1.What is Organisation and Organisational Behaviour?

Organisation is a cooperative interaction dynamic in social system with the purpose of satisfying individual needs (Barnard, 1938). his is not a sole definition a!out organisation, there are many other terms a!out organisation such as, "int#!erg (1983) Organisation is $%very organi#ed human activity && from the ma'ing of pots to the placing of a man on the moon && gives rise to two fundamental and opposing re(uirements) he division of la!or into various tas's to !e performed, and the coordination of these tas's to accomplish the activity$. Organisational !ehaviour focuses on the study of the people !ehaviour within the organisation (*uthans, 199+). he Organisational Behaviour commonly 'nown as the study and understanding of individual and group !ehaviour, and the path of structure towards improvement of organi#ational performance and effectiveness (,o!!ins, 1998). -nother term of Organisational !ehaviour is a ma.or discipline towards description, understanding, and prediction of human !ehaviour within formal organisation. Organisational !ehaviour as discipline is the clear recognition that organisations ma'e internal settings that influence the !ehaviour of people within it and to some point the internal condition of an organisation is influenced !y the large components such as economic, politic, social, and technology which support the organisation (Owen, 198/). Based on these definitions we can see that organisation consists of many elements which !uilt it. 0rom the people, the system, and the goals, these 3 elements have to !e integrated towards the organisation improvement and !etter performance. his paper will discuss a!out the two theories a!out management. he comparison, the nature, and the origin of these theories will !e presented in this paper. 2.The Theories of Organisation Studies & he 1lassical -pproach& he origin of 1lassical -pproach carried out initially in the early part of the century, !y such scientist as 0rederic' 2. aylor, 3enri 0ayol, 4rwic', etc. "ost of them were laying the fundamental for a comprehensive theory of management ("ullins, 566+). 0rederic' 2. aylor came up with the so&called 7cientific "anagement through his !oo' he 8rinciple of 7cientific "anagement on 1911. 3is theory emphasi#es in o!taining increased productivity from each wor'er through structuring the technical wor' organi#ation and providing monetary incentives as the motivator for higher results. 3e !elieved there is a most efficient wor'ing method !y which employee should do their .o!s. 3e argued that all .o!s processes can !e determined into discrete tas's, so that tas's, !y scientific method, was a!le to find the !est way to underta'e each tas', these terms recogni#ed as division of la!our. aylor found out the ma.or cause of inefficient wor' is lac' of employee initiatives on his .o!. his issue o!tain another negative impacts for company such as waste of human effort, waste of material things, waste of time, etc(0reedman, 1995). 9n other words, aylor thought the !asic cause of these waste was !ecause company focused too much on the output of .o! rather than focusing on every single process !y which the wor' was finished. his condition was normally happened in that time

!ecause most of company used predetermined results, usually throughout the num!er of finished product, to measure appropriate salary or incentives for the wor'ers. 3aving said that, aylor saw initiatives and incentives system are ma.or pro!lem for company in order to improve their performance. herefore, he argued that the only way to increase performance is !y giving special incentive so the company can hope to get a lot of initiatives from his employee (Owens, 198/). he other contri!utor of 1lassical heory is 3enri 0ayol. 3enri 0ayol has different perspective than aylor, he was focusing on the manager rather than the employee and he emphasi#ed in administrative aspects in the organi#ation. 0ayol esta!lished five administrative functions) (1) 8lanning: (5)organi#ing: (3)commanding: (;)coordinating: (+) controlling. By these terms, it is o!vious that 0ayol concerned in commanding and controlling the organi#ation towards high performance. "oreover, another contri!utor for this approach is "a< 2e!!er, a =erman sociologist, who came up with the idea of !ureaucracy. 2e!er !elieved the !ureaucratic concept was an approach to minimi#e the frustrations and illogicality of huge organi#ation where the relationship !etween e<ecutive level and wor'ers are !ased on class privilege (Owens, 198/). he nature of 1lassical -pproach, !asically, associated with two ma.or theorists. he first one is 7cientific "anagement which esta!lished !y 0rederic' 2. aylor and 3enri 0ayol, and the other one is Bureaucracy which invented !y "a< 2e!!er. Based on their theorists, classical approach mainly focused on the hierarchy concept which usually recogni#ed as >line and staff?(Owens, 198/). he 1lassical -pproach were focused on the design of a coherent structure of organi#ation, they !elieved !y designing good organi#ation structure will improve efficiency. he other principle of 1lassical -pproach is the unity of command within organi#ation, it is a vain if company has good organi#ation structure !ut lac' of unity of command within it ("ullins, 566+). -nother principle in 1lassical -pproach is the span of control in the organi#ation. he core concept of this principle is to determine the num!er of su!ordinates !elow the supervisor, the ratio of su!ordinates compare with the supervisor has to !e optimi#ed, and otherwise the pro!lem will occur in the organi#ation. "ooney and ,eiley set out three common principles in 1lassical -pproach which are) @ he principle of coordination ) the must have for employee to wor' together with unity of command, the e<ercise of authority, and the re(uire for discipline: @ he scalar principle ) the hierarchy of organi#ation, the duties need to !e graded, and the delegation of wor's: @ he functional principle) a well defined speciali#ation of wor's and the clear distinction !etween different 'inds of duties. he 1lassical -pproach was suita!le for the early 1966As when the main issues in companies or organisations were mostly related to the rising num!er of employee, increasing demand, full of mechanisation, and the tas's rationalisation in every .o!s ( erry, 19/+). Bespite, there are many arguments that said 1lassical -pproach is suita!le and wor's longer than they predicted. 9f we ta'e a loo' 3enri 0ayolAs theory a!out + principles of management, planning: organising: commanding: controlling: and co&ordinating, such terms still !eing used !y many companies today, such as Capanese on their Cust&in& ime framewor', (uality circles, 'an!an system , and many other Capanese managerial framewor' (0ells, 5666).

9n conclusion, the nature of 1lassical -pproach tends to descri!e and define some set of predetermined principles which would generate the !asis of management. he common understanding for these dealt with organi#ation structure which possessing a hierarchical structure and operates in e<tremely logical, systematic, and rational. By using these concepts, they !elief there will !e optimum solution of system management for every condition, if the optimum solution achieved the effectiveness will result ( erry, 19/+). & he 3uman ,elations -pproach& 9n 1956s, 2estern %lectric 1ompany associated with Dational ,esearch 1ouncil did some e<periment designed to calculate the optimum intensity level of the light for ma<imise the production efficiency in a shop. hey did this famous e<periment in 3awthorne plant that is why this e<periment popularly 'nown as 3awthorne e<periment. %lton "ayo was the mem!er of the research team, and perhaps he is the well 'nown educator at the time. hey found out that the human varia!ility has to !e ta'en into account in determining the productivity (Owen, 198/) and it shown that there was another varia!le which can influence employee productivity !esides the incentives. 3awthorne study indicated the economical reason was not the only influence to the employee !ehaviour (Cohnson, 1993). his research was the !eginning of the human relations movement. Buring 195/ until 1935, this research group tried to analyse the outcome from different 'inds of varia!le in productivity, the changed such factors as incentive amount, num!er of wor'ing hours, intensity of lighting, method of payment, co&wor'ers and manager su!stitution, etc, they actually made an industrial situation where the manipulated e<ternal aspects of organisation leads to different productivity or outcome (8yoria, 566+). he 3awthorne %<periment esta!lished new concepts of organisation management to !e used in practical situation. he concepts consist of many varia!les such as employee morale, dynamics of group wor'er, the supervision method, relationship !etween wor'ers, the !ehavioural principles of motivation (Owen, 198/). his argument is actually strengthened !y "arie 8ar'er 0ollet theory, which esta!lished !efore the 3awthorne %<periment. 0ollet put an idea of the group power, followership, and involvement in the organisation. 9n addition, many theories have !een found related to the human relations in organisation !efore he 3awthorneAs e<periment ta'e place, such as in 18E3 2illiam 3earn from -ustralia put forth the idea of the hierarchy of human needs and 3ugo "unster!erg came up with the industrial psychology in 1896s at 3arvard. But still, "ayoAs, with the 3awthorne, manuscripts and !oo's are 'nown as the foundation of 3uman ,elations approach (*ema', 566;). he other author who contri!uted the 3uman ,elations -pproach was %dward "cgregor who has the famous theories, heory F and heory G. heory F !asically is e<plaining that humans disli'e and avoid to wor', therefore they need control, guide, and force toward organisationAs o!.ectives. 1onversely, heory G said that people li'e to wor' and they are a!le to learn and see' responsi!ility under the right conditions (Hil!ert, 5666). "cgregorAs theories, o!viously, support the human relations approach in terms of managerial conte<t of managing the people in the organisation and it strengthened the 'ey idea of 3uman ,elations -pproach a!out the nature and the role of manager which concerning in emotional factor in employee and social .ustice as the o!.ective for this approach.

he perspective of 3uman ,elations -pproach concerns that the organisation !ecomes further than .ust a profit oriented enterprise, they !ecome more than .ust a place to wor' !ut also a medium for administering social interaction (*ema', 566;). ,egarding to "ayo (1933, p./3) the conse(uence of the social interaction in organisation was the each personnel and the group as a whole themselves need to ad.ust into the industrial situation where their self determination and social welfare prioritised first and the wor' itself is supplementary. One of the main characteristic of the human relations approach is the group of employee ta'en as the main unit of analysis instead of individual employee. he other hallmar' of this approach is the viewing of employee motivation in terms of social needs rather than economic needs (*ema', 566;). he 3uman ,elations approach has !een proved that this approach is relevant nowadays, even though it has !een written almost / decades ago. his theory generates ideas emphasi#ing the significance of team wor' and leadership, good communication, motivation, and wor' design ("ullins, 566+). he idea of organi#ing teamwor' is one of the notion that has long lasting value until now. -s we 'nown, the efficient team wor' re(uires a collective goals, strong relationship among the mem!ers, feeling of togetherness, and strengthening social cohesion !etween employee can lead to good atmosphere in the organisation (8yoria, 566+). he positive atmosphere in the organisation tends to !e esta!lished !ecause it can enhance the employee performance and !y the end the organisation performance will enhance as well. he efficient teamwor' is still !eing used in many !ig companies nowadays such as =eneral %lectric, 4nilever, and many !ig consulting companies. hey tend to implement team wor'ing !ecause they !elieve this idea can !ring positive impact for the company. 9n conclusion, the 3uman ,elations -pproach introduced the significance of the informal organisation that always involves within the formal structure of organisation ("ullins, 566+). his informal organisation was the main influence of the employeeAs !ehaviour. herefore, manager or to management in the organisation have to concern and aware a!out this informal organisation. 9f they can create and em!ed sentiments which support their goals !y fulfilling employeeAs social and emotional needs, the effect would !e the higher performance and the social harmony within the organisation (Cohnson, 1993). 3.Classical Approach versus Human Relations Approach hese two schools of management thought had their own principles, view, ideas, and approach. he e<planation a!ove provides evidence of how different they were. "any important points of differences will !e discussed !elow: he 1lassical approach, mainly, focusing on the .o!s and the structure within the organisation. hey !elieved the organisation needs to !e !uilt according to specific goals and plan within an infle<i!le specification (structure), that is why this theory, merely, seeing wor'ers as a machine. hese characteristics are very contrast to 3uman ,elations -pproach which argued that the people have to !e the !asis of the organisation. Organisation needs to !e loo'ed as the social function where the relationship, people needs, and emotional needs are the driver of wor'ers performance which can lead to enhancement of organisation performance (*ema', 566; and 3ersey, 5661).

he role of the manager under the 1lassical approach is to create the .o! specification, rules, procedure etc. and enforce the wor'ers to do all of it appropriately. "anager was to !e seen as the trainer I planner who has the higher authority in the organisation. Bue to this higher education and superior authority, manager was to design the most efficient way to do all the .o!s and ensure the employees can do ma<imum output from their .o! (*ema', 566; and "ullins, 566+). On the contrary, 3uman ,elations -pproach argued the function of the manager is to em!ed cooperation and coordination inside the organisation. he managers need to !e aware with what motivates the wor'ers and why wor'ers need that. he role of the manager shifts into facilitator and !uilder of the team, !y doing theses 3uman ,elations !elieved it will enhance the wor'erAs performance. -s a conse(uence, the productivity and the performance will sharply increase also (3ersey, 5661). he 1lassical -pproach argued that wor'ers can do a good .o! if their economical needs have !een attained !eforehand. his thought is !asically !ased on the -dam 7mithAs economic theory which said that human nature is fundamentally rational. hus, the only motivator for employee to wor' in !etter performance is monetary incentive that is why the people who wor' under 7cientific "anagement called as economic man (2agner et.al, 5668). 1onversely, the 3uman ,elations -pproach said that the social and personal needs are the ma.or influence for employee performance. he satisfaction of socialising, good .o! atmosphere and sense of !elonging throughout the organisation are the main driving force of performance enhancement. herefore, the people who wor' under 3uman ,elations -pproach called as social man (Bonnelly, 5666). Both of these approaches have their own strength point. 1lassical theory can esta!lish an industrial harmony in the organisation !y using their principles (planning, organising, commanding, etc) and the !ureaucracy approach. hat is why many !ig companies are using this approach, they !elieved this approach will gain more efficiency and (uic' decision ma'ing in the organisation. -s a note, such companies which are using this approach, !asically, have a very large num!er of employees. -rmy is one of the e<amples of the company who use this approach. 9t is o!vious such companies apply this 1lassical -pproach, !ecause they need standardisation and specialisation to manage their large company. On the other hand, 3uman ,elations has the strength as well. his approach really emphasi#e in importance of personnel management, which its movement has led to ideas on o!taining more output !y humanising the wor' ("ullins, 566+). 3aving said that, this approach is really developing nowadays, with regard to the humanisation, many companies using their principles to o!tain the !etter performance and social harmony in the organisation. eam wor's, leadership, communication, and motivation are very popular words in management at the moment which we 'now it is all the human relations principles. 1lassical approach has a lot of criticisms. "any studies shown dou!t a!out the effectiveness of this approach, especially in management nowadays. he most significance failure of this approach is lac' of human factors. Because of that, classical approach has point of wea'nesses such as (Blauner 19E;, cited in Cohnson, 1993)) @ 9na!ility of employee to use control over wor' processes @ *ac' of employee understanding a!out what is the purpose on their .o! @ %mployees failed to !ecome involved in the .o!s @ *ac' of sense of !elonging with the organisation

3uman ,elations cannot avoid the criticisms as well. "any criticisms point out that this approach is lac' of scientific approach and it has only few perspectives. 9t avoids the role of organisation itself in how the social system operates. 7ince the central point of this approach is the human motives, it couldnAt provide e<plicit statement of the !asis of organisation planning, managing, and organising. o some e<tent, 3uman ,elations only concerning to the attitude and !ehaviour of the employee rather than concerning in principles of organisation (Barnes, et.al., 19/6). 4.Conclusion Organisation can !e defined as the division of wor' among people who wor' together and coordinated to reach the specific goals. he study of organisation can !e approached with two studies. he 1lassical approach views organisation as a closed system and possessing rigid hierarchical organisation structure and operating in rational, systematic, and logic path. his theory tends to put the system in the organisation as the main focus rather than the people within it. he 3uman ,elations approach perceives organisation as a open system where the needs and the values of the people have to !e managed in order to reach organisationAs goals. his theory put human as the unit of analysis and the core instrument in the organisation. Both of these theories have their own strength and wea'nesses. 9 !elieve each theory will perform very well to some particular type of organisation and it will !e much more !etter if we com!ine these theories !ecause the coordination within the organisation canAt wor' unless employee within it are willing to cooperate with the management. herefore, 9 argue that the needs and values of the people as a human must !e considered and integrated with the needs and values as descri!ed !y the vision and mission statement of the organisation. he system of the organisation has to ta'e into account the element of the human (employee), otherwise organisation cannot move smoothly to reach their specific goals.