Organizational Behavior against Perception
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement of the Subject HBO101
Macarambon, Putri Johanna
We are heartily thankful to our dearest professor, Mrs. Pichay whose encouragement, support and guidance until the wavering moments of the semester helped us to see this term paper into completion.
We are also particularly grateful for the assistance given by the staff of UE Library specifically the Circulation Library and Graduate School Library for letting us borrow books and theses.
We would like to offer our special thanks to the National Library for providing us the resources needed for this study.
We would also like to thank our respective families and friends for their understanding and for allowing us to spend most of our precious time working with our research paper.
Above all, we glorify and thank Almighty God/ Allah, who have given us the power to believe in ourselves and pursue our dreams. We could never have done this without the faith we have in him.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contentsiii
A. History and Background
B. Significance of the Study
C. Objectives of the Study
D. Scope and Delimitations
E. Definition of Terms
2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
3SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
A. History and Background
Although human relationships have existed since the beginning of time, the art and science of trying to deal with them in complex organizations is relatively new. In the early days people work along or in such small groups that their work relationships were easily handled. It has been popular to assume that under this conditions people worked in a Utopia of happiness and fulfillment, but this assumption is largely a nostalgic reinterpretation of history actual conditions were brutal and backbreaking. People worked from dawn until dust under intolerable conditions of disease, filth, danger, and scarcity of resources. They had to work this way to survive, and very little effort was devoted to their job satisfaction.
Then came the industrial revolution in the beginning the condition of the people did improve, but at least the seed was planted for potential improvement industry expanded the supply of goods and knowledge that eventually gave workers increased wages, shorter hours, and more satisfaction in this new industrial improvement Robert Owen, a young Welsh factory owner about the year 1800, was one of the first to emphasize the human needs of employees. He refused to employ young children. He taught his workers cleanliness and temperance improved their working conditions. This could hardly be called a modern organizational behavior, but it was a beginning. He was called “the real father” of personnel administration by an early writer.
Andrew Ure incorporated human factors into his work The Philosophy of Manufactures, published in 1835. He recognized the mechanical and commercial parts of manufacturing, but he also added a third factor, which was the human factor. He provided workers with hot tea, medical treatment, “a fan apparatus” for ventilation, and sickness payments. The ideas of Owen and Ure were accepted slowly or not at all, and they often deteriorated into a paternalistic, do-good approach rather than a genuine recognition of the importance of people at work.
Interest in people at work was awakened by Frederick W. Taylor in the United States in the early 1900s. He is often called “the father of scientific management,” and the changes he brought to management paved the way for later...