Toward Understanding Behavioral Science by Administrators

More recent urging with an authoritive ring appears in Gordon R. A. Howell J. E. , Higher Education for Business (Columbia University Press, New York, 1959). Also see Wadia Manick S. , “Management Education and the Behavioral Sciences,” Advanced Management, Vol. 26, No. 9 (September 1961), 7–10.

Much of this can perhaps be traced back to Katz Robert L. , “Skills of an Effective Administrator,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 33, No. 1 (1955), 33–42.

An eloquent statement of this point can be found in Boulding Kenneth E. , “Where Are We Going if Anywhere?” Human Organization, Vol. 21, No. 2 (1962), 162–167.

Simon Herbert A. , “Some Strategic Considerations in the Construction of Social Science Models,” in Lazarsfeld Paul F. , ed., Mathematical Thinking in the Social Sciences (1954), p. 389.

This is echoed in a number of “modern classics,” such as March James Simon Herbert , Organizations (John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1958); and Haire Mason , ed., Modern Organization Theory (John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1959).

This is the age-old distinction between the “is” and the “ought.” That everyone, including executives, has trouble in separating normative (value) propositions from descriptive statements (of fact) is well known. This confusion leads to the incalculable error of assuming that men, once they have been doing something for some time, know what they are doing. A recent article clearly discusses the differences between prescriptive, descriptive, and predictive research. See Shull F. Jr. , “The Nature and Contribution of Administrative Models and Organizational Research,” The Journal of the Academy of Management, Vol. 5, No. 2 (1962), 124–138.

The concept of “levels” it utilized by many other writers. For a stimulating recent example see, Clark James V. , “A Healthy Organization,” California Management Review, Vol. 4, No. 4 (1962), 16–30.

Note the naturally more complex sciences use simplifying assumptions or assume areas constant in order to study them in manageable pieces.

A similar description may be found in Boulding Kenneth E. , “General Systems Theory—The Skeleton of a Science,” Management Science, Vol. 2 (April 1956), 200–201.

The reader will note the following assumption of phenomena ordered into systems is consistent with science's assumption of order in nature.

In fact, associations like The Society for General Systems Research are stimulating a growing amount of such work. The writer would like to acknowledge that much of the stimulus for the present article is due to the provocative writings of Meier Richard L. , University of Michigan; specifically, “Explorations in the Realm of Organization Theory,” Behavioral Science, Vol. 3 (1958), 68–79; Vol. 4 (1959), 235–244; Vol. 5 (1960), 235–247; Vol. 6 (1961), 232–247.

Our everyday speech is filled with reference of system ends, e.g., goals, objectives, aims, missions, purposes, and so on.

The last few lines require very careful reading. It may be helpful to indicate what is not a system. “In simple, naive, commonsense terms, then, a real system is all of a thing. Even though it is possible to construct a conceptual system which includes Grandpa's mustache, Chinese hokku poetry, and the Brooklyn Bridge, this would not correspond to a real system … because these things are not surrounded by a single boundary, are not continuous in space-time, and do not have recognizable functional interrelationships.” Miller James G. , “Toward a General Theory for the Social Sciences,” in White Leonard D. , ed., The State of the Social Sciences (University of Chicago Press, 1956), pp. 33–34. (Emphasis added.)

Organization is characterized quite similarly although not explicitly as a “system” by Chris Argyris in a paper attempting to integrate the individual and the organization. See Argyris C. , “The Integration of the Individual and the Organization,” in Strother G. B. , ed., Social Science Approaches to Business Behavior (The Dorsey Press, Inc., and Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood, Illinois, 1962), pp. 57–98.

A scheme may be clarified by comparison to other conceptual devices. A frame of reference is not always explicit, complete, or logical. Its purpose is simply to comprehend or understand. A scheme is explicit, abstract, and logical. Its purpose is to order and explore. A theory is logically rigorous and has clearly specified variables that have some validated relationship. Its purpose is to explain.

A list of such habitual courses of action is provided by Fuller Stephen H. , “What Is an Unsatisfactory Examination Paper,” in Andrews K. R. , ed., The Case Method of Teaching Human Relations and Administration (Harvard University Press, 1956), pp. 122–137. Some examples are: “Tell 'Em, Sell 'Em, Explain It to Them,” “Exercise Line Authority,” “Operate on the ‘Paper’ Organization.”

This latter view is the basis of theory of administration having considerable impact today. Douglas McGregor of M.I.T. is one of the foremost writers in this vein. See his The Human Side of Enterprise (McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1960). Also see Likert Rensis , New Patterns of Management (McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1961).