Cultural Differences How do you manage and do business with people from different cultures? The final topic we will discuss in this chapter is the role of culture and cultural diversity in organizational behavior. Cultural diversity can be analyzed in many ways. For instance, we can compare cultural diversity within one country or company, or we can compare cultures across units. That is, we can look inside a particular North American firm and see employees who are Asian, Black, Latino, Native American, White, and so forth. Clearly, these individuals have different cultural backgrounds, frames of reference, traditions, and so forth. Or we can look more globally and compare a typical American firm with a typical Mexican, Italian, or Chinese firm and again see significant differences in culture. We can also analyze cultural diversity by looking at different patterns of behavior. For instance, Americans often wonder why Japanese or Korean businesspeople always bow when they meet; this seems strange to some. Likewise, many Asian people wonder why Americans always shake hands, a similarly strange behavior. Americans often complain that Japanese executives say “yes” when they actually mean something else, while Japanese executives claim many Americans promise things they know they cannot deliver. Many of these differences result from a lack of understanding concerning the various cultures and how they affect behavior both inside and outside the workplace. As the marketplace and economies of the world merge ever closer, it is increasingly important that we come to understand more about cultural variations as they affect our world. What Is Culture? Simply put, culture may be defined as “the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one human group from another; the interactive aggregate of common characteristics that influences a human group’s response to its environment.” G. Hofstede, Culture’s Consequence, (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1980), p. 25. More to the point, culture is the “collective mental programming of a people.” Ibid. It is the unique characteristics of a people. As such, culture is: Something that is shared by all or most of the members of a society Something that older members of a society attempt to pass along to younger members Something that shapes our view of the world The concept of culture represents an easy way to understand a people, albeit on a superficial level. Thus, for example, we refer to the Chinese culture or the American culture. This is not to say that every member within a culture behaves in exactly the same way. On the contrary, every culture has diversity, but members of a certain culture tend to exhibit similar behavioral patterns that reflect where and how they grew up. A knowledge of a culture’s patterns should help us deal with its members. Culture affects the workplace because it affects what we do and how we behave. As shown in , cultural variations influence our values, which in turn affect attitudes and, ultimately, behaviors. For instance, a culture that is characterized by hard work (e.g., the Korean culture discussed above) would exhibit a value or ethic of hard work. This work ethic would be reflected in positive attitudes toward work and the workplace; people would feel that hard work is satisfying and beneficial—they might feel committed to their employer and they might feel shame if they do not work long hours. This, in turn, would lead to actual high levels of work. This behavior, then, would serve to reinforce the culture and its value, and so on. Relationship of Culture to Values, Attitudes, and Behavior (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA-NC-SA 4.0 license) To see how this works, consider the results of a survey of managerial behavior by French researcher Andre Laurent. A. Laurent, “The Cultural Diversity of Western Conceptions of Management,” International Studies of Management and Organization, XII, 1–2, Spring-Summer 1983, pp. 75–96. He asked managers how important it was for managers to have precise answers when asked a question by subordinates. The results, shown in , clearly show how culture can influence very specific managerial behavior. In some countries, it is imperative for the manager to “know” the answer (even when she really doesn’t), whereas in other countries it made little difference. Thus, if we want to understand why someone does something in the workplace, at least part of the behavior may be influenced by her cultural background. Appropriate Managerial Behavior in Different Countries (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA-NC-SA 4.0 license) Dimensions of Culture There are several ways to distinguish different cultures from one another. Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck have identified six dimensions that are helpful in understanding such differences. F. Kluckhohn and F. Strodtbeck, Variations in Value Orientations (Evanston, III.: Row, Peterson, 1961). These are as follows: How people view humanity . Are people basically good, or are they evil? Can most people be trusted or not? Are most people honest? What is the true nature of humankind? How people see nature . What is the proper relationship between people and the environment? Should people be in harmony with nature, or should they attempt to control or harness nature? How people approach interpersonal relationships . Should one stress individualism or membership in a group? Is the person more or less important than the group? What is the “pecking order” in a society? Is it based on seniority or on wealth and power? How people view activity and achievement . Which is a more worthy goal: activity (getting somewhere) or simply being (staying where one is)? How people view time . Should one focus on the past, the present, or the future? Some cultures are said to be living in the past, whereas others are looking to the future. How people view space . How should physical space be used in our lives? Should we live communally or separately? Should important people be physically separated from others? Should important meetings be held privately or in public? To see how this works, examine , which differentiates four countries (Mexico, Germany, Japan, and the United States) along these six dimensions. Although the actual place of each country on these scales may be argued, the exhibit does serve to highlight several trends that managers should be aware of as they approach their work. For example, although managers in all four countries may share similar views on the nature of people (good versus bad), significant differences are noted on such dimensions as people’s relation to nature and interpersonal relations. This, in turn, can affect how managers in these countries approach contract negotiations, the acquisition of new technologies, and the management of employees. Japanese train station Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck identified six dimensions that are helpful in understanding such differences. Japan is a populous country that requires workers to take public transportation to and from work. How does the Japanese geography affect Japanese culture? (Credit: elminium/ flickr/ Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0)) Dimensions such as these help us frame any discussion about how people differ. We can say, for example, that most Americans are individualistic, activity-oriented, and present/future-oriented. We can further say that they value privacy and want to control their environment. In another culture, perhaps the mode is past-oriented, reflective, group-oriented, and unconcerned with achievement. In Japan we hear that “the nail that sticks out gets hammered down”—a comment reflecting a belief in homogeneity within the culture and the importance of the group. In the United States, by contrast, we hear “Look out for Number One” and “A man’s home is his castle”—comments reflecting a belief in the supremacy of the individual over the group. Neither culture is “right” or “better.” Instead, each culture must be recognized as a force within individuals that motivates their behaviors within the workplace. However, even within the U.S. workforce, we must keep in mind that there are subcultures that can influence behavior. For example, recent work has shown that the Hispanic culture within the United States places a high value on groups compared to individuals and as a consequence takes a more collective approach to decision-making. T. Cox, et al., “Effects of Ethnic Group Cultural Differences on Cooperative and Competitive Behavior on a Group Task,” Academy of Management J., 34 , pp. 827–847; and S. Gruman, cited in N. Adler, International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior (Boston: PWS/Kent, 1986), pp. 13–14. As we progress through this discussion, we shall continually build upon these differences as we attempt to understand behavior in the workplace. Cultural Differences among Managers in Four Countries (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA-NC-SA 4.0 license) What role do managers play to ensure that the culture of individuals are valued and appreciated and contribute to a successful work environment? How do you manage and do business with people from different cultures? Culture refers to the collective mental programming of a group or people that distinguishes them from others. Culture (1) is shared by the members of the group, (2) is passed on from older members to younger members, and (3) shapes our view of the world. Six dimensions of culture can be identified: (1) how people see themselves, (2) how people see nature, (3) how people approach interpersonal relationships, (4) how people view activity and achievement, (5) how people view time, and (6) how people view space. Chapter Review Questions Why is it important for managers to understand individual differences at work? Which employee abilities seem to be most important in determining job performance? Explain. Define personality . Which personality traits are most relevant to understanding organizational behavior? Why? Explain how the concept of locus of control works. Provide an example. Describe the basic incongruity thesis. Do you agree with this thesis? Under what circumstances might the thesis be most likely to be true? Least likely to be true? Explain. Why is it important for managers to understand ethical standards in the workplace? How do ethics affect our behavior at work? How should managers handle the “gray zones” that are common to ethical dilemmas in organizations? Explain. Define culture . How do culture and cultural variations affect work behavior and job performance? Provide examples to show why a knowledge of such differences is important for managers. Managerial Skills Application Exercises What Is Your Locus of Control? Instructions: This instrument lists several pairs of statements concerning the possible causes of behavior. For each pair, select the letter ( A or B ) that better describes your own beliefs. Remember: there are no right or wrong answers. To view the scoring key, go to Appendix B . In the long run, the bad things that happen to us are balanced by the good ones. Most misfortunes are the result of lack of ability, ignorance, laziness, or all three. I have often found that what is going to happen will happen. Trusting to fate has never turned out as well for me as making a decision to take a definite course of action. Many of the unhappy things in people’s lives are partly due to bad luck. People’s misfortunes result from the mistakes they make. Without the right breaks, one cannot be an effective leader. Capable people who fail to become leaders have not taken advantage of their opportunities. Many times, I feel I have little influence over the things that happen to me. It is impossible for me to believe that chance or luck plays an important role in my life. Most people don’t realize the extent to which their lives are controlled by accidental happenings. There really is no such thing as “luck.” Unfortunately, an individual’s worth often passes unrecognized no matter how hard they try. In the long run, people get the respect they deserve. Source: Adapted from Julian B. Rotter, “Generalized Expectancies for Internal Versus External Control of Reinforcement.” Psychological Monographs, 80 (Whole No. 609, 1966), pp. 11–12. Which Values Are Most Important to You? Instructions: People are influenced by a wide variety of personal values. In fact, it has been argued that values represent a major influence on how we process information, how we feel about issues, and how we behave. In this exercise, you are given an opportunity to consider your own personal values. Below are listed two sets of statements. The first list presents several instrumental values, while the second list presents several terminal values. For each list you are asked to rank the statements according to how important each is to you personally. In the list of instrumental values, place a “1” next to the value that is most important to you, a “2” next to the second most important, and so forth. Clearly, you will have to make some difficult decisions concerning your priorities. When you have completed the list for instrumental values, follow the same procedure for the terminal values. Please remember that this is not a test—there are no right or wrong answers—so be completely honest with yourself. To view the scoring key, go to Appendix B . Instrumental Values _____ Assertiveness; standing up for yourself _____ Being helpful or caring toward others _____ Dependability; being counted upon by others _____ Education and intellectual pursuits _____ Hard work and achievement _____ Obedience; following the wishes of others _____ Open-mindedness; receptivity to new ideas _____ Self-sufficiency; independence _____ Truthfulness; honesty _____ Being well-mannered and courteous toward others Terminal Values _____ Happiness; satisfaction in life _____ Knowledge and wisdom _____ Peace and harmony in the world _____ Pride in accomplishment _____ Prosperity; wealth _____ Lasting friendships _____ Recognition from peers _____ Salvation; finding eternal life _____ Security; freedom from threat _____ Self-esteem; self-respect Managerial Decision Exercises You work for a large multinational corporation with offices around the globe. One of your colleagues has been offered an assignment overseas to either the Japanese, South Korean, or German offices for a long-term assignment (three to seven years). She has asked your advice on the opportunity because she is concerned about the failure some others have encountered. Often, they want to return home before their assignment is complete, or they decide to quit. She is also concerned about building relationships as a manager with the local employees. Your friend is very skilled technically and you know that she could be successful in the positions being offered. You wonder whether her apprehension has to do with her personality, and whether that might have an impact on her success for this role. Identify the personality traits you think might be relevant to being successful in a global assignment in either Japan, South Korea, or Germany. Develop a personality test aimed at measuring these dimensions. Do you think that your friend will fill out this questionnaire honestly? If not, how would you ensure that the results you get would be honest and truly reflect her personality? How would you validate such a test? Describe the steps you would take. It’s your final semester in college and you’re going through several interviews with recruiters on campus. Among the opportunities that you are interviewing for is an entry-level position as a data analyst with a large accounting firm. You have been told during the initial interview that the firm uses a personality assessment as part of their selection process. You feel that this job requires someone who is very high in introversion since it involves a lot of individual work involving analysis of data on the one hand, but that in potential future roles on an audit team, one would need a high level of extroversion dealing with colleagues on the team and with clients. You have a high level of technical ability and can concentrate on tasks for long periods and also feel that you are sociable, but perhaps not as much as some other students in other disciplines. The opportunity is terrific, it is a great stepping-stone to career advancement, and your faculty adviser is very supportive. Refer to the personality test in the Managerial Skills Application Exercises question 2 as an example of the personality test that will be given. How are you going to respond when completing the personality test? Are you going to answer the questions truthfully? What are the advantages and disadvantages of completing the questions honestly? What are the advantages and disadvantages of completing the questions in a way you think the company is looking for? Critical Thinking Case Making a Diverse Workplace the Top Priority Johnson & Johnson is a leader in multinational medical devices as well as pharmaceutical and consumer packaged goods. Founded in 1886, the company has been through generations of cultural differences and is consistently listed among the Fortune 500. Johnson & Johnson is a household name for millions with many of their products lining the shelves of medicine cabinets around the globe. In 2017, Johnson & Johnson took the number two spot on the Thomson Reuters Diversity & Inclusion Index. At such a multinational company, with over 130,000 employees worldwide, the forefront of the focus on their internal workforce is diversity. At the forefront of their mission statement, this is clearly stated: “Make diversity and inclusion how we work every day.” Having a mission statement is wonderful, but how does Johnson & Johnson live up to these standards day in and day out? Chief Diversity & Inclusion Officer Wanda Bryant Hope works tirelessly to inject the company with the very founding principles that built the company 130 years ago. She is one of 46 percent of employees worldwide that are women, and is delivering solutions that serve all of the patients and companies that work with Johnson & Johnson. One initiative that sets Johnson & Johnson apart in the diversity category is their programs and initiatives such as the Scientist Mentoring and Diversity Program (SMDP), which is a yearlong mentorship program pairing ethnically diverse students with industry leaders. Additionally, the company commits to alignment with Human Rights Campaign Equality Index benchmarks, as well as supporting the armed forces and wounded soldiers. These benefits include transgender-inclusive health insurance coverage and paid time off after military leave for soldiers to acclimate back to life at home. These commitments make Johnson & Johnson one of the best cases for a company that is making great strides in a tough cultural climate to bridge the gaps and make all of their employees, customers, and clients feel included and a part of the bigger whole. Questions: What diversity challenges do you think Johnson & Johnson management and employees face due to their presence as worldwide organization? What other considerations should the company take in order to increase their impact of diversity and inclusion in the workplace? Johnson & Johnson prides themselves on bridging the gender equality gap. What are some challenges or concerns to consider in the future with their hiring practices? Sources: Johnson & Johnson website accessed August 1, 2018, https://www.jnj.com/about-jnj/diversity; Johnson & Johnson website accessed August 1, 2018, http://www.careers.jnj.com/careers/what-makes-johnson-johnson-a-global-leader-in-diversity-inclusion. Culture The collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one human group from another; the interactive aggregate of common characteristics that influences a human group’s response to its environment.

Business


Introduction (Credit: Quinn Dombroski/ flickr/ Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0) Learning Outcomes After reading this chapter, you should be able to answer these questions: How do differences in perception affect employee behavior and performance? How can managers and organizations minimize the negative impact of stereotypes and other barriers to accurate social perception in interpersonal relations? How do people attribute credit and blame for organizational events? How can a work environment characterized by positive work attitudes be created and maintained? How can managers and organizations develop a committed workforce? Personal Perceptions Affect Workplace Harmony Conflict was a feeling that James and Chaz were familiar with in their workplace. It was just a matter of time before their differences bubbled up to form a real hardship on themselves as well as their management teams. Chaz is anxious to get ahead, really focused on how fast he can accelerate his career. In order to showcase his tenacity, he stays extra hours and often takes on extra assignments from upper management and doesn’t seem to mind. James, on the other hand, is content in his position and believes that if he does his regular job, he will be seen a stable part of the team and will be rewarded for his everyday efforts. James views Chaz’s behavior as “kissing up” and resents Chaz for his extra efforts because it may make his own work look bad. James doesn’t give a thought to the personal reasons why Chaz may be acting that way, and instead ends up treating Chaz poorly, with a short temper every time they have to work together. Chaz talks to his manager, Jerry, about the way that he is being treated by James. He explains that he has been having some personal troubles at home, his wife is expecting, and they are trying to save for the new addition to their family. Chaz is feeling pressure to work hard and showcase his talents in order to get a raise. He also expresses his feelings against James, mainly that he shouldn’t be scrutinized for going above and beyond when his colleagues may just decide to do the minimum requirements. Jerry understands, and he appreciates Chaz coming to him with his concerns. They talk about ways to measure Chaz’s extra efforts and plan a conversation during their annual review period to discuss his raise again. Jerry also suggests that Chaz talk with James to alleviate some of the negative behavior he is experiencing. He feels that if James understood the reasons behind Chaz’s actions, he may be less jealous and feel less threatened by him. Questions: How can an individual’s perceptions be a challenge in the workplace? What can James do in the future to address Chaz in a different manner and better understand his actions? What do you think Jerry could have done differently to help his employees overcome their differences and work more efficiently together?

Business


The Perceptual Process How do differences in perception affect employee behavior and performance? By perception , we mean the process by which one screens, selects, organizes, and interprets stimuli to give them meaning. M. W. Levine and J. M. Shefner, Fundamentals of Selection and Perception (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1981). It is a process of making sense out of the environment in order to make an appropriate behavioral response. Perception does not necessarily lead to an accurate portrait of the environment, but rather to a unique portrait, influenced by the needs, desires, values, and disposition of the perceiver. As described by Kretch and associates, D. Kretch, R. S. Crutchfield, and E. L. Ballachey, Individual in Society (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962). an individual’s perception of a given situation is not a photographic representation of the physical world; it is a partial, personal construction in which certain objects, selected by the individual for a major role, are perceived in an individual manner. Every perceiver is, as it were, to some degree a nonrepresentational artist, painting a picture of the world that expresses an individual view of reality. The multitude of objects that vie for attention are first selected or screened by individuals. This process is called perceptual selectivity . Certain of these objects catch our attention, while others do not. Once individuals notice a particular object, they then attempt to make sense out of it by organizing or categorizing it according to their unique frame of reference and their needs. This second process is termed perceptual organization . When meaning has been attached to an object, individuals are in a position to determine an appropriate response or reaction to it. Hence, if we clearly recognize and understand we are in danger from a falling rock or a car, we can quickly move out of the way. Because of the importance of perceptual selectivity for understanding the perception of work situations, we will examine this concept in some detail before considering the topic of social perception. Perceptual Selectivity: Seeing What We See As noted above, perceptual selectivity refers to the process by which individuals select objects in the environment for attention. Without this ability to focus on one or a few stimuli instead of the hundreds constantly surrounding us, we would be unable to process all the information necessary to initiate behavior. In essence, perceptual selectivity works as follows (see ). The individual is first exposed to an object or stimulus—a loud noise, a new car, a tall building, another person, and so on. Next, the individual focuses attention on this one object or stimulus, as opposed to others, and concentrates his efforts on understanding or comprehending the stimulus. For example, while conducting a factory tour, two managers came across a piece of machinery. One manager’s attention focused on the stopped machine; the other manager focused on the worker who was trying to fix it. Both managers simultaneously asked the worker a question. The first manager asked why the machine was stopped, and the second manager asked if the employee thought that he could fix it. Both managers were presented with the same situation, but they noticed different aspects. This example illustrates that once attention has been directed, individuals are more likely to retain an image of the object or stimulus in their memory and to select an appropriate response to the stimulus. These various influences on selective attention can be divided into external influences and internal (personal) influences (see ). The Process of Perceptual Selectivity (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA-NC-SA 4.0 license) Major Influences on Selective Attention (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA-NC-SA 4.0 license) External Influences on Selective Attention External influences consist of the characteristics of the observed object or person that activate the senses. Most external influences affect selective attention because of either their physical properties or their dynamic properties. Physical Properties. The physical properties of the objects themselves often affect which objects receive attention by the perceiver. Emphasis here is on the unique, different, and out of the ordinary. A particularly important physical property is size . Generally, larger objects receive more attention than smaller ones. Advertising companies use the largest signs and billboards allowed to capture the perceiver’s attention. However, when most of the surrounding objects are large, a small object against a field of large objects may receive more attention. In either case, size represents an important variable in perception. Moreover, brighter, louder, and more colorful objects tend to attract more attention than objects of less intensity . For example, when a factory foreman yells an order at his subordinates, it will probably receive more notice (although it may not receive the desired response) from workers. It must be remembered here, however, that intensity heightens attention only when compared to other comparable stimuli. If the foreman always yells, employees may stop paying much attention to the yelling. Objects that contrast strongly with the background against which they are observed tend to receive more attention than less-contrasting objects. An example of the contrast principle can be seen in the use of plant and highway safety signs. A terse message such as “Danger” is lettered in black against a yellow or orange background. A final physical characteristic that can heighten perceptual awareness is the novelty or unfamiliarity of the object. Specifically, the unique or unexpected seen in a familiar setting (an executive of a conservative company who comes to work in Bermuda shorts) or the familiar seen in an incongruous setting (someone in church holding a can of beer) will receive attention. Dynamic Properties. The second set of external influences on selective attention are those that either change over time or derive their uniqueness from the order in which they are presented. The most obvious dynamic property is motion . We tend to pay attention to objects that move against a relatively static background. This principle has long been recognized by advertisers, who often use signs with moving lights or moving objects to attract attention. In an organizational setting, a clear example is a rate-buster, who shows up his colleagues by working substantially faster, attracting more attention. Another principle basic to advertising is repetition of a message or image. Work instructions that are repeated tend to be received better, particularly when they concern a dull or boring task on which it is difficult to concentrate. This process is particularly effective in the area of plant safety. Most industrial accidents occur because of careless mistakes during monotonous activities. Repeating safety rules and procedures can often help keep workers alert to the possibilities of accidents. Personal Influences on Selective Attention In addition to a variety of external factors, several important personal factors are also capable of influencing the extent to which an individual pays attention to a particular stimulus or object in the environment. The two most important personal influences on perceptual readiness are response salience and response disposition . Response Salience. This is a tendency to focus on objects that relate to our immediate needs or wants. Response salience in the work environment is easily identified. A worker who is tired from many hours of work may be acutely sensitive to the number of hours or minutes until quitting time. Employees negotiating a new contract may know to the penny the hourly wage of workers doing similar jobs across town. Managers with a high need to achieve may be sensitive to opportunities for work achievement, success, and promotion. Finally, female managers may be more sensitive than many male managers to condescending male attitudes toward women. Response salience, in turn, can distort our view of our surroundings. For example, as Ruch notes: “Time spent on monotonous work is usually overestimated. Time spent in interesting work is usually underestimated. . . . Judgment of time is related to feelings of success or failure. Subjects who are experiencing failure judge a given interval as longer than do subjects who are experiencing success. A given interval of time is also estimated as longer by subjects trying to get through a task in order to reach a desired goal than by subjects working without such motivation.” F. L. Ruch, Psychology and life (Glenview: Scott, Foresman, 1983). Response Disposition. Whereas response salience deals with immediate needs and concerns, response disposition is the tendency to recognize familiar objects more quickly than unfamiliar ones. The notion of response disposition carries with it a clear recognition of the importance of past learning on what we perceive in the present. For instance, in one study, a group of individuals was presented with a set of playing cards with the colors and symbols reversed—that is, hearts and diamonds were printed in black, and spades and clubs in red. Surprisingly, when subjects were presented with these cards for brief time periods, individuals consistently described the cards as they expected them to be (red hearts and diamonds, black spades and clubs) instead of as they really were. They were predisposed to see things as they always had been in the past. J. S. Bruner and L. Postman, “On the Perception of Incongruity: A Paradigm,” Journal of Personality , 1949, 18, pp. 206–223. Thus, the basic perceptual process is in reality a fairly complicated one. Several factors, including our own personal makeup and the environment, influence how we interpret and respond to the events we focus on. Although the process itself may seem somewhat complicated, it in fact represents a shorthand to guide us in our everyday behavior. That is, without perceptual selectivity we would be immobilized by the millions of stimuli competing for our attention and action. The perceptual process allows us to focus our attention on the more salient events or objects and, in addition, allows us to categorize such events or objects so that they fit into our own conceptual map of the environment. Which Car Would You Buy? When General Motors teamed up with Toyota to form California-based New United Motor Manufacturing Inc. (NUMMI), they had a great idea. NUMMI would manufacture not only the popular Toyota Corolla but would also make a GM car called the Geo Prizm. Both cars would be essentially identical except for minor styling differences. Economies of scale and high quality would benefit the sales of both cars. Unfortunately, General Motors forgot one thing. The North American consumer holds a higher opinion of Japanese-built cars than American-made ones. As a result, from the start of the joint venture, Corollas have sold rapidly, while sales of Geo Prizms have languished. With hindsight, it is easy to explain what happened in terms of perceptual differences. That is, the typical consumer simply perceived the Corolla to be of higher quality (and perhaps higher status) and bought accordingly. Not only was the Prizm seen more skeptically by consumers, but General Motors’ insistence on a whole new name for the product left many buyers unfamiliar with just what they were buying. Perception was that main reason for lagging sales; however, the paint job on the Prizm was viewed as being among the worst ever. As a result, General Motors lost $80 million on the Prizm in its first year of sales. Meanwhile, demand for the Corolla exceeded supply. The final irony here is that no two cars could be any more alike than the Prizm and the Corolla. They are built on the same assembly line by the same workers to the same design specifications. They are, in fact, the same car. The only difference is in how the consumers perceive the two cars—and these perceptions obviously are radically different. Over time, however, perceptions did change. While there was nothing unique about the Prizm, the vehicle managed to sell pretty well for the automaker and carried on well into the 2000s. The Prizm was also the base for the Pontiac Vibe, which was based on the Corolla platform as well, and this is one of the few collaborations that worked really well. Sources: C. Eitreim, “10 Odd Automotive Brand Collaborations (And 15 That Worked),” Car Culture , January 19, 2019; R. Hof, “This Team-Up Has It All—Except Sales,” Business Week, August 14, 1989, p. 35; C. Eitreim, “15 GM Cars With The Worst Factory Paint Jobs (And 5 That'll Last Forever),” Motor Hub , November 8, 2018. Social Perception in Organizations Up to this point, we have focused on an examination of basic perceptual processes—how we see objects or attend to stimuli. Based on this discussion, we are now ready to examine a special case of the perceptual process— social perception as it relates to the workplace. Social perception consists of those processes by which we perceive other people. S. T. Fiske and S. E. Taylor, Social Cognition (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1984). Particular emphasis in the study of social perception is placed on how we interpret other people, how we categorize them, and how we form impressions of them. Clearly, social perception is far more complex than the perception of inanimate objects such as tables, chairs, signs, and buildings. This is true for at least two reasons. First, people are obviously far more complex and dynamic than tables and chairs. More-careful attention must be paid in perceiving them so as not to miss important details. Second, an accurate perception of others is usually far more important to us personally than are our perceptions of inanimate objects. The consequences of misperceiving people are great. Failure to accurately perceive the location of a desk in a large room may mean we bump into it by mistake. Failure to perceive accurately the hierarchical status of someone and how the person cares about this status difference might lead you to inappropriately address the person by their first name or use slang in their presence and thereby significantly hurt your chances for promotion if that person is involved in such decisions. Consequently, social perception in the work situation deserves special attention. We will concentrate now on the three major influences on social perception: the characteristics of (1) the person being perceived, (2) the particular situation, and (3) the perceiver. When taken together, these influences are the dimensions of the environment in which we view other people. It is important for students of management to understand the way in which they interact (see ). Major Influences on Social Perception in Organizations (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA-NC-SA 4.0 license) The way in which we are evaluated in social situations is greatly influenced by our own unique sets of personal characteristics. That is, our dress, talk, and gestures determine the kind of impressions people form of us. In particular, four categories of personal characteristics can be identified: (1) physical appearance, (2) verbal communication, (3) nonverbal communication, and (4) ascribed attributes. Physical Appearance. A variety of physical attributes influence our overall image. These include many of the obvious demographic characteristics such as age, sex, race, height, and weight. A study by Mason found that most people agree on the physical attributes of a leader (i.e., what leaders should look like), even though these attributes were not found to be consistently held by actual leaders. However, when we see a person who appears to be assertive, goal-oriented, confident, and articulate, we infer that this person is a natural leader. D. J. Mason, “Judgements of Leadership Based on Physiognomic Cues,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 1957, 54, pp. 273–274. Another example of the powerful influence of physical appearance on perception is clothing. People dressed in business suits are generally thought to be professionals, whereas people dressed in work clothes are assumed to be lower-level employees. Verbal and Nonverbal Communication. What we say to others—as well as how we say it—can influence the impressions others form of us. Several aspects of verbal communication can be noted. First, the precision with which one uses language can influence impressions about cultural sophistication or education. An accent provides clues about a person’s geographic and social background. The tone of voice used provides clues about a speaker’s state of mind. Finally, the topics people choose to converse about provide clues about them. Impressions are also influenced by nonverbal communication—how people behave. For instance, facial expressions often serve as clues in forming impressions of others. People who consistently smile are often thought to have positive attitudes. P. F. Secord, “The Role of Facial Features in Interpersonal Perception,” in R. Tagiuri and L. Petrullo, eds., Person Perception and Interpersonal Behavior (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1958), pp. 300–315. A whole field of study that has recently emerged is body language , the way in which people express their inner feelings subconsciously through physical actions: sitting up straight versus being relaxed, looking people straight in the eye versus looking away from people. These forms of expressive behavior provide information to the perceiver concerning how approachable others are, how self-confident they are, or how sociable they are. Ascribed Attributes. Finally, we often ascribe certain attributes to a person before or at the beginning of an encounter; these attributes can influence how we perceive that person. Three ascribed attributes are status, occupation, and personal characteristics. We ascribe status to someone when we are told that the person is an executive, holds the greatest sales record, or has in some way achieved unusual fame or wealth. Research has consistently shown that people attribute different motives to people they believe to be high or low in status, even when these people behave in an identical fashion. J. W. Thibaut and H. W. Riecker, “Authoritarianism, Status, and the Communication of Aggression,” Human Relations , 1955, 8, pp. 95–120. For instance, high-status people are seen as having greater control over their behavior and as being more self-confident and competent; they are given greater influence in group decisions than low-status people. Moreover, high-status people are generally better liked than low-status people. Occupations also play an important part in how we perceive people. Describing people as salespersons, accountants, teamsters, or research scientists conjures up distinct pictures of these various people before any firsthand encounters. In fact, these pictures may even determine whether there can be an encounter. Characteristics of the Situation The second major influence on how we perceive others is the situation in which the perceptual process occurs. Two situational influences can be identified: (1) the organization and the employee’s place in it, and (2) the location of the event. Organizational Role. An employee’s place in the organizational hierarchy can also influence his perceptions. A classic study of managers by Dearborn and Simon emphasizes this point. In this study, executives from various departments (accounting, sales, production) were asked to read a detailed and factual case about a steel company. D. C. Dearborn and H. A. Simon, “Selective Perception: A Note on Departmental Identification of Executives,” Sociometry, 1958, 21 , p. 142. Next, each executive was asked to identify the major problem a new president of the company should address. The findings showed clearly that the executives’ perceptions of the most important problems in the company were influenced by the departments in which they worked. Sales executives saw sales as the biggest problem, whereas production executives cited production issues. Industrial relations and public relations executives identified human relations as the primary problem in need of attention. In addition to perceptual differences emerging horizontally across departments, such differences can also be found when we move vertically up or down the hierarchy. The most obvious difference here is seen between managers and unions, where the former see profits, production, and sales as vital areas of concern for the company whereas the latter place much greater emphasis on wages, working conditions, and job security. Indeed, our views of managers and workers are clearly influenced by the group to which we belong. The positions we occupy in organizations can easily color how we view our work world and those in it. Consider the results of a classic study of perceptual differences between superiors and subordinates. R. Likert, New Patterns of Management (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961). Both groups were asked how often the supervisor gave various forms of feedback to the employees. The results, shown in , demonstrate striking differences based on one’s location in the organizational hierarchy. Differences in Perception between Supervisors and Subordinates Frequency with Which Supervisors Give Various Types of Recognition for Good Performance Types of Recognition As Seen by Supervisors As Seen by Subordinates Source: Adapted from R. Likert, New Patterns in Management (New York: McGraw Hill, 1961), p. 91. Gives privileges 52% 14% Gives more responsibility 48 10 Gives a pat on the back 82 13 Gives sincere and thorough praise 80 14 Trains for better jobs 64 9 Gives more interesting work 51 5 (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA-NC-SA 4.0 license) Location of Event. Finally, how we interpret events is also influenced by where the event occurs. Behaviors that may be appropriate at home, such as taking off one’s shoes, may be inappropriate in the office. Acceptable customs vary from country to country. For instance, assertiveness may be a desirable trait for a sales representative in the United States, but it may be seen as being brash or coarse in Japan or China. Hence, the context in which the perceptual activity takes place is important. Characteristics of the Perceiver The third major influence on social perception is the personality and viewpoint of the perceiver. Several characteristics unique to our personalities can affect how we see others. These include (1) self-concept, (2) cognitive structure, (3) response salience, and (4) previous experience with the individual. Levine and Shefner, op. cit. Self-Concept. Our self-concept represents a major influence on how we perceive others. This influence is manifested in several ways. First, when we understand ourselves (i.e., can accurately describe our own personal characteristics), we are better able to perceive others accurately. Second, when we accept ourselves (i.e., have a positive self-image), we are more likely to see favorable characteristics in others. Studies have shown that if we accept ourselves as we are, we broaden our view of others and are more likely to view people uncritically. Conversely, less secure people often find faults in others. Third, our own personal characteristics influence the characteristics we notice in others. For instance, people with authoritarian tendencies tend to view others in terms of power, whereas secure people tend to see others as warm rather than cold. Ibid. From a management standpoint, these findings emphasize how important it is for administrators to understand themselves; they also provide justification for the human relations training programs that are popular in many organizations today. Cognitive Structure. Our cognitive structures also influence how we view people. People describe each other differently. Some use physical characteristics such as tall or short, whereas others use central descriptions such as deceitful, forceful, or meek. Still others have more complex cognitive structures and use multiple traits in their descriptions of others; hence, a person may be described as being aggressive, honest, friendly, and hardworking. (See the discussion in Individual and Cultural Differences on cognitive complexity.) Ostensibly, the greater our cognitive complexity—our ability to differentiate between people using multiple criteria—the more accurate our perception of others. People who tend to make more complex assessments of others also tend to be more positive in their appraisals. K. J. Frauenfelder, “A Cognitive Determinant of Favorability of Impression,” Journal of Social Psychology, 1974, 94, pp. 71–81. Research in this area highlights the importance of selecting managers who exhibit high degrees of cognitive complexity. These individuals should form more accurate perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of their subordinates and should be able to capitalize on their strengths while ignoring or working to overcome their weaknesses. Response Salience. This refers to our sensitivity to objects in the environment as influenced by our particular needs or desires. Response salience can play an important role in social perception because we tend to see what we want to see. A company personnel manager who has a bias against women, minorities, or handicapped persons would tend to be adversely sensitive to them during an employment interview. This focus may cause the manager to look for other potentially negative traits in the candidate to confirm his biases. The influence of positive arbitrary biases is called the halo effect , whereas the influence of negative biases is often called the horn effect . Another personnel manager without these biases would be much less inclined to be influenced by these characteristics when viewing prospective job candidates. Previous Experience with the Individual. Our previous experiences with others often will influence the way in which we view their current behavior. When an employee has consistently received poor performance evaluations, a marked improvement in performance may go unnoticed because the supervisor continues to think of the individual as a poor performer. Similarly, employees who begin their careers with several successes develop a reputation as fast-track individuals and may continue to rise in the organization long after their performance has leveled off or even declined. The impact of previous experience on present perceptions should be respected and studied by students of management. For instance, when a previously poor performer earnestly tries to perform better, it is important for this improvement to be recognized early and properly rewarded. Otherwise, employees may give up, feeling that nothing they do will make any difference. Together, these factors determine the impressions we form of others (see ). With these impressions, we make conscious and unconscious decisions about how we intend to behave toward people. Our behavior toward others, in turn, influences the way they regard us. Consequently, the importance of understanding the perceptual process, as well as factors that contribute to it, is apparent for managers. A better understanding of ourselves and careful attention to others leads to more accurate perceptions and more appropriate actions. How can you understand what makes up an individual’s personality? How does the content of the situation affect the perception of the perceiver? What are the characteristics that the perceiver can have on interpreting personality? How do differences in perception affect employee behavior and performance? One of the key determinants of people’s behavior in organizations is how they see and interpret situations and people around them. It is vital for anyone (manager or subordinate) who desires to be more effective to understand the critical aspects of context, object, and perceiver that influence perceptions and interpretations and the relationship between these and subsequent attitudes, intentions, and behaviors. This understanding will not only facilitate the ability to correctly understand and anticipate behaviors, but it will also enhance the ability to change or influence that behavior. Perception is the process by which individuals screen, select, organize, and interpret stimuli in order to give them meaning. Perceptual selectivity is the process by which individuals select certain stimuli for attention instead of others. Selective attention is influenced by both external factors (e.g., physical or dynamic properties of the object) and personal factors (e.g., response salience). Social perception is the process by which we perceive other people. It is influenced by the characteristics of the person perceived, the perceiver, and the situation. Body language The manner in which people express their inner feelings subconsciously through physical actions such as sitting up straight versus being relaxed or looking people straight in the eye versus looking away from people. Halo effect The influence of positive arbitrary biases. Perception The process by which one screens, selects, organizes, and interprets stimuli to give them meaning. Perceptual organization When meaning has been attached to an object, individuals are in a position to determine an appropriate response or reaction to it. Perceptual selectivity Refers to the process by which individuals select objects in the environment for attention. Response disposition The tendency to recognize familiar objects more quickly than unfamiliar ones. Response salience The tendency to focus on objects that relate to our immediate needs or wants. Social perception Consists of those processes by which we perceive other people.

Business


Barriers to Accurate Social Perception How can managers and organizations minimize the negative impact of stereotypes and other barriers to accurate social perception in interpersonal relations? In the perceptual process, several barriers can be identified that inhibit the accuracy of our perception. These barriers are (1) stereotyping, (2) selective perception, and (3) perceptual defense. Each of these will be briefly considered as it relates to social perception in work situations (see ). Barriers to Accurate Perception of Others Barrier Definition Stereotyping A tendency to assign attributes to people solely on the basis of their class or category Selective perception A process by which we systematically screen out or discredit information we don’t wish to hear and focus instead on more salient information Perceptual defense A tendency to distort or ignore information that is either personally threatening or culturally unacceptable (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA-NC-SA 4.0 license) Stereotyping One of the most common barriers in perceiving others at work is stereotyping . A stereotype is a widely held generalization about a group of people. Stereotyping is a process in which attributes are assigned to people solely on the basis of their class or category. It is particularly likely to occur when one meets new people, since very little is known about them at that time. On the basis of a few prominent characteristics such as sex, race, or age, we tend to place people into a few general categories. We ascribe a series of traits to them based upon the attributes of the category in which we have put them. We assume that older people are old-fashioned, conservative, obstinate, and perhaps senile. We view professors as absentminded, impractical, idealistic, or eccentric. One explanation for the existence of stereotypes has been suggested by Jain, Triandis, and Weick. R. Jain, H. C. Triandis, and C. W. Weick, Managing Research, Development and Innovation: Managing the Unmanageable, 3rd Edition (New York: Wiley, 2010). They argue that stereotypes may be to some extent based upon fact. People tend to compare other groups with their own group, accentuating minor differences between groups to form a stereotype. For example, older people as a group may indeed be more conservative or more old-fashioned. These traits then become emphasized and attributed to particular older individuals. At least three types of stereotype can be found in organizations: those dealing with age, race, and gender. Age stereotypes can be found throughout organizations. A recent study by von Hippel et al. C. von Hippel, et al, “Age-based stereotype threat and work outcomes: Stress appraisals and ruminations as mediators,” Psychology and Aging, February 2019, pp. 68-84. found that there are still clear stereotypes of older employees. They are thought to be (1) more resistant to organizational change, (2) less creative, (3) less likely to take calculated risks, (4) lower in physical capacity, (5) less interested in learning new techniques, and (6) less capable of learning new techniques. When asked to make personnel decisions concerning older people, the business students generally followed several trends. First, they gave older people lower consideration in promotion decisions. Older people also received less attention and fewer resources for training and development. Finally, older people tended to be transferred to other departments instead of confronted by their superiors when a problem with their performance emerged. Similar problems arise for people from different racial or cultural backgrounds and for gender. A particular problem in many companies today is that of attitudes toward women as managers or executives. Although succeeding in a managerial position is always difficult, the job is all the harder if your coworkers, superiors, or subordinates are not supportive. To See Ourselves as Others See Us In considering stereotyping in organizations, it may be interesting to examine how people in different countries and cultures see others around the world. Specifically, we should note that “foreigners” often hold certain stereotypes of what a “typical” American looks and acts like. Look, for example, at . This table shows how people in seven countries around the globe view the typical American. Note the sizable differences in perceptions. Foreign Observations of Americans The following are quotations from foreign visitors to the United States: India: “Americans seem to be in a perpetual hurry. Just watch the way they walk down the street. They never allow themselves the leisure to enjoy life; there are too many things to do.” Kenya: “Americans appear to us rather distant. They are not really as close to other people—even fellow Americans—as Americans overseas tend to portray. It’s almost as if an American says, ‘I won’t let you get too close to me.’ It’s like building a wall.” Turkey: “Once we were out in a rural area in the middle of nowhere and saw an American come to a stop sign. Though he could see in both directions for miles and no traffic was coming, he still stopped!” Colombia: “The tendency in the United States to think that life is only work hits you in the face. Work seems to be the one type of motivation.” Indonesia: “In the United States everything has to be talked about and analyzed. Even the littlest thing has to be ‘Why, Why, Why?’ I get a headache from such persistent questions.” Ethiopia: “The American is very explicit; he wants a ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ If someone tries to speak figuratively, the American is confused.” Iran: “The first time . . . my [American] professor told me, ‘I don’t know the answer, I will have to look it up,’ I was shocked. I asked myself, ‘Why is he teaching me?’ In my country a professor would give the wrong answer rather than admit ignorance.” Source: J. Feig and G. Blair, There Is a Difference, 2nd ed. (Washington: Meridian House International). Meridian House International is an organization that conducts intercultural training for visitors to the United States and for Americans going abroad. (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA-NC-SA 4.0 license) When examining these comments, consider the extent to which you think these perceptions and stereotypes are accurate or inaccurate. Why do people in different countries form such divergent opinions of our country? How do their perceptions color the behavior and effectiveness of American managers working abroad? On the basis of this assessment, you might want to reassess your own stereotypes of people in different countries. How accurate do you think your own stereotypes have been? Selective Perception Selective perception is the process by which we systematically screen out information we don’t wish to hear, focusing instead on more salient information. Saliency here is obviously a function of our own experiences, needs, and orientations. The example of the Dearborn and Simon Dearborn and Simon, op. cit. study of managers described earlier provides an excellent glimpse of selective perception. Production managers focused on production problems to the exclusion of other problems. Accountants, personnel specialists, and sales managers were similarly exclusive. Everyone saw his own specialty as more important in the company than other specialties. Another example of selective perception in groups and organizations is provided by Miner. J. B. Miner, Organizational Behavior 2: Essentials Theories of Process and Structure (Routledge, 2015). Miner summarizes a series of experiments dealing with groups competing on problem-solving exercises. Consistently, the groups tended to evaluate their own solutions as better than the solutions proposed by others. Such findings resemble a syndrome found in many research organizations. There is a frequent tendency for scientists to view ideas or products originating outside their organization or department as inferior and to judge other researchers as less competent and creative than themselves. This is often referred to as the “Not-Invented-Here” syndrome. Similar patterns of behavior can be found among managers, service workers, and secretaries. Perceptual Defense A final barrier to social perception is perceptual defense . Levine and Shefner, op. cit. Perceptual defense is founded on three related principles: Emotionally disturbing or threatening stimuli have a higher recognition threshold than neutral stimuli. Such stimuli are likely to elicit substitute perceptions that are radically altered so as to prevent recognition of the presented stimuli. These critical stimuli arouse emotional reactions even though the stimuli are not recognized. In other words, through perceptual defense we tend to distort or ignore information that is either personally threatening or culturally unacceptable. Because emotionally disturbing stimuli have a higher recognition threshold, people are less likely to fully confront or acknowledge the threat. Instead, they may see entirely different or even erroneous stimuli that are safer. Even so, the presence of the critical stimulus often leads to heightened emotions despite the lack of recognition. For instance, suppose that during a contract negotiation for an assembly plant, word leaked out that because of declining profits, the plant might have to close down permanently. Anxious workers might ignore this message and instead choose to believe the company management is only starting false rumors to increase their leverage during wage negotiations. Even if the leverage claim is accepted by the workers as truth, strong emotional reactions against the company can be expected. One effect of perceptual defense is to save us from squarely facing events that we either do not wish to handle or may be incapable of handling. We dissipate our emotions by directing our attention to other (substitute) objects and hope the original event that distressed us will eventually disappear. Perceptual defense is especially pronounced when people are presented with a situation that contradicts their long-held beliefs and attitudes. In a classic study of perceptual defense among college students, Haire and Grunes presented the students with descriptions of factory workers. Included in these descriptions was the word intelligent . Because the word was contrary to the students’ beliefs concerning factory workers, they chose to reject the description by using perceptual defenses. M. Haire and W. Grunes, “Perceptual Defenses: Processes Protecting an Organized Perception of Another’s Personality,” Human Relations, 1950, 3 , pp. 403–412. Four such defense mechanisms can be identified: Ibid., p. 409. Denial . A few of the subjects denied the existence of intelligence in factory workers. Modification and distortion . This was one of the most frequent forms of defense. The pattern was to explain away the perceptual conflict by joining intelligence with some other characteristics—for instance, “He is intelligent but doesn’t possess initiative to rise above his group.” Change in perception . Many students changed their perception of the worker because of the intelligence characteristic. Most of the change, however, was very subtle—for example, “cracks jokes” became “witty.” Recognition, but refusal to change . A very few students explicitly recognized the conflict between their perception of the worker and the characteristic that was confronting them. For example, one subject stated, “The trait seems to be conflicting . . . most factory workers I have heard about aren’t too intelligent.” Perceptual defense makes any situation in which conflict is likely to be present more difficult. It creates blind causes us to fail to hear and see events as they really are. The challenge for managers is to reduce or minimize the perception of threat in a situation so these defenses are not immediately called into play. This can be accomplished by reassuring people that things that are important to them will not be tampered with, or by accentuating the positive. What are the barriers that can inhibit the accuracy of our perception? What are the cultural factors that can influence perception? What is perceptual defense, and what are examples of the mechanisms that can be identified? How can managers and organizations minimize the negative impact of stereotypes and other barriers to accurate social perception in interpersonal relations? Stereotyping is a tendency to assign attributes to people solely on the basis of their class or category. Selective perception is a process by which we systematically screen or discredit information we don’t wish to hear and instead focus on more salient information. Perceptual defense is a tendency to distort or ignore information that is either personally threatening or culturally unacceptable. Perceptual defense A defense that perceives emotionally disturbing or threatening stimuli as having a higher recognition threshold than neutral stimuli. Such stimuli are likely to elicit substitute perceptions that are radically altered so as to prevent recognition of the presented stimuli that arouse emotional reactions even though the stimuli are not recognized. Selective perception The process by which we systematically screen out information we don’t wish to hear, focusing instead on more salient information. Stereotyping A tendency to assign attributes to people solely on the basis of their class or category.

Business


Attributions: Interpreting the Causes of Behavior How do people attribute credit and blame for organizational events? A major influence on how people behave is the way they interpret the events around them. People who feel they have control over what happens to them are more likely to accept responsibility for their actions than those who feel control of events is out of their hands. The cognitive process by which people interpret the reasons or causes for their behavior is described by attribution theory . H. H. Kelley, “The Process of Causal Attributions,” American Psychologist , February 1973, pp. 107–128; F. Forsterling, “Attributional Retraining: A Review,” Psychological Bulletin, November 1985, pp. 495–512; B. Weiner, Human Motivation (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1980). Specifically, “attribution theory concerns the process by which an individual interprets events as being caused by a particular part of a relatively stable environment.” Kelley, op. cit., p. 193. Attribution theory is based largely on the work of Fritz Heider. Heider argues that behavior is determined by a combination of internal forces (e.g., abilities or effort) and external forces (e.g., task difficulty or luck). Following the cognitive approach of Lewin and Tolman, he emphasizes that it is perceived determinants, rather than actual ones, that influence behavior. Hence, if employees perceive that their success is a function of their own abilities and efforts, they can be expected to behave differently than they would if they believed job success was due to chance. The Attribution Process The underlying assumption of attribution theory is that people are motivated to understand their environment and the causes of particular events. If individuals can understand these causes, they will then be in a better position to influence or control the sequence of future events. This process is diagrammed in . Specifically, attribution theory suggests that particular behavioral events (e.g., the receipt of a promotion) are analyzed by individuals to determine their causes. This process may lead to the conclusion that the promotion resulted from the individual’s own effort or, alternatively, from some other cause, such as luck. Based on such cognitive interpretations of events, individuals revise their cognitive structures and rethink their assumptions about causal relationships. For instance, an individual may infer that performance does indeed lead to promotion. Based on this new structure, the individual makes choices about future behavior. In some cases, the individual may decide to continue exerting high levels of effort in the hope that it will lead to further promotions. On the other hand, if an individual concludes that the promotion resulted primarily from chance and was largely unrelated to performance, a different cognitive structure might be created, and there might be little reason to continue exerting high levels of effort. In other words, the way in which we perceive and interpret events around us significantly affects our future behaviors. The General Attribution Process (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA-NC-SA 4.0 license) Internal and External Causes of Behavior Building upon the work of Heider, Harold Kelley attempted to identify the major antecedents of internal and external attributions. Ibid. He examined how people determine—or, rather, how they actually perceive—whether the behavior of another person results from internal or external causes. Internal causes include ability and effort, whereas external causes include luck and task ease or difficulty. Ibid. Kelley’s conclusion, illustrated in , is that people actually focus on three factors when making causal attributions: Causes of Internal and External Attributions Adapted from Nyla Branscombe and Robert A. Baron. Social Psychology . Fourteenth Edition, 2016, Pearson. (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA-NC-SA 4.0 license) Consensus . The extent to which you believe that the person being observed is behaving in a manner that is consistent with the behavior of his or her peers. High consensus exists when the person’s actions reflect or are similar to the actions of the group; low consensus exists when the person’s actions do not. Consistency . The extent to which you believe that the person being observed behaves consistently—in a similar fashion—when confronted on other occasions with the same or similar situations. High consistency exists when the person repeatedly acts in the same way when faced with similar stimuli. Distinctiveness. The extent to which you believe that the person being observed would behave consistently when faced with different situations. Low distinctiveness exists when the person acts in a similar manner in response to different stimuli; high distinctiveness exists when the person varies his or her response to different situations. How do these three factors interact to influence whether one’s attributions are internal or external? According to the exhibit, under conditions of high consensus, high consistency, and high distinctiveness, we would expect the observer to make external attributions about the causes of behavior. That is, the person would attribute the behavior of the observed (say, winning a golf tournament) to good fortune or some other external event. On the other hand, when consensus is low, consistency is high, and distinctiveness is low, we would expect the observer to attribute the observed behavior (winning the golf tournament) to internal causes (the winner’s skill). In other words, we tend to attribute the reasons behind the success or failure of others to either internal or external causes according to how we interpret the underlying forces associated with the others’ behavior. Consider the example of the first female sales manager in a firm to be promoted to an executive rank. How do you explain her promotion—luck and connections or ability and performance? To find out, follow the model. If she, as a sales representative, had sold more than her (male) counterparts (low consensus in behavior), consistently sold the primary product line in different sales territories (high consistency), and was also able to sell different product lines (low distinctiveness), we would more than likely attribute her promotion to her own abilities. On the other hand, if her male counterparts were also good sales representatives (high consensus) and her sales record on secondary products was inconsistent (high distinctiveness), people would probably attribute her promotion to luck or connections, regardless of her sales performance on the primary product line (high consistency). Golf What internal and external attributions can you make about this golfer who is celebrating a hole in one? (Notice the untied shoe.) (Credit: John Fink/ flickr/ Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0)) Attributional Bias One final point should be made with respect to the attributional process. In making attributions concerning the causes of behavior, people tend to make certain errors of interpretation. Two such errors, or attribution biases , should be noted here. The first is called the fundamental attribution error . This error is a tendency to underestimate the effects of external or situational causes of behavior and to overestimate the effects of internal or personal causes. Hence, when a major problem occurs within a certain department, we tend to blame people rather than events or situations. The second error in attribution processes is generally called the self-serving bias . There is a tendency, not surprisingly, for individuals to attribute success on an event or project to their own actions while attributing failure to others. Hence, we often hear sales representatives saying, “ I made the sale,” but “ They stole the sale from me” rather than “I lost it.” These two biases in interpreting how we see the events around us help us understand why employees looking at the same event often see substantially different things. What is attribution theory? Describe the attribution process. What are the internal and external causes of attribution? How do people attribute credit and blame for organizational events? Attribution theory concerns the process by which individuals attempt to make sense of the cause-effect relationships in their life space. Events are seen as being either internally caused (that is, by the individual) or externally caused (that is, by other factors in the environment). In making causal attributions, people tend to focus on three factors: consensus, consistency, and distinctiveness. The fundamental attribution error is a tendency to underestimate the effects of external or situational causes of behavior and overestimate the effects of personal causes. The self-serving bias is a tendency for people to attribute success on a project to themselves while attributing failure to others. Attribution biases Covers both the fundamental attribution error and the self-serving bias. Attribution theory Concerns the process by which an individual interprets events as being caused by a particular part of a relatively stable environment. Fundamental attribution error The tendency to underestimate the effects of external or situational causes of behavior and to overestimate the effects of internal or personal causes. Self-serving bias The tendency for individuals to attribute success on an event or project to their own actions while attributing failure to others.

Business


Attitudes and Behavior How can a work environment characterized by positive work attitudes be created and maintained? Closely related to the topic of perception and attribution—indeed, largely influenced by it—is the issue of attitudes. An attitude can be defined as a predisposition to respond in a favorable or unfavorable way to objects or persons in one’s environment. Based on G. W. Allport, “Attitudes,” in C. Murchison, ed., Handbook of Social Psychology (Worcester: Clark University Press, 1935). When we like or dislike something, we are, in effect, expressing our attitude toward the person or object. Three important aspects of this definition should be noted. First, an attitude is a hypothetical construct; that is, although its consequences can be observed, the attitude itself cannot. Second, an attitude is a unidimensional concept: An attitude toward a particular person or object ranges on a continuum from very favorable to very unfavorable. We like something or we dislike something (or we are neutral). Something is pleasurable or unpleasurable. In all cases, the attitude can be evaluated along a single evaluative continuum. And third, attitudes are believed to be related to subsequent behavior. We will return to this point later in the discussion. An attitude can be thought of as composed of three highly interrelated components: (1) a cognitive component, dealing with the beliefs and ideas a person has about a person or object; (2) an affective component ( affect ), dealing with a person’s feelings toward the person or object; and (3) an intentional component, dealing with the behavioral intentions a person has with respect to the person or object. Jain, Triandis, and Weick op. cit. Now that we know what an attitude is, let us consider how attitudes are formed and how they influence behavior. A general model of the relationship between attitudes and behavior is shown in . As can be seen, attitudes lead to behavioral intentions, which, in turn, lead to actual behavior. Following behavior, we can often identify efforts by the individual to justify his behavior. Let us examine each of these components of the model separately, beginning with the process of attitude formation. Relationship between Attitudes and Behavior (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA-NC-SA 4.0 license) How Are Attitudes Formed? There is considerable disagreement about this question. One view offered by psychologist Barry Staw and others is the dispositional approach , B. M. Staw and J. Ross, “Stability in the Midst of Change: A Dispositional Approach to Job Attitudes,” Journal of Applied Psychology , 1985, 70, pp. 469–480. which argues that attitudes represent relatively stable predispositions to respond to people or situations around them. That is, attitudes are viewed almost as personality traits. Thus, some people would have a tendency—a predisposition—to be happy on the job, almost regardless of the nature of the work itself. Others may have an internal tendency to be unhappy, again almost regardless of the actual nature of the work. Evidence in support of this approach can be found in a series of studies that found that attitudes change very little among people before and after they make a job change. To the extent that these findings are correct, managers may have little influence over improving job attitudes short of trying to select and hire only those with appropriate dispositions. A second approach to attitude formation is called the situational approach . This approach argues that attitudes emerge as a result of the uniqueness of a given situation. They are situationally determined and can vary in response to changing work conditions. Thus, as a result of experiences at work (a boring or unrewarding job, a bad supervisor, etc.), people react by developing appropriate attitudes. Several variations on this approach can be identified. Some researchers suggest that attitudes result largely from the nature of the job experience itself. That is, an employee might reason: “I don’t get along well with my supervisor; therefore, I become dissatisfied with my job.” To the extent that this accurately describes how attitudes are formed, it also implies that attitudes can be changed relatively easily. For example, if employees are dissatisfied with their job because of conflicts with supervisors, either changing supervisors or changing the supervisors’ behavior may be viable means of improving employee job attitudes. In other words, if attitudes are largely a function of the situation, then attitudes can be changed by altering the situation. Other advocates of the situational approach suggest a somewhat more complicated process of attitude formation—namely, the social-information-processing approach . This view, developed by Pfeffer and Salancik, asserts that attitudes result from “socially constructed realities” as perceived by the individual (see ). G. Salancik and J. Pfeffer, “A Social Information Processing Approach to Job Attitudes and Task Design,” Administrative Science Quarterly , 1978, 23, pp. 224–253. That is, the social context in which the individual is placed shapes his perceptions of the situation and hence his attitudes. A Social-Information-Processing View of Attitudes (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA-NC-SA 4.0 license) Here is how it works. Suppose a new employee joins a work group consisting of people who have worked together for some time. The existing group already has opinions and feelings about the fairness of the supervisor, the quality of the workplace, the adequacy of the compensation, and so forth. Upon arriving, the new worker is fed socially acceptable cues from co-workers about acceptable attitudes toward various aspects of the work and company. Thus, due in part to social forces, the new employee begins to form attitudes based on externally provided bits of information from the group instead of objective attributes of the workplace. If the social-information-processing perspective is correct, changing the attitudes of one person will be difficult unless the individual is moved to a different group of coworkers or unless the attitudes of the current coworkers are changed. Which approach is correct? In point of fact, research indicates that both the dispositional and the social-information-processing views have merit, and it is probably wise to recognize that socially constructed realities and dispositions interact to form the basis for an individual’s attitudes at work. The implication of this combined perspective for changing attitudes is that efforts should not assume that minor alterations in the situation will have significant impacts on individual attitudes, but that systematic efforts focusing on groups and interconnected social systems are likely required for successful changes in attitudes. Behavioral Intentions and Actual Behavior Regardless of how the attitudes are formed (either through the dispositional or social-information-processing approach), the next problem we face is understanding how resulting behavioral intentions guide actual behavior (return to ). Clearly, this relationship is not a perfect one. Despite one’s intentions, various internal and external constraints often serve to modify an intended course of action. Hence, even though you decide to join the union, you may be prevented from doing so for a variety of reasons. Similarly, a person may have every intention of coming to work but may get the flu. Regardless of intent, other factors that also determine actual behavior often enter the picture. Behavioral Justification Finally, people often feel a need for behavioral justification to ensure that their behaviors are consistent with their attitudes toward the event (see ). This tendency is called cognitive consistency . L. Festinger, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1957). When people find themselves acting in a fashion that is inconsistent with their attitudes—when they experience cognitive dissonance —they experience tension and attempt to reduce this tension and return to a state of cognitive consistency. For example, a manager may hate his job but be required to work long hours. Hence, he is faced with a clear discrepancy between an attitude (dislike of the job) and a behavior (working long hours) and will probably experience cognitive dissonance. In order to become cognitively consistent, he can do one of two things. First, he can change his behavior and work fewer hours. However, this may not be feasible. Alternatively, he can change his attitude toward the job to a more positive one. He may, for example, convince himself that the job is really not that bad and that working long hours may lead to rapid promotion. In doing so, he achieves a state of cognitive consistency. Failure to do so will more than likely lead to increased stress and withdrawal from the job situation. What is attitude, and how does it impact the work environment? What is behavioral justification? How can a work environment characterized by positive work attitudes be created and maintained? An attitude can be defined as a predisposition to respond in a favorable or unfavorable way to objects or persons in one’s environment. There are two theories concerning the manner in which attitudes are formed. The first, called the dispositional approach, asserts that attitudes are fairly stable tendencies to respond to events in certain ways, much like personality traits. Thus, some people may be happy on almost any job regardless of the nature of the job. The second, called the situational approach, asserts that attitudes result largely from the particular situation in which the individual finds himself. Thus, some jobs may lead to more favorable attitudes than others. The social-information-processing approach to attitudes is a situational model that suggests that attitudes are strongly influenced by the opinions and assessments of coworkers. Cognitive consistency is a tendency to think and act in a predictable manner. Cognitive dissonance occurs when our actions and our attitudes are in conflict. This dissonance will motivate us to attempt to return to a state of cognitive consistency, where attitudes and behaviors are congruent. Affect Dealing with a person’s feelings toward the person or object. Attitude A predisposition to respond in a favorable or unfavorable way to objects or persons in one’s environment. Behavioral justification The need to ensure that one’s behaviors are consistent with their attitudes toward the event. Cognitive consistency The need for behavioral justification to ensure that a person’s behaviors are consistent with their attitudes toward an event. Cognitive dissonance Finding one’s self acting in a fashion that is inconsistent with their attitudes and experiencing tension and attempting to reduce this tension and return to a state of cognitive consistency. Dispositional approach Argues that attitudes represent relatively stable predispositions to respond to people or situations around them. Situational approach This approach argues that attitudes emerge as a result of the uniqueness of a given situation. Social-information-processing approach Asserts that attitudes result from “socially constructed realities” as perceived by the individual.

Business