Order 1168177: Case Study

18.4 The Road to Hell

John Baker, chief engineer of the Caribbean Bauxite Company Limited of Barracania in the West Indies, was making his final preparations to leave the island. His promotion to production manager of Keso Mining Corporation near Winnipeg—one of Continental Ore’s fast-expanding Canadian enterprises—had been announced a month before, and now everything had been attended to except the last vital interview with his successor, the able young Barracanian Matthew Rennalls. It was vital that his interview be a success and that Rennalls leave Baker’s office uplifted and encouraged to face the challenge of his new job. A touch on the bell would have brought Rennalls walking into the room, but Baker delayed the moment and gazed thoughtfully through the window, considering just exactly what he was going to say and, more particularly, how he was going to say it.

Baker, an English expatriate, was 45 years old and had served his 23 years with Continental Ore in many different places: the Far East, several countries of Africa; Europe; and for the past two years, the West Indies. He had not cared much for his previous assignment in Hamburg and was delighted when the West Indian appointment came through. Climate was not the only attraction. Baker had always preferred working overseas in what were called the “developing countries” because he felt he had an innate knack—more than most other expatriates working for Continental Ore—for knowing

just how to get on with regional staff. After only 24 hours in Barracania, however, he realized that he would need all of his innate knack if he were to deal effectively with the problems in this field that now awaited him.[5] At his first interview with Glenda Hutchins, the production manager, the whole problem of Rennalls and his future was discussed. Then and there, it was made quite clear to Baker that one of his important tasks would be the grooming of Rennalls as his successor. Hutchins had pointed out that not only was Rennalls one of the brightest Barracanian prospects on the staff of Caribbean Bauxite—at London University, he had taken first-class honors in the B.Sc. engineering degree—but,

being the son of the minister of finance and economic planning, he also had political pull.

Caribbean Bauxite had been particularly pleased when Rennalls decided to work for it, rather than for the government in which his father had such a prominent post. The company ascribed his action to the effect of its vigorous and liberal regionalization program that, since World War II, had produced 18 Barracanians at the middle management level and had given Caribbean Bauxite a good lead in this respect over all other international concerns operating in Barracania. The success of this timely regionalization policy had led to excellent relations with the government—a relationship

that gained added importance when Barracania, three years later, became independent, an occasion that encouraged a critical and challenging attitude toward the role foreign interests would play in the new Barracania. Hutchins, therefore, had little difficulty convincing Baker that the successful career development of Rennalls was of prime importance.

The interview with Hutchins was now two years in the past, and Baker, leaning back in his office chair, reviewed just how successful he had been in the grooming of Rennalls. What aspects of the latter’s character had helped, and what had hindered? What about his own personality? How had that helped or hindered? The first item to go on the credit side, without question, would be the ability of Rennalls to master the technical aspects of his job. From the start, he had shown keenness and enthusiasm, and he had often impressed Baker with his ability in tackling new assignments

and the constructive comments he invariably made in departmental discussions. He was popular with all ranks of Barracanian staff and had an ease of manner that stood him in good stead when dealing with his expatriate seniors.

Those were all assets, but what about the debit side? First and foremost was his racial consciousness. His four years at London University had accentuated this feeling and made him sensitive to any sign of condescension on the part of expatriates. Perhaps to give expression to this sentiment, as soon as he returned home from London, he threw himself into politics on behalf of the United Action Party, which was later to win the preindependence elections and provide the

country with its first prime minister. The ambitions of Rennalls—and he certainly was ambitious—did not, however, lie in politics. Staunch nationalist that he was, he saw that he could serve himself and his country best—was not

bauxite responsible for nearly half the value of Barracania’s export trade?—by putting his engineering talent to the best use possible. On this account, Hutchins found that she had an unexpectedly easy task in persuading Rennalls to give up his political work before entering the production department as an assistant engineer. It was, Baker knew, Rennalls’ well-represented sense of racial consciousness that had prevented their relationship from being as close as it should have been. On the surface, they could not have seemed more agreeable. Formality between the two was minimal. Baker was delighted to find that his assistant shared his own peculiar “shaggy dog” sense of humor, so jokes were continually

being exchanged. They entertained one another at their houses and often played tennis together—and yet the barrier remained invisible, indefinable, but ever present. The existence of this screen between them was a constant source of frustration to Baker, since it indicated a weakness that he was loath to accept. If successful with people of all other nationalities, why not with Rennalls?

At least he had managed to break through to Rennalls more successfully than had any other expatriate. In fact, it was the young Barracanian’s attitude—sometimes overbearing, sometimes cynical—toward other company expatriates that had been one of the subjects Baker raised last year when he discussed Rennalls’ staff report with him. Baker knew, too, that he would have toraise the same subject again in the forthcoming interview, because Martha Jackson, the senior person in charge of drafting, had complained only yesterday about the rudeness of Rennalls. With this thought in mind, Baker leaned forward and spoke into the intercom: “Would you come in, Matt, please? I’d like a word with you.” Rennalls came in, and Baker held out a box and said “Do sit down. Have a cigarette.”

Baker and Rennalls’ Meeting

He paused while he held out his lighter and then went on. “As you know, Matt, I’ll be off to Canada in a few days’ time, and before I go, I thought it would be useful if we could have a final chat together. It is indeed with some deference that I suggest I can be of help. You will shortly be sitting in this chair doing the job I am now doing, but I, on the other hand, I am ten years older, so perhaps you can accept the idea that I may be able to give you the benefit of my longer experience.” Baker saw Rennalls stiffen slightly in his chair as he made this point, so he added in explanation, “You and I have attended enough company courses to remember those repeated requests by the human resources manager to tell people how they are getting on as often as the convenient moment arises, and not just the automatic once a year when, by regulation, staff reports have to be discussed.” Rennalls nodded his agreement, so Baker went on, “I’ll always remember the last job performance discussion I had with my previous boss back in Germany. She used what she called the ‘plus and minus technique.’ She firmly believed that when managers seek to improve the work performance of their staff by discussion, their prime objective should be to make sure the latter leave the interview encouraged and inspired to improve. Any criticism, therefore, must be constructive and helpful. She said that one very good way to encourage a person—and I fully agree with her—is to discuss good points, the plus factors, as well as weak ones, the minus factors. So I thought, Matt, it would be a good idea to run our discussion along these lines.”

Rennalls offered no comment, so Baker continued, “Let me say, therefore, right away, that as far as your own work performance is concerned, the pluses far outweigh the minuses. I have, for instance, been most impressed with the way you have adapted your considerable theoretical knowledge to master the practical techniques of your job—that ingenious method you used to get air down to the fifth shaft level is a sufficient case in point. At departmental meetings, I have invariably found your comments well taken and helpful. In fact, you will be interested to know that only

last week I reported to Ms. Hutchins that, from the technical point of view, she could not wish for a more able person to succeed to the position of chief engineer.” “That’s very good indeed of you, John,” cut in Rennalls with a smile of thanks. “My only worry now is how to live up to such a high recommendation.” “Of that I am quite sure,” returned Baker, “especially if you can overcome the minus factor which I would like now to discuss with you. It is one that I have talked about before, so I’ll come straight to the point. I have noticed that you are more friendly and get on better with your fellow Barracanians than you do with the Europeans. In point of fact, I had a complaint only yesterday

from Ms. Jackson, who said you had been rude to her—and not for the first time, either.” “There is, Matt, I am sure, no need for me to tell you how necessary it will be for you to get on well with expatriates, because until the company has trained sufficient personnel of your caliber, Europeans are bound to occupy senior positions here in Barracania. All this is vital to your future interests, so can I help you in any way?”

While Baker was speaking of this theme, Rennalls sat tensed in his chair, and it was some seconds before he replied. “It is quite extraordinary, isn’t it; how one can convey an impression to others so at variance with what one intends? I can only assure you once again that my disputes with Jackson—and you may remember also Godson—have had nothing at all to do with the color of their skins. I promise you that if a Barracanian had behaved in an equally peremptory manner,

I would have reacted in precisely the same way. And again, if I may say it within these four walls, I am sure I am not the only one who has found Jackson and Godson difficult. I could mention the names of several expatriates who have felt the same. However, I am really sorry to have created this impression of not being able to get on with Europeans—it is an entirely false one—and I quite realize that I must do all I can to correct it as quickly as possible. On your last point, regarding Europeans holding senior positions in the company for some time to come, I quite accept the situation.

I know that Caribbean Bauxite—as it has been doing for many years now—will promote Barracanians as soon as their experience warrants it. And, finally, I would like to assure you, John—and my father thinks the same, too—that I am very happy in my work here and hope to stay with the company for many years to come.”

Rennalls had spoken earnestly, and Baker, although not convinced by what he had heard, did not think he could pursue the matter further except to say, “All right, Matt, my impression may be wrong, but I would like to remind you about the truth of that old saying ‘What is important is not what is true, but what is believed.’” Let it rest at that.” But suddenly Baker knew that he did not want to “let it rest at that.” He was disappointed once again at not being able to break through to Rennalls and at having again had to listen to his bland denial that there was any racial prejudice in his makeup. Baker, who had intended to end the interview at this point, decided to try another tack. “To return for a moment to the plus and minus technique I was telling you about just now, there is another plus factor I forgot to mention. I would like to congratulate you not only on the caliber of your work but also on the ability you have shown in overcoming a challenge that I, as a European, have never had to meet.

“Continental Ore is, as you know, a typical commercial enterprise—admittedly a big one—that is a product of the economic and social environment of the United States and Western Europe. My ancestors have all been brought up in this environment for the past two or three hundred years, and I have, therefore, been able to live in a world in which commerce (as we know it today) has been part and parcel of my being. It has not been something revolutionary and new that has suddenly entered my life. In your case,” went on Baker, “the situation is different, because you and your

forebears have only had some fifty and not two or three hundred years. Again, Matt, let me congratulate you—and people like you—on having so successfully overcome this particular hurdle. It is for this very reason that I think the outlook for Barracania—and particularly Caribbean Bauxite—is so bright.”

Rennalls had listened intently, and when Baker finished, he replied, “Well, once again, John, I have to thank you for what you have said, and, for my part, I can only say that it is gratifying to know that my own personal effort has been so much appreciated. I hope that more people will soon come to think as you do.” There was a pause, and, for a moment, Baker thought hopefully that he was about to achieve his long-awaited breakthrough. But Rennalls merely smiled back. The barrier remained unbreached. There was five minutes of cheerful conversation about the contrast between the

Caribbean and Canadian climates and whether the West Indies had any hope of beating England in a soccer game before Baker drew the interview to a close. Although he was as far as ever from knowing the real Rennalls, he was nevertheless glad that the interview had run along in this friendly manner and, particularly, that it had ended on such a cheerful note.

Rennalls’ Memo

This feeling, however, lasted only until the following morning. Baker had some farewells to make, so he arrived at the office considerably later than usual. He had no sooner sat down at his desk than his secretary walked into the room with a worried frown on her face. Her words came fast. “When I arrived this morning, I found Mr. Rennalls already waiting at my door. He seemed very angry and told me that he had a vital letter to dictate that must be sent off without any delay. He was so worked up that he couldn’t keep still and kept pacing about the room, which is most unlike him. He wouldn’t even wait to read what he had dictated. Just signed the page where he thought the memo would end. It has been distributed, and your copy is in your tray.” Puzzled and feeling vaguely uneasy, Baker opened the envelope marked “confidential” and read the following memo:

FROM: Assistant Engineer

TO: Chief Engineer, Caribbean Bauxite Limited

SUBJECT: Assessment of Interview between Messrs. Baker and Rennalls

It has always been my practice to respect the advice given to me by seniors, so after our interview, I decided to give careful thought once again to its main points and to make sure that I had understood all that had been said. As I promised you at the time, I had every intention of putting your advice to the best effect. It was not, therefore, until I had sat down quietly in my home yesterday evening to consider the interview objectively that its main purpose became clear. Only then did the full enormity of what you said dawn on me. The more I thought about it, the more convinced I was that I had hit upon the real truth—and the more furious I became. With a facility in the English language which

I—a poor Barracanian—cannot hope to match, you had the audacity to insult me (and through me every Barracanian worth his salt) by claiming that our knowledge of modern living is only a paltry fifty years old, while yours goes back two hundred to three hundred years. As if your materialistic commercial environment could possibly be compared with the spiritual values of our culture! I’ll have you know that if much of what I saw in London is representative of your most boasted culture, I hope fervently that it will never come to Barracania. By what right do you have the effrontery

to condescend to us? After all, you Europeans think us barbarians, or, as you say amongst yourselves, we are “just down from the trees.” Far into the night I discussed this matter with my father, and he is as disgusted as I. He agrees with me that any company whose senior staff think as you do is no place for any Barracanian proud of his culture and race. So much for all the company claptrap and specious propaganda about regionalization and Barracania for the Barracanians. I feel ashamed and betrayed. Please accept this letter as my resignation, which I wish to become effective immediately.

cc: Production Manager

Managing Director

It is the perception of reality—not reality—that influences behavior. Perception is the process by which the individual selects, organizes, interprets, and responds to information. Employees are constantly exposed to a variety of information. They know when leaders are being phony. This information is processed in a person’s mind and organized to form concepts pertaining to what is sensed or experienced. What happens when a woman goes to the

florist to buy a bouquet of flowers? Before buying it, she looks at the types of flowers in the bouquet, looks at the size of the bouquet and other bouquets that are available in her price range, and smells the flowers to see if they are fresh. After all of those activities, she decides whether or not to purchase the bouquet. Her mind processes all of this information to make a decision about whether to buy the bouquet and where it would look nice in her home. She gathers this information by using her three senses—touch, sight, and smell. This represents the psychological process

whereby individuals take information from their environment and make sense of it.[2] The key words in the definition of perception are select and organize. Different people often perceive a situation differently, both in terms of what they selectively perceive and how they organize and interpret what is perceived. Figure 3.1 summarizes the basic elements in the perceptual process from initial observation to final response.

Other aspects. For example, when shoppers pull into a gasoline station, what objects in their environment are they paying attention to and what do they ignore? What do they observe? A well-lit station, clean areas to pump gas, fully stocked paper towel dispensers with squeegees to wipe and clean windshields, etc., are objects people notice when they pull into a gas station. They might ignore signs advertising freshly brewed coffee or the price of Coke. A person’s selection process involves both external and internal factors. In other words, a complex set of factors, some internal

to the person (attitudes) and some in the external environment, combine to determine what the person perceives. For this reason, some people watching Lance Armstrong’s third Tour de France win may have been excited, whereas others (perhaps on opposing teams) may have become skeptical and believed he was relying on performance-enhancing drugs. The same behavior, the Tour de France win, was interpreted differently by various people. We discuss this important process in more detail shortly.

The individual organizes the stimuli selected into meaningful patterns. How people interpret what they perceive varies considerably. The Experiential Exercise at the end of this chapter titled The Perception Process lets you test your current level of perceptual skills. For example, a wave of the hand may be interpreted as a friendly gesture or as a threat, depending on the circumstances and the state of mind of those involved. Leaders and employees need to recognize that perceptions of events and behaviors may vary among individuals and be inaccurate.

As suggested in Figure 3.1, people’s interpretations of their environments affect their responses. Everyone selects and organizes things differently, which is one reason why people behave differently in the same situation. In other words, people often perceive the same things in different ways, and their behaviors depend, in part, on their perceptions.

The following Across Cultures Competency feature shows how McDonald’s is using feng shui to design its restaurants. Feng shui is the belief that space needs to be in harmony with the environment.[3] Literally, feng means “wind” and shui “water.” Feng shui was developed thousands of years ago in a village in China. Villagers studied the formations of land and the ways the wind and water worked together to help them survive. Over time feng shui developed and was used by emperors to ensure their successes. According to feng shui experts, when a harmonious arrangement is created

between the wind and water, the individual or organization prospers and the quality of life improves. According to Tan Khoon Yong, a feng shui master, this balance can be achieved by balancing the magnetic flow in which people live. According to feng shui, what is being perceived may be subtle and greatly influences perceptions and behaviors.[4]

The phone is ringing, your TV is blaring, a dog is barking outside, your laptop is making a strange noise, and you smell coffee brewing. Which of these events will you ignore? Which will you pay attention to? Can you predict or explain why one of these events grabs your attention at a particular time?

Selective screening is the process by which people filter out most information so that they can deal with the most important matters. Perceptual selection depends on several factors, some of which are in the external environment and some of which are internal to the perceiver.

External Factors

As we noted in Chapter 2, a common external force affecting behavior is culture. Different cultures train people to respond to different cues. Do the French and Chinese see the world in the same way? No. In fact, no two national groups see the world in exactly the same way. When Mexican children simultaneously see a picture of a bullfight and a baseball game, they generally remember seeing only the bullfight. American children, on the other hand, remember seeing only the baseball game. Why do the children not remember both pictures? This is the nature of perception. Perceptual

patterns are not absolute. Misperceptions cause some managers to fail in their international assignments. Many U.S. firms, such as Procter & Gamble, Microsoft, and PepsiCo, are competing in global markets where English is not the first language either read or spoken. Therefore, language is becoming an increasingly important consideration when choosing product names and slogans.

When Frito-Lay, a division of PepsiCo, was trying to become a dominant supplier of salty nuts and chips to China’s $450 million market in the late 2000s, its managers realized that Chinese consumers had different perceptions of their product depending on where they lived. People in Hong Kong liked salty chips, in Beijing they liked meaty ones, and in Xian, they liked spicy flavors. Frito- Lay introduced “cool lemon” potato chips. These yellow, strongly lemon-scented chips were dotted with greenish lime specks of mint and sold in a package featuring images of breezy blue skies and

rolling green grass. Why “cool lemon”? Chinese people consider fried foods hot and therefore do not eat them in the summer months. Cool is better in the summer months.[5]

Let’s review some external factors that may affect perception. In each case we present an example to illustrate the principle.

• Size. The larger the object, the more likely it is to be perceived. The Freedom Tower, built where the Twin Towers in New York City were destroyed by terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, stands 1,776 feet high so it will get noticed more than the Frick Collection Museum on 70th street, which is only three stories. The 421-meter (1,368-feet) Jin Mao Tower in Shanghai’s Pudong District is more likely to be seen than the eight-story Howard Johnson Hotel in Shanghai.

• Intensity. The more intense an external factor (bright lights, loud noises, and the like), the more likely it is to be perceived. The language in an e-mail message from a manager to an employee can reflect the intensity principle. For example, an e-mail message that reads “Please stop by my office at your convenience” wouldn’t fill you with the same sense of urgency as an e-mail message that reads “Report to my office immediately!”

• Contrast. External factors that stand out against the background or that aren’t what individuals expect are the most likely to be noticed. In addition, the contrast of objects with others or with their backgrounds may influence how they are perceived. Salespeople at JCPenney, Macy’s, Saks, and other department stores are instructed to show men the most expensive suit first. After being exposed to the most expensive suit, a man sees the price of the less expensive suit as appearing smaller by comparison. Presenting a least costly suit first and following with an expensive one makes the expensive one seem even more costly. Another advantage of this tactic is that when it comes time to buy accessories, such as ties, shirts, and belts, these things don’t seem that expensive next to the cost of the suit.

• Motion. A moving factor is more likely to be perceived than a stationary factor. Arcade games appear active even when they are not being played to attract people to play them. Small retailers sometimes put employees on the sidewalk carrying big arrows and signs to attract shoppers.

• Repetition. A repeated factor is more likely to be noticed than a single factor. Marketing managers use this principle in trying to get the attention of prospective customers. An advertisement may repeat key ideas. The ad itself may be presented many times for greater effectiveness. Marketing managers at Nike developed the Nike “swoosh” symbol that is used consistently worldwide on all of its products.

• Novelty and familiarity. Either a familiar or a novel factor in the environment can attract attention, depending on the circumstances. A Korean businessman entered a client’s office in Stockholm and was greeted by a woman sitting behind a desk. He asked to see the president. The woman responded by saying that she (the president) would be glad to see him. The Korean was confused because he assumed that most women are secretaries and not presidents of companies. The misinterpretation of the situation was caused by a novel situation for him.[6]

A combination of these or similar factors may be existing at any time and, hence, affecting perception. Along with a person’s internal factors, they determine whether any particular stimulus is more or less likely to be noticed.

Nowadays, the visual aspects of nonverbal communications are receiving increasing attention because of the global markets for organization. Managers may offend someone in a different culture with hand gestures without ever knowing that these are offensive. For example, thumbs up may signal “okay” in America, but in parts of the Arab world, it means “Go to hell.”

Internal Factors

The perception process is also influenced by several factors that are related to the perceiver. These are internal factors that influence what the individual sees. Effective leaders are able to develop more complete and accurate perceptions of various situations and people with whom they communicate than ineffective leaders. An effective manager knows when people are sincere, honest, and dependable. These accurate perceptions are crucial to being an effective leader. The powerful role that internal factors play in perception shows itself in many ways. Let’s review how personality, learning, and motivation influence the process of perceiving other people.

Personality

Personality has an interesting influence on what and how individuals perceive things. Any of the several personality dimensions that we discussed in Chapter 2 along with numerous other traits, may influence the perceptual process.[7]

Personality appears to strongly affect how an individual perceives other people. In Chapter 2, we introduced you to the Big Five personality factors. To illustrate how personality can influence perception, let’s examine one of the Big Five factors, conscientiousness. A conscientious person tends to pay more attention to external environmental cues than does a less conscientious person. On the one hand, less conscientious people are impulsive, careless, and irresponsible. They see their environment as hectic and unstable, which affects the way in which they make perceptual selections.

On the other hand, more conscientious people are likely to organize their perceptions into neat categories, allowing them to retrieve data quickly and in an organized manner. In brief, these individuals are more careful, methodical, and disciplined in making perceptual selections.

Learning

Another internal factor affecting perceptual selection is learning. Among other things, learning determines the development of perceptual sets. A perceptual set is an expectation of a particular interpretation based on the person’s

past experience with the same or a similar object. What do you see in Figure 3.2? If you see an attractive, elegantly dressed woman, your perception concurs with the majority of first-time viewers. However, you may agree with a sizable

minority and see an ugly, old woman. The woman you first see depends, in large part, on your perceptual set.

Leaders’ and employees’ past experiences and learning strongly influence their perceptions. Leaders are influenced by their functional backgrounds (e.g., accounting, engineering, marketing, or production) when making decisions.

Because perceptions influence how employees and managers behave toward one another, it is important to understand a leader’s perceptual set. What factors influenced Doug Ulman’s perceptions of Lance Armstrong?

Motivation

Motivation also plays an important role in determining what a person perceives. A person’s most urgent needs and desires at any particular time can influence perception. For example, imagine that, while taking a shower, you faintly hear what sounds like the telephone ringing. Do you get out of the shower, dripping wet, to answer it? Or do you conclude that it is only your imagination? Your behavior in this situation may depend on factors other than the loudness of the ringing. If you are expecting an important call, you’re likely to leap from the shower. If you aren’t expecting a call,

you’re more likely to attribute the ringing sound to shower noises. Your decision is influenced by your expectations and motivations.

In general, individuals perceive things that promise to help satisfy their needs and that they have found rewarding in the past. The individual tends to ignore mildly disturbing events (a barking dog), but will react to dangerous events (the house being on fire). Summarizing an important aspect of the relationship between motivation and perception is the Pollyanna principle, which states that people process pleasant events more efficiently and accurately than they do unpleasant events. For example, an employee who receives both positive and negative feedback during a performance

appraisal session may more easily and clearly remember the positive statements than the negative statements.[8]

The preceding discussion shows that perceiving others accurately can be challenging. Because perceptions influence how people behave toward one another, there is a need to understand the factors that influence both the perceiver and the situation in general.

Person perception is the process by which the individual attributes characteristics or traits to other people. The person perception process relies on the same general process of perception shown in Figure 3.1. That is, the process follows the same sequence of observation, selection, organization, interpretation, and response. However, the object being perceived is another person. Perceptions of situations, events, and objects are important, but individual differences in perceptions of other people are crucial at work. For example, suppose that you meet a new employee. To get acquainted and make him feel at ease, you invite him to lunch. During lunch, he begins to tell you his life history

and focuses on his accomplishments. Because he talks only about himself (he asks you no questions about yourself), your first impression is that he is very self-centered.

In general, the factors influencing person perception are the same as those that influence perceptual selection: Both external and internal factors affect person perception. However, we may usefully categorize factors that influence how a person perceives another as

• characteristics of the perceived,

• characteristics of the perceiver, and

• the situation or context within which the perception takes place.

The Perceived

When perceiving someone else, you need to be aware of various cues given by that person: facial expressions, general appearance, skin color, posture, age, gender, voice quality, personality traits, behaviors, and the like. Such cues usually provide important information about the person. Each individual seems to have implicit ideas about the relationships among physical characteristics, personality traits, and specific behaviors.[9] Implicit personality theory is a person’s beliefs about the relationships between another’s physical characteristics and personality. Table 3.1 illustrates the implicit personality theory in action. A person may believe that some voice-quality characteristics indicate that the speaker has certain personality traits. However, the relationships presented in Table 3.1 have no scientific basis. Similarly, think about your first contact with someone you met on Facebook, Instagram, or an online dating service. It is not the person’s voice that you consider, but perhaps the person’s physical appearance. Later, on meeting, did that person look and act as you expected?

The Perceiver

Listening to an employee describe the personality of a coworker may tell you as much about the personality of the employee doing the describing as it does about that of the person being described. That shouldn’t surprise you if you recall that factors internal to the perceiver, including personality, learning, and motivation, influence perception. A person’s own personality traits, values, attitudes, current mood, and past experience influence how that person perceives someone else.

Accurately perceiving an individual raised in another culture is often difficult. In China, for example, the communication style is generally indirect. Chinese may talk around the point and hedge their speech using words such as maybe or perhaps because they must protect their social face and respect social roles (e.g., manager, employee). The Chinese will lose social face if they fail to understand what is being asked or cannot do what is requested. Therefore, by being vague, Chinese businesspeople save face and can continue to build and maintain relationships. Rick Linck, former CEO of Asia Pacific for Heineken Brewing Company, learned that when communicating with beer distributors in China, distributors frequently say “Let me look into this further” to avoid a direct no or to avoid admitting that they cannot do what he asked. Linck learned to communicate with distributors by saying “What do you think about this?” instead of saying “Is this acceptable?”[10]

Cross-cultural negotiations are an important part of every global manager’s job, and the dynamics of negotiating reflect each culture’s values and beliefs. In Mexico, personal qualities and social connections influence the selection of a negotiator, whereas in the United States, many companies select negotiators on the basis of position and competence. In U.S.–Chinese negotiations, U.S. companies often prefer to send a small team or only a single person to represent them, whereas the Chinese prefer to send a large group. The large group allows them to have representatives from

different areas of the organization present at the negotiations.

The Situation in Foreign Assignments

As more and more employees are asked to take assignments in foreign countries, opportunities for living and working in different countries arise. Siemens, the German electronics firm with headquarters in Munich, Germany, estimates that almost 25 percent of its managers take expatriate assignments. Expatriates are employees who live and work outside of their home countries.[11] There are more than 500,000 U.S. expatriate managers living around the globe. Because of the high cost of sending employees and their families to foreign countries for extended periods of time (usually three years), it is important for this experience to be successful. Unfortunately, some expatriates cannot adapt to the new situation (culture) and fail in their assignments. Why do people fail? According to Global Relation Services, the top reasons for expatriate failure are as follows:

• lowered security and safety,

• lower quality of life,

• job doesn’t meet expectations,

• inability to adapt to new situation,

• family concerns, and

• spouse/partner dissatisfaction.[12]

Running down the list, the reasons for failure are personal and not related to technical competence. China and India were the two countries that presented expatriates with the greatest challenge. Why do you think these two countries were singled out?

What are some characteristics that human resource managers are looking for in the person who takes a foreign assignment? Patience, flexibility, openness to new experiences, and tolerance for other beliefs are among the top characteristics.[13] Tips for successfully handling a foreign assignment include making sure that the family supports the foreign assignment, developing foreign language competencies, getting strong support from your manager, and making sure that your accomplishments are widely visible.

Are women more likely to succeed or fail in expatriate assignments? A number of male leaders still think that women aren’t interested in overseas jobs or won’t be effective in them. These male managers typically perceive dual career issues, a presumed heightened risk of sexual harassment, and gender prejudices in many countries as reasons why their female employees often aren’t seriously considered for international assignments. In contrast, a survey of female expatriates and their managers revealed that women, on average, are just as interested as men in foreign assignments

and every bit as effective once there.[14] Indeed, some of the traits considered crucial for success overseas—such as knowing when to keep your mouth shut, being a strong team player, and soliciting a variety of opinions and perspectives when solving problems—are more often associated with women’s management styles than with men’s.

Misinterpretation of the situation occurs when an individual gives certain meaning to observations and their relationships. Interpretation organizes our experience and guides our behavior. Read the following sentence and quickly count the number of Fs:

FINISHED FILES ARE THE RESULT OF YEARS OF SCIENTIFIC STUDY COMBINED WITH THE EXPERIENCE OF YEARS.

Most people who do not speak English see all six Fs. By contrast, many English speakers see only three Fs; they do not see the Fs in the word of. Why? Because English-speaking people have learned that the word of is not important for overall understanding of the sentence. We selectively see those words that are important according to our cultural upbringing.

A way to understand the norms and values of a culture is to pay attention to the behaviors that are rewarded in that society. The following Self Competency feature illustrates a sample of important behaviors that you should be aware of when conducting business in Arab countries.[15]

The perceptual process may result in errors in judgment or understanding. An important part of understanding individual differences in perception is knowing the source of these errors. First, we examine the notion of accuracy of judgment in person perception. Then, we explore five of the most common types of perceptual errors: perceptual defense, stereotyping, the halo effect, projection, and contrast effects.

Perceptual Accuracy

How accurate are people in their perceptions of others? This question is important in organizational behavior. For example, misjudging the characteristics, abilities, or behaviors of an employee during a performance appraisal review could result in an inaccurate assessment of the employee’s current and future value to the organization. Another example of the importance of accurate person perception comes from the employment interview. Considerable evidence suggests that interviewers can easily make errors in judgment and perceptions when basing employment decisions on information gathered in face-to-face interviews. In fact, managers often make decisions about hiring people within the first 10 minutes of interview and spend the remainder of the inter-views just confirming their first impressions.[16] After reading about the following types of errors, what are some types of errors that you have committed in the past few days?

• Similarity error. Interviewers tend to be positively predisposed toward job candidates who are similar to them (in terms of background, interests, hobbies, jobs, and the like) and may be negatively biased against job candidates who are unlike them.

• Overweighting of negative information. Interviewers tend to overreact to negative information as though looking for an excuse to disqualify a job candidate.

• Race, gender, and age bias. Interviewers may be more or less positive about a candidate on the basis of the candidate’s race, gender, or age.

• First-impression error. The primacy effect may play a role in the job interview, because some interviewers are quick to form impressions that are resistant to change.

There are no easy answers to the general problem of ensuring perceptual accuracy. Some people accurately judge and assess others, and some people do so poorly. Some basic guidelines to make more accurate judgments include the following: (1) Avoid generalizing from an observation of a single trait (e.g., tactful) to other traits (e.g., stable, confident, energetic, dependable); (2) avoid assuming that a behavior will be repeated in all situations; and (3) avoid placing too much reliance on physical appearance. Your accuracy in person perception can be improved when you understand these

potential biases.

Perceptual Defense

Perceptual defense is the tendency for people to protect themselves against ideas, objects, or situations that are threatening. A well-known folk song suggests that we “hear what we want to hear and disregard the rest.” Once established, an individual’s way of viewing the world may become highly resistant to change. Sometimes perceptual defense may have negative consequences. This perceptual error can result in a manager’s inability to perceive the need to be creative in solving problems. As a result, the manager simply proceeds as in the past even in the face of evidence that “business as usual” isn’t accomplishing anything. The CEO of the Lance Armstrong Foundation, Doug Ulman, may have succumbed to perceptual defense during the years in which he believed Lance Armstrong’s claims of innocence.

Stereotyping

Stereotyping is the belief that all members of a specific group share similar traits and behaviors. The use of stereotypes can have powerful effects on the decisions that managers make. There are many exceptions to any stereotype. In a study of Fortune magazine’s top 500 CEOs, researchers found that CEOs are mostly white males. The study also found that on the average, male CEOs were almost six feet tall, which reflects a kind of implicit stereotype of the height of CEOs. Given that the average American male is five foot nine, it means that CEOs as a group are about three inches

taller. In the United States, about 14.5 percent of all men are six feet or taller and 3.9 percent of white males are six foot two or taller. In this sample, almost a third were six foot two or taller. Furthermore, it was calculated that each inch of height is worth $789 a year in salary.[17] That means an individual who is six feet tall, but otherwise identical to someone who is five foot five, will make, on average, $5,525 more per year. Over a career, the difference is hundreds of thousands of dollars. In another study, it was found that attractive people earn about 5 percent more than do average-

looking employees, who in turn earn 9 percent more than plain-looking employees. Thus, if an average-looking college graduate starts at $47,000, their good-looking friends start at $49,350, while their least attractive friends start at $42,770. Plain-looking employees may also receive fewer promotions than those awarded to their better looking colleagues.[18]

An interesting challenge for organizations is to determine in what ways female managers essentially are like their male counterparts. To the extent they are alike, gender differences should be only a marginal concern. Unfortunately, stereotyping exists in many retailing organizations. In 2012, a federal judge granted a class-action lawsuit against Costco on behalf of more than 700 female department managers. The suit, claiming the company discriminated against women seeking promotion to store manager, was settled for $8 million in 2013.[19] A debate is raging in scientific and management circles around the world with regard to gender differences in thought, emotions, and information processing styles. Some research suggests that women are, on average, superior to men in many organizational roles. Such roles include communicating with customers or clients, facilitating discussions, and smoothing conflicts. With regard to the latter two roles, one study indicated that female project team leaders were more effective, on average, than males in leading cross-functional teams designed to foster high rates of innovation.[20]

Halo Effect

The halo effect occurs when one positive or negative characteristic dominates the way that person is viewed by others. As we pointed out earlier, the evidence is clear that physical attractiveness and height are often such characteristics. It is hardly any wonder that Nordstrom’s, Dillard’s, Kohl’s, and other retail stores like to hire attractive salespeople. Their sales training programs include grooming hints to make their salespeople more attractive. Attractive salespeople are likely to also be perceived as friendlier and more skilled because of the halo effect. Of course, the opposite would be

true for salespeople who did not manage their appearance.

The halo effect is based on general assessments of the overall person. That is, if the manager regards the person as “good,” that manager will tend to review that person’s performance in a positive way. In other words, a halo blinds the perceiver to other attributes that also should be evaluated to obtain a complete, accurate impression of the other person. Managers have to guard against the halo effect when rating employee performance. A manager may single out one trait and use it as the basis for judging all other performance measures. Students have been known to evaluate the overall effectiveness of a faculty member in just the first two seconds of the first class. The rankings they gave after these two seconds were almost identical to rankings made after sitting through the instructor’s course the entire semester. That’s the power of the halo effect.

A closely related concept to the halo effect is the self-fulfilling prophecy. The self-fulfilling prophecy is the tendency for someone’s expectations about another to cause that individual to behave in a manner consistent with those expectations.[21] Expecting certain things to happen shapes the behavior of the perceiver in such a way that the expected is more likely to happen. Selffulfilling prophecies can take both positive and negative forms. In the positive case, holding high expectations of another tends to improve the individual’s performance, which is known as the

Pygmalion effect. The Pygmalion effect has its roots in Greek mythology. According to mythology, Pygmalion was a sculptor who hated women yet fell in love with a statue he carved of a beautiful woman. He became so infatuated with the statue that he prayed to a goddess to bring her to life. The goddess granted him his wish. The essence of the Pygmalion effect is that people’s expectations determine their behavior or performance, thus serving to make their expectations come true. In other words, we strive to validate our perceptions of reality no matter how faulty they may be. Subordinates whose managers expect them to perform well do perform well. Subordinates whose managers expect them to perform poorly do in fact perform poorly. Obviously, this effect can beHalo Effect The halo effect occurs when one positive or negative characteristic dominates the way that person is viewed by others. As we pointed out earlier, the evidence is clear that physical attractiveness and height are often such characteristics. It is hardly any wonder that Nordstrom’s, Dillard’s, Kohl’s, and other retail stores like to hire attractive salespeople. Their sales training programs include grooming hints to make their salespeople more attractive. Attractive salespeople are likely to also be

perceived as friendlier and more skilled because of the halo effect. Of course, the opposite would be true for salespeople who did not manage their appearance. quite devastating.[22] Some top executives believe that a manager who puts in long hours and works on Saturday is a better performer than those who do not put in these hours. Long hour expectations help create and foster a reward system that uses long hours as one criterion for a manager’s

success.

The Golem effect refers to the loss in performance that results from low expectations by the manager.[23] If a manager notices that a subordinate’s sales reports are always late, this leads the manager to doubt whether the employee is committed to being a high achiever. This results in the manager watching the employee more closely, and the employee becoming afraid to make suggestions that could improve the sales report for fear of turning the report in late. The manager then interprets this as a lack of initiative.

How can managers create positive performance expectations? We believe that managers need to consider three things:

1. Individuals behave toward others consistent with others’ expectations of them. Managers who have high expectations of their employees are supportive and generally give employees more training and challenging jobs. By contrast, managers who have low expectations of their employees aren’t supportive and generally won’t give employees training and challenging jobs.

2. A person’s behavior affects others. Not only will those treated positively benefit from special opportunities, but these opportunities will also bolster their self-esteem.

3. People behave in response to how they are treated. People who have benefited from special treatment and who have confidence in their abilities are likely to be high performers.

Projection

Projection is the tendency for individuals to see their own traits in other people. That is, the individual projects his or her own feelings, personality characteristics, attitudes, or motives onto others. For example, during the recession of 2008 and 2009 when the automobile and financial industries were in turmoil, people in other industries, such as education and entertainment, also assessed their jobs to be in more jeopardy than they actually were. Advertisers love to inform people when a product is the “fastest growing” or “largest selling” because they don’t have to convince consumers directly that the product or service is good. They need only to say that many others think so. Falsely believing that others share one’s beliefs can lead to poor performance. Projection may be especially strong for undesirable traits that perceivers possess but fail to recognize in themselves. The individual whose personality traits include stinginess, obstinacy, and disorderliness tends to rate others higher on these traits than does the individual who doesn’t have these personality traits.

Contrast Effects

The contrast effect occurs when an evaluation is influenced by a preceding evaluation. Contrast effects have most often been studied in the context of interviews and performance appraisals because multiple ratings are often conducted in these situations. Contrast effects can result in either a positive or negative ratings bias, depending on what immediately preceded. If two strong interviews precede an average interview, the average interview will be rated much lower than if it were preceded by two weak interviews. Of course, in an interview context the contrast effect occurs when comparing different people. This perceptual bias can also occur, however, when comparing performance episodes of one person over time. For example, if an employee’s presentation skills are being evaluated over the course of three presentations, a manager will tend to rate an average presentation lower if it is preceded by two excellent presentations. This same manager would rate the same average presentation higher if it were preceded by two poor presentations. In other words, good behaviors stand out after bad ones, and bad ones stand out after good ones.[24] Contrast effects are exaggerated when an evaluation is conducted after each observation and when raters provide frequent evaluations of a behavior. This rating bias has been observed across many research studies and is very difficult to counteract.[25] Prior to recruiting activities, organizations may be able to train interviewers to be aware of contrast effects through mock interviews and ratings feedback.[26] Decreasing bias attributable to contrast effects will help generate more objective

and informative ratings.

Impression management is an attempt by an individual to manipulate or control the impressions that others form about them. This includes everything from how people talk to how they dress, and the hand gestures they use, to how they walk.[27] Researchers have identified many different types of impression management tactics and proposed various taxonomies. The one adopted here describes five common impression management tactics: self-promotion, ingratiation, intimidation, supplication, and exemplification. These five tactics, summarized in Table 3.2, can lead to either positive or negative perceptions depending on how the individual uses them.

Motivation to Manage Impressions

In Ecuador, you can hire a person or groups of people (called lloronas) to come to the funeral of a family member. The job of these people is to cry while the dead person is being buried, making sure that more people start to cry. Bartenders often put their own money in their tip jars at the beginning of the evening to give the impression to customers that others have tipped them. Evangelical preachers are known to seed their audience with ringers, who are rehearsed to come forward at a specified time to give witness and donations. In organizations, impression management efforts are generally targeted toward others who have the power to provide desired outcomes.[28] Impression management, thus, actually begins during the interview process before a person is even hired. Nearly all job applicants engage in impression management. The goal of impression management is to create an image that will result in desirable outcomes. During a job interview, applicants manage impressions with the interviewer to secure a job offer.

Upon gaining employment, employees often aim their impression management tactics at managers because managers are often the source of desirable outcomes—they usually determine performance ratings, compensation, and promotions for employees. The goal of employees’ impression management tactics is to favorably influence attributions made by the manager. Employees want to be seen as more likable and effective in order to get the things they want. In addition to these manager–employee interactions, impression management is used by individuals at all organizational levels as they talk with suppliers, coworkers, managers, and others—and vice versa. To determine how much you rely on impression management tactics, take a moment to complete the self-assessment questionnaire here.[29]

Results of Impression Management

A person can strategically use impression management tactics to manipulate others’ perceptions. In the wake of the doping scandal, the Lance Armstrong Foundation tried to create the impression that it was distinct from Lance Armstrong by changing its name to the Livestrong Foundation. Sometimes, however, even seasoned executives forget how much others’ perceptions matter. The CEOs of Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors went to Congress in 2008 and 2009 to ask for financial support of their companies. The first time before Congress they arrived in separate private jets and were earning millions in salary and other benefits. These behaviors did not create the impression that their companies were in dire financial straits. These CEOs also seemed exceedingly out of touch with their current reality. Impression management can help people create an image that is instrumental to achieving key outcomes. For employees, impression management tactics used with managers can result in seeming more likable and achieving higher performance ratings if the tactics are used effectively.[30] Individuals who are high in political skill can enact impression management in a way that makes it appear more genuine. Political skill is the ability to understand others at work and use this understanding to influence others and promote personal objectives. Generally speaking, those high in political skill have the ability to create better managerial impressions when they use these tactics frequently. On the other hand, individuals who use these impression management tactics but have low political skill are less likely to be viewed favorably and should instead avoid using them.[31] There is also some evidence that suggests impression management might have more influence on perceptions in the early stages of a relationship but dissipate over time as people get

to know each other’s “true selves.”[32] For organizations, impression management, when considered at the aggregate level, can be problematic, particularly if superior performance evaluations are used to make key organizational decisions (e.g., pay raises, promotions, job assignments). If performance evaluations are influenced by impression management tactics, there is a potential for employees to receive outcomes based on their ability to manage impressions rather than on job-related criteria. Of course, managers should try to gauge performance as objectively as possible, but this can be very difficult to do. In fact, research conducted in an interview context suggests that interviewers’ attempts to detect

applicants’ impression management efforts are rarely successful. Even more concerning is the observation that interviewers can detect honest impression management tactics (such as genuine self-promotion) more accurately than deceptive impression management tactics (such as self-promotion based on false criteria).[33]

A question often asked about others is “Why?” “Why did this engineer use these data in his report?” or “Why was Lance Armstrong able to win seven consecutive Tour de France races?” Such questions are an attempt to get at why a person behaved in a particular way. The attribution process refers to the ways in which people come to understand the causes of their own and others’ behaviors.[34] In essence, the attribution process reflects the person’s need to explain events through the deliberate actions of others rather than viewing them as random events. To maintain the illusion of control,

the individual needs to create causal attributions for events. Attributions also play an important role in perceptions. Attributions made about the reasons for someone’s behavior may affect judgments about that individual’s basic characteristics (that is, what that person is really like).

The attributions that employees and managers make concerning the causes of behavior are important for understanding behavior. For example, a leader who attributes poor performance directly to his subordinates tends to behave more punitively than does a leader who attributes poor performance to circumstances beyond his subordinates’ control. A manager who believes that an employee failed to perform a task correctly because he lacked proper training might be understanding and give the employee better instructions or more training. The same manager might be quite angry if she believed that the subordinate made mistakes simply because he didn’t try very hard. Responses to the same outcome can be dramatically different, depending on the attributions made about the reasons for that outcome. Table 3.3 lists some of the possible differences in managerial behavior when employees are perceived positively versus when they are perceived negatively. The relationships between attributions and behavior will become clearer as we examine the attribution process.

Making Attributions

The individual makes attributions in an attempt to understand why others behave as they do and to make better sense of their situations. An individual doesn’t consciously make attributions all the time (although he may do so unconsciously much of the time).[35] However, under certain circumstances the individual is likely to make causal attributions consciously. For example, causal attributions are common in the following situations:

• The perceiver has been asked an explicit question about another’s behavior. (“Why did she do

that?”)

• An unexpected event occurs. (“I’ve never seen him behave that way. I wonder what’s going

on?”)

• The perceiver depends on another person for a desired outcome. (“I wonder why my manager

made that comment about my expense account?”)

• The perceiver experiences feelings of failure or loss of control. (“I can’t believe I failed my

midterm exam!”)

Figure 3.3 presents a model for making attributions. The individual infers “causes” to behaviors that she observes in others. These interpretations often largely determine her reactions to those behaviors. The perceived causes of behavior reflect several antecedents: (1) the amount of information the perceiver has about the people and the situation and how that information is organized by the perceiver; (2) the perceiver’s beliefs (implicit personality theories, what other people might do in a similar situation, and so on); and (3) the motivation of the perceiver (e.g., the importance to the perceiver of making an accurate assessment). Recall our discussion of internal factors that influence perception—learning, personality, and motivation. These same internal factors influence the attribution process. The perceiver’s information and beliefs depend on previous experience and are influenced by the perceiver’s personality.

Internal versus External Causes of Behavior

As described by attribution theory, perceivers are especially concerned with whether another person’s behavior has been internally or externally caused. Internal causes are believed to be under an individual’s control—you believe that your website designer’s performance is poor because she is not conscientious. External causes are believed to be beyond a person’s control—you believe that her performance is poor because the company can’t afford to upgrade the technology she uses. Stated differently, internally caused behavior is thought to result from characteristics of the

individual, whereas externally caused behavior is thought to result from situational influence. When judging Lance Armstrong’s cycling performance over the years, some people thought it was internally caused and that Armstrong was a truly exceptional athlete. Others thought his performance was externally caused and assumed he was taking performance-enhancing drugs. Cleary, Armstrong was judged differently by those making internal versus external attributions for his performance prior to the USADA report (hero versus corrupt). According to attribution theory, three

factors influence the determination of internal or external cause:

• Consistency—the extent to which the person perceived behaves in the same manner on other occasions when faced with the same situation. If your website designer’s behavior has been poor for several months, you would tend to attribute it to an internal cause. If her performance is an isolated incident, you would tend to attribute it to an external cause. When a person exhibits the same behavior over time, we would say that consistency is high.

• Distinctiveness—the extent to which the person perceived acts in the same manner in different situations. If your website designer’s performance is poor, regardless of the computer program with which she’s working, you would tend to make an internal attribution; if her poor performance is unusual, you would tend to make an external attribution. When a person exhibits the same behavior across different situations, we would say that distinctiveness is low.

• Consensus—the extent to which others, faced with the same situation, behave in a manner similar to the person perceived. If all the employees in your website designer’s team perform poorly, you would tend to make an external attribution. Perhaps none of them are receiving the training that they need. If other members of her team are performing well, you would tend to make an internal attribution.[36] When only one person is exhibiting the behavior and others are not, we would say that consensus is low.

As Figure 3.4 suggests, under conditions of low consistency, high distinctiveness, and high consensus, the perceiver will tend to attribute the behaviors of the perceived to external causes. When consensus and distinctiveness are low, but consistency is high, the perceiver will tend to attribute the behaviors of the perceived to internal causes. For example, when all employees are performing poorly (high consensus), when the poor performance occurs on only one of several tasks (high distinctiveness), and the poor performance occurs only during the last week of the month (low consistency), a manager may attribute poor performance to an external source, such as peer pressure or an overly difficult task. In contrast, performance may be attributed to an employee (internal attribution) when only the individual in question is performing poorly (low consensus), when the inferior performance is found across several tasks (low distinctiveness), and when the low performance has persisted over time (high consistency). Other combinations of high and low consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus are possible. Some combinations may not provide the perceiver with a clear choice between internal and external causes.

With regard to internal versus external causes of behavior, individuals often make what is known as the fundamental attribution error.[37] The fundamental attribution error is the tendency to underestimate the influence of situational factors and to overestimate the influence of personal factors in evaluating someone else’s behavior. This error causes the perceiver to ignore important environmental factors that often significantly affect another person’s behavior. In organizations, employees may assign blame to other departments or individuals and fail to recognize the effect of the situation. For example, a CEO might attribute a high level of political behavior on the part of her vice presidents to aspects of their personalities, not recognizing that competition for scarce resources is causing much of the political behavior.

Some cultural differences exist in the fundamental attribution error. For example, in North America, this type of error would be as just described (underestimating external causes and overestimating internal causes). In India, however, the more common attribution error is for a manager to overestimate situational or external causes for the observed behaviors. This difference in attributions may reflect the way that the individual views personal responsibility or perhaps differences in “average” locus of control beliefs in the different societies.

The fundamental attribution error isn’t the only bias that can influence judgments concerning internal versus external causes of behavior. A study of supervisors showed that they were more likely to attribute effective performance to internal causes for high-status employees. The supervisors were less likely to attribute success to internal causes for low-status employees. Similarly, supervisors were more likely to attribute ineffective performance to internal causes for low-status employees and less likely to attribute failure to internal causes for high-status employees.[38] Perceptions of people and their behaviors are subjective. How others perceive events has important implications as the following Ethics Competency feature illustrates.[39] Before reading any further, what is your perception of overseas factories, especially those in China, that manufacture clothing for JCPenney, Macy’s, Levi Strauss, and the Gap? Are these factories

clean and well maintained? Are workers treated well? Are their products safe? How did you form these perceptions?

Gap Inc., a $16 billion retailer, was beleaguered by scandal in 2007 amid reports of sweatshop conditions and child labor being used in the factories manufacturing clothes for the Gap, Old Navy, GapBody, GapKids, and Banana Republic. In response, the Gap dug deep into the issues and published a 42-page social responsibility report that spelled out some of the problems found in operating garment factories in 60 countries around the world. It found persistent wage, health,

and safety violations in many factories. These violations ranged from failure to provide protective wear to physical abuse and coercion. The Gap pulled its business from more than 140 factories and turned down business from hundreds of others when they failed to meet the Gap’s labor standards. Since that time, Gap Inc. has taken a more active role in influencing how supplier factories operate and has developed systematic procedures to address working conditions and human rights violations within its supply chain. As stated in their sustainability report “Every day we pore over creative ideas for our clothes, spending time on every detail. But without the people who make them, this vision would never come to life.”

Attributions of Success and Failure

The attributions that employees and leaders make regarding success or failure are very important. Leaders may base decisions about rewards and punishments on their perceptions of why subordinates have succeeded or failed at some task. In general, individuals often attribute their own and others’ success or failure to four causal factors—ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck[40]:

• I succeeded (or failed) because I had the competencies to do the task (or because I did not have the competencies to do the task). Such statements are ability attributions.

• I succeeded (or failed) because I worked hard at the task (or because I did not work hard at the task). Such statements are effort attributions.

• I succeeded (or failed) because the task was easy (or because the task was too hard). Such statements are attributions about task difficulty.

• I succeeded (or failed) at the task because I was lucky (or unlucky). Such statements are attributions about luck or the circumstances surrounding the task.

Causal attributions of ability and effort are internal. Causal attributions of task difficulty and luck are external. These attributions about success or failure reflect differences in self-esteem and locus of control—personality dimensions discussed in Chapter 2. Accordingly, the self-serving bias refers to individuals attributing their success to internal factors (ability or effort) and attributing their failure to external factors (task difficulty or luck). For example, an individual with high selfesteem and high internal locus of control is likely to assess his own performance positively and to attribute his good performance to internal causes.

The tendency of employees to accept responsibility for good performance but to deny responsibility for poor performance often presents a serious challenge for managers during performance appraisals.[41] A self-serving bias may also create other types of problems. For example, it prevents individuals from accurately assessing their own performance and abilities and makes it more difficult to determine why a course of action has failed. The general tendency to blame others for a person’s own failures often is associated with poor performance and an inability to establish satisfying interpersonal relationships at work and in other social settings. In general, a version of the

self-serving bias seems to operate when people are asked to compare themselves to others in the work setting. That is, managers and employees often view themselves to be more ethical, more effective, better performing, and so on, than the “average” other person. One of the more traumatic events that can occur to anyone is being fired.[42] Today, losing a job doesn’t carry the stigma that it once did. But—it still hurts! Inevitably the person asks herself: What went wrong? What could I have done differently? And, perhaps most important: What am I going to do now?

For most people, undertaking a job search at any time is always stressful. Undertaking a job search after suffering the psychological blow of being fired can be a formidable challenge for anyone. Suppose that you have just been fired. You can take certain constructive actions to increase your chances of success and even end up with a more satisfying job. All of these tips assume that you have not been fired for unethical behaviors, including theft, bullying, sexual harassment, and other issues.

1. Work through the firing psychologically. Emotionally, you might feel like hiding or taking a sabbatical. Experts suggest, however, that beginning the search for a new job immediately is crucial. The first contact or two may be hard, but the sooner you get started and the more people you talk to, the quicker you will find another position. Of course, reestablishing your normal good spirits may be either a long or slow process, depending on your ability to bounce back. Maintaining a sense of humor helps. Hal Lancaster, of the Wall Street Journal, suggests that “getting fired is nature’s way of telling you that you had the wrong job in the first place.”

2. Figure out what went wrong. This step is an important part of coming to grips, psychologically, with the situation. If you don’t understand what led to your being fired, you’re likely to repeat the same mistakes in the future. Moreover, you need to talk to your former employer, coworkers, and friends and seek honest feedback to help you understand your strengths and weaknesses. Doing so may well be difficult. Many firms’ human resource professionals prefer

to say as little as possible at the time of dismissal in order to minimize lawsuits. If you can’t get insights from your former employer, experts suggest utilizing a career counselor to help you make the same evaluation.

3. Work with your former employer to develop an exit statement. If possible, you should have something in writing from your former employer that will be an asset in your job search. Specific suggestions include having a paragraph that describes what you accomplished in your former job followed by a paragraph that explains why you are no longer with the firm. There are lots of “socially acceptable” reasons that can be given in such a document: a change in management style, a change in strategy, the desire to pursue interests that no longer fit what the employer wants, and so on. Surprisingly, the fired employee can often get a former manager or a senior manager to sign such a document. Managers often want to be helpful, and if such a request is approached in a constructive, problem-solving manner, many times the former manager is willing to help create a letter or other document that does not condemn the company or you. This approach has the advantage of creating a situation where prospective future employers hear the same “story” from both the former employer and you.

4. Avoid negative attributions as part of your explanation. Experts say that you should never say anything bad about your former employer. Don’t make excuses, don’t trash the people you used to work for, and don’t blame everything on others. Focus on the positive aspects of any written understanding that you have obtained. Accept responsibility for both your failures and successes. Quickly move the discussion to the future, stressing what you’ve learned from previous jobs and focusing on what you can do for a new employer.