Chester Barnard recognized that individuals behave differently when acting in their organizational role than when acting separately from the organization.[3] Organizational behavior researchers study the behavior of individuals primarily in their organizational roles. One of the main goals of organizational behavior research is "to revitalize organizational theory and develop a better conceptualization of organizational life".[4]
Mary Jo Hatch Organization Theory Ebook 16
Herbert Simon's Administrative Behavior introduced a number of important OB concepts, most notably decision-making. Simon, along with Chester Barnard, argued that people make decisions differently inside an organization when compared to their decisions outside of an organization. While classical economic theories assume that people are rational decision-makers, Simon argued a contrary point. He argued that cognition is limited because of bounded rationality For example, decision-makers often employ satisficing, the process of utilizing the first marginally acceptable solution rather than the most optimal solution.[16] Simon was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics for his work on organizational decision-making.[17] In the 1960s and 1970s, the field started to become more quantitative and resource dependent. This gave rise to contingency theory, institutional theory, and organizational ecology.[18] Starting in the 1980s, cultural explanations of organizations and organizational change became areas of study, in concert with fields such as anthropology, psychology and sociology.
There have been additional developments in OB research and practice. Anthropology has become increasingly influential, and led to the idea that one can understand firms as communities, by introducing concepts such as organizational culture, organizational rituals, and symbolic acts.[1] Leadership studies have also become part of OB, although a single unifying theory remains elusive.[citation needed][19] OB researchers have shown increased interest in ethics and its importance in an organization.[citation needed] Some OB researchers have become interested in the aesthetic sphere of organizations.[20]
Contingency theory indicates that good leadership depends on characteristics of the leader and the situation.[37] The Ohio State Leadership Studies identified dimensions of leadership known as consideration (showing concern and respect for subordinates) and initiating structure (assigning tasks and setting performance goals).[38][39] LMX theory focuses on exchange relationships between individual supervisor-subordinate pairs.[40] Path-goal theory is a contingency theory linking appropriate leader style to organizational conditions and subordinate personality.[41] Transformational leadership theory concerns the behaviors leaders engage in that inspire high levels of motivation and performance in followers. The idea of charismatic leadership is part of transformational leadership theory.[42] In behavioural modification, the leader's reward power (ability to give or withhold reward and punishment) is the focus and the importance of giving contingent (vs non-contingent) rewards is emphasized.
Retaining talented and successful employees is a key factor for a company to maintain a competitive advantage. An environment where people can use their talent effectively can help motivate even the most smart, hard-working, difficult individuals. Building great people relies on engagement through motivation and behavioral practices (O'Reilly, C., and Pfeffer, J., 2000).[44] Baron and Greenberg (2008)[45] wrote that motivation involves "the set of processes that arouse, direct, and maintain human behavior toward attaining some goal." There are several different theories of motivation relevant to OB, including equity theory,[46] expectancy theory,[47] Maslow's hierarchy of needs,[48] incentive theory, organizational justice theory,[49] Herzberg's two-factor theory,[50] and Theory X and Theory Y.[51]
National culture is thought to affect the behavior of individuals in organizations. This idea is exemplified by Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory. Hofstede surveyed a large number of cultures and identified six dimensions of national cultures that influence the behavior of individuals in organizations.[52] These dimensions include power distance, individualism vs. collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity vs. femininity, long-term orientation vs. short term orientation, and indulgence vs. restraint.
Organization theory is concerned with explaining the workings of an organization as a whole or of many organizations. The focus of organizational theory is to understand the structure and processes of organizations and how organizations interact with each other and the larger society.[citation needed]
Theories pertaining to organizational structures and dynamics include complexity theory, French and Raven's five bases of power,[61] hybrid organization theory, informal organizational theory, resource dependence theory, and Mintzberg's organigraph.
The systems framework is also fundamental to organizational theory. Organizations are complex, goal-oriented entities.[62] Alexander Bogdanov, an early thinker in the field, developed his tectology, a theory widely considered a precursor of Bertalanffy's general systems theory. One of the aims of general systems theory was to model human organizations. Kurt Lewin, a social psychologist, was influential in developing a systems perspective with regard to organizations. He coined the term "systems of ideology," partly based on his frustration with behaviorist psychology, which he believed to be an obstacle to sustainable work in psychology.[63] Niklas Luhmann, a sociologist, developed a sociological systems theory.
Organizational ecology models apply concepts from evolutionary theory to the study of populations of organisations, focusing on birth (founding), growth and change, and death (firm mortality). In this view, organizations are 'selected' based on their fit with their operating environment. 2ff7e9595c
Comments