 As someone who grew up in the time that the original Star Wars trilogy movies were released, I have somewhat mixed feelings about the nature of origin stories. While I may sometimes be disappointing compared to the more contemporary elements, origin stories can provide important context and foundation to understanding current thinking and practice. In this video we will examine the origin story of organizational communication by exploring the classical theories that preceded and led to the modern field of study. As we begin it may be helpful to define the concept of theory. A theory is a group of related propositions designed to explain why events take place in a certain way. We use theory to hypothesize and explore ideas and events in a structured, replicable and explainable way. There are a few things that we should keep in mind when dealing with theories. First, we must remember that by definition theory is not the same as fact. Indeed the very reason that we have theories is to distinguish these hypotheses from claims of fact. The theory is not someone saying, this is the absolute truth and I can prove it without exception. Theory is someone saying, this is something I've observed and I think might be important and I believe that it bears further examination. While many established theories deserve our respect and full consideration, all theories should be examined through a critical lens and not simply accepted on principle. We should also note that theory is metaphorical. As you are likely aware, a metaphor is a figure of speech where a word or phrase is applied to an object or action that is not literally applied to the object or action in real life. In relational organizational theory this simply means that we use language to compare and describe the communication and function of an organization with other objects, organisms, or phenomena that exist in the world. For example, we will learn that the roots of systems theory in organizational communication are found in the field of biology and study of living organisms. Finally, we must recognize that theory is historical and should be viewed in the context of the period in which it was created and popularized. As the world evolves, innumerable factors change the impact and relevance and validity of the theory. An idea that makes perfect sense in the culture, knowledge, and common practice of the time but may become dated or even invalidated as these things progress. This does not necessarily lessen the value they held at the time of their creation nor the foundational role they may play in the development of future theories. However, it is incumbent upon us to weigh the validity and relevance for contemporary application. An examination of the roots of organizational theory begins with the industrial revolution, the period of world history spanning from 1750 to 1850. During this period, the world economy saw a shift from an agrarian base relying largely on farming and self-sufficiency to an industrial base, featuring improved production methods and innovations in agriculture, manufacturing, technology, and other areas. This led to the development of large organizations which had not existed previously as the vast majority of people worked on family farms or in family-owned businesses. In this new working landscape, it was necessary to develop new tools and strategies for managing people in these large organizations. It is this need that led to the origins of organizational theory and organizational communication. We will briefly discuss several of the key theories and models developed in the early days in the study of organizational communication. We will not examine each of these perspectives in great detail, but rather offer a glimpse of each in order to provide a roadmap of the progression of the field. The common theme in these classical perspectives is that an organization can be viewed as a large machine with each employee serving as a part or component. The first of the major organizational theories of this time was Frederick Taylor's Model of Scientific Management published in 1913. Scientific Management emphasizes a management and production-oriented perspective of communication and operation of organizations. The focus is improving the efficiency of processes to yield better results. Taylor believed that the road to greater productivity was examining each job or task in the organization, identifying the most effective method for completing the job or task, matching the most appropriate person with that task, and then training them to perform the task more efficiently. Scientific Management imposes strict hierarchy and focuses sharply on the bottom line. Two other prominent theories of this time focused on the structure of the organization rather than the specific tasks or activities of the organization. The first of these was Max Weber's bureaucracy theory, presented in 1947, which emphasized characteristics such as specialization and expertise, procedures and rules, hierarchy, and an impersonal environment. Weber believed that the efficiency stemming from order, consistency, and reliability would result in greater productivity. In 1949, the success of Henri Fayot in transforming the nearly bankrupt French mining company into a highly successful concern led to the management philosophy commonly labeled Fayolism. Fayolism emphasizes the importance of division of labor, hierarchy, and fair practices in organizational structure. The principles of Fayolism include unity of direction, unity of command, order, and a sense of collectivism that places the greater good over self-interest. These classical perspectives help to get the ball rolling in our examination and understanding of organizational communication. As we will see though, they represent only the beginning of our journey. The next stage in the study of organizational communication is centered around what are broadly classified as human relations theories. These theories came into prominence after the conclusion of World War II. The general perspective of organizations shifted from that of large machines to one that recognized workers as more than just a random collection of skills and competencies. There was a realization that employees are more productive when they are satisfied with their job and their employing organization. This change is notable in that it emphasized two-way communication in the organizational hierarchy and saw efforts on the part of management to seek cooperation and buy-in from subordinates. These adjustments offered employees important validation and a sense of belonging. Perhaps the most significant revelation in human relations theories came from the Hawthorne Studies. Harvard professor Elton Mayo conducted a series of experiments in human relations from 1924 to 1932 at Western Electric Company's Hawthorne Works in Cicero, Illinois. Initially the researchers sought to study the impact of lighting levels on worker productivity in the Hawthorne plant with the hypothesis that increasing lighting levels would increase worker productivity and conversely decreasing lighting levels would decrease worker productivity. Imagine their consternation when they found the worker productivity increased with either either change in lighting, the increasing and the decreasing. Eventually researchers determined that the increase actually occurred because the change in lighting signaled to the workers that they were being observed. This in part may be attributed to the desire of the workers to be seen as effective in their job in order to increase their job security. However it also led to the conclusion that the perceived level of notice and recognition may influence workers productivity. The Hawthorne Studies also provided enlightenment regarding the presence and influence of informal networks within organizations. The researchers in the study observed that a group of 14 workers placed in a separate room followed the lead of a single person in terms of pace and productivity. Taking taking their cues from this individual the workers in the group established their own norms for productivity without ever explicitly verbally communicating these expectations. The Hawthorne Studies represented a significant leap forward in the evolution of management and organizational communication theory while they are far from perfect suffering from small sample sizes and insufficient consideration of additional factors like the fear of unemployment that may have impacted worker behavior. These studies revealed the significant effect of human relationships in organizational effectiveness. The next step forward in the progression of the organizational communication theory came in 1965 when management researcher Raymond Miles introduced the concept of human resources. Rather than a contradiction of human relations theory Miles described human resources as an extension and expansion of those concepts. According to Miles these resources include not only physical skills and energy but also the creative ability and the capacity for responsible self-directed self-controlled behavior. Scientific management and human resource relations focus on controlling workers and getting them to buy into decisions respectively. Human resources on the other hand emphasizes creating an environment that encourages employee creativity and risk-taking to draw on the full potential of resources that an individual brings to a job. Let's take a look at a few of the key theories commonly associated with the human resources category of organizational communication. These theories can be broadly divided into two categories motivation and decision making. The first is one that may be familiar to you already. Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Maslow suggests that there are distinct levels of human motivation that drive the behaviors of an individual. He laid these needs out in a pyramid indicating that each level must be met before moving on to the next beginning with physiological needs and progressing through needs related to safety, love and belonging, esteem, and self-actualization. Applying to organizations Maslow's hierarchy of needs demonstrates how understanding and meeting the various needs of employees can help motivate them towards greater productivity. Motivation hygiene theory is a kind of extension of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. While Maslow limited his perspective solely to motivation, Frederick Herzberg proposed that demotivation was also a significant factor in the job attitudes and productivity of workers. Motivation hygiene theory posits that different factors are involved in motivation and demotivation of people and organizations. Herzberg labeled the positive factors motivators and they include things like performance, achievement, advancement, and growth opportunities. The demotivating items or hygiene factors include things like company policies, work conditions, status, and relationship with your supervisor. The balance between these factors influences not only the productivity of a worker but their attitude on the job, their influence in the workplace, and the probability that they will stay with that organization. Maslow's hierarchy of needs and motivation hygiene theory both fall squarely in the motivation category of human resource theories. Douglass McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y, however, moves us over to the decision-making category. McGregor, the management professor at MIT, believed that every manager subscribed to one of two different perspectives. The first perspective, Theory X, essentially follows the scientific management approach in that managers operate under the assumption that people generally dislike work and must be tightly controlled and directed. The second perspective, Theory Y, is more in line with the human relations approach, where the manager feels that people generally want to do their best, should be encouraged to use their creativity, and are able to direct themselves when given appropriate conditions. These are just a few representative examples of human resources theories. Hopefully they give you a sense of the predominant thinking around organizational communication at that time. As I noted at the start, origin stories can be complicated. Sometimes they have us scratching our heads and wondering, how could that possibly be connected to what we know now? There's just no way that fits in. Just like in the movies though, the origins of contemporary theories can have many twists and turns in their unfolding. Understanding these foundational theories and having a picture of how the study and perspective of organizational communication has developed and evolved over time provides invaluable context for examining the current state and application of this important field. Keep this knowledge close as we move on to examine the modern theories and principles of organizational communication.