9 Evolution of Organisational behaviour-II

Dr. Harpreet Singh Chahal

1. Learning outcome

2. Introduction

3. Human Relations Movement

4. Behavioural science approach

5. Summary

1. Learning Outcome:

After completing this module the students will be able to:
Describe the Human relations approach of Management
Contribution of Hawthorne experiments in Human relations approach. Discuss Behavioural science approach of management

2. Introduction

In the previous module, we have discussed classical approach of organisation. Now, we will discuss behavioural approach of organisational behaviour. This approach was developed gradually over many years. It is based on the conviction that organisational efficiency depends upon managers’s ability to understand work as well as people having varied backgrounds, needs, values, perception and personality. Therefore, human factor is central to this approach. This approach can be understood in two phases:

Human relations movement

Behavioural science approach

3. Human Relations Movement

The findings of earlier writers, particularly of scientific management, focused more on the relevance of mechanical and physiological variables in increasing organisational effectiveness. Surprisingly, it was found that favourable aspects of these variables could not generate favourable human behaviour at work. Hence, researchers began to investigate the causes of human behaviour at work. Hence, failure of scientific management resulted into the origin of human relations movement which focuses heavily on employee morale and cooperation. This approach considers employees as human beings not and not as machines. It suggested that needs and problems of employees should be taken care of and they should be involved in the organisational decision making. The essence of human relations approach is contained in two points: (i) organisational situation should be viewed in social as well as technical terms. (ii) social process of group behaviour can be understood in terms of clinical method which is similar to doctor’s diagnosis of human organs. Elton Mayo, Mary Parker Follet and Douglas McGregor were the main contributors of this movement.

Three main contributing factors to this approach were Great Depression, labour movement and the Hawthorne studies. In 1929, due to crash of exchange America faced the phase of Great Depression. The consequences of Great depression were unemployment, decline of purchase power, collapse of markets and declining standards of living of people. This phenomenon was not confined to America only but, was spread worldwide. Besides these negative effects, one positive outcome of great depression was that the management started to realise that production alone cannot be the major function of organisation. Marketing, finance and human resources are also equally important for an organisation to survive and grow. At that time, personnel departments were either created or received more emphasis. Therefore, Human relations emerged as direct or indirect impact of great depression. But, very soon it was realised that creating or strengthening more personnel departments is not sufficient enough to improve the plight of workers because the organisational objective of producing more still involved the employees in the process of production. Genuine working hours, fair wages and adequate working conditions were sacrificed more for production. Therefore, exploitation of labour continued. This made the workers believe that nobody else than themselves can protect them. They formed strong unions. The phenomenon of unionisation affected the management. Management began to give due importance to the employee relations, wages, hours of work and conditions of employment.

3.1 Hawthorne Studies

Though the phase of depression and the labour unions contributed to the development of human relations directly and indirectly, the Hawthorne Studies provided a concrete base to this approach. The studies were carried out by Elton Mayo, a professor of industrial relations at Harward School of business administration. The studies were conducted at Western Electric Company’s Hawthorne works in a suburb of Chicago. Elton Mayo is also called the father of human relations movement.

Hawthorne experiments were carried over a period of 8 years from 1924-1932. The experiment was started to establish a relationship between productivity and physical working conditions but at later stages the study found that workers’ behaviour and sentiments were closely related and a person’s behaviour was significantly affected by the group influences. Hawthorne studies consisted of four experiments as explained below:

The first major experiment was Illumination Experiment (1924-1927). The purpose of this experiment was to study the effect of different levels of lighting on productivity. The experiment included two groups: control group and experimental group. Control group was not exposed to any variation in light whereas experimental group experienced changes in lighting level. Results of the experiment were shocking. As lighting was increased for experimental group, productivity of the group also increased but, when lighting was subsequently reduced, the productivity still increased more. On the other hand, lighting for the control was not increased but still their productivity increased. Eventually it was concluded that lighting did not have any effect on the productivity of employees but there was something else which was responsible for the same. At that time it was realised that human factor was important in determining productivity of the employees.

Relay assembly test room experiments (1927-1928): This experiment was designed to determine the effect of changes in various job conditions on the productivity of the group as a whole. For this purpose a relay assembly room was set up and two girls were chosen. These two girls were asked to choose four more girls as their co-workers. Output of the group was based on speed and continuity of the group members. Experiment started with introducing various changes in the sequences with duration ranging from four to twelve weeks. An observer was also associated to supervise the performance of the girls. Before introducing any change, girls were consulted and were asked to express their views and concern to the supervisors. Following changes were introduced:

o The incentive system was changed so that each girl’s extra pay could be calculated on the basis of other group members. The productivity was increased as compared to earlier.

o Two rest breaks of five minutes were introduced, one in the morning and one in the evening session. The duration of the breaks was then increased to 10 minutes each.

o Rest period was reduced back to 5 minutes but the frequency of rest breaks was increased. The productivity increased slightly. However girls reported that frequent breaks hamper the rhythm of their work.

o The number of rest breaks was reduced to two of 10 minutes each. In the morning a cup of coffee or soup was served with sandwich but in the evening snack was provided. The productivity still increased.

o Changes in the work hours and workdays were introduced. The girls were allowed to leave the factory at 4.30 pm. The productivity increased.

With each change productivity increased. Later researchers decided to revert back to original position, that is no rest break, no other benefits. It was very surprising that productivity still increased. This led the researchers to think on the lines that productivity of the girls did not change because of any change in the physical factors but the attitude of the girls found to be changed towards the work and the co-workers. A sense of stability and belongingness was developed between the girls and the supervisor which further resulted into self discipline. The relationship between the workers and the management got closer and friendlier than before.

Mass interviewing programme (19228-1930): During the experiments, about 20000 interviews workers were interviewed to evaluate attitude of employees towards company and the other terms and conditions of working. Initially, the interviews were conducted by asking direct questions to the workers such as “Do you like your supervisor?” or “is your supervisor fair or does he has any favourite?”, but this method of interviewing could not study root of the problem. Therefore, the non directive method was adopted at later stage. Now interviewer was supposed to listen to the employees instead of talking and arguing. This interview programme revealed many facts about human behaviour in an organisation. It was found that human behaviour was more influenced by the group behaviour. However, this conclusion was note very satisfactory and therefore, another series of experiment was conducted to study the behaviour of employees in small groups.

Bank wiring observation room experiments (1931-1932): these experiments were conducted for the purpose of analysing the behaviour of individuals in the small groups. In a bank wiring room a group of 14 male workers was employed. Among these 14 workers, 9 were wiremen, three solder men and two inspectors. Bonus of the workers was to be based on average output of the group. It was found that output of the group was decreased. Workers decided the targets for themselves and these targets were lower than the output set by the company. On asking the reason for the same, the workers gave the following reasons:

o Fear of unemployment: the basic reason behind the reduced production was fear of unemployment. The workers thought that if the production per head would go up. Some of the average workers would get unemployed then.

o Fear of raising the standards: workers were of the opinion that if they would reach the standard rate of production, management would raise the targets for them forever.

o Protection of slower workers: workers were having friendly relationships with each other on the job as well as off the job. Therefore, faster workers attempted to protect slower workers by restricting the production.

o Satisfaction on the part of management: workers believed that the lower rate of production was acceptable to the management as no one was fired or reprimanded for restricted output.

The study suggested that workers set certain norms of behaviour for each other. Those workers whose behaviour confirms with both output norms and social norms are preferred by the management. It was concluded that informal relations are important factors in determining the human behaviour.

3.1.1 Findings of Hawthorne Experiments

The major findings of the experiments are as follows:

1. Social Factors in Output: An organisation is basically influenced by social factors. In fact, Elton Mayo has described an organisation as “a social system, a system of cliques, informal status system, rituals and a mixture of logical and non logical behaviour. Therefore, an organisation is not just a formal structure which is designed for production function but is a system where production norms are set by social norms.

2. Group Influence: Employees being social beings create and join informal groups in the organisations which are different than their official groups. The experiment revealed that such groups are created to overcome the drawbacks of formal groups. Informal groups are very influential in determining the norms and behaviour of the members.

3. Conflict: Though there may be conflicts between the organisations and informal groups due to incompatible objectives of the two, informal groups still help in achieving organisational objectives by overcoming the obstacles created by formal relations in the organisations.

4. Leadership: Leadership is very important in directing and providing instructions to the groups in the organisations. Leadership does not necessarily come from the officially and formally appointed leader by the organisations but, informal leaders may also direct the group. Employees happily accept the superior as their leader if, his style of leadership is in accordance with the human relations approach.

5. Supervision: Supervisory climate is very important in determining efficiency and productivity of the staff. A friendly, supportive, attentive and genuinely concerned supervisor affects the productivity positively.

6. Communication: Open and two way communication between the leader and the workers improve the productivity as well as satisfaction level of the employees.

3.1.2 Assessment of Hawthorne Experiments

Hawthorne experiments opened up a new discussion in the area of management by focusing on the importance of social factors in improving the productivity. However, many behavioural scientists criticised the findings of Hawthorne experiments on following grounds:

Hawthorne researchers did not give sufficient attention to the attitude that people bring with them on workplaces. Besides that effect of many other social factors such as class consciousness, role of the unions and other extra plant forces on attitude of workers was ignored.

Hawthorne studies viewed workers as the means to achieve the end not an end themselves.

Hawthorne plant where the experiment was conducted was itself not a typical plant because it was a thoroughly unpleasant place to work. Hence, the results of Hawthorne studies could not be valid for others.

In spite of the above critics, Hawthorne experiments have been recognised for discovering the importance of human factors in the organisational context.

4. Behavioural Science approach

The Human Relations movement continued and flourished for a long time but unfortunately because of the wide and fast spread of the movement, faddism and shallowness developed. Though the Human relations approach lost its flavour, it continued to be used especially at operating level. In light of certain drawbacks and inadequacies of human relations approach, efforts were made by behavioural scientists to study and analyse human behaviour systematically. ‘Behavioural Science Approach’ defines a systematic and scientific study of human behaviour in order to determine the causes and effects of behaviour of an individual at work. This approach is known as ‘organisational behaviour approach’. This approach is interdisciplinary and is based on other social sciences such as psychology, sociology, anthropology and etc. This approach has a significant impact on modern management theory because it helps in explaining the reasons of employees’ behaviour. Managers considerably started recognising the importance of human resources and endeavoured to analyse the role of people in complex and competitive business situations. This realisation actually came from the evolution of ‘Organisational Behaviour’. The approach is based on the following assumptions:

Socio technical system: advocates of the behavioural science theory strongly believe that organisations are socio-technical systems consisting individuals and interpersonal relations on one hand and techniques and methods used to perform the tasks on the other hand.

Integration of individual and organisational goals: this approach is of the view that individual goals should be integrated with the organisational goals in order to avoid conflict.

Conflict and cooperation: as per this approach, conflict and cooperation co-exist. Conflicts are important and desirable in the organisations. This is because employees of different interests, backgrounds, perceptions and personalities work in the organisations and conflicts are bound to happen in such a diverse community. It is desirable for the managers to operate carefully and cautiously and efficiently in the conflicting situations.

Individual differences: behavioural scientists recognise the individual differences in terms of their personality, goals, beliefs, values and perceptions.

People are the key to productivity: the behavioural approach assumes that technology, work standards and other physical factors of production can never guarantee the higher performance but, human beings can be considered as the key to productivity.

5. Summary

In this module, we have discussed behavioural approach of organisational behaviour. This approach was developed gradually over many years. It is based on the conviction that organisational efficiency depends upon managers’s ability to understand work as well as people having varied backgrounds, needs, values, perception and personality. Therefore, human factor is central to this approach. This approach can be understood in two phases viz. Human relations movement and Behavioural science approach.

Human Relations Movement: The findings of earlier writers, particularly of scientific management, focused more on the relevance of mechanical and physiological variables in increasing organisational effectiveness. Hence, failure of scientific management resulted into the origin of human relations movement which focuses heavily on employee morale and cooperation. This approach considers employees as human beings not and not as machines. It suggested that needs and problems of employees should be taken care of and they should be involved in the organisational decision making. The essence of human relations approach is contained in two points: (i) organisational situation should be viewed in social as well as technical terms. (ii) social process of group behaviour can be understood in terms of clinical method which is similar to doctor’s diagnosis of human organs. Elton Mayo, Mary Parker Follet and Douglas McGregor were the main contributors of this movement.

Behavioural Science approach: The Human Relations movement continued and flourished for a long time but unfortunately because of the wide and fast spread of the movement, faddism and shallowness developed. In light of certain drawbacks and inadequacies of human relations approach, efforts were made by behavioural scientists to study and analyse human behaviour systematically. ‘Behavioural Science Approach’ defines a systematic and scientific study of human behaviour in order to determine the causes and effects of behaviour of an individual at work. This approach is known as ‘organisational behaviour approach’. This approach has a significant impact on modern management theory because it helps in explaining the reasons of employees’ behaviour. Managers considerably started recognising the importance of human resources and endeavoured to analyse the role of people in complex and competitive business situations. This realisation actually came from the evolution of ‘Organisational Behaviour’.

Learn More:

1. Stephen Robins (2012). Organizational Behavior. New Delhi-110092: Prentice Hall publications.

2. Aswathappa, K. (2003). Organisational Behaviour. Himalaya Publishing House.

3. Nair, S. R. (2010). Organisational Behaviour (text & Cases). Himalaya Publishing House.

4. Prasad, L. M. (2014). Organizational Behaviour. Sultan Chand & Sons.

5. Greenberg, J. (2003). Organizational Behavior: The State of the Science. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

6. Miner, J. B. (2002). Organizational Behavior: Foundations, Theories, and Analyses. Oxford University Press.

7. Pareek, U. (2014), Understanding Organisational Behaviour, Oxford University Press (Revised and Updated by Sushama Khanna)

8. http://www.bput.ac.in/lecture_notes/ob.pdf

9. Ivancevich, J.M., Konopaske, R. and Matteson, M. (2012), Organisational Behaviour and Management, Mc Graw Hill.

10. Moshal, B.S. (2015), Organisational Behaviour, Anne Books.

11. Prasad, L.M. (2007), Principles and Practice of Management, Sultan Chand & Sons