**2. Philosophical foundations of administrative behaviour**

The history of administrative behaviour is traceable to Herbert Alexander Simon, who coined the expression to describe the practices persons embrace to work in organisations. To be put simply, Simon investigated the multifaceted purposes of firms through the administrative behaviour template. The justification and drive that led to the theory of administrative behaviour (TAB) can be associated with Simon's original work on decision-making in organisation. Simon's determination to clarify—in intensely brief way—the practices linked with the administration of people and the cherished procedures relevant to the working of organisations prior to their existence foreshadowed the theory of administrative behaviour. Roundly persuaded that satisfactory terminology was not forthcoming in the field of the suitable schemes for reasoned treatise on organisations; Simon pursued an academic expedition that investigated the constructs worthy of support to organisational sociology.

With this academic expedition, Simon firmed up the means of target formalisation and task assignment procedures plus genuine organisational performance. The control of subordinate actions emphasises, though obliquely, the manner of administrative behaviour in varied situational scenarios. Nevertheless, with the overriding attention the setting of goals and their achievement receive in the theory, it is appealing to understand control as being relegated to the peripherals. Perrow [18] made references to this view in his suggestion that the notion underscores unassuming subordinate control in terms of their interactions in information exchange, norms and standards as well as in preparation. This tool of control is accentuated by stipulating the procedures for realising determined aims, however, contradictory to a person's (the individual under control) knowledge of likely alternative decision choices.

Administrative behaviour theorises the idea that determinations with 'higher value component' originate from the highest level of the structure of the organisation while subordinate at the bottom part make decisions rich in factual content [19]. The top-end choices stresses the *what*, but the factual content underscores the *how* part of subordinate judgements. Altogether, this dualistic nature of decisionmaking presents a bird's eye view of the concept of administrative behaviour. Thus, the entirety of decisions in organisations is a mixture of value premises (beliefs of all the means necessary) and factual premises (the practical situation). In this scenario, the real and applications of administrative behaviour are shown [20].

'*Choice of ends*' and '*choice of means*' constitute the chief tenets of administrative behaviour as Simon espouses to signify the nature (what) and functions (how) of decisions, respectively. Organisational actions at the highest managerial level are manifested via consensus building or fiat decisions connected with choice of ends. In this scenario, goal-led decisions characterise choice of ends since it determines

*Strategy and Behaviors in the Digital Economy*

complexity.

[14–16]).

explicated.

hand, institutional theory has the inclination to over-accentuate the even patterns that exemplify predictable organisational praxis unless exogenous factors induce a transformation of the status quo [13]. By virtue of these elucidations, these theories are hardly ever substantial in their ability to give the real-world outlook instrumental to stimulating our thoughtful consideration into a realistic understanding of individual and organisational behaviour in their categorical versions of functional

For example, vital matters like organisational recognition, identification and loyalty, the instrumental role of authority, the psychology undergirding administrative decisions, channels of communication and the manner of efficiency hardly get any worthy attention from the theory of administrative behaviour. Notwithstanding this, it would be appropriate to suggest that administrative theoretical framework has the capability to challenge our current stock of knowledge and understanding on individual and organisational behaviour in everyday experience, especially from the standpoint of control in contemporary organisational interactions. Consultation

on certain technology-oriented theories could not be relied upon to offer any encouraging attraction despite their near-balanced attention to behavioural and technology issues within the sphere of control in administrative behaviour. By the same account, socio-technical theory (STT) and task-technology fit (TTF) theory could not be applied as both theories have a very limited way of contributing to control and its varied implications for organisational configuration (see, for example,

However, given the rationale of this scholarly piece—to understand control and its manifestations and ramifications from the standpoint of administrative behaviour in contemporary organisational discourse—I have decided to apply the theory of administrative behaviour [17] to this compendium. The reasons for this stance are not far-fetched, to enable an extensive exegesis on the issues meant to be

Firstly, the theory of administrative behaviour provides a far superior explanatory power for doing a detailed discussion and analysis of organisational control in collaborative engagements. Secondly, the theory of administrative behaviour has a better explanatory power by means of the diverse thematic ideas that are well situated to offer the hands-on use and the additional repercussions for control. Worker, customer loyalty and discretionary actions are some of the occurrences of the associated consequences of contemporary organisational discourse in accommodating the subtleties of organisational control. Thirdly, administrative behaviour is relevant to afford philosophical and psychological commitment and understanding crucial to formulating ideas that intimately account for the inspiration driving the

In other words, the psychosomatic and theoretical models found in the theory make it not only exemplary but also practical in projecting a thorough execution of organisational control in organisational discourse. Last, but not least, applying administrative behaviour in a fundamentally diverse organisational milieu can give a typical test to the appropriateness of the theory and, probably, demonstrate its shortcomings on studies related to control in organisational discourse from the

In what follows, I introduce the theory of administrative behaviour and demonstrate how elucidation of its primary precepts and indispensable concepts leave us with no doubt as to its significance in articulating control from the standpoint of modern organisational interactions in administrative behaviour. In the pursuance of this objective, the epistemological path plus a sketch of administrative behaviour are showcased by means of a discourse on the elementary and cross-disciplinary ideas from which the theory originated. The mechanisms of organisational

appropriation of mediated artefacts in daily organisational interactions.

viewpoint of administrative behaviour.

**72**

obvious conditions for realising certain organisational aims at the top level of management. Choice of means connects with the resulting subordinate judgement driven by realistic and emergent occurrences. Simon identifies the realistic and emergent circumstances that confront subordinate decision-making at the point of performance as 'the observable world and the way in which it operates' ([17, 19], p. 55).

It is the very uncertain character of the observable world that encourages subordinate discretionary decisions in the course of performance. The rationale could be that value premises might be inconsistent with factual premises at the moment a performance is necessary, as factual premises are driven as well as inspired by situations completely directed by nascent and uncertain forces. Nonetheless, the final subordinate action is also inspired by the inclusive intentions of the organisation [19], as aberration from these unequivocal objectives in terms of the controlled (the subordinate) may induce sanctions or punishment from the organisation's upper level.

As per the techniques of organisational decision-making, it seems lower level employees and their bosses run on two ever-opposing wavelengths of decisionmaking. However, the final purpose of these decision-making functions is the attainment of a shared aims of the organisation. To this end, the complete organisational hierarchy 'can be viewed as a congealed set of means-end chains promoting consistency of decisions and activities throughout the organisation' ([21], p. 46). Simon [22] articulated the making of decisions and managerial processes by which advance determination of goals and the establishment of control schemes motivate sensible organisational behaviour. Simon discounted Henry Fayol's idea of 'economic man' and substituted it with 'administrative man', who is somewhat aware of all the possible options of his choices and so is ready to go with those that produce satisfactory approval.

To him, the notion of optimisation is quite misrepresentative as the prospects of attaining the utmost possible result seems characteristically elusive. Drawing on March and Simon's [23] considerations on bounded rationality, Simon shows the parameters in the intellectual talent of decision-makers. Simon championed the use of 'uncertainty' in organisational decision-making due to the real impossibility to derive total and complete information at any particular period during the decisionmaking process. While this may not be altogether a new idea, it is fair to consider that Simon initiated that notion and that later won him the 1978 Nobel Prize in this field.

The notional devices that Simon applied to comprehend the cosmic system intersects with a broad gamut of disciplines, such as, administrative theory, public administration, political science, organisation theory, economics, psychology, sociology, philosophy, computer science and cognitive science [4]. Reconsideration of the principled impression of making decision with particular allusion to reasonableness took a substantial share of his time. Consequently, rationality became the underlying logic in almost all the fields of enquiry he was related to because the idea encircled and occupied the broader structure of society. Hence, his efforts to dilate on rationality predictably got him to varied theoretical perceptions on economics, philosophy, psychology, sociology and politics. The relationships involving information, decision-making and technology appeared to be Simon's key research attention during the final part of the 1950s [24].

Notwithstanding Simon's multi-layered-disciplinary orientation to administrative behaviour, problem-solving and decision-making, he did not restrict his allegiance to any one specific discipline. To be sure, he indicated in a discussion cited in ([4], p. 583) that 'If you see any one of these disciplines dominating you, you join the opposition and you fight it for a while'. The core of Simon's influence was on problem-solving and decision-making in the specific aspects of individuals, organisations and societies. For example, Simon's [25–27] cases are of such works. 'Logical positivism', explained simply by Simon as possessing a similar meaning as empiricism ([19], p. 68), is

**75**

*Underlying Forces of Organisational Control on Administrative Behavioural Theoretical Insights*

apparently the crucial recurring argument in the work of administrative behaviour. Administrative behaviour has at its centre the searching of perceptible organisational consideration driven by the rigours of organised approaches. In view of this, subjects like philosophy, the social sciences and mathematics are practically considered along

Control in administration invariably denotes shaping the character of the governed, transforming and guiding their operations to be favourable and aligned with the ambitions of group and the firm's aspirations. The foregoing logic demonstrates, as it does, at least, three central ideas, namely, authority, training and organisational loyalty, that profoundly undergird the workings of organisational control. Each of these fundamentally affects and encroaches on personal engagements resulting from different situational exigencies. When social agents become formal members of an organisation, the organisation is confronted with the problematic situation of how to modify the members' behaviour consistent with the overall organisational frame of its activities. A couple of internal and external influences by way of stimuli are applied to deal with these behavioural checks. These are 'the stimuli with which the organisation seeks to influence the individual and the psychological "set" of the individual, which determines his response to the stimuli'

Influencing the organisational agents places their character on a commonly recognised form in two basic categorical forms. The sets of influence are qualified as 'internal' and 'external' and each category drives, to a more or less degree, all the main means by which organisational dominance is achieved, namely, authority,

Among the means of influencing personal and group actions and leading behaviour in organisations, authority seems to be the one that evidently and principally sets apart the behaviour of individuals as actors within the organisation from that of their behaviour outside of it. Authority identifies the official structures for the organisation on which the other expressions of organisational influence depend. It is pertinent we firm up a sense of what authority represents, as far as its explanation so as to set up the frame for the various manifestations of its effect within the organisational setting. To this end, Simon purely submits authority as 'the power to make decisions which guide the actions of another' ([19], p. 179). However, in the interest of thorough analysis and more all-inclusive understanding of the notion of authority, drawing on Barnard's view provides enhanced and enriched explication. Barnard's view suggests a clarification that affords a necessary association that highlights the actual essence of authority within the context of the organisation. The account provides a hint of the frontiers for the impression of suitable personal organisational behaviour contingent on a crucial level of relationship. This relationship portends substantial logical reasoning for appreciating mediated control in ICT-driven interactions as instructions or guidelines designed for the realisation of organisational aims largely shift from the upper part of organisational ladder to those at the bottom level of the organisational structure. The lines of authority can also start from one department to another, not essentially in a hierarchical order. Prior to an individual's familiarisation with the numerous dominant instructions, they must have been provided with clear guidelines pertaining to the conditions

training, identification or organisational loyalty and communication.

**3.1 Authority orientation in organisations**

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89522*

with the study of administrative behaviour [28].

**3. Control in organisations**

([19], p. 432).

*Underlying Forces of Organisational Control on Administrative Behavioural Theoretical Insights DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89522*

apparently the crucial recurring argument in the work of administrative behaviour. Administrative behaviour has at its centre the searching of perceptible organisational consideration driven by the rigours of organised approaches. In view of this, subjects like philosophy, the social sciences and mathematics are practically considered along with the study of administrative behaviour [28].

## **3. Control in organisations**

*Strategy and Behaviors in the Digital Economy*

satisfactory approval.

attention during the final part of the 1950s [24].

obvious conditions for realising certain organisational aims at the top level of management. Choice of means connects with the resulting subordinate judgement driven by realistic and emergent occurrences. Simon identifies the realistic and emergent circumstances that confront subordinate decision-making at the point of performance as 'the observable world and the way in which it operates' ([17, 19], p. 55). It is the very uncertain character of the observable world that encourages subordinate discretionary decisions in the course of performance. The rationale could be that value premises might be inconsistent with factual premises at the moment a performance is necessary, as factual premises are driven as well as inspired by situations completely directed by nascent and uncertain forces. Nonetheless, the final subordinate action is also inspired by the inclusive intentions of the organisation [19], as aberration from these unequivocal objectives in terms of the controlled (the subordinate) may induce sanctions or punishment from the organisation's upper level. As per the techniques of organisational decision-making, it seems lower level employees and their bosses run on two ever-opposing wavelengths of decisionmaking. However, the final purpose of these decision-making functions is the attainment of a shared aims of the organisation. To this end, the complete organisational hierarchy 'can be viewed as a congealed set of means-end chains promoting consistency of decisions and activities throughout the organisation' ([21], p. 46). Simon [22] articulated the making of decisions and managerial processes by which advance determination of goals and the establishment of control schemes motivate sensible organisational behaviour. Simon discounted Henry Fayol's idea of 'economic man' and substituted it with 'administrative man', who is somewhat aware of all the possible options of his choices and so is ready to go with those that produce

To him, the notion of optimisation is quite misrepresentative as the prospects of attaining the utmost possible result seems characteristically elusive. Drawing on March and Simon's [23] considerations on bounded rationality, Simon shows the parameters in the intellectual talent of decision-makers. Simon championed the use of 'uncertainty' in organisational decision-making due to the real impossibility to derive total and complete information at any particular period during the decisionmaking process. While this may not be altogether a new idea, it is fair to consider that Simon initiated that notion and that later won him the 1978 Nobel Prize in this field. The notional devices that Simon applied to comprehend the cosmic system intersects with a broad gamut of disciplines, such as, administrative theory, public administration, political science, organisation theory, economics, psychology, sociology, philosophy, computer science and cognitive science [4]. Reconsideration of the principled impression of making decision with particular allusion to reasonableness took a substantial share of his time. Consequently, rationality became the underlying logic in almost all the fields of enquiry he was related to because the idea encircled and occupied the broader structure of society. Hence, his efforts to dilate on rationality predictably got him to varied theoretical perceptions on economics, philosophy, psychology, sociology and politics. The relationships involving information, decision-making and technology appeared to be Simon's key research

Notwithstanding Simon's multi-layered-disciplinary orientation to administrative behaviour, problem-solving and decision-making, he did not restrict his allegiance to any one specific discipline. To be sure, he indicated in a discussion cited in ([4], p. 583) that 'If you see any one of these disciplines dominating you, you join the opposition and you fight it for a while'. The core of Simon's influence was on problem-solving and decision-making in the specific aspects of individuals, organisations and societies. For example, Simon's [25–27] cases are of such works. 'Logical positivism', explained simply by Simon as possessing a similar meaning as empiricism ([19], p. 68), is

**74**

Control in administration invariably denotes shaping the character of the governed, transforming and guiding their operations to be favourable and aligned with the ambitions of group and the firm's aspirations. The foregoing logic demonstrates, as it does, at least, three central ideas, namely, authority, training and organisational loyalty, that profoundly undergird the workings of organisational control. Each of these fundamentally affects and encroaches on personal engagements resulting from different situational exigencies. When social agents become formal members of an organisation, the organisation is confronted with the problematic situation of how to modify the members' behaviour consistent with the overall organisational frame of its activities. A couple of internal and external influences by way of stimuli are applied to deal with these behavioural checks. These are 'the stimuli with which the organisation seeks to influence the individual and the psychological "set" of the individual, which determines his response to the stimuli' ([19], p. 432).

Influencing the organisational agents places their character on a commonly recognised form in two basic categorical forms. The sets of influence are qualified as 'internal' and 'external' and each category drives, to a more or less degree, all the main means by which organisational dominance is achieved, namely, authority, training, identification or organisational loyalty and communication.

#### **3.1 Authority orientation in organisations**

Among the means of influencing personal and group actions and leading behaviour in organisations, authority seems to be the one that evidently and principally sets apart the behaviour of individuals as actors within the organisation from that of their behaviour outside of it. Authority identifies the official structures for the organisation on which the other expressions of organisational influence depend. It is pertinent we firm up a sense of what authority represents, as far as its explanation so as to set up the frame for the various manifestations of its effect within the organisational setting. To this end, Simon purely submits authority as 'the power to make decisions which guide the actions of another' ([19], p. 179). However, in the interest of thorough analysis and more all-inclusive understanding of the notion of authority, drawing on Barnard's view provides enhanced and enriched explication.

Barnard's view suggests a clarification that affords a necessary association that highlights the actual essence of authority within the context of the organisation. The account provides a hint of the frontiers for the impression of suitable personal organisational behaviour contingent on a crucial level of relationship. This relationship portends substantial logical reasoning for appreciating mediated control in ICT-driven interactions as instructions or guidelines designed for the realisation of organisational aims largely shift from the upper part of organisational ladder to those at the bottom level of the organisational structure. The lines of authority can also start from one department to another, not essentially in a hierarchical order. Prior to an individual's familiarisation with the numerous dominant instructions, they must have been provided with clear guidelines pertaining to the conditions

placed on their conduct. The settings and conditions delineating such conduct and the terms by which they are showcased must be unfailing, and be consistent, with the complete desires of the ideals of the organisation.

A parallel interpretation of authority is theorised by Simon that noticeably portrays the subject-object duality of authority. The subject-object duality underscores the senior/junior spectacle intrinsic to authority relationships, which Simon expounds as mainly hinging on 'objective and behaviouristic terms'.

The shared expressions of desired behaviour between the boss and the subordinate account for the presence of authority. Thus, the subordinate must recognise and perform legitimate directives of the superior for authority to triumph. Perrow succinctly conveys this idea when he considers that in a situation where a subordinate declines to carry out legitimate instructions from an authority above, the superior loses their authority ([18], p. 71).

The rational supposition from the preceding quote indicates that in a circumstance where the desires and anticipations of the superior are not adhered to, authority would not be deemed to exist. The behaviour configuration of the subordinate on other hand is affected by specific considerations for engaging in some form of operation. Consequently, the matter of discretion is brought into the decision-making processes of the subordinate before undertaking a given assignment. Thus, the subordinate subjects his private agenda by projecting the wishes and command of their superior as a basis of his action ([19], p. 179).

To Chester I. Barnard's mind, authority flourishes on two primary levels, namely, the subjective and objective phases. While the subjective phase involves the 'personal, the *accepting*<sup>1</sup> of a communication as authoritative, the latter relates to the character in the communication by virtue of which it is accepted' ([19], p. 163). Chester's objective-subjective dichotomy on authority supports a vital analytical device for this piece as it provides a comprehensive means to appreciating the foundations and functions of organisational control. It offers superior clue that shared influence is intrinsic and essential to any control commitments. Subordinates must be ready to embrace guidelines and instructions for goal-centric results to be obtained. By a similar account, superiors should be able to embrace and encourage the proposals and creativeness of subordinates in the interest of stated organisational goals. A scenario where a subordinate declines to obey reasonable orders issued from a superior undercuts the true pillars on which authority rests. The maintenance of authority is subject to the dominant ideas of the people whose decisive goal is to have specific operations undertaken for their joint advantage.

For authority to be purposeful, it is crucial to guarantee the relevant involvement in terms of private efforts aimed at common targets. There should be the presence of structured individual efforts inextricably linked with prompt dynamic interests at any stated period with the aim of maintaining the reliability of the prevalent organisational authority insofar as instructions lie within the purview of, what Chester labels as, 'zone of indifference'. By zone of indifference, Barnard [29] attempts to illustrate a situation where lower ranked employees incontestably accommodate the guidelines or directives for carrying out a goal-oriented duty. Disparities exist in the zone of indifference. The disparities reveal diverse forms of broadness and narrowness subject to the extent to which inducements exceed the 'burdens and sacrifices' that describe a person's loyalty and attachment to the organisation.

Authority possesses bi-modal source, all of which seem to complement rather than contest with the technological and social components. The establishment of

**77**

private agenda.

*Underlying Forces of Organisational Control on Administrative Behavioural Theoretical Insights*

authority in an organisational environment is, therefore, dependent on these same technological and social apparatuses. There is a reciprocal shaping of both social and technological components in the expression of authority. For example, technology is as vital in putting structures of authority in place and effecting behaviour just as much as the social (human) devices in the realisation of expected behaviour and motivating predetermined results. Both work hand-in-hand as each has its field of operational emphasis. In view of this, individuals aver their allegiance to human authority systems in pretty much the same way as they submit to the demands of technology-led cooperative and control systems. Controlling group, varying private behaviour and influencing organisational objectives and requirements imply modifying the mechanisms that convey the demands for the performance of certain operations. With these analytical notions of authority, it is possible to delineate the nature of authority through which these features manifest as well as the procedures

Authority can be said to rely on three basic stakes of operationally interlocking equivalents of responsibility, specialisation and coordination [29]. It is compelling to accentuate the role of each of these structural apparatuses and explore how they, together, operate in concert to offer some novel insights into the appreciation of control. It is vital to highlight this dimension as it assists to widen the scope by which social agents, with motley organisational agendas can purposefully be understood. Each of these dimensions of authority merits some consideration in turn, because controlling the activities of subordinates by means of both output and behavioural expectations, demands a significant degree of responsibility, specialisation and coordination. Responsibility defines performance expectations, specialisation clarifies the degree of discretion and coordination stipulates the synchronisation of individual (superior and subordinate) endeavours. Now I turn attention to focus on how these concepts become implicated in control in organisa-

A primary aim of authority that appears to win the attention of administrative behaviour enthusiasts is its purpose to assert group and individual acceptance of the principles of standards of behaviour established by those at the upper levels of authority [30]. Responsibility suggests the power of a 'particular private code of morals to control the conduct of the individual in the presence of strong contrary desires or impulses' ([31], p. 263). To a greater extent, a particular conduct is administered by diverse private codes. Such codes could be high, simple low, complex, sketchy or comprehensive, based on a person's ethical status. Logically, general tendencies exist whereby people act in consonance with private interests and contrary to determined organisational ideologies. In view of this, 'elaborate set of sanctions may be evoked and applied against the recalcitrant member' ([19], p.187) upon contravention or disobedience to established instructions, rubrics, standards and recognised principles in the carrying out of specified operations. In Barnard's view, the clash of codes of behaviour has serious repercussions. The risk or enduring fear occasionally present in the use of disciplinary tools can go as far as to offer people some opportunity to engage in manoeuvres favourable to their

In Gaus' view [32], it is almost assuredly unconceivable to think about author-

ity in the administration of organisations without encouraging its analogous

tional discourse from the viewpoint of administrative behaviour.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89522*

that underlie its operations.

*3.2.1 Responsibility*

**3.2 Structural apparatus of authority**

<sup>1</sup> Italics in the original

#### *Underlying Forces of Organisational Control on Administrative Behavioural Theoretical Insights DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89522*

authority in an organisational environment is, therefore, dependent on these same technological and social apparatuses. There is a reciprocal shaping of both social and technological components in the expression of authority. For example, technology is as vital in putting structures of authority in place and effecting behaviour just as much as the social (human) devices in the realisation of expected behaviour and motivating predetermined results. Both work hand-in-hand as each has its field of operational emphasis. In view of this, individuals aver their allegiance to human authority systems in pretty much the same way as they submit to the demands of technology-led cooperative and control systems. Controlling group, varying private behaviour and influencing organisational objectives and requirements imply modifying the mechanisms that convey the demands for the performance of certain operations. With these analytical notions of authority, it is possible to delineate the nature of authority through which these features manifest as well as the procedures that underlie its operations.
