Organisational Behaviour & Development 1

Organisational Behaviour & Development 1

• 1.
  Organisational Behaviour & Development I JcLohith Shetty PGDPM, MSW, MBA, UGC - NET Asst Professor  St Aloysius College (Autonomous)      Trainer – Junior Chamber International President - 2014, JCI Mangalore
• 2.
  • Statutory Instructions: •This is not a study material & only a teaching aid. • There is constant changes made to this teaching material & those changes are not updated in Slide Share. • This slide is prepared as teaching aid only, so it can be understood & interpreted rightly only after attending my classes.
• 3.
  Introduction: Organizational Behaviour isconcerned with the study of human behaviour at work. Organizational Behaviour is the study and applications of knowledge about from people as individuals and as groups believes or acts in organization. Org Behaviour Overview.ppt Definition: Luthans: “Organizational Behaviour is directly concerned with the understanding, prediction and control of human behaviour in organization”.
• 4.
  Nature & Scope: •A separate field of study and not a discipline only • An interdisciplinary approach • An applied science • A normative science • A humanistic and optimistic approach • A total system approach Scope: • Individual • Group of individuals • Organization / structure
• 5.
  Approaches to Organizational Behaviour: •1. Perception • 2. Learning and • 3. Motivation. 1) Productivity Approach 2) Interactional Approach 3) Contingency Approach 4) Systems Approach 5) HR Approach
• 6.
  Importance of OrganizationalBehaviour: A. OB provides roadmap to lives in organisation. B. OB uses scientific research to understand & predict organisational life. C. OB helps in accomplishing the personal & organisational objectives D. OB helps improve organisational events E. OB helps an individual to understand themselves & others better in the organisation. F. OB helps in motivating subordinates better to get better results. G. OB is useful for maintaining cordial industrial relations. H. OB helps in pursuing carrier in management. I. OB helps in equipping management staff for the economic development, industrial growth & globalisation observed in India with recent past. J. OB helps to control the consequence of misunderstanding & problem between the employees.
• 7.
  Hawthorne studies: The termgets its name from a factory called the Hawthorne Works, where a series of experiments on factory workers were carried out between 1924 and 1932. Definitions I. An experimental effect in the direction expected but not for the reason expected; i.e., a significant positive effect that turns out to have no causal basis in the theoretical motivation for the intervention, but is apparently due to the effect on the participants of knowing themselves to be studied in connection with the outcomes measured. II. The Hawthorne Effect [is] the confounding that occurs if experimenters fail to realize how the consequences of subjects' performance affect what subjects do. III. People singled out for a study of any kind may improve their performance or behaviour, not because of any specific condition being tested, but simply because of all the attention they receive. IV. People will respond positively to any novel change in work environment
• 8.
  I. Illumination experiments (1924-27)to find out the affect of illumination on worker’s productivity. II. Relay experiment (1927-28) to find out the effect of changes in number of work hours and related working condition on workers’ productivity.
• 9.
  Relay assembly experiments • • • • • • Theresearchers wanted to identify how other variables could affect productivity. They chose two women as test subjects and asked them to choose four other workers to join the test group. Together the women worked in a separate room over the course of five years (1927-1932) assembling telephone relays. Output was measured mechanically by counting how many finished relays each dropped down a chute. This measuring began in secret two weeks before moving the women to an experiment room and continued throughout the study. In the experiment room, they had a supervisor who discussed changes with them and at times used their suggestions. Then the researchers spent five years measuring how different variables impacted the group's and individuals' productivity. Some of the variables were: changing the pay rules so that the group was paid for overall group production, not individual production giving two 5-minute breaks (after a discussion with them on the best length of time), and then changing to two 10-minute breaks (not their preference). Productivity increased, but when they received six 5-minute rests, they disliked it and reduced output. providing food during the breaks shortening the day by 30 minutes (output went up); shortening it more (output per hour went up, but overall output decreased); returning to the earlier condition (where
• 10.
  Bank wiring roomexperiments • The purpose of the next study was to find out how payment incentives would affect group productivity. The surprising result was that they had no effect. Ironically, this contradicted the Hawthorne effect: although the workers were receiving special attention, it didn’t affect their behaviour or productivity. However, the informal group dynamics studied were a new milestone in organizational behaviour. • The study was conducted by Mayo and W. Lloyd Warner between 1931 and 1932 on a group of 14 men who put together telephone switching equipment. The researchers found that although the workers were paid according to individual productivity, productivity did not go up because the men were afraid that the company would lower the base rate. Detailed observation between the men revealed the existence of informal groups or 'cliques' within the formal groups. These cliques developed informal rules of behaviour as well as mechanisms to enforce them. The cliques served to control group members and to manage bosses; when bosses asked questions, clique members gave the same responses, even if they were untrue. These results show that workers were more responsive to the social force of their peer groups than to the control and incentives of management. Hence it is in managers' interest to collaborate with these informal groups to increase cohesion for the company's benefit.
• 11.
  Intro Org Behaviour.ppt