These approaches cover various organizational phenomena including

organizational behaviour. Taken together, these approaches are termed as

modern approach. Thus, there are three basic approaches of organizational
behaviour:
1. Classical approach.
2. Neoclassical approach

Classical Approach
The term "classical" refers to ideas or practices that have been accepted for a
long time. In the context of organizational behavior, there are three main
classical approaches: scientific management, administrative management, and
bureaucracy—have given different ways of managing human behaviour in
organizations these may be integrated into a single approach. Thus, classical
approach of organizational behaviour has the following implications:
1. Interrelated Management Functions.
What managers do can be broken down into five main functions: planning,
organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling. All these functions are linked
together. Sometimes, these functions overlap; for example, planning can
involve aspects of organizing or staffing. Essentially, everything in management
works together.
2. Guiding Principles.
The classical approach has introduced several management principles that
guide how managers should act, especially when it comes to managing people
in organizations. These principles are prescriptive in nature, that is, what to do,
and are supposed to be universally applicable.
3. Rigid Organization Structure.
Classical writers recommended a strict organizational structure to effectively
manage tasks and control people's behavior. This structure is often tall,
meaning it has many levels of hierarchy. Each lower-level position is closely
supervised by the one above it, ensuring that there is clear oversight and
control at every level.

4. Financial Incentives for Motivation.

To motivate people in organizations, the classical approach suggests using
financial incentives. This means that offering more money can lead to better
performance. In some cases, those who don't perform well may receive lower
pay as a way to encourage better results.
Classical approach is like classical music which appeals only to some. In the
same way, classical approach has very few takers. As mentioned earlier, there
are three approaches in classical approach. Let us go through these approaches.

SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT
The idea of scientific management was introduced by Taylor in the USA at the
start of the 20th century. This idea was later developed by Frank and Lillian
Gilbreth, Henry Gantt, George Berth, and Edward Felen. Scientific management
focused on making work processes more efficient on the shop floor level.
Taylor defined scientific management as finding the most effective and cost-
efficient way to do work.
Taylor has given certain basic principles of scientific management. The
fundamental principles that Taylor saw underlying the scientific management
are given below:
1. Replacing Rule of Thumb with Science.
Taylor emphasized that scientific management should use organized
knowledge instead of relying on "rule of thumb" methods. While scientific
methods provide precise measurements for different aspects of work, the rule
of thumb relies on guesswork.
Scientific management focuses on the exactness of factors like daily work
standards and payment rates, so it’s crucial that these are measured accurately
rather than estimated. This approach can be applied to all areas of
management.

2. Harmony in Group Action.

Taylor emphasized the importance of achieving harmony in group actions
instead of conflict. Group harmony means there should be mutual support
and understanding among members, allowing the team to work together
effectively and contribute at their best.
 3. Cooperation.
Scientific management focuses on encouraging teamwork instead of chaotic
individual efforts. It relies on trust, collaboration, and goodwill. To build
cooperation between managers and workers, it’s important to develop and
promote understanding and shift mindsets.
Taylor emphasized replacing conflict with friendly cooperation, moving
from suspicion to trust, and becoming allies instead of rivals. He believed
that scientific management should grow along these lines.

4. Maximum Output.
Scientific management focuses on continuous increase in production and
productivity instead of restricted production, either by management or by
workers. Taylor hated inefficiency and intentional slowing down of
production. In his opinion, "there is hardly any worse crime to my mind than
that of holding back output."
He thought disputes about how to share the product were acceptable, as long as
the overall production was growing. Therefore, he advised the management and
workers to "turn their attention towards increasing the size of the surplus
until the size of the surplus becomes so large that it is necessary to quarrel
over how it shall be divided."
5. Development of Workers.
In scientific management, workers should be helped to reach their full potential
for both their own benefit and the company's success. To develop workers, they
need to be carefully chosen based on scientific methods and given
training at their jobs.
This training helps them stay skilled and ready for new ways of working, i.e.,
according to the requirement of new methods of working which may be different
from the older, less efficient non-scientific methods.

Critical Analysis of Scientific Management

Scientific management helped people understand the importance of improving
efficiency on the shop floor level by using organized methods instead of the old
rule of thumb approach. However, when it comes to theory, the principles
mainly focused on solving problems at the operational level and didn't
pay much attention on management of an organization from the
manager's point of view.
So, scientific management is more important from an engineering
perspective than from a management perspective. One writer even suggested
that Taylor should be seen as the father of industrial engineering instead of the
father of scientific management.
Supporters of scientific management have focused on physical factors that
influence or impact how workers should behave, including work efficiency and
motivation.
Thus, scientific management is more about the technical side of efficiency—
like mechanization and automation—than about the overall management of
an organization.

Besides the theory, Taylor's scientific management faced strong opposition from
trade unions, industrialists, and the public. The backlash was so significant
that Taylor had to defend his ideas in front of a special US Congressional
Committee in 1912. The implementation of scientific management also
sparked protests by trade unions in various workplaces.

The major reasons for the opposition of scientific management were as follows:

1. Many of Taylor's followers focused too much on the mechanical side of

production and ignored the human aspect of work. This created
aggressive attitudes among workers.
2. The work used to be done under tight and strict supervision using an
authoritarian approach, where workers weren’t allowed to speak up, even
about valid complaints.
3. There was a lack of scientific standards for work, and any standards set
by management had to be followed strictly by workers. These standards often
increased production targets without considering the factors that could impact
those targets.
4. The most crucial element and the most controversial aspect was the
different piece rate system. Workers, including those who were efficient, and
their unions opposed this system, arguing that it was a new way for
industrialists to exploit workers.
It's important to note that trade unions were quite popular at that time.

ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT
Henry Fayol, a French industrialist, examined organizational management
from the perspective of top management. He preferred the term
"administration" over "management," highlighting that there is a unified
science behind administration. He divided his approach to studying
management into three parts:
1. Managerial qualities (physical, mental, moral, educational, technical,
and experience)
Pm tee
2. Elements of management (planning, organizing, commanding,
coordinating, and controlling) poc
3. General principles of management
These principles are used by managers around the world.

General Principles of Management

Fayol outlined fourteen principles of management. He emphasized two main
points:
1. The list of principles is not complete but rather suggestive; he only
included those principles he often applied.
2. The principles of management are not fixed; they are flexible and can be
adapted as needed.
Various principles of management are as follows:
1. Division of Work.
Fayol has advocated division of work to take the advantage of specialization. He
believed that specialization is a natural way to improve efficiency. Workers who
consistently focus on the same tasks and managers who deal with the same
issues gain skill, confidence, and accuracy, which boosts their output.
Changing tasks requires training and adjustment, which can lower
productivity. This division of work can be applied at all levels of the
organization.

2. Authority and Responsibility.

Authority and responsibility are interconnected, with responsibility stemming
from authority.
It states that responsibility arises from the tasks assigned to someone and
that it should match the level of authority they have. Fayol distinguishes
between two types of authority:
1. Official authority: Comes from a person's job title or position.
2. Personal authority: Comes from an individual’s qualities, like intelligence
and experience.
For someone to perform their responsibilities well, their authority must align
with the responsibilities they have. In other words, if a manager is given
certain tasks, they should have the necessary power to make decisions
related to those tasks.
3. Discipline.
Everyone in an organization should maintain discipline, which includes
obedience, effort, behavior, and respect shown by employees. There are
two types of discipline:
1. Self-imposed discipline: This comes from within the individual and is a
natural response to a good leader.
2. Command discipline: This comes from recognized authority and uses rules
and regulations to ensure that people follow orders.
Self-imposed discipline is more about personal commitment, while command
discipline relies on external enforcement.
4. Unity of Command.
Unity of command means that each person should receive orders and
instructions from only one supervisor. When an individual has a clear
reporting line to one boss, it reduces the chances of conflicting instructions and
increases their sense of personal responsibility for the results of their
work.
5. Unity of Direction.
Unity of direction states that all activities aimed at the same goal should
have one leader and one plan. This principle differs from unity of command,
which focuses on the reporting relationships among individuals in the
organization.
Unity of direction is about how activities are grouped and planned, while unity of
command is about how people report to their supervisors. Having unity of
direction helps improve coordination among different activities within the
organization.
6. Subordination of Individual Interest to General Interest.
The common interest of the organization should take priority over individual
interests. When there is a conflict, personal interests must be secondary to
the general interest.
However, factors like ambition, laziness, and weakness can undermine the
focus on the common good. Therefore, leaders should model fairness and
good behavior. Agreements between employers and employees should be
fair, and there should be ongoing supervision to ensure this balance is
maintained.

7. Remuneration of Personnel.
Employee compensation should be fair and aim to provide the highest
possible satisfaction for both employees and employers. Fayol did not
support profit-sharing for workers but advocated it for managers instead.
He also supported non-financial benefits, although these were typically more
feasible in large organizations.
 8. Centralization.

Decentralization means giving more authority and responsibility to

subordinates, which empowers them and increases their importance in the
organization.

Centralization refers to concentrating authority at the top levels of

management, which can limit the role of lower-level employees.

Fayol discusses how organizations can be more centralized or

decentralized without using the term centralization of authority. He suggests
that the right balance between the two depends on the size of the
organization.

In small companies, it’s common for decisions to be made by a few people

at the top (centralization). In larger companies, however, there are often
many layers of management (decentralization), which allows for more
efficient decision-making and management across different levels.

9. Scalar Chain.
There should be a clear chain of authority and communication from the highest
to the lowest levels. This means that any communication that goes up or down
must pass through each level of authority. It can only be skipped in special
situations where strictly following this chain would harm the organization. To
help with this, Fayol introduced the idea of a "gang plank." This allows
employees at the same level but under different supervisors to communicate
directly with each other, preventing delays in action.

10. Order.
This principle is about organizing things and people. For physical items,
everything should have a designated place, and everything should be in that
place. In terms of people, it means having the right person in the right job.
Achieving this order requires a clear understanding of the organization's
needs and resources, and it’s important to maintain a balance between
them. Typically, as an organization grows larger, it becomes more challenging to
keep this balance.

11.Equity.
Equity means treating people with both fairness and kindness. When
everyone is treated fairly, it fosters loyalty within the organization.
To apply equity effectively, leaders need to have good judgment, experience,
and a kind attitude to earn the loyalty and dedication of their team.

12. Stability of Tenure.

No employee should be removed within short time. There should be
reasonable security of jobs. Stability in their positions helps them adjust to
new roles and perform well. Frequent turnover is both a sign and a result of
poor management.
13. Initiative.
Managers should encourage their employees to take initiative, as long as it
stays within the boundaries of authority and discipline. Initiative involves
coming up with and carrying out plans. When employees are encouraged to
be proactive, it boosts their enthusiasm and energy.
14. Esprit de Corps.
This principle emphasizes the idea of "unity is strength" and extends the idea
of unity of command to promote teamwork. Managers should foster a sense
of camaraderie among employees. If someone makes a mistake, they should
be corrected with verbal guidance rather than demanding written
explanations, as written requests can complicate the situation.

Relevance of Fayol's Principles

Fayol's principles are considered classical in the history of management

development, while modern management often uses systems and
contingency approaches. This means that when managing an organization, it
should be viewed as a system, taking into account various factors both inside
and outside the organization.

However, this doesn’t mean Fayol's principles are outdated. They still apply in
many ways today. Most of his principles are used in contemporary
management.
That said, not every principle fits all organizations. Fayol himself acknowledged
this, emphasizing that management principles are flexible and should be
applied thoughtfully, using intelligence and experience.

Contributions of Taylor and Fayol: A Comparison

At this stage, it may be worthwhile to compare the contributions of both Taylor
and Fayol as both of them have made attempts for the development of
management principles in somewhat more systematic way.
Both were contemporary though from different countries. When' we compare
the contributions of Taylor and Fayol, we find that both are complementary to
each other and have somewhat similarity. Even Fayol commented in 1925 that
his contributions and those of Taylor are complementary to each other. There
are some similarity as well as dissimilarity in the contributions of both.

Similarity.

Both Taylor and Fayol have seen and analyzed the problems of managing from
practitioners' point of view. Therefore, there must be some similarity between
the two. The similarity exists on the following lines:
1. Both have attempted to overcome managerial problems in systematic way.
2. Both have developed some principles which can be applied in solving
managerial problems.
3. Both have emphasized that management actions can be effective if these are
based on sound principles.
4. Both of them have emphasized that managerial qualities are acquirable and
can be acquired through training. Therefore, organizations should make
attempts to develop these.
5. Both have emphasized harmonious relationships between management and
workers for the achievement of organizational objectives.

Dissimilarity.
There is more dissimilarity between the approaches of Taylor and Fayol as
compared to similarity. This is because of the fact that Taylor has concentrated
on the shop floor efficiency while Fayol has concentrated on higher managerial
levels. The dissimilarity between the two is presented in Table 2.1.

BUREAUCRACY
The term "bureaucracy" is often used negatively, especially in discussions about
government and business.

However, bureaucracy refers to an administrative system meant to handle

large-scale tasks by systematically coordinating the efforts of many
individuals.
Max Weber identified three types of power in organizations: traditional,
charismatic, and rational-legal (or bureaucratic). He has emphasized that
bureaucratic type of power is the ideal one.

Features of Bureaucracy
Weber has given a number of features of bureaucracy. Accordingly, the following
features suggest the characteristics of bureaucratic organizations:

1. Administrative Class. ADORI

Bureaucratic organizations generally have administrative class responsible for
maintaining coordinative activities of the members. Main features of this
class are as follows:
The main features of this class include:
1. Members are paid employees working full-time.
2. They receive salaries and benefits based on their positions.
3. Their time in the organization is governed by its rules and regulations.
4. They do not have ownership stakes in the organization.
5. They are hired based on their qualifications and competence.

Hierarchical Structure: Bureaucratic organizations are organized in a clear

hierarchy, meaning there are different levels of authority from the top (like
executives) to the bottom (like entry-level employees). Each level oversees the
levels below it.
Control and Supervision: Each lower position is supervised by a higher one,
ensuring that no part of the organization operates without oversight. This helps
maintain order and accountability.
Communication Lines: The hierarchy also creates structured lines for
communication. Information and instructions must flow up and down through
the levels, ensuring everyone is on the same page.
Authority Delegation: Employees receive their authority from their immediate
supervisors. This means that subordinates can make decisions or take actions
only as permitted by their managers.
Functional Divisions: Within the overall hierarchy, there are sub-groups (or
"sub-pyramids") that correspond to specific functions (like finance, HR, or
marketing).
Thus, there are offices with same amount of authority but with different kinds of
functions operating in different areas of competence. For example, in
Government organizations, we can observe separate offices looking after
particular functions. This happens in business organizations too.
2. Division of Work.
In a bureaucratic organization, work is divided based on specialization to take
advantage of the division of labor.

Specialization: The work within the organization is divided into specific tasks
based on individual expertise. This specialization allows employees to focus on
what they do best, leading to greater efficiency and productivity.
Defined Responsibilities: Each office or position has clear duties that are part
of a larger system. This means that every employee knows exactly what is
expected of them, making it easier to manage tasks.
Authority to Perform Tasks: To carry out their responsibilities, each employee
is given the necessary authority. This means they have the power to make
decisions and take actions related to their specific duties.
Clear Rules for Using Authority: There are established guidelines on how and
when employees can use their authority. These rules help maintain order and
ensure that employees act within the limits of their roles.
Defined Areas of Competence: Each employee has a specific area they are
responsible for, which helps prevent confusion about who does what. This clarity
is important because it helps employees know where their responsibilities start
and end.
Avoiding Overlap: By having clear boundaries, the division of labor helps
prevent overlap in responsibilities. Employees understand which tasks they
should handle and which should be left to others, reducing conflicts and
improving collaboration.
Ensuring Coverage: Finally, this division of labor ensures that all necessary
tasks are assigned to someone. This means that nothing important gets
overlooked, and the organization can function smoothly.
3. Official Rules.
A basic and most emphasized feature of bureaucratic organization is that in
bureaucratic organization, things run smoothly and follow set rules all the time.
This type of organization is the opposite of one that is temporary or changes a
lot.
To work well, it needs clear rules that help everyone stay consistent and work
together. If a situation comes up that doesn’t have a rule, it gets sent to
someone higher up to make a decision. That decision then becomes a guide
for similar situations in the future.

Having rules makes things stable and predictable, so everyone knows what
to expect from their actions.

4. Impersonal Relationships.
A key feature of bureaucracy is that relationships among people are managed
through official authority and rules.
The official positions within the organization are separate from personal feelings
or emotions or sentiments. This means that decisions are based on logical
reasons rather than personal ones.
This idea of being impersonal applies to how people interact within the
organization and also how the organization interacts with outsiders.

5. Official Records.
A bureaucratic organization keeps detailed official records of its decisions
and activities. These records are stored for future reference and are
organized through a thorough filing system. Each official record serves as a
comprehensive guide to the various activities carried out by people in the
organization, similar to an encyclopedia.

Problems in Bureaucracy
Bureaucratic organizations were once thought to be better than temporary ones
because they were seen as logical and efficient.
This efficiency comes from the fact that everyone knows what will happen when
they take certain actions. However, bureaucracies have been criticized for being
inefficient and are even termed as a symbol of inefficiency. There are several
negative issues, called "bureaupathology," that show these flaws.
Because of the needs of today’s organizations, bureaucracy has many
weaknesses and is often not the best fit.
The major problems of bureaucracy are because of the following factors:
invalidity of bureaucratic assumptions, goal displacement, unintended
consequences, inhuman organization, and closed-system perspective.
1. Invalidity of Bureaucratic Assumptions.
The problems in bureaucracy arise from flawed assumptions about what an ideal
bureaucracy should be. Many experts question the effectiveness or validity of
bureaucracy. In most cases, either the conditions are not found in practice, or
even if found, may not result in efficiency.

1. Rules: Rules are meant to guide people, but too much focus on them can
cause problems. Sometimes people misuse the rules or just ignore them.

2. Rigid Hierarchy: A strict structure in organizations can hurt efficiency. It

makes the relationships between bosses and employees too important,
which can create a negative atmosphere.

3. Impersonal Approach: Treating people purely impersonally isn’t practical

because individuals have feelings and emotions that influence their
decisions. Therefore, people can’t always follow rules perfectly; they need
to consider human factors too.

Goal Displacement.
Goal displacement happens when an organization starts using its resources
for things other than its original purpose. Over time, this new focus can
become more important than what the organization was really meant to do.
For example, rules are supposed to help reach goals, but sometimes people
focus too much on just following the rules instead of achieving real results. In
some government organizations, success might be measured by whether
money was spent according to the rules, rather than looking at what was
actually accomplished with that money. So, following the rules can become
more important than getting good outcomes.

Unintended Consequences.
In bureaucratic organizations, unexpected issues can arise. Here are a few
examples:
1. Trained Incapacity: Sometimes, people get so specialized in one area that
they can't see beyond their training. They focus only on what they know
and struggle to connect it to the bigger picture.
2. Conflict Between Professionals and Bureaucrats: Professionals want
to work based on their skills for better results, while bureaucrats focus on
following rules. This difference can lead to disagreements.
3. Conflict Between the Organization and Individuals: Bureaucracies
often have rules that go against human nature. People generally perform
better in a more relaxed environment, but bureaucratic organizations
impose many restrictions. s a result, individuals may try to find ways to
avoid these rules to do their jobs better.

Inhuman Organization.
One of the main criticisms of bureaucracy comes from behavioral scientists who
focus on human behavior within organizations. They argue that bureaucracies
treat people like machines, ignoring their human needs.
For example, Argyris holds the view that individual moves from immaturity
to maturity and over the period he matures, while bureaucratic organization is
designed to suit immature personality. A mature personality requires less
control, and flexibility in working. The design of bureaucratic structure is
against these features. Thus, bureaucracy works against the basic nature of
human behaviour.
A pioneering criticism of bureaucracy comes from organizational
psychologist, Warren Bennis. He sees the model as overly mechanical and
no longer useful or outdated.

The flaws and dysfunctions of the bureaucratic organization are extensive, but
the main are as follows:
1. Inhumanity: They often ignore people’s needs.
2. Limits Personal Growth: They don't support the development of mature
personalities.
3. Promotes Conformity: Employees are encouraged to follow rules rather
than think creatively.
4. Neglects Informal Relationships: They overlook the importance of
informal interactions and the challenges that come with them.
5. Communication Issues: The hierarchy can disrupt effective
communication.
6. Stifles Innovation: New ideas and knowledge are often not encouraged.
7. Ineffective in Change: They struggle to adapt in rapidly changing
environments.

Closed-System Perspective.
Bureaucratic organizations often operate like a closed system, which means
they focus on their internal processes and don’t pay much attention to
outside influences.
A closed system is rigid and doesn’t adapt to changes in the environment. It
assumes everything is predictable and rational, ignoring social,
political, and economic changes happening outside.
This approach can work well in stable environments, but today’s large
organizations face constantly changing conditions.
In these dynamic environments, organizations need to interact more with the
outside world and stay updated on changes. Therefore, a more open-
system perspective, which considers external factors and allows for
flexibility, is better suited for modern organizations than the rigid
approach of bureaucracies.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS
Organizational behavior is very complex and involves many different factors.
However, we can use three main theoretical frameworks—cognitive,
behavioristic, and social learning—to create a general model.

Cognitive Framework
The cognitive approach to human behavior considers many different factors. It
generally gives people more "credit" for their actions compared to other
approaches. This approach highlights the positive aspects of behavior and
emphasizes free will, focusing on concepts like expectations, demands, and
incentives.
In this approach, cognition is important; it refers to how we know or
understand things. Our thoughts influence our actions, guiding how we think,
see things, solve problems, and process information.
For example, cognitive maps can help visualize how someone understands
certain concepts. Another example is mental models, which are the internal
representations we create to help us understand how things work, like how a
team functions or how to approach a project. These models shape our
expectations and influence our decisions in various situations.

The classic work of Edward Tolman can be used to represent the cognitive
theoretical approach. Edward Tolman's work is a key example of the cognitive
approach to behavior. He believed that behavior has a purpose and is aimed at
achieving specific goals.
In his experiments, he found that animals learned to expect certain results
based on specific signals. For example, when they saw a certain cue, they acted
as if they expected food to come.
Tolman said that learning is about expecting that one thing will lead to
another. This means that the animal is aware of its goals and what it wants to
achieve. So, Tolman and others who follow this cognitive approach think that to
understand behavior, we need to look at the thoughts and expectations
behind it.

Contemporary psychologists emphasize that the cognitive concept of

expectancy is not just a guess about what happens in the mind; it actually
describes behavior. This means that cognitive and behavioristic theories
aren't as different as they might seem. For instance, Tolman identified as a
behaviorist, even though he focused on cognitive ideas.
Despite some similarities between these two frameworks, there has been
ongoing debate in the behavioral sciences about the roles of cognitive versus
behavioristic approaches. Just like in many other academic fields, this back-and-
forth discussion

Recent developments in theory and research have sparked what some call a
"cognitive explosion" in psychology. In organizational behavior, the cognitive
approach has been important in areas like perception, personality, attitudes,
motivation, and goal setting.
Lately, there’s been a growing interest in how thinking processes influence
organizational behavior, particularly in how managers make decisions
and understand social interactions.
Social cognition focuses on understanding how people behave and is
crucial for social perception.
In other words, both the traditional and newer approaches to cognitive
theory and application play an important role in the theoretical framework of
this text.
Before diving into how the cognitive approach contributes to the study of
organizational behavior, it's important to first understand the behavioristic
approach. This foundational knowledge will help clarify the differences and
connections between the two perspectives.

Behavioristic Framework
behavioristic theory in psychology, which originated from the work of Ivan
Pavlov and John B. Watson. These early behaviorists emphasized the importance
of focusing on observable behaviors rather than trying to understand the
complex workings of the mind, which earlier psychologists often did.
They conducted classical conditioning experiments to explain human behavior
using a stimulus-response (S-R) model.
In this framework, a stimulus triggers a response. Pavlov and Watson
believed that behavior is best understood through this S-R connection, with
learning happening when the link between the stimulus and the response is
established.
Modern behaviorism marks its beginnings with the work of B. F. Skinner. Now
deceased, Skinner is widely recognized for his contributions to psychology.
He believed that while early behaviorists effectively expla ined respondent
behaviors (those triggered by stimuli), they did not address the more complex
operant behaviors. In other words, the focus was primarily on simple
reactions rather than on how behaviors can be influenced by their
consequences and the environment.
The S-R approach explains simple reflex actions, blinking when something
suddenly comes close to your eyes, or pulling your hand back quickly after
touching something hot.
However, B.F. Skinner discovered that the results of a behavior are more
important for understanding actions than the triggers that start them.
Skinner focused on the response-stimulus (R-S) relationship, meaning that an
organism has to act to get a reward.
In operant conditioning, the stimulus before the behavior doesn’t directly cause
it; it just tells you when to act. For Skinner, what happens after the behavior (the
consequences) is what really influences how we behave.
.
It's key to grasp that the behavioristic approach focuses on the environment. It
suggests that while cognitive processes like thinking and expectations
exist, they aren’t necessary to predict or manage behavior.
However, some behavior scientists believe that cognitive factors can fit into the
behavioristic framework. Recently, a social learning approach has developed
that combines both cognitive and behavioristic ideas.

Social Learning Framework

The cognitive approach has been accused of being mentalistic, and the
behavioristic approach has been accused of being deterministic.
The cognitive approach gets criticized for focusing too much on mental
processes, while the behavioristic approach is seen as too rigid, suggesting that
behavior is only shaped by the environment. Cognitive theorists think the S-R
(stimulus-response) model is too simplistic to explain how people act.
While this criticism is valid, the behaviorists' scientific methods, especially in
operant conditioning, have really helped us understand human behavior.

Rather than just criticizing each approach, it’s important to see that both the
cognitive and behavioristic approaches offer valuable insights into
understanding, predicting, and managing human behavior. The social
learning approach aims to combine the strengths of both, bringing together
ideas from cognitive psychology and behaviorism.

It's important to note that the social learning approach is still a behavioral
approach, focusing on behavior as the main factor for study.
However, unlike strict behaviorism, it acknowledges that people are self-aware
and act with purpose. In this approach, individuals learn about their
environment, can change it to access rewards, and understand that rules and
symbols are important for learning.

Albert Bandura is the most well-known psychologist associated with social

learning. He believes that behavior is best understood through the continuous
interaction between a person’s thoughts, actions, and their environment.
Instead of acting separately, these factors work together to influence behavior.
Bandura explains that people influence their environment through their actions,
which then affects their behavior in return. The experiences people gain from
their actions help shape who they are and what they can do, which further
impacts their future behavior.
The triangular model based on Bandura's work illustrates these ideas and
applies them to studying behavior in organizations.
draw

Vicarious learning, also known as observational learning or modeling, occurs

when individuals learn by watching others rather than through direct
experience. For example, if someone sees a peer successfully handle a task,
they might imitate that behavior in their own work. This type of learning
emphasizes the importance of role models and social contexts, showing that we
can acquire new skills and behaviors by observing the actions and outcomes
experienced by others.

social learning, with its focus on interaction and complexity, provides a strong
framework for understanding and modeling behavior in organizations.