Behavioral Management Theory

During the 1920s and 1930s, the United States was experiencing another force of upheaval not unlike that caused by the Industrial Revolution. Though more limited in scope, it had similar ramifications on the way people work and on the way managers manage those who work. Culturally and socially the United States was undergoing change. People were moving to the cities in greater numbers. Rapid economic growth was giving people the opportunity to spend money on leisure and household items their parents could only dream about. Women were given the right to vote, unions were now organized and were playing an integral role in politics and the economy, and the first minimum-wage legislation had been passed. Prior to the stock market collapse of 1929, a genuine sense of optimism had swept the country, and values and attitudes toward government, people, families, and work were being transformed. As a result, many of the techniques applied by the classical theorists to the workplace no longer seemed to work effectively. Several prominent theorists began to direct their attention to the human element in the workplace. Elton Mayo, Mary Parker Follett, Douglas McGregor, Chris Argyris, and Abraham Maslow were writers who addressed this issue by contending that increased worker satisfaction would lead to better performance. It was their belief that a greater concern by management for the work conditions of the employee would generate higher levels of satisfaction; thus evolved behavioral management theory. Elton Mayo One prominent pioneer of the behavioral school was Elton Mayo (1880 1949), an Australian psychologist who joined the Harvard Business School faculty in 1926. Convinced that economic incentives only partially explained individual motivation and satisfaction,' Mayo worked with Fritz Roethlisberger, William Dickson, and others to formulate theories concerning the factors that increased human motivation and satisfaction which were later to become the foundations of the human relations movement in management. Their ideas did not have wide circulation, however, until they were asked to assist in a research project that had apparently failed. In 1924, a research team launched an experiment at the Hawthorne plant of the Western Electric Company in Cicero, Illinois. Their experiment was designed to identify factors other than fatigue that would diminish worker productivity. Initially, it was believed that physical surroundings (e.g., noise, light, humidity) would have an impact on productivity. Testing was conducted by selecting two groups of women who would perform an assembly operation, with each group in a separate room. One group was to be the control group, working in a room where no change in the physical surroundings would be made. The second group would perform their tasks under changing physical conditions. As various features of the physical surroundings were altered in the second room, the researchers would record the level of output and compare it with the output of the control group. One such alteration of the physical surroundings was the level of lighting. Illumination was increased in

stages, and the researchers recorded an increase in output as well. To further test their hypothesis, the light was dimmed. Much to their surprise, output by the women increased again. Even when the light level was reduced to the point where it resembled moonlight, output increased. What made this finding even more difficult to interpret was that the control group was also increasing its output without any alteration in the physical surroundings. Increased output was also obtained when the researchers expanded the length of the workday and eliminated rest periods. Indeed, many of the women reported that they were more satisfied with their jobs than before the experiments began. In 1927, Mayo and his team were called in to assist in the interpretation of the results and to conduct further experiments as needed. One such experiment was to alter supervisory authority so that the women could determine on their own when they would take a rest break. Another was to increase the salary of the women in the experimental group while the women in the control group would keep the same pay. Again, productivity went up in both groups. After several years of intensive study, Mayo and his colleagues began to piece together what was happening. First, they concluded that financial incentives did not influence productivity since output went up in both groups though only the experimental group received more pay. Instead, they learned through interviews and observation that an "emotional chain reaction" was causing the increase in productivity?" Having been singled out to be participants in the experiment, the women developed a group pride that motivated them to increase their performance. No longer did they feel that they were isolated individuals in the plant; now they felt they were part of an important group. The support received from their supervisors and the opportunity to make decisions about their job contributed to this motivation. Mayo and his colleagues realized that an important contribution to the study and practice of management had evolved from a seemingly failed experiment. First, the Hawthorne study suggested that workers were not so much driven by pay and working conditions as by psychological wants and desires which could be satisfied by belonging to a work group. Second, giving workers responsibility for decisions concerning the task, whether as individuals or in a group, was a stimulus to treat the task as more important. And finally, recognition by superiors made workers feel that they were making a unique and important contribution to the organization. The Hawthorne experiment was a turning point in the study of management, suggesting that a worker is not simply an extension of the machinery. As the results of the study became known among theorists and practitioners alike, an outpouring of research was conducted based on many theories and discoveries made in psychology. Thus, the Hawthorne study opened the study of management to a whole new arena of ideas from the social sciences that had previously been ignored. And, as an unintended contribution to research methodology, the experiments led to a rethinking of field research practices. That is, the researcher can influence the outcome of the experiment by being too closely involved with the subjects who are participating in the experiment. This outcome, referred to as the Hawthorne effect in research methodology, is exemplified by subjects behaving differently because of the active participation of the Hawthorne researchers in the experiment. Mary Parker Follett

Mary Parker Follett (1868-1933) was born near Boston and was educated at Radcliffe College and Cambridge University, studying politics, economics, philosophy, and law. Her successful work on committees set up to work out solutions to community problems led eventually to a concentration on the study of industrial management, with a particular interest in techniques for resolving conflicts in organizations. Follett was a pragmatist who believed that conflict was neither good nor bad. She hypothesized that managers could resolve conflict in one of four ways: (1) one side giving in, (2) one side forcing the other to submit, (3) compromise, and (4) integration. Follett believed the first two alternatives were undesirable as they required the threat or actual use of power. Compromise was also unsatisfactory, merely postponing the conflict by not addressing the issues that led to the conflict. With integration, however, the efforts of both sides to identify the solution, according to Follett, would lead to discussion and resolution of the issues that caused the conflict. Douglas McGregor A theorist who shared the views of Mayo and his colleagues was Douglas McGregor (1906-1964). McGregor felt that organizations were often designed based on faulty assumptions about human behavior. Those assumptions were that most workers disliked work, that workers preferred to be directed by supervisors rather than assume responsibility for their tasks, and that workers were more interested in monetary gains than in performing their jobs well. Because of these assumptions, McGregor felt that managers were prone to design organizations that were centralized in decision making, established numerous rules and regulations, and required close supervision of subordinates. For fear of technical and financial inefficiency, McGregor felt that organizations overemphasized control mechanisms. Labelingjthese assumptions Theory X, McGregor developed an alternative set of assumptions which he labeled Theory Y. His Theory Y assumptions are that workers Can enjoy their work under favorable conditions and can provide valued input to the decision-making process. Rather than develop needless mechanisms of control in the organization, McGregor felt that managers should emphasize coordination of activities by providing assistance to workers when problems are identified. Chris Argyris Chris Argyris (1923 ) also expanded on the work of the Hawthorne experiment by challenging the basic assumptions of the classical school concerning worker motivation and satisfaction. Argyris argued that an overemphasis on control by managers encouraged workers to become passive and dependent and to shirk responsibility. As a result, workers will become frustrated and dissatisfied with the workplace and will either quit their jobs or engage in behaviors that hamper the achievement of organizational goals. Many of his ideas were developed from the belief that as people mature, they develop new attitudes and behaviors that affect their life-styles. Some of these attitudes and behaviors are a movement toward independence, a broadening of interests, greater diversity in activities, and a desire to assume more control over their lives. Organizations that emphasize control are, in actuality, treating individuals

as if they were immature. Abraham Maslow Abraham Maslow (1908-1970) is most noted for suggesting a theory that humans are motivated by needs that exist in a hierarchy. At the bottom of the hierarchy are the physiological needs for food and shelter. Once these basic needs are satisfied, humans are then motivated to satisfy higher-level needs for safety, love, esteem, and self-actualization.' In Maslow's theory, a person moves up the ladder of needs as each level is satisfied. Evaluation of the Behavioral School Contributors to the behavioral school advanced our understanding of management by emphasizing the importance of the individual within the organization an element essentially ignored by writers of the classical school. That is, social needs of individuals, group processes, and subordinate-superior relationships were all identified as integral components in the practice of management. No longer could managers confine their attention to technical skills. Rather, they had to use people skills as well and develop an understanding of the relationship between the technical and human sides of management. However, the behavioral school did not completely resolve issues concerning the nature of human motivation. Later studies were to dispute the belief that worker satisfaction was the prime cause of productivity. Under certain conditions, satisfaction was found to play an inconsequential role. In addition, though money may not be the primary motivator, salaries do at times affect worker productivity, particularly in industries where salaries are low, causing high rates of absenteeism and turnover. Much like classical theory, behavioral theory also assumed that the external environment of the organization was static. Thus, the psychological and social dimensions of the individual only partially explain organizational outcomes and constitute only a part of the larger and more complex managerial picture

Organizational behavior (OB) research has contributed much of what we know about behavioral views of management, human resources management, motivation, leadership, trust, teamwork, and conflict management.

Early Advocates:
Four people stand out as early advocates of the OB approach. These include Robert Owen, Hugo Munsterberg, Mary Parker Follett, and Chester Barnard. 1. Robert Owen, a successful Scottish businessman, proposed a utopian workplace. 2. Hugo Munsterberg created the field of industrial psychologythe scientific study of individuals at work to maximize their productivity and adjustment.

3. Mary Parker Follett was a social philosopher who thought the managers job was to harmonize and coordinate group efforts. 4. Chester Barnard, president of New Jersey Bell Telephone Company, saw organizations as social systems that required human cooperation. a. He believed that managers major roles were to communicate and stimulate subordinates to high levels of effort. b. He also introduced the idea that managers have to examine the environment and then adjust the organization to maintain a state of equilibrium.

Hugo Munsterbeg (1863-1916)

is considered to be the father of industrial psychology and is regarded by students of psychology as an important figure as Frederick Taylor is by students of management. Munsterberg attempted to develop practical applications of psychology. He argued that psychologists could help industry in three major areas: a. Finding ways to identify individuals best suited to particular jobs. b. Identifying the psychological conditions for optimum efficiency. c. Finding ways to influence individual behavior to be congruent with managements objectives

Mary Parker Follett

(1868-1933) brought to management the perspectives of political science and social work. She identified: a. The importance of the functioning of groups, not just individuals, in organization. b. The principle of power with rather than Power over in managementemployee relations. c. Conflict resolution through integration, i.e., finding a solution to a conflict that would satisfy both parties. d. The achievement of integrative unity, whereby the organization operates as a functional whole, with the various interrelated parts working together effectively to achieve organizational goals.

The Hawthorne Studies

Without question, the most important contribution to the developing Organization Behavior field came out of the Hawthorne Studies, a series of studies conducted at the Western Electric Company Works in Cicero, Illinois. These studies, started in 1924 and continued through the early 1930s, were initially designed by Western Electric industrial engineers as a scientific management experiment. They wanted to examine the effect of various illumination levels on worker productivity. Control and experimental groups were set up with the experimental group being exposed to various lighting intensities, and the control group working under a constant intensity. If you were one of the industrial engineers in charge of this experiment, what would you have expected to happen? That individual output in the experimental group would be directly related to the intensity of the light? Seems perfectly logical,

doesnt it? However, they found that as the level of light was increased in the experimental group, output for both groups increased. Then, much to the surprise of the engineers, as the light level was decreased the productivity decrease was observed in the experimental group only when the level of light was reduced to that of a moonlit night. What would explain these un-excluded that illumination intensity was not directly related to group productivity, and that something else must have contributed to the results. However, they werent able to pinpoint what that something else was. In 1927, the Western electric engineers asked Harvard professor Elton Mayo and his associates to join the study as consultants. Thus began a relationship that would last through 1932 and encompass numerous experiments in the redesign of jobs, changes in workday and workweek length, introduction of rest periods, and individual versus group wage plans.9 For example, one experiment was designed to evaluate the effect of a group piecework incentive pay system on group productivity. Hawthorne studies reflected the scientific management tradition of seeking greater efficiency by improving the tools and methods of workin this case, lighting. 1. In the first set of studies, no correlation was found between changes in lighting conditions and individual work performance. In fact, performance nearly always went up with any change brighter or darkerin illumination. 2. In the second set of studies, the concept of the Hawthorne effect emerged. The Hawthorne effect refers to the possibility that individuals singled out for a study may improve their performance simply because of the added attention they receive from the researchers, rather than because of any specific factors being tested in the study. 3. The third set of studies centered on group production norms and individual motivation. 4. Although simplistic and methodologically primitive, the Hawthorne studies established the impact that social aspects of the job (and the informal group) have on productivity.

5.Human Relations Movement:

This movement was an attempt to equip managers with the social skills they need. Abraham Maslow (1908-1970) developed a theory of motivation that was based on three assumptions about human nature. a. Human beings have needs that are never completely satisfied. b. Human behavior is aimed at satisfying the needs that are yet unsatisfied at a given point in time. c. Needs fit into a somewhat predictable hierarchy ranging from basic, lower-level needs to higher-level needs:

1) Physiological (lowest) 2) Safety 3) Belongingness or social 4) Esteem 5) Self-actualization (highest and NOT achieved by everyone)

Douglas McGregor (1906-1964)

developed the Theory X and Theory Y dichotomy about the assumptions managers make about workers and how these assumptions affect behavior. a. Theory X managers tend to assume that workers are lazy, need to be coerced, have little ambition, and are focused on security needs. These managers then treat their subordinates as if these assumptions were true. b. Theory Y managers tend to assume that workers do not inherently dislike work, are capable of self-control, have the capacity to be creative and innovative, and generally have higher-level needs that are often not met on the job. These managers then treat their subordinates as if these assumptions were true. c. Workers, like all of us, tend to work up or down to expectations.

The Behavioral Science Approach:

It emphasizes scientific research as the basis for developing theories about human behavior in organizations that can be used to develop practical guidelines for managers. 1. The emphasis is upon developing useful tools for managers. Unlike Scientific Management from the Classical Era, the findings in behavioral studies are often somewhat difficult to find with mathematical certainty. That does not mean however, that the scientific approach should not be attempted nor that the findings of such an approach are any less useful. 2. An example is the idea of improving performance by setting goals the individual finds to be attainable yet not too easy.

Contributions of the behavioral viewpoint:

1. Spotlight the managerial importance of such factors as communication, group dynamics, motivation, and leaders. 2. Articulates practical applications of behavioral studies.

3. Draws on the findings of a number of disciplines such as management, psychology, sociology, anthropology, and economics. 4. Highlights the importance of an organizations members as active human resources rather than passive tools.