MS-21 Social Processes and Behavioural Issues PDF

MS-21 Social Processes and Indira Gandhi Behavioural Issues National Open University School of Management Studies Block 1 SOCIETY AND ORGANISATION UNIT 1 Social Processes and Organisation in Dynamic 5 Environment UNIT 2 Organisational Pro...

MS-21 Social Processes and Indira Gandhi Behavioural Issues National Open University School of Management Studies Block 1 SOCIETY AND ORGANISATION UNIT 1 Social Processes and Organisation in Dynamic 5 Environment UNIT 2 Organisational Processes 20 UNIT 3 Individual Processes 34 Course Design and Preparation Team (2018) Late Prof. G. C Patro Prof. Suuahs Shetgovekar Retired Professor, SOSS, IGNOU Berhampur University, Odisha Dr Gopal Jadav Prof A. M Sarma SOMS, IGNOU Retired Professor, Dr. Kamal Vagrecha TISS, Mumbai SOMS, IGNOU Prof. Gopa Bharadwaj Dr Monika Misra Retired Professor, SOSS, IGNOU Delhi University Mr. Puneet Kumar Prof P Jyothi Research Scholar Central university of Hyderabad SOMS, IGNOU Prof. Shalini Garg Ms. Rupsha Burman IP University, Delhi Research Scholar Prof. Neeti Agrawal SOMS, IGNOU SOMS, IGNOU Course Editor Prof. Srilatha SOMS, IGNOU Course Coordinators Prof. Srilatha Dr. Nayantara Padhi SOMS, IGNOU SOMS, IGNOU Acknowledgement 1. Unit 4: Organisational Communication Processes is adapted from BEE 003 course of SOET, IGNOU. 2. Unit 16 : Negotiating Strategies is adapted from Saylor Academy (2012), under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License. Print Production Mr. K.G. Sasi Kumar Assistant Registrar (Publication) SOMS, IGNOU, New Delhi January, 2018  Indira Gandhi National Open University, 2018 ISBN-978-93-87237-87-2 All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form, by mimeograph or any other means, without permission in writing from the Indira Gandhi National Open University. Further information on the Indira Gandhi National Open University courses may be obtained from the University’s Office at Maidan Garhi, New Delhi-l10068 or website of INGOU www.ignou.ac.in Printed and published on behalf of the Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi by Director, School of Management Studies, IGNOU, New Delhi. Laser Typeset by Tessa Media & Computers, C-206, A.F.E.-II, Okhla, New Delhi. Printed at: BLOCK 1 SOCIETY AND ORGANISATION The present block consists of three units. The first unit deals with the social processes and organisations in dynamic environment the second unit covers the organisational processes such as approaches to organisation and leadership. The last unit deals with the individual processes such as intra personal and inter personal. Society and Organisation 4  Social Processes and UNIT 1 SOCIAL PROCESSES AND Organisation in Dynamic Environment ORGANISATION IN DYNAMIC ENVIRONMENT Objectives After reading this unit you should be able to understand: the changing scope of Organisational Behaviour (OB) involving Micro and Macro OB; the open system and institutional perspectives of society and organisation; the society-environment-organisation interface; social processes as sources of human behavior in general and at work; process levels from individual (micro) level to society (macro) level; and changing society and organisations in India Structure 1.1 Introduction 1.2 The Open System and Institutional Perspectives of Society and Organisation 1.3 The Society-Environment-Organisation Interface 1.4 Social Processes as Sources of Human Behaviour 1.5 Process Levels from Individual (Micro) Level to Society (Macro) Level 1.6 Changing Society and Organisations in India 1.7 Summary 1.8 Self Assessment Questions 1.9 Further Readings 1.1 INTRODUCTION The term Organisational Behaviour (OB) initially had reference only to the behaviour and nature of people in organisations. Given the fuzziness of its boundaries (Blood:1994) this discipline, combining cultural anthropology, economics, political science, psychology and sociology, always tended to stretch beyond that domain. Within three decades of its established identity, OB also incorporated the behaviour and nature of organisations. (Today its concern is first with the behaviour and nature of people within organisations (Micro OB); and second with the behaviour and nature of organisations within their socio- cultural, political and economic environments (Macro OB).(Miner: 2006)Though it was intertwined with other terms like organisation theory and organisation science, yet, as a professional specialisation it has acceptably settled with the term Organisational Behaviour.Understanding Social processes is important to understand both Micro and Macro OB streams. For this purpose we have to discuss the open system and institutional perspectives of society and organisation; the society-environment-organisation interface, social processes as sources of human behavior in general and at work and process levels from individual(micro) level to society (macro) level 5 Society and Organisation 1.2 THE OPEN SYSTEM AND INSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVES OF SOCIETY AND ORGANISATION Modern society is an organisational society (Amitai Etzioni). Civilization progresses through organised living in which organisations play an important role.Different types of organisations are created, developed and sustained in order to satisfy the multitude and varied needs of members of the society. Society places at the disposal of organisations all requisite resources, while setting out the objectives to be pursued and also keeps a tag on the organisations’ activities and functions. Thus, while organisations per se are important for the society; society is the resource provider and janitor of all organisations. The ‘Resource Dependence Theory’ (Pfeiffer& Salancik 1978) captures this concept when it postulates two assumptions namely: “first that organisations and their people are interdependent with other organisations and people; and second that consequent to this interdependence and the social relationships involved, understanding is much better served by investigating the effects and the constraints emanating from the social contexts; this is true of both individual and organisational behaviour”. The ‘open systems’ perspective (Katz & Kahn 1966) focuses on external social constraints on organisational action. Organisations are sub-systems of society. Society subsumes many systems. But each system has defining characteristics such as – 1) The importation of energic inputs from the social environment. 2) Transformation of available energy as throughput, so that work is done within the system. 3) The exportation of a product or output into the environment. 4) A cycle of events in which the product exported to the environment provides the energy for repetition of the cycle. 5) The development of negative entropy, where by more energy, is imported from the environment than is expended in work, thus counteracting the entropic imperative, which inevitably tends towards disorganisation and death. 6) The existence of information inputs or signals about how the environment and the system are functioning; negative feedback from internal functioning, which provides information to correct deviations from course; and a coding process that simplifies energy and information inputs and permits their selective reception. 7) A stead state that preserves the character of the system and is marked by a stable ratio of energy exchanges and relations between the parts. 8) Movement in the direction of increasing differentiation, elaboration or specialisation. 9) The operation of the principle of equifinality, under which a system can achieve the same final state from different initial conditions and various paths. 6 The open system perspective not only identifies the characteristics of system in Social Processes and Organisation in Dynamic terms of its relationship with other systems external to it, but also provides a Environment framework to understand the internal structures and functions, and the processes which bind them. Governing both these external and internal aspects is done through institutionalisation. Institutionalisation is the creation, definition and execution of norms to regulate the behaviour of major units of society and organisation as systems. The norms, set out by tacit agreement of the units, determine the criteria according to which resources are allocated and purposes for which utilized; while prescribing the sanctions to ensure that such norms are upheld. Institutionalisation defines behaviour patterns required to regulate the flow of activities and resources between and within organised systems. The direct or indirect interrelatedness and dependence between organisations creates the need for institutionalisation for not only effective functioning but also for the maintenance of specific structural forms, activities and rules and degrees of exchange (Talcott & Parsons). Institutions regulate and organize patterns of behaviour of individual members of the system and of its component groups; and in turn it is also greatly influenced by their sentiments, attitudes and activities. While the collective institutions’ impact is well conceived, how the individual sentiments, attitudes and activities become exchanged and crystalized with institutions is not clear. Through processes of acculturation and socialisation institutions are transmitted from macro to micro units of the system, but the reverse analysis of how micro behaviour impacts on macro institutions is considered a blind spot caught in the ‘black box’ or ‘dark arena’ of throughput in the system. But it is an undeniable fact that, in the social exchange for achieving social order somewhere the micro and macro mutually impact one another though with differing degrees of freedom and effectiveness. The balance in this exchange is inherently maintained though temporary indications of disorganisation and disintegration appear. Organisational structures are purported to develop in highly institutionalised contexts. Thus, they are influenced to take on the practices and procedures that are defined by prevailing rationalised ideas about organisational work held in society. When they do this they increase their legitimacy and their chances of survival. The ‘neo-institutionalists’ challenge this postulate and call that societal expectations defined through institutions can be fictitious and mythical as it may conflict with criteria of efficiency, profit maximisation, and such other goals of organisation (Meyer and Scott 1983). They are critical of old institutionalists’ sacrosanct contention that ‘Institutionalisation is the process through which a given set of cultural rules in the name of collective progress and justice; and, a pattern of activities come to be normatively and cognitively held in place, so that they are taken for granted to be lawful either by formal law, customs or common knowledge; and action is not by individual choice but of broad social scripts.’ They see that in this contention the individualism loses out in large part to ‘the massive institutional features of the social system’. They also see a forced ‘rationalisation’ which is a purposive or instrumental process that structure everyday life within impersonal norms and rules that constitute universal social organisation and collective moral purpose. They suggest a model as given in the Exhibit 1.1 below. 7 Society and Organisation Macro Sociological processes – origins of environmental rationalisation Dimensions of the rationalised environment- boundaries not clearly defined Institutionalised elements in the environment- mechanisms influencing organisations The extant set of organisation– including identities, structures, and activity patterns Exhibit 1.1: Neo- Institutionalists Model The neo institutionalists suggest for four ways of integrating units into institutionalisation process namely Representational rules involving shared logics or modes of reasoning that help to create shared understanding of reality that have been ‘taken for granted’; Consultative rules that create ‘actors’ i.e. identities and entities linked to specified behaviours and action routines; Normative rules that stipulate expectations for behaviour that are both internalised by actors and reinforced by the beliefs and actions of those with whom they interact; and Enforcement mechanisms, both formal and informal, involving surveillance, assessment, and the application of sanctions rewarding conformity and punishing deviance. (Scott and Meyer, 1994) Bringing the neo institutionalisation to still micro level, Lynne Zucker (1977, 1983) suggests that organisations shall go for potentially repeatable (objective) and socially approved (exterior) institutional processes. Transmission, Maintenance and Resistance are conceived as three possibilities of institutional norms getting crystalized in organisations. More the objectivity and exteriority, greater is the feasibility and continuity of transmission. Transmission shall be sustained by maintenance which shall be a continuous effort. When the first two fail, resistance to institutions grow and the reality is that they fail and resistance also comes up though not fully and continuously but partially and intermittently.Stability and change are to be judiciously balanced through institutionalisation for the continuance of the system. Inter-organisational institutionalisation is addressed through the concept of ‘isomorphism’ which means that ‘similarity in different organisms resulting from convergence’. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) identify coercive(arising from unilateral power seeking legitimacy in terms of compliance), mimetic(resulting from standard imitative responses to uncertainty) and normative (identified with professionalism) isomorphism. The organisation’s tendency to model their institutions on the basis of dependence on other organisations; be it political, economic, or social for resources, policies, capital and other needs; is considered as a method of institutionalisation. When we interpret one of the most important phenomenon of current times namely globalisation, we can clearly see how 8 political, economic and socio-cultural systems are shaping their institutional base on the principle of isomorphism. The crises of systems force them to search for Social Processes and Organisation in Dynamic apparent successful and best practices elsewhere to shape their institutions. Environment The following table 1.1, explaining the institutional change process, further elucidates the point made above. Table 1.1: Institutional Change Processes Stages Description I. Destabilisation Established practices are subjected to perceived crises, felt needs, and precipitating jolts arising out of social upheavals, regulatory changes, obsolete disrupted technologies, competitive disadvantage, II. Deinstitutionalisation New players emerge, existing consensus is disturbed in established institutional framework III. Pre-institutionalisation Organisations and individuals innovate on their own solutions that are viable in response to local problems and conditions IV. Theorization Abstract categories are developed and specified, and cause-effect chains are elaborated, so that local deviations can be internalised justifying the failure of status-quo and need for replacement. V. Diffusion The local innovations are spread for gaining consensus and achieving legitimacy based on their assumed pragmatic value VI. Full Institutionalisation Cognitive legitimacy is attained as a function of the density of adoption, with the result that the ideas are taken for granted as natural and expected, and thus uncritically accepted. Source: Royston Greenwood, Roy Suddaby and C.R.Hinings (2002) ‘Theorizing change: The Role of Professional Association in the Transformation of Institutionalised Fields’, Academy of Management Journal’, 45, p 59-61. Activity 1 Cite an example how political, economic and socio cultural systems are shaping their institutional base on the principle of isomorphism.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 9 Society and Organisation 1.3 THE SOCIETY – ENVIRONMENT – ORGANISATION INTERFACE The Sociotechnical theory of the Tavistock group conceived “enterprises as an open system that engages in continuing exchanges with other enterprises, institutions, and individuals in its external environment. Its sociotechnical system must permit it to maintain a steady state in which work can be done in the face of changing environmental circumstances. This open systems approach contrasts with that of closed systems, which regard the enterprise as ‘sufficiently independent to allow most of its problems to be analysed with reference to its internal structure and without reference to its external environment’(Eric Tryst 1969). Eric Tryst and Fred Emery also identified four types of environments to an enterprise basing on a continuum of minimum and slow to maximum and fast changes namely; placid random, placid clustered, disturbed reactive and turbulent field. The environmental changes are driven by the political, economic, social and cultural changes that happen on account of either natural evolutionary causes or revolutionary processes like technological, ideological other and man made changes. Industrialisation, globalisation are examples of the latter category. The organisations respond by adaptation strategies of their own. James D. Thompson (1967) first provided for four categories of environment and suggests different boundary spanning activities by organisations which are provided in the Table 2. Table 1.2: Types of Environment Types of Environment Organisational boundary Spanning Actions suitable for the environment Homogeneous-stable A few functional divisions utilizing standardized rules or adaptation Heterogeneous- stable A variety of functional divisions matched to homogeneous segments of the task environment and utilising rules extensively Homogeneous-variable Geographically decentralized divisions concerned with planning responses to change Heterogeneous- variable Divisions functionally differentiated to match segments of the task environment and decentralised to monitor and plan Second, he provides for a framework on organisation-environment interface in an open system perspective in the following postulates- 1) Variations in environmental conditions will bring about changes in decision strategies for input and output components of the firm. 2) Variations in environmental conditions can penetrate the input and output ‘buffers’ and cause changes in the technical core of the organisation. 3) Variations in environmental conditions will alter the dependence of input, technical core and output components relative to one another. 10 4) When input or output components transfer uncertainty rather than absorb Social Processes and Organisation in Dynamic it, there will be conflict among input, technical core, and output components. Environment Then he suggests four methods such as buffering, smoothing, forecasting, and rationing, by which technological core can seal off itself from environmental changes. These he suggests as organisational actions. Burns and stalker 1994 commented that, “As the rate of change increases in the technical field, so does the number of occasions which demand quick and effective interpretation between people working in different parts of the system. As the rate of change increases in the market field, so does the need to multiply the points of contact between the concern and the markets it wishes to explore and develop”. Then, they suggested Mechanistic systems and organic systems as two polarities, the former suitable for stable conditions, and the latter suitable for changes that introduce new problems and unforeseen contingencies. Paul Lawrence and Jay Lorsch (1967) defined organisation under contingency theory as “A system of interrelated behaviours of people who are performing a task has been differentiatedinto several distinct subsystems, each subsystem performing a portion of the task, and the efforts of each being integrated to achieve effective performance of the system.” The term ‘differentiation’ is explained as ‘the state of segmentation of the organisational system into subsystems, which tends to develop particular attributes in relation to the requirements posed by its relevant external environment. The term integration is explained as ‘the quality of the state of collaboration that exists among departments that is required to achieve unity of effort by the demands of the environment.’ The above mentioned theories explain the interrelatedness between society, environment and organisation. They also highlight the kinds of environment and the way organisations respond to the vagaries of change happening in the environment on account of ever changing political, economic, social and cultural conditions. Activity 2 Explain the relationship between society, environment and organisation with examples................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 11 Society and Organisation 1.4 SOCIAL PROCESSES AS SOURCES OF HUMAN BEHAVIOUR Human behaviour is a learnt behaviour and hence has scope for continuous learning process involving unlearning and relearning. Socialisation, acculturation and assimilation facilitate human learning at all life stages. Social institutions like family and groups; political institutions and economic institutions facilitate the socialisation process. Individuals as organisms shape their behaviour based on their experiential and empirical exposure. Society is a web of social relationships basic to which is human relations. Human relations are inter-personal relationship between individual and individual, individual and group, and group and group in both formal and informal settings (Elton Mayo 1946). The social processes shape the web of social relations (McIver and Page ). These processes are contact, adjustment and accommodation, conflict, competition, cooperation, assimilation, acculturation and socialisation. Contact: Three types of contacts are identified in social process, namely; physical contact indicating proximity, social contact based on mutuality, awareness and cognition and psychological contact indicating propinquity. An employee, only after selection, becomes a member of the organisation and develops all the three levels of contacts gradually with structures, technology and people- the three components of an organisation. The best behaviour of involvement and commitment are achieved when the individual employee develops propinquity i.e. psychological contact with the job, fellow employees, and the organisational goals. This social process of contact thus indicates the level of human behaviour which on the other extreme can be indicated by lack of contact (connectivity) leading to apathy, indifference and estrangement. Contact is an important social process that facilitates group formation. Formal groups are formed by the organisation depending on the ‘contact sets’ required by the interrelatedness between jobs as a contributing factor towards the strengthening of organisational structure and achievement of organisational objectives. Team building exercises like quality circles, cross-functional teams, and project teams further crystalize the formal group processes through contact as a binding force. The informal group processes, a reality propagated by Elton Mayo and his associates after the famous Hawthorne Experiments and its internal processes explained by the group dynamics theory of Kurt Lewin, emerge -though fluidly- based on contact as a foundation principle. The inter-personal relations in informal groups are shaped by proximity and propinquity developed through value systems formed by cognition, awareness and mutuality. Thus, contact as a social process is an important source of human behaviour at work. Adjustment-Accommodation is an important set of social processes which indicates the human tendency to accept and live with unfavourable, non- conducive contradictions that is a reality both in society and organisations. Adjustment is the preliminary stage of accepting the contradictions and putting up with them as a minimum level of ‘living and letting others live’. Accommodation is the higher level of accepting and compromising with the contradictions as an unavoidable necessityfailing which the ‘actor’ knows that everything would collapse to the detriment of oneself and others. Human 12 behaviour i.e. tendency and capability to develop compatibility with unfavourable Social Processes and Organisation in Dynamic conditions arises out of this social process Environment Conflict is a significantsocial process which reflects in human behaviour. Conflict is endemic and sometimes essential. When there is maladjustment of and lack of accommodation between interests and goals, conflict arises. Conflict may occur atintra-personal levelin terms of stress caused by organisational conditions; or in the form of approach-approach, approach-avoidance and avoidance-avoidance goal conflict, or person-role conflict (Fred Luthans). It may arise at interpersonal level, between person and group, group and group, and at organisational level. Conflict is ingrained in organisations. The example of Union-Employer conflict, not only get limited to employment relations but also becomes representative of class conflict. Thus conflict in society may find way to the organisation. However, conflict left unaddressed is inimical to any system. Win-Lose, Lose-Lose and Win-Win are conflict handling strategies adopted by parties to the conflict. Though win-lose is the logic of game theory of conflict, more disastrous outcome can be from the ‘lose-lose’ positioning. Win-win positioning though desirable,seldom is it achievable.‘Loss is essential to gain’ defeats logically the win-win proposition underlying which there is a loss-loss possibility. Conflict is considered by some as having positive value. In ‘group think’ phenomenon it is considered disastrous if all people think alike. Differences in opinion as embodiment of differences in goals and interests are considered essential for conflict to manifest. Latent conflict is more injurious than open and manifest conflict. Once conflict becomes open, the handling will be easier. But allowing unmanageable levels of conflict is cancerous for any system. Conflict stages like pre-conflict, conflict and conflict aftermath need to be addressed as there is a ‘domino effect’ in conflict, which means that conflict gives rise to conflict. Competition is another social process which has relevance in all human activities in the society and organisation. As resources are few and claimants are many, competition emerges to get the claim. But even a bird has to rise early to get the worm. It is the presence of rule that makes the difference between the competition and conflict. Simply framing of rules may not make competition healthy. The rules shall be mutually agreed upon; institutional arrangements shall be made in order to implement the rules to the satisfaction of all. If not, competition may brew into conflict. Organisation initiated competition systems are promotions, performance pay etc.; which unless administered through explainable organisational justice mechanisms may give rise to conflict. Competition has become a global process testing the competitive advantage of corporates. Cooperation is a positive and desirable social process which shapes human behaviour towards affiliation, coalition and co-optation. An overdose of conflict, howsoever endemic it might be, is to the detriment of organised society. So, cooperative structures and systems are developed both as reactive and proactive approach to conflict. Conflict reduction and maximisation of cooperation is the symptom of healthy organised societies. Structure-functions, processes, systems are institutionalised to bring orderliness in society as well as organisations. There can be degrees of cooperation in terms of loyalty, involvement and commitment which have behavioural implications. 13 Society and Organisation Assimilation is a social process that promotes taking in and absorbing external stimulus into the system. It is a psychological, social and cultural tendency and ability to receive new facts and realities and internalise into the behaviour patterns of the recipient. Starting from ethnic societies to individuals including organisations consistently undergo this process. Assimilation is central to learning. As learning is crucial to behavior modification, assimilation plays a seminal role in organisational dynamics. It is the process on which the processes of acculturation and socialisation rest. Acculturation and Socialisation processes contribute to the perpetuation, self- renewal, and continuity of society. Individuals, groups, communities, institutions, organisations and one and all in a system undergo these processes for growth and development. Change as is endemic, is achieved by forces of acculturation and socialisation. All those in a society find it imperative to change and evolutionary long lasting change happens through these processes which make the adaptation easy through the process of assimilation. The whole gamut of social processes needs to be viewed from an integrated perspective. Contact as the first process brings the individual entities in relation with other individuals and collective entities. How to fine tune contacts to one’s advantage is learnt by processes of assimilation, acculturation and socialisation through the experiences of adjustment and accommodation, failure of which exposes one to conflicts. Competition and cooperation are soothers which attempt to reduce conflict and improve compatibility in the systems. Assimilation, acculturation and socialisation are neither the last processes nor do they happen at the end. Rather, these processes occur at every stage continuously and persistently. The inter-play between various social processes in a given space and time, result into learnt behaviour patterns of an ‘organism’ in the society which shapes one’s values, personality and culture. These reflect in organisational behaviour which includes both the behaviour of people in organisations (micro OB) and behaviour of organisation in total environment (Macro OB). ‘Individual differences’ is an important concept of OB. The ‘organism’ is always exposed to diverse and varied socio-cultural, political and economic systems. It would internalise values, customs, belief patterns, culture through processes of assimilation, acculturation and socialisation, which would shape the idiosyncratic behavior patterns. When organisations have to manage behaviour of people at work they have to manage diversities. In the management of people at work, knowledge of social processes is, hence essential. 1.5 PROCESS LEVELS FROM INDIVIDUAL (MICRO) LEVEL TO SOCIETY (MACRO) LEVEL Pareek (2007) observes that ‘in an organisation, several levels operate simultaneously, from individuals who work in the organisation to the whole society, which constitutes the context in which the organisation functions’. He identifies nine levels between the micro level (individual) and macro level (the society). Different processes operate at different levels in an integrated framework. This is given in Table 1.3 below: 14  Table 1.3: Levels and Nature of Processes Social Processes and Organisation in Dynamic Level Nature of the process Environment ThePerson: Existential It is a process of self-awareness of one’s Process organisational and social reality as to how he/she is living and working in with others for self- actualisation and personal goals. The Inter-person: This is a relationship building process between two Empathic Process entities for mutuality. Facilitators are collaboration and co-operation; polluters are conflict and unhealthy competition. Sensitivity to others is the cardinal principle. The Role: Through role individuals come in contact with others CopingProcess and the organisation. Role difficulty, ambiguity, role conflicts arising out of role overlapping need to be coped. Organisations should ensure role clarity. The Group: Building There are functional and hierarchical formal groups Process which need to be built to form an integrated structure. Norms and traditions emerge naturally in a group process including informal clusters. Team building is a group process. The Intergroup: Equifinality in a system demands collaboration Collaborative Process between heterogeneous groups. Conflict and unhealthy competition are likely in groups. Preventing these negatives and promoting collaboration is crucial. The Organisation: Organisations are organic entities that can learn from Growth Process past, change currently and develop in future. In this effort, organisations shall integrate individual interests with that of groups and organisational goals. Self- renewal on a continuous basis is imperative. The Organisation- Organisations are influenced by social, political and Environment interface: economic changes defining its environment; while Influence Process being in transaction with the society due to resource dependency. The organisation shall proactively visualise the environmental changes and pressures to create strategies independently or in coalition with other organisations, for responding to positive pressures and insulating from negative pressures. Reactive fire-fighting approach will be damaging to the organisation. The Community: Organisation-community interface is based on Process of Social- mutual social awareness of both. Direct pressure and Awareness impact of organisation on the neighbouring community or vice versa is immediately felt by the other. CSR is currently propagated to smoothen this interface through ‘conscientisation’ i.e. increasing 15 Society and Organisation awareness about social realities and developing a positive self-concept in relation to such reality. The Society: Value The most relevant processes at the level of the Process society are related to values and power. Power is the ability to influence various forces in society towards achieving the greatest good of all. But, power is always not positively exercised. Values then play a role to bring power on to the desired path. Societal values, organisational values and individual values need a synergetic integration for this purpose and Social processes of assimilation, acculturation and socialisation play an important role in transmitting and sustaining right values. Source: Compiled from Udai Pareek, ‘Understanding Organisational Behaviour’; Oxford University Press, 2007, pp. 13-17 These processes are not to be understood in isolation. There is an intricate relationship between these. Organisations can practise OB in a better way once they understand these relations. 1.6 CHANGING SOCIETY AND ORGANISATIONS IN INDIA OB processes need to be understood in the socio-historical perspective of a country. Some of the discernible features of Indian social processes and other institutions over a span of time are presented in Table4 below. The table gives a glimpse of Indian history and the important social, political and economic events characterising the people and society. It is self-explanatory and needs no elaboration excepting for the fact that the people, systems and processes have become vibrant over years with a definite trend towards making India a happening country and a global player. Table 1.4: Indian Social Processes Period Major events and General perspective of social processes and other institutions Pre-Muslim period Philosophical, intellectual and spiritual pursuits flourishing at the cost of military capabilities due to fragmented kingdoms Muslim Period Invasions with twin purposes of plundering wealth and forced propagation of Islam which was possible due to the moderate secular philosophical base and weak military powers. Initial British Colonial Expansion of Christianity, imperialism, and ultimate Period subjugation of passive, subdued and non-vibrant people. Scientific temperament, infrastructure, new institutions and social reforms emerging due to expanded use of English language among native elite groups. 16  Social Processes and Later British Colonial Anti- colonial movement led by native and British Organisation in Dynamic Period educated Indian leaders supported by politically Environment activated and socially aroused people and emergence of indigenous business families. Initial Post- Heavy industrialisation under public sector needing Independence period trained and educated human resource and consequent growth of education. Political hegemony. Unionisation and increased union militancy. The period of social Privatisation of banks, poor performance of public upheaval and political sector; protests under J.P, movement leading to movements National Emergency curbing all liberties of people. Weakening of trade unions. The post-emergency The resurrection of a vibrant democracy with rise period of new political coalitions against hegemonic rule indicating political maturity of people. Proliferation of civil society, human rights and NGOs along with union activism giving new voices to people. Poor economic performance due to political instability. The New Economic Economic liberalisation to save the country from Policy impending disaster arising out of low foreign exchange reserves leading to Balance of payment problem. Structural adjustments leading to rationalisation of manpower, public sector disinvestment, privatisation leading to opening of markets having impacts on the indigenous economic players from MNCs Post- Globalisation Jobless economic growth due to economic and scenario labour reforms, inflation and low purchasing power parity, Entrepreneurship grows in informal and start- up sectors due to technical exposure of large section of human resource. Resourcefulness and competencies increase with growing competition as well as demand-supply gap in low cost, high quality manpower In the changed context in India some paradoxical paradigm shifts in social institutions and processes can be identified. Indigenous development adopting models of western intellectual rationality. Emerging new norms and belief patterns promoting culture of consumerism and change in life style towards materialism, while old norms of self – sufficiency, satisfaction and spiritualism are getting eroded. Disintegration of joint families and neglect of family and social values while strengthening the organisational values and values leading to individualism as against pluralism. 17 Society and Organisation Old social institutions like caste and hierarchical structures are dissipating; but new dependency on collective institutions like civil society, human rights and NGO groups is increasing. Greater convergence of role of male and female is evident; but gender discrimination and bias has not reduced. Ascribed status giving way to achieved status in economic sphere; while political system still clings on to ascribed status as evident from the family monopoly. Diversity is increasing with the same tempo as intolerance and narrow parochialism. These contradictions happen in vibrant and fast changing societies. One has to keep them in mind while analysing human behaviour at work. 1.7 SUMMARY The open systems concept indicates that all systems are related to and dependent on one another directly or indirectly. For civilised living organised systems are essential. Society is the largest system of which organisations (socio-cultural, political and economic) are sub systems. There is resource dependency between organisations that establishes their interface. The society manages its interface with organisations through institutionalisation. There are differences of approach between old institutional and neo institutional thinkers. Society representing pluralist interests can impose institutions on organisations is the focus of old institutionalists; whereas participatory institutionalisation is advocated by the neo-institutionalists. The interface between society and organisation is intervened by environment which stems from the social institutions and directly impacts the organisation. Various shades of thought describe this interface examining types of environmental changes and responses of the organisations. The social processes regulating the human relations and behaviour in the larger society play a significant and similar role in organisations, justifying the claim that ‘organisations are miniature society’. In understanding, analysing, predicting and managing human behaviour at work i.e. micro OB as well as the organisations’ behaviour in the larger environment (Macro OB), the knowledge of social processes is essential. 1.8 SELF ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS 1) Write short notes on Macro and Micro OB explaining the relevance of social processes in both. 2) What are the characteristics of open system? 3) How institutionalisation plays a significant in developing and maintaining interfaces between various systems? 4) Explain the institutionalisation process suggested by neo institutionalists. 5) What are the institutional changes in Indian scenario? 6) Explain the intricate nature of social processes as they shape the behaviour of units in a system and impact on changes in behaviour. 18  Social Processes and 1.9 FURTHER READINGS Organisation in Dynamic Environment John B.Miner (Ed), “Organisational Behaviour 2- Essential Theories of Process and Structure”, Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd, 2007 Amitai Etzioni, ‘ Comparative Analysis of Complex Organisations’; New York, Free Press, 1961 Daniel Katz and Robert L. Kahn, “The Social Psychology of Organisations”, New York, Wiley, 1978. Udai Pareek, “ Understanding Organisational Behaviour”, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2007 Stephen P Robbins, “Organisational Behaviour- Concepts, Controversies and Applications, Prentice Hall of India, New Delhi, 2001 SN. Eisenstadt (Ed), “Readings in Social Evolution and Development”, Pergamon Press Ltd, 1970 19 Society and Organisation UNIT 2 ORGANISATIONAL PROCESSES Objectives After going through this unit you should be able to understand: meaning of and approaches to Organisational Behaviour (OB); OB components and models; systems view of OB; components of formal organisation system; and model for management of OB Structure 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Meaning of and Approaches to Organisational Behaviour (OB) 2.3 OB Components and Models 2.4 Systems View of OB 2.5 Components of Formal Organisation System 2.6 OB Models 2.7 Managing Organisational Behaviour 2.8 Summary 2.9 Self Assessment Questions 2.10 Further Readings 2.1 INTRODUCTION We have examined the open system and institutional perspectives of Society and Organisation; the society-environment-organisation interface; social processes as sources of human behavior in general and at work; process levels from individual (micro) level to Society (Macro) level; and changing Society and Organisations in India in the previous unit. In this unit we will discuss the conceptual framework of OB, its systems view, and components of Formal Organisation System. As OB is an applied science a model guiding the learners to choose their preferred managerial style is given at the end. 2.2 MEANING OF AND APPROACHES TO ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR (OB) OB is the body of knowledge and people skills (Robinson: 1993)that helps managers to understand, analyze, predict, and manage or control (Fred Luthans: 2000) human behaviour at work.The body of knowledge is enriched by social sciences such as psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics, philosophy, politics, law, ethics and moral sciences, there by resorting to an inter- disciplinary approach. In a limited way biological sciences like human anatomy and genetics, and physical and environmental sciences have influenced the OB theory. 20 The inter-disciplinary approach helps to understand and analyze the causes and Organisational Processes nature of human behaviour. These two levels are reactive i.e. action taken after the behaviour is manifest. They work upon the notion that ‘behaviour is caused’. The OB precepts are used to know the ‘why and what’ part of human behavior at work. No doubt that this is the foundation on which the prediction and control of behaviour rests. The human or people skills of managers make use of OB as an applied science in order to proactivelypredict and control human behaviour in organisations. The basic notion is that causes of behaviour may not be always traced to organisational conditions. The social influences, group norms and personal attributesand values which shape the ‘individual differences’could also be contributory. While managers to some extent can address to the human behaviour by associating it with organisational causes, they cannot change the social, group and individual causes. The prediction of human behaviour pattern is an area which can rely upon the causative aspects of behaviour, but the control of behaviour needs a fully proactive approach that has to aim at ‘managing c8onsequences of behaviour’. Here the OB processes are used for developing the ‘how to manage’ part of human behaviour at work. Besides the inter-disciplinary approach, OB is enriched by the Human Resources, Contingency and Systems approaches. Human Resource approach is developmental contributing to individual, group and organisational development. The Contingency approach is based on situational variations involving actors, time and space dynamics. Open systems approach combines all these approaches. So, the systems approach is adopted for the study of OB which provides for a rich crop of strategies to refine and motivate human behavior at work. Unit 1 has details about the open system perspective of Organisations. 2.3 OB COMPONENTS AND MODELS OB combines two terms namely; a) organization and b) behaviour. a) Organisation: concept, structure and processes Organization is “the pattern of ways in which large numbers of people, too many to have intimate face to face contact with all others, and engaged in a complexity of tasks, relate themselves to each other in the conscious, systematic establishment and accomplishment of mutually agreed purposes” (J.M.Pfiffner & F.P.Sherwood). It is also known as “the rational coordination of the activities of a number of people for the achievement of some common explicit purpose or goal, through division of labor and function and through a hierarchy of authority and responsibility”(Edgar H.Schein).It is also described as “ a continuing system of differentiated and coordinated human activities utilizing, transforming and welding together a specific set of human, material, capital, ideational and natural resources into a unique problem solving whole; engaged in satisfying particular human needs in interaction with other systems of human activities and resources in its environment (E.W.Bakke). These three definitions define organisation as a structure, process and system respectively. Organization is represented by pyramid design comprising people, structure and technology as depicted below in Figure 2.1. 21 Society and Organisation People Technology Structure Figure 2.1: Organisations Individual differences, whole person (Gestalt theory i.e. the whole to be greater than the sum of its parts), and human dignity (Keith Davis) are the features of People component. These three indicate that although management generally tries for ‘a fit for all’ institutionalization; when it comes to controlling human behaviour at work, ‘individual differences’ of each organism be it individual or group or organisation (as in an open system, organisation deals with many organisations and the environment) shall be taken into account. At the same time the ‘whole person’ combining the, personal, psychological, emotional, spiritual, social, cultural, economic, and political aspects of an organism need to be identified and addressed. Human dignity and basic human rights need to be protected in class and power permeated organisations. The machines, tools and methods of production along with the technical know- how and skills indicating the human face of technology compose the Technologycomponent. Technological determinism meaning that technology determines all aspects of organisational structuring and functioningis greatly emphasized. It determines the interface between mechanistic and organic structures and processes. Ergonomics (man-working environment adjustment); human engineering (man-machine compatibility), are area addressed by technology. Technology also determines the peoples’ skill, job positioning and status structure. Organisation Structure is created by the interface between People and Technology. It embodies authority-subordinate structure reflected in the hierarchy; functional specialization and division of labour depicted in its lateral or horizontal form. It also envisages the vision, mission, goal, policies and rules providing the energy and purpose to the structure. The authority – subordinate vertical structure is based on certain principles as given below. The ‘chain of command’determines the flow of direction or line of command. The ‘Span of Control’ identifies the ratio of the subordinates to superiors. Authority is institutional and not personal. The CEO has delegated authority from the institutional framework. Authority generates responsibility, so greater the authority more the responsibility. The CEO cumulatively is ultimately responsible for every act of omission or commission in the organisation. Authority can be delegated, but not the responsibility. If authority is more than responsibility, then it may be abused. If responsibility is more than authority then it cannot be complied with. Even though, authority generates responsibility, a mechanism should be there to 22  maintain a balance. Because, authority has a tendency to transgress the Organisational Processes limits. Underuse of authority is also unproductive. Authority flows from top to the bottom. The ‘acceptance theory’ of Chester I Barnard and ‘Giving of orders’ principle of Mary Parker Follett suggest that if the authority and orders are accepted by the subordinates, it becomes more effective. It gives a ‘bottom to top’ scheme of authority. But in organisational process it is not feasible proposition. It holds good to the extent of legitimacy and effectiveness of authority. Accountability establishes linkages in terms of subordinates’ compliance to the authority and gauging the extent of compliance. It is a ‘bottom-up’ process. The horizontal structure is devised on division of labour and functional specialisation. Decentralisation and coordination are the forces which sustain this structure. The above mentioned elements of organising structureprocess emanate from bureaucratic principles (Max Weber).He propounded Bureaucracy as an ideal and rational structure tested over a period oftime and space.Specialization and division of labour, and employment based on technical qualification; positions arranged in a hierarchy where in promotions are made according to seniority and/or achievement, ‘ideal’ bureaucrat at the apex, who is protected against arbitrary dismissal and expected to maintain impersonal relations; and a system of impersonal rules are the features of Bureaucracy. Bureaucracy has been profusely criticized. Karl Marx believed that bureaucrats are used by dominant capitalistic class to control and exploit the lower working class. He believed that bureaucracy can be as effective as the person at the apex. Parkinson’s law that, ‘bureaucratic staff increases in inverse proportion to the amount of workdone’; and Peter’s principle that ‘in bureaucracy people rise to the level of incompetence’ indicate the weakness of bureaucracy. Dysfunctions are seen in Bureaucratic functions namely: Specialization and division of Labour apparently increases efficiency and productivity; but at the same time it creates conflict between the specialized units to the detriment of organization like Line-staff conflict. The functional attributes of hierarchy are that it maintains unity of command, coordinates activities of personnel, reinforces authority, responsibility and accountability chain, and serves as the formal system of communication. In theory it has both downward and upward orientation, but in practice it has turned out to be having only downward emphasis. Thus, individual initiative and participation are often blocked. Upward communication is impeded and there is no recognition of informal communication. Ideal bureaucrat never exists really. Nobody can be really impersonal and the whole success of bureaucracy rests on the flimsy impersonal conduct of the ideal bureaucrat. Rules are supposed to be inviolate and non-discriminatory. But seldom are they. Rules have earned the notorious distinction of red tape and often become more important than goals. Delay and distortion in communication become a rule by itself under bureaucracy. 23 Society and Organisation The modern organisation designs Modern organization designs are conceived due to the changes that have occurred on account of globalization and resultant mergers, and expansions.The philosophical challenges to bureaucracy also induced its reduced importance. The philosophical challenges are as follows. Bureaucracy does not allow personal growth; expects conformity and group think; does not take into account the informal organization; does not have conflict resolving mechanism to resolve role conflict (Robert L. Kahn), line-staff conflict (Peter F. Drucker); and above all, it is so rigid structure that it cannot assimilate new technology and change. So, Warren G. Bennis, a strong critic of bureaucracy had predicted its doom because it never bothered about the exchange balance between the organisation and individual. The Group theory of Rensis Likert highlights the role relations resulting into more group to group relations rather than the individual-individual relations. It breaks both the horizontal boundaries and vertical linkages in the line form of hierarchical bureaucracy (Linking Pin Theory). The organization as open system almost declared the death knell of bureaucracy by giving importance to not only internal systems, but also external systems. The organization-environment dependency and the information processing imperatives also expected the organization structure to be more flexible. The contingency approach of Lawrence and Lorsch outlined the important role of organization in differentiation and integration as strategies adopted by them to adjust with vagaries of change. Galbraith expanded it still further by linking certainty and uncertainty faced by organizations with mechanistic and organic structures respectively. Duncan in his decision tree model conceived simple (low uncertainty) and complex (high uncertainty) environments being addressed by static and dynamic organization structures. Project Design-Project is a time bound prioritized goal. Every organization will have such goals which are distinguished from generic policy objectives and addressed. There could be many projects at any given point of time. The project staff would emanate from the functional structure and assimilate back into it after completion of the project. Thus it breaks all the tenets of bureaucracy, inbreeding great flexibility in the organization structure and even breaking the line-staff dichotomy. Projects require inter functional and inter hierarchical integration for their successful completion. This inter-dependency requires lot of flexibility in ideation and execution. Individual,staffs, inter-mix and aggregate are some of the types of project structure. Matrix Design-When a project structure is superimposed on the functional structure, the result is the matrix. Matrix design is largely laterally spread. It violates the hierarchy and line-staff division. It breaks informal groups which emerge out of relatively more permanent work groups.Matrix design creates a repository of specialists available in the functional structure. Free form organization or linear structure, SBU model, Transnational or geographical model of organization structures are used by MNCs.These are largely 24 ‘modular’ design with a central hub surrounded by a network of production units Organisational Processes or outside specialist service providers. Rather than being housed under one roof or located within one organization services such as accounting, design, manufacturing of parts, marketing and distribution networks are outsourced to outside agencies that are connected electronically to a central office and expected to perform as per the standards prescribed by the main company in the mutually agreed upon job contract. This design is not only cost-effective as the expenses on machine tools, material resources are born by the contracting out company but also reduces administrative overhead cost. Concept and approaches to the study of behaviour Behaviour is activity directed towards goals (Paul Hersey & Ken Blanchard). Manifestation is essential to be recognized as behaviour. Latent state of mind is the psyche of which cognition is an important feature. Cognition is an inherent ability to comprehend, compare and cognize. It is the cognitive ability that receives, organizes and responds to external stimulus thereby playing a crucial role of bringing about parity between the latent state of mind and manifest behaviour. The following are some important approaches to OB. Sigmund Freud’s model is characterized by three interrelated but often conflicting psychoanalytic frames of mind, namely Id, Ego and Superego and unconscious motivation. ‘Id’ is the impulse struggling for gratification; Superego is the unconscious conscience that differentiates the right and wrong and blocks the impulses of Id; and Ego is the conscious which acts as a balancing force. This inherent conflict in the intra-person explains the behavioural aberrations and clinical methods of treating mental illness came out of this model. Though it provides for a framework for analyzing behaviour at the intrapersonal level; yet it remains a ‘black box’ and cannot be applicable for analyzing behaviour at inter-personal, group and organisational levels. Eric Bernie’s Child, Adult and Parent Ego stages (Transactional Analysis) model further explains the cognitive dissonance (Leon C. Festinger) leading to behavioural problems. The cognitive approach (Edward Tolman) emphasized the positive and free- will aspects of human behaviour as against Freudian obsession with negative, irrational, sexually motivated human behaviour. It explains the intervening and mediating conditions between stimulus and behaviour in terms of expectancy. Behaviour is caused. Stimulus is the cause which shapes the response (manifest behaviour). It is captured by the Stimulus-Response model (S-R) espoused by the Classical Conditioning theory (Ivan Pavlov). Behaviour is shaped by consequences. Behavior resulting into pleasant consequences will be repeated and behaviour resulting into unpalatable consequences will extinguish. This is explained by the principle of hedonism, by the cognitive theory advanced by Edward Tolman that “behaviour is purposive” and by the more scientific explanation of Response-Stimulus model (R-S) propounded by the operant conditioning theory (B.F.Skinner). The Antecedents-Behaviour-Consequence (ABC) model converges the above two facets of behaviour namely “Behaviour is caused” & “Behaviour is shaped by consequences”. 25 Society and Organisation Stimulus – Organism- Response (SOR) model attempted to focus on the organism i.e. ‘individual differences’ characteristic of people, indicating the fact that same stimulus may not result in same response due to organism interventions. The Stimulus-Organism-Behaviour-Consequence (SOBC) model (Fred Luthans) takes the best of all models such as S-R, R-S and S-O-R inclusive of the whole person and human dignity features of people. It is captured by the Social Learning theory of Albert Bandura when he takes the position that behaviour can best be explained in terms of continuous reciprocal interaction between cognitive, behavioural and environmental determinants. It is represented in the figure 2.2. Person Behaviour Environment Figure: 2.2: Social Learning Theory Activity 1 According to you, which OB model is suitable in present scenario, justify citing examples.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2.4 SYSTEMS VIEW OF OB The SOBC model and Social Learning theories adopt the System model of OB, which is universally accepted. The model is depicted below in Figure 2.3. SYSTEM VIEW OF OB THROUGHPUT IS OB Modification INPUT OUTPUT Objectives & FO OB Organizational Resources S effectiveness OB SS Reinforcement Figure 2.3: System Model of OB 26 Legend - FOS-Formal Organisation System, IS-Individual System, SS- Social Organisational Processes System The explanation of the systems model includes the following points Organizations have to pursue socially approved objectives. No organization has its own resources. These are allocated to the organization by the society to pursue socially approved objectives. Objectives and resources thus are inputs drawn by the organization from the larger society which also provides the distant and immediate environment to the organisation. The throughput in OB system is composed of Formal Organization System (FOS) placed in juxtaposition to Individual System (IS) and Social System (SS). The interface between the three in which the FOS is in the driver’s seat influencing the IS and SS result into Organizational Behaviour. OB is not an end in itself. Rather, it is a means to achieve the main output of OB system namely; the organizational effectiveness. OB can be both positive and negative. Positive behaviour of people at work needs reinforcement, as much as the modification of negative behaviour. Thus reinforcement and modification are intervention strategies to channelize the behaviour contributing to performance which ultimately leads to Organizational Effectiveness. Effective organizations are those which achieve their goals, can adjust as a system with the vagaries of change brought about by the environment and manage the interfaces with other sub systems of the larger system as a sub system. 2.5 COMPONENTS OF FORMAL ORGANISATION SYSTEM Organisational Formal Job Tendency Objectives & Organisation Requirements Technology To Perform Structure and Satisfaction Resources Expectations Authority Figure 2.4: The Formal Organisation System 27 Society and Organisation The explanations are as given below: Objectives of organization embody the inputs to the FOS. Technology is essential for translating the objectives into concrete results. The interface between technology and human resource culminate into a structure. The structure represents both the hierarchy and functional specialization with policies and rules binding them into an organic unity. The hierarchy defines the authority-subordinate relationship in which communication plays an important role. The formal requirements and expectations of the organization from its people is expressed in the vision, mission and goal statement that which is influenced both by external environment and internal imperatives. Authority presupposes the existence of leadership, and decision making. Leadership indicates the managerial style which is discussed below in the model given by Chris Argyris. Decision making process can be either unilateral or participative. Strategic decisions could be the premise of the top executives; bur operational decisions can be participatory. Decision rationality, balancing organisational requirements and the interests of the employees, is crucial for the decisions to be effective. The role of authority is to ensure compatibility between organization’s expectations and employee interests so that the organization gets the best performance from its people and the employees derive job satisfaction. Such a win-win situation will lead to a tendency to perform among the human resource, which is the output of the FOS. The interface between the FOS and IS and SS happens as given in Figure 2.4. The components of IS and SS and the synergy of the three subsystems of the organisation is discussed in the unit 3. 2.6 OB MODELS Every organization develops a particular model in which behaviour of the people takes place. This model is developed on the basis of management’s assumptions about people and the vision of the management. Since these assumptions vary to a great extent, these result into the development of different organizational behaviour models (OB models). From the very beginning of the civilized human society, two alternative approaches have been adopted for placing trust on people. One says “trust everyone unless there is a contrary evidence”: another says “do not trust anyone unless there is a contrary evidence”. Naturally, interpersonal interactions take place differently under these two approaches. Following description of the organizations is worth while to note here: 28 “Most of our originations tend to be arranged on the assumption that people Organisational Processes cannot be trusted or relied on, even in tiny matters”. However, this is only one side of the coin. For example, McGregor has given theories X and Y and each theory makes assumptions which are quite contrary to each other; Argyris has given the concept of immaturity and maturity of people which also provides two opposite views about the people. Thus, OB models developed on the basis of these assumptions would show great variations. However, OB models that are in practice show some kind of continuum between these two opposite poles, though they tend to lean towards a particular pole. Davis has described four OB models which are as follows: Autocratic Model In the autocratic model, managerial orientation is towards power. Managers see authority as the only means to get the things done, and employees are expected to follow orders. The result is high dependence on boss. This dependence is possible because employees live on the subsistence level. The organizational process is mostly formalized; the authority is delegated by right of command over people to whom it applies. The management decides what is the best action for the employees. The model is largely based on the Theory of X assumptions of McGregor where the human beings are taken inherently distasteful to work and try to avid responsibility. A very strict and close super-vision is required to obtain desirable performance from them. Likert’s management system can be compared with the model of organizational behavior. His system (exploitative authoritative) in which motivation depends on physical security and some use of desire for start and better performance is ensured through fear, threats, punishment, and occasional rewards; communications is mostly one-way , that is downward: there is little interaction between managers and employees. The autocratic model represents traditional thinking which is based on the economic concept of the man. With the changing values and aspiration levels of people, this model is yielding place to others. However, this does not mean that this model is discarded in toto. In many cases; the autocratic model of organizational behaviour may be a quite useful way to accomplish performance, particularly where the employees can be motivated by physiological needs. This generally happens at lower strata of the organization. Custodial Model In the custodial model, the managerial orientation is towards the use of money to play for employee benefits. The model depends on the economic resources of the organization and its ability to pay for the benefits. While the employees hope to obtain security, at the same time they become highly dependent on the organization. An organizational dependence reduces personal dependence on boss. The employees are able to satisfy their security needs or in the context of Herzberg’s theory only maintenance factors. These employees working under custodial model feel happy, their level of performance is not very high. This resembles again to Herzberg’s satisfier and dissatisfier. 29 Society and Organisation Since employee are getting adequate regards and organizational security, they feel happy. However, they are not given any authority to decide what benefits or rewards they should get. This approach is quite similar to partrimonial approach where the basic assumption is that it is the prerogative of management to decide what benefits are best suited to the employees. Such an approach is still quite common in many business organizations in India. The phenomenon is more predominant in family-managed business organizations where family characteristics have also been applied to the organizational settings. The basic ingredient of the family- managed system is that, parents decide what is good or bad for their children and managers decide what is good for their employees. From this point of view, this model is not suitable for matured employees. Supportive Model The supportive model organizational behaviour depends on managerial leadership rather than on the use of power of money. The aim of managers is to support employees in their achievement of results. The focus is primarily on participation and involvement of employees in managerial decision-making process. The model is based on principles of supportive relationship’s of Likert, which is the basic ingredient of his system 4 (participative). Likert states that, the leadership and other processes of the organization must be such as to ensure a maximum probability that in all interactions and all relationships with the organizations each member will, in the light of his background, values and expectation views the experience as supportive and one which builds and maintains his sense of personal worth and importance. It is quite similar to the assumptions of McGregor’s Theory Y. The supportive model is based on the assumptions that human beings move to the maturity level and they expect the organizational climate which supports this expectations. Various organizational processes- communication, leadership, decision-making, interaction, control, and influence- are such that, these help employees to fulfil their higher order needs such as esteem and self-actualization. Likert has shown that, supportive model is best suited in the conditions when employees are self-motivated. Thus, this emphasizes not on the economic resources of the organization but its human aspect. Manager’s role is to help employees to achieve their work rather than supervising them closely. This can be applied more fruit fully for higher level managers whose lower order needs are satisfied reasonably. Organizations with sophisticated technology and employing professional people can also apply this model for getting best out of their human resources. However, this does not mean that, this model can be applied in all circumstances. For example Davis observes that, ‘the supportive model tends to be specially effective in nations with affluence and complex technology , because it appeals to higher order needs and provides intrinsic motivational factors. It may not be the best model to apply in less developed nations. Because their employees need structures who are often at lower levels and their social conditions are different. Moreover, this model can be applied more fruit fully for managerial levels as com- pared to operative levels. As such, the tendency of modern management is to move towards supportive model, especially for their management groups. 30 Collegial Model Organisational Processes Collegial model is an extension of supportive model. The term collegial refers to a body of people having common purpose. Collegial model is based on the team concept in which each employee develops high degree of understanding towards others and shares common goals. The employee response to this situation is responsibility. Employees need little direction and control from management. Control is basically through self- discipline by the team members