The Need-hierarchy and Theories of Authority

Abstract

The need-heirarchy concept and three theories of authority (Formal, Situationist, and Acceptance) are reviewed, and an integrated framework for discussing their interrelationships and importance to organization theory and human relations is developed. The formal theory may be useful in discussions of profit-seeking, formal organizations, but in explaining individual behavior it uses only the lower order needs and expressive behavior. The situationist approach is applicable to a wider range of organizations and uses higher level needs in explaining individual behavior, but does not fully account for the impact of the individual upon his environment. The Acceptance Theory can be used in discussing any form of organization and, in addition, recognizes the full impact of the individual in those organizations using the full range of needs as well as both coping and expressive behavior. The Acceptance Theory is, then, the more general, more inclusive, and more applicable basis for a theory of authority.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

ALDERFER, C. P. (1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human needs . Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 4, 142-175 .

ARGYRIS, C. (1957). Personality and Organization. New York: Harper .

BARNARD, C. I. (1938). The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press .

BENNIS, W. (1966). Changing Organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill .

BOULDING, K. E. (1970). A Primer on Social Dynamics. New York: The' Free Press .

BROWN, A. (1947). Organization of Industry. Englewood Cliffs New Jersey: Prentice-Hall .

CLARK, J. V. (1960-61). Motivation in work groups: a tentative view . Human Organizations 19, 199-208 .

CLARK, J. V. (1963). Distortions of Behavioral Science . California Management Review 6, 58-59 .

DAVIS, K. (1968). Evolving models of organizational behavior . Academy of Management Journal 11, 27-38 .

10.

FAYOL, H. (1949). General and Industrial Management. London: Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons .

11.

FESTINGER, L. (1958). The motivating effect of cognitive dissonance. G. Lindzey (ed.), Assessment of Human Motives. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston , pp. 65-86.

12.

HENDERSON, J. M. & QUANDT, R. E. (1958). Microeconomic Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill .

13.

KOONTZ, H. & O'DONNELL, C. (1964). Principles of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill .

14.

LAWLER, E. E. III (1971). Pay and Organizational Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill .

15.

LEIBENSTEIN, H. (1960). Economic theory and Organizational Analysis. New York: Harper .

16.

LIKERT, R. (1961). New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill .

17.

LUCE, R. D. & RAIFFA, H. (1957). Games and Decisions. New York: Wiley .

18.

MARCH, J. G. (1965). Handbook of Organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally .

19.

MARCH, J. G. & SIMON, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley .

20.

MASLOW, A. H. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper .

21.

MASSIE, J. L. (1965). Management theory. In: March. J. G. (ed.), Handbook of Organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally .

22.

McGREGOR, D. (1966). Leadership and Motivation. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press .

23.

METCALF, H. C. & URWICK, L. (1941). Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett. New York: Harper .

24.

NEWMAN, W. H. (1951). Administrative Action. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall .

25.

PRESTHUS, R. V. (1960). Authority in organizations . Public Administration Review 20, 86-91 .

26.

SCOTT, W. G. (1961). Organization theory: an overview and appraisal . Academy of Management Journal 4, 7-26 .

27.

SIMON, H. A. (1965a). Administrative Behavior. New York: The Free Press .

28.

SIMON, H. A. (1965b). The Shape of Automation. New York: Harper .

29.

THOMPSON, J. D. & TUDEN, A. (1959). Strategies, structures, and processes of organizational decision. In: Thompson, J. D. et al. (eds), Comparative Studies in Administration. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press .

30.

WHYTE, W. F. (1959). An interaction approach to the theory of organization. In: Haire, M. (ed.), Modern Organization Theory. New York: Wiley .