Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4
Review Author(s): Thomas W. Wiggins Review by: Thomas W. Wiggins Source: Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.
Review Author(s): Thomas W. Wiggins Review by: Thomas W. Wiggins Source: Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.

Review Author(s): Thomas W. Wiggins Review by: Thomas W. Wiggins Source: Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Mar., 1970), pp. 121-123 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. on behalf of the Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2391198 Accessed: 14-04-2015 19:03 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Inc. and Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University are collaborating with JSTOR

Sage Publications, Inc. and Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University are collaborating with JSTOR

to digitize, preserve and extend access to Administrative Science Quarterly.

This content downloaded from on Tue, 14 Apr 2015 19:03:52 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions



clearly related to defined variables and so to generalizations. Propositions appear in Zalez- nik's conclusion, but they are not directly con- nected to the case data; they do accord with current thinking which stresses power as a critical element in satisfaction and performance, and therefore link attitudes toward change with the gain or loss of individual power. Indeed, the limitations of the questionnaire and data are such that a book on authority contains no measure of authority or power or influence. There is a single 3-point rating of the respondent's autonomy, a concept so com- plex that it in itself could account for the marginal differences found. A useful summary is given of 6 variables acting either as prior conditions or concurrent facilitations of change in attitudes and behavior. Yet even these are neither related to other work nor derived from the case. It is unfortunate that more advantage could not have been taken of the before-and-after case opportunity.

David J. Hickson

Visiting Professor of Organizational Behavior University of Alberta

Management by Motivation. By Saul W. Gellerman. New York: American Manage- ment Association, 1968. 286 pp. $9.00.

Motivation and Organizational Climate. By George H. Litwin and Robert A. Stringer,

Division of Research, Graduate

School of Business Administration, Har-

Jr. Boston:

vard University, 1968. 214 pp. $6.00.

These two volumes are substantively similar yet methodologicallydifferentin their approach to the topic of managerialeffectiveness. In Mo- tivation and OrganizationalClimate, Litwin and Stringerdescribe a systematic theory of human motivation (McCleland-Atkinson) and suggest how it can be applied to the problems which managers encounter by means of the concept organizationalclimate. The authors set forth a series of devices for measuring motivation and organizationalclimate, and then report on the use of the measuresin experimentalstudies and in a series of field studies. Finally, they derive implications from their research for managers. Thus, this researchrepresentsan interest in ap- plying motivation theory to organizationalbe- havior via an intervening variable-organiza- tional climate. In Managementby Motivation,Gellermanap- plies the concept of motivation to managerial

problems such as "the enlargement of compe- tence," "the difficult art of choosing people," and "predicting and measuring managerial per- formance." He takes up organizational climate as a relevant concept in the consideration of managerial effectiveness. Gellerman has a talent for focusing the reader on various crucial issues which confront managers from the perspective of the behavioral scientist. He sets out to pursue an enormously complex enterprise: to identify motivational levers, which managers can under- stand and use with a favorable prognosis for success. He succeeds lucidly and empirically with a Barnardian sense for relating his assump- tions in a manner which suggests their theoreti-

of his McKinsey Foun-

of Motivation

cal nature. The validity

dation Award for the




theoretical considerations.













authors of both volumes

are convincing

in their assumptions regarding the desirability of applying motivation theory to the science of management. Litwin and Stringer seem more interested in developing a systematic methodol- ogy for motivating people in organizations. Gellerman is less concerned with motivational theory as such and more concerned with "a way of thinking about it." He searches for causes and attempts to relate the causes to events which can stand up under scientific test- ing. In this regard, effective management by motivation involves the operation of this "way of thinking about it" notion to practical man-

agerial problems:

With it he can anticipate, with some reliability, how the various actions he might take would affect the people whose work he directs. It is this habit of mind, more than "leadership,""humanrelations," and even a knowledge of motivational theory itself, that is the key to a better utilization of human re- sources.

In other words, Gellerman is more pragmatic in his suggestion that managers, as behavioral scientists, concern themselves with the accurate perception of what conditions in their organi- zations motivate and demotivate people. He is interested in motivation theory as it applies to the accumulated body of research findings, which have consistent implications about how people encounter work environments, influen- tial variables which affect the encounter, and the relationship of the encounter to organiza- tional effectiveness. In this sense his use of the term theory is inaccurate and unnecessarily sug- gests the delimitation of applicable behavioral research to that which has been elevated to the shrine of the theoretical.

This content downloaded from on Tue, 14 Apr 2015 19:03:52 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions





Gellerman proposes no explicit model for managing by motivation; in fact, he doubts that such a model will ever be devised. Conversely, Litwin and Stringer conclude their research report with a framework of four variables or elements which managers are to consider in managing motivation:

1. The




bring to the situation;

2. The









3. The climate that characterizes the work situation; and

4. The personal strengths and limitations of

the operating manager.

Where Gellerman speaks generally of motiva- tional levers, Litwin and Stringer refer to the four variables above as representing the lever- age points that managers can use to motivate organizational members. Furthermore, Litwin and Stringer outline a strategy for managing motivation which stresses assessment of basic needs of organizational members, devising ways to manipulate tasks, the organizational climate, and managerial style to generate desired out- comes. Although the Litwin-Stringer framework is logically derived from the theoretical and con- ceptual considerations presented in their book, the strategy model is questionably operational. For example, if basic needs can be assessed, as the authors suggest, by thematic apperception tests, how operationally feasible would it be to individually administer such tests to organi- zational members? To what extent can managers


agerial styles? There is a body of research to suggest that organizational climate influences the behavior of leaders as much, if not more, than leaders influence organizational climate (Chase, 1953; Moyer, 1955; Presthus, 1962; Charters, 1963; Bridges, 1965; and Wiggins, 1969). Gellerman refers to organizational ho- mogenization as he discusses the tendency for managers to absorb predecessor's beliefs. Zalez- nik and Moment (1964) amplified this position when they suggested that leaders are not com- pletely free to choose their leader styles. The status of strategies for managerial motivation or manipulation is characterized by Gellerman as "complex and fluid." The dynamic and non- rational nature of the basic needs of individual

organizational members, organizational climate,

and managerial style reduces explicit strategies

to presumptuous

above are not cited to admonish Litwin and

tasks, the climate, and their man-




Stringer; the authors frequently suggest the heuristic and tentative nature of their conclu- sions for the practice of administration. The concept of organizational climate is at- tracting much attention from writers and re- searchers in the field of administration. It is being popularly considered by the behavioral scientist as an intervening variable which links

a body of knowledge associated with organiza- tional theory and organizational behavior. This is an encouraging trend insomuch as it may facilitate a more thorough understanding of the relationship of the institutional and individual dimensions of an organization from which one can more than speculate about organizational effectiveness. The meaning of organizational climate is couched in a priori assumptions analogous to the concept of human personality. Litwin and Stringer refer to it as "a set of measurable properties of the work environment, perceived directly or indirectly by the people who live and work in this environment and assumed to influence their motivation and behavior." They derive dimensions of organizational climate from the research literature including Lewin et al. (1939), Horowitz (1961), McGregor


and Lawrence and Lorsch (1967).

Gellerman calls organizational climate "the pat- tern of behavior which the managers and the managed learn for dealing with each other." This definition coincides with the operational definition used by Halpin and Croft (1963) in their study of the organizational climate of schools. Although the research methodology and organizational environments used by Lit- win and Stringer and Halpin and Croft were markedly different, there is a similarity in their climate dimensions; for example, Halpin and Croft used thrust and consideration, and Lit-

win and Stringer include responsibility, warmth, and support. The foregoing should, at least, raise hopes for an empirically credible concept of organiza- tional climate applicable to administrative sci- ence in general. Beginning with Argyris (1958), to the present, there has been general agree- ment as to the meaning of the concept. The efforts to specify dimensions for the concept have produced similar results. The status of organizational climate as an intervening vari- able will depend upon future research. Cellerman calls for "a wide-open willingness

to speculate and a cold-eyed insistence on analy-

sis" on the part of managers

invalidate their frequent presumptions that what is, should be. Both of these volumes un- derscore the notion that organizations can im-


an effort


This content downloaded from on Tue, 14 Apr 2015 19:03:52 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions



1969 Leader Behavior Characteristics and Organizational Climate. Working pa- per, University of Oklahoma.

prove their effectiveness as managers become

of and begin to operationalize

more perceptive

administrative research and theory.

Thomas W. Wiggins

Associate Professor of Educational Administration University of Oklahoma

Zaleznik, S., and D. Moment

1964 The Dynamics of Interpersonal Be- havior. New York: John Wiley.


Argyris, Chris

1958 "Some problems in conceptualizing organizational climate: a case study







Bridges, E. M.


1965 "Bureaucratic role and socialization:

the influence of experience on the elementary principal." Educational Administration Quarterly, 1:19-28.

Charters, W. W., Jr.

1963 "The social background of teaching." In N. L. Gage (ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching: 715-813. Chi- cago: Rand McNally.

Chase, F. S.

1953 "How





book, 1: 1-4.





Halpin, A. W., and D.

B. Croft

1963 The Organizational Climate of Schools. Chicago: Midwest Administration Cen- ter, University of Chicago.



1961 n Achievement Correlates and the Executive Role. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.

J. W.

1967 Organization and Environment: Man- aging Differentiation and Integration. Boston: Division of Research, Har- vard Business School.



R., and


Lewin, K., R. Lippitt, and R. K. White

1939 "Patterns of aggressive behavior in ex-

perimentally created 'social climates.'"

Journal of Social Psychology,


10: 271-

McGregor, D.



York: McGraw-Hill.


Side of Enterprise.


Moyer, D. C.


"Leadership that teachers want." Ad- ministrator's Notebook, 3:1-4. R.

1962 The Organizational Society. New York:



Alfred A. Knopf.


T. W.

Educational Planning-Programming-Budget- ing. By Harry J. Hartley. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968. 290 pp.


This is a disturbing book, and one which should be closely examined by all who are


PPBS and systems analysis, and in the uses of knowledge for better decision-making. The book is sure to dispel any optimism that edu- cational administrationhas passed the stage of superficial manuals, that the potentials and weaknesses of systems analysis and PPBS have been adequately explored, and that modern organization theory is sufficiently known to prevent naivety on directed change of organiza- tional behavior.


educational administration, in

The last chapter includes a good, and in

respects excellent, discussion of

limitations and problems of PPBS. Worthwhile also is an experience-basedchapter on budget- ary issues of local schools, by Sol Levin. But the rest of the book raises the question, what pressures have caused the author-who has clear insights into the subject matter-to write a book like this? Deferring discussion of these pressures till later, the results of whatever forces shaped the book are regrettable. Like most of the prolif- erating literature which tries to present PPBS and systems analysis to broad groups of prac- titioners, it fails to take up the basic issues. Despite the frequent use of the term orga-

nization theory and the inclusion of appropriate readings in the selected references, Hartley does not view PPBS and systems analysis as an endeavor to change organizationalpatterns of

decision-making. The

how far PPBS and systems analysis are pre- ferred, or at least feasible, approaches to de- cision improvementsin the local school is not seriously faced. The critical distinction be-

tween PPBS and systemsanalysisas an approach

and frame of appreciationon one hand, and as

a series of techniques and procedures on the

other hand is hardly recognized, nearly all of

content being

including, even, on how to write clear English

-and procedures (e.g., program structure).



question whether and

manual-type recommendations-

This content downloaded from on Tue, 14 Apr 2015 19:03:52 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions