Absolutes in Organizational Behavior.

 

Let us start by trying to separate the sciences. On one side we have natural sciences (sometimes called “hard”), that is laws in the physical sciences  like chemistry, astronomy and physics. These are consistent and apply in a range of situations. They allow scientists to generalize from results for example about the pull of gravity and so they can be confident when sending astronauts into space.

 

On the other side of the spectrum we have social sciences (also called “soft”). Human beings are complex and few, if any, simple and universal principles explain can generalize and explain organisational behavior. Why?

 

Because we are not alike, our ability to make simple, accurate, and sweeping generalisations is limited. Two people often react very differently in the same situation and even the same person’s behavior changes in different situations.

 

That doesn’t mean, of course, that we can’t offer reasonably accurate explanations of human behavior or make valid predictions. It does mean that OB concepts must reflect situational , or contingency, conditions. We can say that x leads to y, but only under conditions specified in z -The contingency variable.

 

For example, OB scholars avoid stating that everybody likes complex and challenging work because not everybody wants a challenging job. Some people prefer routine over varied, or simple over complex. A job attractive to one person may not be to another; its appeal is contingent to the person who holds it.

 

Another example is seen in this picture where the meaning of a simple gesture can vary greatly depending on the situation, or in this case the country.