The central concept of Taylor’s approach was to acquire top-quality equipment and personnel, and then thoroughly examine every element of the production process. Through this method, he was able to identify effective strategies and eliminate ineffective ones, thereby discovering the optimal combination for achieving success and productivity within an organization. While Taylor’s theory proved highly successful for traditional industrial companies, it encountered challenges when applied to modern ones.
The idea of prioritizing production over people has resulted in a negative impact on various aspects of organizations. This includes decreasing production and quality, dissatisfaction among employees, a lack of pride in workmanship, and an overall decline in organizational spirit (Wallowing, 1993). It wasn’t until Max Weber expanded Taylor’s theories that there was seen a decrease in diversity and ambiguity within organizations. This was accomplished by establishing clear lines of authority and control. Weber’s bureaucratic theory emphasized the necessity of a hierarchical power structure and recognized the significance of division of labor and specialization (Blake & Mosey, 2010).
A formal set of rules was incorporated into the hierarchical structure to ensure stability and uniformity. Weber also proposed that organizational behavior is a network of human interactions, wherein all behavior can be explained. Weber’s principles of bureaucracy delineated the optimal structure of an organization: Every employee in a bureaucracy has designated and official areas of responsibility that are assigned based on competence and expertise. Employees have a solitary supervisor, leading to a well-organized system of supervision and subordination.
Managers heavily rely on written documents to effectively manage employees. These documents often include detailed employment manuals that outline corporate rules and regulations. Additionally, managers responsible for overseeing offices, departments, or other groups of workers receive thorough training to ensure they understand and fulfill their job responsibilities. It is expected that managers follow consistent, comprehensive, and learnable rules and guidelines. The organizational theories developed by Henry Payola have identified four key features of organizations. These principles continue to be employed by organizations today, which are specialization, [?].
Organizations should categorize workers based on logical groupings such as their place of work, product, expertise, or functional area. This ensures unity of command where each member of the organization has a designated direct supervisor. For instance, in accounting firms, a partner oversees a manager who then supervises a senior auditor responsible for supervising other auditors. Additionally, the chain of command defines the reporting structure within the organization, starting with the chief executive and extending to the least skilled employee. Finally, managers employ various tools to ensure coordination among specialized groups and facilitate communication.
The tools used in organizations to guide behavior can vary, including formal written directives, informal corporate policies, and electronic media (Blake & Mosey, 2010). Prior to 1960, group dynamics were typically centered around one person who would speak and control the conversations, often a manager who viewed employees as a means to an end. The emphasis was on a hierarchical chain of command and improving the corporation, without much consideration for the human aspect of group dynamics.
The text explores the shift in focus towards the human side of organizational behavior in contemporary ideas for group dynamics. It mentions Douglas McGregor’s discussion on the human side of Enterprise in the sass, where he presents two contrasting sets of assumptions about human nature. The first set, known as Theory X, is characterized by a pessimistic view. It suggests that managers assume workers inherently dislike work, and they must be controlled or threatened with punishment to ensure they put in sufficient effort. Additionally, it states that workers prefer to avoid responsibility (Kelly, 2000) (Moorhens, 2010).
On one hand, there are managers who follow Theory Y, which posits that work is inherently natural to people and that they will pursue their goals autonomously without external control. Additionally, they believe that individuals can learn to take on responsibilities willingly (Kelly, 2000). McGregor was more inclined towards the principles of his Theory Y. He believed that managers could achieve greater success by perceiving their subordinates as self-motivated and dedicated individuals who are capable of assuming responsibility instead of being driven by authority. McGregor’s theories highlight the contrast between older organizational behavior theories and modern ones.
Both Theory X and Theory Y describe different approaches to leadership. Theory X, which originated before 1960, focuses on the thought process, while Theory Y adopts a more humanistic approach by understanding behaviors. It is important to comprehend how these opposing theories can be applied to group dynamics. Over the years, both theories have been utilized in organizational behavior and have shown success. However, forming teams can be a difficult task that is often misunderstood by management. The misconception that randomly grouping individuals together to accomplish a task is an effective way to build teams is prevalent.
Theory X subscribers believe that the leader is more important than the team formation, while Theory Y subscribers believe that teams are important and employees should be able to lead themselves effectively. Chin, Y., Chin, Y., and Tsar, Y. (2009) discuss eleven types of team competency indicators that pertain to building efficient teams. Some of these indicators include setting clear and measurable goals, providing a clear path to goal completion to build interest and motivation, and making assignments clear and ensuring competence.
If there is a lack of clarity, numerous problems can occur. Productivity may suffer and disagreements among team members may arise due to different interpretations of tasks. It is crucial to address this issue even before forming the team. Team leaders must comprehend and embrace the diversity within their teams in order to guide them towards common objectives. Creating a sense of responsibility for achieving high performance is essential. Ultimately, high performance standards should lead to exceptional results. Each team member has a personal responsibility to complete their assigned tasks in a timely manner.
Running effective meetings includes having a clear purpose, goals, structures, discussions, and conclusions that are relevant to the team’s goals and tasks. Trust is vital for a successful team; without it, the team cannot function as a cohesive unit and complete tasks efficiently. Additionally, establishing open communication channels is crucial. When leaders prevent open communication, they impede the growth of the team and company. Lack of open and two-way communication channels often leads to mutual mistrust and misunderstandings in team building.
You miss out on a valuable feedback system when you prevent open and unrestricted communication. Conflict management is crucial in team building, as conflicts are inevitable. The way conflicts are handled determines the success or failure of a team. Establishing mutual respect and encouraging collaboration are essential. Trust and respect are interconnected; we must first establish trust in order to build respect. Once there is mutual respect, a team can achieve true collaboration. It is important to promote risk-taking and innovation, as strict leadership structures can impede a team’s progress.
Teams have the ability to bring fresh perspectives and diverse experiences due to the varied backgrounds and expertise of their members. It can be advantageous to embrace innovative ideas and occasionally deviate from the usual path in order to enhance team performance and foster innovation. However, disregarding the importance of team building can be detrimental for any team, regardless of its aforementioned qualities (Chin, Chin & Tsar, 2009). These competencies align closely with McGregor’s beliefs. Both Theory Y and the contemporary approach offer significant benefits to organizations. It is crucial to recognize that understanding behavioral patterns within our organization can greatly contribute to overall success.
In today’s technologically advanced and Millennial-filled work force, the importance of effective leadership is more evident than ever. Millennials have certain expectations from their leaders, including the need for guidance and support. While they hold great respect for previous generations, they prefer to be led through teaching rather than dictatorship. A gentle approach is key as they often do not respond well to bossy and demanding behaviors. Transparency and authenticity are crucial in gaining their trust and cooperation; simply demanding compliance without explanation will not yield positive results with this generation.
It is crucial for organizations to comprehend the variances in generational behavioral theories in order to effectively operate a business (Rainier, 2014). Approaching organizational behavioral theory and group dynamics with a one-size-fits-all mentality is not viable. The essence of these concepts lies in acknowledging the existence of differences and the necessity to learn them for effective management and leadership. Understanding the motivations behind the behavior of employees, customers, and managers is of utmost importance. This understanding enables one to guide, manage, and attain success.
