ACROPOLIS TECHNICAL CAMPUS, INDORE FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION BEHAVIOUR

Organization ! D"#in"$ Organizations are sets of people who work together to achieve shared goals. A consciously coordinated social unit, composed of two or more people, that functions on a relatively continuous basis to achieve a common goal or sets of goals. A structured social system consisting of groups and individuals working together to meet some agreedupon objectives. Organizationa% B"&a'ior The field that seeks increased knowledge of all aspects of behavior in organizational settings through the use of the scientific method. A field of study that investigates the impact that individuals, groups and structure have on behavior within organizations, for the purpose of applying such knowledge toward improving an organizations effectiveness. Organizational ehavior can be defined as the understanding, prediction ! management of human behavior in organizations. O is the study of human behavior in organizational settings. O refers to the behavior of individuals and groups within organizations and the interaction between organizational members ! their e"ternal environments. Intro$()tion to Organizationa% B"&a'ior O is the study and application of knowledge about how people, individuals, and groups act in organizations. #t interprets people-organization relationships in terms of the whole person, whole group, whole organization, and whole social system. #ts purpose is to build better relationships by achieving human objectives, organizational objectives, and social objectives. E%"*"nt o# Organizationa% B"&a'ior $lements of Organizational ehavior% The organization&s base rests on management&s philosophy, values, vision and goals. This in turn drives the organizational culture which is composed of the formal organization, informal organization, and the social environment. The culture determines the type of leadership, communication, and group dynamics within the organization. The workers perceive this as the 'uality of work life which directs their degree of motivation. The final outcome are performance, individual satisfaction, and personal growth and development. All these elements combine to build the model or framework that the organization operates from. Mo$"% o# Organizationa% B"&a'ior There are four major models of Organizational ehavior

Autocratic - The basis of this model is power with a managerial orientation of authority. The employees in turn are oriented towards obedience and dependence on the boss. The employee need that is met is subsistence. The performance result is minimal (ustodial - The basis of this model is economic resources with a managerial orientation of money. The employees in turn are oriented towards security and benefits and dependence on the organization. The employee need that is met is security. The performance result is passive cooperation )upportive - The basis of this model is leadership with a managerial orientation of support. The employees in turn are oriented towards job performance and participation. The employee need that is met is status and recognition. The performance result is awakened drives (ollegial - The basis of this model is partnership with a managerial orientation of teamwork. The employees in turn are oriented towards responsible behavior and self-discipline. The employee need that is met is selfactualization. The performance result is moderate enthusiasm. Di##"r"nt A++roa)&" to OB Ta,%ori * an$ S)i"nti#i) Manag"*"nt A++roa)& -, Fr"$"ri) .in %o/ Ta,%or, 01234!15136 7 Taylor attempted to make a science for each element of work and restrict behavioral alternatives facing worker. Taylor looked at interaction of human characteristics, social environment, task, and physical environment, capacity, speed, durability, and cost. The overall goal was to remove human variability. This involved breaking down each task to its smallest unit and to figure out the one best way to do each job. Then the engineer, after analyzing the job should teach it to the worker and make sure the worker does only those motions essential to the task. T&" H(*an R"%ation A++roa)& The *uman +elations Approach by $lton ,ayo $lton ,ayo along with +oethlisberger and -ickinson conducted a study called as *awthorne )tudy in the .estern $lectric (icero in /012s, which showed how work groups provide mutual support and effective resistance to management schemes to increase output. The results of the research led researchers to feel that they were dealing with socio-psychological factors that were not e"plained by classic theory which stressed the formal organization and formal leadership Do(g%a M)Gr"gor8 T&"or, 9 an$ T&"or, Y -ouglas ,c3regor&s Theory 4 and Theory 5 -ouglas ,c3regor proposed two theories6assumptions, which are very nearly the opposite of each other, about human nature. *is first theory was 7Theory 48, which is pessimistic and negative9 and according to ,c3regor it is how managers traditionally perceive their workers. Then, in order to help managers replace that theory6assumption, he gave 7Theory 58 which takes a more modern and positive approach. *e believed that managers could achieve more if managers start perceiving their employees as self-energized, committed, responsible and creative beings. ."-"r8 B(r"a()ra), A++roa)& .eber&s ureaucracy Approach 3erman sociologist ,a" .eber, observing the organizational innovations of the 3erman leader ismarck, identified the core elements of the new kind of organization. *e called it bureaucracy. The asic $lements of the ureaucratic )tructure authority is rational and legal9 authority should be based on position, not on the person in the position authority stems from the office and this authority has limits as defined by the office positions are organized in a hierarchy of authority organizations are governed by rules and regulations. N"o C%a i)a% A++roa)&

This approach emphasize that Organization is a social system. #t is people oriented #t:s a behavioral science approach and gives importance to *uman +elations #t is also known as Theory 5 Organizational ehavior plays the role in *uman +esource (ontingency )ystems ;roductivity.

Hi tori)a% D"'"%o+*"nt o# OB <outilya:s Arthashastra states that there was systematic management of human resources during = th (entury ( itself ,inimum wage rate, incentive wage plan concepts were included in abylonian civilization during />22 ( Actual development of O can be traced from beginning of the /0 th (entury where condition of workers was miserable #ndustry +evolution, which happened during /0th (entury benefitted employees in terms of increased wages and reduced working hours +obert Owen, Andrew and ? @ Tata were the pioneers in providing welfare facilities to workers ut they were criticized of following do-good-approach. -uring )cientific ,anagement $ra, Taylor focused on human resource at work, but he wanted to rationalize everything ! his sole aim is to get more output from workers Aailure of )cientific ,anagement gave birth to human relations movement, which heavily emphasized on employee cooperation and morale B contributing factors to human relations movement are9 3reat -epression, Cabour ,ovement and *awthorne )tudies.

,OT#DAT#O@ #@T+O-E(T#O@ ,otivation is a problem in the E.). workforce. ;oorly motivated workers e"press themselves through detrimental behaviors such as absenteeism and high turnover. #t is important that motivational theories are understood and applied in the workplace. ,OT#DAT#O@ ,otivation% the processes that account for an individual:s intensity, direction, and persistence of effort toward attaining a goal, specifically for O , toward attaining an organizational goal. #ntensity% how hard a person tries to meet a goal. -irection% efforts are channeled toward organizational goals. ;ersistence% how long a person maintains effort toward a goal. $A+C5 T*$O+#$) OA ,OT#DAT#O@ A. ,aslow:s *ierarchy of @eeds Theory. #n this, perhaps best known Fand least supportedG of all motivational theories, Abraham ,aslow proposed that there are five levels of human needs. As each of the lower level needs are satisfied, the ne"t unsatisfied need becomes dominant. )atisfied needs no longer motivate, only unsatisfied needs motivate people. /. ;hysiological% lower order need, includes hunger, thirst, shelter, se", and other bodily needs. Cower order needs are satisfied e"ternally, through forces outside of the person.

1. )afety% lower order need, includes security and protection from physical and emotional harm. B. )ocial% upper order need, includes affection, belongingness, acceptance, and friendship. Epper order needs are satisfied internally, that is, from within the person. =. $steem% upper order need, includes internal Fself-respect, autonomy, and achievementG and e"ternal Fstatus, recognition, and attentionG esteem factors. H. )elf-actualization% upper order need, defined as the drive to 7be all one can be8 it includes growth, achieving one:s potential, and self-fulfillment. ,c3regor:s Theory 4 and Theory 5 -ouglas ,c3regor:s theory proposed that there were two basic views of human nature, one essentially negative FTheory 4G and the other positive FTheory 5G. .hich view a manager believed was true would give that manager a pre-set series of assumptions and related behaviors. Theory 4. #n this negative view of human nature, workers are basically lazy and need firm guidance. The assumptions related to Theory 4 are% a. .ork Avoidance . $mployees dislike work and so will try to avoid it. b. @eed for (ontrol. )ince employees dislike work, they must be coerced, controlled, or threatened with punishment to get them to achieve organizational goals. c. Avoidance of +esponsibility. .orkers seek formal direction and dislike taking responsibility. d. )ecurity is ;aramount . $mployees value security above all else and display little ambition. #n ,aslow:s terms, a Theory 4 viewpoint means that lower-order needs dominate individual needs. Theory 4 managers tend to be very directive, are seen as harsh and unbending, and will often be accused of 7micromanagement.8 1. Theory 5. #n this positive view, employees are willing workers who actively seek responsibility. The underlying assumptions are% a. .ork as play. .ork is as natural as play or rest. b. (ommitment. .hen employees are committed, they will e"ercise self-direction and self-control. c. Accepting +esponsibility. .orkers accept, and will even seek, responsibility. d. #nnovation is (ommon. The ability to make innovative decisions is widely disbursed throughout the population9 it does not only e"ist in the managerial ranks. *erzberg:s Two-Aactor F,otivation-*ygieneG Theory. Arederick *erzberg proposed that an individual:s relation to work is basic and that one:s attitude toward work can very well determine success or failure. #n other words, things that people feel good about at work are motivating and those things they don:t feel good about are de-motivating. #n his research, *erzberg realized that the opposite of satisfaction is not dissatisfaction9 rather there are two different factor scales, one ranging from satisfaction to no satisfaction and the other from dissatisfaction to no dissatisfaction. .hen he related a number of workplace factors against these two scales, he realized they were very different concepts. *e called the first set of factors motivation factors and the second hygiene factors. a. *ygiene Aactors. These workplace factors, when not met, lead to job dissatisfaction. .hen they are met, they do @OT lead to job satisfaction, but rather, to a lack of dissatisfaction. )o, meeting hygiene factors does

@OT increase motivation, it merely placates the workers. *ygiene factors include 'uality of supervision, pay, company policies, physical working conditions, relations with others, and job security. b. ,otivation Aactors. These are intrinsically rewarding factors in the work environment such as promotion and personal growth opportunities, recognition, responsibility, and achievement. ,eeting these factors will increase motivation by creating a satisfying work environment. (O@T$,;O+A+5 T*$O+#$) OA ,OT#DAT#O@ ,c(lelland&s Theory of @eeds. -avid ,c(lelland created a theory based on three needs%

@eed for Achievement FnAchG% the drive to e"cel and to achieve in relation to a set of standards. @eed for ;ower Fn;owG% the need to make others behave in a way they would not have behaved otherwise. @eed for Affiliation FnAffG% the desire for friendly and close interpersonal relationships. 3oal-)etting Theory. This theory studies the effects goal specificity, challenge, and feedback has on performance. The study of goal setting has created the following general rules% /. )pecific goals produce a higher level of output than do generalized goals. 1. Typically, the more difficult the goal, the higher level of performance, assuming that goal has been accepted by the employee. This is because% a. -ifficult goals focus attention on the task and away from distractions. b. -ifficult goals energize employees. c. -ifficult goals tend to make people persist in efforts toward attaining them. d. -ifficult goals force employees to discover strategies to help them perform the task or job more effectively. B. Aeedback is important in goal-setting theory, especially self-generated feedback. =. The 'uestion of whether participative goal-setting increases motivation has not yet been resolved. The assumption is that #nstructor ,anual% $ssentials of Organizational ehavior when employees are involved in setting the goals, they have greater buy-in and therefore will have a higher level of commitment. Adams& $'uity Theory. This view holds that motivation can be affected by the comparisons employees make of their job inputs Feffort, e"perience, education, confidenceG and the job&s outcomes Fsalary levels, raises, recognitionG relative to the inputs and outcomes of other employees. #f the ratios of inputs to outputs are roughly e'ual between employees, a state of e'uity is said to e"ist. The situation is perceived to be fair. +eferent (omparisons. The individuals that the employees compare themselves to Ftheir referentsG can vary widely. The four basic comparisons are% a. )elf-#nside% an employee&s own e"periences in a different position within the current organization. b. )elf-Outside% an employee&s e"periences in the situation or position outside the current organization. c. Other-#nside% other individuals within the current organization. d. Other-Outside% other individuals outside the employee&s current organization. Aour ,oderating Dariables. The selection of which referent to use in comparison will depend upon four moderating variables.

a. 3ender . oth genders prefer same-se" comparisons. b. Cengths of Tenure . $mployees with little e"perience in the current organization will tend to use their own personal e"periences, while employees of long tenure will tend to use coworkers as referents. c. Cevel in the Organization. Epper-level employees tend to make other-outside comparisons more often than do lower-level employees. d. Amount of $ducation or ;rofessionalism. The higher the educational level of the employees, the more likely they are to use other-outside comparisons. Droom&s $"pectancy Theory. This widely accepted e"planation of motivation deals with a coupling of three beliefs. The belief that F/G effort will lead to a good performance appraisal, F1G good appraisals will lead to organizational rewards, and FBG organizational rewards will satisfy the employee&s personal goals. The relationship between these three beliefs and the strength of the links between them are the focus of this theory. The Three <ey +elationships% /. $ffort-;erformance +elationship.% -efined as the probability perceived by the individual that e"erting a given amount of effort will lead to successful performance. 1. ;erformance-+eward +elationship.% The degree to which the individual believes that performing at a particular level will lead to the attainment of a desired outcome. B. +ewards-;ersonal 3oals +elationship.% The degree to which organizational reward satisfy an individual&s personal goals or needs and the attractiveness of those potential rewards for the individual.

(A)$ )TE-5 FRUSTATED AT AGE :; The case is about ob .ood who is B2 years old. *e stated his career working with Accenture as an analyst in /00I, worked as a health-care #T consultant for two other firms and then assumed the post of chief technology officer at claimship.com, a medical claims processor. y 122/, he was earning around J >2,222 A year. -ue to the downturn in economy, he was now earning J ==,222 as a technology analyst at a hospital. *e has a lot of debt on him- J 1B,222 on his college loans, more than J =,H22 on his credit cards and around B2 more payments on his ,.. *e doesn:t have job security. *e is frustrated and feels that his generation got spoiled. They earlier got jobs with unrealistically high pay and switched jobs at their will. *owever, time changed and now it became tough to get a job and, the jobs now paid nearly half of the amount they used to get earlier. Kuestions K/.Analyze ob using the ,aslow need hierarchy. K1. Analyze ob:s lack of motivation using organizational justice and e"pectancy theory. KB. #f you were ob:s boss, what could you do to positively influence his motivationL K=. .hat are the implications of this case for employers hiring 3enerations 4ersL

(ase Analysis% #ntroduction% ;resent case is about ob wood, a B2 year old e"perienced #T professional. -ue to economic downturn his salary got down almost half of the previous one that makes him frustrated in addition to it he has a lot of debt on him. All these circumstances make him to think that his generation got spoiled. ob needs to be motivated in the present case for a better tomorrow. )ituational Analysis% #n the present situation ob wood is frustrated as his salary got down due to economic downturn. A lot of debt on bob makes him feel depressed and his motivation level dropped down. ;roblem #dentification% ;rimary ;roblem% Cack of motivation in ob is the primary problem which makes him frustrated. )econdary ;roblem% ob salary got half due to economic downturn and lots of debt on bob is the secondary problem in this case. ).OT Analysis% )trengths% ob wood is e"perienced #T professional. #ntellectual, bright student *ardworking with analytical bent of mind. .eakness% Cack of motivation Arustration due to salary decrement Cot of debt on bob Opportunities% -emand of e"perienced professionals in ?ob market @ew future planning regarding financial assets Threats% #ncreasing interest on debts ?ob insecurity ?ob market changing dynamics. Cack of financial support

3 Stag" o# Gro(+ D"'"%o+*"nt Stag" 17 For*ing #n the Forming stage, personal relations are characterized by dependence. 3roup members rely on safe, patterned behavior and look to the group leader for guidance and direction. 3roup members have a desire for acceptance by the group and a need to be know that the group is safe. They set about gathering impressions and data about the similarities and differences among them and forming preferences for future subgrouping. +ules of behavior seem to be to keep things simple and to avoid controversy. )erious topics and feelings are avoided. Stag" <7 Stor*ing The ne"t stage, called Storming, is characterized by competition and conflict in the personal-relations dimension an organization in the task-functions dimension. As the group members attempt to organize for the task, conflict inevitably results in their personal relations. #ndividuals have to bend and mold their feelings, ideas, attitudes, and beliefs to suit the group organization. ecause of Mfear of e"posureM or Mfear of failure,M there will be an increased desire for structural clarification and commitment. Although conflicts may or may not surface as group issues, they do e"ist. Kuestions will arise about who is going to be responsible for what, what the rules are, what the reward system is, and what criteria for evaluation are. These reflect conflicts over leadership, structure, power, and authority. Stag" :7 Nor*ing #n the Norming stage, interpersonal relations are characterized by cohesion. 3roup members are engaged in active acknowledgment of all members: contributions, community building and maintenance, and solving of group issues. ,embers are willing to change theirpreconceived ideas or opinions on the basis of facts presented by other members, and they actively ask 'uestions of one another. Ceadership is shared, and cli'ues dissolve. The major task function of stage three is the data flow between group members% They share feelings and ideas, solicit and give feedback to one another, and e"plore actions related to the task. (reativity is high. #f this stage of data flow and cohesion is attained by the group members, their interactions are characterized by openness and sharing of information on both a personal and task level. They feel good about being part of an effective group. Stag" =7 P"r#or*ing The Performing stage is not reached by all groups. #f group members are able to evolve to stage four, their capacity, range, and depth of personal relations e"pand to true interdependence. #n this stage, people can work independently, in subgroups, or as a total unit with e'ual facility. Their roles and authorities dynamically adjust to the changing needs of the group and individuals. )tage four is marked by interdependence in personal relations and problem solving in the realm of task functions. y now, the group should be most productive. #ndividual members have become self-assuring, and the need for group approval is past. ,embers are both highly task oriented and highly people oriented.

Stag" 37 A$>o(rning The final stage, Adjourning, involves the termination of task behaviors and disengagement from relationships. A planned conclusion usually includes recognition for participation and achievement and an opportunity for members to say personal goodbyes. (oncluding a group can create some apprehension - in effect, a minor crisis. The termination of the group is a regressive movement from giving up control to giving up inclusion in the

group. The most effective interventions in this stage are those that facilitate task termination and the disengagement process.

L"a$"r &i+
Ceadership can be defined as a process by which one individual influences others toward the attainment of group or organizational goals. Three points about the definition of leadership should be emphasized. Airst, leadership is a social influence process. Ceadership cannot e"ist without a leader and one or more followers. )econd, leadership elicits voluntary action on the part of followers. The voluntary nature of compliance separates leadership from other types of influence based on formal authority. Ainally, leadership results in followers& behavior that is purposeful and goal-directed in some sort of organized setting. ,any, although not all, studies of leadership focus on the nature of leadership in the workplace. Ceadership should be distinguished from management. ,anagement involves planning, organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling, and a manager is someone who performs these functions. A manager has formal authority by virtue of his or her position or office. Ceadership, by contrast, primarily deals with influence. A manager may or may not be an effective leader. A leader&s ability to influence others may be based on a variety of factors other than his or her formal authority or position. #n the sections that follow, the development of leadership studies and theories over time is briefly traced.

Hi tori)a% L"a$"r &i+ T&"ori" L"a$"r &i+ T&"or, Trait T&"ori" B"&a'iora% T&"ori" Ti*" o# Intro$()tion 15:; 15=; an$ 153; Ma>or T"n"t In$i'i$(a% )&ara)t"ri ti) o# %"a$"r ar" $i##"r"nt t&an t&o " o# non%"a$"r ? T&" -"&a'ior o# "##")ti'" %"a$"r ar" $i##"r"nt t&an t&" -"&a'ior o# in"##")ti'" %"a$"r ? T/o *a>or )%a " o# %"a$"r -"&a'ior ar" ta @! ori"nt"$ -"&a'ior an$ r"%ation &i+!ori"nt"$ -"&a'ior? Fa)tor (niB(" to "a)& it(ation $"t"r*in" /&"t&"r +")i#i) %"a$"r )&ara)t"ri ti) an$ -"&a'ior /i%% -" "##")ti'"?

Conting"n), T&"ori"

154; an$ 15A;

L"a$"r!M"*-"r 15A; EC)&ang" C&ari *ati) 15A; an$

L"a$"r #ro* &ig&!B(a%it, r"%ation &i+ /it& o*" (-or$inat" -(t not ot&"r ? T&" B(a%it, o# %"a$"r! (-or$inat" r"%ation &i+ a##")t n(*"ro( /or@+%a)" o(t)o*" ? E##")ti'" %"a$"r in +ir" (-or$inat" to )o**it t&"* "%'" to goa% -,

L"a$"r &i+ S(- tit(t" #o" L"a$"r &i+

152; 15A;

)o**(ni)ating a 'i ion, $i +%a,ing )&ari *ati) -"&a'ior, an$ "tting a +o/"r#(% +"r ona% "Ca*+%"? C&ara)t"ri ti) o# t&" organization, ta @, an$ (-or$inat" *a, (- tit(t" #or or n"gat" t&" "##")t o# %"a$"r &i+ -"&a'ior ?

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
Three main theoretical frameworks have dominated leadership research at different points in time. These included the trait approach F/0B2s and /0=2sG, the behavioral approach F/0=2s and /0H2sG, and the contingency or situational approach F/0I2s and /0N2sG.

TRAIT APPROACH?
The scientific study of leadership began with a focus on the traits of effective leaders. The basic premise behind trait theory was that effective leaders are born, not made, thus the name sometimes applied to early versions of this idea, the Mgreat manM theory. ,any leadership studies based on this theoretical framework were conducted in the /0B2s, /0=2s, and /0H2s. Ceader trait research e"amined the physical, mental, and social characteristics of individuals. #n general, these studies simply looked for significant associations between individual traits and measures of leadership effectiveness. ;hysical traits such as height, mental traits such as intelligence, and social traits such as personality attributes were all subjects of empirical research. The initial conclusion from studies of leader traits was that there were no universal traits that consistently separated effective leaders from other individuals. #n an important review of the leadership literature published in /0=>, +alph )togdill concluded that the e"isting research had not demonstrated the utility of the trait approach. )everal problems with early trait research might e"plain the perceived lack of significant findings. Airst, measurement theory at the time was not highly sophisticated. Cittle was known about the psychometric properties of the measures used to operationalize traits. As a result, different studies were likely to use different measures to assess the same construct, which made it very difficult to replicate findings. #n addition, many of the trait studies relied on samples of teenagers or lower-level managers. $arly trait research was largely atheoretical, offering no e"planations for the proposed relationship between individual characteristics and leadership. Ainally, early trait research did not consider the impact of situational variables that might moderate the relationship between leader traits and measures of leader effectiveness. As a result of the lack of consistent findings linking individual traits to leadership effectiveness, empirical studies of leader traits were largely abandoned in the /0H2s.

LEADER BEHAVIOR APPROACH?

;artially as a result of the disenchantment with the trait approach to leadership that occurred by the beginning of the /0H2s, the focus of leadership research shifted away from leader traits to leader behaviors. The premise of this stream of research was that the behaviors e"hibited by leaders are more important than their physical, mental, or emotional traits. The two most famous behavioral leadership studies took place at Ohio )tate

Eniversity and the Eniversity of ,ichigan in the late /0=2s and /0H2s. These studies sparked hundreds of other leadership studies and are still widely cited. The Ohio )tate studies utilized the Ceader ehavior -escription Kuestionnaire FC -KG, administering it to samples of individuals in the military, manufacturing companies, college administrators, and student leaders. Answers to the 'uestionnaire were factor-analyzed to determine if common leader behaviors emerged across samples. The conclusion was that there were two distinct aspects of leadership that describe how leaders carry out their role. Two factors, termed consideration and initiating structure, consistently appeared. #nitiating structure, sometimes called task-oriented behavior, involves planning, organizing, and coordinating the work of subordinates. (onsideration involves showing concern for subordinates, being supportive, recognizing subordinates& accomplishments, and providing for subordinates& welfare. The ,ichigan leadership studies took place at about the same time as those at Ohio )tate. Ender the general direction of +ensis Cikert, the focus of the ,ichigan studies was to determine the principles and methods of leadership that led to productivity and job satisfaction. The studies resulted in two general leadership behaviors or orientations% an employee orientation and a production orientation. Ceaders with an employee orientation showed genuine concern for interpersonal relations. Those with a production orientation focused on the task or technical aspects of the job. The conclusion of the ,ichigan studies was that an employee orientation and general instead of close supervision yielded better results. Cikert eventually developed four MsystemsM of management based on these studies9 he advocated )ystem = Fthe participative-group system, which was the most participatory set of leader behaviorsG as resulting in the most positive outcomes. One concept based largely on the behavioral approach to leadership effectiveness was the ,anagerial For CeadershipG 3rid, developed by +obert lake and ?ane ,outon. The grid combines Mconcern for productionM with Mconcern for peopleM and presents five alternative behavioral styles of leadership. An individual who emphasized neither production was practicing Mimpoverished managementM according to the grid. #f a person emphasized concern for people and placed little emphasis on production, he was terms a Mcountry-clubM manager. (onversely, a person who emphasized a concern for production but paid little attention to the concerns of subordinates was a MtaskM manager. A person who tried to balance concern for production and concern for people was termed a Mmiddle-of-the-roadM manager. Ainally, an individual who was able to simultaneously e"hibit a high concern for production and a high concern for people was practicing Mteam management.M According to the prescriptions of the grid, team management was the best leadership approach. The ,anagerial 3rid became a major consulting tool and was the basis for a considerable amount of leadership training in the corporate world. The assumption of the leader behavior approach was that there were certain behaviors that would be universally effective for leaders. Enfortunately, empirical research has not demonstrated consistent relationships between task-oriented or person-oriented leader behaviors and leader effectiveness. Cike trait research, leader behavior research did not consider situational influences that might moderate the relationship between leader behaviors and leader effectiveness.

CONTINGENCY 0SITUATIONAL6 APPROACH?

(ontingency or situational theories of leadership propose that the organizational or work group conte"t affects the e"tent to which given leader traits and behaviors will be effective. (ontingency theories gained prominence in the late /0I2s and /0N2s. Aour of the more well-known contingency theories are Aiedler&s contingency theory, path-goal theory, the Droom-5etton-?ago decision-making model of leadership, and the situational leadership theory. $ach of these approaches to leadership is briefly described in the paragraphs that follow. #ntroduced in /0IN, Fi"$%"r8 )onting"n), t&"or, was the first to specify how situational factors interact with leader traits and behavior to influence leadership effectiveness. The theory suggests that the MfavorabilityM of the situation determines the effectiveness of task- and person-oriented leader behavior. Aavorability is determined by F/G the respect and trust that followers have for the leader9 F1G the e"tent to which subordinates& responsibilities can be structured and performance measured9 and FBG the control the leader has over subordinates& rewards. The situation is most favorable when followers respect and trust the leader, the task is highly structured, and the leader has control over rewards and punishments. Aiedler&s research indicated that task-oriented leaders were more effective when the situation was either highly favorable or highly unfavorable, but that person-oriented leaders were more effective in the moderately favorable or unfavorable situations. The theory did not necessarily propose that leaders could adapt their leadership styles to different situations, but that leaders with different leadership styles would be more effective when placed in situations that matched their preferred style. Aiedler&s contingency theory has been criticized on both conceptual and methodological grounds. *owever, empirical research has supported many of the specific propositions of the theory, and it remains an important contribution to the understanding of leadership effectiveness. Pat&!goa% t&"or, was first presented in a /0N/Administrative Science Quarterly article by +obert *ouse. ;athgoal theory proposes that subordinates& characteristics and characteristics of the work environment determine which leader behaviors will be more effective. <ey characteristics of subordinates identified by the theory are locus of control, work e"perience, ability, and the need for affiliation. #mportant environmental characteristics named by the theory are the nature of the task, the formal authority system, and the nature of the work group. The theory includes four different leader behaviors, which include directive leadership, supportive leadership, participative leadership, and achievement-oriented leadership. According to the theory, leader behavior should reduce barriers to subordinates& goal attainment, strengthen subordinates& e"pectancies that improved performance will lead to valued rewards, and provide coaching to make the path to payoffs easier for subordinates. ;ath-goal theory suggests that the leader behavior that will accomplish these tasks depends upon the subordinate and environmental contingency factors. ;ath-goal theory has been criticized because it does not consider interactions among the contingency factors and also because of the comple"ity of its underlying theoretical model, e"pectancy theory. $mpirical research has provided some support for the theory&s propositions, primarily as they relate to directive and supportive leader behaviors. T&" Vroo* $")i ion!*a@ing *o$"% was introduced by Dictor Droom and ;hillip 5etton in /0NB and revised by Droom and ?ago in /0>>. The theory focuses primarily on the degree of subordinate participation that is appropriate in different situations. Thus, it emphasizes the decision-making style of the leader. The Droom-5etton-?ago model has been criticized for its comple"ity, for its assumption that the decision makers& goals are consistent with organizational goals, and for ignoring the skills needed to arrive at group decisions to difficult problems. $mpirical research has supported some of the prescriptions of the theory.

T&" it(ationa% %"a$"r &i+ theory was initially introduced in /0I0 and revised in /0NN by *ersey and lanchard. The theory suggests that the key contingency factor affecting leaders& choice of leadership style is the task-related maturity of the subordinates. )ubordinate maturity is defined in terms of the ability of subordinates to accept responsibility for their own task-related behavior. The theory classifies leader behaviors into the two broad classes of task-oriented and relationship-oriented behaviors. The major proposition of situational leadership theory is that the effectiveness of task and relationship-oriented leadership depends upon the maturity of a leader&s subordinates. )ituational leadership theory has been criticized on both theoretical and methodological grounds. *owever, it remains one of the better-known contingency theories of leadership and offers important insights into the interaction between subordinate ability and leadership style.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Although trait, behavioral, and contingency approaches have each contributed to the understanding of leadership, none of the approaches have provided a completely satisfactory e"planation of leadership and leadership effectiveness. )ince the /0N2s, several alternative theoretical frameworks for the study of leadership have been advanced. Among the more important of these are leader-member e"change theory, transformational leadership theory, the substitutes for leadership approach, and the philosophy of servant leadership.

LEADER!MEMBER E9CHANGE THEORY?

Ceader-member e"change FC,4G theory was initially called the vertical dyad linkage theory. The theory was introduced by 3eorge 3raen and various colleagues in the /0N2s and has been revised and refined in the years since. C,4 theory emphasizes the dyadic Fi.e., one-on-oneG relationships between leaders and individual subordinates, instead of the traits or behaviors of leaders or situational characteristics. The theory&s focus is determining the type of leader-subordinate relationships that promote effective outcomes and the factors that determine whether leaders and subordinates will be able to develop high-'uality relationships. According to C,4 theory, leaders do not treat all subordinates in the same manner, but establish close relationships with some Fthe in-groupG while remaining aloof from others Fthe out-groupG. Those in the in-group enjoy relationships with the leader that is marked by trust and mutual respect. They tend to be involved in important activities and decisions. (onversely, those in the out-group are e"cluded from important activities and decisions. C,4 theory suggests that high-'uality relationships between a leader-subordinate dyad will lead to positive outcomes such as better performance, lower turnover, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. $mpirical research supports many of the proposed relationships F)teers et al., /00IG.

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP THEORIES?

eginning in the /0N2s, a number of leadership theories emerged that focused on the importance of a leader&s charisma to leadership effectiveness. #ncluded within this class of theories are *ouse&s theory of charismatic leadership, ass&s transformational leadership theory, and (onger and <anungo&s charismatic leadership theory. These theories have much in common. They all focus on attempting to e"plain how leaders can accomplish e"traordinary things against the odds, such as turning around a failing company, founding a successful company, or achieving great military success against incredible odds. The theories also emphasize the

importance of leaders& inspiring subordinates& admiration, dedication, and un'uestioned loyalty through articulating a clear and compelling vision. Tranformational leadership theory differentiates between the transactional and the transformational leader. Transactional leadership focuses on role and task re'uirements and utilizes rewards contingent on performance. y contrast, transformational leadership focuses on developing mutual trust, fostering the leadership abilities of others, and setting goals that go beyond the short-term needs of the work group. ass&s transformational leadership theory identifies four aspects of effective leadership, which include charisma, inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and consideration. A leader who e"hibits these 'ualities will inspire subordinates to be high achievers and put the long-term interest of the organization ahead of their own shortterm interest, according to the theory. $mpirical research has supported many of the theory&s propositions.

CULTURE7 ;oint / O #ntroduction This sets the conte"t for the lecture. Originally an anthropological term, culture refers to the underlying values, beliefs and codes of practice that makes a community what it is. The customs of society, the self O image of its members, the things that make it different from other societies, are its culture. (ulture is powerfully subjective and reflects the meanings and understandings that we typically attribute to situations, the solutions that we apply to common problems. The idea of a common culture suggests possible problems about whether organizations have cultures. Organizations are only one constituent element of society. ;eople enter them from the surrounding community and bring their culture with them. #t is still possible for organizations to have cultures of their own as they possess the parado"ical 'uality of being both Ppart : of and Papart: from society. They are embedded in the wider societal conte"t but they are also communities of their own with distinct rules and values. ;oint 1 O Organizational culture and strategic management (ulture has long been on the agenda of management theorists. (ulture change must mean changing the corporate ethos, the images and values that inform action and this new way of understanding organizational life must be brought into the management process. There are a number of central aspects of culture% There is an evaluative element involving social e"pectations and standards9 the values and beliefs that people hold central and that bind organizational groups. (ulture is also a set of more material elements or artifacts. These are the signs and symbols that the organization is recognized by but they are also the events, behaviours and people that embody culture. The medium of culture is social interaction, the web of communications that constitute a community. *ere a shared language is particularly important in e"pressing and signifying a distinctive organizational culture. ;oint B O (ulture and )uccess -eal and <ennedy F/0>1G argue that culture is the single most important factor accounting for success or failure in organizations. They identified four key dimensions of culture% /. Dalues O the beliefs that lie at the heart of the corporate culture. 1. *eroes O the people who embody values. B. +ites and rituals O routines of interaction that have strong symbolic 'ualities.

=. The culture network O the informal communication system or hidden hierarchy of power in the organization. ;eters and .aterman F/0>1G suggest a psychological theory of the link between organizational culture and business performance. (ulture can be looked upon as a reward of work9 we sacrifice much to the organization and culture is a form of return on effort. <anter F/0>0G refers to the parado" implicit in linking culture with change. On the surface culture has essentially traditional and stable 'ualities, so how can you have a Pculture of changeL: 5et this is e"actly what the innovative organization needs. ;oint = O (ulture and the management of change #f real change is to occur in organizations rather than cosmetic or short O lived change, it has to happen at the cultural level. (orporate culture has many powerful attractions as a lever for change. The problem is how to get a hand on the lever. Airstly, cultures can be e"plicitly created O you have to be aware of what it takes to change an e"isting culture. The ability of companies to be culturally innovative is related to leadership and top management must be responsible for building strong cultures. Ceaders construct the social reality of the organization, they shape values and attend to the drama and vision of the organization. (ulture is fre'uently counter posed to formal rationality O in this sense culture helps to resolve the dilemma of bureaucracy9 formal procedures are necessary for business integrity but they also stifle autonomy and innovation The period from the mid N2s has been one of growing uncertainty for firms and in response to a changing environment and business crises adaptable cultures that are responsive to change have become vital. ,organ F/0NNG focuses on the whole organization, the cultivation of harmonious relations at all levels, the merging of individual with common goals and a reliance on worker responsibility F?apanese approachesG as success factors in organizational culture. ;oint H O $"ploring organizational culture Attempts to define organizational culture have adopted a number of different approaches. )ome focus on manifestations O the heroes and villains, rites, rituals, myths and legends that populate organizations. (ulture is also socially constructed and reflects meanings that are constituted in interaction and that form commonly accepted definitions of the situation. (ulture is symbolic and is described by telling stories about how we feel about the organization. A symbol stands for something more than itself and can be many things, but the point is that a symbol is invested with meaning by us and e"presses forms of understanding derived from our past collective e"periences. The sociological view is that organizations e"ist in the minds of the members. )tories about culture show how it acts as a sense - making device. (ulture is unifying and refers to the processes that bind the organization together. (ulture is then consensual and not conflictual. The idea of corporate culture reinforces the unifying strengths of central goals and creates a sense of common responsibility. (ulture is holistic and refers to the essence O the reality of the organization9 what it is like to work there, how people deal with each other and what behaviours are e"pected. All of the above elements are interlocking9 culture is rooted deep in unconscious sources but is represented in superficial practices and behaviour codes. ecause organizations are social organisms and not mechanisms, the whole is present in the parts and symbolic events become microcosms of the whole. ;oint I O (lassifying culturesL One way of e"ploring cultures is to classify them into types. /. +ole (ultures O are highly formalized, bound with regulations and paperwork and authority and hierarchy dominate relations. 1. Task (ultures O are the opposite, the preserve a strong sense of the basic mission of the organization and teamwork is the basis on which jobs are designed.

B. ;ower (ultures O have a single power source, which may be an individual or a corporate group. (ontrol of rewards is a major source of power. *andy points out that these types are usually tied to a particular structure and design of organization. A role culture has a typical pyramid structure. A task culture has fle"ible matri" structures. A power culture has web O like communications structure. (ultural analysis brings to centre stage a rich vein of behaviours and stands on its head much of the conventional wisdom about organizations. )tories, legends, rituals and heroes are key elements of organizational functioning and may actually serve more important objectives than formal decision making. .e need to consider in more depth the different ways in which culture has been used in organization study. .ilson and +osenfield F/002G distinguish two schools of thought% /. The analytical school stresses the conte"t and history of the organization and how culture acts as a socializing force controlling the behaviour of members. 1. The applicable school view culture in terms of commitment to central goals and as a means of managing successful organizational change. ;oint N O ,anaging cultureL (orporate culture is really a kind of image for the company which top management would like to project. The image of the organization differs according to where you view it. $ven in companies with strong cultures the social distance between senior management and shop floor reality can be very wide. (ultures are hardly planned or predictable9 they are the natural products of social interaction and evolve and emerge over time. )o is it valid to allow such a notion of culture to give way to a version of managed consensusL ;ettigrew believes that cultures can be shaped to suit strategic ends. *e has in mind the idea that organizations have the capacity to transform themselves from within. $ven if cultures can be managed is this necessarily a good thingL .illmott F/00BG has fashioned a tough challenge to what he calls corporate culturalism. This is the tendency for culture to be promoted as a device for increasing corporate effectiveness. (onclusion (ulture spans the range of management thinking and organizational culture has been one of the most enduring buzzwords of popular management. .hyL .hat is the appeal of the conceptL Organizational culture is apparently unifying and this strongly appeals to management :s concern with projecting an image of the organization as a community of interests. ;erhaps most importantly culture penetrates to the essence of an organization O it almost analogous with the concept of personality in relation to the individual and this acute sense of what an organization is O its mission, core values O seems to have become a necessary asset of the modern company. There is the ve"ed 'uestion of whether or not organizational culture can be managed. Academics interested in understanding and analyzing culture tend to say no. .hile there may be no definitive answer to the 'uestion, the critical and the managerial sides of the debate and inform and renew each other so it remains important to e"plore both.
Conflict & Negotiation:

A Definition of Conflict

1. There are several common themes which underlie most definitions: The parties to it must perceive conflict. Commonalties in the definitions are opposition or incompatibility and

some form of interaction. . !e define conflict as "a process that begins when one party perceives that another party has negatively affected# or is about to negatively affect# something that the first party cares about.$ This describes that point when an interaction "crosses over$ to become an inter%party conflict. &t encompasses the wide range of conflicts that people e'perience in organi(ations.

Transitions in Conflict Thought A. The Traditional View

. This early approach assumed that all conflict was bad. Conflict was synonymous with such terms that reinforced its negative connotation. )y definition# it was harmful and was to be avoided. . This view was consistent with the prevailing attitudes about group behavior in the 1*+,s and 1*-,s. Conflict was seen as a dysfunctional outcome resulting from poor communication# a lac. of openness and trust between people# and the failure of managers to be responsive to their employees. ). The /uman 0elations 1iew

1. Conflict is a natural occurrence in all groups and organi(ations. 2ince it was natural and inevitable it should be accepted. . &t cannot be eliminated and may even contribute to group performance. +. The human relations view dominated conflict theory from the late 1*-,s through the mid%1*3,s. Conflict 4rocess: 2tage &: 4otential 5pposition or &ncompatibility
A. Stage I: Potential Opposition or Incompatibility

2emantic difficulties are a result of differences in training# selective perception# and inade6uate information. The potential for conflict increases when either too little or too much communication ta.es place. The channel chosen for communicating can have an influence on stimulating opposition.

. Structure The term structure includes variables such as si(e# degree of speciali(ation# 7urisdictional clarity# member%goal compatibility# leadership styles# reward systems# and the degree of dependence. 2i(e and speciali(ation act as forces to stimulate conflict. The larger the group and more speciali(ed its activities# the greater the li.elihood of conflict. The potential for conflict is greatest where group members are younger and turnover is high. The greater the ambiguity in responsibility for actions lies# the greater the potential for conflict. The diversity of goals among groups is a ma7or source of conflict. A close style of leadership increases conflict potential. Too much reliance on participation may also stimulate conflict. 0eward systems# too# are found to create conflict when one member8s gain is at another8s e'pense. 9inally# if a group is dependent on another group# opposing forces are stimulated.

+. Personal variables &nclude individual value systems and personality characteristics. Certain personality types lead to potential conflict. :ost important is differing value systems. 1alue differences are the best e'planation for differences of opinion on various matters.

B. Stage II: Cognition and Personalization 1. Antecedent conditions lead to conflict only when the parties are affected by and aware of it. . Conflict is personali(ed when it is felt and when individuals become emotionally involved. +. This stage is where conflict issues tend to be defined and this definition delineates the possible settlements.

-. 2econd# emotions play a ma7or role in shaping perceptions. Negative emotions produce oversimplification of issues# reductions in trust# and negative interpretations of the other party8s behavior. 4ositive feelings increase the tendency to see potential relationships among the elements of a problem# to ta.e a broader view of the situation# and to develop more innovative solutions.

C. 2tage &&&: &ntentions

1. &ntentions are decisions to act in a given way. . !hy are intentions separated out as a distinct stage; :erely one party attributing the wrong intentions to the other escalates a lot of conflicts. +. 5ne author8s effort to identify the primary conflict%handling intentions is represented in Cooperativeness<"the degree to which one party attempts to satisfy the other party8s concerns.$

Assertiveness<"the degree to which one party attempts to satisfy his or her own concerns.$ C. 2tage &&&: &ntentions =cont.>

-. 9ive conflict%handling intentions can be identified.

Competing: !hen one person see.s to satisfy his or her own interests# regardless of the impact on the other parties to the conflict Collaborating: !hen the parties to conflict each desire to fully satisfy the concerns of all parties. The intention is to solve the problem by clarifying differences rather than by accommodating. Avoiding: A person may recogni(e that a conflict e'ists and want to withdraw from it or suppress it. Accommodating: !hen one party see.s to appease an opponent# that party is willing to be self%sacrificing. Compromising: !hen each party to the conflict see.s to give up

something# sharing occurs# resulting in a compromised outcome. There is no clear winner or loser# and the solution provides incomplete satisfaction of both parties8 concerns. ?. &ntentions provide general guidelines for parties in a conflict situation. They define each party8s purpose# but they are not fi'ed.

They might change because of reconceptuali(ation or because of an emotional reaction. /owever# individuals have preferences among the five conflict% handling intentions. &t may be more appropriate to view the five conflict%handling intentions as relatively fi'ed rather than as a set of options from which individuals choose to fit an appropriate situation.

D. 2tage &1: )ehavior

E. Stage V: Outcomes

F. Negotiation . !argaining Strategies

/. There are two general approaches to negotiation: distributive bargaining and integrative bargaining 1. "istributive bargaining An e'ample of distributive bargaining is buying a car: a. @ou go out to see the car. &t is great and you want it. b. The owner tells you the as.ing price. @ou do not want to pay that much. c. The two of you then negotiate over the price. &ts most identifying feature is that it operates under (ero%sum conditions. Any gain & ma.e is at your e'pense# and vice versa. The most widely cited e'ample of distributive bargaining is in labor%

management negotiations over wages. The essence of distributive bargaining is depicted in A'hibit 1-%B. a. 4arties A and ) represent two negotiators. b. Aach has a target point that defines what he or she would li.e to achieve. c. Aach also has a resistance point# which mar.s the lowest outcome that is acceptable. d. The area between these two points ma.es up each one8s aspiration range. A. As long as there is some overlap between A and )8s aspiration ranges# there e'ists a settlement range where each one8s aspirations can be met. !hen engaged in distributive bargaining# one8s tactics focus on trying to get one8s opponent to agree to one8s specific target point or to get as close to it as possible.

+. &ntegrative bargaining An e'ample: A sales rep calls in the order and is told that the firm cannot approve credit to this customer because of a past slow%pay record.

a. The ne't day# the sales rep and the firm8s credit manager meet to discuss the problem. They want to ma.e the sale# but do not want to get stuc. with uncollectable debt. b. The two openly review their options. c. After considerable discussion# they agree on a solution that meets both their needs. The sale will go through with a ban. guarantee that will ensure payment if not made in B, days. This e'ample operates under the assumption that there e'ists one or more settlements that can create a win%win solution. &n terms of intra%organi(ational behavior# all things being e6ual# integrative bargaining is preferable to distributive bargaining. )ecause integrative bargaining builds long%term relationships and facilitates wor.ing together in the future# it bonds negotiators and allows each to leave the bargaining table feeling victorious. Distributive bargaining# on the other hand# leaves one party a loser. &t tends to build animosities and deepens divisions.

!hy do we not see more integrative bargaining in organi(ations; The answer lies in the conditions necessary for this type of negotiation to succeed.

a. b. c. d.

4arties who are open with information and candid about their concerns A sensitivity by both parties to the other8s needs The ability to trust one another A willingness by both parties to maintain fle'ibility

/. The Negotiation 4rocess 1. A simplified model of the negotiation process . 4reparation and planning: Do your homewor.. !hat is the nature of the conflict; !hat is the history leading up to this negotiation; !ho is involved# and what are their perceptions of the conflict; !hat do you want from the negotiation; !hat are your goals; @ou also want to prepare an assessment of what you thin. the other party to your negotiation8s goals are.

a. !hen you can anticipate your opponent8s position# you are better e6uipped to counter his or her arguments with the facts and figures that support your position. 5nce you have gathered your information# use it to develop a strategy. Determine your and the other side8s )est Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement =)ATNA>.

a. @our )ATNA determines the lowest value acceptable to you for a negotiated agreement. b. Any offer you receive that is higher than your )ATNA is better than an impasse. +. Definition of ground rules: !ho will do the negotiating; !here will it ta.e place; !hat time constraints# if any# will apply; To what issues will negotiation be limited; !ill there be a specific

procedure to follow if an impasse is reached; During this phase# the parties will also e'change their initial proposals or demands.

-. Clarification and 7ustification: !hen initial positions have been e'changed# e'plain# amplify# clarify# bolster# and 7ustify your original demands This need not be confrontational.

@ou might want to provide the other party with any documentation that helps support your position.

?. )argaining and problem solving: The essence of the negotiation process is the actual give and ta.e in trying to hash out an agreement. Concessions will undoubtedly need to be made by both parties.

B. Closure and implementation: The final step<formali(ing the agreement that has been wor.ed out and developing any procedures that are necessary for implementation and monitoring :a7or negotiations will re6uire hammering out the specifics in a formal contract. 9or most cases# however# closure of the negotiation process is nothing more formal than a handsha.e.

+eferences% +obbins,/Bth $dition, Organizational ehaviour.