Organisational Behaviour &
Jc Lohith Shetty
PGDPM, MSW, MBA, UGC - NET
St Aloysius College (Autonomous)
Trainer – Junior Chamber International
President - 2014, JCI Mangalore
• Statutory Instructions:
• This is not a study material & only a teaching
• 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.
Organizational Behaviour is concerned 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
Org Behaviour Overview.ppt
Luthans: “Organizational Behaviour is directly
concerned with the understanding, prediction
and control of human behaviour in organization”.
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
• Group of individuals
• Organization / structure
Approaches to Organizational
• 1. Perception
• 2. Learning and
• 3. Motivation.
1) Productivity Approach
2) Interactional Approach
3) Contingency Approach
4) Systems Approach
5) HR Approach
Importance of Organizational Behaviour:
A. OB provides roadmap to lives in organisation.
B. OB uses scientific research to understand & predict organisational
C. OB helps in accomplishing the personal & organisational
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.
The term gets its name from a factory called the Hawthorne Works, where
a series of experiments on factory workers were carried out
between 1924 and 1932.
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
Illumination experiments (1924-27) to find
out the affect of illumination on worker’s
Relay experiment (1927-28) to find out the
effect of changes in number of work hours
and related working condition on workers’
Relay assembly experiments
The researchers 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
changing the pay rules so that the group was paid for overall group production, not
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
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
Bank wiring room experiments
• 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.