UPI Study › Courses › Leadership and Organizational Behavior › Free lessons › Lesson 1.1 Free with a free account
Organizational Behavior: Core Concepts, Historical Context, and Behavioral Sciences
Leadership and Organizational Behavior · Chapter 1: Foundations and Context of Organizational BehaviorSection 1.1 · lesson 1 of 12214 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Leadership and Organizational Behavior.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Leadership and Organizational Behavior
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: Contingency Theory, External Forces, and Their Impact on Organizational Dynamics →Next lesson: Contingency Theory, External Forces, and Their Impact on Organizational Dynamics →
In this lesson
What the discipline studies, how it got here, and why managers keep ignoring it.
- Define OB and its three levels of analysis
- Trace the classical, human relations and behavioral science eras
- Map the six behavioral sciences OB draws on
- Explain why evidence and practice stay so far apart
Free study notes
Get this lesson's notes by email
The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.
One email. Unsubscribe in one click.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,823 words). Read along, or search it.
Foundations and Context of Organizational Behavior
Organizational Behavior: Core Concepts, Historical Context, and Behavioral Sciences
Every organization runs two systems at once. There is the formal one, drawn on the chart, and the human one underneath it. Organizational Behavior is the discipline that takes the second one seriously. In this opening section we do four things. First, we define the field, and set out its three levels of analysis. Second, we trace how it grew, from stopwatches on a factory floor to psychological safety. Third, we map the six behavioral sciences it borrows from. And fourth, we face something uncomfortable. Managers routinely ignore what this research has already settled. That last point is worth carrying with you. The field's problem is not a shortage of evidence. It is a shortage of use.
Defining The Field
A Science of Behavior at Work
Start with the definition, because one word in it carries most of the weight. Organizational Behavior is the systematic, evidence-based study of human behavior in organizational settings. Its aim is twofold. Improve organizational effectiveness, and improve individual well-being. The load-bearing word there is systematic. This is not a collection of commonsense observations, and it is not managerial folklore. The field formulates testable hypotheses, designs rigorous studies, and revises its claims when the evidence demands it. That distinction matters more than it first sounds. Almost everyone carries a private theory of why people behave as they do at work. Most of those theories feel obvious, and turn out to be wrong in expensive ways. A manager who grounds people decisions in that research is practicing evidence-based management, and it consistently beats intuition. Here is the reason the problem stays hidden. Intuition feels like expertise, so it is rarely tested.
Levels Of Analysis
Three Lenses on the Same Organization
The field organizes its subject matter across three levels of analysis, and each answers a different question. The individual level covers personality, perception, attitudes, emotions, and motivation. It also covers learning, stress, and well-being. This is the level that explains variation between people. Two employees in identical roles can perform very differently. They can respond to the same leader in opposite ways, or read one event as a challenge, or as a threat. The group level covers team composition, cohesion, norms, roles, and communication. It adds conflict, and collective problem-solving. Groups have emergent properties, which means a set of people becomes more than the sum of its parts, for better or worse. The organizational level covers culture, structure, design, change, and the link to the outside environment. Now for why you hold all three at once. A performance problem that looks individual may actually sit in group dynamics, or in structural incentives. A conflict that looks interpersonal may be a cultural tension in disguise. The multi-level lens stops you diagnosing too fast.
The Long Argument
A Century of Overturned Assumptions
Before the detail, here is the shape of the whole history. The discipline moved through three eras, and each one broke an assumption of the last. The classical era treated the organization as a machine to be optimized. Efficiency first, and people second. The human relations era arrived almost by accident, out of a factory experiment that misbehaved. It found that social conditions moved output more than physical ones did. The behavioral science era then built the theory to explain that. Motivation, cognition, group dynamics, and culture, studied with genuine research methods. Notice the pattern here. No era simply added to the one before it. Each overturned something the previous generation was certain about. That is worth remembering whenever today's management orthodoxy feels obvious.
Classical Era
Organizations Built as Machines
The late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries belonged to the classical school. Frederick Winslow Taylor gave it its most famous method, scientific management. Taylor ran systematic time-and-motion studies, looking for the single most efficient way to perform every task. Workers were then selected for physical capacity, trained on standardized procedures, and paid by the piece. Piece rates were meant to tie a worker's financial interest directly to maximum output. The productivity gains were real, and remarkable. The model of the human being underneath them was neither. Taylor assumed workers were driven by money alone, and had nothing to contribute about how work should be designed. Henri Fayol set out fourteen general principles of management. Hierarchical authority, division of labor, unity of command. Max Weber analyzed bureaucracy as the most technically rational way to coordinate large-scale activity. Their differences matter less than what they shared. Efficiency was the central problem, money was the motivator, and authority came from position, not expertise. Then the evidence arrived, from a source nobody expected.
Hawthorne
The Experiment That Refused to Behave
Between nineteen twenty-four and nineteen thirty-three, researchers studied a plant near Chicago. It was the Hawthorne Works. The site belonged to the Western Electric Company. The opening question was narrow, and entirely classical. How does lighting intensity affect worker productivity? The answer refused to behave. Productivity rose when the lighting was raised. It also rose when the lighting was lowered. Something other than the physical environment was driving output. Later phases, led by Elton Mayo and colleagues, changed method entirely. Thousands of workers were interviewed at length, and work groups were observed in their natural settings. What surfaced was social, rather than technical. Informal group norms regulated output, independently of management direction. Workers cared about being heard, and about being recognized. Cohesion and belonging worked as motivational forces in their own right, and supervisory attention alone could change effort. That last finding became known as the Hawthorne effect. People change their behavior simply because they are observed, and valued.
Reading Evidence
What Survives the Critics
The Hawthorne studies are also a lesson in how to hold evidence. Methodological critics have gone back to the original data. They identified real limitations in the research design. So the specific numbers deserve caution. The conceptual legacy, though, is not in doubt. Three claims were established, and all three still hold. First, productivity cannot be explained by physical conditions or financial incentives alone. Second, the social side of work is a powerful behavioral force. Recognition, belonging, informal norms, and the relationship with a supervisor. Third, understanding organizations needs psychology and social dynamics, not only engineering and economics. Those claims opened the intellectual space that modern Organizational Behavior now occupies.
Behavioral Science Era
The Theory Catches Up
After the war, the field matured into something genuinely multidisciplinary. Abraham Maslow published his hierarchy of needs in nineteen forty-three, giving managers a way to rank human motives. Douglas McGregor followed in nineteen sixty, with Theory X and Theory Y. Theory X assumes workers are lazy and irresponsible. Theory Y assumes they are motivated, and capable of self-direction. McGregor's real point is sharper than that two-way split. The assumption becomes self-fulfilling. Treat people as untrustworthy, and you build systems that make them behave that way. Frederick Herzberg then separated two things managers routinely confuse. Hygiene factors are working conditions, pay, and job security. They prevent dissatisfaction, but they cannot motivate. Motivator factors are achievement, recognition, responsibility, and growth. Those produce real engagement. Kurt Lewin pioneered group dynamics and action research. Victor Vroom, Edwin Locke, and Stacy Adams mapped the cognitive machinery. Expectancy, goal-setting, and equity theory. By the eighties and nineties the field widened again, into culture, transformational leadership, emotional intelligence, and psychological safety.
Contributing Sciences
Six Disciplines, One Applied Field
Organizational Behavior is not a single science. It is an integrative field. It borrows theory, method, and findings from six behavioral sciences. Psychology supplies the individual level. Motivation theories, personality models, perception, learning, and decision biases. Sociology supplies structure. Team dynamics, culture, socialization, power and authority. Social psychology sits between the two. Attitude change, conformity, persuasion, intergroup relations, and conflict resolution. Anthropology brings culture and symbolism, plus the ethnographic methods used to study them. Political science brings power, coalitions, and the politics inside organizations. Economics brings incentives, agency theory, and transaction cost analysis of design. The synthesis is where the analytical power actually comes from. A purely psychological account of motivation misses the structure that constrains individual choice. A purely sociological account of a group misses the differences between the people inside it. So the skill is not choosing a favorite lens. It is moving between them.
Research Architecture
Four Kinds of Variable
Research needs a precise vocabulary for how one thing affects another. This field uses four kinds of variable, and confusing them is a common error. Independent variables are the presumed causes. Leadership style, job design, team composition, organizational culture. Dependent variables are the outcomes of interest. Productivity, satisfaction, commitment, turnover, innovation, citizenship behavior. Moderating variables set the conditions. They strengthen or weaken a relationship without being part of the chain. National culture, for example, moderates the link between participative leadership and team satisfaction. Mediating variables are different. They explain the mechanism. Trust mediates the link between transformational leadership and commitment. The leadership builds the trust, and the trust produces the commitment. This is why an intervention can succeed in one company and fail in another. The moderators differed, and nobody checked them. That insight is the seed of contingency theory, which the next subchapter takes up in full.
Contemporary Pressures
New Conditions, Same Human Needs
Now bring the discipline into the present, because the conditions have shifted sharply. Remote and hybrid work is normal, and that changed how trust and culture get built. Relationships once formed in casual hallway encounters must now be cultivated deliberately, through digital channels. Those channels carry far fewer non-verbal cues, and rapport and psychological safety depend on exactly those cues. Algorithmic management is the second shift. Digital monitoring, analytics, and automated decisions now direct and evaluate workers. That raises hard questions about autonomy, surveillance, fairness, and the nature of employment itself. Artificial intelligence is reshaping job content, eliminating some cognitive tasks, and augmenting others. New skill demands appear faster than most organizations can build them. And a single workforce can span as many as five generational cohorts at once. It would be easy to conclude the older theory is obsolete. It is not. The needs named by self-determination theory, autonomy, competence, and belonging, hold in virtual settings too. What changes is which findings still generalize, and that is an empirical question.
Science And Practice
The Gap Between Knowing and Doing
We finish on the most uncomfortable feature of this discipline. There is a persistent gap between what the research has settled, and what managers actually do. Two examples show the size of it. Autonomy-supportive management beats controlling management on many outcomes. Yet authoritarian styles remain prevalent worldwide. Diverse and inclusive teams outperform homogeneous ones on complex problems. Yet hiring and promotion still show documented biases that cut diversity at every level. So why does the gap survive? The reasons are structural, not personal. Managers work under time pressure that discourages reflection and evidence review. They are judged on short-term financial metrics that hide the long-run cost of poor people management. Established practice carries institutional legitimacy, whatever the evidence happens to say. And managers carry the same biases the research documents in everyone else. Confirmation bias, and in-group favoritism. Closing that gap is the central purpose of management education. It gives you the vocabulary to diagnose a behavioral problem accurately, and it surfaces your hidden assumptions. And it builds the habit of evidence-seeking. Consult the research, measure the outcome, revise. That habit is what separates a learning organization from one that repeats its mistakes forever.
About Leadership and Organizational Behavior at UPI Study
Leadership and Organizational Behavior (Business 206) is a self-paced online course of 122 video lessons in 20 chapters, from personality, perception and motivation to leadership and power, teams, decision-making, conflict, organizational structure, culture, ethics and change. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Business courses Every course with PRO →
Compare: Management and leadership courses · Foundations of Leadership vs Leadership and OB
Why take it here
Why students take Leadership and Organizational Behavior with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Leadership and Organizational Behavior carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Organizational Behavior: Core Concepts, Historical Context, and Behavioral Sciences
What is organizational behavior?
What are the three levels of analysis in organizational behavior?
How did the field of organizational behavior develop historically?
Which behavioral sciences does organizational behavior draw on?
About the Leadership and Organizational Behavior course
How many college credits is Leadership and Organizational Behavior?
How much does Leadership and Organizational Behavior cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Leadership and Organizational Behavior take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Leadership and Organizational Behavior.
122 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →