ation one whit. The woman at her desk in a corner office, no matter how sophisticated the equipment at her elbow, does not deal with the world directly, but only through the maps of it - the categories - she carries in her head. More accurately, she deals with it through the refinements that she has been provided by others, whose job it is to distill such charts and plottings for her out of the infinite mass of available data. Even in the best of circumstances, she can know the world only at several removes (Kantrow, 1984, pp. 6-7).
This, and other activities, shows that organizational theories and behavioral attributes are a necessary and timely change within the modern business and organizational environment. One asks about workers' doubts and fears, and comes back to the perception of organizing human differences (Fournies, 1990, p. 33).
Moreover, there were certain other parallel forces operating along with this drive that caused a more systematic approach to the study and practice of organizational behavior itself. This was the concurrent development of both science and technology, sometimes interacting to the point by which entire new philosophical constructs had to be developed in order to more precisely define the needs of organizational theory. Just as there are certain theoretical constructs apparent in the scientific and technological worlds, the same is true for the social sciences and, in particular, the way humans behave in organizations. In the words of the early social theorist Max Weber, for instance, science and technology acted in congruence with other social aspects to produce bureaucracy, which in turn engendered organizational behavior:
The development of bureaucracy greatly favors the leveling of social classes and this can be shown historically to be the normal tendency. Conversely, every process of social leveling creates a favourable situation for the development of bureaucracy; for it tends ...