The document discusses three theoretical frameworks for organizational behavior: cognitive, behaviorist, and social cognitive. It outlines classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and cognitive theories under the behaviorist framework. Edward Tolman's cognitive theory of learning through expectations is explained. Social learning theory integrated cognitive and behaviorist concepts and emphasized reciprocal determinants. Albert Bandura's social cognitive theory extended learning through self-regulation capabilities like symbolization, forethought, observational learning, self-reflection. Learning principles can explain other organizational behavior concepts like motivation, perception, and attitudes.

1. Organizational Behaviour
Unit-I
Session- IV

2. THEORITICAL FRAMEWORKS
OF OB

3. OB – Theoretical Framework
• Although OB is extremely complex and includes many inputs and
dimensions, three frameworks:
• The cognitive,
• Behaviouristic,
• social cognitive frameworks
• Can be used to develop an overall model for OB
13-11-2014 Ruturaj Baber MBA-IE Session IV 3

4. The theories
• The theories to be discussed will include:
• Behaviouristic theories
• Classical conditioning
• Operant conditioning
• Cognitive theory
• Social learning
• Social cognitive theory
13-11-2014 Ruturaj Baber MBA-IE Session IV 4

5. Cognitive Framework
• The cognitive approach to human behaviour has many sources of
inputs ( the five senses)
• Cognition, which is the basic unit of the cognitive framework, can be
defined as the act of knowing an item from information
• Under this framework, cognition precedes behaviour and constitutes
input into the persons thinking, perception, problem solving, and
information processing
13-11-2014 Ruturaj Baber MBA-IE Session IV 5

6. Edward Tolman Cognitive framework
• Although Tolman believed behaviour to be appropriate unit of
analysis, he felt that behaviour is purposeful, that it is directed
towards a goal
• He felt that cognitive learning consists of a relationship between
cognitive environmental cues and expectations
• Through experimentation, he found out that a rat could learn to run
through an intricate maze, with purpose and direction, towards goal
(food)
13-11-2014 Ruturaj Baber MBA-IE Session IV 6

7. • Tolman observed that at each point in the maze, expectations were
established – in other words, the rat learned to expect a certain
cogitative cue associated with the choice point might eventually lead
to the food
• If the rat actually received the food, the association between the cue
and the expectancy was strengthen, and leaning occurred
• Tolman’s approach could be depicted that learning is an association
between the cue and the expectancy)
13-11-2014 Ruturaj Baber MBA-IE Session IV 7

8. • In his laboratory experiment, he found that animals learned to expect
a certain event would follow another – for example, animal learned to
behaviour as if they expect food when a certain cue appeared.
• Thus, Tolman believed that learning consist of expectancy that a
particular event will lead to a particular consequence
• This cognitive concept of expectancy implies that the organisms is
thinking about or is conscious or aware of, the goal.
13-11-2014 Ruturaj Baber MBA-IE Session IV 8

9. • Thus Tolman and others espousing the cognitive approach felt hat
behaviour is best explained by these cognitions
• Applied to OB, cognitive approach has dominated unit of analysis
such as perception, personality and attitudes, motivation, decision
making and goal setting
13-11-2014 Ruturaj Baber MBA-IE Session IV 9

10. BEHAVIOURISTIC FRAMEWORK
• The roots of behavioristic theory of human behaviour can be trace
back to the work of Ivan Pavlov and John Watson
• These pioneering behaviorists stressed the importance of dealing
with observable behaviour instead of the elusive mind that had
preoccupied earlier psychologist
• They used the classical conditioning experiment to formulate the
stimulus-response (S - R) explanation of human behaviour
13-11-2014 Ruturaj Baber MBA-IE Session IV 10

11. • Both Pavlov and Watson felt that behavior could be best understood
in terms of S-R
• A stimulus caused response
• They concentrated mainly on the impact of the stimulus and felt that
learning occurred when the S -R connection was made
• Ivan Pavlov who attributed leaning to the association or connection
between stimulus and response (S-R)
13-11-2014 Ruturaj Baber MBA-IE Session IV 11

12. • Based on Pavlov classical conditioning experiment using dogs as
subjects
• When presented with meat powder ( unconditioned stimulus) - the
dog secreted saliva (unconditioned response)
• When he merely rang a bell (neutral stimulus) the dog did not salivate
• When meat was accompanied with the ringing of the bell several
times, then Pavlov rang the bell without presenting the meat, the dog
salivated to the bell alone
13-11-2014 Ruturaj Baber MBA-IE Session IV 12

13. • Conclusion - that the dog has become classically conditioned to
salivate (conditioned response) to the sound of the bell ( conditioned
stimulus
• Thus classical conditioned can be defined as a process in which a
formerly neutral stimulus, when paired with an unconditioned
stimulus, becomes a conditioned stimulus that elicit a conditioned
response; in other words, the S-R connection is learned
13-11-2014 Ruturaj Baber MBA-IE Session IV 13

14. B.F Skinner
• Another psychologist whose work explains this framework is B. F. Skinner.
• He felt that the early behaviorists helped explain respondent’s behaviours
(those behaviours elicited by stimulus) but not the more complex operant
behaviours
• In other words, the S -R approach helped explain the physical reflexes, for
examples, when stuck by a pin (S), the person will flinch ( R) or when tapped
below the kneecap (S) the Epson will extend the lower leg ( R)
13-11-2014 Ruturaj Baber MBA-IE Session IV 14

15. • Skinner felt that classical conditioning explains only respondent (reflexive)
behaviours. – i.e. involuntary responses that are elicited by a stimulus
• He felt that more complex, but common human behaviour cannot be explained
by classical conditioning alone.
• He noted that the greater part of the behaviour of an organism was under control
of stimuli which were effective only because they were correlated with
reinforcing consequences
• Through his research thus , skinner posited that behaviour was a function of
consequences, not the classical conditioning eliciting stimuli
13-11-2014 Ruturaj Baber MBA-IE Session IV 15

16. • He felt that most human behaviour affects, or operates on, the environment to
receive a desirable consequences.
• This type of behaviour is learned through operant conditioning
• Operant conditioning is concerned primarily with learning that occurs as a
consequence of behaviour, or R-S.
• It is not concerned with the eliciting causes of behaviour, as classical , or
respondent, conditioning is
• The organism has to operate on an environment (thus the term operant
conditioning) in order to receive the desirable consequences.
13-11-2014 Ruturaj Baber MBA-IE Session IV 16

17. • The preceding stimulus does not cause the behaviour in operant
conditioning; it serves as a cue to emit the behaviour. For skinner and
other behaviorists, behaviour is a function of its contingent
environmental consequences
• So behavourisitic approach is environmentally based. It posits that
cognitive processes such as thinking, expectancies, and perception
may exist but are not needed to predict and control or manage
behaviour
13-11-2014 Ruturaj Baber MBA-IE Session IV 17

18. • On the other hand, Skinner found out through his operant
conditioning experiment, that the consequences of a response could
better explain most behaviour than elicit stimuli could
• He emphasized the importance of the response-stimulus (R -S)
relationship
13-11-2014 Ruturaj Baber MBA-IE Session IV 18

19. 13-11-2014 Ruturaj Baber MBA-IE Session IV 19

20. Behavioristic theories
• These came out of the behaviorist school of thought in psychology
and derived from the work of:
Classical behaviorist like Ivan Pavlov who attributed leaning to the
association or connection between stimulus and response (S-R)
• The operant behaviorist, in particular the well known American
psychologist B. F. Skinner who give more attention to the role that
consequences play in learning or the response –stimulus (R-S)
connection
13-11-2014 Ruturaj Baber MBA-IE Session IV 20

21. Differences between operant and classical
Classical
• A change in the stimulus
(US to CS ) will elicit a
particular responses
• The strength and
frequency of classically
conditioned behavior are
determined mainly by the
frequency of the eliciting
stimuli ( the environmental
events that precedes the
behavior)
Operant
• One particular response out
of many possible ones
occur in a given stimulus
• The stimulus situation
serves as a cue for person
to emit response and does
not elicit response
13-11-2014 Ruturaj Baber MBA-IE Session IV 21

22. Differences between operant and classical (cont..)
• During the classical
conditioning process,
the unconditioned
stimulus, serving as a
reward is presented
every time
• The rewards presented
only after the organism
gives the correct
response
• The organism must
operate in the
environment (thus the
term operant
conditioning) in order
to receive a reward
13-11-2014 Ruturaj Baber MBA-IE Session IV 22

23. Social learning and social cognitive theory
• This theory combines and integrates both behaviorist and cognitive
concepts and emphasizes the interactive, reciprocal nature of
cognitive, behavioral, and environmental determinants
• Social learning theory recognizes and draws from the principles of
classical and operant conditioning but went beyond classical and
operant theory by recognizing that there is more to leaning than
direct learning via antecedent stimuli and contingent consequences
13-11-2014 Ruturaj Baber MBA-IE Session IV 23

24. • Social learning takes position that behaviour can best b explained in
terms of continuous interactions among cognitive, behavioral and
environmental determinants
• The person and the environmental situation do not function as
independent unit but in conjunction with behaviour itself
13-11-2014 Ruturaj Baber MBA-IE Session IV 24

25. • It is largely through their actions that people produce the
environmental condition that affect their behavior in a reciprocal
fashion
• The experience generated by behavior also partly determines what a
person becomes and can do which in tern affects subsequent
behavior
13-11-2014 Ruturaj Baber MBA-IE Session IV 25

26. Org. participant, environment and behavior -
relationship
• participant control their own behaviour to the
extent that they rely on cognitive support and
manage relevant environmental cues and
consequences
• Cognitive representation of reality helps guide
organizational behaviour
• Much of complex behaviour is acquired by directly
observing others in the surrounding environment
13-11-2014 Ruturaj Baber MBA-IE Session IV 26

27. Social learning theory (cont..)
• Social learning theory posits that learning can also take place via
vicarious/explicit/shocking/juicy, or modeling, and self –control
conditioning processes.
• Thus social learning theory agrees with classical and operant
conditioning processes, but says they too are limiting and adds
vicarious, modeling and self-control processes
13-11-2014 Ruturaj Baber MBA-IE Session IV 27

28. Cont.…
• New employees will bring with them a set of previously learned ways
of behaving. They are then expected to learn additional information
than applies to their jobs.
• Established employees continue to develop their job related skills and
abilities
• Therefore, learning is a never ending process for all employees.
13-11-2014 Ruturaj Baber MBA-IE Session IV 28

29. Contd…
• The process is also very complex. -an employee who has already
learned one way to perform a job may have trouble learning a second
one in better way
• An employee motivation to perform is closely linked to learning.
• Therefore a manager who understands leaning process can use the
principles of learning to guide employees behavior and performance.
13-11-2014 Ruturaj Baber MBA-IE Session IV 29

30. Social cognition – Albert Bandura (SCT Framework)
• This theory goes beyond social learning
• It extents learning and/or modifying by giving more attention to self-
regulatory mechanisms
• Specifically, social cognitive theory identifies five capabilities that
people use to initiate, regulate and sustain their behaviors.
• These are (1) symbolizing, (2) forethoughts, (3) vicarious/ modeling
/learning (observational) , (4) self regulation, and (5) self reflection
13-11-2014 Ruturaj Baber MBA-IE Session IV 30

31. Bandura’s SCT Framework
• Symbolizing: People process visual experiences into cognitive models. They help
in future action.
• Forethought: Employees plan their actions.
• Observational: Employees learn by observing the performance of the referent
group (peers, supervisors and high performers) and the consequences of their
actions.
• Self-regulatory: Employees self regulate their actions by setting internal
standards (aspired level of performance).
• Self-reflective: Employees reflect back on their actions (how did I do?) and
perceptually determine how they believe then can successfully accomplish the
task in the future given the context (probability of success between 0 to 100% is
estimated)
13-11-2014 Ruturaj Baber MBA-IE Session IV 31

32. Contd…
• Learning is one of the fundamental behavior processes, involves both
the development and the modification of thoughts and behaviors
• Other concepts and aspects of organizational behavior.
• For example motivation, perception, attitude that will be discussed
in later chapters can be fully explained with the use of learning
principles.
13-11-2014 Ruturaj Baber MBA-IE Session IV 32

33. THANK
YOU
13-11-2014 Ruturaj Baber MBA-IE Session IV 33