Explaining Authority Based Behavior - Example

Explaining Authority Based Behavior Managers have the big task of leading other employees in working toward achievement of goals and objectives of an Organization (Axelrod, 1984) However, the immediate question arising and which is to be addressed by this paper is whether the managers act in the interest of the Organization or behave the way they do for other reasons. This paper is going to argue that managers though expected to act in the interest of the Organization, behave the way they do because of many underlying factors hence they may not necessarily always act in the best interest of the Organization. For instance, given that managers are human beings, it is natural that their interests may conflict with those of the common good hence causing them to act contrary to the general expectation. Conflict of interest, cultural values and behavioral ethics among other internal and external environmental factors will influence managers’ behavior (Simon, 1995). In circumstances where individual interests clash with those of the Organization, it calls for specific personal qualities such as a strong ethical standing, and personal commitment to Organizational values and culture for the manager to reconcile themselves to reality and change course of decision/action or otherwise (Bazerman, 1986). Perhaps this is the drawing line between a “leader” and a “manager”. The typical manager will in such circumstances impose decisions to the workers below him because after all, he is the boss and therefore the others should do as they say. But the leader will listen to others’ opinion and try to find a common ground of reasoning (Bazerman, 1994). This goes along way in explaining who can be a transformational leader because it comprises of necessities for managerial competencies and skills that are important for a leader to be able to recognize humanity and effectively coordinate individual behavior in a specified direction for a common purpose achievement (Coleman, 1990). But human behavior is not the same. This is the common starting point. Just how human behavior can be directed to act and work in harmony or the failure of it determines if the manager will act in the interest of the Organization or not (Abercrombie, 1960). This may also be referred to as Organizational behavior management since it involves the prediction, understanding and control of individual/group behavior. For managers to act in a particular manner, their behavior must have been triggered by some need or force (Cyert, 1963). This driving force/need may not always be the Organization’s interest. The driving force may be as a result of the perception of the manager in question and the perception may not thus be generalized as collective or representative. Alternatively, the Organizational culture and identity may be the driving force for the managers’ behavior. Having said that, it is also necessary to point out that organizational behavior can be explained through behavioral science approaches i.e. psychology, sociology, and anthropology. All these three approaches aim at the understanding of personality, perception, attitudes and motivation of individuals since these facets are important in shaping individual behavior and consequently group relations in any given society (Coleman, 1990). Researchers have developed various models aimed at investigating individual behavior. Among other factors influencing personality, researchers concern themselves with cultural/social factors, situational factors, genetic factors, and environmental factors. Other than these, researchers also consider types of personality as defined by individual values and beliefs. In this case, authoritarians are those people characterized by strict adherence to conventional values while those who tend to be extremely rigid in their beliefs are said to have “dogmatic” personality. Along this line of inquiry, scientists aim to establish what causes formation of particular personality and therefore establish if one or the other, or neither, would be a positive trait in an Organization (Kahneman, 1973). In the next section, this paper looks at perception in an organization. Scholars and Scientists have argued that managers in Organizations make decisions based on their “perception”. This simply means that the way a manager senses and understands issues, events, and people in their environment determines the way they act or make decisions. It is thus expected that more accurate perceptions should form the basis for decision making. However, it is not uncommon to find most managers experience erroneous perceptions hence make decisions only to find out that the people and events are not what they initially appeared to be (Dawes, 1988). Most managers endeavor to be better than their colleagues hence need to learn to sharpen their perceptual skills if they have to accurately make better decisions. A perception must be based on some form of data. For a manager, this data comprises of people (other employees) within a set up of offices, chairs, desks, machines, files, and reports among other things. In such an environment, managers are bound to see or fail to see some things (Rachlin, 1980). Because of this, managers need to know how to sieve the relevant from irrelevant, real and unreal, and on the basis of this understanding, draw conclusions, deductions, or judgments. At this level, it will be judged whether the manager’s decision will be driven by the interest of the Organization or otherwise (Kahneman, 1984). If a manager’s behavior can be compared with the manufacturing process, then the inputs to his brain will be the massive data/information which is to be spontaneously processed Granovetter, (Mark, 1985). Scientists have postulated that human beings have some subconscious expectations in their mind (i.e. they naturally expect inputs which suit or conform to their personal characteristics). These personal characteristics are made up of the individual’s personality and past experiences in life which were either been punished or rewarded. Put differently, in the managers context, it means that they act based on some “predetermined biases” (Kahneman, 1996). Managers will therefore view and rate other employees as high performers if he (the manager) has a “positive bias” and vice versa. Thus every person ordinarily act based on hypotheses, assumptions and expectations that subconsciously exist in their minds regarding the world around them. If this is so, then it can not be said that a manager will always act in the interest of the Organization because these subconscious assumptions and expectations vary from one individual to the other, meaning that interest are likely to conflict at some point. Furthermore, the subconscious biases do not develop in isolation. Rather, they originate from a set of influences controlling both spontaneous and reflective responses including past experiences and current environmental experience deriving from culture, education, motivation, organizational norms, legal and ethical systems, group values and moral principles (Simon, 1990). The simplicity of perception in explaining a manager’s behavior can be demonstrated by understanding fact that he is likely to select those bits of processed sensory data that he considers useful based on his past experience. This will be the positive side of the selection process. On the other hand, the manager may sieve out what he considers not useful from his past experience hence drop it. What this means therefore is that the manager may “consciously or unconsciously” associate a worker with another worker who the manager previously regarded as incompetent. In so doing, the manager will be acting on the basis of negative subconscious biases as he handles the employee n question. Similarly, the manager may act based on some positive bias if he identifies a secretary for example who he perceives to be similar to his/her (manager) favored daughter/son. This discussion attests to fact that a manager’s past experiences (judgments) forms part of his assumptive world and these go a long way in determining the manager’s performance expectations in the work place although they may have not much to do with the actual performance (Tversky, 1974). A manager’s focus will be narrowed down to what he perceives and believes to be relevant. In such a case, the manager will be said to be using “spotlight perception” or “tunnel vision”. Ordinarily, the manager is expected to utilize “floodlight perception” which allows him to incorporate other diverse aspects in a given situation so that he can be able to make accurate judgment. Infact, it is important that managers integrate both spotlight and floodlight visions if they have to make inclusive and accurate decisions. Hypotheses are bound to change spontaneously and not just once, but many times prior to the manager being sure of what he perceived. Furthermore, the shift may result from inputs (sensory data) that are either ambiguous or repetitive. This implies that where the latest formed hypothesis fails to accurately check against previous experience, the manager will constantly keep trying other hypotheses or on the other hand, become reflective, necessitating more input data (Tversky, 1981). In order for managers to avoid problems which may arise as a result of distorted perceptions, they need to learn to engage conscience and reflection to withhold for reasonably longer times, judgments/decisions so as to allow time for more information (sensory data). By doing so, managers are said to be “taking a functional point of view”. The functional view (reflective effort) enables managers not only to withhold attributive inferences for verification, but also to avoid biased side taking based on subconscious assumptions (Kahneman, 1979). In order for managers to make effective decisions, they have to perceive and also understand other people and the possible causes of the people’s behavior. This is called “attribution” since individual’s behavior is attributed to some particular causes. The causes may be either internal or external to the individual in question and this can only be inferred. Such causes may also be stable or unstable if assessed over a time period in different circumstances (Swedberg, 1990). It is difficult to establish stability of these aspects since people will naturally respond differently in different circumstances. However, the stability may still be inferred from the inherent intentions and motives of particular actions which enable grouping together behavior to common strings at environmental and/or individual levels. Put differently, attributions are also subject to bias. For instance, managers may be driven by strong personal inner needs which may make them preclude some significant traits in an individual, and especially so, where the strong inner need is associated with power achievement (Simon, 1995). This will definitely lead a manager to act/ behave in a biased way which may not be in the interest of the Organization after all. There are scholars who have held and emphasized the individual as unit of analysis perspective in order to recognize common functions and effectiveness criteria. According to Drucker, a manager can been seen as “ the dynamic life giving element in every business…..the only effective advantage an enterprise has in competitive economy” (Drucker, 1955: 13). Such are the views and sentiments shared by the classical writers who tend to portray the manager as a free floating power base. In this regard, Organizations are assumed to be closed systems in which managers use their power and authority direct and control behavior and relationships in a manner that best ensemble their own intentions (Child, 1969: 168). What this implies is that it was assumed through focus on an individual, it would be possible to analyze management “as if it was homogenous”, and this led to the idea of the “universal manager” who could execute some generally outstanding functions (Mintzberg, 1973). The classical view therefore wrongly assumes that the task to manage should be a preserve of a specific group/category of agents who then manage other agents (Hales, 1988: 5). Ordinarily, decision making is a very vital part of leadership. The classical theorists have emphasized the rational choice model in which goals are assumed to be consistent hence what is required is to establish a framework for decision making that would effectively engage skills and techniques that would yield maximum possible result. This approach does not recognize or anticipate potential for inequalities in access to information (J. Child, 1973). However, Researchers acknowledge that rationality is not free from limits and therefore the introduction of the “intended rationality” concept by March and Simon (1958) served to demonstrate recognition of the limiting factors to option accessibility and evaluation. As observed in the Weberian assessment, Organizational specialization and hierarchy frameworks tend to restrict the scope and content of information hence affect the planned agendas for making decisions. These kinds of restricted rationality tend to direct members of the Organization to act within simplified reality structures as opposed to optimal choices (Parker, 2000). Scholars acknowledge fact that Organizational managers are faced with continued uncertainty, deadlines, contradictory pressure and the limited information which they have to adapt. According to Mintzberg, this leads to tendency by managers to incline towards use of speculation, gossip and informal structures because routines will be formed based on predominantly face-to-face interactions, use of information and short durations Scholars who analyze management on the basis of “control relations” tend to generalize that control is some form of “monitoring device” hence the role of the managers will be focused on ensuring all processes work towards planned goals achievement (i.e. controlled performance). As such, these managers are viewed usually as independent actors who perform neutral Organizational functions. However, (Zeitlin, 1974) disagrees with this view, based on evidence regarding the high level management whose social history, motivation and connections on the one hand, coupled with their stakes in Corporations, makes most managers more of the capitalist class. Though not much emphasis may be attached to this observation, Radical theorists believe that the Organization’s structural location and functions play a significant role in explaining the behavior and relationships in the Organization. Some studies have demonstrated that observed effects of managers on Organizational productivity would be small because of three main reasons. The first reason is that since managers are usually elected, it means only certain behavioral styles will be favored and chosen. The second reason is that once managers assume leadership, their discretion and character are limited. The third reason is that managers may only be in position to influence only a fraction of the variables that significantly touch on Organizational production (Swedberg, 1990). The effect of the process of selecting a person to leadership is to limit the range of behaviors that can be displayed by the selected leader and this also limits the empirical mechanism of leadership discovery. Ordinarily, what attraction literature attempts to suggest is that people will tend to like those they consider similar. Thus when critical decisions regarding choice of leaders are to be made, consideration is likely to be given to compatible behavioral forms. On the other hand, an Organization’s internal structure of influence may limit the selection process (Dawes, 1988). According to observation by Zald (1965), the two major factors affecting succession in an Organization are environmental contingencies and political influence. Furthermore, Thompson (1967) also argued that leaders may be chosen primarily to handle different types of contingencies in the Organization. This implies that the stability of the chosen leaders will depend on the extentto which the contingencies and distribution of power remain stable in the Organization. Again, there are cases where individuals would select themselves for certain Organizational roles because of the images attributable to these roles. When this happens, it constrains the selection process by limiting the range of characters and capabilities associated with a particular role in the Organization. The behavior of a leader is hard to change. According to Fiedler (1965), it is easier to alter circumstantial characteristics than the individual. The social system in which a leader is entrenched limits his behavior. By virtue of leadership roles assigned to him, the leader’s behavior is limited by Organization’s outlined restrictions for work alongside the demands of the other people in the role set. In the earlier sections of this paper, it was mentioned that apart from internal factors, external factors affect Organizational behavior. Indeed there are many factors which may affect the performance of the Organization yet they are beyond control of the managers and this holds true regardless of fact that the managers may be having unlimited discretion in the Organizations prime areas of decision making. For instance, an Organization’s costs may be a function of the commodity and labor markets wile its demand would be determined by the government’s micro economic policy to do with interest rates and monetary policy (Granovetter, 1985). The best a manager can do in such situations is to respond to contingencies by prescribing counter measures when they arise. This means that failure encountered in such occurrences can not be attributed to the manager hence recruiting a new manager may not necessarily better position the Organization. Therefore, the Organization’s own strength build over time is essential in determining its success in the face of the challenges of external factors. Empirical research findings of a 20 year comprehensive research conducted by Lieberson and O’Connor (1972) on 167 business firms in 13 industries with aim of assessing the effects of changing administrations in Organizations concluded that administration had relatively little impact on Organizational results compared to other factors. It is important to note that the process of succession to leadership is very significant in determining Organizational behavior. Where this process is person-based in approach, the Organization’s stratification process becomes the focal point as effort for achieving effectiveness is driven by the expectation for career success. What this means is that if Organizations are aware of the way to become effective, and managers too are aware of the requisite behaviors to display so as to become effective, it is possible that neither Career success nor Organizational results will be directly related to leadership behaviors (Kahneman, 1984). Managers’ behaviors may also be largely an outcome that can be explained by attribution theory proponents such as Kelly who hold that people are usually in interested in both understanding of the world and controlling it (Kelly, 1971, p.2). This would then imply that leadership emphasis may stem partially from the individual’s aspiration to believe in his own actions’ effectiveness and relevance since these are relatively easier to control. According to Lieberson and O'Connor (1972), this would mean such personal desires for control, would determine Organizational outcomes that will pegged on individual actions without regard to what their true causes would be. Generally, while applying the attribution of causality to leadership, the leader/manager is portrayed as an actor, who attempts to use actions and statements to focus the working of an attribution process in the social framework. Put differently, a successful manager in the view of the social system should have ability to delink himself from Organizational failures. The opposite holds for the unsuccessful manager. It is to be underlined that the meaning of action in such cases is constructed socially hence the process of attribution may be reinforced through manipulation of symbols (Rachlin, 1980). Therefore the manager who predicts success/improvement in his department due to some favorable conditions may want to identify his behavior with the department’s success hence he may involve in preparation of an advance report recommending actions and measures he considers visible to be taken undertaken. On the other hand, if the manager knows that failure is imminent in the department, he may want to delink himself from the department’s processes so that the failure will be attributed to others (especially higher level managers in the Organization) (Pfeffer, 1977.p.110). In conclusion, it should be apparent that Organizational managers do not always act in the interest of their Organizations. Many factors come into play to influence Organizational leadership and associated behavior. These factors as has been discussed in the paper comprises of; individual based factors such as motivation, perception and personality; causality and attribution factors which include both individual and environmental aspects, and authority based factors as well. It has been discussed how Organizational culture and change process is likely to influence leadership behaviors. A manager’s behavior may be explained through psychology, sociology, or anthropology theories. The external factors too affect the leadership behavior and decisions. Generally, managers behave the way they do for various other reasons beyond the interests of their Organizations (Bazerman, 1994). References Abercrombie, M. L. Johnson. (1960). The Anatomy of Judgment. New York: Basic Books. Axelrod, R. (1984) The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books. Bakke, D. W. (2005). Joy at work: A revolutionary approach to fun on the job. Seattle, WA: PVG. Barney, J. B. (1986). Organizational Culture: Can It Be a Source of Sustained Competitive Advantage?. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 656-665. Bartunek, Jean M., (1981)."Why Did You Do That? Attribution Theory In Organizations", Bazerman, Max H. (1986). Why negotiations go wrong. Psychology Today 20, 54-58. Bazerman, Max H. (1994). Judgment In Managerial Decision Making, 3rd ed. New York: J. Wiley. Behavior, Harper & Row: NY Black, Richard J. (2003) Organizational Culture: Creating the Influence Needed for Strategic Success, London UK. Bligh, Michelle C. (2006) "Surviving Post-merger ‘Culture Clash’: Can Cultural Leadership Lessen the Casualties?" Leadership, vol. 2: pp. 395 - 426. Business Horizons: September-October. Cameron, Kim S. & Quinn, Robert E. (2005) "Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework", The Jossey-Bass Business & Management Series. Carnegie, D. (1979). Live enthusiastically. Garden City, NY: Dale Carnegie & Associates. Chatman, J. A., & Jehn, K. A. (1994). Assessing the relationship between industry characteristics and organizational culture: how different can you be?. Academy of management journal, 37(3), 522-553. Child, J., (1969). `Predicting and understanding organization structure', Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.18, No.2, June, pp.168-185 Child, J., (1973). `Strategies of control and organizational behavior', Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.18, No.1, March, pp.1-17 Clawson, J. G. (2009). Level three leadership: Getting below the surface (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Coleman, J S. (1990) Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Combs Arthur W. and Donald Snygg, (1949). Individual Behavior: A Perceptual Approach To Corporate Leadership Council (July 2002). Tools to Assess Organizational Culture. Corporate Executive Board. Retrieved from www.corporateleadershipcouncil.com. Corporate Leadership Council (June 2003). Defining Corporate Culture. Corporate Executive Board. Retrieved from www.corporateleadershipcouncil.com. Corporate Leadership Council (October 2003). Building Organizational Culture for High Performance. Corporate Executive Board. Retrieved from www.corporateleadershipcouncil.com. Cummings, Thomas G. & Worley, Christopher G. (2005), Organization Development and Change, 8th Ed., Thomson South-Western, USA. Cunningham, J. B. & Eberle, T. (1990). A Guide to Job Enrichment and Redesign. Personnel, Feb 1990, p.57 in Newstrom, J. & Davis, K. (1993). Organization Behavior: Human Behavior at Work. New York: McGraw-Hill. Cyert, R.M & March, J.G.(1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm: Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Davis , K. (1967). Human relations at work: The dynamics of organizational behavior. 9th ed., New York: McGraw-Hill Dawes, Robyn. (1988) Rational Choice in an Uncertain World: New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Drucker, P.F. (1955). The Practice of Management, Heinemann: London. EI framework. (n.d.).(2008).  Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations. Retrieved 11/5/ 2011, from http://www.eiconsortium.org/pdf/emotional_competence_framework.pdf Erlbaum, 2001. Fiedler, Fred E. (1965). "Engineering the Job to Fit the Manager," Harvard Business Review, Vol. 43 115-122. George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (2008). Understanding and managing organizational behavior (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books. Goleman, D. (2004, January). What makes a leader? [Electronic version]. Harvard Business Review, 82(1), 82-91. Granovetter, Mark (1985) "Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness" Republished in Mark Granovetter and Richard Swedberg (Eds.): The Sociology of Economic Life (1992). Pp. 53-81. Bounder, CO: Westview Press. Griffin, R. W., & Moorhead, G. (2007). Organizational behavior: Managing people and organizations (8th ed.). New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. Hackman, J. R. & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, pp. 159-70. Hales, C.(2002). 'Bureaucracy-lite' and continuities in managerial work; Journal of Management: 13(1), 51-67. Harris, Stanley G. (1994) "Organizational Culture and Individual Sensemaking: A Schema-Based Perspective." Organization Science, Vol. 5,(3): pp. 309–321 Hartnell, C. A., Ou, A. Y., & Kinicki, A. (2011). Organizational Culture and Organizational Effectiveness: A Meta-Analytic Investigation of the Competing Values Framework's Theoretical Suppositions. Journal of Applied Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0021987 Jex, Steven M. Jex & Britt, Thomas W. (2008) Organizational Psychology, A Scientist-Practitioner Approach, Wiley, USA Kotter, John. (1992). Corporate Culture and Performance, Free Press; (April 7, 1992) Jones, Edward E., (1990). Interpersonal Perception, Freeman, NY 1990 Kahneman D & Tversky A.(1996). On the reality of cognitive illusions, Psychological Review 103(3): 582-591. Kahneman D & Tversky, A.(1973). On the psychology of prediction; Psychological Review 80, 237-251 Kahneman, D & Tversky, A.(1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47, 263-291. Kahneman, D & Tversky, A.(1984). Choices, values, and frames, American Psychologist 39 (4), 341-350 Kelley, Harold H. (1971). Attribution in Social Interaction (Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press. Kelley, Harold H., (1973). "The Processes of Casual Attribution", American Psychologist, February 1973. Kidder, R. M. (2003). How good people make tough choices: Resolving the dilemmas of ethical living. New York: Harper. Knoster, T., Villa, R., & Thousand, J. (2000). A framework for thinking about systems change. In R. Villa & J. Thousand (Eds.), Restructuring for caring and effective education: Piecing the puzzle together (pp. 93-128). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Koch, C. (2006). The New Science of Change. CIO Magazine, Sep 15, 2006 (pp 54-56). Also available on the web: http://www.cio.com/archive/091506/change.html Leavitt, Harold J., (1964). Managerial Psychology, University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL 1964 (2nd Ed.). Leighton, Alexander H. (1949). Human Relations in a Changing World, New York: E. P. Dutton & Co. Inc., pp 156-161. Levine, Michael W., and Jeremy M. Shefner, (1991). Fundamentals of Sensation and Perception, (2nd Ed), Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove CA. Lieberson, S, & O'Connor J.F, (1972), "Leadership and Organizational Performance: A Study of Large Corporations," /American Sociological Review, Vol. 37 :117-130. Livingston, J. Sterling, (1969). "Pygmalion in Management", Harvard Business Review, July/August1969. London, Manuel (Ed.), (2001). How People Evaluate Others in Organizations, Mahwah NJ: March, J.G & Simon A.H.(1958). Organizations, New York: Wiley; 2nd edition, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1993. Markus, Hazel. (1977) "Self-schemata and processing information about the self." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 35(2): pp. 63–78. Mayer, J., DiPaolo, M., & Salovey, P. (1990, June). Perceiving affective content in ambiquous visual stimuli: A component of emotional intelligence [Electronic version]. Journal of Personality Assessment, 54(3-4), 772-781. Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work, New York: Harper and Row. Newstrom, John W. & Davis, Keith (1993). Organizational Behavior: Human Behavior at Work. New York: McGraw-Hill. Nicholson, Nigel, (2003). “How to Motivate Your Problem People”, Harvard Business O'Donovan, Gabrielle (2006). The Corporate Culture Handbook: How to Plan, Implement and Measure a Successful Culture Change Programme, The Liffey Press. Papa, Michael J., et al. (2008). Organizational Communication Perspectives and Trends(4th Ed.). Sage Publications. Parker, M. (2000). Organizational Culture and Identity: Unity and Division at Work. Sage: London. Peale, N. V. (1967). Enthusiasm make the difference. New York: A Fawcett Crest Book. Pfeffer, J. (1977). The Ambiguity of Leadership, Academy of Management Review-January 1977, New York: Harper and Row. Phegan, B. (1996–2000) Developing Your Company Culture, A Handbook for Leaders and Managers, Context Press, Rachlin, H. (1980). Judgment, Decision, and Choice: A Cognitive Behavioral Synthesis. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company. Revans, R. W. (1982). The Origin and Growth of Action Learning. Hunt, England: Chatwell-Bratt, Bickley. Review, January p. 62. Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2008). Essentials of organizational behavior (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Schein, E. (1968). Organizational Socialization and the Profession of Management. Industrial Management Review, 1968 vol. 9 pp. 1-15 in Newstrom, J. & Davis, K. (1993). Organization Behavior: Human Behavior at Work. New York: McGraw-Hill. Simon, A. H. (1990). Alternative visions of rationality; In Paul K. Moser (Ed.) Rationality In Action, Contemporary Approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Simon, Herbert A. (1995) Rationality in political behavior. Political Psychology, 16(1), 45-61. Skinner, B. F.,(1976). About Behaviorism, NY: Vintage 1976 Sopow, E. (2007). Corporate personality disorder. Lincoln NB: iUniverse. Stewart, J. (1991). Managing Change Through Training and Development. London: Kogan Page. Stoykov, Lubomir. 1995 Corporate culture and communication, Stopanstvo , Sofia. Swedberg, Richard. (1990) Economics and Sociology; redefining their boundaries: Conversations with Economists and Sociologists. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Thompson, J.D. (1967). Organizations in Action; (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967). Tversky, A and Kahneman D.(1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211, 453 Tversky, Amos and Kahneman, Daniel (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Sciences 185, 1124-1131. ZaId, M. N. (1965). "Who Shall Rule? A Political Analysis of Succession in a Large Welfare Organization," Paci//c Sociological Review, Vol. 8 (1965), 52-60. Zaleznik, Abraham, and Manfred F. R.(1985) Kets de Vries, Power and the Corporate Mind, Bonus Books, Chicago IL 1985 (2nd Ed.). Zeitlin, M.(1974). “Corporate ownership and control: the large corporation and the capitalist Class.” American Journal of Sociology79:1073-1119. Read More