In the 1960s the focus shifted completely to the behaviour of people in organizations.
Behavioural scientists such as Argyris (1957), Herzberg et al (1957), McGregor (1960)
and Likert (1961) adopted a humanistic point of view which is concerned with what
people can contribute and how they can best be motivated.
● Argyris believed that individuals should be given the opportunity to feel that they have a high degree of control over setting their own goals and over defining the paths to these goals.
● Herzberg suggested that improvements in organization design must centre on the individual job as the positive source of motivation. If individuals feel that the job is stretching them, they will be moved to perform it well.
● McGregor developed his theory of integration (theory Y) which emphasizes the importance of recognizing the needs of both the organization and the individualand creating conditions that will reconcile these needs so that members of the organization can work together for its success and share in its rewards.
● Likert stated that effective organizations function by means of supportive relationships which, if fostered, will build and maintain people’s sense of personal worth and importance.
The concepts of these and other behavioural scientists provided the impetus for the organization development (OD) movement as described in Chapter 22.
The systems school
Another important insight into how organizations function was provided by Miller and Rice (1967) who stated that organizations should be treated as open systems which are continually dependent upon and influenced by their environments. The basic characteristic of the enterprise as an open system is that it transforms inputs into outputs within its environment.
As Katz and Kahn (1966) wrote: ‘Systems theory is basically concerned with problems of relationship, of structure and of interdependence.’ As a result, there is a considerable emphasis on the concept of transactions across boundaries – between the system and its environment and between the different parts of the system. This open and dynamic approach avoided the error of the classical, bureaucratic and human relations theorists, who thought of organizations as closed systems and analysed their problems with reference to their internal structures and processes of interaction, without taking account either of external influences and the changes they impose or of the technology in the organization.
The socio-technical model
The concept of the organization as a system was extended by the Tavistock Institute researchers into the socio-technical model of organizations. The basic principle of this model is that in any system of organization, technical or task aspects are interrelated with the human or social aspects. The emphasis is on interrelationships between, on the one hand, the technical processes of transformation carried out within the organization, and, on the other, the organization of work groups and the management structures of the enterprise. This approach avoided the humanistic generalizations of the behavioural scientists without falling into the trap of treating the organization as a machine.
● Argyris believed that individuals should be given the opportunity to feel that they have a high degree of control over setting their own goals and over defining the paths to these goals.
● Herzberg suggested that improvements in organization design must centre on the individual job as the positive source of motivation. If individuals feel that the job is stretching them, they will be moved to perform it well.
● McGregor developed his theory of integration (theory Y) which emphasizes the importance of recognizing the needs of both the organization and the individualand creating conditions that will reconcile these needs so that members of the organization can work together for its success and share in its rewards.
● Likert stated that effective organizations function by means of supportive relationships which, if fostered, will build and maintain people’s sense of personal worth and importance.
The concepts of these and other behavioural scientists provided the impetus for the organization development (OD) movement as described in Chapter 22.
The systems school
Another important insight into how organizations function was provided by Miller and Rice (1967) who stated that organizations should be treated as open systems which are continually dependent upon and influenced by their environments. The basic characteristic of the enterprise as an open system is that it transforms inputs into outputs within its environment.
As Katz and Kahn (1966) wrote: ‘Systems theory is basically concerned with problems of relationship, of structure and of interdependence.’ As a result, there is a considerable emphasis on the concept of transactions across boundaries – between the system and its environment and between the different parts of the system. This open and dynamic approach avoided the error of the classical, bureaucratic and human relations theorists, who thought of organizations as closed systems and analysed their problems with reference to their internal structures and processes of interaction, without taking account either of external influences and the changes they impose or of the technology in the organization.
The socio-technical model
The concept of the organization as a system was extended by the Tavistock Institute researchers into the socio-technical model of organizations. The basic principle of this model is that in any system of organization, technical or task aspects are interrelated with the human or social aspects. The emphasis is on interrelationships between, on the one hand, the technical processes of transformation carried out within the organization, and, on the other, the organization of work groups and the management structures of the enterprise. This approach avoided the humanistic generalizations of the behavioural scientists without falling into the trap of treating the organization as a machine.
No comments:
Post a Comment