DCCHAPTER TWO

FOUNDATIONS OF INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOUR

INTRODUCTION
In this chapter we explore some of the key foundations of individual behavior that differentiate
people work performance from one another in organizations. First we examine the role of
perception in organizations. We then look at elements of people’s personalities that can
influence behavior and consider individual attitudes and their role in organizations. Next, we
examine learning in organizations. We close each chapter with examination of various kinds of
workplace behaviors that affect organizational performance with their managerial implication.

2.1 Perception

Perception can be defined as a process by which individuals organize and interpret their sensory
impressions in order to give meaning to their environment. However, what one perceives can be
substantially different from objective reality. It need not be, but there is often disagreement. For
example, it's possible that all employees in a firm may view it as a great place to work-favorable
working conditions, interesting job assignments, good pay, an understanding and responsible
management-but, as most of us know it's very unusual to find such agreement.
Why is perception important in the study of OB? Simply because people's environment behavior
is based on their perception of what reality is, not on reality itself. The world as it is perceived is
the world that is behaviorally important.

2.1.1 Factors Influencing Perception

How do we explain that individuals may look at the same thing, yet perceive it differently? A
number of factors operate to shape and sometimes distort perception. These factors can reside in
the perceiver, in the object or target being perceived, or in the context of the situation in which
the perception is made.

1. The Perceiver

Page | 1
When an individual looks at a target and attempts to interpret what he or she sees, that
interpretation is heavily influenced by personal characteristics of the individual perceiver. Have
you ever bought a new car and then suddenly noticed a large number of cars like yours on the
road? It is unlikely that the number of such cars suddenly expanded. Rather, your own purchase
has influenced your perception so that you are now more likely to notice them. This is an
example of how factors related to the perceiver influence what he or she perceives. Among the
more relevant personal characteristics affecting perception are attitudes, motives, interests, past
experiences, and expectations.
Unsatisfied needs or motives stimulate individuals and may exert a strong influence on their
perceptions. This fact was dramatically demonstrated in research on hunger. Individuals in the
study had not eaten for varying numbers of hours. Some had eaten an hour earlier; others had
gone as long as 16 hours without food. These subjects were shown blurred pictures and the
results indicated that the extent of hunger influenced the interpretation of the blurred pictures.
Those who had not eaten for 16 hours perceived the blurred images as pictures of food far more
frequently than did those subjects who had eaten only a short time earlier.
The focus of our attention appears to be influenced by our interests. Because our individual
interests differ considerably, what one person notices in a situation can differ from what others
perceive.
Just as interests narrow one's focus, so do one's past experiences. You perceive those things to
which you can relate. However, in many instances, your past experiences will act to nullify an
object's interest.
Finally, expectations can distort your perceptions in that you will see what you expect to see.
2. The Target
Characteristics of the target that is being observed can affect what is perceived. Loud people are
more likely to be noticed in a group than are quiet ones. So, too, are extremely attractive or
unattractive individuals. Motion, sounds, size, and other attributes of a target shape the way we
see it.
Because targets are not looked at in isolation, the relationship of a target to its background
influences perception, as does our tendency to group close things and similar things together.
What we see depends on how we separate a figure from its general back- ground. For instance,
what you see as you read this sentence is black letters on a white page. You do not see funny-

Page | 2
shaped patches of black and white because you recognize these shapes and organize the black
shapes against the white back- ground.
Objects that are close to each other will tend to be perceived together rather than separately. As a
result of physical or time proximity, we often put together objects or events that are unrelated.
Persons, objects, or events that are similar to each other also tend to be grouped together. The
greater the similarity, the greater the probability that we will tend to perceive them as a common
group. Women, blacks, or members of any other group that has clearly distinguishable
characteristics in terms of features or color will tend to be perceived as alike in other, unrelated
characteristics as well.
3. The Situation
The context in which we see objects or events is important. Elements in the surrounding
environment influence our perceptions.
Again, the situation affects your perception. The time at which an object or event is seen can
influence attention, as can location, light, heat, or any number of situational factors.

2.1.2 Person Perception: Attribution Theory

Now we turn to the most relevant application of perception concepts to OB. This is the issue of
person perception.
Our perceptions of people differ from our perceptions of inanimate objects such as desks,
machines, or buildings because we make inferences about the actions of people that we do not
make about inanimate objects. Nonliving objects are subject to the laws of nature, but they have
no beliefs, motives, or intentions. People do. The result is that when we observe people, we
attempt to develop explanations of why they behave in certain ways. Our perception and
judgment of a person's actions, therefore, will be significantly influenced by the assumptions we
make about that person's internal state.
Attribution theory has been proposed to develop explanations of the ways in which we judge
people differently, depending on what meaning we attribute to a given behavior. Basically, the
theory suggests that when we observe an individual's behavior, we attempt to determine whether
it was internally or externally caused. That determination, however, depends largely on three
factors: (1) distinctiveness, (2) consensus, and (3) consistency. First, let's clarify the differences

Page | 3
between internal and external causation and then we will elaborate on each of the three
determining factors.
Internally caused behaviors are those that are believed to be under the personal control of the
individual. Externally caused behavior is seen as resulting from outside causes; that is, the
person is seen as having been forced into the behavior by the situation. If one of your employees
is late for work, you might attribute his lateness to his partying into the wee hours of the morning
and then oversleeping. This would be an internal attribution. But if you attribute his arriving late
to a major automobile accident that tied up traffic on the road that this employee regularly uses,
then you would be making an external attribution.

Distinctiveness: It refers to whether an individual displays different behaviors in different

situations. Is the employee who arrives late today also the source of complaints by co-workers
for being a "goof-off"? What we want to know is whether this behavior is unusual. If it is, the
observer is likely to give the behavior an external attribution. If this action is not unusual, it will
probably be judged as internal.

Consensus: If everyone who is faced with a similar situation responds in the same way, we can
say the behavior shows consensus. Our late employee's behavior would meet this criterion if all
employees who took the same route to work were also late. From an attribution perspective, if
consensus is high, you would be expected to give an external attribution to the employee's
tardiness, whereas if other employees who took the same route made it to work on time, your
conclusion as to causation would be internal.

Consistency: Finally, an observer looks for consistency in a person's actions. Does the person
respond the same way over time? Coming in 10 minutes late for work is not perceived in the
same way for the employee for whom it is an unusual case (she has not been late for several
months) as it is for the employee for whom it is part of a routine pattern (she is regularly late two
or three times a week). The more consistent the behavior, the more the observer is inclined to
attribute it to internal causes.

Fundamental Attribution Error

Page | 4
One of the more interesting findings from attribution theory is that there are errors or biases that
distort attributions. For instance, there is substantial evidence that when we make judgments
about the behavior of other people, we have a tendency to underestimate the influence of external
factors and overestimate the influence of internal or personal factors. This is called the
fundamental attribution error and can explain why a sales manager is prone to attribute the poor
performance of her sales agents to laziness rather than to the innovative product line introduced
by a competitor. There is also a tendency for individuals to attribute their own successes to
internal factors such as ability or effort while putting the blame for failure on external factors
such as luck. This is called the self-serving bias and suggests that feedback provided to
employees in performance reviews will be predictably distorted by recipients depending on
whether it is positive or negative.

Are these errors or biases that distort attributions universal across different cultures? We can't
answer that question definitively, but there is some preliminary evidence that indicates cultural
differences.

Frequently Used Shortcuts in Judging Others

We use a number of shortcuts when we judge others. Perceiving and interpreting what others do
is burdensome. As a result, individuals develop techniques for making the task more
manageable. These techniques are frequently valuable- they allow us to make accurate
perceptions rapidly and provide valid data for making predictions. However, they are not
foolproof. They can and do get us into trouble. An understanding of these shortcuts can be
helpful toward recognizing when they can result in significant distortions.

Selective Perception: Any characteristic that makes a person, object, or event stand out will
increase the probability that it will be perceived. Why? Because it is impossible for us to
assimilate everything, we see-only certain stimuli can be taken in. This tendency explains why,
as we noted earlier, you are more likely to notice cars like your own or why some people may be
reprimanded by their boss for doing something that, when done by another employee, goes
unnoticed. Since we can't observe everything going on about us, we engage in perception.

Page | 5
But how does selectivity work as a shortcut in judging other people? Since we cannot assimilate
all that we observe, we take in bits and pieces. But those bits and pieces are not chosen
randomly; rather, they are selectively chosen according to our interests, background, experience,
and attitudes. Selective perception allows us to "speed-read" others, but not without the risk of
drawing an inaccurate picture. Because we see what we want to see, we can draw unwarranted
conclusions from an ambiguous situation. If there is a rumor going around the office that your
company's sales are down and that large layoffs may be coming, a routine visit by a senior
executive from headquarters might be interpreted as the first step in management's identification
of people to be fired, when in reality such an action may be the furthest thing from the mind of
the senior executive.

Halo Effect: When we draw a general impression about an individual, on the basis of a single
characteristic, such as intelligence, sociability, or appearance, a halo effect is operating. This
phenomenon frequently occurs when students appraise their classroom instructor. Students may
give prominence to a single trait such as enthusiasm and allow their entire evaluation to be
tainted by how they judge the instructor on that one trait. Thus, an instructor may be quiet,
assured, knowledgeable, and highly qualified, but if his style lacks zeal, those students would
probably give him a low rating.

The reality of the halo effect was confirmed in a classic study in which subjects were given a list
of traits such as intelligent, skillful, practical, industrious, determined, and warm and were asked
to evaluate the person to whom those traits applied. When those traits were used, the person was
judged to be wise, humorous, popular, and imaginative. When the same list was modified-cold
was substituted for warm-a completely different set of perceptions was obtained. Clearly, the
subjects were allowing a single trait to influence their overall impression of the person being
judged.

The tendency for the halo effect to operate is not random. Research suggests that it is likely to be
most extreme when the traits to be perceived are ambiguous in behavioral terms, when the traits
have moral overtones, and when the perceiver is judging traits with which he or she has had
limited experience.

Page | 6
Contrast Effects: There’s an old saying among entertainers who perform in variety shows:
Never follow an act that has kids or animals in it. Why? The common belief is that audience’
love children and animals so much that you'll look bad in comparison. This example
demonstrates how contrast effects can distort perceptions. We don't evaluate a person in
isolation. Our reaction to one person is influenced by other persons we have recently
encountered.

An illustration of how contrast effects operate is an interview situation in which one sees a pool
of job applicants. Distortions in any given candidate's evaluation can occur as a result of his or
her place in the interview schedule. The candidate is likely to receive a more favorable
evaluation if preceded by mediocre applicants and a less favorable evaluation I preceded by
strong applicants.

Projection: It's easy to judge others if we assume that they're similar to us. For instance, if you
want challenge and responsibility in your job, you assume that others want the same. Or, you're
honest and trustworthy, so you take it for granted that other people are equally honest and
trustworthy. This tendency to attribute one's own characteristics to other people-which is called
projection-can distort perceptions made about others.

People who engage in projection tend to perceive others according to what they themselves are
like rather than according to what the person being observed is really like. When observing
others who actually are like them, these observers are quite accurate-not because they are
perceptive but because they always judge people as being similar to them, so when they finally
do find someone who is like them, they are naturally correct. When managers engage in
projection, they compromise their ability to respond to individual differences. They tend to see
people as more homogeneous than they really are.

Stereotyping: When we judge someone on the basis of our perception of the group to which he
or she belongs, we are using the shortcut called stereotyping.

Generalization, of course, is not without advantages. It is a means of simplifying a complex

world, and it permits us to maintain consistency. It is less difficult to deal with an unmanageable
number of stimuli if we use stereotypes. As an example, assume you are a sales manager looking

Page | 7
to fill a sales position in your territory. You want to hire someone who is ambitious and hard
working and who can deal well with adversity. You have had good success in the past by hiring
individuals who participated in athletics during college. So you focus your search by looking for
candidates who participated in collegiate athletics. In so doing, you have cut down considerably
on your search time. Furthermore, to the extent that athletes are ambitious, hardworking, and
able to deal with adversity, the use of this stereotype can improve your decision making. The
problem, of course, is when we inaccurately stereotype. All college athletes are not necessarily
ambitious, hardworking, or good at dealing with adversity. In organizations, we frequently hear
comments that represent stereotypes based on gender, age, race, ethnicity, and even weight:
"Women won't relocate for a promotion"; "men aren't interested in child care"; "older workers
can't learn new skills"; "Asian immigrants are hardworking and conscientious"; "overweight
people lack discipline." From a perceptual standpoint, if people expect to see these stereotypes,
that are what they will perceive, whether they are accurate or not.

Obviously, one of the problems of stereotypes is that they are widespread, despite the fact that
they may not contain a shred of truth or that they may be irrelevant. Their being widespread may
mean only that many people are making the same inaccurate perception on the basis of a false
premise about a group.

2.1.3 Specific Applications in Organizations

People in organizations are always judging each other. Managers must appraise their employees'
performances. We evaluate how much effort our co-workers are putting into their jobs. When a
new person joins a work team, he or she is immediately "sized up" by the other team members.
In many cases, these judgments have important consequences for the organization. Let us briefly
look at a few of the more obvious applications.

Employment Interview: A major input into who is hired and who is rejected in any organization
is the employment interview. It is fair to say that few people are hired without an interview. But
the evidence indicates that interviewers make perceptual judgments that are often inaccurate. In
addition, agreement among interviewers is often poor; that is, different interviewers see different
things in the same candidate and thus arrive at different conclusions about the applicant.

Page | 8
Interviewers generally draw early impressions that become very quickly entrenched. If negative
information is exposed early in the interview, it tends to be more heavily weighted than if that
same information comes out later. Studies indicate that most interviewers' decisions change very
little after the first four or five minutes of the interview. As a result, information elicited early in
the interview carries greater weight than does information elicited later, and a "good applicant" is
probably characterized more by the absence of unfavorable characteristics than by the presence
of favorable characteristics.

Importantly, who you think is a good candidate and who I think is one may differ markedly.
Because interviews usually have so little consistent structure and interviewers vary in terms of
what they are looking for in a candidate, judgments of the same candidate can vary widely. If the
employment interview is an important input into the hiring decision-and it usually is-you should
recognize that perceptual factors influence who is hired and eventually the quality of an
organization's labor force.

Performance Expectations: There is an impressive amount of evidence that demonstrates that

people will attempt to validate their perceptions of reality, even when those perceptions are
faulty. This characteristic is particularly relevant when we consider performance expectations on
the job.

The terms self-fulfilling prophecy or Pygmalion effect have evolved to characterize the fact that
people's expectations determine their behavior. In other words, if a manager expects big things
from his people, they're not likely to let him down. Similarly, if a manager expects people to
perform minimally, they'll tend to behave so as to meet those low expectations. The result then is
that the expectations become reality.

An interesting illustration of the self-fulfilling prophecy is a study undertaken with 105 soldiers
in the Israeli Defense Forces who were taking a 15-week combat command course. The four
course instructors were told that one-third of the specific incoming trainees had high potential,
one-third had normal potential, and the potential of the rest was unknown. In reality, the trainees
were randomly placed into those categories by the researchers. The results confirmed the
existence of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Those trainees whom instructors were told had high

Page | 9
potential scored significantly higher on objective achievement tests, exhibited more positive
attitudes, and held their leaders in higher regard than did the other two groups. The instructors of
the supposedly high-potential trainees got better results from them because the instructors
expected it!

Performance Evaluation: An employee's performance appraisal is very much dependent on the

perceptual process. An employee's future is closely tied to his or her appraisal-promotions, pay
raises, and continuations of employment are among the most obvious outcomes. The
performance appraisal represents an assessment of an employee's work. Although the appraisal
can be objective (e.g., a salesperson is appraised on how many dollars of sales she generates in
her territory), many jobs are evaluated in subjective terms. Subjective measures are easier to
implement, they provide managers with greater discretion, and many jobs do not readily lend
themselves to objective measures. But subjective measures are, by definition, judgmental. The
evaluator forms a general impression of an employee's work. To the degree that managers use
subjective measures in appraising employees, what the evaluator perceives to be good or bad
employee characteristics or behaviors will significantly influence the outcome of the appraisal.

Employee Effort: An individual's future in an organization is usually not dependent on

performance alone. In many organizations, the level of an employee's effort is given high
importance. Just as teachers frequently consider how hard you try in a course as well as how you
perform on examinations, so often do managers. An assessment of an individual's effort is a
subjective judgment susceptible to perceptual distortions and bias. If it is true, as some claim,
that "more workers are fired for poor attitudes and lack of discipline than for lack of ability",
then appraisal of an employee's effort may be a primary influence on his or her future in the
organization.

Employee Loyalty: Another important judgment that managers make about employees is
whether or not they are loyal to the organization. Despite the general decline in employee
loyalty, few organizations appreciate it when employees, especially those in the managerial
ranks, openly disparage the firm. Furthermore, in some organizations, if the word gets around
that an employee is looking at other employment opportunities outside the firm, that employee
may be labeled as disloyal and so may be cut off from all future advancement opportunities. The

Page | 10
issue is not whether organizations are right in demanding loyalty. The issue is that many do, and
that assessment of an employee's loyalty or commitment is highly judgmental. What is perceived
as loyalty by one decision maker may be seen as excessive conformity by another.

An employee who questions a top-management decision may be seen as disloyal by some, yet
caring and concerned by others. As a case in point, whistle-blowers-individuals who report
unethical practices by their employer to outsiders-typically act out of loyalty to their organization
but are perceived by management as troublemakers.

 Implications for Managers

Individuals behave in a given manner based not on the way their external environment actually is
but, rather, on what they see or believe it to be. An organization may spend millions of dollars to
create a pleasant work environment for its employees. However, in spite of these expenditures, if
an employee believes that his or her job is lousy, that employee will behave accordingly. It is the
employee’s perception of a situation that becomes the basis for his or her behavior. The
employee who perceives his or her supervisor as a hurdle reducer who helps him or her do a
better job and the employee who sees the same supervisor as “big brother, closely monitoring
every motion, to ensure that I keep working” will differ in their behavioral responses to their
supervisor. The difference has nothing to do with the reality of the supervisor’s actions; the
difference in employee behavior is due to different perceptions.

The evidence suggests that what individuals perceive from their work situation will influence
their productivity more than will the situation itself. Whether or not a job is actually interesting
or challenging is irrelevant. Whether or not a manager successfully plans and organizes the work
of his or her subordinates and actually helps them to structure their work more efficiently and
effectively is far less important than how subordinates perceive the manager’s efforts. Similarly,
issues like fair pay for work performed, the validity of performance appraisals, and the adequacy
of working conditions are not judged by employees in a way that assures common perceptions,
nor can we be assured that individuals will interpret conditions about their jobs in a favorable
light. Therefore, to be able to influence productivity, it is necessary to assess how workers
perceive their jobs.

Page | 11
Absenteeism, turnover, and job satisfaction are also reactions to the individual’s perceptions.
Dissatisfaction with working conditions or the belief that there is a lack of promotion
opportunities in the organization are judgments based on attempts to make some meaning out of
one’s job. The employee’s conclusion that a job is good or bad is an interpretation. Managers
must spend time understanding how each individual interprets reality and, where there is a
significant difference between what is seen and what exists, try to eliminate the distortions.
Failure to deal with the differences when individuals perceive the job in negative terms will
result in increased absenteeism and turnover and lower job satisfaction.

2.2 ATTITUDES

Attitudes are evaluative statements-either favorable or unfavorable-concerning objects, people,

or events. They reflect how one feels about something. When I say, "I like my job”, I am
expressing my attitude about work.

Attitudes are not the same as values, but the two are interrelated. You can see this by looking at
the three components of an attitude: cognition, affective, and behavior.

2.2.1 Components of an Attitude

1. Cognitive Component of an attitude

The belief that "discrimination is wrong" is a value statement. Such an opinion is the cognitive
component of an attitude. It sets the stage for the more critical part of an attitude-its affective
component.
2. Affective Component of an attitude
Affective is the emotional or feeling segment of an attitude and is reflected in the statement "I
don't like Jon because he discriminates against minorities." affect can lead to behavioral
outcomes.
3. Behavioral component of an attitude
The behavioral component of an attitude refers to an intention to behave in a certain way toward
someone or something. So, to continue our example, I might choose to avoid Jon because of my
feeling about him.

Page | 12
Viewing attitudes as made up of three components - cognition, affective, and behavior-is helpful
toward understanding their complexity and the potential relationship between attitudes and
behavior. But for clarity's sake, keep in mind that the term attitude essentially refers to the
affective part of the three components.
Also keep in mind that, in contrast to values, your attitudes are less stable. Advertising messages,
for example, attempt to alter your attitudes toward a certain product or service.
In organizations, attitudes are important because they affect job behavior. If workers believe, for
example, that supervisors, auditors, bosses, and time-and-motion engineers are all in conspiracy
to make employees work harder for the same or less money, and then it makes sense to try to
understand how these attitudes were formed, their relationship to actual job behavior, and how
they might be changed.

2.2.2 Types of Job-related Attitudes

A person can have thousands of attitudes, but OB focuses our attention on a very limited number
of job-related attitudes. These job-related attitudes tap positive or negative evaluations that
employees hold about aspects of their work environment. Most of the research in OB has been
concerned with three attitudes: job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational
commitment.

Job Satisfaction: The term job satisfaction refers to an individual's general attitude toward his
or her job. A person with a high level of job satisfaction holds positive attitudes toward the job,
while a person who is dissatisfied with his or her job holds negative attitudes about the job.
When people speak of employee attitudes, more often than not they mean job satisfaction. In
fact, the two are frequently used interchangeably. Because of the high importance OB
researchers have given to job satisfaction.

Characteristics that give Job Satisfaction

 Challenging job: Job should have scope for application of skill, knowledge and initiative.
Above all, it should be meaningful.
 Equitable rewards: Equity and fairness in rewards is more important than the rewards
themselves.

Page | 13
  Supportive working conditions: Good and supportive working conditions are important
for good performance by the employees, and also for increasing their job satisfaction.
 Supportive supervisors and colleagues: Cooperative colleagues and supportive
supervisors motivate the employee to perform better and increase the job satisfaction.
There are considerable number studies that have been conducted on job satisfaction to ascertain
its effect on various aspects of employee behavior. Their important findings are as follows:

A. Satisfaction and Productivity

The available research evidence does not always support the claim “happy workers are the
productive workers.” This seems to be true at the individual level. Though at the organizational
level, some positive relationship is found between these two variables. So, according to Stephens
Robbins, we might conclude that though a happy worker is not always more productive, happy
organizations are.

B. Satisfaction and Absenteeism

There is a consistent negative relationship between satisfaction and absenteeism, but the
correlation is moderate. It certainly makes sense that dissatisfied workers are more likely to miss
work than their satisfied counterpart. Nevertheless, it should be remembered that there are other
factors that might have some impact on this relationship.

C. Satisfaction and Turnover

Satisfaction is also found to be negatively related to turnover. The correlation between the two is
stronger than what is found between satisfaction and absenteeism. Certainly, other factors such
as general market conditions, expectations about alternative job opportunities, and length of
tenure with the organization are important constraints on the actual decision to leave one’s
current job.

D. Other Effects
In addition to those noted above, there are a number of other effects brought about by high job
satisfaction. Highly satisfied employees tend to have better mental health and physical health.
They learn new job-related tasks more quickly and tend to exhibit pro social behaviors such as
helping co-workers and being more cooperative.

Page | 14
Job Involvement: The term job involvement is a more recent addition to the OB literature.
While there isn't complete agreement over what the term means, a workable definition states that
job involvement measures the degree to which a person identifies with his or her job and
considers his or her perceived performance level important to self-worth. Employees with a high
level of job involvement strongly identify with and really care about the kind of work they do.
High levels of job involvement have been found to be related to fewer absences and lower
resignation rates.

Organizational Commitment: The third job attitude we shall discuss is organizational

commitment, which is defined as a state in which an employee identifies with a particular
organization and its goals, and wishes to maintain membership in the organization. So, high job
involvement means with one's specific job, while high organizational commitment means
identifying with one's employing organization.

As with job involvement, the research evidence demonstrates negative relationships between
organizational commitment and both absenteeism and turnover. Organizational commitment is
probably a better predictor because it is a more global and enduring response to the organization
as a whole than is job satisfaction. An employee may be dissatisfied with his or her particular job
and consider it a temporary condition, yet not be dissatisfied with the organization as a whole.
But when dissatisfaction spreads to the organization itself, individuals are more likely to consider
resigning.

2.2.4 Formation of Attitude

How attitudes are formed? How do you develop your attitude? Essentially attitudes are the
outward manifestation of your inner values and beliefs. These develop over time. As you grow
you watch the significant people around you behaving in a particular way; you are being told to
cherish certain things over others and you learn from your teachers and peers and come to value
certain things over other, thus forming your value system. These in turn give rise to development
of your attitudes.

Attitudes help predict work behavior. The following example might help to illustrate it. After
introducing a particular policy, it is found from an attitude survey, that the workers are not too

Page | 15
happy about it. During the subsequent week it is found that the attendance of the employees
drops sharply from the previous standard. Here management may conclude that a negative
attitude toward new work rules led to increased absenteeism.

Attitudes help people to adapt to their work environment. An understanding of attitudes is also
important because attitudes help the employees to get adjusted to their work. If the management
can successfully develop a positive attitude among the employees, they will be better adjusted to
their work.

 Functions of Attitudes

According to Katz, attitudes serve four important functions from the viewpoint of organizational
behavior. These are as follows.

The Adjustment Function. Attitudes often help people to adjust to their work environment.
Well-treated employees tend to develop a positive attitude towards their job, management and
the organization in general while berated and ill-treated organizational members develop a
negative attitude. In other words, attitudes help employees adjust to their environment and form a
basis for future behavior.

Ego-Defensive Function. Attitudes help people to retain their dignity and self- image. When a
young faculty member who is full of fresh ideas and enthusiasm, joins the organization, the older
members might feel somewhat threatened by him. But they tend to disapprove his creative ideas
as ‘crazy’ and ‘impractical’ and dismiss him altogether.

The Value-Expressive Function. Attitudes provide individuals with a basis for expressing their
values. For example, a manager who values hard and sincere work will be more vocal against an
employee who is having a very casual approach towards work.

The Knowledge Function. Attitudes provide standards and frames of reference that allow
people to understand and perceive the world around him. If one has a strong negative attitude
towards the management, whatever the management does, even employee welfare programs can
be perceived as something ‘bad’ and as actually against them.

Page | 16
2.2.5 Cognitive Dissonance Theory: Attitude Follows Behavior

Dissonance means an inconsistency. Cognitive dissonance refers to any incompatibility that an

individual might perceive between two or more of his or her attitudes, or between his or her
behavior and attitudes. Any form of inconsistency is uncomfortable and that individuals will
attempt to reduce the dissonance and, hence, the discomfort. Therefore, individuals will seek a
stable state in which there is a minimum of dissonance.

Of course, no individual can completely avoid dissonance. You know that cheating on your
income tax is wrong, but you "fudge" the numbers a bit every year, and hope you're not audited.

Or you tell y our children to brush after every meal, but you don't.

Desire to reduce dissonance is determined by:

 The importance of the elements creating the dissonance

 The degree of influence the individual believes he or she has control over the elements
 The rewards that may be involved in dissonance

2.3 Personality

2.3.1 What Is Personality?

When we talk of personality, we don't mean that a person has charm, a positive attitude toward
life or a smiling face. When psychologists talk of personality, they mean a dynamic concept
describing the growth and development of a person's whole psychological system. Rather than
looking at parts of the person, personality looks at some aggregate whole that is greater than the
sum of the parts.
Personality is the sum total of ways in which an individual reacts to and interacts with others.
Most often described in terms of measurable traits that a person exhibits such as shy, aggressive,
submissive, lazy, ambitious, loyal, and timid.

Page | 17
Personality is defined as “a unique set of traits and characteristics, relatively stable over time.”
Clearly, personality is unique as each of us has our own personality, different from that of any
other person’s. The definition further suggests that personality does not change from day-to-day.

Over the short-term, our personalities are relatively set or stable. However, definition does not
suggest that personality is somehow rigid, unchangeable and cast in concrete. Definition
recognizes that over a longer term, personality may change. It is most often described in terms of
measurable traits that a person exhibits.

2.3.2 Personality Determinants

An early argument in personality research was whether an individual's personality was the result
of heredity or of environment. Was the personality predetermined at birth, or was it the result of
the individual's interaction with his or her environment? Clearly, there is no simple answer.
Personality appears to be a result of both influences. In addition, today we recognize a third
factor-the situation. Thus, an adult's personality is now generally considered to be made up of
both hereditary and environmental factors, moderated by situational conditions.

Heredity refers to those factors that were determined at conception. Physical stature, facial
attractiveness, gender, temperament, muscle composition and reflexes, energy level, and
biological rhythms are characteristics that are either generally considered to be completely or
substantially influenced by who your parents were, that is, by their biological, physiological, and
inherent psychological makeup. The heredity approach argues that the ultimate explanation of an
individual's personality is the molecular structure of the genes, located in the chromosomes.

Three different streams of research lend some credibility to the argument demand that heredity
plays an important part in determining an individual's personality. The first looks at the genetic
underpinnings of human behavior and temperament among young children. The second
addresses the study of twins who were separated at birth. The third examines the consistency in
job satisfaction over time and across situations.

Recent studies of young children lend strong support to the power of heredity. Evidence
demonstrates that traits such as shyness, fear, and distress are most likely caused by inherited

Page | 18
genetic characteristics. This finding suggests that some personality traits may be built into the
same genetic code that affects factors such as height and hair color.

Researchers have studied more than 100 sets of identical twins who were separated at birth and
raised separately. If heredity played little or no part in determining personality, you would expect
to find few similarities between the separated twins. But the researchers found a lot in common.
For almost every behavioral trait, a significant part of the variation between the twins turned out
to be associated with genetic factors. For instance, one set of twins who had been separated for
39 years and raised 45 miles apart were found to drive the same Furt model and color car, chain-
smoked the same brand of cigarette, owned dogs with the same name, and regularly vacationed
within three blocks of each other in a beach community 1,500 miles away. Researchers have
found that genetics accounts for about 50 percent of the personality differences and more than 30
percent of the variation in occupational and leisure interests.

Further support for the importance of heredity can be found in studies of individual job
satisfaction. Individual job satisfaction is found to be remarkably stable over time. This result is
consistent with what you would expect if satisfaction is determined by something inherent in the
person rather than by external environmental factors.

If personality characteristics were completely dictated by heredity, they would be fixed at birth
and no amount of experience could alter them. If you were relaxed and easygoing as a child, for
example, that would be the result of your genes, and it would not be possible for you to change
those characteristics. But personality characteristics are not completely dictated by heredity.

Environment Among the factors that exert pressures on our personality formation are the culture
in which we are raised, our early conditioning, the norms among our family, friends, and social
groups, and other influences that we experience. The environment to which we are exposed plays
a substantial role in shaping our personalities.

For example, culture establishes the norms, attitudes, and values that are passed along from one
generation to the next and create consistencies over time. An ideology that is intensely fostered
in one culture may have only moderate influence in another.

Page | 19
Careful consideration of the arguments favoring either heredity or environment as the primary
determinant of personality forces the conclusion that both are important. Heredity sets the
parameters or outer limits, but an individual's full potential will be determined by how well he or
she adjusts to the demands and requirements of the environment,

Situation A third factor, the situation, influences the effects of heredity and environment on
personality. An individual's personality, although generally stable and consistent, does change in
different situations. The varying demands of different situations call forth different aspects of
one's personality. We should not, therefore, look at personality patterns in isolation.

It seems only logical to suppose that situations will Influence an individual’s personality, but a
neat classification scheme that would tell us the impact of various types of situations has so far
eluded us. “Apparently we are not yet close to developing a system for clarifying situations so
that they might be systematically studied. However, we do know that certain situations are more
relevant than others in influencing personality.

What is of interest taxonomically is that situations seem to differ substantially in the constraints
they impose on behavior. Some situations (e.g., church, an employment interview) constrain
many behaviors; other situations (e.g., a picnic in a public park) constrain relatively few.

Furthermore, although certain generalizations can be made about personality there are significant
individual differences. As we shall, see, the study of individual differences has come to receive
greater emphasis in personality research, which originally sought out more general, universal
patterns.

2.3.3 Measuring Personality Traits

The early work in the structure of personality revolved around attempts to identify and label
enduring characteristics that describe an individual's behavior. Popular characteristics include
shyness, aggressiveness, submissiveness, laziness, ambition, loyalty, and timidity. These
characteristics, when they are exhibited in a large number of situations, are called Personality
traits. The more consistent the characteristic and the more frequently it occurs in diverse
situations, the more important that trait is in describing the individual.

Page | 20
 1. Early Search for Primary Traits

Efforts to isolate traits have been hindered because there are so many of them. In one study,
17,953 individual traits were identified. It is virtually impossible to predict behavior when such a
large number of traits must be taken into account. As a result, attention has been directed toward
reducing these thousands to a more manageable number.

One researcher isolated 171 traits but concluded that they were superficial and lacking in
descriptive power. What he sought was a reduced set of traits that would identify underlying
patterns. The result was the identification of 16 personality factors, which he called the source,
or primary, traits. These 16 traits have been found to be generally steady and constant sources of
behavior, allowing prediction of an individual's behavior in specific situations by weighing the
characteristics for their situational relevance.

2. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)

One of the most widely used personality frameworks is called the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
(MBTI). It is essentially a 100-question personality test that asks people how they usually feel or
act in particular situations.
On the basis of the answers individuals give to the test, they are classified as extroverted or
introverted (E or I), sensing or intuitive (S or N), thinking or feeling (T or F), and perceiving or
judging (P or J). These classifications are then combined 16 personality types. To illustrate, let's
take several examples.
INTJs are visionaries. They usually have original minds and great drive for their own ideas and
purposes. They are characterized as skeptical, critical, independent, determined, and often
stubborn.
ESTJs are organizers. They are realistic, logical, analytical, decisive, and have a natural head for
business or mechanics. They like to organize and run activities.
The ENTP type is a conceptualizer. He or she is innovative, individualistic, versatile, and
attracted to entrepreneurial ideas. This person tends to be resourceful in solving challenging
problems but may neglect routine assignments. A recent book that profiled 13 contemporary

Page | 21
business people who created super successful firms including Apple Computer, Federal Express,
Honda Motors, Microsoft, Price Club, and Sony found that all 13 are intuitive thinkers (NTs).
This result is particularly interesting because intuitive thinkers represent only about 5 percent of
the population.
Ironically, there is no hard evidence that the MBTI is a valid measure of personality. But lack of
evidence does not seem to deter its use in a wide range of organizations.

3. The Big Five Model

MBTI may lack valid supporting evidence, but that can't be said for the five-factor model of
personality-more typically called the Big Five. In recent years, an impressive body of research
supports that five basic dimensions underlie all others and encompass most of the significant
variation in human personality. The Big Five factors are:

Extraversion - This dimension captures one's comfort level with relationships. Extraverts tend to
be gregarious, assertive, and sociable. Introverts tend to be reserved timid and quiet.

Agreeableness - This dimension refers to an individual’s propensity to defer to others. Highly

agreeable people are cooperative, warm, and trusting. People who score low on agreeableness are
cold, disagreeable, and antagonistic.

Conscientiousness - This dimension is a measure of reliability. A highly conscientious person is

responsible, organized, dependable, and persistent. Those who score low on this dimension are
easily distracted, disorganized, and unreliable.

Emotional stability - This dimension taps a person's ability to withstand stress. People with
positive emotional stability tend to be calm, self-confident, and secure. Those with highly
negative scores tend to be nervous, anxious, depressed, and insecure.

Openness to experience - The final dimension addresses an individual’s range of interests and
fascination with novelty. Extremely open people are creative, curious, and artistically sensitive.
Those at the other end of the openness category are conventional and, find comfort in the
familiar

Page | 22
 Big Five Traits and OB

In addition to providing a unifying personality framework, research on the Big Five also has
found important relationships between these personality dimensions and job performance. A
broad spectrum of occupations was examined: professionals (including engineers, architects,
accountants, and attorneys), police, managers, salespeople, and semiskilled and skilled
employees. Job performance was defined in terms of performance ratings, training proficiency
(performance during training programs), and personnel data such as salary level.

2.3.4 Major Personality Attributes Influencing OB

In this section, we want to evaluate more carefully specific personality attributes that have been
found to be powerful predictors of behavior in organizations. The first is related to where a
person perceives the locus of control to be in his or her life. The others are Machiavellianism,
self-esteem, self-monitoring, and propensity for risk taking. In this section, we shall briefly
introduce attributes and summarize what we know about their ability to explain and predict
employee behavior.

Page | 23
Locus of Control: Some people believe that they are masters of their own fate. Other people see
themselves as pawns of fate, believing that what happens to them in their lives is due to luck or
chance. The first types, those who believe that they control their destinies, have been labeled
internals, whereas the latter, who see their lives as being controlled by outside forces have been
called externals.

A large amount of research comparing internals with externals has consistently shown that
individuals who have high scores in externality are less satisfied with their Jobs, have higher
absenteeism rates, are more alienated from the work setting, and are less involved on their jobs
than are internals.

Why are externals more dissatisfied? The answer is probably because they perceive themselves
as having little control over those organizational outcomes that are important to them. Internals,
facing the same situation, attribute organizational outcomes to their own actions. If the situation
is unattractive, they believe that they have no one else to blame but themselves. Also, the
dissatisfied internal is more likely to quit a dissatisfying job.

The impact of locus of control on absence is an interesting one. Internals believe that health is
substantially under their own control through proper habits, so they take responsibility for their
health and have better health habits. Consequently, their incidences of sickness and, hence, of
absenteeism are lower.

We shouldn't expect any clear relationship between locus of control and turnover because there
are opposing forces at work. On the one hand, internals tend to take action and thus might be
expected to quit jobs more readily. On the other hand, they tend to be more successful on the job
and more satisfied, factors associated with less individual turnover.

The overall evidence indicates that internals generally perform better on their jobs, but that
conclusion should be moderated to reflect differences in jobs. Internals search more actively for
information before making a decision, are more motivated to achieve, and make a greater attempt
to control their environment. Externals, however, are more compliant and willing to follow
directions. Therefore, internals do well on sophisticated tasks-which include most managerial
and professional jobs- that require complex information processing and learning. In addition

Page | 24
internals are more suited to jobs that require initiative and independence of action. Almost all
successful salespeople, for instance, are internals. Why? Because it's pretty difficult to succeed in
sales if you don't believe you can effectively influence outcomes. In contrast, externals should do
well on jobs that are well structured and routine and in which success depends heavily on
complying with the direction of others.

Machiavellianism: The personality characteristic of Machiavellianism (Mach) is named after

Niccolo Machiavelli, who wrote in the sixteenth century on how to gain and use power. An
individual high in Machiavellianism is pragmatic, maintains emotional distance, and believes
that ends can justify means. "If it works, use it" is consistent with a high-Mach perspective.

A considerable amount of research has been directed toward relating high and low-Mach
personalities to certain behavioral outcomes. High Machs manipulate more, win more, are
persuaded less, and persuade others more than do low Machs. Yet these high-Mach outcomes are
moderated by situational factors. It has been found that high Machs flourish (1) when they
interact face-to-face with others rather than indirectly; (2) when the situation has a minimum
number of rules and regulations, thus allowing latitude for improvisation; and (3) when
emotional involvements with details irrelevant to winning distract low Machs.

Should we conclude that high Machs make good employees? That answer depends on the type of
job and whether you consider ethical implications in evaluating performance. In jobs that require
bargaining skills (such as labor negotiation) or that offer substantial rewards for winning (as in
commissioned sales), high Machs will be productive. But if ends can't justify the means, if there
are absolute standards of behavior, or if the three situational factors noted in the preceding
paragraph are not in evidence, our ability to predict a high Mach's performance will be severely
curtailed.

Self-Esteem: People differ in the degree to which they like or dislike themselves. This trait is
called self-esteem. The research on self-esteem (SE) offers some interesting insights into
organizational behavior. For example, self-esteem is directly related to expectations for success.
High SEs believes that they possess the ability they need in order to succeed at work.

Page | 25
Individuals with high self-esteem will take more risks in job selection and are more likely to
choose unconventional jobs than people with low self-esteem.

The most generalizable finding on self-esteem is that low SEs are more susceptible to external
influence than are high SEs. Low SEs depends on the receipt of positive evaluations from others.
As a result, they are more likely to seek approval from others and more prone to conform to the
beliefs and behaviors of those they respect than are high SEs. In managerial positions, low SEs
will tend to be concerned with pleasing others and, therefore, are less likely to take unpopular
stands than are high SEs.

Not surprisingly, self-esteem has also been found to be related to job satisfaction. A number of
studies confirm that high SEs are more satisfied with their jobs than are low SEs.

Self-Monitoring: A personality trait that has recently received increased attention is called self-
monitoring. It refers to an individual's ability to adjust his or her behavior to external, situational
factors.

Individuals high in self-monitoring show considerable adaptability in adjusting their behavior to

external situational factors. They are highly sensitive to external cues and can behave differently
in different situations. High self - monitors are capable of presenting striking contradictions
between their public person and their private self. Low self-monitors can't disguise themselves in
that way. They tend to display their true dispositions and attitudes in every situation; hence, there
is high behavioral consistency between who they are and what they do.

The research on self-monitoring is in its infancy, so predictions must be guarded. However,

preliminary evidence suggests that high self-monitors tend to pay closer attention to the behavior
of others and are more capable of conforming than are low self-monitors. In addition, high self-
monitoring managers tend to be more mobile in their careers and receive more promotions (both
internal and cross-organizational). We might also hypothesize that high self-monitors will be
more successful in managerial positions in which individuals are required to play multiple, and
even contradicting, roles. The high self-monitor is capable of putting on different "faces" for
different audiences.

Page | 26
Risk Taking: People differ in their willingness to take chances. This propensity to assume or
avoid risk has been shown to have an impact on how long it takes managers to make a decision
and how much information they require before making their choice. For instance, 79 managers
worked on simulated personnel exercises that required them to make hiring decisions. High risk-
taking managers made more rapid decisions and used less information in making their choices
than did the low risk-taking managers. Interestingly, the decision accuracy was the same for both
groups.

While it is generally correct to conclude that managers in organizations are risk aversive, there
are still individual differences on this dimension. As a result, it makes sense to recognize these
differences and even to consider aligning risk-taking propensity with specific job demands. For
instance, a high risk-taking propensity may lead to more effective performance for a stock trader
in a brokerage firm because that type of job demands rapid decision making. On the other hand,
a willingness to take risks might prove a major obstacle to an accountant who performs auditing
activities. The latter job might be better filled by someone with a low risk-taking propensity.

2.3.5 Achieving Personality Fit

Twenty years ago, organizations were concerned with personality primarily because they wanted
to match individuals to specific jobs. That concern still exists. But, in recent years, interest has
expanded to include the individual-organization fit. Why? Because managers today are less
interested in an applicant's ability to perform a specific job than with his or her flexibility to meet
changing situations.

The Person-Job Fit: In the discussion of personality attributes, our conclusions were often
qualified to recognize that the requirements of the job moderated the relationship between
possession of the personality characteristic and job performance. This concern with matching the
job requirements with personality characteristics is best articulated in John Holland's personality-
job fit theory. The theory is based on the notion of fit between an individual's personality
characteristics and his or her occupational environment. Holland presents six personality types
and proposes that satisfaction and the propensity to leave a job depend on the degree to which
individuals successfully match their personalities to an occupational environment.

Page | 27
Each one of the six personality types has a congruent occupational environment. Holland has
developed a Vocational Preference Inventory questionnaire that contains 160 occupational titles.
Respondents indicate which of these occupations they like or dislike, and their answers are used
to form personality profiles.

What does all this mean? The theory argues that satisfaction is highest and turnover lowest when
personality and occupation are in agreement. Social individuals should be in social jobs,
conventional people in conventional jobs, and so forth. A realistic person in a realistic job is in a
more congruent situation than is a realistic person in an investigative job. A realistic person in a
social job is in the most congruent situation possible. The key points of this model are that (1)
there do appear to be intrinsic differences in personality among individuals, (2) there are
different types of jobs, and (3) people in job environments congruent with their personality types
should be more satisfied and less likely to voluntarily resign than should people in incongruent
jobs.

The Person-Organization Fit: As previously noted, attention in recent years has expanded to
include matching people to organizations as well as jobs. To the degree that an organization
faces a dynamic and changing environment and requires employees who are able to readily
change tasks and move fluidly between teams, it's probably more important that employees'
personalities fit with the overall organization's culture than with the characteristics of any
specific job.

The person-organization fit essentially argues that people leave jobs that are not compatible with
their personalities. Using the Big Five terminology, for instance, we could expect that people
high on extraversion fit better with aggressive and team-oriented cultures; people high on
agreeableness will match up better with a supportive organizational climate than one that focuses
on aggressiveness; and that people high on openness to experience fit better into organizations
that emphasize innovation rather than standardization. Following these guidelines at the time of
hiring should lead to selecting new employees who fit better with the organization's culture,
which, in turn, should result in higher employee satisfaction and reduced turnover.

2.4 LEARNING

Page | 28
All complex behavior is learned. If we want to explain and predict behavior, we need to
understand how people learn. In this section, we define learning, present three popular learning
theories, and describe how managers can facilitate employee learning.

2.4.1 Definition of Learning

What is learning? A psychologist's definition is considerably broader than the layperson's view
that "it's what we did when we went to school." In actuality, each of us is continuously going "to
school." Learning occurs all of the time. A generally accepted definition of learning is, therefore,
any relatively permanent change in behavior that occurs as a result of experience. Ironically, we
can say that experience, changes in behavior indicate that learning has taken place and that
learning is a change in behavior.

Obviously, the foregoing definition suggests that we shall never see “learning." We can see
changes taking place but not the learning itself.

Our definition has several components that deserve clarification. First, learning involves change.
Change may be good or bad from an organizational point of view. People can learn unfavorable
behaviors-to hold prejudices or to restrict their output, for example-as well as favorable
behaviors. Second, the change must be relatively permanent. Temporary changes may be only
reflexive and fail to represent any learning. Therefore, the requirement that learning must be
relatively permanent rules out behavioral changes caused by fatigue or temporary adaptations.
Third, our definition is concerned with behavior. Learning takes place when there is a change in
actions. A change in an individual's thought processes or attitudes, if accompanied by no change
in behavior, would not be learning. Finally, some form of experience is necessary for learning.
Experience may be acquired directly through observation or practice, or it may be acquired
indirectly, as through reading. The crucial test still remains: Does this experience result in a
relatively permanent change in behavior? If the answer is yes, we can say that learning has taken
place.

2.4.2 Theories of Learning

Page | 29
How do we learn? Three theories have been offered to explain the process by which we acquire
patterns of behavior. These are classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and social learning.

1. Classical Conditioning

Classical Conditioning grew out of experiments to teach dogs to salivate in response to the
ringing of a bell, conducted at the turn of the twentieth century by a Russian physiologist, Ivan
Pavlov. A simple surgical procedure allowed Pavlov to measure accurately the amount of saliva
secreted a dog. When Pavlov presented the dog with a piece of meat, the dog exhibited
noticeable increase in salivation. When Pavlov withheld the presentation of meat and merely
rang a bell, the dog did not salivate. Then Pavlov proceeded to link the meat and the ringing of
the bell. After repeatedly hearing the bell before getting the food, the dog began to salivate as
soon as the bell rang. After a while, the dog would salivate merely at the sound of the bell, even
if no food was offered. In effect, the dog had learned to respond-that is, to salivate-to the bell.
Let's review this experiment to introduce the key concepts in classical conditioning.

The meat was an unconditioned stimulus; it invariably caused the dog to react in a specific way.
The reaction that took place whenever the unconditioned stimulus occurred was called the
unconditioned response (or the noticeable increase in salivation, in this case). The bell was an
artificial stimulus, or what we call the conditioned stimulus. Although it was originally neutral,
after the bell was paired with the meat (an unconditioned stimulus), it eventually produced a
response when presented alone. The last key concept is the conditioned response. This describes
the behavior of the dog; it salivated in reaction to the bell alone.

Using these concepts, we can summarize classical conditioning. Essentially, learning a

conditioned response involves building up an association between a conditioned stimulus and an
unconditioned stimulus. When the stimuli, one compelling and the other one neutral, are paired,
the neutral one becomes a conditioned stimulus and, hence, takes on the properties of the
unconditioned stimulus.

In an organizational setting, we can see classical conditioning operating. For example, at one
manufacturing plant, every time the top executives from the head were scheduled to make a visit,
the plant management would clean up the administrative offices and wash the windows. This

Page | 30
went on for years. Eventually, employees would turn on their best behavior and look prim and
proper whenever the windows were cleaned-even in those occasional instances when the
cleaning was not paired with the visit from the top brass. People had learned to associate the
cleaning of the windows with a visit from the head office.

Classical conditioning is passive. Something happens and we react in a specific way. It is

elicited, in response to a specific, identifiable event. As such, it can explain simple reflexive
behaviors. But most behavior-particularly the complex behavior it may be acquired of
individuals in organizations-is emitted rather than elicited. It is voluntary rather than reflexive.

2. Operant Conditioning

Operant conditioning argues that behavior is a function of its consequences. People learn to
behave to get something they want or to avoid something they don't want. Operant behavior
means voluntary or learned behavior in contrast to reflexive or unlearned behavior. The tendency
to repeat such behavior is influenced by the reinforcement or lack of reinforcement brought
about by the consequences of the behavior. Reinforcement, therefore, strengthens a behavior and
increases the likelihood that it will be repeated.

What Pavlov did for classical conditioning, the Harvard psychologist B. F. Skinner did for
operant conditioning. Building on earlier work in the field, Skinner's research extensively
expanded our knowledge of operant conditioning. Even his staunchest critics, who represent a
sizable group, admit that his operant concepts work.

Behavior is assumed to be determined from without-that is, learned- rather than from within-
reflexive or unlearned. Skinner argued that creating pleasing consequences to follow specific
forms of behavior would increase the frequency of that behavior. People will most likely engage
in desired behaviors if they are positively reinforced for doing so. Rewards are most effective if
they immediately follow the desired response. In addition, behavior that is not rewarded, or is
punished, is less likely to be repeated.

You see illustrations of operant conditioning everywhere. For example, any situation in which it
is either explicitly stated or implicitly suggested that reinforcements are contingent on some

Page | 31
action on your part involves the use of operant learning. Your instructor says that if you want a
high grade in the Course you must supply correct answers on the test. A commissioned
salesperson wanting to earn a sizable income finds that doing so is contingent on generating high
sales in her territory. Of course, the linkage can also work to teach the individual to engage in
behaviors that work against the best interests of the organization. Assume that your boss tells you
that if you will work overtime during the next three-week busy season, you will be compensated
for it at the next performance appraisal. However, when performance appraisal time comes, you
find that you are given no positive reinforcement for your overtime work. The next time your
boss asks you to work overtime, what will you do? You'll probably decline! Your behavior can
be explained by operant conditioning: If a behavior fails to be positively reinforced, the
probability that the behavior will be repeated declines.

3. Social Learning

Social Learning Individuals can also learn by observing what happens to other people and just
by being told about something, as well as by direct experiences. So, for example, much of what
we have learned comes from watching models- parents, teachers, peers, motion picture and
television performers, bosses, and so forth. This view that we can learn through both observation
and direct experience has been called social-learning theory.

Although social-learning theory is an extension of operant conditioning- that is, it assumes that
behavior is a function of consequences-it also acknowledges the existence of observational
learning and the importance of perception in learning. People respond to how they perceive and
define consequences, not to the objective consequences themselves.

The influence of models is central to the social-learning viewpoint. Four processes have been
found to determine the influence that a model will have on an individual. The inclusion of the
following processes when management sets up employee training programs will significantly
improve the likelihood that the programs will be successful:

Page | 32
1. Attentional processes. People learn from a model only when they recognize and pay attention
to its critical features. We tend to be most influenced by models that are attractive, repeatedly
available, important to us, or similar to us in our estimation.
2. Retention processes. A model's influence will depend on how well the individual remembers
the model's action after the model is no longer readily available.
3. Motor reproduction processes. After a person has seen a new behavior by observing the
model, the watching must be converted to doing. This process then demonstrates that the
individual can perform the modeled activities.
4. Reinforcement processes. Individuals will be motivated to exhibit the modeled behavior if
positive incentives or rewards are provided. Behaviors that are positively reinforced will be
given more attention, learned better, and performed more often.

2.4.3 Shaping: A Managerial Tool

Because learning takes place on the job as well as prior to it, managers will be concerned with
how they can teach employees to behave in ways that most benefit the organization. When we
attempt to mold individuals by guiding their learning in graduated steps, we are shaping
behavior.

Consider the situation in which an employee's behavior is significantly different from that sought
by management. If management rewarded the individual only when he or she showed desirable
responses, there might be very little reinforcement taking place. In such a case, shaping offers a
logical approach toward achieving the desired behavior.

We shape behavior by systematically reinforcing each successive step that moves the individual
closer to the desired response. If an employee who has chronically been a half-hour late for work
comes in only 20 minutes late, we can reinforce that improvement. Reinforcement would
increase as responses more closely approximated the desired behavior.

2.4.3.1 Methods of Shaping Behavior

There are four ways in which to shape behavior: through positive reinforcement, negative
reinforcement, punishment, and extinction.

Page | 33
Following a response with something pleasant is called positive reinforcement. This would
describe, for instance, the boss who praises an employee for a job well done. Following a
response by the termination or withdrawal of something unpleasant is called negative
reinforcement. Punishment is causing an unpleasant condition in an attempt to eliminate an
undesirable behavior. Giving an employee a two-day suspension from work without pay for
showing up drunk is an example of punishment. Eliminating any reinforcement that is
maintaining a behavior is called extinction. When the behavior is not reinforced, it tends to
gradually be extinguished.

Both positive and negative reinforcement result in learning. They strengthen a response and
increase the probability of repetition. In the preceding illustrations, praise strengthens and
increases the behavior of doing a good job because praise is desired. The behavior of "looking
busy" is similarly strengthened and increased by its terminating the undesirable consequence of
being called on by the teacher. Both punishment and extinction, however, weaken behavior and
tend to decrease its subsequent frequency.

Reinforcement, whether it is positive or negative, has an impressive record as a shaping tool. Our
interest, therefore, is in reinforcement rather than in punishment or extinction. A review of
research findings on the impact of reinforcement upon behavior in organizations concluded that

1. Some type of reinforcement is necessary to produce a change in behavior.

2. Some types of rewards are more effective for use in organizations than others.
3. The speed with which learning takes place and the permanence of its effects will be
determined by the timing of reinforcement.

Schedules of Reinforcement The two major types of reinforcement schedules are continuous and
intermittent. A continuous reinforcement schedule reinforces the desired behavior each and every
time it is demonstrated. Take, for example, the case of someone who has historically had trouble
arriving at work on time. Every time he is not tardy his manager might compliment him on his
desirable behavior. In an intermittent schedule, on the other hand, not every instance of the
desirable behavior is reinforced, but reinforcement is given often enough to make the behavior
worth repeating.

Page | 34
An intermittent reinforcement can be of a ratio or interval type. Ratio schedules depend upon
how many responses the subject makes. The individual is reinforced after giving a certain
number of specific types of behavior. Interval schedules depend upon how much time has passed
since the last reinforcement. With interval schedules, the individual is reinforced on the first
appropriate behavior after a particular time has elapsed. Reinforcement can also be classified as
fixed or variable. Intermittent techniques for administering rewards can, therefore, be placed into
four categories,

When rewards are spaced at uniform time intervals, the reinforcement schedule is of the fixed-
interval type. The critical variable is time, and it is held constant. When you get your paycheck
on a weekly, semimonthly, monthly, or other predetermined time basis, you are rewarded on a
fixed-interval reinforcement schedule.

If rewards are distributed in time so that reinforcements are unpredictable, the schedule is of the
variable-interval type. When an instructor advises her class that pop quizzes will be given during
the term (the exact number of which is unknown to the students) and the quizzes will account for
twenty percent of the term grade, she is using a variable-interval schedule. Similarly, a series of
randomly timed unannounced visits to a company office by the corporate audit staff is an
example

Page | 35