ERR if R'ziiD f! ,c. \. \0 QC" N » T“. 'F “5 .7: mu! 3‘... \‘39 uL CEP?‘ IV" 'I I l ' 6 C H __:__:_:___:_:____:___:_ an '4‘ P‘ 4‘ if v a, a. ‘ l o 113. " ‘3 "r, 3": z! {- “JD 3“!” ...... . {.1 g- ". 2.9.153be LIBRARY Michigan State University ._.___,._,, t flhnrp, Linda whlhhmuk . [q.rr{prw 0f Pergmnal Chflflge E An l .1 '::-‘ ~~ =4" “ . <1; M CZ‘ 1 5, 117-3 / M .. x“. .. i lsiE—W [ iii I'I éfil r‘ In , l... .‘i. H d ”(:1 Wl'l .‘i. '17. Lye-31;: k (ancawytg (if Fiarficwual (Hwarmua jTI MCNJ M .. $33 . .1 'Fé'v‘lf-EELV M - f3 .. Mfc’é’fi‘fiéu STAT? ashrv’fffv‘f‘! k ";:Z;LLEL-%ii C-F rL egg-may . N REFERENCE LIBRARY < MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE 'JI I-II--I‘I'IE ECOI‘IOE‘IIICS EAST LAI‘ISING, MICHIGAN PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 6/01 c:/CIRCJDateDue.p65-p.15 ABSTRACT CONCEPTS OF PERSONAL CHANGE IN MODERN ORGANIZATION THEORY: THE LABORATORY TRAINING METHOD by Linda Whitbeck Sharp This study presents a literature review (1950-1967) of the laboratory training method within the framework of modern organization theory. Because the concept of modern organization theory has evolved from the classical and neo- classical organization disciplines, twentieth century orga- nization theory is reviewed. Characterized by systems anal- ysis, modern organization theory views the organization as existing in a world of constant change to which the organiza— tion must adapt for survival. Within this perSpective, lab- oratory training is seen as one method for building an orga- nization where effective adaptability to change can take place. Design components of laboratory training include the training group (T-group), theory sessions, and supplementary activities, but T-groups are the distinguishing feature of this training method. Being an unstructured, small group in which individuals participate as learners, with the guidance of a leader, T-group members utilize their own eXperiences in bringing about attitudinal and behavioral change. Linda Whitbeck Sharp Although many issues in laboratory training remain unsolved, it appears to be a promising training process capable of helping managers in understanding and controlling more effectively their human environment. Development, training goals, underlying assumptions and essential characteristics of the laboratory training method are explored. Organization sponsorship and Blake and Mouton's "9,9 approach" are presented as examples of varia- tions in laboratory design. The learning process is viewed as a cyclical phenomena, which may be influenced by the cul- ture and design of the laboratory, group composition, trainer characteristics, and the individual delegate. Among the areas for future development in laboratory training are improved methods for defining the effect of laboratory training in inducing personal and organizational change, tested programs for training professional trainers, and the adaption of laboratory training to various nonlaboratory settings. CONCEPTS OF PERSONAL CHANGE IN MODERN ORGANIZATION THEORY: THE LABORATORY TRAINING METHOD BY Linda Whitbeck Sharp A PROBLEM Submitted to the College of Home Economics Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Institution Administration 1967 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Especial appreciation is given to Professor Katherine Hart for willingness to give her time and guid- ance throughout this problem and the writer's graduate program. The writer also wishes to thank Dr. Kaye Funk for her suggestions and assistance and Dr. Grace Miller and Miss Doris Downs for their advice in the formulation of this problem. ii PREFACE Changes as well as improvements in supplies, equip- ment, facilities, and methods of production and control are rapidly altering the technical, economic, and social envi- ronment of the food service Operation. AdOption of any new product or method requires adaptable and flexible managers, possessing sensitivity for individuals with whom they asso- ciate. ReSponsibility for training such managers lies with- in the realm of the administrative dietitian. Thus, it behooves her to have knowledge of all technologic advances in methods of training which help managers adapt to their changing environment. The laboratory training method is one recent innovation in the technology of education. An under— standing of the concepts underlying laboratory training may well enhance the dietitian's effectiveness as an administra- tor and in her efforts toward building a more productive and viable organization. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW OF TWENTIETH CENTURY ORGANIZATION THEORY Classical Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . Neoclassical Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . Modern Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . THE LABORATORY TRAINING METHOD . . . . . . . . . Deve10pment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Training Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Underlying Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . Design Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . Essential Characteristics . . . . . . . . . The Trainer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Learning Process . . . . . . . . . . . Components Influencing Learning Outcomes . SOME NOTES ON FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN LABORATORY TRAINING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv ‘Page ii iii 11 12 13 15 16 22 23 26 28 34 37 INTRODUCTION Today's organization is a dynamic system existing in a world of constant change. External changes in cultural norms and values, general educational level, economic and political power, and technology reach the organization as demands for internal change. The organization, a human enterprise whose success depends upon the coordinated efforts of its members, requires managers to perform in- creasingly complex roles in the struggle to adapt to a changing world. It is no longer enough to be a competent Specialist or eXpert; managers need to understand the human side of enterprise, deve10p interpersonal competence, and examine the social and political forces within which their work is embedded and transacted (33). In coping with externally induced changes, better mechanisms are needed for adaptability and communication. Laboratory training, directed at the managerial structure, is one method which is receiving increasing recognition for building an organization where effective adaptability and communications can take place (4,9,33). Techniques employed in laboratory training encompass training groups, theory and skill-practice sessions, paired interviews, and informal contacts; but it is primarily the training group which distinguishes this training method from others. Through small, unstructured training groups, participants learn about groups, interpersonal relationships, and the change process by utilizing their own eXperiences under the guid- ance of a leader. And by maintaining a permissive atmo- sphere, laboratory participants are confronted with oppor- tunities to discover dissatisfactions with present behavior, for collaboration in setting directions for change, and to practice, internalize, and apply new behavior. Thus, labo- ratory training appears capable of releasing some important forces which can enhance man's ability to control more effectively and creatively his human environment. Although laboratory training as an instrument of personal change still requires reappraisal and refinement as research proceeds,many concepts germane to attitudinal and behavioral change have been established. This study pre- sents a literature review (1950-1967) of the laboratory training method within the framework of modern organization theory. And because modern organization theory has evolved from earlier theories of organization, brief reviews of the classical and neoclassical organization theories are pre- sented in an effort to place modern organization theory and the laboratory training method in their proper perSpective. OVERVIEW OF TWENTIETH CENTURY ORGANIZATION THEORY Organization is defined as a system of structural interpersonal relations . . . indi- viduals are differentiated in terms of author- ity, status, and role with the result that personal interaction is prescribed. . . . Anticipated reactions tend to occur, while ambiguity and spontaneity are decreased.1 Organization theory is the major element of admin- istrative science, providing the foundation for management activities. Since it is not a homogenous science based on generally accepted principles, many theories of organization have been proposed and tried (13,14,15,31). 'Of these theo- ries three have had considerable influence on management thought and practice in the twentieth century. For the pur- poses of this paper they are classified as the classical, neoclassical, and modern organization theories. Classical Theory During the first quarter of the twentieth century the search for greater effectiveness and efficiency in orga- nizations gave rise to what may be termed the classical 1R. V. Presthus, "Toward a Theory of Organizational Behavior," Administrative Science Quarterly, June, 1958, p. 50. theory. This theory contained motivation and organization approaches (10). First, with regard to the motivational approach, Frederick W. Taylor (38), an engineer, made the major con- tribution in what has become known as scientific management. Scientific management combines the study of physical capa- bilities of a worker, as is done in time and motion studies, with an economic approach which views man as driven by the profit motive. Classical theorists believed that if mate- rial rewards were closely related to work efforts, the worker would reSpond with the maximum performance of which he was capable. With this orientation the scientific man- agement movement stimulated an impressive number of studies of the physiological constraints on simple physical opera- tions, showing that it was feasible to Specify precisely the activities involved in routine production tasks. Secondly, the approach to the formal organization was a significant component of the classical theory. The formal organization was considered a blueprint according to which organizations were to be constructed and ought to adhere. Its major elements included the division of labor, the scalar and functional processes, structure, and span of control (13). In the organizing process each department was conceived as a definite collection of tasks to be allocated among, and performed by, the employees of the department. Consequently, the organization was viewed from a highly managerial and authorative standpoint. No conflict was recognized between man and organization. In general, there was a tendency to consider the employee as an inert instru- ment performing the tasks assigned to him, viewing personnel as a given rather than as a variable in the man-machine system. Neoclassical Theory Following World War I organizations eXpanded in size and complexity. Increasingly, ownership was separated from management and levels of middle management grew rapidly. As a result problems of coordination increased and intensified existing human resistance to an authoritarian structure. Arising in part as a reaction to scientific manage— ment, another school of thinking--neoclassical theory-- gained prominence. The original impetus to this study came from the investigation carried out by a research team from Harvard University and the Western Electric Company's Hawthorne Works in Chicago from 1927 to 1932 (35). In these studies a continuous increase in productivity irreSpective of changing physical conditions of work was observed. This suggested that the relation between physical conditions and the efficiency of workers might be obscured by psychological reactions. Consequently, researchers turned their direction from physical conditions to the attitudes of groups and individuals. The neoclassical school is commonly identified with the human relations movement. This movement emphasized the emotional, unplanned, non-rational elements in organizational behavior. It studied the significance of social groupings and interpersonal relationships of workers. A large body of empirical research was conducted by psychologists and social psychologists in areas of leadership and supervision, commu- nications, participation, and job satisfaction.2 From these studies and in response to the social need the concept of informal organization emerged. The informal organization refers to the social relations that develop among the staff or workers above and beyond the formal one determined by the organization (35). In general, the neoclassical theory accepts the classical doctrine but superimposes on it modifications resulting from individual behavior and the influence of the informal group. Rather than viewing employees as passive instruments, neoclassists assumed that members bring to their organizations attitudes, values, and goals; that they have to be induced to participate in the system of organiza- tion behavior. The neoclassical school contended that 2Included are theories of motivation prOposed by Maslow, Hertzberg, and.Argyris; studies relating productiv- ity with job satisfaction by Kahn, Brayfield and Crocket; communication studies by Baveles and Leavitt; and studies concerning leadership and supervision by Mann, Kahn and Katz, Fleishmann and Harris, and Tannenbaum. workers have many needs other than purely economic ones. In addition, they suggested ways in which management could--by paying attention to the non—economic, social and cultural needs of the workers—-increase worker satisfaction and productivity. Modern Organization Theory Modern organization theory is an attempt to unite what is valuable in the classical and neoclassical theories into a systematic and integrated conception of human organi— zation. But its major dialogue has been with the human relations approach. In contrast to the promotion of harmony by the human relationists, modern theory writers recognize the organizational dilemma: the inevitable strains--which can be reduced but not eliminated--between organizational needs and personal needs, rationality and non-rationality, formal and informal relations, and ranks and divisions. Whereas the human relations approach did not provide a full view of the organization, modern theorists envision the organization as a large, complex social unit in which many social groups interact. Conceptualization of interrelationships among com— plex phenomena is not new. Darwin's theory of evolution integrated all life into a "system of nature" and indicated how living subsystems are interrelated (l3). Keynes, an economist, in his general theory of employment, interest, and money, connected many complicated natural and man-made forces which make up the economy. Germans to scientific management, the concept of man-machine system was utilized, but concentration was primarily at the shop level. The human relations movement shifted away from man-machine peg. §§_to interrelationships among individuals in the organiza- tion. It remained the task of modern theory to provide a more complete and integrated conceptualization of the orga- nization. Talcott Parsons was one of the first persons to utilize the system approach for study of social structures (29). The philosophical perspective of the modern theory is that the only meaningful way to study organization is as a system. Systems analysis provides the framework for visualizing the close relationship between a structure and its supporting external and internal environment; it is concerned with problems of relationship, interdependence, and adaptability of subsystems to the organization as a whole (17). In the systems model, the organization is considered as receiving inputs from the environment and, in turn, delivering outputs to the environment. It emphasizes not only the interconnectiveness of parts and the multiplicity of systems but also the interconnectedness of the systems themselves which are always in a state of movement, either responding to a change in one part of the organization or adjusting to the effects of another. Today's organization exists in dynamic interplay with customers, competitors, labor organizations, suppliers, and governments--all of which are in a constant state of change (34). If the organization is to survive, it must meet the external demands of a changing world through internal modification and adaptation. It is the function of the adaptive structure of the organization to achieve envi- ronmental constancy by integrating the external world with the organization. The demand for change recognized by the adaptive structure should always be implemented through the manage- rial structure. Since change will affect the whole organi- zation and may require modification in basic policy, the decision-making power with respect to adaptation must remain with management. Thus, managers are required to perform more complex tasks in the struggle to adapt to a changing world. In addition to being a competent Specialist, they must under- stand and be able to effectively communicate and work with the human side of enterprise (33). Employing the laboratory training method within the managerial structure appears to be a promising strategy for building an organization where effective adaptability and communications can take place (4,9, 33) . 10 The laboratory training method correctly belongs within the framework of modern organization theory. For in this method of training, experiences of the group are ana- lyzed to yield learnings about self, interpersonal relations, and the functioning and development of the group as a social system. Through analyzing the encounters and conflicts between systems at many levels of human organization, moti- vation to learn about human behavior and hopefully, actual learning in a context of application, are accomplished. Clashes between personal systems and group systems of par- ticipants and staff are utilized for learning. Finally, theory sessions may focus on problems of organizational change, paralleling the planning for personal change which occurs in the training groups. THE LABORATORY TRAINING METHOD Among the techniques utilized in laboratory training, training groups (T-groups) are the distinguishing character- istic of this training method. Being an unstructured group in which individuals participate as learners, T-group mem- bers utilize their own experiences and behavior to create a productive and viable organization--a miniature society. With reference to improving society, John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) has stated: No great improvements in the lot of man- kind are possible, until a great change takes place in the fundamental constitution of their modes of thought.3 Through the creation of a temporary miniature society, lab- oratory training stimulates opportunities for eXperimental learning and behavioral and attitudinal change in the struggle to improve organizations of the twentieth century. Laboratory training has become of use and interest in many fields, having been applied in such diversified groups as hospitals, industries, communities, and univer- sities. 3P. H. Irwin, "The Change Seekers," Harvard Business Review, January-February, 1966, p. 92. ll 12 Development The laboratory training method had its beginnings in 1947 at Bethel, Maine at the National Training Laboratory in Group DevelOpment, of the National Education Association. The first laboratory session was designed to try out new methods of re-educating human behavior and social relation- ships. Training leaders were Kenneth D. Benne, then at Columbia University, Leland P. Bradford, of the National Education Association, and Ronald Lippitt of the Research Center for Group Dynamics. Kurt Lewin, of the Research Center and Ronald Lippitt were among the researchers. Joint eXperimentation of laboratory methods by a number of behav— ioral scientists and social practitioners has followed this beginning. National Training Laboratories (NTL), the name used since 1951, has taken responsibility for fostering the devel- Opment of training laboratories in various segments of soci- ety, selecting and developing competent laboratory trainers, providing a professional home base for trainers, and deter- mining and maintaining standards of professional quality in laboratory training (9). And for several years, the NTL was the sole organizer of training laboratories, but recently training laboratories also have been develOped under other auSpices. 13 Since its inception laboratory training has under- gone various refinements and elaborations. Emerging from the Basic Skills Training Group, the pattern of the T—group has been one of differentiation of new training formats and technologies. Methodology and social organization have also distinguished one T-group from another. As records of T- group sessions have been only Sporadically kept,longitudinal documentation of changes in the internal organization and Operation is difficult (9). And because of its newness, laboratory training is rapidly growing and ever-changing in its concepts and practices. Training Goals While some variation of the stated goals is evident, depending on the staff and delegate composition, there is agreement on the general goals of laboratory training. One goal is self-insight or increased self-understanding of emotional reactions and eXpressions in the individual. By penetrating beneath the surface of the personality some unresolved conflicts may be eliminated, thus allowing for improved social sensitivity and behavior flexibility. A second goal is increased awareness of feelings and reactions of others. Laboratory training creates a climate in which peOple are able to observe, study and react to each other. This climate enables participants to recognize individual 14 differences, to accept them, and to understand better how their own needs and desires often distort their views