Module 5

INTEGRATION

It is important that the employee not only be able to

work (development) but be willing to work as well. This
willingness is based largely on management’s ability to
integrate the interests and needs of its employees with the
objectives of the organization. Therefore, we must first
examine the nature of these employee needs. Secondly, we
must examine how these individual needs can be integrated
in the climate of a business organization as well as tapping
the collaborative inclinations of working groups. One major
and powerful group with which many organizations must
contend is the labor union. The fundamental process of
integrating the union takes the form of collective bargaining.
Finally, perfect integration would lead to complete agreement
and absence of conflict, a state that is highly unlikely.
Consequently, we must examine situations, exemplified by
grievances and disciplinary actions, in which either the
organization or the employee is dissatisfied.
 UNIT 15

NATURE OF THE HUMAN RESOURCES

In the sequence of operative personnel functions followed in this text, we thus far procured
our employee, developed the skill and ability to do the job assigned, and determined the manner
and amount of monetary compensation. To some, our task would appear to be at an end. The
employee would naturally perform the job well since she or he has been properly placed, trained,
and compensated. In recent years, however, there has been a growing recognition of the need for
particular efforts in dealing with the attitude of an employee. It is enough that one is able to work;
one must also be willing to work. This subject is of such importance and difficulty that this chapter
and the following five are devoted to the discussion of the philosophies, approaches, and methods
of stimulating a will to work productively and cooperatively.

Importance of Human Relations

As suggested by the title “Integration”, there must be a reasonable merger of person and
organization if effective action is to result. When the needs of human beings meet the needs of
organization, conflict often occurs. It is the purpose of the chapters in Part Five to examine the
fundamental nature of human resource, integration of this resource (as individuals or groups) with
organizations, and coping with the inevitable conflicts that ensue. Managerial activities in this
regard are termed “human relations”. The goal is effecting a reasonable integration leading to
productive and creative collaboration toward mutual objectives. The manager will therefore
require knowledge and skill in such underlying discipline as psychology, anthropology, and
ethology in attempting to understand and with problems in human relations.

A B C

A- Advances organization’s interests but not employee’s interests

B- Advances interests of both organization and employee
C- Advances employees’ interests but not organization’s interests

Figure 15-1 Integration of Interest

Concern for integration of interests would lie in section B where activities conducive to
both organization and employee interest would be undertaken. Can an organization be managed in
such a way that is good for the employee is also good for the organization? Research and
experience indicated that there is a healthy overlapping of interests in such programs as flexitime,
job enlargement and enrichment, semiautonomous work groups, participative decision making, the
more productivity would coincide with employee satisfaction. There are a number of reports from
industry concerning an increasing overlap of interests. General Motors has increased the number of
social psychologists operating in the field by 2,000 percent. Procter and Gamble has one plant with
production costs 50 percent lower than any comparable plant in the company or industry, a
situation that is largely attributed to humanistic practices. Specific evidence of such practices is
difficult to come by, for the firms regard their human resources programs as proprietary
information just as valuable as new product research. When successful, they tend decrease
accidents, absenteeism, turnover, and operating errors, while simultaneously raising morale,
quality, and productivity. At the minimum such programs should prevent undesirable behavior
such as sabotage, slowdown, insubordination, strikes, and the use of drugs and alcohol on the job.

Though some theorists suggest there can be a complete overlap of interests, it is more
probable that there are situations depicted by sections A and C . Organizations will require things
of employees that they would prefer to avoid, such as assignment to narrow and to narrow and
repetitive tasks, meeting high output standards, acceptance of managerial decisions, and so on. For
this reason, all organizations have disciplinary action programs as well as some freedom to
dispense with the services of particular employees. There are also certain things that employees
desire which the organization is reluctant to provide, such as increased wages, totally safe working
conditions, time off with pay, insured pension payoffs, shorter work weeks, premium pay for
overtime, and so on. If it is concluded that these items will not contribute to greater organizational
productivity, then their provision must issue from external pressures.

In general, activities in Section C will issue from (1) outside pressures from government, (2)
outside pressure from labor unions, and (3) “outside” pressure from the manager’s code of ethics.
Throughout this text, we have cited the numerous federal and state laws that require private
organizations to the certain employee needs. Their number and content might lead one to believe
that Section C is larger than Section B. In later chapters, we will examine the outside pressures of
the organized labor union. These two external pressure points have had much to do with the rise in
stature of the key person who must deal with them—the personnel manager.

Finally, observation of managerial behavior leads one to believe that all decisions are not
made in the interest of organizational productivity and profits. Employees are often kept on jobs
beyond their useful lives simply because of a manager’s personal code of ethics. As indicated
earlier, hired professional managers are more likely than owner-managers to spend money in the
area of social responsibility. Thus, the four major forces that lead managers to become vitally
concerned with human relations activities are (1) possible improvements in productivity and
effectiveness, (2) governmental intervention, (3) union intervention, and (4) personal codes of
ethics.

Nature of Human Needs

To observe the behavior of a person is one thing; and to influence that behavior toward a
certain direction is still a third problem. Understanding and influencing human behavior require
knowledge of human needs. Most psychologists are in agreement that human behavior is not
completely disorganized and without motivation. The human personality is composed of multiple
elements that are related to effect some degree of apparent balance.

The needs of human beings can be classified into three categories: physiological, social, and
egoistic. Physiological needs, often termed primary, are those that issue from the necessity to
sustain life—food, water, air, rest, sex, shelter, and the like. The “economic man” model that such
needs are sole needs of people. In addition in meeting these basic and fundamental needs, one also
must be assured that they will continue to be met. Thus, security is a vital need of a high priority to
most people. When threatened, as it is by mechanization, automation, and economic regression, it
gives rise to much and strongly motivated activity.

The remaining two types of needs are often termed secondary since they are more nebulous
and intangible. They vary in intensity from one person to another, much more than do the primary
needs. In the social category are the needs of (1) physical association and contacts, (2) love and
affection, and (3) acceptance. Most people are gregarious and desire to live with other people.
Physical contact, however, is not enough. People feel a need for love and affection from at least a
few other human beings. Thus, we form and maintain ties of family and friendships, relationships
that are often vitally affected by policies and practices of the employing organization.

In addition to physical contact and affection, human beings feel a need for acceptance by
and affiliation with some group or groups. It has long been noted that modern society has tended
toward the formation of more and more groups and that a single individuals is usually a member of
multiple groups. The need for acceptance and social approval is also reflected in such factors as
styles, fashions, traditions, mores, and codes. It is a strong need that provides one of the
cornerstones of any organized society.

Egoistic needs are derived from the necessity of viewing one’s self or ego in certain
manner. Among the identifiable egoistic needs are the following: (1) recognition, (2) dominance,
(3) independence, and (4) achievement. Though a person needs reasonable acceptance by a group,
one usually does not wish to merge with it to the point of losing personal identity. We are often
caught between two somewhat conflicting needs, one of which requires merger, the other
separation. If one accepts a promotion to supervisor, thereby gratifying a need of ego, one must
forgo the association of many old friends, thereby frustrating a social need.

As one matures, a need of dominance often becomes apparent. Dominance may well be a
continuation of the need for recognition with the ultimate objective of achieving autonomy and
independence. The drive for the formation of labor unions, for example, does issue solely from
physiological needs. In many instances, well-paid employees voted overwhelmingly for a union,
which could serve to provide them with the dignity of independence necessary to their self-esteem.

Many psychologists contend that the highest need of human being is that of
achievement or self-actualization. It encompasses not only the ability to accomplish, but the need
for actual achievement of something in life. The job or task is the major source of satisfaction for
this need.

Conscious or unconscious needs set up an individual certain tensions that stimulate

behavior that will relieve tensions. The objective of behavioral acts is to gratify these needs. If the
person is able to satisfy needs in a manner that is acceptable the self and society, one is termed
“adjusted.” If on thee other hand, the person is unable to satisfy, he or she is termed as
“maladjusted.” Thus, behavior is a process of adjusting to certain human needs. The goal of this
adjustment process is satisfaction.

Maladjusment results when human needs are not attained, are attained with great difficulty,
or are attained in a manner not approved by society. Typical examples of behavior indicating
maladjustment are frequent changes in jobs, withdrawal, daydreaming, jealousy, desire for
excessive attention, excessive complaining, bragging, and lying.
 The individual cannot satisfy some needs in any manner; tensions are not relieved; and the
result is termed “frustration.” A well-known story will illustrate the essential nature of frustration.
While two men are drinking in a bar late one night, they got into an argument over the meaning of
terms “irritation,” “aggravation,” and “frustrations.” In order to get his point across, one of the man
offered to demonstrate the fundamental distinction among the terms. He walked to a telephone and
dialed a number at random. After several rings, a very tired, sleepy voice said, “Hello!” our man of
empirical research said, “Hello! Is Joe there?” the sleepy voice growled that there was no one there
by that name, and the connection was broken abruptly. “That, “ said our man, “is an example of
irritation.” After waiting a period of thirty to forty minutes, he dialed the same number again, and
asked the same question, “Is Joe there?” the response this time was considerably more intensified.
After much yelling and shouting, the connection was broken. “That an example of aggravation.”
He waited a period of thirty to forty minutes to allow a “guinea pig” to go back to sleep, and then
dialed the same number, but this time said, “Hello. This is Joe. Any message for me?” there was
complete silence for along minute before the explosion. That was frustration.

Frustration is often recognized by certain types of behavior such as aggression,

regression, fixation, and resignation. Aggression usually occurs when the person is attempting to
accomplish something that he or she not capable of achieving, our guinea pig in above experiment
is unable to get to the man in a bar. Since aggression usually involves an attack upon the
obstructing barrier, it is highly likely that the telephone took a beating. A worker in the plant may
take out his or her frustration on a machine by abusing it.

Regression is at type of behavior that is exemplified when the person resorts to acts of an
immature type. Unreasonable complaining and crying help to relieve some of this frustration, but
such behavior has effects upon associates. Fixation is an attempt to gratify a need that has been
proved to be worthless. In searching for lost car keys, for example, we tend to look in the same
place over and over again, even though we know they were not there the first time. Resignation
involves complete surrender. Satisfaction of needs is impossible, but there is no unreasonable
attack upon obstruction, resorting to tears, or repetition of valueless behavior. Resignation is one of
the latter stages of frustration and in an extreme case borders on serious mental illness.

The Need to Understand Why

All managers have a need to explain the behavior of their subordinates in order to provide
the basis for such activities as performance evaluation and disciplinary action. Despite its
complexity, perhaps the one most useful global generalization is to recognize that their is reason
for all behavior. Though a particular act may appear to be “insane” to the manager, she or he
should search for the logic behind it. In so doing, the manager acts a as type of naïve scientist in
drawing conclusions about the behavior of others.

Managers usually attribute behavior to two fundamental sources: (1) the subordinate’s
basic personality and (2) the characteristic of the situation. Research substantiates the thesis that
most managers tend to overestimate the power of personality traits and underestimate the influence
of situational characteristics. For example, if the subordinate fails at an assigned task, the manager
is prone to blame the subordinate’s deficiencies and downgrade the obstacles that exist in the
environment. Some portions of the personality are deemed reasonably stable, while the degree of
effort expended, for example, is more variable. Similarly, certain characteristics of the situation are
fairly stable, while other characteristics are somewhat less predictable. As an example of the latter,
managers have been awarded large bonuses for accomplishments that are largely a matter of being
lucky enough to be at the right place at the right time.

In search dealing with attribution theory, findings such as the following have been
discovered:
1. The greater the empathy of a manager for a subordinate, the more likely that an
undesirable result will be attributed to the situation. Experienced supervisors
recommend more changes in the environment than do the inexperienced.
2. The more inappropriate the subordinate action, the more likely that will be attributed
to the actor. For example, using drugs while working on an assembly line is more
likely to be attributed to a character defect than it is to the possibility that the
pressures of the assembly line caused the need for escape.
3. It is easier for the manager to assume that the subordinate is responsible than it is to
investigate the total situation. It requires less work to reprimand a subordinate for an
undesirable act than to change organizational practices that may have led to the act.
4. When subordinate acts result in success, managers are prone to assume the credit as an
important influence in the situation. When acts result in failure, the responsibility is
more often given to the subordinate.
5. The more serious the failure, the more likely the responsibility is attributed to the
subordinate.
6. Successful acts by subordinates who are liked by the manager are typically attributed
to the subordinate. Unsuccessful acts by such subordinates are typically attributed to
the situational obstacles.
7. Managers tend to use their own behavior as a basis for judging the normality of
subordinate behavior behavior.

In general, it is contended people are seen as fundamental causes too frequently, while the
situation is allocated too little influence as a cause of behavior. Rather than constantly searching
for the “villain” in a problem, concern should be given to the possibility that the villain is in reality
a victim of the situation.

Human Models Proposed by Organization Psychologists

It has often been stated, “Tell me of your basic view of what people are, and I tell you how
you will manage.” The statement implies that managers do develop and utilize a basic “human
model” in their general approach to the subordinates. It also implies that there are multiple models
of humanity rather than just one accepted by all. In this unit, we shall review the models proposed
by four major organization psychologists: Abraham Maslow, Douglas Mcgregor, Chris Argyris,
Frederick Herzberg. The four have proposed fundamental conceptions of the nature of human
beings. It will be noted in further discussion that though details differ, there is much in common
among the “self-actualized” human of Maslow, the “theory Y” person of Mcgregor, the “mature”
being of Argyris, and the “motivated” person of Herzberg. The last two psychologists. Likert and
Blake, have developed specific leadership styles, that ca be utilized if one wishes to manage on the
basis of the human models proposed by first four.
 Maslow Herzberg McGregor Argyris
Self-actualization Motivators Theory Y Mature person
Self-fulfillment Achievement Work is natural Active
achievement Advancement Self-direction Independent
Recognition Commitment Multiple abilities
Esteem Responsibility Seeks Deep interests
Status, Title responsibility Longer perspective
Recognition Ingenuity Equal position
Promotion Self-awareness
Love and Belonging, Hygiene
family, primary work Supervision
group acceptance Company policy
Security, seniority, Peers
Infant
union and guaranteed Pay Theory X
Job security Passive
job Dislikes work
Physiological Working conditions Dependent
Must be coerced Few abilities
Money Prefers direction
Food Shallow interests
Avoids Short perspective
shelter responsibility Subordinates
Unaware of self
Figure 15-2 A comparison of human models

Maslow’s Need Hierarchy

The need hierarchy proposed by Abraham Maslow is perhaps the most widely accepted
model of the human being. He suggests the following order of priority of fundamental needs:
1. Basic physiological needs
2. Safety and security
3. Love
4. Esteem
5. Self-actualization

Since the physiological needs are classified as primary, they are, of course, given first
priority. “Man lives by bread alone when there is no bread. “If a person is starving, only food
occupies the mind. As soon as one need is reasonably well satisfied, a second need becomes
apparent; the person forgets that she or he was starving, and now starts to be concerned about a
need that was formerly of less significance. In Maslow’s hierarchy, one now becomes aware of the
need for safety and security. Human beings are motivated by unsatisfied needs, not by those that
have been gratified. Such things as an orderly society, job tenure, insurance, religion, and the like
meet the desire for safety and security. People are not completely satisfied on any need level, but a
reasonable amount of gratification of first-priority needs must be forthcoming if they are to
perceive a lower-priority need. Maslow suggests that an average citizen might be 85 percent
satisfied in physiological needs, 70 percent in safety needs, 50 percent in love needs, 40 percent in
the self-esteem category, and 10 percent in self-actualization needs.

Once the necessities for continued existence have been met, the three higher needs of lower
priority come into prominence. The need for love includes the need for affection and the desire for
association with others. The need for esteem includes the desire for social approval, self-assertion,
and self-esteem. Gratification for the need for esteem contribute to a feeling of self-confidence,
worth and capability. The final need indicated in the list, that self-actualization, refers to the desire
for self-fulfillment and achievement. A person desires actualization in that in which he or she has a
capabilities.

This is the highest-level need and has lower priority. It is not a motivator of behavior until
and unless the need of love, self-esteem, social approval, and self-assertion are fairly well satisfied.

This hierarchy of needs helps to explain certain mistakes of management as well as to

justify certain other philosophies. For example, the firm that embarks upon an elaborate personnel
services program without the basis of fair and competitive wage structure is usually wasting its
efforts and money. It is also significant to note that company appeals for employee cooperation
and loyalty fall in deaf ears when a reasonable degree of security has not been provided.

Some field research has been done that tends to substantiate this hierarchical concept of
need perception. In contrasting the levels of need satisfaction of lower and middle-level managers,
it was discovered that ht former perceive significantly less need fulfillment in security, esteem, and
autonomy. Both perceived greater deficiencies in the low-priority categories (security and social
approval). Contrary to expectations, both groups were equally dissatisfied in self-actualization
category. Review of eleven research projects led to the conclusions that “there a relatively stable
pattern of studies that indicate an overall positive association between organizational level and
need satisfaction.” Admittedly, the level of organization structure is not only factor affecting needs
satisfaction, but the difference discovered lends some support to the concept of a hierarchy. It has
also been found that top managers in organizations with many levels report greater satisfaction
than top managers in flatter organizations. Conversely, middle- and lower-level managers are more
satisfied in the flatter structures than are their counterparts in tall structures.

The Maslow hierarchy of needs, though widely publicized and accepted by theorists and
practitioners alike, is basically a theoretical conception issuing from an attempted synthesis of
much psychological research. Research in the United State tends to substantiate the existence of
the hierarchy. That it may be culturally bounded is suggested by a research project that compared
the need hierarchies of American and Mexican employees in plants owned by a common parent
company where the jobs, product, and technology were identical. One interesting finding was that
although the self-actualization need for the Americans was highly deficient in satisfaction, as
hypothesized by the Maslow hierarchy, it was the second most satisfied need for the Mexican
employees. This difference was attributed to differences in culture and social between the two
nations.

McGREGOR’S THEORY

Philosophers have long been fascinated and puzzled concerning the apparent contradictory
and dual nature of human beings. People appear to have a capacity for tenderness, sympathy, and
love while at the same time they posses’ tendencies toward cruelty, callousness, hate, and
malicious aggression. If we are basically the former, we need little external regulation. If the latter,
we must be controlled for the good of society and ourselves.

Though this philosophical is age-old, Douglas McGregor is responsible for introducing the
dual theme into management literature. After observing the actual practices of many traditional
managers, he proposed that they are operating on a set of assumptions that he labeled “theory X”:
(1) the average human being has an inherent dislike of work and will avoid if possible; (2) because
of this human characteristic of this dislike of work, most people must be coerced, controlled,
directed and threatened with punishment to get them to put forth adequate effort; and (3) the
average humans being prefers to be directed, wishes to avoid responsibility, has relatively little
ambition, and wants security above all.

In disagreement with the assumptions of theory X, McGregor feels that modern

management is grossly underestimating the capacities and interest of its organization members, on
the basis of psychological and social research results, he submits an opposing theory, called
“theory Y” as amore realistic assessment of the capabilities of people.

1. The expenditure of physical and mental effort in work is as natural as play or rest.
2. People will exercise self-direction and self control in the service of objectives to which
they are committed.
3. Commitment to objectives is a function of a rewards associated with achievement.
4. The average human being learns, under proper conditions, not only to accept but also to
seek responsibility.
5. The capacity to exercise a relatively high degree of imagination, ingenuity, and
creativity in the solution of organization problem is widely, not narrowly, distributed in
the population.
6. Under conditions of modern industrial life, the intellectual potentialities of the average
human being are only partially utilized.

If one accepted the McGregor human model, such managerial practices as the following
would be seriously considered: (1) abandonment of time clocks, (2) flextime, (3) job enrichment,
(4) Management by Objectives with subordinates determining the objectives as well as appraising
their own accomplishments, and (5) participate and democratic decision making concerning the
general organizational environment. All are based on a concept of abilities being widespread in the
population and trust in each person to behave in a responsible manner. It is apparent that a person
who feels the higher-order needs, such as esteem and self- actualization, is likely to behave in a
manner similar to that incorporated into the theory Y model. Thus management must structure the
organization environment in a manner that will further the release of this human potential.

ARGYRIS’S MATURE HUMAN BEING

Though the human being may be constructed at birth with all the Maslow needs and
“theory Y” potential embedded in embryonic form, Chris Argyris emphasizes that development
from that point is naturally in the direction of maturation through which the person will develop to
achieve good mental health. At the immature infant end of this continuum are these seven
characteristics: (1) being passive, (2) being dependent, (3) being unaware of self, (4) being
subordinate, (5) possessing a short time perspective, (6) having casual and shallow interests, and
(7) being capable of behaving in only in only few ways. On the other hand, natural movement with
maturation would be toward behavior characterized by activity, independence, an awareness, of
and control over self, aspiring to occupy an equal or superior position, having long term
perspectives, developing deeper interest, and being capable of behaving in many ways to satisfy
needs.

Organization needs human resources to fill positions necessary to achieve organization

objectives. Though one might contend that mature personnel are a prime necessity, Argyris argues
that many organizations are structured and managed in such a way that immature, infantlike
behavior is required from, retention and “success.” Employees are asked to submit orders, plans,
policies, procedures, and rules as given. They are asked to work in an environment where they
have little control over their lives, are expected to be passive and dependent upon authority, and
are asked to use a “few-surface shallow abilities.”

Faced with the incongruity of organizational demands and mature human needs, it is
suggested that the employer will engage in one or more of the following activities: (1) escape, (2)
attack or, (3) adapt. One may escape by quitting the job, being absent, frequently, or gaining
promotion to higher positions, where there is freedom and autonomy. One can attack by practicing
malicious obedience, organizing slowdowns, or forming labor unions. The unhealthiest activity,
according to Argyris, is to apathetically accept and adapt to infantile situations. This paints a rather
gloomy picture of organizational requirements that will lead to widespread psychological failure
for organizational members. McGregor tends to agree with this thesis as he pose the theory X and
theory Y assumptions. Both he and Argyris suggest that industrials organizations are doing serious
harm to human beings through management based on assumptions of employee immaturity and
irresponsibility.

On the reverse side in the question of whether all employees are mature as defined by
Argyris or theory Y types as defined by McGregor. Many have granted the importance of these
concepts when dealing wit more highly educated professional, technical, and managerial white-
collar employees. But Strauss has suggested that the theories advanced by various behaviorist are
more indicative of the need structure of highly educated behavioral theorists are more indicative of
the need structure of highly educated behavioral theorists than they are of rank and file blue-collar
employees. Security may mean more to the industrial worker than to the highly educated
professional. The often values the freedom of thought permitted by a structured, repetitive, simple
task that may be boring to others. Strauss indicates that the need to self-actualize may not so
widely in the population as hypothesized by Maslow, Argyris, and McGregor. One study of 83
workers in a firm of 8,000 employers revealed a positive correlation between need satisfaction in
such areas as achievement, affiliation, autonomy and recognition. Behaviorists will doubtlessly
reply that such that successful persons adaptation to oppressive and mechanical structures indicates
that we have also conditioned them to prefer the type of behavior.

It should be apparent that most conditions are neither as bad as behaviorist contend nor as
good as traditional managers claim. We are always operating in the gray area of optimizing
multiple values under condition of uncertainty. Only a fraction of a job in American business are
of the highly mechanized, totally controlled type. To the degree that an open job market operates
effectively, there will be some matching of varying human needs and organizational demands. One
writer points out that 85 % of American workers indicated that they were satisfied with their jobs,
that fewer than 2% actually work on an assembly line, and that the typical employee does not even
work for a manufacturing organization.

Not all personnel are theory Y types despite arguments concerning how they got that way.
Not all organizations demand total obedience on narrowly defined tasks. But, certainly, not all
organization has examined their structures and management approaches to determine where some
alterations could produce a better fusion between organizational and human values. In general, it
can be contented that most managers in business have tended to underestimate the motivation and
capabilities of their personnel. This is confirmed in surveys asking (1) whether managers believe in
greater subordinates participation in decision-making, and (2) whether managers believe that such
participation will increase the quality of operation. The typical result is “yes” to the first question
and a “no” to the second. The implication is that greater employee involvement is the price of
cooperation, submission, and acceptance, but only managers and other higher types can really
make decisions that will improve the quality of the situation.

HERZBERG’S MOTIVATEDEMPLOYEE

One of the more stimulating and controversial theories of human nature proposed in recent
years is that developed by Frederick Herzberg and his associates. It is consistent with the self-
actualization of Maslow, McGregor’s “theory Y,” and the maturation process of Argyris

Herzberg proposes that human beings have two basic need; the need to avoid pain and
survive and the need to grow, develop and learn. As such, the analysis of employee job satisfaction
would result in the formation of two separate continuums rather than the traditional one of
satisfaction/dissatisfaction. The first continuums, ranging from dissatisfaction to no dissatisfaction,
would be affected by environmental factors over which the employee has limited influence.
Typical of these “hygienic factors” are pay, interpersonal relations, supervision, company policy
and administration, working conditions, status, and security. Herzberg indicates that these factors
do not serve to promote job satisfaction; rather, their absence or deficiency can create
dissatisfaction. Their presence can only serve to eliminate dissatisfaction.

The second class of factors, referred to as “motivators,” makes up a continuum leading

from no job satisfaction to satisfaction. Examples from this class are the work itself, recognition,
and achievement, possibility of growth, and advancement. All of these are concerned with the
work itself, rather than its surrounding physical, administrative, or social environment. If the
worker is to be truly motivated, the job itself is the major source of that motivation. All of the other
hygienic factors can serve only to “clean up” the environment and prevent dissatisfaction.

The method of research used in developing this theory was not the usual anonymous
objective questionnaire. Rather, subjects were asked to recall a time when they felt exceptionally
good or a time when they felt exceptionally bad about their work. These incidents or stories were
analyzed to ascertain the particular factors mentioned as contributing to the exceptional
satisfaction or dissatisfaction. A preponderance of the motivator factors dealing with the work
itself was mentioned when the subject was describing a time of feeling exceptionally good. And
the times of feeling very bad were marked by a significantly large number of hygienic factors.

Other researchers have duplicated this type of study on many occasions. In a summary of
twelve investigators encompassing 1685 employees, incidents describing job satisfaction involved
81% motivator factors and only 19% hygienic factors. In cases describing job dissatisfaction, 69%
involved hygienic factors as compared with 31% motivator factors.

Some as being method-bound has criticized the Herzberg theory; that is, individuals tend to
blame environmental factors for job failure and consequent dissatisfaction and take credit for any
job successes that occur. Thus, subordinates also make attributions about behavior. Those high in
self-esteem are more likely to attribute behavior to themselves rather than situation. A few
objective questionnaire studies are in agreement with the Herzberg theory, but most are not. Others
have criticized these projective studies as being primarily concerned with higher level, technical
jobs, whose usual occupants are better educated and more interested and more interested in their
work. However, this method has been used in studies of various types of jobs such as, lower-level
supervisors, hospital maintenance personnel, nurses, food handlers, agricultural administrator,
accountants, Finnish supervisors, Hungarian engineers, and military officers. Herzberg contends
that the work itself can be the basic motivating force for lower-level jobs as well higher and more
complex types.;

The Herzberg theory is similar to the Maslow hierarchy in that the hygienic factors are
related to the higher-priority psychological, security, and social needs, while the motivators
correspond to the ego, esteem, and self-actualization needs. The Maslow hierarchy proposes a
continuous, rather than disconnected, sequencing of felt needs, whereas the Herzberg theory would
not require hygienic factors to be provided as a prerequisite to satisfaction on the job. There is
widespread agreement that satisfaction will be higher when both motivational and hygienic factors
are well taken care of. There is also evidence that when both are reasonably well met by
organizations, the motivators are more powerful source, thus tending to substantiate the Maslow
hierarchy concept. Other research indicated that older employees as well as the blue collar tend to
value the hygienic factors more highly than do the younger or the white collar. One of hygienic
factors was significantly more satisfied than those who perceived the reverse. In other words, a
good job in a bad environment will not necessarily result unusual instances, employees are likely
to be upset by the idea of performing a challenging job for low pay, in a shabby office, under
negative leadership styles and inconsistent policies.

Herzberg would certainly not de-emphasize the importance of the hygienic factors in
successful management. He favors good environment. The primary impact of his theory is to direct
management’s attention to the task itself as the primary source of motivation. It rests to the most
important human needs to self-actualize through doing something interesting, challenging, and
important in life.

Human Models of Ethologists

All of the models of the four organizational psychologists have one thing in common; the
infinite human capacities to grow, learn, and achieve. It is human model that is very attractive to
human ego. Humans constitute the greatest resource on this planet, ranking only slightly below the
angels. In contrast with this orientation toward human nature, we now turn to the field of ethology,
the study of animal behavior. Just as Herzberg cited the dual nature of humans (the need to survive
and avoid pain and the need to grow), modern ethologists study humans as animals and humans as
humans. They tend, however, to emphasize the first approach as a mean of enlarging
understanding of the second. Robert Ardrey credits Konrad Z. Lorenz, the Austrian naturalist, with
fathering the field of human ethology. Ethology has been popularized in the last two decades
through such writings as Lorenz’s On Regression, Ardrey’s Territorial Imperative, and Desmond
Morris’ The Naked Ape and the Human Zoo.

As the titles of the books indicate, the basic thesis is that humans are both animalistic and
humanistic. Certain animal characteristic provides a framework that helps to shape the humanizing
process. For example, Ardrey’s thesis is that human share with many animals and innate
behavioral pattern that leads them to establish a basic area or territory that is, aggressive acts
against invaders. This defense leads them to benign aggression, that is, aggressive acts against
invaders that are biologically adaptive through contributing to the survival of the species. It ceases
when the threat has been removed. Malignant aggression, however, appears to be a learned
response that is specific to humans. Humans will kill other humans for reasons that are not
biologically adaptive.
In lower animals and insects, these innate behavioral patterns that are genetically transmitted are
generally referred to as “ instincts.” Instincts can vary from a completely closed program of
behavior, as in the case of ants and bees, to a fairly open one that requires considerable learning
after birth. Arguments about whether humans inherit any instincts whatsoever. Ashley Montagu, a
well known anthropologists, contends, “It is not human nature, but nurture that is the cause of
human aggression.” Pioneers in ethology have proposed five possible human instincts that are
genetically transmitted: reproduction, hunger, fear, aggression, and grooming. Kefalas and
Suojanen suggest that these can be remembered in the form of the five “F’s”: flirting, feeding,
flight, fighting, and feeling. These instincts do not constitute programmed behavior as in the case
in lower animals. Rather, they are shapers of learned behavior. Lower animals master their
environment through an evolutionary change in genes. Humans master their environment more
quickly and effectively through culturally learned behavior. Yet to contained that people are totally
human without any genetically transmitted behavioral inclination would result in an incomplete
understanding in the nature of human beings. Organization, psychologists and ethologists, can aid
in designing a more realistic model of the complex human.

HUMAN MODELS AND BEHAVIORISM

To B. F. Skinner, the foremost proponent of behaviorism there is a little need of to theorize

over the basis nature of the human being. He seeks explanation of human behavior, not from
within but from without. The stimulus to human behavior can be observed and measured. The
behavioral response of human can also be observed and measured. One needs only to establish
behavioral objectives and to engineer appropriate responses through a conditioning process. Thus,
humans, if anything, are malleable mechanism. They are without mystery and merit little concern
for proposed felt needs of dignity and autonomy “operant conditioning shapes behavior as a
sculptor shapes a lump of clay.”

In this book, Beyond Freedom and Dignity, Skinner contends that humans can be
controlled and shaped while simultaneously feeling free. The basic engineering approach is to
reward desired behavior while ignoring undesirable actions. Over a period of time, the reinforced
behavior will tend to be repeated while the unrewarded will tend to be extinguish and to disappear.
Punishment of undesired behavior is to be avoided as contributed to feelings of restraint and to
actions of rebellion. Thus, in time, the conditioner can effectively control human behavior without
the human becoming aware of being controlled – thus “beyond freedom.” Choice has, on the
surface, remained with a positively conditioned subject while the conditioner pulls the string in an
unobjectionable and unnoticed fashion.

At this point, total confusion concerning the fundamental nature of the human resource
may have set in. One conclusion is obvious- the human being is a highly complex mechanism not
subject to simplistic theories of management. Simultaneous belief in elements of all three
approaches is not impossible.

Human Beings and Culture

As emphasized in all the preceding human models, the behavior of human is also heavily
influenced by the culture of which they are part. Culture is composed of human created elements in
life—customs, beliefs, habits, codes, mores and laws. Culture arises in part from the need for
security, since it is established, conventionalized behavior that changes slowly and possesses great
stability. The various type of behavior possible in the pursuit of need satisfaction is restricted by
the culture in which this behavior occurs.

The importance of culture in the administration of a business firm can best be exemplified
by contrasting one country with another. In Japan, for example, the workers expect advice and
guidance fro the employer to a degree that would be resented in the United States, with the latter’s
emphasis upon freedom and equality. A Japanese worker expects to a worker and not passes to
managerial levels, a situation which used to exist in this country. He or she expect to remain an
employee for one particular firm for life—in competency is no justification for dismissal.
Promotion is strictly based on seniority, and pay is largely controlled by tenure and family needs.

With respect to managerial practices, it is suggested that the Japanese approach may be
more compatible with large, crowded, complex organization than the American way. American
cultural values of individuality and self-sufficiency often led to competition and rivalry within the
organization. Japanese management practices emphasize a cooperative “bottom-up” process of
decision making as a fundamental way of management. As stated by American manager,
“Americans will disagree with their boss rarely but violently; the Japanese disagree often but
politely.” The Japanese manager is a facilitator, communicator, and participant in-group decision
processes. Americans tend to be independent, entrepreneurial, competitive, decisive, and action-
oriented. Obviously, both managerial cultures have their strengths, but cultures will undergo
change slowly in response to alterations of the environment.

In identifying varying managerial cultures of the world, the Haire, Ghiselli, and Porter
study 3,641 managers of 14 countries is perhaps the largest single research to identify common
values and differences in beliefs and practices. The study identified several significantly different
clusters of nations. The United States and England formed one combination with similar views and
approaches to subordinate participation, use of authority and like. A later separate study found that
Australia could also be allied with this group. Other clusters were a Nordic-European group of
Denmark, West Germany< Norway, and Sweden; a Latin-European group of Belgium, France,
Italy, and Spain; and a developing-nation group composed of Argentina, Chile, and India. Only
Japan could not be grouped with any other of the nations included in the study.

Perhaps one of the most commonly cited examples of varying international cultural
beliefs is the treatment of time. Most Americans are greatly concerned with the importance of
time, as witnessed by widespread availability and use of accurate clocks and watches, the precision
of transportation time-schedules, and pressing necessity to meet scheduled appointments. In
various foreign cultures, time does not have the same high value. This does not necessarily mean
that these peoples do not value efficiency and coordination. Often, their attitude toward time is a
result of poorer transportation and communication facilities, greater degrees of patience, religious
philosophies that de-emphasize the importance of this day or hour, or a different hierarchical
arrangement of values in life. Being 5 minutes late for an appoint in the United States calls for a
brief apology; 15 minutes’ lateness requires an extended apology for the purpose of
communicating great concern and regret; and being 30 or more minutes late is best excused by an
act of God. In other countries, being 30 to 45 minutes late for appointments is not an unusual event
and is not be taken as an insult when it passes unmentioned. The symbol of “lateness” stands for
vastly different things in differing cultures. It has been suggested that the American can adapt by
scheduling additional work beyond the appointed hour; considering his or her attitude toward time,
the foreign visitor will not be insulted by not being immediately ushered into the executive’s
office.
 Within the United States, many subcultures can affect business operations. There is a
subculture for each business organizations as well as subculture cutting across various firms.
Engineers and scientists, for example, are hired by many business establishments and bring with
them certain beliefs, values, and standards that ca conflict with the subculture of the firm. For
example, research scientists highly value freedom of investigation and research those certain
quality standards. The XYZ firm may insist that the scientist punch a time clock and research only
those fields that will result in immediate enterprise. With clash in cultural values, higher salaries
may not serve to keep the scientist from leaving for government or university employment. It is
necessary for the manager to study the characteristics, standards, and values of the subcultures
whose members one wishes to employ.

Summary

Human relations has been defined as an area of management practice that is concerned with
the integration of people into a work situation. It is concerned with motivating personnel to work
together cooperatively and productively. In understanding the behavior of human beings, some
knowledge of basic needs is necessary. If their satisfaction can be affected in a manner that
contributes to organization objectives, then interest has been integrated. They may be classified as
physiological, social and egoistic. The goal of human behavior is adjustment to need-stimulated
tensions in a way that will bring satisfaction. When needs are frustrated, employee behavior may
be aggressive, regressive, fixated, or resigned.

Various model of human beings have been proposed by separate disciplines. Despite the
separate labels of “self-actualization,” “theory Y,” “maturation,” and “motivators,” the
organization psychologists put forth a highly optimistic view of human beings as possessing an
infinite capacity for growth, development, and achievement. Ethologists contend that this capacity
for growth rests on a foundation genetically transmitted behavioral patterns. Behaviorism,
proposed by Skinner, eschews interests in what is the human and confines its attention to stimulus-
response. Human are malleable and behavior can engineered.

Human behavior cannot be fully understood and accurately predicted apart from
knowledge of various cultures in which this behavior takes place. The customs, traditions, codes,
and laws that make a culture circumscribe the freedom of management. To a large degree, the
problem is one of predicting and adjusting to cultural requirements. But within a single
organization, a culture should be developed that will facilitate effective cooperation and fulfillment
of quality performance levels. Management to ensure coordinated activity must establish
organizations, procedures, and controls. The human desire for stability and security will contribute
to greater acceptance of the need for such restrictions.
BRIEF CASE: Present your analysis using the case analysis format, and answer the questions
following the case.

Joe Harshner was recently hired as a lathe operator in a rough turning department of Atlas
Enterprises. He had formerly been the owner of a small machine shop that had gone bankrupt.
Despite a tendency to brag about his machine abilities, he was well liked by the worked group of
fifteen employees. On one occasion when he was bragging about his skill, contending that turning
out more work than any of other employees, there were many grins, winks, and raised eyebrows
among the listeners. Later that day, Joe was approach by the supervisor. He complimented Joe on
his work but asked that he reduce his output to the amount per hour specified. He indicated that he
was trying to maintain a steady flow of material while at the same time train new workers as a part
of an entry-learning program for the plant. There was no rooms to store the materials so the flow
must be steady and predictable. Joe was rather shocked at being asked to cut back on his output.
The other workers assured Joe that supervisor was one of the best in the plant and would backup
his workers in a bind. The supervisor was also highly respected by management.

Questions

1. Explain Joe’s behavior. Why did he behave that way?

2. Explain the supervisor’s behavior. Is it consistent with organizational effectiveness?