The Behavioral Approach to Management - Case Study Example

BEHAVIORAL APPROACH TO MANAGEMENT By of the Presented to of the Submission Table of Contents 1.0Introduction 3 2.0Behavioral Approach 4 6.0Bibliography 12 1.0 Introduction An organization consists of people with different cultures, set of values, and experiences, among others that define individuality. This was not addressed until the Industrial Revolution that took place between the 18th and 19th century. As profit was the focal point, members were regarded as mere components assigned for a specific purpose and programmed to follow an outlined course of actions. Several experiments on ways to improve performances of organizations in terms of synchronization and productivity were conducted, and consequently paved the way for several approaches to management. The behavioral approach to management is a turning point to organizational relations. Modifications in the way managers deal with subordinates are given emphasis. As proposed by Maxwell, successful business is not all about efficient management of resources or development of work skills in response to the growing demands of the industry. Its core foundation is good relationship and thus cultivated by trust and respect from people – customers, employees, and partners, among others (2004). Growth will be next to impossible if concentration is entirely drawn to the inanimate factors. In his work “Top Performance”, Zig Ziglar points out that “you won’t be an effective leader or manager unless you gain the willing cooperation of others. Cooperation is not getting others to do what you want, but getting others to want to do what you want. The aforementioned principle, however, may not apply to all forms of organizations. Although it proves beneficial that the personal needs of the members are given due consideration, there are instances in which it will do more harm than good. Military organizations, as we all know, implement procedures that are significantly distinct from those privately established. They strictly follow a hierarchy of command, and respect to authority is of utmost weight—a culture that has prevailed over the centuries. Men in the military receive the same standard privileges as other employees do—wages, leaves, medical coverage, etc. Their function, nevertheless, is not called a profession but accountability. For this reason, the proposal to incorporate behavioral approach to military organizations may not be feasible. 2.0 Behavioral Approach “The behavioral approach to management has 2 branches: the human relations approach and the behavioral science approach” (Bromiley 2005). In the first approach, managers understand the underlying reasons behind the behavior of their subordinates along with the “psychological and social factors that influence them” (Bromiley 2005). Advocates of this approach attempt to demonstrate how the process and functions of management are affected by differences in individual behavior and the impact of groups in the work environment. The second approach to management use motivation, leadership, communication, group dynamics, and participative management to achieve organizational goals (Clark 2009). This approach helps secure better employee performance and the willing pursuit of organizational goals. The human relations approach to management was introduced in the 1930s in response to the mechanistic view of organizations and the pessimistic position of human nature suggested by the classical approach (Cooke n.d.). The classical approach meant that people were perceived as machines and efficiency was the sole criteria for success (Walker 2002). On the contrary, human relations approach suggests that people are emotional rather than economic rational beings; that, organizations are cooperative social systems, and are composed of informal structures, rules, and norms as wells as formal practices and procedures (Cooke n.d.) Organizations that are designed and operated as though they were machines are now typically called bureaucracies (Morgan 2006). Most organizations, however, are bureaucratized in some degree, because the mechanistic mode of thought has shaped our most basic perception of what organization is all about (Morgan 2006). In human relations approach, the economic man was gradually replaced by a more sociable employee in the managers’ minds (Daft, Kendrick & Vershinina 2008). Noneconomic rewards, such as congenial work groups that met social needs, seemed more important than money as a motivator of work behavior. In the United States for instance, labor unions are encouraged in order that employees have a representation to managerial decisions that directly impact employment standards. In addition, team buildings and events participation are promoted to give employees opportunities to interact with one another. For the first time, workers were studied as people, and the concept of social man was born (Daft, Kendrick & Vershinina 2008). The Hawthorne Studies of the Western Electric Company during the 1920s and 1930s applied the principles of psychology, social psychology, and sociology to the understanding of organizational behavior (Clemen-Stone, Mcguire & Eigsti 2002). The researchers of this study began by investigating the relationship between physical conditions of work and employee productivity. The outgrowth of the Hawthorne study was the concept of human relations or the study of human behavior for the purposes of attaining higher production levels and personal satisfaction. The human relations concept has expanded into the behavioral science approach to management. A trend toward emphasizing employee satisfaction to increase production on the job is still visible. Employee motivation, the workplace as a social system, leadership within the organization, communication within the system, and personal and professional employee development are major areas of concern to managers who use behavioral science method and principles (Clemen-Stone, Mcguire & Eigsti 2002). Like the other approaches to management, the behavioral approach has evolved gradually over many years. Advocates of the behavioral approach to management point out that people deserve to be the central focus of organized activity (Bromiley 2005). They believe that successful management depends largely on a manager’s ability to understand and work with people who have a variety of backgrounds, needs, perceptions, and aspirations. The progress of this humanistic approach from the human relations movement to modern organizational behavior has greatly influenced management theory and practice (Bromiley 2005). 3.0 Three Types of Organization 3.1. Coercive Organizations Coercive organizations are characterized by membership that is largely involuntary (Andersen & Taylor 2008). The individual is essentially captive for physical or economic reasons and must, therefore, obey whatever rules are imposed by the authorities (Etzioni 1975). Examples include prisons, military academies and units, mental hospitals, religious training organizations, prisoner of war camps, cults, and so on. The cultures that evolve in such organizations usually generate strong counter-cultures among the participants as defences against the arbitrary authority (Etzioni 1975). Authority in the coercive kind of organization is arbitrary and absolute (Schein 2010), and therefore has no room for behavioral approach to management. Coercive organizations are described as total institutions. A total institution is an organization cut off from the rest of society where individuals who reside there are subject to strict social control (Andersen & Taylor 2008). Total institutions include two populations: the inmates and the staff. Within total institutions, the staff exercises complete power over inmates (Andersen & Taylor 2008). Nurses have power over mental patients in the same way that guards have power over prisoners. The staff administers all the affairs of everyday life, including basic human functions such as eating and sleeping (Andersen & Taylor 2008). Rigid routines are characteristic of total institutions. 3.2 Utilitarian Organizations Utilitarian organizations are large organizations, either for profit or nonprofit, that are joined by individuals for specific purposes (Andersen & Taylor 2008). Utilitarian organizations draw people seeking material gain in the form of pay, health benefits, or a new status as conferred through a college degree, certification or voluntarily undergoing some treatment (Ferante, 2008). General Motors, Procter & Gamble, and Microsoft qualify as utilitarian organizations as does any organization that employs people. The individual provides “a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay” and therefore, abides by whatever rules are essential for the performance of the organization (Etzioni 1975). As has been found in most such organizations, they also develop countercultural norms so that employees can protect themselves from exploitation by the authorities (Etzioni 1975). In the utilitarian system, the typical business, authority is a negotiated relationship in the sense that the employee is presumed to accept the method by which people in the higher ranks have achieved their status (Schein 2010). 3.3 Normative Organizations A normative organization is one that people join in order to pursue goals that they consider personally worthwhile. They obtain personal satisfaction but no monetary reward for being in such an organization. In many instances, the person joins the normative organization for the social prestige that it offers. Many are service and charitable organizations. Such organizations are often called voluntary organizations (Andersen & Taylor 2008); examples include churches, political parties, voluntary organizations, hospitals, and schools (Etzioni 1975). The individual contributes his or her commitment and accepts legitimate authority because the goals of the organization are basically the same as the individual’s goals. In the normative system, authority is more informal and more subject to personal consent in that the employee or member can exit if he or she is not satisfied with the treatment received (Schein 2010). 4.0 Military Organizations An organization is a social system that develops an internal imperative to survive as soon as members develop an attachment to it (Selznick 1949). Gal argued that commitment is a central concept in military motivation in contrast to the military’s emphasis on compliance through obedience (1987). The will to fight (a primary function of the members of the military organization) may be lacking without commitment. The commitment to the point of death creates the unlimited liability clause of the members of the military (Gal 1987). Arthur T. Hadley, a journalist with extensive military experience, has remarked how a military service, especially in wartime, gives to its members a distinctive way of looking at new tasks (Wilson, 1989). An army officer learns to be part of an organization that can do nothing without extensive coordination of human efforts. The smallest self-contained fighting unit is a division consisting of thousands of personnel performing a myriad of specialized tasks. Tanks, artillery, infantry, anti-aircraft, signals, engineering, and intelligence must operate on the basis of a common plan. But even this unit can only survive if it moves in concert with other regiments and divisions. The army experience produces people who can accept, more easily than representatives of other services, the coordinating tasks that are the reason for existence of joint military commands and staffs (Wilson, 1989). The degree of cohesion is high. Armed forces may be strictly subordinated to their leader. A military body may be closely knit, tightly organized, or it may constitute an amorphous multitude of warriors, independent of each other, hardly maintaining any contact (Stanislav 1971). The proposition that unitary command is advantageous in war is so evident, and proves that coordination of efforts is achieved only on the basis of subordination and unitary command. Everybody knows that armies always have commanders that are more authoritarian than civilian organizations. Groups which have to cope with emergencies are more monocratically organized; and war is on the whole an emergency in which coordination of actions of great number is more than ever imperative. The more frequent and serious the warfare in which the armed forces are engaged, the more disciplined they are likely to be (Stanislav 1971). Military organization is about hierarchy, strict discipline, and a command and control mode of management. This is often associated with traditional bureaucratic organizations and is compared to more fluid forms of organizing (Mutch 2008). The behavioral approach to management, owing to the nature of military functions, may only prove detrimental to their cause. As a matter of fact, recruitment of men is associated with a number of physical, mental, and psychological examinations for the purpose of confirming the reason for joining; and it has to be service to the country, else to abide by the rigid military system may seem like an encumbrance. 5.0 Conclusion The behavioral approach to management stresses the importance of people in an organization; that, as front liners in the attainment of specific goals, their personal needs should be appropriately regarded. Some organizations may operate for profit, while the rest justify their existence with synchronized ideals among participants. Motivations are not solely defined by monetary benefits, but rather by affiliations, esteem, and sense of duty. Authority, on the other hand, is determined by the type of organizations and the choices members are granted with. Many are appreciative of the impacts of behavioral approach. Managers learned to act not just as decision-makers but leaders that members look up to. Renowned author Stephen Covey suggests that there are four ingredients to a good leader: inspire trust, clarify purpose, align system, and unleashed talent. (Covey 2007), He expounds that fine leadership is a product of combined character and competence demonstrated towards the benefit of not just the organization but also the people; that, an open communication is a conduit to an objective best identified (Covey 2007). Trust is the foundation of every relationship (Matthews 1990) ; and should a leader be merited trust for the display of outstanding qualities, it is equally imperative that he extend the same to his subordinates and believe in what they can contribute to the pursuit of their goal (Covey 2007). Military organizations have leaders from whom unbending orders are received. Personal necessities are left behind in response to the convoluted demands of their work. Their means of satisfaction is not monetary, and human relations are almost regulated. Military leaders, of course, are inclined to demonstrate the qualities as stated by Covey, yet are subject to standard operating procedures, and should be adhering to the call of the situation. If the behavioral approach to management is to be employed, tendencies are conflict to the flow of command or disruption to strategic formation. 6.0 Bibliography Andersen, ML & Taylor, HF 2008, Sociology: Understanding a diverse society, 4th edition, Thomson Wadsworth, California. Bromiley, P 2005, The behavioral foundation of strategic management, Blackwell Publishing, Massachusettes. Clark, C 2009, Creative nursing leadership and management, Jones and Bartlett Publishers International, London. Clemen-Stone, S, Mcguire, S & Eigsti, M 2002, Comprehensive community health nursing: Family, aggregate, and community practice, 6th edition. Mosby, Inc., Missouri. Cooke, F n.d., Human relations approach, Retrieved April 07, 2011, from Blackwell Reference Online: http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9780631233176_chunk_g978140511697811_ss1-16. Covey, S R 2007, The Leader formula: The four things that make a good leader, Retrieved September 06, 2009 online at http://www.stephencovey.com/blog/?p=6. Daft, R, Kendrick, M & Vershinina, N 2008, Management, international edition, Cengage Learning EMEA, Hampshire. Etzioni, A 1975, A comparative analysis of complex organizations: On power, involvement, and their correlates, Free Press, New York. Ferante, J 2008, Sociology: A global perspective, Cengage Learning, California. Maxwell, J C 2004, Winning with people. Discover the people principles that work for you every time, Maxwell Motivation and JAMAX Realty Morgan, G 2006, Images of organization, Sage Publications Ltd., London. Mutch, A. 2008, Managing information and knowledge in organizations: A literacy approach, Routledge, New York. Schein, E 2010, Organizational culture and leadership, 4th edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., California. Stanislav, A 1971 Military organization and society, University of California Press, New York. Walker, A 2002 Project management in construction, Blackwell Publishing Company, Massachusetts. Wilson, J Q 1989, Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it, Basic Books, Inc., New York. Read More