ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AS A WAY OF THINKING AND ACTING 3.

To explore some of the most contemporary approaches to management

and leadership
This book is about human behavior in public and nonprofit organizations,
schools, and health care organizations. Its purpose is to provide information and 4. To increase understanding of the core behavioral principles on which
perspectives that enhance our understanding of our own behavior and our personal, interpersonal, and public leadership skills are based
ability to influence the behavior of others. It concerns how public servants
interact with others in their organizations and with the public, how they view 5. To foster competency in critical management and leadership skills—that is,
their work and its importance to their communities, and how they choose to to develop the capacity to act effectively and responsibly under the stress,
serve their cities, states, and nation. These are people doing extremely complexity, and uncertainty of the “real world” of public administration
important work. They are charged with making our communities and our society 6. To provide cases, exercises, simulations, and evaluative instruments that will
better by fostering citizenship, making cities safer, educating youth, healing the enable students to learn both cognitively and experientially
sick, protecting the vulnerable, and keeping the country and the world clean,
safe, and prosperous. Public servants, of course, do not bear this responsibility In this book, we examine organizational behavior as a field of study. But we
alone. Instead, they seek to accomplish these and other critical public goals in want to make clear at the outset that organizational behavior is not just a field
collaboration with elected officials, business leaders, citizens, world leaders, of study. It is a way of thinking and acting that is of critical importance and
and many others. Each public employee, from the top of the organization to value to people who work in public organizations.
the front line, bears a responsibility as well as a deeply satisfying opportunity to
serve the public interest. Consider the following scenario: In your 10 years with the state social services
department, you have earned a reputation as a problem solver. Because of
To be effective, public administrators and nonprofit managers—from police this reputation, you have just been appointed as the head of a division charged
chiefs to policy analysts, from agency executives to child protective services with finding and securing payments from individuals who are not paying their
workers, from school superintendents to public health officers—must lead and required child support. The previous administrator left in a storm of controversy
motivate others within and outside of their organizations, function effectively in following a legislative study showing an abysmal track record in payment and
groups, communicate clearly, think creatively, navigate change successfully, widespread dissatisfaction on the part of the parents—both those who were
and manage conflict. They must cope with their own and their employees’ owed money and those who owed money. These citizens complained that they
stress, be self-reflective and open to growth and learning, and renew and were treated discourteously and that their cases were mishandled. The study
reinvigorate their commitment to public service in spite of sometimes was initiated after a popular weekly newsmagazine show on television
unreachable goals, limited resources, and an often-hostile public. Thankfully highlighted how much more effective the growing number of private
and remarkably, given the challenges they face, thousands of public servants companies were in finding the parents who owed money and securing
succeed in meeting these challenges every day. payments from them. Understandably, the workers in your division are
disheartened. Turnover and absenteeism are high. The worker’s report was
Our intent in this book is to provide information, enhance skills, and broaden unfairly criticized and points to the lack of necessary resources to effectively do
perspectives in support of efforts to manage organizational behavior in the their jobs. Yet as you talk with these individuals you find that they are bright,
public interest. The book builds on the knowledge and skills acquired by committed, and hardworking. The truth is, resources are extremely limited, and
successful public administrators, draws from the research and observations of some of the criticism does seem unwarranted. You believe that you can work
social scientists, and provides opportunities for students to acquire habits of with these people to build a stronger, more service-oriented division.
mind that will allow them to reflect on and learn from their own experiences in
public organizations. Accordingly, the goals of this book are as follows: How are you going to handle this challenge? What information will you collect?
What decisions will you make? What actions will you take? What will you do
1. To examine what is known about the factors that affect human behavior in first?
public organizations and how these ideas inform the practice of public
administration There are many important perspectives from which situations such as this can
be analyzed and approached. Certainly, those in public agencies deal with
2. To develop an appreciation of the value of analyzing management personnel issues, technical problems, systems failures, budgetary or policy
problems from the standpoint of individual behavior and how that perspective issues, and performance measurement. But much of what happens in public
can augment action and analysis at the organizational level organizations can best be seen as problems of human behavior in
organizations. The ways in which individuals act make a huge difference in the guidelines for hiring appropriate regarding the skills needed for the job? Is
outcomes of public programs. But even here there are different levels of training adequate?
analysis. Look again at the case of the child support collection division. What
are the important issues there? Should the concerns about it be framed in terms At the systems level, we might question whether the unit is receiving adequate
of individual behavior, group functioning, organizational operations, funding and central agency support. How can we work with key legislators as
community considerations, or society at large? Will you respond by dealing with we attempt to implement organizational improvements? We also might
one person at a time, or will you seek some systemwide intervention? Each of consider the problem to be the manifestation of a larger societal issue—
these levels of analysis gives us a different perspective on the ways in which our perhaps a generally hostile attitude toward government workers that leads to
organizations and the people in them work. In turn, each perspective becomes inadequate funding or, alternatively, a lack of cooperation by clients as the
a lens through which we see, interpret, and attempt to respond to the specific employees try to gather information that will help in tracking down nonpaying
organizational circumstances that we confront. parents. How then can we improve public relations and our interactions with
other groups so that we can demonstrate that an important service is being
As we change the lenses through which we see a given situation, our definition provided to the public?
of the problems that the situation entails and the possible solutions to those
problems also will change. For example, if we focus on individual behavior, then Each of these perspectives provides important insights and tools for public
we might think of the problem as one of employee motivation, the failure of administrators as they work to manage their organizations in the public interest.
employees to communicate effectively with citizens, or employees’ lack of The field of organizational behavior speaks to most of these issues, at least as
understanding the broader purposes and goals of the organization. As a result, far as the human dimension is concerned. As will be explored more fully in the
we might meet and talk with employees; try to understand their needs, desires, sections that follow, organizational behavior is the study of individual and group
and motivations; work with them to set individual and group goals; and seek behavior in organizational settings. Accordingly, the field provides critically
their input on policy and operational changes that would improve outcomes. important and highly useful perspectives on motivation, leadership, groups,
Are supervisors managing their units in a manner that supports employee power and politics, culture, and other matters that directly concern individual
development and performance? Do workers understand the underlying values and group behavior. It also speaks to organizational issues and community
of the mission of the unit, and are they empowered to serve the public in a issues, but it does so through the lens of individual and group behavior. For
manner consistent with these values? Helping individuals to redirect their example, it is concerned with the following:
behavior toward meeting organizational and community goals would be the Motivating employees
purpose of our efforts. Being an effective team member
At the group level, we might ask whether existing work groups are functioning Leading and inspiring others
effectively. Do employees feel as if they are part of a team, or do they feel Communicating effectively within and outside of the organization
alienated from their coworkers and supervisors? Is the culture of existing groups Making effective decisions
or teams conducive to or counter to division goals? We might form task forces Using power and politics constructively and ethically
of employees to address particular problems, or we might reconfigure work Creating and securing commitment to shared values
teams to address certain types of cases. We might work with staff members to Managing conflict productively
improve their group process and leadership skills. Our objective in undertaking Using diversity to enhance organizational performance
these activities would be to strengthen work teams, enhance worker Helping people to become more innovative and creative
commitment and involvement, and provide the skills and support needed for Organizational behavior provides the tools, skills, ideas, and strategies for
the employees to achieve their goals. managing human behavior in organizations. But it should be recognized that
At the organizational level, we might ask whether the division is structured as the study of organizational behavior spotlights individual and group
appropriately to accomplish its tasks. Are management systems, such as goal behavior, it leaves other important concerns and issues at least partially in the
setting and performance measurement, in place? Is there a strategic plan? Is dark. Models of organizational behavior cannot tell a manager what type of
management information available to guide decision-making? Are resources computer system to buy, nor can they directly address outcome measurement
tracked and allocated to areas of high need? Are organizational systems and other organizational issues—except in terms of their implications for
communications clear, and are policies documented and disseminated? Are human behavior. But given the undeniable importance of human behavior in
the appropriate equipment, technology, and supplies available? Are personnel the public sector, the perspective of organizational behavior offers a
particularly important way of thinking and acting that can help public servants opportunities for learning and change? Is the “fit” between individuals and the
to achieve organizational goals more effectively and to serve the public more organization a good one? By starting with “people concern,” values such as
responsibly. In other words, people in public service are the key ingredient in human dignity, growth, fairness, and participation become paramount.
determining how well government serves its citizens. (It is important to note here
that we are not using the word citizen in the legal sense; rather, citizens are To summarize this point, organizational behavior emphasizes human behavior
those we serve, and citizenship is the engagement of individuals in democratic and individual values rather than organizational structures and organizational
governance, regardless of legal status.) values. Accordingly, it leads us to take actions that are aimed at understanding
and influencing individual human behavior. In other words, organizational
Perhaps the easiest, and in some ways the most useful, way of defining behavior deals with virtually all aspects of organizations and management, but
organizational behavior in the public sector is to say that it is the study of how it does so from the perspective of people.
people behave in public organizations. Organizational behavior is concerned
with how people act, their motivations, and how they interact with others. As In this book, we go a step further. We assert that the management of
we noted earlier, it is concerned with human behavior and social systems. But organizational behavior in the public sector must, in fact, consider a fourth level
there are differences of opinion as to where the boundaries of the field actually of analysis—that which concerns governance in the public interest. In public
lie. In particular, the distinction between the studies of organizational behavior service, we must be concerned not only with leading and motivating others but
and organizational theory can become blurred. Some suggest that also with doing so in a manner that is consistent with democratic values and
organizational behavior is one perspective within the larger field of the public interest. In the public sector, it is not enough to simply be successful
organizational theory, whereas others conceive of organizational behavior as in influencing people to behave in a particular way. Public servants have a
having a distinct identity as a separate field of study. responsibility to manage organizational behavior so as to meet public
objectives and community needs—and these values are, in fact, more
This confusion arises because organizational behavior typically is defined as important than the personal needs and desires of managers or workers or
concerned not only with the behavior of the individual and groups but also with organizational values such as stability and structure. Therefore, organizational
the influence of the individual on the organization and the influence of behavior in the context of public management encompasses both the values
organizational structure, culture, and other factors on the individual. As we inherent in a “people perspective” on organizations and the values that guide
have seen, it deals with at least three levels of analysis: (1) the individual, (2) the public service in democratic government (see Figure 1.1).
group, and (3) the organization. If it deals with organizational matters, then how
is it different from organizational theory? More important, why does it matter? Organizational behavior in the public sector can be seen as resulting from the
interactions and influences among these levels. It is the product of the complex
We would argue that the distinctiveness and value of organizational behavior interactions among individuals, groups, organizational factors, and the public
as a field of study, and as a way of thinking and acting, lie in what one chooses environment in which all of this takes place. In part because of the complexity
as the starting point. If we were to begin with the organization as the starting of these interactions, the management of behavior in organizations always will
point of our analysis, then we would tend to define problems as organizational be multifaceted, somewhat unpredictable, and challenging. We cannot
and seek solutions at that level. We would be most likely to think first about control the thinking, much less the behavior, of others. But we can positively
changing the organizational structure and systems so as to make them more influence others, and we can be more successful in working with people to
rational and consistent with generally accepted models of organization. We accomplish shared objectives. By gaining a better understanding of our own
also might ask about the role that the organization plays in the larger society behavior, the behavior of people and groups in organizations, and the
and in the governance system. The underlying values at the organizational level influence of organizational and other environmental factors, our ability to
might be to achieve rationality, consistency, performance, responsiveness, and successfully accomplish public objectives will be enhanced.
efficiency.
Perhaps it would be helpful to think about these issues from the perspective of
Organizational behavior has a different orientation from that of other the knowledge and skills needed by successful public servants—that is, what do
perspectives because it has a different focus. In organizational behavior, the we need to know and what do we need to be able to do in order to act
starting point is the person. Accordingly, the questions that we consider in this effectively and responsibly in a public organization? These questions were
book focus on individual and group behavior, needs, and perceptions. Is the addressed in a classic study conducted by the U.S. Office of Personnel
organization meeting the needs of its people in that it allows them to work Management (OPM) that sought to identify the skills that are critical to
effectively? Are individual creativity and responsibility being fostered? Are there managerial success in government. Based on information collected from a
large number of highly effective governmental managers and executives, the unpleasant and therefore had to be motivated (or bribed) by money to
researchers developed two categories of competencies: one focusing on contribute to the organization. It also was assumed that workers would do what
management functions (or the “what” of government) and one focusing on they were told because they would be punished or fired if they did not.
effectiveness (or the “how” of government). Those competencies are
summarized and paraphrased in Figure 1.2. Frederick Taylor (1911), best known as the father of scientific management, is
representative of these traditional perspectives on human behavior. He, like
The first thing we notice when we look at the list in Figure 1.2 is how many of other management thinkers of his time, assumed that workers would do what
these competencies require a working knowledge of and effective skills in they were told if they were paid to do so. In testimony before Congress in 1912,
organizational behavior. Certainly, interpreting and communicating, guiding, Taylor boasted, “Under scientific management, the initiative of the workmen—
and leading, supervising, and promoting performance, and flexibility are all that is, their hard work, their goodwill, their ingenuity—is obtained practically
organizational behavior skill areas. But a second look reveals how integral the with absolute regularity” (1912/1997, p. 30). Taylor believed that if managers
skills in organizational behavior are to virtually every aspect of managerial studied the best ways for tasks to be performed and then scientifically selected
competence. Look at the list and determine whether there are any elements and trained workers to perform those tasks, the workers would be induced to
that do not require, or at least could not be strengthened by, an ability to perform as expected by paying them a “piece rate”—a set amount of money
effectively influence, manage, motivate, and lead people. for each task performed or product produced.

The diagram in Figure 1.3, again drawn from the OPM study, reinforces the need But it is important to point out that Taylor did not see this as exploiting
for competencies and skills at multiple levels. The OPM framework highlights the employees. To the contrary, his writing made it clear that the design of work
need for management competencies at all levels of an organization. For and production was the responsibility of management and that if management
example, it suggests that successful frontline managers must be not only employed scientific approaches to the study of work tasks, then both employers
technically competent but also effective communicators who demonstrate and employees would benefit. Taylor (1912/1997) suggested that “only one-
personal sensitivity. Their responses also must be consistent with those tenth of our trouble has come on the workmen’s side” and that instead “we
competencies emphasized at the next level. Productive mid-level managers, find very great opposition on the part of those on the management’s side to do
while being action-oriented and focused on results, must at the same time their new duties and comparatively little opposition on the part of the work men
demonstrate leadership and flexibility as they work to acquire the to cooperate in doing their new duties” (p. 31). The point is that motivation per
characteristics of those at the highest level—specifically, they should display a se was simply not a concern.
broad perspective, a strategic view, and environmental sensitivity. If executives
at the top levels of government are to flourish, then they must demonstrate the Taylor’s overall purpose was to make people, whom he assumed to be naturally
full range of effectiveness characteristics and be especially attentive to their lazy and stupid, more productive. Referring to his efforts to secure greater
interactions with the organization’s environment. Clearly, a wide variety of productivity from men hauling pig iron, Taylor (1911) is quoted as saying that it
skills—most notably their ability to work with and through people—will be is “possible to train an intelligent gorilla” to do his job (p. 40). Moreover, despite
essential to their success as public managers. employees’ natural tendencies toward laziness, he expected them to obey
their superiors without question. Using the analogy of a baseball team, Taylor
(1912/1997) stated that it is obvious and necessary to recognize the “utter
impossibility of winning . . . unless every man on the team obeys the signals or
THE ROOTS OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR orders of the coach and obeys them at once when the coach gives those
The field of organizational behavior is fairly young. Although we have been orders” (p. 32).
interested in the behavior of people in organizations for a long time, most early There were a few early voices who were more humanistic, people such as Hugo
approaches focused on simply controlling workers and manipulating their Munsterberg (1913), who urged greater attention to the psychology of workers,
environment to maximize predictability and productivity. Given the importance and Mary Parker Follett, who argued that dynamic administration must be
of employee behavior to organizational success, it might seem somewhat grounded in “our cognition of the motivating desires of the individual and of
surprising that individual behavior was not a matter of significant managerial the group” (as cited in Metcalf & Urwick, 1940, p. 9). But such work was largely
concern until at least the 1930s. From the perspective of early management considered outside the mainstream until the Hawthorne studies published
theorists, people were primarily viewed as extensions of their tools and during the 1930s pointed the way toward a greater acceptance of the
machines. For example, employee motivation, if it was considered at all, was importance of social factors at work (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939). In 1927, a
based on rewards or punishment. It was assumed that workers found work to be
group of researchers from Harvard University led by Elton Mayo and F. J. cooperation in organizations was emphasized in Chester Barnard’s (1948)
Roethlisberger embarked on a study of worker productivity in the Hawthorne definition of a formal organization as “a system of consciously coordinated
Works of the Western Electric Company in Chicago. The project began as a activities or forces of two or more persons” (p. 81). For Barnard, the participation
relatively straightforward examination of “the relation between conditions of of the individual was necessary for cooperation, and indeed, he viewed the
work and the incidence of fatigue and monotony among employees” (1939, p. need to build cooperation among organizational subunits as the crucial
3). The researchers anticipated that definitive data on this matter could be function of the manager. Similarly, public administrationist Herbert Simon (1976)
collected and analyzed within a year. But things did not turn out as they had developed a new approach to understanding administrative behavior based
planned. As they put it, “the inquiry developed in an unexpected fashion” and, on rational decision-making and focusing on the way in which managers
as a result, continued for 5 years, from 1927 to 1932 (1939, p. 3). secure contributions from their employees by offering appropriate
inducements. The rationale for including workers on problem-solving and
Although the Hawthorne studies took longer than expected the findings from decision-making teams was established later as a result of collaboration
this research ultimately would signal a fundamental shift in how employee between social psychologist Kurt Lewin and anthropologist Margaret Mead in
behavior was to be understood. The Hawthorne findings actually surprised the experiments concerning the reduction of civilian consumption of rationed food.
researchers. In fact, a series of initial experiments to measure the effects of Through Lewin’s research in this setting, he established a core principle: “We are
lighting on efficiency were deemed failures. Basically, the researchers could likely to modify our own behavior when we participate in problem analysis and
find no direct relationship between changes in illumination and worker solution, and [we are] more likely to carry out decisions we have helped make”
efficiency. In fact, short of literally making it so dark that the workers could not (as cited in Weisbord, 1987, p. 89).
see, every change that the researchers implemented seemed to increase
productivity. The researchers concluded that “light is only one, and apparently In 1946, Lewin and Douglas McGregor started the Research Center for Group
a minor, factor among many which affect employee output” and that Dynamics with the mission of training leaders to become skilled in improving
attempts “to measure the effect of one variable had not been successful group relations and managing change. McGregor’s research on group norms
because the various factors affecting the performance of the operators had and personal needs underlined the importance of developing the morale of
not been controlled, and hence, the results could have been influenced by any the workforce and encouraging cooperative efforts in order to increase
one of several variables” (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939, p. 19). efficiency (Knickerbocker & McGregor, 1942). In The Human Side of the
Enterprise, McGregor (1960) discussed a highly effective management team
So, in the next phase of their study the researchers attempted to control these studied by researchers. He concluded that “unity of purpose” is the main
many variables by isolating a group of workers and systematically and distinguishing characteristic of the successful unit. Even more important,
comprehensively studying their behavior and attitudes. After observing, McGregor discussed the now familiar Theory X and Theory Y, arguing that
consulting, and interviewing this group of employees for 5 years, the researchers traditional command-and-control approaches (Theory X)—based on
arrived at two conclusions that would profoundly change research on worker assumptions of people as lazy, uninvolved, and motivated solely by money—
behavior. First, they found that people change their behavior when they know actually caused people to behave in a manner consistent with those
they are being observed (the so-called Hawthorne effect). Second, they expectations. His alternative, Theory Y, suggested a much more optimistic and
concluded that human relationships (including a relationship with the humanistic view of people, emphasizing the inherent worth of individuals in
researchers) influenced the behavior of workers and, consequently, that new organizations. Similarly, Abraham Maslow (1962) proposed his well-known
hypotheses were needed to explain worker behavior. The Hawthorne hierarchy of needs as a way of understanding the complexity of human beings’
experiments showed that human behavior and motivation are complex, being motivations and desires, and Victor Vroom (1964) and Edward Lawler (1973)
influenced by attitudes, feelings, and the meanings that people assign to their made important contributions to our understanding of work motivation that we
work and their relationships at work. As the researchers stated succinctly, “It is will explore later.
[our] simple thesis that a human problem requires a human solution”
(Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939, p. 35). This was a far cry from the types of In related examination, Rensis Likert (1961), in New Patterns of Management,
assumptions that Taylor and his contemporaries had made about worker developed the notion of organizations as a series of interlocking groups and the
motivation. manager as a “linking pin.” Chris Argyris (1964) focused his attention on the
personal development of the individual in the context of the organization;
Research conducted over the subsequent few decades confirmed the organizational effectiveness was a function of the interpersonal competence
Hawthorne findings and resulted in a more sophisticated understanding of the of team members and the extent to which the organization supported positive
relationship between people and organizations. The importance of human norms. Robert Blake and Jane Mouton (1964) provided a model of team
excellence and a set of styles useful in understanding team members’ strategic fashion, a theme recently echoed by Jim Collins (2001, 2011) in his
contributions through their managerial grid, which may be used to diagnose books Good to Great and Great by Choice.
the team’s culture.
Because of its emphasis on individual behavior, contemporary organizational
Throughout its history, the field of organizational behavior has benefited from behavior draws heavily from the field of psychology. Psychological theories and
work in a variety of disciplines, including sociology, anthropology, and political models form the basis of our knowledge about perception and learning, human
science. Sociologists help us to understand organizations and how their motivation, and small-group or one-on-one interactions. But not all schools of
structure and function affect individuals. Conflict, adaptation, and the thought within psychology play an equal role in the study of organizational
influence of the environment all are issues addressed in the field of sociology. behavior. For example, psychological theories such as those espoused by
For example, the famous German sociologist, Max Weber (1947), in writing that Sigmund Freud assume that human personality and behavior are largely fixed
originated almost 100 years ago, first laid out the principles that govern at a young age. Not surprisingly, such perspectives are not particularly useful to
hierarchical organizations and the ways in which individuals exercise power adults in organizational settings. On the other hand, behavioral psychology,
and control within those “bureaucratic” structures, while more recently with its emphasis on learning and behavior change, is quite useful and
sociologist Amatai Etzioni (1988) contributed to the study of group decision- important. Likewise, social psychology, as explored early on by Karl Weick
making. Similarly, anthropology, with its exploration of the role of culture in (1979), offers insights into group behavior, conflict, power, and leadership.
society, offers important insights into organizational life. (We have already
noted the contribution of anthropologist Margaret Mead and will return to more A recent and compelling emphasis in the social psychology of organizational
contemporary studies of culture throughout the book.) As we will see, behavior behavior is termed positive organizational scholarship, the study, or positive
in organizations differs significantly from one national culture to another. Also, organizational behavior, the practical outcome. Positive organizational
individual organizations each reveal their own culture and may sometimes find scholarship traces its beginnings to the late 1990s, when Martin Seligman,
it necessary to change or modify an existing culture. Likewise, political science president of the American Psychological Association, argued that his field had
contributes to our understanding of organizational behavior by focusing on too long focused on illness or pathology and proposed as an alternative what
democratic governance, power, leadership, and strategy. We have already he called “positive psychology” (Seligman, 2002). Instead of focusing on what
noted the contributions of political scientists and public administrationists such was wrong with people (i.e., their deficiencies), positive psychology would
as Herbert Simon, but we will also recognize later the significant work of political focus on positive experiences (i.e., happiness, pleasure, and joy) and how
theorist James Macgregor Burns (1978) in developing the notion of human beings could use their talents to create positive institutions that would,
transformational leadership, an idea that remains a topic of lively discussion in turn, promote even greater positive circumstances for individuals and groups.
even today. The new approach was to emphasize the best in the human condition and
model ways in which excellence and high performance could be sustained
(Cameron & Spreitzer, 2011).

MORE RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Organizational scholars soon began to explore how this new approach to
psychology might be reflected in studies of organizational behavior (Cameron,
During the past several decades, management and organization theorists, Dutton, & Quinn, 2003a; Nelson & Cooper, 2007). Fred Luthans (2002), working
primarily those studying business organizations, have made especially with the Gallup organization and noting its emphasis on strengths rather than
important contributions to our understanding of organizational behavior and weakness in the larger population, proposed that confidence, hope, and
management. For example, Peter Drucker (1967) explored the limitations of resiliency should be incorporated into learning about organizational behavior.
traditional command-and-control models of organization in stimulating worker Similarly, Kim Cameron, Jane Dutton, and Robert Quinn (2003b) further
productivity, especially in areas in which “knowledge workers” are especially elaborated the notion of positive organizational scholarship, suggesting a
important. Margaret Wheatley (2006) extended this notion, encouraging greater emphasis on human strength, resilience, and vitality and the creation
managers and workers in times of uncertainty and chaos to embrace resilience, of settings characterized by appreciation, collaboration, fulfillment,
adaptation, and creativity, while Peter Senge (1990) led the exploration of abundance, and human wellbeing.
learning organizations, and Edgar Schein (1985) established the importance of
organizational culture. In a related vein, Tom Peters, and Robert Waterman Cameron and colleagues (2003b) wrote, “Imagine a world in which almost all
(1982) established the role of executives in all sectors striving for excellence in organizations are typified by greed, selfishness, manipulation, secrecy, and a
single-minded focus on winning. Wealth creation is the key indicator of success”
(p. 3). Distrust and anxiety would characterize individuals in those organizations, One emerging theme in brain studies is that human behavior is never purely
and social relations would be strained. Researchers looking into such rational; the emotions play a central role in all aspects of organizational
organizations would emphasize such topics as problem solving, resistance, and behavior, a theme we will revisit often. The study of organizational behavior
competition. In contrast, “imagine another world in which almost all then draws on work from many disciplines. The influence of these fields is not
organizations are typified by appreciation, collaboration, virtuousness, vitality, singular; each of them may provide insights into a particular topic within the
and meaningfulness. Creating abundance and human well-being are key field of organizational behavior. For example, our understanding of conflict and
indicators of success” (p. 3). Such features as trustworthiness, humility, and power in organizations may be explored from a psychological, managerial,
positive energy would characterize individuals in those organizations, and sociological, anthropological, or political standpoint. Each of these
researchers would emphasize excellence and extraordinary performance. perspectives may emphasize different aspects of the causes, sources, and
Positive organizational behavior does not dismiss the first view, which has a clear manifestations of these phenomena as well as our role in managing and
basis in reality, but emphasizes the second; it seeks, as the old Johnny Mercer responding to them. Similarly, we can choose to emphasize the negative forces
song says, to “accentuate the positive.” underlying organizational life, or we can choose to emphasize the more positive
and affirming. In fact, the more different angles, and lenses we can use to look
This approach is closely related to what we might call a strength-based at human behavior in organizations, the more likely our actions will be effective.
approach to personal and organizational development (Rath, 2007; Our approach in this book is to employ as many tools and perspectives as
Buckingham, 2011). Instead of focusing on deficiencies—either those of the possible.
individual or those of the organization—this approach builds on their strengths.
(A parallel strength-based approach is often used in community
development—the focus is not on what’s wrong with a community but what is
right and what can be built upon.) Does Good Management Make a Difference?

We should note one other contemporary approach to the study of We know that managers perform many different roles and functions in public
organizational behavior. New developments in the way the brain affects organizations, but do these actions make a difference in the productivity of the
behavior, called neuroscience, or more informally brain science, suggest that organization? Certainly, that has been the prevailing wisdom in management
the physiology of the human brain is directly connected to human behavior, and organizational behavior for some time (Pfeffer, 1998; Zaccaro & Klimoski,
including organizational behavior. For example, stress affects everyone, but the 2001). However, recently the Gallup organization, better known for its broad
structure of the brain means that certain people are less affected by stress than social and political public opinion surveys, has been measuring management
others. Brain science may eventually be able to tell us, from a physical practices and their effect on productivity (Asplund & Blacksmith, n.d.). This
standpoint, which individuals are likely to be most resilient and why. Brain research has shown that employees who are engaged in their work essentially
research has also shown that our brains are highly flexible and adaptable, doubled their odds of success when compared to those who are less engaged.
which means that learning can take place not just in our early years but Moreover, employee engagement clearly made a difference in terms of
throughout our lives. productivity, quality, and customer service. The survey investigated how
employees become engaged and found that managers using positive
A similar argument is developed in a popular and highly readable book by New leadership behaviors such as a strengths-based approach, maintaining a
York Times columnist David Brooks called The Social Animal (2012). Drawing on positive perspective when difficulties arise, and providing frequent recognition
recent work in neuroscience as well as psychology, Brooks contends that our and encouragement were a key factor in employee engagement. Another
conscious or rational mind often receives credit for thinking through options and extensive study, this one of school districts, found that managerial quality was
guiding our actions, when in fact the unconscious mind—the world of emotions, related to 10 of 11 performance indicators, covering a wide range of
intuitions, and deep-seated longings—tends to play a much more significant organizational goals from school attendance to student success on
role. Brooks concludes that we are not rational animals but, first and foremost, standardized tests (Meier & O’Toole, 2002). These findings indicate that good
social animals. Daniel Goleman, writing in Social Intelligence (2007), comes to management and good leadership clearly make a difference.
the same conclusion. Basing his work on recent advances in neuroscience,
Goleman identifies a human predisposition to be aware of and sensitive to What exactly is a good boss worth? A recent research study by the National
other human beings. Bureau of Economic Research looked at 23,878 workers matched to 1,940
bosses at a very large technology service company between 2006 and 2010
(McGregor, 2012). The study found that removing a poorly performing manager
and replacing him or her with a top performing manager is roughly equal, in words, the effective and responsible management of organizational behavior
terms of productivity, to adding an extra person to the team. The top- requires that public managers understand and develop a capacity to manage
performing manager is like the star athlete who makes everyone around him or their own behavior, influence the behavior of others at the interpersonal and
her look better. group levels, and act as individual public leaders in their interactions with the
public and its representatives.
Researchers have also looked at the other side of the coin—how does poor
management affect the work of the organization? There’s an old adage that To manage others, we must start with ourselves; we must learn to manage our
people don’t quit their jobs; they quit their bosses. Studies have shown that old own behavior and understand our motivations and perceptions of ourselves.
adage to be true. In study after study, when asked what one factor determines We must know ourselves—our style, our strengths, and our limitations. We must
their satisfaction, engagement, and commitment, employees point to the learn to distinguish our motivations, preferences, and worldviews from those of
quality of their immediate supervisor. According to a 2005 study, when others. We must have a sense of direction, a willingness to explore and take
employees were asked what factor most negatively impacted their risks, and a good understanding of how we can learn from our administrative
productivity, 58% cited poor management, a figure 20 points above the second experiences over time.
leading negative impact, lack of motivation (Malveauz, 2005). Another recent
study of 2,865 leaders in a large financial services company that used feedback Beyond the personal level, public managers are involved with other people in
from employees, other managers, and their associates—a method called 360- the organization—bosses, coworkers, and subordinates. To interact effectively
degree feedback—shows a direct correlation between levels of employee with these people, public managers need to develop strong interpersonal skills
engagement and the effectiveness of their supervisors (Zenger & Folkman, in areas such as communicating with and motivating others, working with, and
2012). facilitating groups and teams, and understanding and employing power and
influence. They need to be culturally aware, especially in a multicultural global
Good management is associated with happy, engaged, and committed society, and capitalize on diverse approaches and talents to improve
employees. Clearly, managers make a difference, and if you have the skills and organizational effectiveness (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005).
abilities to manage and lead effectively, you will likely have more productive
and satisfied employees. Obviously, this is a compelling reason to learn the ins Similarly, we feel that people should be valued simply as humans aside from
and outs of organizational behavior. their contributions to organizational goal attainment. Treating humans with
respect and dignity is an important value in its own right. Organizational
behavior is fundamentally grounded in the idea that improvements to
organizational processes, structure, and performance require “managing
THEMES AND PURPOSES OF THIS BOOK through people.” But while approaches that ignore or disrespect people may
There are three themes that cut across all the chapters in this book: (1) the get results in the short term, they do not build responsible, engaged, and civic-
importance of understanding the behaviors, motivations, and actions of minded employees or citizens.
individuals in the public service; (2) a focus on the distinctiveness of Second, this issue of “publicness” leads to the next major perspective of the
management and leadership in public organizations; and (3) an emphasis on book. We believe that the compelling nature of the political environment and
students learning not only from reading but also from experience. We can the nature of public service make public management distinctive. Specifically,
examine each of these points in greater detail. it is our firm belief that organizational behavior in the public sector is different—
First, in our view, public administration courses in management and that public administration is, in many cases, significantly affected both by the
organizational behavior should focus on the individual. We assume that a key particular requirements of public sector work and by the important traditions of
to success in public administration is the ability to understand and influence the democratic participation and a commitment to the public values that underlie
behavior of individuals and groups. Moreover, we assert that public managers work in public organizations. Public managers must be fully attentive to the
must learn to manage, change, and reflect on their own behavior and public service motive that draws people to work in public organizations. For
motivations in developing the capacity to manage others. For this reason, this these reasons, leadership and management in public organizations must be
book focuses on the individual public servant—how and why individuals understood in the context of public values and public service.
behave as they do, how students can act with greater probability of success in Public leadership involves not only internal management issues but also the
influencing the behavior of others, and how (over time) they can improve their management of critical interactions between organizational representatives
own capacity to act as individual managers and public servants. In other and individuals and groups outside of the public organization. Particularly
important are skills involved in managing change processes and in effectively
representing the organization to the public, to the legislative body, to the
media, and to those in other organizations. Again, individual interactions are
critical; the ways in which individual public servants, whether executives or line-
level employees, deal with citizens, reporters, and clients ultimately define the
relationship between the organization and the public it serves.

Third, to develop the capacity for action, a different style of learning is

necessary. Learning the skills to support effective and responsible action
requires not only reading and discussing ideas but also improving people’s
capacity to act in pursuit of their ideas. For this reason, we try to present a solid
foundation of ideas on which you can act, but we also provide opportunities
and aids that you can use in developing your own personal, interpersonal, and
institutional skills in areas such as creativity, decision-making, communication,
and group dynamics.

In public administration, as in other skill-based disciplines, practice is required

for improvement to occur. So rather than just talking about organizational
behavior, we draw on two types of experiences: (1) those that can be created
in the classroom using cases, exercises, and simulations that we provide and (2)
those drawn from real life, meaning your own work in public organizations
(including internships) or other ongoing groups of which you are a part.

In each chapter, we seek not merely to present a review of the relevant

literature related to each of the topics but also to present some specific and
immediate ideas and tools that are intended to be of practical assistance. We
also develop some long-term strategies or behavioral guidelines that you can
use to learn from your own experiences as well as from the experiences of
others. And we provide a set of learning tools—cases, simulations, assessment
tools—that you can use to develop and practice your emerging skills in
management and leadership.

In so doing, we hope to provide information as well as opportunities to enhance

your skills and broaden your perspectives in support of efforts to manage
organizational behavior in the public interest. Our goal is to provide
perspectives and insights that will allow men and women in the public service
to do their jobs better, to feel more competent and confident in their
interactions with people, to lead others in their work to achieve a better world,
and to gain greater satisfaction and joy from the careers they have chosen—
all to the benefit of the public they serve.