorne Works, where a series of experiments on factory workers were carried out between 1924 and 1932. Many types of experiments were conducted, but the initial purpose was to study the effects of lighting on worker productivity. Researchers found that productivity almost always increased after a change in illumination but later returned to normal levels. This effect was observed for minute increases in illumination. A second set of experiments began and were supervised by Harvard University professors, Fritz Roethlisberger and William J. Dickson. They experimented on other types of changes in the working environment, using a study group of five young women. Again, no matter the change in conditions, the women nearly always produced more. The researchers reported that they had accidentally found a way to increase productivity. The effect was an important milestone in industrial and organizational psychology, organizational behavior, and Ergonomics. However, some researchers have questioned the validity of the effect because of the experimental design and faulty interpretations. (See below: Interpretation, criticism, and conclusions).

Like the Hawthorne effect, the definition of the Hawthorne experiments also varies. Most industrial/occupational psychology and organizational behavior textbooks refer to the illumination studies, and usually to the relay assembly test room experiments and the bank wiring room experiments. Only occasionally are the rest of the studies mentioned.

Relay assembly experiments
The researchers wanted to identify how other variables could affect productivity. They chose two women as test subjects and asked them to choose four other workers to join the test group. Together the women worked in a separate room over the course of five years (1927-1932) assembling telephone relays. Output was measured mechanically by counting how many finished relays each dropped down a

chute. This measuring began in secret two weeks before moving the women to an experiment room and continued throughout the study. In the experiment room, they had a supervisor who discussed changes with them and at times used their suggestions. Then the researchers spent five years measuring how different variables impacted the group's and individuals' productivity. Some of the variables were: •changing the pay rules so that the group was paid for overall group production, not individual production •giving two 5-minute breaks (after a discussion with them on the best length of time), and then changing to two 10-minute breaks (not their preference). Productivity increased, but when they received six 5-minute rests, they disliked it and reduced output. •providing food during the breaks •shortening the day by 30 minutes (output went up); shortening it more (output per hour went up, but overall output decreased); returning to the earlier condition (where output peaked). Changing a variable usually increased productivity, even if the variable was just a change back to the original condition. However it is said that this is the natural process of the human being to adapt to the environment without knowing the objective of the experiment occurring. Researchers concluded that the workers worked harder because they thought that they were being monitored individually. Researchers hypothesized that choosing one's own coworkers, working as a group, being treated as special (as evidenced by working in a separate room), and having a sympathetic supervisor were the real reasons for the productivity increase. One interpretation, mainly due to Mayo, was that "the six individuals became a team and the team gave itself wholeheartedly and spontaneously to cooperation in the experiment." (There was a second relay assembly test room study whose results were not as significant as the first experiment.)

Interview phase
He interviewed approxiimately 21000 people over a period of 3 yrs from 1928-1930. The findings for the same are: •A complaint is not necessarily an objective recital of facts. It can also be a syymptom of personal disturbance, the cause of which may be deep-seated. •objects, persons & events carry social meaning. Their relation to employee satisfaction or dissatisfaction is prely based on the employee's personal situation & how he perceives them. •the personal situation of the worker is a configuration of relationships. This configuration consists of a personal reference & a social reference. While personal reference pertains to a person's sentiments, desires & interests, social reference pertains to the person's part &

present interpersonal relations. •the position or status of the worker in the company is a reference from which the worker assigns meaning & value to the events, objects & features of his environment such as hours of work, wages etc.. •the social organisation of the company represents a system of values from which the worker derives satisfaction or dissatisfaction according to his perception of his social status & the expected social rewards. •the experiences of the worker while working in a group influenced his social demands.

Bank wiring room experiments
The purpose of the next study was to find out how payment incentives would affect group productivity. The surprising result was that they had no effect. Ironically, this contradicted the Hawthorne effect: although the workers were receiving special attention, it didn’t affect their behavior or productivity. However, the informal group dynamics studied were a new milestone in organizational behavior. The study was conducted by Mayo and W. Lloyd Warner between 1931 and 1932 on a group of 14 men who put together telephone switching equipment. The researchers found that although the workers were paid according to individual productivity, productivity did not go up because the men were afraid that the company would lower the base rate. Detailed observation between the men revealed the existence of informal groups or 'cliques' within the formal groups. These cliques developed informal rules of behaviour as well as mechanisms to enforce them. The cliques served to control group members and to manage bosses; when bosses asked questions, clique members gave the same responses, even if they were untrue. These results show that workers were more responsive to the social force of their peer groups than to the control and incentives of management. Hence it is in managers' interest to collaborate with these informal groups to increase cohesion for the company's benefit.

Definitions
Here are some sample definitions of the Hawthorne effect, showing how differently it can be defined:

•An experimental effect in the direction expected but not for the reason expected; i.e., a significant positive effect that turns out to have no causal basis in the theoretical motivation for the intervention, but is apparently due to the effect on the participants of knowing themselves to be studied in connection with the outcomes measured. •The Hawthorne Effect [is] the confounding that occurs if experimenters fail to realize how the consequences of subjects' performance affect what subjects do. •People singled out for a study of any kind may improve their performance or behavior, not because of any specific condition being tested, but simply because of all the attention they receive. •People will respond positively to any novel change in work environment.

Interpretation, criticism, and conclusions
H. McIlvaine Parsons (1974) argues that in 2a (first case) and 2d (fourth case) they had feedback on their work rates; but in 2b they didn't. He argues that in the studies 2a-d, there is at least some evidence that the following factors were potent: Rest periods Learning, given feedback i.e. skill acquisition Piecework pay where an individual does get more pay for more work, without counterpressures (e.g. believing that management will just lower pay rates). Clearly the variables the experimenters manipulated were neither the only nor the dominant causes of productivity changes. One interpretation, mainly due to Mayo, was that "the six individuals became a team and the team gave itself wholeheartedly and spontaneously to cooperation in the experiment." In 1955 Landsberger reinterpreted the experimental outcomes as the more general result of being observed and labeled this result the "Hawthorne effect." Parsons redefines "the Hawthorne effect as the confounding that occurs if experimenters fail to realize how the consequences of subjects' performance affect what subjects do" [i.e. learning effects, both permanent skill improvement and feedback-enabled adjustments to suit current goals]. So he is saying it is not attention or warm regard from experimenters, but either a) actual change in rewards b) change in provision of feedback on performance. His key argument is that in 2a the "girls" had access to the counters of their work rate, which they didn't previously know at all well. It is notable however that he refuses to analyze the illumination experiments, which don't fit his analysis, on the grounds that they haven't been properly published and so he can't get at details, whereas he had extensive personal communication with Roethlisberger and Dickson. It's possible that the illumination experiments were explained by a longitudinal learning effect. But Mayo says it is to do with the fact that the workers felt better in the situation, because of the

sympathy and interest of the observers. He does say that this experiment is about testing overall effect, not testing factors separately. He also discusses it not really as an experimenter effect but as a management effect: how management can make workers perform differently because they feel differently. A lot to do with feeling free, not feeling supervised but more in control as a group. The experimental manipulations were important in convincing the workers to feel this way: that conditions were really different. The experiment was repeated with similar effects on mica splitting workers. References to the "the Hawthorne effect" rely on Mayo's interpretation in terms of workers' perceptions, but the data show strikingly continuous improvement. It seems quite a different interpretation might be possible: learning, expertise, reflection -- all processes independent of the experimental intervention. However, the usual Mayo interpretation is certainly a real possible issue in designing studies in education and other areas, regardless of the truth of the original Hawthorne study.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful