GETZELS-GUBA MODEL
Jacob W. Getzels
Egon
G. Guba
Organizational (Nomothetic) Dimension
Institution Role Expectation
Social Group Climate Intentions
Observed
System Behavior
Individual Personality Need
Disposition
Personal (Ideographic) Dimension
One of the most widely recognized and
most useful framework for studying and understanding administrative and
supervisory behavior is the social systems analysis developed primarily for
educators by Jacob Getzels and Egon Guba.
These social systems theorists
view administration and supervision as a social process that occurs within a
social system. Process and context can
be examined according to this view, from structural, functional, and operational
perspectives. Structurally,
administration and supervision are considered to be a series of
superordinate-subordinate relationships within a social system. Functionally, this hierarchy of relationships
(executive to manager, manager to foreman, foreman to worker, etc.) is the
basis for allocating and integrating roles, personnel, and facilities to
accomplish organizational goals.
Operationally, the process occurs in person-to-person interaction.
Getzels and Guba use the term social
system in a conceptual rather than a
descriptive way. They conceive of this
system as containing two interdependent but interacting dimensions. The first dimension consists of the institution, which is defined in terms
of roles, which are in turn defined
in terms of role expectations, all of which are carefully designed to fulfill the
goals of the institution.
They maintain that all institutions have the following characteristics
and imperative functions in common:
1. Institutions have purposes. They
are established to perform certain functions and are legitimized by client
groups on the basis of these functions.
2. Institutions are structural.
Institutional goals are achieved through task diversification. Therefore roles are established with
appropriate role descriptions. Each role
is assigned certain responsibilities and resources, including authority for
implementing given tasks. The ideas are
conceived and responsibilities allocated in terms of actors, as defined below,
rather than of personalities.
3. Institutions are normative.
Roles serve as norms for the behavior of those who occupy the
roles. Each actor or role incumbent is
expected to behave is certain predetermined ways in order to retain a
legitimate position in the organization.
4. Institutions are sanction bearing.
Institutions have at their disposal appropriate positive and negative
sanctions for ensuring compliance with established norms. Employees who are rate busters in the eyes of
other employees, for example, may be treated to the silent treatment or to a
whisper campaign. Those who appear to be
deviants wait longer for supplies, are given undesirable assignments, and are
often swamped with admistrivia.
The operation of institutions is defined and analyzed in terms of the
subunit role. Roles represent the
various positions, offices, and status prerogatives that exist within the
institution and are themselves defined in terms of role expectations. Roles are generally institutional givens and,
therefore, are not formulated to fit one or another personality. Behaviors associated with a given role are
arranged on a conceptual continuum extending from those required to those
prohibited. Certain behaviors are
considered absolutely mandatory (that the employee must show up for work), and
others are absolutely forbidden (that an employee excepts kickbacks). Between these extremes are other behavior
patterns – some recommended, others disapproved, but all to varying degrees
permissible. Roles are best understood
when examined in relation to other roles.
The employee helps us to understand the foremen and so on.
In the absence of individuals with complex and unique personalities,
the organizational dimension described above provides for maximum
organizational predictability. This
aspect of the social system is called the nomothetic dimension. The second aspect, the ideographic
dim3ension, ads the human element to the social system formulation. As the institutional dimension was analyzed
in terms of role and expectation, so the institutional dimension is similarly
analyzed and defined operationally in terms of personality and need
disposition.
The ideographic dimension is similar in format (but not in substance)
to the nomothetic dimension in that individuals, like institutions, have goals
that they express through their personalities and pursue according to their
need dispositions.
The two dimensions of the social system are assumed to be in constant
interaction. In its nomothetic dimension
the organization strives to socialize the individual to its own image and ends,
while in its ideographic dimension the individual strives to socialize the
organization to his or her own image and ends.
Behavior, then, in any social system is a function of the interaction between
unique personalities and preestablished roles.
Conformity to the institution, its roles, and its expectations leads to
organizational effectiveness, while conformity to individuals, their
personalities, and their need dispositions leads to individual efficiency.
Getzels and Guba identify a number of conflict situations that could
potentially result from the organization’s interaction with its human
inhabitants. Among them are
role-personality conflicts that result from a discrepancy between the pattern
of expectations attached to a given role and the pattern of need dispositions
of the role incumbent. A manager with a
high dependence orientation would find a role characterized by autonomous and
independent action quite uncomfortable; employees with a professional and
technical need to interact with organizational policy makers who are defensive,
authoritarian, and non-communicative experience similar role-personality
conflict. Multiple but conflicting
expectations for the same role are another source of role conflict. Supervisors who are expected by some
employees to provide frequent direction and by others to stay away experience
this type of conflict.
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar