BUSI 240
Page 1 of 1
RESEARCH PROJECT: KEY TERM ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS
OVERVIEW
The learning theories upon which this course is based are actualized in the Research Project: Key
Term Assignment.
INSTRUCTIONS
You will begin the paper by selecting one key term to research. You may select any key term
from Chapters 2–13. The key terms are found at the end of each chapter. You will be required to
write a paper of at least 1,000 words, but not to exceed 1,250 words, to fully explore the topic.
Your project must demonstrate course-related knowledge with supporting documentation from
two peer-reviewed articles, the textbook, and the Bible.
The use of proper, current APA format is required. A title page and reference page(s) must be
included. The word count does not include the title or reference page(s). Submit the project as a
Microsoft Word document.
GRADING
Consult the accompanying rubric for how your instructor will grade this assignment. Also, any
form of plagiarism, including cutting and pasting, will result in zero points for the entire
assignment. All quoted materials must be properly cited in current APA format.
CHAPTER 3 KEY TERMS
attribution process
the perceptual process of deciding whether an observed behavior or event is caused largely
by internal or external factors
categorical thinking
organizing people and objects into preconceived categories that are stored in our long-
term memory
confirmation bias
the processing of screening out information that is contrary to our values and assumptions,
and to more readily accept confirming information
contact hypothesis
a theory stating that the more we interact with someone, the less prejudiced or
perceptually biased we will be against that person
empathy
a person’s understanding of and sensitivity to the feelings, thoughts, and situations of
others
false-consensus effect
a perceptual error in which we overestimate the extent to which others have beliefs and
characteristics similar to our own
fundamental attribution error
the tendency to see the person rather than the situation as the main cause of that person’s
behavior
global mindset
an individual’s ability to perceive, appreciate, and empathize with people from other
cultures, and to process complex cross-cultural information
halo effect
a perceptual error whereby our general impression of a person, usually based on one
prominent characteristic, colors our perception of other characteristics of that person
Johari Window
a model of mutual understanding that encourages disclosure and feedback to increase our
own open area and reduce the blind, hidden, and unknown areas
locus of control
a person’s general belief about the amount of control he or she has over personal life
events
mental models
knowledge structures that we develop to describe, explain, and predict the world around
us
perception
the process of receiving information about and making sense of the world around us
positive organizational behavior
a perspective of organizational behavior that focuses on building positive qualities and
traits within individuals or institutions as opposed to focusing on what is wrong with them
primacy effect
a perceptual error in which we quickly form an opinion of people based on the first
information we receive about them
recency effect
a perceptual error in which the most recent information dominates our perception of
others
selective attention
the process of attending to some information received by our senses and ignoring other
information
self-concept
an individual’s self-beliefs and self-evaluations
self-efficacy
a person’s belief that he or she has the ability, motivation, correct role perceptions, and
favorable situation to complete a task successfully
self-enhancement
a person’s inherent motivation to have a positive self-concept (and to have others perceive
him or her favorably), such as being competent, attractive, lucky, ethical, and important
self-fulfilling prophecy
the perceptual process in which our expectations about another person cause that person
to act more consistently with those expectations
self-serving bias
the tendency to attribute our favorable outcomes to internal factors and our failures to
external factors
self-verification
a person’s inherent motivation to confirm and maintain his or her existing self-concept
social identity theory
a theory stating that people define themselves by the groups to which they belong or have
an emotional attachment
stereotype threat
an individual’s concern about confirming a negative stereotype about his or her group
stereotyping
the process of assigning traits to people based on their membership in a social category
CHAPTER 4
affective organizational commitment
an individual’s emotional attachment to, involvement in, and identification with an
organization
attitudes
the cluster of beliefs, assessed feelings, and behavioral intentions toward a person, object,
or event (called an attitude object)
cognitive dissonance
an emotional experience caused by a perception that our beliefs, feelings, and behavior are
incongruent with one another
continuance commitment
an individual’s calculative attachment to an organization
emotional intelligence (EI)
a set of abilities to perceive and express emotion, assimilate emotion in thought,
understand and reason with emotion, and regulate emotion in oneself and others
emotional labor
the effort, planning, and control needed to express organizationally desired emotions
during interpersonal transactions
emotions
physiological, behavioral, and psychological episodes experienced toward an object,
person, or event that create a state of readiness
exit–voice–loyalty–neglect (EVLN) model
the four ways, as indicated in the name, that employees respond to job dissatisfaction
general adaptation syndrome
a model of the stress experience, consisting of three stages: alarm reaction, resistance, and
exhaustion
job satisfaction
a person’s evaluation of his or her job and work context
norm of reciprocity
a felt obligation and social expectation of helping or otherwise giving something of value to
someone who has already helped or given something of value to you
service profit chain model
a theory explaining how employee’s job satisfaction influences company profitability
indirectly through service quality, customer loyalty, and related factors
stress
an adaptive response to a situation that is perceived as challenging or threatening to the
person’s well-being
stressors
any environmental conditions that place a physical or emotional demand on the person
trust
positive expectations one person has toward another person in situations involving risk
work–life integration
the degree that people are effectively engaged in their various work and nonwork roles and
have a low degree of role conflict across those life domains
Perceiving Ourselves and
Others in Organizations
Learning Objectives
AFTER STUDYING THIS CHAPTER, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE
TO:
1. 3-1 Describe the self-concept characteristics and processes, and
explain how each affects an individual’s behavior and well-being.
2. 3-2Outline the perceptual process and discuss the effects of
categorical thinking and mental models in that process.
3. 3-3Discuss how stereotyping, attribution, self-fulfilling prophecy,
halo, false consensus, primacy, and recency effects influence the
perceptual process.
4. 3-4Discuss three ways to improve perceptions, with specific
application to organizational situations.
5. 3-5Outline the main features of a global mindset and justify its
usefulness to employees and organizations.
When Gladys Kong and her coworkers at UberMedia
attend an engineering or technology conference, people
often approach her with marketing questions and her
male coworkers with engineering questions. The visitors
assume that, as a female, Kong does marketing whereas the
guys around her are the engineers. They don’t realize that
Kong is not only an engineer; she is the CEO and formerly the
chief technology officer of the mobile location and data
company. “I either have to wear a sign that I am an engineer
or I have to show them I know what I am talking about,” says
Kong.
Gladys Kong might brush off these misperceptions and
stereotyping, but they partly explain why women represent
only about 15 percent of the engineering workforce in the
United States (similar to several other countries) and little
more than 20 percent of recent engineering graduates. “With
friends referring to [one female engineer’s work] as a man’s
job and another woman speaking about how someone asked
her if she wore a hard hat and rigger boots to work, it’s clear
that there is still a male stereotype surrounding the field,” says
Ruth Hancock, a senior executive at a global engineering
recruitment firm.
Page 81
“We need to urgently change the image of women in
engineering,” says Michelle Unger, a civil engineer specializing
in subsea and pipeline technology at a Swiss-based engineering
firm. “I now know that this image of an engineer is both
incorrect and—frankly—what probably discourages teenage
school girls,” says Unger. “I do not wear a hard hat, or work in
a muddy field. Very few of us will ever do that. Let’s drop this
image.”
Female engineers also face various forms of discrimination and
prejudice. For example, a Google engineer in California and the
CEO of a South African engineering association recently
espoused long-refuted ideas that women aren’t suited
biologically or personality-wise to engineering.
More subtle discrimination is evident in how some male
engineers treat their female coworkers. “Two girls in a group
had been working on the robot we were building in that class
for hours, and the guys in their group came back in and within
minutes had sentenced them to doing menial tasks while the
guys went and had all the fun in the machine shop,” complains
one female engineering student. Another female student notes
how some male engineers nonconsciously communicate their
low expectations of female peers. “I felt like whenever [the
male team members] would have technical conversations, they
would kind of dumb it down for me.”1
Stereotypes, discrimination, and other misperceptions are a few of the reasons
why women are under-represented in the engineering profession.
Gorodenkoff/Shutterstock
Page 82
Companies that employ engineering professionals face two
challenges in attracting and keeping women in this occupation:
(1) the concept women have about themselves as engineers;
and (2) the perceptions they and others have about engineers
and about women in these roles. We discuss both these related
topics in this chapter. First, we examine how people perceive
themselves—their self-concept—and how that self-perception
affects their decisions and behavior. Next, we focus on
perceptions in organizational settings, beginning with how we
select, organize, and interpret information. We also review
several specific perceptual processes such as stereotyping,
attribution, and self-fulfilling prophecy. This is followed by a
discussion of potentially effective ways to improve perceptions.
The final section of this chapter reviews the main elements of
global mindset, a largely perceptual process valued in this
increasingly globalized world.
Self-Concept: How We Perceive
Ourselves
LO 3-1Why are there so few female engineers in the United States and
many other countries? As the opening case study to this chapter
suggests, women are often presented with a mostly inaccurate image of
engineering that is incompatible with their self-view. They also receive
low-expectation signals from male coworkers, which affects their self-
evaluation. This amplifies any earlier self-doubts that may have arisen in
high school regarding performance in engineering-related courses. For
instance, one recent study found that 14-year-old girls significantly
underestimated their performance on science and technology tests,
whereas boys slightly over-rated themselves, even though average scores
were about the same for both genders.2
These barriers to women entering and remaining in engineering are core
elements of self-concept. Self-concept refers to an individual’s self-
beliefs and self-evaluations.3 It is the “Who am I?” and “How do I feel
about myself?” that people ask themselves and that guide their decisions
and actions. Whether contemplating a career in engineering or any other
occupation, we compare our images of that job with our current
perceived self and desired ideal self. We also evaluate our current and
desired abilities to determine whether there is a good fit with that type of
work. Our self-concept is defined at three levels: individual, relational,
and collective. Specifically, we view ourselves in terms of our personal
traits (individual self), connections to friends and coworkers (relational
self), and roles in teams, organizations, social groups, and other entities
(collective self).4
Self-Concept Complexity, Consistency,
and Clarity
An individual’s self-concept can be described by three characteristics:
complexity, consistency, and clarity (see Exhibit 3.1). Complexityrefers to
the number of distinct and important roles or identities that people
perceive about themselves.5 Everyone has some degree of complexity
because they see themselves in different roles at various times (student,
friend, daughter, sports fan etc.). People are generally motivated to
increase their complexity (called self-expansion) as they seek out new
opportunities and social connections. Your self-concept becomes more
complex, for example, as you move from being an accountant to a
manager because you have acquired additional roles.
EXHIBIT 3.1 Self-Concept Characteristics and Processes
Self-concept complexity is defined by more than just the number of
identities that a person has; it is also defined by the separation of those
identities. An individual with several identities might still have low self-
concept complexity when those identities are highly interconnected, such
as when they are all work related (manager, engineer, family income
earner). Complexity is higher when the multiple identities have a low
correlation with one another, such as when they apply to fairly distinct
spheres of life.
Page 83
Although everyone has multiple selves, only some of those identities
dominate their attention at one time.6 A particular self-view (parent,
manager, etc.) is usually domain specific; it is more likely to be activated
in some settings than in others. People shift their self-concept more
easily when the activated self-view is important and compatible with the
situation. For instance, as people travel from home to work, they can
usually shift their self-view from being a parent to being an executive
because each role is important and fits into the home and work contexts,
respectively. In contrast, some employees struggle to focus on their
occupational self-concept when working from home (remote work).
Consistency, the second self-concept characteristic, is the degree to which
the individual’s identities require similar personal attributes. High
consistency exists when the individual’s identities are compatible with
one another and with his or her actual personality traits, values, and
other attributes. Low consistency occurs when some self-views require
personal attributes that conflict with attributes required for other self-
views, such as when a safety-conscious engineer also defines himself or
herself as a risk-oriented surfer. Low consistency also occurs when an
individual’s dominant self-concept identities are incompatible with his or
her actual personal attributes. This would occur when someone has a
self-view as a highly creative individual yet has moderately low
openness-to-experience personality and values.
The third self-concept characteristic is clarity, which refers to the degree
to which a person’s self-concept is clear, confidently defined, and
stable.7 Clarity occurs when someone is confident about “who I am”, can
describe their important identities to others, and provide the same
description of themselves across time. Self-concept clarity increases with
age because personality and values become relatively stable by adulthood
and people develop better self-awareness through life experiences.
Clarity also increases through self-reflection; research has found that
when people live in other cultures they engage in more self-reflection,
which improves their self-concept clarity. Self-concept is also clearer
when a person’s multiple selves have higher consistency. This makes
sense because low consistency produces ambiguity about a person’s
underlying characteristics. For example, someone whose self-view
includes the contrasting identities of cautious engineer and risk-oriented
surfer would have difficulty defining himself or herself clearly or with
much confidence.8
Page 84
GLOBAL CONNECTIONS 3.1
Career Alignment Through Self-Concept Claritya
Tom Merton/Getty Images
Richard Alderson was developing an enviable career as a
business consultant in London after graduating from university.
“On the surface, I had a good job in a big company,” Anderson
recalls. “I’d done what was expected of me post-university.”
But Alderson eventually realized that this career path was
incompatible with his self-concept. In social gatherings, he
would “feel embarrassed about talking about my work because
it wasn’t something that felt aligned with me. There was
nothing wrong with the job or the company; they simply
weren’t right for me,” recalls Alderson, who has since formed a
company offering coaching and workshops for people who face
similar career incompatibility issues.
Alderson’s experience isn’t unusual. Many people complete an
educational program and enter a career before their self-
concept is clear and confidently defined. “Your twenties are a
time of considerable personality development and growth—and
only at 30 do you start to discover who you really
are,” suggests Kedge Martin, the founder of a career
development and life-skills agency in London.
Self-concept clarity can be sped up to some extent, however,
through a combination of meaningful feedback from supportive
people and your own self-reflection. “A lot of getting
comfortable in your own skin, beyond just basic maturing over
the years, is who you surround yourself with” says Tracie
Keesee, Deputy Commissioner of Equity and Inclusion, New
York City Police Department. “It [also] takes self-reflection, a
lot of preparation to be truly comfortable with who you are, and
finding the best ways to do that.”
Keesee also warns against pretending to be someone that
differs from one’s true self. “Where we often fail as leaders,
managers, and as individual contributors is when we assume
everyone has to shed who they are in order to conform to what
the organization needs. That approach is extremely unhealthy.
Staying true to oneself is the responsibility of each individual.”
Effects of Self-Concept Characteristics on Well-
Being and Behavior
Psychological well-being tends to be higher among people with fairly
distinct multiple selves (complexity) that are well established (clarity)
and require similar personal attributes that are compatible with the
individual’s character (consistency).9 Self-concept complexity protects
our self-esteem when some roles are threatened or damaged. Think of a
complex self as a ship with several compartments that can be sealed off
from one another. If one compartment of the ship is damaged, the other
compartments remain intact so the ship stays afloat. A complex self
offers the same benefits: if one identity is damaged by events—job loss,
for example—the person’s mental health remains afloat because the
other selves remain intact. In contrast, people with low complexity,
including those whose multiple selves are interconnected, suffer severe
loss when they experience failure because these events affect a large part
of themselves.
Psychological well-being also tends to be healthier when the individual’s
multiple selves are compatible with one another and with their
personality and values (consistency).10 Self-concept complexity helps
people adapt, but too much variation causes internal tension and
conflict. Well-being also tends to increase with self-concept clarity.
People who are unsure of their self-views are more easily influenced by
others, experience more stress when making decisions, and feel more
threatened by social forces that undermine their self-confidence and self-
esteem.11
Self-concept complexity, consistency, and clarity have both positive and
negative influences on individual behavior and performance.12Employees
with complex identities tend to have more adaptive decision making and
performance. This likely occurs because multiple selves generate more
diverse experiences and role patterns, so these employees can more
easily alter their thinking and behavior to suit new tasks and work
environments. A second benefit is that self-concept complexity often
produces more diverse social networks, and this network diversity gives
employees access to more resources and social support to perform their
jobs.
Page 85
Against these benefits is the problem that highly complex self-concepts
require more effort to maintain and juggle, which can be stressful. In
contrast, low complexity has the advantage of requiring less effort and
resources to develop those few identities. For example, people who
define themselves mainly by their work (low complexity) often have
better performance due to more investment in skill development, longer
hours, and more concentration on work. They also have lower
absenteeism and turnover.
Self-concept clarity tends to improve performance and is considered vital
for leadership roles.13 Clarity also provides a clearer path forward, which
enables people to direct their effort more efficiently toward career
objectives. Another benefit is that people with high self-concept clarity
feel less threatened by interpersonal conflict, so they use more
constructive problem-solving behaviors to resolve the conflict. However,
those with very high clarity may have role inflexibility, with the result
that they cannot adapt to changing job duties or environmental
conditions.
SELF-ASSESSMENT 3.1: HOW MUCH DOES WORK
DEFINE YOUR SELF-CONCEPT?
Work is part of our lives. Some people view it as central to
their identity as individuals, whereas others consider work to
be secondary to other life interests. You can discover the
extent to which work is central to your self-concept by locating
this self-assessment in Connect if it is assigned by your
instructor.
Along with the three self-concept characteristics, Exhibit 3.1 illustrates
four processes that shape self-concept and motivate a person’s decisions
and behavior. Let’s look at each of these four “selves”: self-enhancement,
self-verification, self-evaluation, and social self (social identity).
Self-Enhancement
A century ago, educational philosopher John Dewey said that “the
deepest urge in human nature is the desire to be important.”14 Dewey
recognized that people are inherently motivated to perceive themselves
(and to be perceived by others) as competent, attractive, lucky, ethical,
and important.15 This phenomenon, called self-enhancement, is
observed in many ways. Individuals tend to rate themselves above
average, believe that they have a better than average probability of
success, and attribute their successes to personal motivation or ability
while blaming the situation for their mistakes. For instance, one study
reported that 70 percent of students believe their academic performance
is above average; 62 percent say they have above-average leadership
ability compared to other students. People don’t believe they are above
average in all circumstances, only for things that are important to them
and are relatively common rather than rare.16
Self-enhancement has both positive and negative consequences in
organizational settings.17 On the positive side, individuals tend to
experience better mental and physical health when they amplify their
self-concept. Overconfidence also generates a “can-do” attitude (which
we discuss later) that motivates persistence in difficult or risky tasks. On
the negative side, self-enhancement causes people to overestimate future
returns in investment decisions and engage in unsafe behavior (such as
dangerous driving). It also is responsible for executives repeating poor
decisions (because they ignore negative feedback), launching misguided
corporate diversification strategies, and acquiring excessive corporate
debt. Generally, though, successful companies strive to help employees
feel valued, which generates some degree of self-enhancement.
Page 86
Self-Verification
Individuals try to confirm and maintain their existing self-concept.18 This
process, called self-verification, stabilizes an individual’s self-view,
which in turn provides an important anchor that guides his or her
thoughts and actions. People actively communicate their self-concept so
coworkers understand it and provide verifying feedback. For example,
you might let coworkers know that you are a very organized person;
later, they compliment you on occasions where you have indeed been
very organized. One recent study reported that when a person’s identity
as a leader is questioned by others, the leader applies self-verification
strategies, such as making their role performance more visible (e.g.,
working longer hours), adopting a less threatening style of that self-view,
and directly confronting those who doubt or disagree with their identity
as a leader.19
Unlike self-enhancement, self-verification includes seeking feedback that
is not necessarily flattering (e.g., “I’m a numbers person, not a people
person”). Experts continue to debate whether and under what conditions
people prefer information that supports self-enhancement or self-
verification.20 In other words, do we prefer compliments rather than
accurate critique about weaknesses that we readily acknowledge? The
answer is likely an internal tug-of-war; we enjoy compliments, but less so
if they are significantly contrary to our self-view.
Self-verification is associated with several OB topics.21 First, it affects the
perceptual process because employees are more likely to remember
information that is consistent with their self-concept and nonconsciously
screen out information (particularly negative information) that seems
inconsistent with it. Second, people with high self-concept clarity will
consciously dismiss feedback that contradicts their self-concept. Third,
employees are motivated to interact with others who affirm their self-
views, and this affects how well they get along with their boss and team
members. For instance, new employees are more satisfied and perform
better when the socialization process allows them to affirm their
authentic self—they can demonstrate and receive support for “who they
are”—rather than when the socialization process mainly steers them into
the company’s image of an ideal employee.22
Self-Evaluation
Almost everyone strives to have a positive self-concept, but some people
have a more positive evaluation of themselves than do others. This self-
evaluation is mostly defined by three elements: self-esteem, self-efficacy,
and locus of control.23
Self-Esteem
Self-esteem—the extent to which people like, respect, and are satisfied
with themselves—represents a global self-evaluation. People have
degrees of self-esteem for each of their various roles, such as being a
good student, a good driver, and a good parent. From these multiple self-
appraisals, people form an overall evaluation of themselves, known as
their global self-esteem. People with high self-esteem are less influenced
by others, tend to persist in spite of failure, and have a higher propensity
to think logically.24
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy refers to a person’s belief about successfully completing a
task.25 Those with high self-efficacy have a “can-do” attitude. They
believe they possess the energy (motivation), ability, clear expectations
(role perceptions), and resources (situational factors) to perform the
task. In other words, self-efficacy is an individual’s perception regarding
the MARS model in a specific situation. Self-efficacy is often task
specific, but it can also be more generalized. People have a general self-
efficacy when they believe they can be successful across a variety of
situations.26 People with higher general self-efficacy have a more positive
overall self-evaluation.
Page 87
SELF-ASSESSMENT 3.2: HOW MUCH GENERAL SELF-
EFFICACY DO YOU HAVE?
Self-efficacy refers to a person’s belief that he or she has the
ability, motivation, and resources to complete a task
successfully. Although self-efficacy is often situation-specific,
people also develop a more general self-efficacy if they perform
tasks in a variety of situations. You can discover your level of
general self-efficacy by locating this self-assessment in Connect
if it is assigned by your instructor.
Locus of Control
Locus of control is defined as a person’s general beliefs about the
amount of control he or she has over personal life events.27 Individuals
with an internal locus of control believe that life events are caused
mainly by their personal characteristics (i.e., motivation and abilities).
Those with an external locus of control believe events are due mainly to
fate, luck, or conditions in the external environment. Locus of control is
a generalized belief, but this belief varies to some extent with the
situation. People with an external locus of control generally believe that
life’s outcomes are beyond their control, but they also believe they have
control over the results of tasks they perform often. The individual’s
general locus of control would be most apparent in new situations, where
their ability to control events is uncertain.
People with an internal locus of control have a more positive self-
evaluation. They also tend to perform better in most employment
situations, are more successful in their careers, earn more money, and
are better suited for leadership positions. Internals are also more
satisfied with their jobs, cope better in stressful situations, and are more
motivated by performance-based reward systems.28
SELF-ASSESSMENT 3.3: WHAT IS YOUR LOCUS OF
CONTROL?
Locus of control is one component of self-evaluation, which is
part of an individual’s self-concept. It is a person’s general
belief about the amount of control he or she has over personal
life events. You can discover your general locus of control
orientation by locating this self-assessment in Connect if it is
assigned by your instructor.
The Social Self
We began this topic by stating that an individual’s self-concept exists at
three levels: individual, relational, and collective. These three levels
recognize two opposing human motives that influence how people view
themselves.29
Motivation to be distinctive and different from other people. The
individual self, called personal identity or internal self-
concept, fulfills the need for distinctiveness because it involves
defining ourselves by our personality, values, abilities,
qualifications, achievements and other personal attributes.
Everyone has a unique combination of personal characteristics,
and we embrace this uniqueness to some degree. For instance,
an unusual skill or accomplishment that distinguishes you from
coworkers is part of your personal identity.
Page 88
Motivation for inclusion and assimilation with other people. The
relational and collective self-concepts fulfill the fundamental
need for affiliation because they involve both interaction and
interdependence with others.30 Human beings are social
animals; we have an inherent drive to be associated with others
and to be recognized as part of social communities. This drive to
belong motivates all individuals to define themselves to some
degree by their interpersonal and collective relationships, a
definition known as their social identity or external self-concept.
Social identity is the central theme of social identity theory, which says
that people define themselves by the groups to which they belong or have
an emotional attachment.31 For instance, someone might have a social
identity as an American citizen, a University of Oregon alumnus, and an
employee at Boston Consulting Group (see Exhibit 3.2).
EXHIBIT 3.2 Social Identity Theory Example
Social identity is a complex combination of many memberships arranged
in a hierarchy of importance. One factor that determines importance is
how easily you are identified as a member of the reference group, such as
by your gender, age, and ethnicity. A second factor is your minority
status in a group. It is difficult to ignore your gender in a class where
most other students are the opposite gender, for example. In that
context, gender tends to become a stronger defining feature of your
social identity than it is in social settings where there are many people of
the same gender.
The group’s status is another important social identity factor because
association with the group makes us feel better about ourselves (i.e., self-
enhancement). Medical doctors usually define themselves by their
profession because of its high status. Some people describe themselves
by where they work (“I work at Google”) because their employer has a
good reputation. Others never mention where they work because their
employer is noted for poor relations with employees or has a poor
reputation in the community.32
GLOBAL CONNECTIONS 3.2
Starbucks Nurtures Employees’ Social Identity in Chinab
humphery/Shutterstock
Starbucks Coffee Company has become a success story in
China by making the American coffee-house chain an integral
part of employees’ social identity. It does this in several ways.
First, employees (who are called “partners”) easily connect with
Starbucks’ core values of performance, innovation, respect, and
belonging.
Second, Starbucks has positioned itself as a premium brand,
which further elevates employee pride. The company offers
competitive pay, comprehensive health insurance, an employee
ownership plan, a housing allowance for full-time staff, and
ongoing training and career development.
Starbucks staff also proudly identify with their employer
because of its well-known emphasis on families—an important
value in Chinese culture. The company holds an annual
“Partner Family Forum,” where employees and their parents
learn about Starbucks and its future in China. The chain also
recently introduced special critical illness insurance for
employees’ elderly parents. “We have always aspired to create
a culture that our employees are proud to belong to,” says an
executive at Starbucks Asia Pacific.
All of us try to balance our personal and social identities, but the priority
for uniqueness (personal identities) versus belongingness (social
identities) differs from one person to the next. People whose self-
concepts are heavily defined by social rather than personal identities are
more motivated to abide by team norms and more easily influenced by
peer pressure. Those who place more emphasis on personal identities, on
the other hand, speak out more frequently against the majority and are
less motivated to follow the team’s wishes. Furthermore, expressing
disagreement with others is a sign of distinctiveness and can help
employees form a clearer self-concept, particularly when that
disagreement is based on differences in personal values.33
Page 89
Self-Concept and Organizational
Behavior
Self-concept has become a hot topic in the social sciences and is starting
to bloom in organizational behavior research.34 This section briefly noted
that self-concept influences human perceptions, decision making,
motivation, stress, team dynamics, leadership development, and several
other OB topics. Therefore, you will read about self-concept throughout
this book, including later parts of this chapter.
Perceiving the World around Us
LO 3-2We spend considerable time perceiving ourselves, but most of our
perceptual energy is directed toward the outer world. Whether as a
chemical engineer, forensic accountant, or senior executive, we need to
make sense of the world around us, including the conditions that
challenge the accuracy of those perceptions. Perception is the process of
receiving information about and making sense of the world around us. It
includes determining which information to notice, how to categorize this
information, and how to interpret it within the framework of our existing
knowledge.
Page 90
This perceptual process generally follows the steps shown in Exhibit 3.3.
Perception begins when environmental stimuli are received through our
senses. Most stimuli that bombard our senses are screened out; the rest
are organized and interpreted. The process of attending to some
information received by our senses and ignoring other information is
called selective attention. Selective attention is influenced by
characteristics of the person or object being perceived, particularly size,
intensity, motion, repetition, and novelty. For example, a small, flashing
red light on a nurses’ workstation console is immediately noticed
because it is bright (intensity), flashing (motion), a rare event (novelty),
and has symbolic meaning that a patient’s vital signs are failing. Notice
that selective attention is also influenced by the context in which the
target is perceived. For instance, selective attention is triggered by things
or people who might be out of context, such as someone with a foreign
accent in a setting where most people have a local accent.
EXHIBIT 3.3 Model of the Perceptual Process
Characteristics of the perceiver also influence selective attention, usually
without the perceiver’s awareness.35 When information is received
through the senses, our brain quickly and nonconsciously assesses
whether it is relevant or irrelevant to us and then attaches emotional
markers (worry, happiness, boredom) to the retained
information.36 Emotional markers help us store information in memory;
those emotions are later reproduced when recalling the perceived
information. The selective attention process is far from perfect, however.
The Greek philosopher Plato acknowledged this imperfection long ago
when he wrote that we see reality only as shadows reflecting against the
rough wall of a cave.37
One selective attention bias is the effect of our assumptions and
expectations about future events. You are more likely to notice a
particular coworker’s email among the daily avalanche of messages when
you expect to receive that email (even more so if it is a valuable
message). Unfortunately, expectations and assumptions also cause us to
screen out potentially important information. In one study, students
were asked to watch a 30-second video clip in which several people
passed around two basketballs. Students in one group were instructed
simply to watch the video clip. Most of them readily noticed a person
dressed in a gorilla suit walking among the players for nine seconds and
stopping to thump his or her chest. Students in a second group were
asked to count the number of times one of the two basketballs was
passed around. Only half of the people in this latter group noticed the
intruding gorilla.38
Page 91
Another selective attention problem, called confirmation bias, is the
nonconscious tendency for people to screen out information that is
contrary to their decisions, beliefs, values and assumptions, while more
readily accepting information that confirms existing perceptions and
attitudes.39 When making an important decision, such as investing in a
costly project, we tend to pay attention to information that supports that
decision, ignore information that questions the wisdom of the decision,
and more easily recall the supportive than the opposing information.
Confirmation bias occurred, for example, in an exercise where student
pilots became unsure of their location. The study found that the pilots
tried to find their true location by relying on less reliable information
that was consistent with their assumptions than on more accurate
information that was contrary to those assumptions. Confirmation bias is
also a well-known perceptual problem when police detectives and other
forensic experts form theories too early in the investigation.40
GLOBAL CONNECTIONS 3.3
Confirmation Bias Leads to Wrongful Convictionc
tillsonburg/Getty Images
“It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the
evidence,” warned the mythical detective Sherlock Holmes in A
Study in Scarlet. “It biases the judgment.” Law-enforcement
agencies try to follow this advice, but confirmation bias
contributes to many flawed investigations.
One of the most notorious examples of confirmation bias
occurred in the wrongful conviction of Michael Morton in his
wife’s murder. Morton spent 25 years in a Texas jail before his
conviction was overturned. The actual murderer was
subsequently identified and convicted.
By focusing on the theory that Morton murdered his wife, police
and the District Attorney’s Office ignored evidence from
neighbors who saw an unknown driver park his van in a vacant
wooded lot behind Morton’s property and walk through
underbrush toward Morton’s home on the morning the murder
was discovered. Investigators also dismissed the relevance of a
bandana found 100 yards from the home. Two decades later,
the bandana provided vital DNA evidence linking the real
murderer to Morton’s wife.
The deceased’s purse was missing, which the district attorney
argued in court was Morton’s attempt to direct blame onto a
fictional burglar. Yet police apparently failed to investigate a
report that the credit card from the missing purse was
fraudulently used two days after the murder. The police also
ignored a conversation Morton’s three-year-old son had with
his grandmother two weeks after the murder in which the child
correctly recalled details of the murder scene, described a man
in the house, and said his father was not home at the time.
(Morton was at work that day, whereas the prosecutor tried to
prove Morton killed his wife before going to work.)
The district attorney and his successor fought against attempts
to re-examine evidence with newer DNA tests and tried to
block release of the original investigation’s notes and reports.
The presiding judge had requested all documentary evidence of
the case, but decades later officials discovered that the district
attorney’s office violated that request by excluding evidence
that conflicted with their case (i.e., exonerating evidence).
The district attorney (who later became a district judge) was
recently found guilty of contempt of court and agreed to
surrender his law license as a result of his actions in the Morton
case. His successor lost the district attorney election when new
evidence supporting Morton’s innocence came to light. The
state of Texas has since passed the Michael Morton Act, which
requires Texas prosecutors to disclose to the defendant and
other parties the entire contents of the prosecutor’s files, such
as police reports, DNA evidence, and surveillance footage.
Perceptual Organization and
Interpretation
We pay attention to a tiny fraction of the stimuli received by the senses.
Even so, the human brain further reduces the huge volume and
complexity of the information received through various perceptual
grouping strategies. Perceptual grouping occurs mostly without our
awareness, yet it is the foundation for making sense of things and
fulfilling our need for cognitive closure.
Page 92
The most common and far-reaching perceptual grouping process
is categorical thinking—the mostly nonconscious process of organizing
people and objects into preconceived categories that are stored in our
long-term memory.41 People are usually grouped together based on their
observable similarity, such as gender, age, race, or clothing style. This
categorization process also groups people together by their proximity to
one another. If you notice a group of employees working in the same area
and know that some of them are marketing staff, you will likely assume
that the others in that group are also marketing staff.
SELF-ASSESSMENT 3.4: HOW MUCH PERCEPTUAL
STRUCTURE DO YOU NEED?
Some people have a greater need than do others to quickly or
completely “make sense” of things around them. This personal
need for perceptual structure relates to selective attention as
well as perceptual organization and interpretation. You can
discover your need for perceptual structure by locating this
self-assessment in Connect if it is assigned by your instructor.
A second perceptual grouping process organizes incoming information
by filling in the missing pieces of the puzzle. Everyone has a need for
cognitive closure; we want to make sense of what goes on around us,
which makes it easier to predict and manage future events. To reduce the
ambiguity of sensory stimuli, we make assumptions about missing
information by relying on past images and experiences in those
situations (mental models, which we discuss next). For instance, we
engage in cognitive closure by assuming what happened at a meeting
that we didn’t attend (e.g., who was there, where it was held). A related
process is perceiving trends in otherwise ambiguous information. Several
studies have found that people have a natural tendency to see patterns
that, in fact, are random events. For example, people incorrectly believe
that a sports player or gambler with a string of wins is more likely to win
next time as well.42
The process of “making sense” of the world around us also involves
interpreting incoming information, not just organizing it. This happens
as quickly as selecting and organizing because the previously mentioned
emotional markers are tagged to incoming stimuli, which are essentially
quick judgments about whether that information is good or bad for us.
How much time does it take to make these quick judgments? Recent
studies estimate that we make reliable judgments about another
individual’s trustworthiness after viewing a facial image for as little as 50
milliseconds (1/20th of a second). In fact, whether we see a face for a
minute or for just 200 milliseconds, our opinion of whether we like or
trust that person is about the same.43 Collectively, these studies reveal
that selective attention, perceptual organization, and interpretation
operate very quickly and to a large extent without our awareness.
Mental Models
To achieve our goals with some degree of predictability and sanity, we
need road maps of the environments in which we live. These road maps,
called mental models, are knowledge structures that we develop to
describe, explain, and predict the world around us.44 They consist of
visual or relational images in our mind, such as what the classroom looks
like or what happens when we submit an assignment late. Mental models
partly rely on the process of perceptual grouping to make sense of things;
they fill in the missing pieces, including the causal connection among
events. For example, you have a mental model about attending a class
lecture or seminar, including assumptions or expectations about where
the instructor and students arrange themselves in the room, how they
ask and answer questions, and so forth. In other words, we create a
mental image of a class in progress.
Page 93
Mental models are important for sense making, yet they also make it
difficult to see the world in different ways. For example, accounting
professionals tend to see corporate problems from an accounting
perspective, whereas marketing professionals see the same problems
from a marketing perspective. Mental models also block our recognition
of new opportunities. How do we change mental models? That’s a tough
challenge. After all, we developed these knowledge structures from
several years of experience and reinforcement. The most important way
to minimize the perceptual problems with mental models is to be aware
of and frequently question them. We need to ask ourselves about the
assumptions we make. Working with people from diverse backgrounds is
another way to break out of existing mental models. Colleagues from
different cultures and areas of expertise tend to have different mental
models, so working with them makes our own assumptions more
obvious.
Specific Perceptual Processes and
Problems
LO 3-3Within the general perceptual process are specific subprocesses
and associated perceptual errors. In this section of the chapter, we
examine several of these perceptual processes and biases as well as their
implications for organizational behavior, beginning with the most widely
known one: stereotyping.
Stereotyping in Organizations
Stereotyping is the perceptual process in which we assign characteristics
to an identifiable group and then automatically transfer those features to
anyone we believe is a member of that group.45 The assigned
characteristics tend to be difficult to observe, such as personality traits
and abilities, but they can also include physical characteristics and a host
of other qualities. If we learn that someone is a professor, for example,
we implicitly assume the person is probably also intelligent and absent-
minded.
Stereotypes are formed to some extent from personal experience, but
they are mainly provided to us through media images (e.g., movie
characters) and other cultural prototypes. Consequently, stereotypes are
shared beliefs across an entire society and sometimes across several
cultures, rather than beliefs that differ from one person to the next. Most
stereotypes have a few kernels of truth; they are more likely to
characterize people within the group than the rest of us.46 Still, as the
opening case study to this chapter pointed out, stereotypes embellish or
distort the kernels of truth and include other features that are not
representative of people in that group. In spite of their inaccuracy,
stereotypes about engineers, for example, remain persistent enough to
discourage many women from pursuing this profession.
GLOBAL CONNECTIONS 3.4
You People!: Exposing Stereotyping in South Africad
Aaron Amat/Shutterstock
South African restaurant chain Nando’s recently launched a
witty advertisement that pokes fun at our tendency to
stereotype people who are different from us. The “You People”
video has several brief scenes in which viewers easily
misperceive the actors’ role in the scene (upscale customer
versus employee) or the meaning of their actions (running for
exercise versus running away from police). It also shows that
those who stereotype “you people” fail to recognize similar
behavior in themselves.
“‘You people’ is a phrase often used by South Africans when
describing people who are different to them,” says Doug Place,
Nando’s chief marketing officer in Johannesburg. “It’s a phrase
that goes hand in hand with an unconscious bias.”
Place explains that Nando’s created the ad to encourage
discussion about stereotyping and to promote greater harmony
in society. “If you’re watching our ad and say ‘I’ve done that’
(hopefully with a guilty smile), then we’ve been successful at
starting a crucial conversation—hopefully one that starts with
‘us people’.”
Why People Stereotype
People engage in stereotyping because, as a form of categorical thinking,
it is usually a nonconscious “energy-saving” process that simplifies our
understanding of the world. It is easier to remember features of a
stereotype than the constellation of characteristics unique to everyone
we meet. A second reason is that we have an innate need to understand
and anticipate how others will behave. We don’t have much information
about people initially or when we seldom interact with them, so we rely
on stereotypes to fill in the missing pieces. The higher the perceiver’s
need for cognitive closure, the higher the reliance on stereotypes.47
Page 94
A third explanation for stereotyping is that it is motivated by the
observer’s need for social identity and self-enhancement. Earlier in this
chapter we explained that people define themselves by the groups to
which they belong or have an emotional attachment. They are also
motivated to maintain a positive self-concept. This combination of social
identity and self-enhancement leads to the process of categorization,
homogenization, and differentiation, all of which are the foundations of
stereotyping:48
Categorization. Social identity is a comparative process, and the
comparison begins by categorizing people into distinct groups.
By viewing someone (including yourself) as a Texan, for
example, you remove that person’s individuality and, instead, see
him or her as a prototypical representative of the group called
Texans. This categorization then allows you to distinguish
Texans from people who live in, say, California or Maine.
Homogenization. To simplify the comparison process, we tend to
think that people within each group are very similar to one
another. For instance, we think Texans collectively have similar
attitudes and characteristics, whereas Californians collectively
have their own set of characteristics. Of course, every individual
is unique, but we often lose sight of this fact when thinking about
our social identity and how we compare to people in other social
groups.
Differentiation. Along with categorizing and homogenizing
people, we tend to assign more favorable characteristics to
people in our groups than to people in other groups.49 This
differentiation is motivated by self-enhancement because being
in a “better” group produces higher self-esteem. Differentiation
is often subtle, but it can escalate into a “good guy–bad guy”
contrast when groups engage in overt conflict with each other. In
other words, when out-group members threaten our self-
concept, we are particularly motivated (often without our
awareness) to assign negative stereotypes to them. Some
research suggests that men have stronger differentiation biases
than do women, but we all differentiate to some extent.
Page 95
Problems with Stereotyping
Everyone engages in stereotyping, but this process leads to perceptual
biases as well as flawed decisions and behaviors in the workplace. One
problem with stereotypes is that they are inaccurate. A stereotype does
not describe everyone because members of the stereotyped group are not
identical. Furthermore, although a stereotype typically has kernels of
truth, most characteristics are distorted and embellished to such an
extent that they describe very few people in the group. For instance, the
stereotype of engineers as socially inept, nerdy know-it-alls perhaps
describes a few people in that profession, but it is certainly not
characteristic of all, or even most, engineers. Nevertheless, once we
categorize someone as an engineer, the stereotypical nonobservable
features of engineers are transferred to that individual, even though we
have no evidence that he or she actually possesses those characteristics.
A second problem with stereotyping is stereotype threat. This is a
condition whereby members of a stereotyped group are so concerned
about a negative stereotype of a group to which they belong that they end
up displaying that stereotype trait.50 Stereotype threat occurs because
people in a stereotyped group anxiously try to avoid confirming the
undesirable traits and try to push the negative image from their mind.
These two cognitive activities divert energy and attention, which makes it
more difficult to perform the task well. The negative stereotype also can
weaken self-efficacy; it is difficult to be confident in your ability when
your group’s stereotype suggests otherwise.
For example, women perform worse on math and science tests when
sensitized to the generally false but widely held belief that women
perform worse than men in these subjects. They also tend to have lower
scores when there are few women in the group being tested. Women
achieve much higher scores when the gender stereotype is not salient,
such as when taking the test with many women in the class. Almost
anyone can be affected by stereotype threat, but studies have particularly
observed it for women, African Americans and other minority groups,
and older people.
A third problem with stereotyping is that it lays the foundation for
discriminatory attitudes and behavior. Most of this perceptual bias
occurs as unintentional (systemic) discrimination, whereby decision
makers rely on stereotypes to establish notions of the “ideal” person in
specific roles. A person who doesn’t fit the ideal has to work harder to get
the same evaluation as someone who is compatible with the occupational
stereotype.
Unintentional systemic discrimination also affects employment
opportunities and salaries. Consider the following example: Science
faculty from several research intensive universities were given the
application materials of an undergraduate student who was purportedly
applying for a science laboratory manager job. Half of the faculty
reviewed materials from a male applicant; the other half looked at
materials from a female applicant. The male and female applicant
materials were identical except for the name, yet the male applicant
received significantly higher ratings than a female applicant on
competence and hire-ability. Furthermore, faculty members
recommended an average salary of $30,238 for the male applicant but
only $26,507 for the female applicant. Female faculty exhibited as much
gender bias as the male faculty.51
Women represent almost 40 percent of the global workforce and about one-third of
managers, yet they comprise less than 18 percent of corporate board members worldwide.
Some say the problem is mainly systemic discrimination, such as nonconsciously relying on
a male prototype of the ideal board member when selecting candidates for this role. Others
suggest the lack of women in the boardroom is due to more explicit prejudice. South Korea,
some Middle Eastern countries, and Indonesia have the lowest percentage of women on
corporate boards (less than 5 percent). Women have the highest board representation in
France, Scandinavian countries, and Italy (between 35 and 41 percent). Women occupy 24
percent of boardroom positions in the United States.e
Westend61/Getty Images
Worse than systemic discrimination is intentional
discrimination or prejudice, in which people hold unfounded negative
attitudes toward people belonging to a particular stereotyped
group.52 Intentional discrimination deliberately puts the target person at
an unfair disadvantage, which is unfortunately still common in
organizations. One recent meta-analysis estimated that minority
applicants in OECD countries need to submit almost 50 percent more job
applications to receive the same number of interviews as majority
applicants. For instance, some French firms have used the code BBR as a
signal that they want recruiters to hire someone who is Caucasian. “Some
people asked for what in French is called a BBR; it’s a code to say a ‘Bleu-
Blanc-Rouge’—the colors of our national flag,” explains one French
recruiter. “It was to tell the recruitment agency I am a racist company
but I do not want it to appear as such so I use an external supplier to
bypass the law.”53
Page 96
If stereotyping is such a problem, shouldn’t we try to avoid this process
altogether? Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. Most experts agree that
categorical thinking (including stereotyping) is an automatic and
nonconscious process. Specialized training programs can minimize
stereotype activation to some extent, but for the most part the process is
hardwired in our brain cells.54 Also remember that stereotyping helps us
in several valuable (although fallible) ways described earlier: minimizing
mental effort, filling in missing information, and supporting our social
identity.
The good news is that while it is very difficult to prevent the activation of
stereotypes, we can minimize the application of stereotypic information.
In other words, although we automatically categorize people and assign
stereotypic traits to them, we can consciously minimize the extent to
which we rely on that stereotypic information.55 Later in this chapter, we
identify ways to minimize stereotyping and other perceptual biases.
Attribution Theory
Another widely discussed perceptual phenomenon in organizational
settings is the attribution process.56 Attribution involves forming beliefs
about the causes of behavior or events. Generally, we perceive whether
an observed behavior or event is caused mainly by characteristics of the
person (internal factors) or by the environment (external factors).
Internal factors include the person’s ability or motivation, whereas
external factors include resources, coworker support, or luck. If someone
doesn’t show up for an important meeting, for instance, we infer either
internal attributions (the coworker is forgetful, lacks motivation, etc.) or
external attributions (traffic, a family emergency, etc.) to make sense of
the person’s absence.
Three attribution rules—consistency, distinctiveness, consensus—are
used by observers to determine whether someone’s behavior and
performance are mainly caused by their personal characteristics or
situational influences (see Exhibit 3.4).57 To illustrate how these three
attribution rules operate, imagine a situation where an employee is
making poor-quality products on a particular machine. We would
probably conclude that the employee lacks skill or motivation (an
internal attribution) if the employee consistently makes poor-quality
products on this machine (high consistency), the employee makes poor-
quality products on other machines (low distinctiveness), and other
employees make good-quality products on this machine (low consensus).
In contrast, we would decide that there is something wrong with the
machine (an external attribution) if the employee consistently makes
poor-quality products on this machine (high consistency), the employee
makes good-quality products on other machines (high distinctiveness),
and other employees make poor-quality products on this machine (high
consensus).
Page 97
EXHIBIT 3.4 Attribution Theory Rules
Notice that consistency is high for both internal and external attributions.
This occurs because low consistency (the person’s output quality on this
machine is sometimes good and sometimes poor) weakens our
confidence about whether the source of the problem is the person or the
machine. In other words, distinctiveness and consensus determine
whether the attribution should be internal or external, whereas
consistency determines how confident we should be in that attribution.
The attribution process is important because understanding cause–effect
relationships enables us to work more effectively with others and to
assign praise or blame to them.58 Suppose a coworker didn’t complete his
or her task on a team project. You would approach this situation
differently if you believed the coworker was lazy or lacked sufficient skill
(an internal attribution) than if you believed the poor performance was
due to lack of time or resources available to the coworker (an external
attribution). Similarly, our respect for a leader depends on whether we
believe his or her actions are due to personal characteristics or the
situation. We also react differently to attributions of our own behavior
and performance. Students who make internal attributions about their
poor grades, for instance, are more likely to drop out of their programs
than if they make external attributions about those grades.59
Page 98
Attribution Errors
The attribution process is susceptible to errors. One such error is self-
serving bias—the tendency to attribute our failures to external causes
more than internal causes, while successes are due more to internal than
external factors.60 Simply put, we take credit for our successes and blame
others or the situation for our mistakes. In annual reports, for example,
executives mainly refer to their personal qualities as reasons for the
company’s successes and to competitors, unexpected legislation, and
other external factors as reasons for the company’s failures.61Self-serving
bias occurs mainly because of the self-enhancement process described
earlier in this chapter. By pointing to external causes of their own
failures and internal causes of their successes, people generate a more
positive self-concept.
Another widely studied attribution error, fundamental attribution
error (also called correspondence bias), is the tendency to overemphasize
internal causes of another person’s behavior and to discount or ignore
external causes of their behavior.62 We are more likely to attribute a
coworker’s late arrival for work to lack of motivation rather than to
situational constraints (such as traffic congestion). This phenomenon
occurs because observers can’t easily see the external factors that
constrain another person’s behavior. Also, people like to think that
human beings (not the situation) are the prime sources of their behavior,
so internal attributions receive preference in ambiguous situations.
Fundamental attribution error is less apparent in Asia and other cultures
that encourage people to be mindful of the context of
behavior.63However, the fundamental attribution error effect is fairly
modest in all societies. It can often be minimized by giving those making
attributions more information about the situation and warning them of
the risk of this attribution error.64
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
Self-fulfilling prophecy occurs when our expectations about another
person cause that person to act in a way that is consistent with those
expectations. In other words, our perceptions can influence
reality. Exhibit 3.5 illustrates the four steps in the self-fulfilling prophecy
process using the example of a supervisor and a subordinate.65 The
process begins when the supervisor forms expectations about the
employee’s future behavior and performance. These expectations are
sometimes inaccurate, because first impressions are usually formed from
limited information. The supervisor’s expectations influence his or her
behavior toward employees. In particular, high-expectancy employees
(those expected to do well) receive more emotional support through
nonverbal cues (e.g., more smiling and eye contact), more frequent and
valuable feedback and reinforcement, more challenging goals, better
training, and more opportunities to demonstrate good performance.66
Page 99
EXHIBIT 3.5 The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy Cycle
The third step in self-fulfilling prophecy includes two effects of the
supervisor’s behavior on the employee. One effect is that a high-
expectancy employee learns more skills and knowledge than a low-
expectancy employee because the supervisor provides different levels of
training and opportunities for practice. The second effect is that the
employee has higher self-efficacy, which results in higher motivation and
willingness to set more challenging goals.67 In the final step, high-
expectancy employees have higher motivation and better skills, resulting
in better performance, while the opposite is true of low-expectancy
employees.
Self-fulfilling prophecy has been observed in many contexts. In one
study, four Israeli Defense Force combat command course instructors
were told that one-third of the incoming trainees had high command
potential, one-third had normal potential, and the rest had unknown
potential. The trainees had been randomly placed into these categories
by the researchers, but the instructors were led to believe that the
information they received was accurate. Consistent with self-fulfilling
prophecy, high-expectancy soldiers performed significantly better by the
end of the course than did trainees in the other groups. They also had
more favorable attitudes toward the course and the instructor’s
leadership effectiveness. An analysis of dozens of leader intervention
studies over the years found that self-fulfilling prophecy is one of the
most powerful leadership effects on follower behavior and
performance.68
Contingencies of Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
The self-fulfilling prophecy effect is stronger in some situations than in
others. It has a stronger effect at the beginning of a relationship, such as
when employees are first hired. It is also stronger when several people
(rather than just one person) hold the same expectations of the
individual. In other words, we might be able to ignore one person’s
doubts about our potential but not the collective doubts of several
people. The self-fulfilling prophecy effect is also stronger among people
with a history of low achievement. These people tend to have lower self-
esteem, so they are more easily influenced by others’ opinions of them.69
The main lesson from the self-fulfilling prophecy literature is that
leaders need to develop and maintain a positive, yet realistic, expectation
toward all employees. This recommendation is consistent with the
emerging philosophy of positive organizational behavior, which
suggests that focusing on the positive rather than negative aspects of life
will improve organizational success and individual well-being.
Communicating realistic hope and optimism is so important that it is
identified as one of the critical success factors for physicians and
surgeons. Training programs that make leaders aware of the power of
positive expectations seem to have minimal effect, however. Instead,
generating positive expectations and hope depends on a corporate
culture of support and learning. Hiring supervisors who are inherently
optimistic toward their staff is another way of increasing the incidence of
positive self-fulfilling prophecies.70
Other Perceptual Effects
Self-fulfilling prophecy, attribution, and stereotyping are among the
most common perceptual processes and biases in organizational settings,
but there are many others. Four additional biases that have received
attention in organizational settings are briefly described below.
Page 100
Halo Effect
The halo effect occurs when our general impression of a person, usually
based on one prominent characteristic, distorts our perception of other
characteristics of that person.71 If a supervisor who values punctuality
notices that an employee is sometimes late for work, the supervisor
might form a negative general opinion of the employee and evaluate that
person’s other traits unfavorably as well. The halo effect is most likely to
occur when important information about the perceived target is missing
or we are not sufficiently motivated to search for it. Instead, we use our
general impression of the person to fill in the missing information.
False-Consensus Effect
The false-consensus effect (also called similar-to-me effect) occurs when
people overestimate the extent to which others have similar beliefs or
behaviors to our own.72 Employees who are thinking of quitting their
jobs overestimate the percentage of coworkers who are also thinking
about quitting, for example. There are four reasons why false-consensus
effect occurs:
1. We are comforted by the belief that others are similar to
ourselves, particularly with regard to less acceptable or divisive
behavior. Put differently, we perceive “everyone does it” to
reinforce our self-concept regarding behaviors that do not have a
positive image (quitting our job, parking illegally etc.).
2. We interact more with people who have similar views and
behaviors. This frequent interaction causes us to overestimate
how common those views or behaviors are in the entire
organization or society.
3. We are more likely to notice and remember information that is
consistent with our own views and selectively screen out
information that is contrary to our beliefs (i.e., confirmation
bias).
4. We engage in the social identity process of homogenizing people
within groups. Consequently, we think that most people in
specific groups with which we identify have similar opinions and
behaviors.
Recency Effect
The recency effect occurs when the most recent information dominates
our perceptions.73 This perceptual bias is most common when people
(especially those with limited experience) make a decision involving
complex information. For instance, auditors must digest large volumes of
information in their judgments about financial documents, and the most
recent information received prior to the decision tends to get weighted
more heavily than information received at the beginning of the audit.
Similarly, when supervisors evaluate the performance of employees over
the previous year, the most recent performance information dominates
the evaluation because it is the most easily recalled.
Primacy Effect
The primacy effect is our tendency to rely on the first information we
receive about people to quickly form an opinion of them.74 It is the
notion that first impressions are lasting impressions. This rapid
perceptual organization and interpretation occurs because we need to
make sense of the situation and, in particular, to trust others. The
problem is that first impressions—particularly negative first
impressions—are difficult to change. After categorizing someone, we
tend to select subsequent information that supports our first impression
and screen out information that opposes that impression. First
impressions can be corrected, but only if those impressions are changed
within a very short time after they are formed.
Page 101
First Impressions Count in Job Applicationsf
(photo) pathdoc/Shutterstock
Improving Perceptions
LO 3-4We can’t bypass the perceptual process, but we should try to
minimize perceptual biases and distortions. Three potentially effective
ways to improve perceptions include awareness of perceptual biases,
self-awareness, and meaningful interaction.
Awareness of Perceptual Biases
One of the most obvious and widely practiced ways to reduce perceptual
biases is by knowing that they exist. For example, diversity awareness
training tries to minimize discrimination by making people aware of
systemic discrimination as well as prejudices that occur through
stereotyping. This training also attempts to dispel myths about people
from various cultural and demographic groups. Awareness of perceptual
biases can reduce these biases to some extent by making people more
mindful of their thoughts and actions. However, awareness training has
only a limited effect.75 One problem is that teaching people to reject
incorrect stereotypes has the unintended effect of reinforcing rather than
reducing reliance on those stereotypes. Another problem is that diversity
training is ineffective for people with deeply held prejudices against
those groups.
Page 102
DEBATING POINT
Do Diversity Programs Actually Reduce Perceptual
Biases?g
Diversity training programs are well-entrenched bastions in the
battle against workplace discrimination. In most programs,
participants are reminded to respect cultural and gender
differences. They also learn about common assumptions and
biases that people make about other demographic groups.
When companies lose discrimination cases, one of the first
requirements is that they introduce diversity training to remedy
the problem.
Despite its good intentions, diversity training might not be as
useful as one would hope. One concern is that most sessions
are mandatory, so employees aren’t really committed to their
content. Biases and prejudices are deeply anchored, so a half-
day lecture and group chat on diversity won’t change employee
perceptions and behavior. Even if these programs motivate
employees to be more tolerant of others and to avoid
stereotypes, these good intentions evaporate quickly in
companies that lack a diversity culture.
Perversely, the mere presence of diversity training may have
the opposite effect to its good intentions. There is some
evidence that discussing demographic and cultural differences
increases rather than decreases stereotyping. Students in one
study showed more bias against elderly people after watching a
video encouraging them to be less biased against older people!
Diversity training programs might also produce defensive or
stressful emotions among participants. One program for
incoming students at the University of Delaware was canceled
after white students complained it made them feel racist, and
gay students felt pressured to reveal their sexual orientation.
Studies also report that diversity awareness programs create
an illusion of fairness. Disadvantaged employees in companies
with these programs are more likely to believe their employer
doesn’t engage in unfair discrimination. However, this
perception of fairness makes employees less aware of incidents
where the company does engage in unfair discrimination.
Improving Self-Awareness
A more successful way to minimize perceptual biases is by increasing
self-awareness.76 We need to become more conscious of our beliefs,
values, and attitudes and, from that insight, gain a better understanding
of biases in our own decisions and behavior. This self-awareness tends to
reduce perceptual biases by making people more open-minded and
nonjudgmental toward others. Self-awareness is equally important in
other ways. The emerging concept of authentic leadership emphasizes
self-awareness as the first step in a person’s ability to effectively lead
others (see Chapter 12). Essentially, we need to understand our own
values, strengths, and biases as a foundation for building a vision and
leading others toward that vision.77
But how do we become more self-aware? One approach is to complete
formal tests that indicate any implicit biases we might have toward
others. The Implicit Association Test (IAT) is one such instrument.
Although the accuracy of the IAT is being hotly debated by scholars, it
attempts to detect subtle racial, age, gender, disability, and other forms
of bias by associating positive and negative words with specific groups of
people.78 For example, one recent study reported that most of the
176,935 people completing the IAT test had a strong science-is-male
stereotype, even in subdisciplines where women represent a large
percentage of the profession. Most people completing that test associate
science with men. Many people are much more cautious about their
stereotypes and prejudices after discovering that their test results show a
personal bias against older people or individuals from different ethnic
backgrounds.79
Another way to reduce perceptual biases through increased self-
awareness is by applying the Johari Window.80 Developed by Joseph
Luft and Harry Ingram (hence the name “Johari”), this model of self-
awareness and mutual understanding divides information about you into
four “windows”—open, blind, hidden, and unknown—based on whether
your own values, beliefs, and experiences are known to you and to others
(see Exhibit 3.6). The open area includes information about you that is
known both to you and to others. The blind area refers to information
that is known to others but not to you. For example, your colleagues
might notice that you are self-conscious and awkward when meeting the
company’s chief executive officer, but you are unaware of this fact.
Information known to you but unknown to others is found in the hidden
area. Finally, the unknown area includes your values, beliefs, and
experiences that are buried so deeply that neither you nor others are
aware of them.
Page 103
EXHIBIT 3.6 Johari Window Model of Self-Awareness and Mutual
Understanding
Source: Based on J. Luft. 1969. Of Human Interaction. Palo Alto, CA: National Press Books.
The main objective of the Johari Window is to increase the size of the
open area so that both you and your colleagues are aware of your
perceptual limitations. This objective is partly accomplished by reducing
the hidden area through disclosure—informing others of your beliefs,
feelings, and experiences that may influence the work relationship. The
open area also increases through feedback from others about your
behavior. Feedback reduces your blind area because, according to recent
studies, people near you are good sources of information about many
(but not all) of your traits and behaviors.81 Finally, the combination of
disclosure and feedback occasionally produces revelations about you in
the unknown area.
Meaningful Interaction
The Johari Window relies on direct conversations about ourselves and
others, whereas meaningful interaction is a more indirect, yet potentially
powerful, approach to improving self-awareness and mutual
understanding.82 Meaningful interaction is any activity in which people
engage in valued (meaningful, not trivial) activities. The activities might
be work related, such as when senior executives work alongside frontline
staff. Or the activities might occur outside the workplace, such as when
sales staff from several countries participate in outdoor challenges.
Meaningful interaction is founded on the contact hypothesis, which
states that, under certain conditions, people who interact with one
another will be less perceptually biased because they have a more
personal understanding of the other person and their group.83 Simply
spending time with members of other groups can improve this
understanding to some extent. However, meaningful interaction is
strongest when people work closely and frequently with one another on a
shared goal that requires mutual cooperation and reliance. Furthermore,
everyone should have equal status in that context, should be engaged in a
meaningful task, and should have positive experiences with one another
in those interactions.
Meaningful interaction reduces dependence on stereotypes because it
diminishes psychological distance, improves our knowledge about
individuals, and helps us to observe their unique attributes in
action.84 Meaningful interaction also potentially improves empathy
toward others. Empathy refers to understanding and being sensitive to
the feelings, thoughts, and situations of others.85 People empathize when
they visualize themselves in the other person’s place as if they are the
other person. This perceptual experience is cognitive, emotional, and
experiential. In other words, empathy occurs when we understand the
other person’s situation, feel his or her emotions in that context, and to
some degree react to those thoughts and feelings as the other person
does.
Page 104
Empathizing reduces attribution errors by improving our sensitivity to
the external causes of another person’s performance and behavior. A
supervisor who imagines what it’s like to be a single mother, for example,
would become more sensitive to the external causes of lateness and other
events among such employees. However, trying to empathize with others
without spending time with them might actually increase rather than
reduce stereotyping and other perceptual biases.86
Empathizing with employees is a critical leadership skill at Scripps Health. “Psychological
distance is extremely dangerous for leaders,” warns Scripps CEO Chris Van Gorder (center
in this photo). Van Gorder devotes almost half of his time to interacting with Scripps’
14,000 employees in Southern California through training future leaders, doing weekly
rounds, and occasionally working alongside staff in frontline roles. “Roll up your sleeves and
get your hands dirty,” Van Gorder advises. He also encourages leaders “to show your
empathy, don’t merely feel it.” Van Gorder explains that leaders sometimes “mistakenly
project a stoic persona, but by not demonstrating empathy leaders come across as cold and
uncaring.”h
ZUMA Press, Inc/Alamy Stock Photo
SELF-ASSESSMENT 3.5: HOW STRONG IS YOUR
PERSPECTIVE TAKING (COGNITIVE EMPATHY)?
Empathy refers to a person’s understanding of and sensitivity
to the feelings, thoughts, and situation of others. The
“understanding” part of empathy is called perspective
taking or cognitive empathy. It refers to a rational understanding of
another person’s circumstances. You can discover your level of
cognitive empathy by locating this self-assessment in Connect
if it is assigned by your instructor.
SELF-ASSESSMENT 3.6: HOW STRONG IS YOUR
EMOTIONAL EMPATHY?
Empathy refers to a person’s understanding of and sensitivity
to the feelings, thoughts, and situation of others. The
“sensitivity” part of empathy is called emotional empathy. It refers
to experiencing the feelings of the other person. You can
discover your level of emotional empathy by locating this self-
assessment in Connect if it is assigned by your instructor.
Chapter Summary
1. 3-1Describe the self-concept characteristics and
processes, and explain how each affects an individual’s
behavior and well-being.
Self-concept includes an individual’s self-beliefs and self-evaluations. It
has three structural characteristics—complexity, consistency, and
clarity—all of which influence employee well-being, behavior, and
performance. People are inherently motivated to promote and protect
their self-concept (self-enhancement) and to verify and maintain their
existing self-concept (self-verification). Self-evaluation consists of self-
esteem, self-efficacy, and locus of control. Self-concept also consists of
both personal identity and social identity. Social identity theory explains
how people define themselves by the groups to which they belong or have
an emotional attachment.
1. 3-2Outline the perceptual process and discuss the
effects of categorical thinking and mental models in
that process.
Perception involves selecting, organizing, and interpreting information
to make sense of the world around us. Perceptual organization applies
categorical thinking—the mostly nonconscious process of organizing
people and objects into preconceived categories that are stored in our
long-term memory. Mental models—knowledge structures that we
develop to describe, explain, and predict the world around us—also help
us make sense of incoming stimuli.
1. 3-3Discuss how stereotyping, attribution, self-fulfilling
prophecy, halo, false consensus, primacy, and recency
effects influence the perceptual process.
Stereotyping occurs when people assign traits to others based on their
membership in a social category. This assignment economizes mental
effort, fills in missing information, and enhances our self-concept, but it
also lays the foundation for stereotype threat as well as systemic and
intentional discrimination. The attribution process involves deciding
whether an observed behavior or event is caused mainly by the person
(internal factors) or the environment (external factors). Attributions are
decided by the perceived consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus of
the behavior. This process is subject to self-serving bias and fundamental
attribution error. A self-fulfilling prophecy occurs when our expectations
about another person cause that person to act in a way that is consistent
with those expectations. This effect is stronger when employees first join
the work unit, when several people hold these expectations, and when
the employee has a history of low achievement. Four other perceptual
errors commonly noted in organizations are the halo effect, false-
consensus effect, primacy effect, and recency effect.
1. 3-4Discuss three ways to improve perceptions, with
specific application to organizational situations.
One way to minimize perceptual biases is to become more aware of their
existence. Awareness of these biases makes people more mindful of their
thoughts and actions, but this training sometimes reinforces rather than
reduces reliance on stereotypes and tends to be ineffective for people
with deeply held prejudices. A second strategy is to become more aware
of biases in our own decisions and behavior. Self-awareness increases
through formal tests such as the Implicit Association Test (IAT) and by
applying the Johari Window, which is a process in which others provide
feedback to you about your behavior, and you offer disclosure to them
about yourself. The third strategy is meaningful interaction, which
applies the contact hypothesis that people who interact will be less
prejudiced or perceptually biased toward one another. Meaningful
interaction is strongest when people work closely and frequently with
relatively equal status on a shared meaningful task that requires
cooperation and reliance on one another. Meaningful interaction helps
improve empathy, which is a person’s understanding and sensitivity to
the feelings, thoughts, and situations of others.
Page 107
1. 3-5Outline the main features of a global mindset and
justify its usefulness to employees and organizations.
A global mindset refers to an individual’s ability to perceive, know about,
and process information across cultures. This includes (1) an awareness
of, openness to, and respect for other views and practices in the world;
(2) the capacity to empathize and act effectively across cultures; (3) an
ability to process complex information about novel environments; and
(4) the ability to comprehend and reconcile intercultural matters with
multiple levels of thinking. A global mindset enables people to develop
better cross-cultural relationships, to digest huge volumes of cross-
cultural information, and to identify and respond more quickly to
emerging global opportunities. Employees develop a global mindset
through self-awareness, opportunities to compare their own mental
models with people from other cultures, formal cross-cultural training,
and immersion in other cultures.
CHAPTER 4
Workplace Emotions,
Attitudes, and Stress
Learning Objectives
AFTER STUDYING THIS CHAPTER, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE
TO:
1. 4-1 Explain how emotions and cognition (conscious reasoning)
influence attitudes and behavior.
2. 4-2Discuss the dynamics of emotional labor and the role of
emotional intelligence in the workplace.
3. 4-3Summarize the consequences of job dissatisfaction, as well as
strategies to increase organizational (affective) commitment.
4. 4-4Describe the stress experience and review four major stressors.
5. 4-5Identify five ways to manage workplace stress.
Denny Chavez ensures that there is plenty of silverware
and napkins for lunch. The Director of Operations at the
Doubletree Boston Downtown isn’t checking inventory at the
guest restaurants; he’s in the staff cafeteria, making sure that
the hotel’s maintenance, housekeeping, front desk, and other
team members have a pleasant and comfortable lunch
experience. “If you care for your team members, they will take
care of the customer,” Chavez explains.
Doubletree and other hotels in the Hilton Hotels and Resorts
conglomerate have transformed their approach to great
customer service by paying more attention to the emotions,
attitudes, and well-being of their 380,000 employees. The
initiative, called “Heart of House,” has created brighter and
more contemporary staff areas (cafeterias, change rooms,
break rooms, restrooms, etc.). The hotel chain partnered with
Under Armour to develop more flexible and breathable work
outfits.
In addition, Hilton offers improved parental leave and adoption
assistance. Educational advisors have been hired to provide
one-on-one coaching to employees who want to complete their
high school education. Hilton now encourages rather than bans
phone use during work, and has installed dedicated Wi-Fi for
employees. “The feeling of disconnection can be a source of
stress in itself, so we are working to establish a great
communication channel with our Team Members,” the company
explains.
Page 121
Hilton is also rebuilding employee loyalty by selecting and
training managers who show they care about employees. Team
leaders focus on career coaching and developmental
conversations. Senior managers are expected to spend time on
the front lines so they have more empathy for those who
actually serve the guests. “I’ve become more engaged with the
team and want to learn about them,” says Christine Himpler,
housekeeping director at the Hilton San Francisco Union
Square. “I’m more of a coach. I’m here to develop people.
That’s my job at Hilton.”
Hilton team members also have more positive emotions and
attitudes because the company demonstrates its trust in them
and offers them greater autonomy. In fact, 9 out of 10 Hilton
employees agree that management trusts its team members to
do a good job without watching over their shoulders. “Do
whatever you have to do to make it right. That really makes
me feel good as an employee that they trust me enough to
take care of what I need to take care of for the guest,” said
Yolanda, an employee at Hilton Cleveland Downtown.
Through more positive employee emotions and attitudes, Hilton
has soared to become the number one place to work in
America. The hotel chain also reports lower employee turnover,
increased guest customer satisfaction, and higher revenue per
available room. “Our mission is to be the most hospitable
company in the world, and you can’t do that without great
people, and you can’t get great people without being a great
workplace,” says Matt Schuyler, Hilton’s chief human resources
officer.1
Through “Heart of House” and other initiatives focused on improving employee
emotions and attitudes, Hilton Hotels and Resorts has become the number one
place to work in America.
Andreas Hub/laif/Redux
Page 122
Hilton Hotels and Resorts and other organizations are paying
closer attention to employee emotions and attitudes. That’s
because emotions and attitudes affect individual performance
and well-being. This chapter presents current knowledge and
practices about workplace emotions and attitudes. We begin by
describing emotions and explaining how they influence
attitudes and behavior. Next, we consider the dynamics of
emotional labor, followed by the popular topic of emotional
intelligence. The specific work attitudes of job satisfaction and
organizational commitment are then discussed, including their
association with various employee behaviors and work
performance. The final section looks at work-related stress,
including the stress experience, four prominent stressors,
individual differences in stress, and ways to combat excessive
stress.
Emotions in the Workplace
LO 4-1Emotions influence almost everything we do in the workplace.
This is a strong statement, and one that would have rarely been
expressed by organizational behavior experts two decades ago. Most OB
theories still assume that a person’s thoughts and actions are governed
primarily or exclusively by logical thinking (called cognition).2 Yet
groundbreaking neuroscience discoveries have revealed that our
perceptions, attitudes, decisions, and behavior are influenced by
emotions as well as cognitions.3 In fact, emotions may have a greater
influence because they often occur before cognitive processes and,
consequently, influence the latter. By ignoring emotionality, many
theories have overlooked a large piece of the puzzle about human
behavior in the workplace.
Emotions are physiological, behavioral, and psychological episodes
experienced toward an object, person, or event that create a state of
readiness.4 These “episodes” are very brief events, some lasting less than
a second. However, we usually experience emotions over several minutes
or longer because they occur in waves as we continue to think about the
source of the emotion. Emotions are directed toward someone or
something. For example, we experience joy, fear, anger, and other
emotional episodes toward tasks, customers, or a mobile phone app we
are using. This differs from moods, which are not directed toward
anything in particular and tend to be longer-term background emotional
states.
Emotions are experiences. They represent changes in our physiological
state (e.g., blood pressure, heart rate), psychological state (e.g., thought
process), and behavior (e.g., facial expression).5 Most emotional
experiences are subtle; they occur without our awareness. This is an
important point because the topic of emotions often conjures up images
of people “getting emotional.” In reality, most emotions are fleeting,
nonconscious events that influence our conscious thinking and
behavior.6 Finally, emotions put us in a state of readiness. When we get
worried, for example, our heart rate and blood pressure increase to make
our body better prepared to engage in fight or flight. Strong emotions
trigger our conscious awareness of a threat or opportunity in the external
environment. The “state of readiness” generated by emotions is the
engine of our motivation, which we discuss more fully in Chapter 5.7
Page 123
If employees are experiencing the wrong emotions or moods, it may be time to change the
lighting. A half-century ago, MIT and Harvard researchers dismissed the effects of lighting,
whereas numerous recent studies report that lighting intensity and warmth can influence
emotions and moods. Bright white lighting tends to increase employee alertness and vitality,
resulting in faster reaction times on tasks. Moderate intensity warm lighting seems to
improve interpersonal relations, whereas low intensity cool lighting reduces socially
oriented emotions and motivation. The combination of light intensity and warmth also
influences how much employees regulate their emotions in that setting.a
Oleksandr Delyk/Shutterstock
Types of Emotions
People experience many emotions and various combinations of
emotions, but all of them have two common features, illustrated
in Exhibit 4.1.8 One feature is that emotions vary in their level of
activation. By definition, emotions put us in a state of readiness and, as
we discuss in the next chapter, are the primary source of a person’s
motivation. Some emotional experiences, such as when we are suddenly
surprised, are strong enough to consciously motivate us to act without
careful thought. Most emotional experiences are more subtle, but even
they activate enough to make us more aware of our environment.
EXHIBIT 4.1 Circumplex Model of Emotions
Sources: Adapted from J.A. Russell, “Core Affect and the Psychological Construction of Emotion,” Psychological
Review 110, no. 1 (2003): 145–72; M. Yik, J.A. Russell, and J.H. Steiger, “A 12-Point Circumplex Structure of
Core Affect,” Emotion 11, no. 4 (2011): 705–31.
A second feature is that all emotions have an associated valence
(called core affect) signaling that the perceived object or event should be
approached or avoided. In other words, all emotions evaluate the
situation as good or bad, helpful or harmful, positive or negative, and so
forth. Furthermore, negative emotions tend to generate stronger levels of
activation than do positive emotions.9 Fear and anger, for instance, are
more intense experiences than are joy and delight, so they have a
stronger influence on our actions. This valence asymmetry likely occurs
because negative emotions protect us from harm and are therefore more
critical for our survival.
Emotions, Attitudes, and Behavior
To understand how emotions influence our thoughts and behavior in the
workplace, we first need to know about attitudes. Attitudesrepresent the
cluster of beliefs, assessed feelings, and behavioral intentions toward a
person, object, or event (called an attitude object).10Attitudes
are judgments, whereas emotions are experiences. In other words,
attitudes involve evaluations of an attitude object, whereas emotions
operate as events, usually without our awareness. Attitudes might also
operate nonconsciously, but we are usually aware of and consciously
think about those evaluations. Another distinction is that we experience
most emotions very briefly, whereas our attitude toward someone or
something is more stable over time.11
Page 124
Until recently, experts believed that attitudes could be understood just
by the three cognitive components illustrated on the left side of Exhibit
4.2: beliefs, feelings, and behavioral intentions. Now evidence suggests
that a parallel emotional process is also at work, shown on the right side
of the exhibit.12 Using attitude toward mergers as an example, let’s look
more closely at this model, beginning with the traditional cognitive
perspective of attitudes.
EXHIBIT 4.2 Model of Emotions, Attitudes, and Behavior
Beliefs. These are your established perceptions about the attitude
object—what you believe to be true.13 For example, you might
believe that mergers reduce job security for employees in the
merged firms, or that mergers increase the company’s
competitiveness in this era of globalization. These beliefs are
perceived facts that you acquire from experience and other forms
of learning. Each of these beliefs also has a valence; that is, you
have a positive or negative feeling about each belief (e.g.,
reduced job security is bad).
Feelings. This element represents your conscious positive or
negative evaluations of the attitude object. Some people think
mergers are good; others think they are bad. Your positive or
negative opinion of mergers represents your assessed feelings.
According to the traditional cognitive perspective of attitudes
(left side of the model), feelings are calculated from your beliefs
about mergers and the associated feelings about those beliefs.
Consider the example of your attitude toward mergers. If you
believe that mergers typically have negative consequences such
as layoffs and organizational politics, then you will form negative
feelings toward mergers in general or about a specific planned
merger in your organization.
Behavioral intentions. This third element represents your planned
effort to engage in a particular behavior regarding the attitude
object. Upon hearing that the company will merge with another
organization, you might plan to look for a job elsewhere or
possibly to complain to management about the merger decision.
Your feelings toward mergers influence your behavioral
intentions, and which actions you choose depends on your past
experience, personality, and social norms of appropriate
behavior.
Page 125
Attitude–Behavior Contingencies
The cognitive model of attitudes (beliefs–feelings–intentions) gives the
impression that we can predict behavior from each element of the
individual’s attitude. This is potentially true, but contingencies at each
stage in the model can weaken that predictability. Let’s begin with the
beliefs–feelings link. People with the same beliefs might form quite
different feelings toward the attitude object because they have different
valences for those beliefs. Two employees who work for the same boss
share the belief that their boss makes them work hard. Yet one employee
dislikes the boss because she or he has a negative valence toward hard
work, whereas the other employee likes the boss because she or he has a
positive valence toward hard work.
The effect of feelings on behavioral intentions also depends on
contingencies. Two employees might equally dislike their boss, but it
isn’t easy to predict their behavioral intentions from those feelings. One
employee intends to complain to the union or upper management while
the other employee intends to find a job elsewhere. People with the same
feelings toward the attitude object often develop different behavioral
intentions because of their unique experiences, personal values, self-
concept, and other individual differences. Later in this chapter we
describe the four main responses to dissatisfaction and other negative
attitudes.
Finally, the model indicates that behavioral intentions are the best
predictors of a person’s behavior. However, the strength of this link also
depends on other factors, such as the person’s ability, situational factors,
and possibly role perceptions (see the MARS model in Chapter 1). For
example, two people might intend to quit because they dislike their boss,
but only one does so because the other employee can’t find another job.
How Emotions Influence Attitudes and Behavior
The cognitive model describes to some extent how employees form and
change their attitudes, but emotions also have a central role in this
process.14 The right side of Exhibit 4.2 illustrates this process, which
(like the cognitive process) also begins with perceptions of the world
around us. Our brain tags incoming sensory information with emotional
markers based on a quick and imprecise evaluation of whether that
information supports or threatens our innate drives. These markers are
not calculated feelings; they are automatic and nonconscious emotional
responses based on very thin slices of sensory information.15 The
experienced emotions then influence our feelings about the attitude
object. For example, employees at Hilton Hotels and Resorts experience
positive emotions from the contemporary staff areas, supportive
leadership, high school education mentoring, and more autonomous
work, all of which generate positive attitudes toward the company.
To explain this process in more detail, consider once again your attitude
toward mergers. You might experience worry, nervousness, or relief
upon learning that your company intends to merge with a competitor.
The fuzzy dots on the right side of Exhibit 4.2 illustrate the numerous
emotional episodes you experience upon hearing the merger
announcement, subsequently thinking about the merger, discussing the
merger with coworkers, and so on. These emotions are transmitted to
your brain’s cognitive centers, where they are logically analyzed along
with other information about the attitude object.16 So, while you are
consciously evaluating whether the merger is good or bad, your emotions
are already sending core affect (good–bad) signals, and those emotional
signals sway your conscious evaluation. In fact, we often deliberately
“listen in” on our emotions to help us consciously decide whether to
support or oppose something.17
The influence of both cognitive reasoning and emotions on attitudes is
most apparent when they disagree with each other. People occasionally
experience this mental tug-of-war, sensing that something isn’t right
even though they can’t think of any logical reason to be concerned. This
conflicting experience indicates that the person’s logical analysis of the
situation (left side of Exhibit 4.2) generates feelings that differ from the
emotional reaction (right side of Exhibit 4.2).18 Should we pay attention
to our emotional response or our logical analysis? This question is not
easy to answer, but some studies indicate that while executives tend to
make quick decisions based on their gut feelings (emotional response),
the best decisions tend to occur when executives spend time logically
evaluating the situation.19Thus, we should pay attention to both the
cognitive and emotional sides of the attitude model, and hope they agree
with each other most of the time!
Page 126
Generating Positive Emotions at Work
Hilton Hotels and Resorts and many other companies seem to be well
aware of the dual cognitive–emotional attitude process because they try
to inject more positive experiences in the workplace.20 Google Inc. is
famous for its superb perks, including in-house coffee bars, gourmet
cafeterias, conversation areas that look like vintage subway cars,
personal development courses, game rooms, free haircuts, and slides to
descend to the floor below. Admiral Group, rated the best company to
work for in the United Kingdom, has a “Ministry of Fun” committee that
introduces plenty of positive emotions through Nintendo Wii
competitions, interdepartmental Olympics, and other fun activities.21
Employees at Zoom Video Communications are among the happiest in America, according
to one recent analysis of America’s best workplaces. Employees say they feel empowered
and are treated like family at the San Jose-based company, which develops remote
videoconferencing technology. Zoom provides free meals, fully stocked kitchens, choice of
workspace, games rooms, wellness rooms, volunteering events, and many other perks.
Zoom even has an entire team—called the happiness crew—at each location dedicated to
maintaining a positive and engaging workplace. “If you get an offer to work at Zoom, take
it,” advises a Zoom employee in Atlanta, Georgia. “Zoom takes employee happiness
seriously and people genuinely love the company.”b
RJ Sangosti/The Denver Post/Getty Images
Some critics might argue that the organization’s main focus should be to
create positive emotions through the job itself as well as natural everyday
occurrences such as polite customers and supportive coworkers. Still,
most people perform work that produces some negative emotions, and
research has found that humor and fun at work—whether natural or
contrived—can potentially counteract the negative experiences.22 Overall,
corporate leaders need to keep in mind that emotions shape employee
attitudes and, as we will discuss later, attitudes influence various forms
of work-related behavior.
One last comment about Exhibit 4.2: Notice the arrow from the
emotional episodes to behavior. It indicates that emotions directly
influence a person’s behavior without conscious thought. This occurs
when we jump suddenly if someone sneaks up on us. It also occurs in
everyday situations because even low-intensity emotions automatically
change our facial expressions. These actions are not carefully thought
out. They are automatic emotional responses that are learned or
hardwired by heredity for particular situations.23
Page 127
DEBATING POINT
Is Having Fun at Work Really a Good Idea?
“Fun at work” has become such a hot business fad that
companies without a “fun” committee are considered
insensitive task masters. Having fun at work can improve
employee attitudes in many situations, but are special fun
events really necessary or beneficial?
Some critics vote “No”! They argue that contrived fun events at
work can backfire.c Some types of fun aren’t fun at all to
specific groups of people. In fact, employees might be offended
by the silliness of some activities contrived by management or
a few staff. Others resent having fun forced on them. One
expert warns: “Once the idea of fun is formally institutionalized
from above, it can lead to employees becoming resentful. They
feel patronized and condescended, and it breeds anger and
frustration.”
The meaning and value of fun at work might also vary across
generations; what works for Millennials could backfire for Baby
Boomers, and vice versa. Another concern is that fun-focused
companies might take their eye off the bottom line. “At the end
of the day, you have to make money to stay here,” says Mike
Pitcher, former CEO of LeasePlan USA (which does have a “fun”
committee). “If work was [all] fun, they’d call it fun.”d
Cognitive Dissonance
Imagine that you have just signed a contract for new digital whiteboards
to be installed throughout the company’s meeting rooms. The deal was
expensive but, after consulting several staff, you felt that the technology
would be valuable in this technological age. Yet, you felt a twinge of
regret soon after signing the contract. This emotional experience
is cognitive dissonance, which occurs when people perceive that their
beliefs, feelings, and behavior are incongruent with one another.24 The
inconsistency among these three attitude components generates
emotions (such as feeling hypocritical) that motivate the person to create
more consistency by changing one or more of them.
Why did you experience cognitive dissonance after purchasing the digital
whiteboards? Perhaps you remembered that some staff wanted
flexibility, whereas the whiteboards require special markers and
computer software. Or maybe you had a fleeting realization that buying
digital whiteboards costing several times more than traditional
whiteboards is inconsistent with your personal values and company
culture of thriftiness. Whatever the reason, the dissonance occurs
because your attitude (it’s good to be cost conscious) is inconsistent with
your behavior (buying expensive whiteboards). Most people like to think
of themselves—and be viewed by others—as rational and logical.
Cognitive dissonance occurs when our behavior and beliefs conflict,
which is not so rational.
How do we reduce cognitive dissonance?25 Reversing the behavior might
work, but most behaviors can't be undone. It would be too expensive to
remove the digital whiteboards after they have been installed. In any
event, dissonance would still exist because you and your coworkers
already know that you made this purchase and did so willingly.
More often, people reduce cognitive dissonance by changing their beliefs
and feelings. One dissonance-reducing strategy is to develop more
favorable attitudes toward specific features of the decision, such as
forming a more positive opinion about the whiteboards’ capacity to store
whatever is written on them. People are also motivated to discover
positive features of the decision they didn’t notice earlier (e.g., the
boards can change handwriting into typed text) and to discover
subsequent problems with the alternatives they didn’t choose (e.g.,
traditional boards can’t be used as projection screens).
A third strategy is more indirect; rather than try to overlook the high
price of the digital whiteboards, you reduce dissonance by emphasizing
how your other decisions have been frugal. This framing compensates for
your expensive whiteboard fling and thereby maintains your self-concept
and public image as a thrifty decision maker. Each of these mental
acrobatics maintains some degree of consistency between the person’s
behavior (buying expensive whiteboards) and attitudes (being thrifty).
Page 128
Emotions and Personality
Throughout this section, we have implied that emotional experiences are
triggered by workplace experiences. This is mostly true, but emotions are
also partly determined by an individual’s personality.26 People with
higher emotional stability and extraverted personalities (see Chapter 2)
tend to experience more positive emotions. Those with higher
neuroticism (lower emotional stability) and introverted personalities
tend to experience more negative emotions. Although positive and
negative personality traits have some effect, studies have found that the
actual situation in which people work has a noticeably stronger influence
on their attitudes and behavior.27
SELF-ASSESSMENT 4.1: WHAT IS YOUR EMOTIONAL
PERSONALITY?
Emotions are influenced by the situation, but also by the
individual’s own personality. In particular, people tend to have
a dispositional mood, that is, the level and valence of emotion
that they naturally experience due to their personality. You can
discover your perceived dispositional mood by locating this
self-assessment in Connect if it is assigned by your instructor.
Managing Emotions at Work
LO 4-2Employees are expected to manage their emotions in the
workplace. They must conceal their frustration when serving an irritating
customer, display compassion to an ill patient, and hide their boredom in
a long meeting with other executives. These are all forms of emotional
labor—the effort, planning, and control needed to express
organizationally desired emotions during interpersonal transactions.28
Almost everyone is required to abide by display rules. These norms or
explicit rules require employees to engage in emotions performance, that
is, to display behaviors representing specific emotions and to hide
observable evidence of other emotions. Emotional labor demands are
higher in jobs requiring a variety of emotions (e.g., anger as well as joy)
and more intense emotions (e.g., showing delight rather than smiling
weakly), as well as in jobs where interaction with clients is frequent and
longer. Emotional labor also increases when employees must precisely
rather than casually abide by the display rules.29 This work requirement
is most common in service industries, where employees have frequent
face-to-face interaction with clients.
Employees sometimes need to show emotions that are quite different
from the emotions they actually experience at that moment. For
instance, they must show patience and positive feelings toward an irate
customer who they actually dislike. This incongruence can result in
stress and exhaustion because it produces an emotional tension and
requires considerably more mental effort than when the emotional
display rules are similar to the employee’s actual emotions at that
moment. Emotional labor may also require employees to act contrary to
their self-concept, which can lead to psychological separation from self
as well as job dissatisfaction. These problems are greater when people
need to frequently display emotions that oppose their genuine emotions.
Some strategies to display desired emotions can also result in lower job
performance, including failing to display the desired emotions.30
Emotional Display Norms across
Cultures
The extent to which employees are expected to hide their true emotions
varies considerably across cultures.31 One large global study reports that
several countries in Asia and Africa strongly discourage emotional
expression. Instead, people are expected to be subdued, have relatively
monotonic voice intonation, and avoid physical movement and touching
that display emotions. In contrast, several Latin and Middle Eastern
cultures allow or encourage more vivid display of emotions and expect
people to act more consistently with their true emotions. In these
cultures, people are expected to more honestly reveal their thoughts and
feelings, be dramatic in their conversational tones, and be animated in
their use of nonverbal behaviors. For example, 81 percent of Ethiopians
and 74 percent of Japanese agreed that it is considered unprofessional to
express emotions overtly in their culture, whereas 43 percent of
Americans, 33 percent of Italians, and only 19 percent of Spaniards,
Cubans, and Egyptians agreed with this statement.32
Page 129
Many Asian countries have cultural norms that discourage public display
of intense emotions (anger, delight, etc.), whereas these emotion display
norms are weaker in North America, Europe, and many other cultures.
Furthermore, when required to suppress their true emotions at work,
employees from cultures that tolerate or encourage emotional expression
experience more stress and lower life satisfaction compared to coworkers
from cultures that discourage emotional expression. One Chinese
company even tried to reduce employee stress by holding a “no-face”
day, in which employees wore masks so they didn’t need to worry about
the emotions their faces displayed!33
GLOBAL CONNECTIONS 4.1
Smiling in Russia: More Emotional Labor than in
Americae
Sorbis/Shutterstock
When Russia prepared to host the 21st World Cup, it not only
built several soccer stadiums. It also taught train conductors
and other customer-facing employees how to smile at
foreigners. “Russian people usually don’t smile,” explains a
trainer involved in the smile program. “That’s why when other
people come to Russia, they think Russians are not friendly.”
Even in customer service roles, Russians have a reputation of
being more forthright and dour than Americans. However, the
low prospect of a smile from Russian employees doesn’t mean
that they are unhappy or dislike you. Russians just have a
different interpretation of smiling than do people in the United
States and most other Western societies. Consequently,
Russians likely experience more emotional labor when forced to
smile at customers.
One recent study found that people in Russia and several other
cultures (Japan, Korea, Iran, France, etc.) tend to view
strangers who smile often as less intelligent. This is reflected in
the well-known Russian proverb: “Smiling for no reason is a
sign of stupidity.” In contrast, frequent smiling is interpreted as
a sign of higher intelligence in several other cultures,
particularly Germany, Switzerland, Malaysia, China, and
Austria.
This may explain why Sofiya (not her real name) would feel
awkward whenever she smiled at customers in her job as a
teller at Wells Fargo in San Francisco after migrating from
Russia more than a decade ago. Wells Fargo expects its
customer-facing employees to be pleasant toward clients
throughout the day. Sofiya would smile and provide the routine
"How are you?" introduction. But inwardly, she felt that the
smiles and opening lines felt fake and perhaps a bit foolish.
“The expectation was, you have to smile eight hours a day,”
says Sofiya, who is now a senior financial analyst with another
company in New York.
According to the recent cross-cultural study on smiling,
societies with high levels of corruption view people (particularly
men) who smile fairly often as less honest than non-smiling
strangers. Russia has a high corruption score, so Russians have
less trust in people who smile.
Russian film director Yulia Melamed recently experienced this
when she was stopped by a police officer in Moscow and asked
to show her identification. After doing so, she asked why the
officer stopped her. “Because you were smiling,” he replied.
Melamed explains that in Russia “it is strange for a person to
walk on the street and smile. It looked alien and suspicious.”
Page 130
Strategies for Displaying Expected
Emotions
Emotional labor is ultimately about how we exhibit behavior depicting
specific emotions we are expected to display in that situation. Two
general approaches to emotional labor are to (a) consciously engage in
verbal and nonverbal behaviors that represent the expected emotions
and (b) actively change our emotional experiences so they are aligned
with the expected emotions and emotional performance.
The first approach—consciously behaving in ways that are consistent
with the expected emotions—is known as surface acting. This occurs
when we pretend to be experiencing the expected emotions even though
we are actually experiencing different emotions. For example, we show
interest in a client’s lengthy explanation even though we are actually
weary and somewhat irritated from hearing this message many times
before. We act out the verbal and nonverbal behaviors that indicate the
expected emotions, even though our actual emotions are quite
different.34
Surface acting is usually (but not always) a poor strategy for emotional
labor. It can be stressful because it requires considerable mental effort as
well as psychological separation of self from the role.35 Pretending to feel
particular emotions is also challenging. A genuine emotion automatically
activates a complex set of facial muscles and body positions, all of which
are difficult to replicate when pretending to have these emotions.
Meanwhile, our true emotions tend to reveal themselves as subtle
gestures, usually without our awareness. More often than not, observers
see when we are faking and sense that we feel a different emotion.36
Regulating Emotions
The second approach to displaying the expected emotions is to actually
experience those emotions (rather than faking them). In other words, we
consciously change our emotions so they are aligned with the expected
emotions performance. When experiencing the expected emotions, we
naturally display behavioral indicators of those emotions. There are five
main strategies for regulating our emotions.37
Changing the situation. This involves moving out of or into work
settings that affect our emotions. One example would be
temporarily leaving a work area that makes us feel lethargic. At
the same time, we might have a short walking break outside to
regain our vigor. Another example is keeping away from a
particular client who is deeply irritating.
Modifying the situation. Even when remaining in the same
physical location, people adapt that environment so it alters their
emotional state. For instance, we might stop working on a task
that is aggravating and move to a more enjoyable task so that we
don’t experience (and display) a sour demeanor. Or if a
discussion with coworkers becomes awkward or sensitive (such
as discussing national politics), we might shift the conversation
to a less emotionally laden topic.
Suppressing or amplifying emotions. This strategy involves
consciously trying to block out dysfunctional emotions or to
increase the intensity of expected emotions.38 Suppressing
emotions is the most common activity in this category. We try to
stop thinking about events that bother us or, at least,
psychologically distance ourselves from those events. For
instance, some medical staff suppress their emotional responses
to patient suffering by maintaining an impersonal relationship
with patients.
Shifting attention. This strategy involves changing the focus of our
attention. Suppose that earlier today you led a client
presentation that didn’t go well. To minimize the negative
emotions of that event, you might engage in work (such as
another project with coworkers) that takes your mind off the
flawed presentation.
Reframing the situation. Reframing is a cognitive re-evaluation of
a particular event that generates more appropriate emotions.
Rather than viewing a client presentation as a failure, you might
reframe the event as a learning moment that had a low
probability of success. Flight attendants apply reframing when
they define an incident with an unruly passenger as a test of their
customer service skill. These interactions are accomplishments
rather than dreaded chores.39
Page 131
By actively trying to experience desired emotions, employees are
engaging in deep acting. Deep acting involves actually producing the
emotions that are expected in a particular situation, whereas surface
acting does not attempt to experience the expected emotion.40 All five
emotion regulation strategies generate deep acting, but reframing the
situation and shifting attention are likely the most common. Changing
and modifying the situation can be applied when employees work alone,
but seldom when attending a client meeting, interacting with an upset
passenger, or in most other work-related social interactions. Suppressing
or amplifying emotions produces deep acting, but these cognitive
activities may actually involve reframing the situation and shifting
attention. But no matter which strategy is applied to manage emotions,
emotion regulation requires emotional intelligence, which we discuss
next.
Emotional Intelligence
The University of South Florida Health Morsani College of Medicine
discovered from surveys that its graduates required emotional
intelligence training to perform their jobs better. Now, some of its
students enroll in a special program that “focuses on values-based care,
leadership, health care systems and emotional intelligence.” The
program includes coaching and role-modeling by hospital staff at Lehigh
Valley Health Network, which helps medical students to develop their
ability to understand and manage emotions. “I use the emotional
intelligence concepts nearly every minute of my day,” says a physician
who graduated from USF’s medical program.41
The University of South Florida Health and many other organizations
have embraced the idea that emotional intelligence (EI) improves
performance in many types of jobs. Emotional intelligence includes a set
of abilities that enable us to recognize and regulate our own emotions as
well as the emotions of other people. This definition refers to the four
main dimensions shown in Exhibit 4.3.42
EXHIBIT 4.3 Dimensions of Emotional Intelligence
Sources: D. Goleman, “An EI-Based Theory of Performance,” in The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace, ed. C.
Cherniss and D. Goleman (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001), 28; Peter J. Jordan and Sandra A. Lawrence,
“Emotional Intelligence in Teams: Development and Initial Validation of the Short Version of the Workgroup
Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP-S),” Journal of Management & Organization 15 (2009): 452–69.
Awareness of our own emotions. This is the ability to perceive and
understand the meaning of our own emotions. People with
higher emotional intelligence have better awareness of their
emotions and are better able to make sense of them. They can
eavesdrop on their emotional responses to specific situations and
use this awareness as conscious information.43
Page 132
Management of our own emotions. Emotional intelligence includes
the ability to manage our own emotions, something that we all
do to some extent. We keep disruptive impulses in check. We try
not to feel angry or frustrated when events go against us. We try
to feel and express joy and happiness toward others when the
occasion calls for these emotional displays. We re-energize
ourselves later in the workday. Notice that management of our
own emotions goes beyond enacting desired emotions in a
particular situation. It also includes generating or suppressing
emotions. In other words, the deep acting described earlier
requires high levels of the self-regulation component of
emotional intelligence.
Awareness of others’ emotions. This is the ability to perceive and
understand the emotions of other people.44 It relates
to empathy—having an understanding of and sensitivity to the
feelings, thoughts, and situations of others (see Chapter 3). It
includes understanding the other person’s situation,
experiencing his or her emotions, and knowing his or her needs,
even when unstated. Awareness of others’ emotions also includes
being organizationally aware, such as sensing office politics and
the existence of informal social networks.
Management of others’ emotions. This dimension of EI refers to
managing other people’s emotions. It includes consoling people
who feel sad, emotionally inspiring team members to complete a
class project on time, getting strangers to feel comfortable
working with you, and dissipating coworker stress and other
dysfunctional emotions that they experience.
The four dimensions of emotional intelligence form a
hierarchy.45 Awareness of your own emotions is lowest in that hierarchy
because it is a prerequisite for engaging in the higher levels of emotional
intelligence. You can’t manage your own emotions if you don’t know
what they are (i.e., low self-awareness). Managing other people’s
emotions is the highest level of EI because this ability requires awareness
of your own and others’ emotions. To diffuse an angry conflict between
two employees, for example, you need to understand the emotions they
are experiencing and manage your emotions (and display of emotions).
To manage your own emotions, you also need to be aware of your current
emotions.
SELF-ASSESSMENT 4.2: HOW WELL DO YOU
RECOGNIZE AND REGULATE EMOTIONS?
Emotional intelligence is an important concept that potentially
enables us to be more effective with others in the workplace
and other social settings. Emotional intelligence is best
measured as an ability test. However, you can estimate your
level of emotional intelligence to some extent by reflecting on
events that required your awareness and management of
emotions. You can discover your perceived level of emotional
intelligence by locating this self-assessment in Connect if it is
assigned by your instructor.
Emotional Intelligence Outcomes and
Development
Most jobs involve social interaction with coworkers or external
stakeholders, so employees need emotional intelligence to work
effectively.46Studies suggest that people with high EI are more effective
team members, perform better in jobs requiring emotional labor, make
better decisions involving other people, and maintain a more positive
mindset for creative work. EI is also associated with effective leadership
because leaders engage in emotional labor (e.g., showing patience to
employees even when they might feel frustrated) and actively regulate
the emotions of others (e.g., helping staff members feel optimism for the
future even though they just lost an important contract). However,
emotional intelligence does not improve some forms of performance,
such as tasks that require minimal social interaction.47
Page 133
Police officers are learning how to reduce the incidence of violent encounters by de-
escalating the conflict. A critical skill in the de-escalation process is emotional intelligence.
San Diego police recently introduced Effective Interactions, a course in which officers
develop emotional intelligence and effective communication. Baltimore police attend a
Cognitive Command course (shown in this photo), which also includes learning to manage
emotions. “If you describe how a good officer anywhere does their job, you’re describing
what we’ve come to recognize as emotional intelligence,” explains San Diego police
psychologist Dan Blumberg. “It’s someone who understands himself or herself and can
understand emotions evoked during the job and manage their emotions effectively. They
understand the emotions of others and are able to use emotions to create positive
encounters.”f
Algerina Perna/Baltimore Sun/Getty Images
Given the potential value of emotional intelligence, it’s not surprising
that some organizations try to measure this ability in job applicants. The
United States Air Force (USAF) looks at the emotional intelligence of
applicants into its elite pararescue jumper training program because
high EI trainees are more than twice as likely to complete the
program.48 Several organizations have also introduced training programs
to improve employees’ emotional intelligence.49 For instance, new hires
(including co-op students) at Fidelity Canada take emotional intelligence
training along with other soft skills and technical education. One study
reported that training improved emotional intelligence among staff
members at a Netherlands residence for people with intellectual
disabilities. The EI program described the concept, gave participants
feedback on their initial EI test scores, used case studies to teach EI
dimensions, and provided professional feedback based on videos
showing participants meeting with difficult clients. Along with formal
training programs, emotional intelligence increases with age; it is part of
the process called maturity.
So far, this chapter has introduced the model of emotions and attitudes,
as well as emotional intelligence, as the means by which we manage
emotions in the workplace. The next two sections look at two specific
attitudes: job satisfaction and organizational commitment. These two
attitudes are so important in our understanding of workplace behavior
that some experts suggest the two combined should be called “overall job
attitude.”50
Job Satisfaction
LO 4-3Probably the most studied attitude in organizational behavior
is job satisfaction, a person’s evaluation of his or her job and work
context.51 It is an appraisal of the perceived job characteristics, work
environment, and emotional experiences at work. Satisfied employees
have a favorable evaluation of their jobs, based on their observations and
emotional experiences. Job satisfaction is best viewed as a collection of
attitudes about different aspects of the job and work context. You might
like your coworkers but be less satisfied with your workload, for instance.
How satisfied are employees at work? The answer depends on the
person, the workplace, and the country. Global surveys, such as the one
shown in Exhibit 4.4, indicate with some consistency that job
satisfaction tends to be highest in Mexico, the United States, and India.
The lowest levels of overall job satisfaction are usually recorded in Hong
Kong, Japan, and Hungary.
Page 134
EXHIBIT 4.4 Job Satisfaction in Selected Countriesg
Note: Percentage of employees in each country who said they are, in general, satisfied or very satisfied working
for their current employer. Survey data were collected in 2018 for Randstad Holdings nv, with a minimum of
400 employees in each country.
Can we conclude from these surveys that most employees in Mexico and
India are happy at work? Possibly, but their overall job satisfaction
probably isn’t as high as these statistics suggest. One problem is that
surveys often use a single direct question, such as “How satisfied are you
with your job?” Many dissatisfied employees are reluctant to reveal their
feelings in a direct question because this is tantamount to admitting that
they made a poor job choice and are not enjoying life. This inflated result
is evidenced by the fact that employees tend to report much less
satisfaction with specific aspects of their work. Furthermore, studies
report that many employees plan to look for work within the next year or
would leave their current employer if the right opportunity came along.52
A second problem is that cultural values make it difficult to compare job
satisfaction across countries. People in Japan tend to subdue their
emotions in public, and there is evidence that they also avoid extreme
survey ratings such as “very satisfied.” A third problem is that job
satisfaction changes with economic conditions. Employees with the
highest job satisfaction in current surveys tend to be in countries where
the economies are chugging along quite well.53
Job Satisfaction and Work Behavior
Does job satisfaction influence workplace behavior? In general, yes! Job
satisfaction affects many of the individual behaviors introduced
in Chapter 1 (task performance, organizational citizenship, quitting,
absenteeism, etc.).54 However, a more precise answer is that the effect of
job satisfaction and dissatisfaction on individual behavior depends on
the person and the situation. A useful template for organizing and
understanding the consequences of job dissatisfaction is the exit–voice–
loyalty–neglect (EVLN) model. As the name suggests, the EVLN model
identifies four ways that employees respond to dissatisfaction:55
Page 135
Exit. Exit includes leaving the organization, transferring to
another work unit, or at least trying to get away from the
dissatisfying situation. The traditional theory is that job
dissatisfaction builds over time and is eventually strong enough
to motivate employees to search for better work opportunities
elsewhere. This is likely true to some extent, but the most recent
opinion is that specific “shock events” quickly energize
employees to think about and engage in exit behavior. For
example, the emotional reaction you experience to an unfair
management decision or a conflict episode with a coworker
motivates you to look at job ads and speak to friends about job
opportunities where they work. This begins the process of
visualizing yourself working at another company and
psychologically withdrawing from your current employer.56
Voice. Voice is any attempt to change, rather than escape from,
the dissatisfying situation. Voice can be a constructive response,
such as recommending ways for management to improve the
situation, or it can be more confrontational, such as filing formal
grievances or forming a coalition to oppose a decision.57 In the
extreme, some employees might engage in counterproductive
behaviors to get attention and force changes in the organization.
Loyalty. In the original version of this model, loyalty was only
briefly mentioned as an outcome of dissatisfaction, but even then
the theory indicated that they took action to change company
policies (i.e., voice). Instead, the original model stated that
loyalty predicted whether people chose exit or voice (i.e., high
loyalty resulted in voice; low loyalty produced exit).58 More
recent writers describe loyalty only as an outcome of
dissatisfaction, but in various and somewhat unclear ways.
Generally, they suggest that “loyalists” are employees who
respond to dissatisfaction by patiently waiting—some say they
“suffer in silence”—for the problem to work itself out or be
resolved by others.59
Neglect. Neglect includes reducing work effort, paying less
attention to quality, and increasing absenteeism and lateness. It
is a passive form of counterproductive work behavior because it
has negative consequences for the organization.
Responses to job dissatisfaction depend partly on personal
characteristics of the dissatisfied employee.60 Voice is more common or
frequent among employees with higher extraversion and
conscientiousness, likely because these personality factors relate to a
person’s assertiveness, dutifulness, and outgoing nature. Past experience
also influences which EVLN action is applied. Employees who were
unsuccessful with voice in the past are more likely to engage in exit or
neglect when experiencing job dissatisfaction in the future. Loyalty, as it
was intended in the original exit–voice–loyalty model, is another
important factor. Specifically, employees are more likely to quit when
they have low loyalty to the company, and they are more likely to engage
in voice when they have high loyalty.
How employees react to dissatisfaction also depends on the situation.
The exit option is less common when there are few alternative job
prospects. Dissatisfied employees are more likely to use voice than the
other options when they are aware that other employees are dependent
on them or when they believe that someone else will speak up. Voice is
also more frequent when leaders encourage employees to discuss their
concerns in an inclusive work environment.61
Job Satisfaction and Performance
But what about job satisfaction and job performance? Is it true or false
that “a happy worker is a productive worker?” This is one of the oldest
debates in workplace attitudes, and one that has flip-flopped over the
years.62 In recent years, studies have fairly consistently concluded that
the “happy worker” hypothesis is true, but only to some extent. In other
words, there is a moderately positive relationship between job
satisfaction and performance.63
Page 136
Why does job satisfaction affect employee performance only “to some
extent”? One reason is that general attitudes (such as job satisfaction)
don’t predict specific behaviors very well. As the EVLN model explained,
reduced performance (a form of neglect) is only one of four possible
responses to dissatisfaction. A second reason is that some employees
have little control over their performance because their work effort is
paced by work technology or interdependence with coworkers in the
production process. An assembly-line worker, for instance, installs a
fixed number of windshields each hour with about the same quality of
installation whether he or she has high or low job satisfaction.
A third consideration is that job performance might cause job
satisfaction, rather than vice versa.64 Higher performers tend to have
higher satisfaction because they receive more rewards and recognition
than do low-performing employees. The connection between job
satisfaction and performance isn’t stronger because many organizations
do not reward good performance very well.
Job Satisfaction and Customer
Satisfaction
The opening case study of this chapter reported that Hilton Hotels and
Resorts is putting more resources into serving its employees so they, in
turn, are better motivated and able to serve Hilton’s guests well. As one
Hilton manager stated: “If you care for your team members, they will
take care of the customer.” Wegmans applies the same approach to
customer service. The supermarket chain clearly values its customers,
but it does so by caring as much for its employees. “What’s most
important to us is that our employees feel that Wegmans is a great place
to work,” explains Chairman and former CEO Danny Wegman. “When
our people feel cared about and respected, they turn around and make
our customers feel that way too.”65
Earls Restaurants Ltd. has survived and thrived for more than 30 years in a highly
competitive business. A key ingredient in the Canadian restaurant chain’s success is stated
in its motto: “Great guest experiences begin with great partner experiences.” Throughout
the years, Earls’ founders and leaders have embraced the idea that customers are more
satisfied with their dining experience when the cooks, servers, and other staff (all of whom
are called partners at Earls) have positive emotions and attitudes regarding their jobs and
employer.h
Earls Restaurant
Research supports the philosophy followed by Hilton and Wegman’s. In
fact, evidence suggests that job satisfaction has a stronger effect on
customer service than on overall performance. The effect of job
satisfaction on customer service and company profits is detailed in
the service profit chain model, diagrammed in Exhibit 4.5. This model
shows that job satisfaction has a positive effect on customer service,
which eventually benefits shareholder financial returns.
The process begins with workplace practices that increase or decrease
job satisfaction. Job satisfaction then influences whether employees stay
(employee retention) as well as their motivation and behavior on the job.
Retention, motivation, and behavior affect service quality, which
influences the customer’s satisfaction, perceived value of the service, and
tendency to recommend the service to others (referrals). These customer
activities influence the company’s profitability and growth. The service
profit chain model has considerable research support. However, the
benefits of job satisfaction take time to flow through to the organization’s
bottom line.66
EXHIBIT 4.5 Service Profit Chain Model
Sources: This model is based on J.I. Heskett, W.E. Sasser, and L.A. Schlesinger, The Service Profit Chain (New
York: Free Press, 1997); A.J. Rucci, S.P. Kirn, and R.T. Quinn, “The Employee-Customer-Profit Chain at
Sears,” Harvard Business Review 76 (1998): 83–97; S.P. Brown and S.K. Lam, “A Meta-Analysis of Relationships
Linking Employee Satisfaction to Customer Responses,” Journal of Retailing 84, no. 3 (2008): 243–55.
Within the service profit chain model are two key explanations why
satisfied employees tend to generate happier and more loyal
customers.67One explanation is that job satisfaction tends to put
employees in a more positive mood, and people in a good mood more
naturally and frequently display friendliness and positive emotions.
When employees have good feelings, their display of positive emotions
“rubs off” on most (but not all) customers, so customers feel happier and
consequently form a positive evaluation of the service experience (i.e.,
higher service quality). The effect is also mutual—happy customers make
employees happier—which can lead to a virtuous cycle of positive
emotions in the service experience.
The second explanation is that satisfied employees are less likely to quit
their jobs, so they have more work experience (i.e., better knowledge and
skills) to serve clients. Lower turnover also enables customers to have the
same employees serve them on different occasions, so there is more
consistent service. Some evidence indicates that customers build their
loyalty to specific employees, not to the organization, so keeping
employee turnover low tends to build customer loyalty.
Page 137
Job Satisfaction and Business Ethics
Along with its significant effect on employee behavior, job satisfaction is
an ethical issue that influences the organization’s reputation in the
community. People spend a large portion of their time working in
organizations, and many societies now expect companies to provide work
environments that are safe and enjoyable. Indeed, employees in several
countries closely monitor ratings of the best companies to work for, an
indication that employee satisfaction is a virtue worth considerable
goodwill to employers. This virtue is apparent when an organization has
low job satisfaction. The company tries to hide this fact, and when
morale problems become public, corporate leaders are usually quick to
improve the situation.
Organizational Commitment
Organizational commitment—specifically, affective organizational
commitment— represents the other half (with job satisfaction) of what
some experts call “overall job attitude.” Affective commitment is the
employee’s emotional attachment to, involvement in, and identification
with an organization. It is a psychological bond whereby one chooses to
be dedicated to and responsible for the organization. Furthermore,
affective commitment is an autonomous form of commitment; that is,
the employee is motivated by internal strivings of self-concept and values
alignment rather than by external forces.68
Affective commitment differs from continuance commitment, which is a
calculative attachment to the organization.69 The most widely accepted
meaning of continuance commitment is that the employee would face
significant social or economic sacrifice if he or she left the company (e.g.,
“I hate this place but can’t afford to quit!”). This perceived sacrifice
condition occurs when the company offers high pay and other forms of
economic exchange in the employment relationship, where quitting
forfeits a large deferred financial bonus. It also occurs when strong social
bonds would be cut if the person gave up her or his organizational
membership.
Page 138
A second type of continuance commitment involves limited alternative
employment opportunities (e.g., “I dislike working here but there are no
other jobs available”). This situation occurs when unemployment is high,
employees lack sufficient skills to be attractive to other employers, or the
employee’s skills are so specialized that there is limited demand for them
nearby. Some experts question whether this second type is actually
continuance commitment, but it does represent another type of cost-
based decision to stay and perform work roles.70 Both types of
continuance commitment have an externally dependent motivation to
remain with and participate in the organization, in contrast to affective
commitment which is internally sourced motivation.
Affective and continuance commitment have a third sibling,
called normative commitment, which refers to a felt obligation or moral
duty to the organization.71 Felt obligation applies the norm of
reciprocity—a natural human motivation to support, contribute, and
otherwise “pay back” the organization because it has invested in and
supported the employee (see Chapter 10). The sense of moral duty is the
motivation to remain with and contribute to the organization because it
is the right thing to do as a member of the organization. Normative
commitment receives less attention because it overlaps somewhat with
affective commitment and its meaning is somewhat ambiguous.
SELF-ASSESSMENT 4.3: HOW COMMITTED ARE YOU
TO YOUR SCHOOL?
Organizational (affective) commitment refers to an individual’s
emotional attachment to, involvement in, and identification
with an organization. It is mostly discussed in this book as an
employee’s attitude toward the company where he or she
works. But affective commitment is also relevant to a student’s
attitude toward the college or university where he or she is
taking courses. You can discover your affective commitment as
a student to the school where you are attending this program
by locating this self-assessment in Connect if it is assigned by
your instructor.
Consequences of Affective and
Continuance Commitment
Affective commitment can be a significant competitive
advantage.72 Employees with a strong psychological connection to the
organization are less likely to quit their jobs and be absent from work.
They also have higher work motivation and organizational citizenship, as
well as somewhat higher job performance. Affective commitment also
improves customer satisfaction because long-tenure employees have
better knowledge of work practices and because clients like to do
business with the same employees. One concern is that employees with
very high affective commitment tend to have high conformity, which
results in lower creativity. Another problem is that these employees are
motivated to defend the organization, even if it involves illegal activity.
However, most companies suffer from too little rather than too much
affective commitment.
In contrast to the benefits of affective commitment, employees with high
levels of continuance commitment tend to have lower performance and
are less likely to engage in organizational citizenship behaviors.
Furthermore, unionized employees with high continuance commitment
are more likely to use formal grievances, whereas employees with high
affective commitment engage in more cooperative problem solving when
employee–employer relations sour.73 Although some level of financial
connection may be necessary, employers should not rely on continuance
commitment instead of affective commitment. Employers still need to
win employees’ hearts (affective commitment) beyond tying them
financially to the organization (continuance commitment).
Page 139
Building Organizational Commitment
There are almost as many ways to build and maintain affective
commitment as there are topics in this book, but the most frequently
mentioned strategies are:
Justice and support. Affective commitment is higher in
organizations that support organizational justice, which we
discuss in the next chapter. Similarly, organizations that support
employee well-being tend to cultivate higher levels of loyalty in
return.74
Shared values. The definition of affective commitment refers to a
person’s identification with the organization, and that
identification is highest when employees believe their values are
congruent with the organization’s dominant values. Employees
also experience more positive emotions when their personal
values are aligned with corporate values and actions, which
increases their motivation to stay with the organization.75
Trust. Trust refers to positive expectations one person has
toward another person in situations involving risk.76 Trust
means putting faith in the other person or group. It is also a
reciprocal activity: To receive trust, you must demonstrate trust.
Employees identify with and feel obliged to work for an
organization only when they trust its leaders. This explains why
layoffs are one of the greatest blows to affective commitment; by
reducing job security, companies reduce the trust employees
have in their employer and the employment relationship.77
Organizational comprehension. Organizational comprehension
refers to how well employees understand the organization,
including its strategic direction, social dynamics, and physical
layout.78 This awareness is a necessary prerequisite to affective
commitment because it is difficult to identify with or feel loyal to
something that you don’t know very well. Furthermore, lack of
information produces uncertainty, and the resulting stress can
distance employees from that source of uncertainty (i.e., the
organization). The practical implication here is to ensure that
employees develop a reasonably clear and complete mental
model of the organization. This occurs by giving staff
information and opportunities to keep up to date about
organizational events, interact with coworkers, discover what
goes on in different parts of the organization, and learn about the
organization’s history and future plans.79
Employee involvement. Employee involvement increases affective
commitment by strengthening the employee’s psychological
ownership and social identity with the organization.80 Employees
feel part of the organization when they participate in decisions
that guide the organization’s future (see Chapter 7). Employee
involvement also builds loyalty because it demonstrates the
company’s trust in its employees.
Organizational commitment and job satisfaction represent two of the
most often studied and discussed attitudes in the workplace. Each is
linked to emotional episodes and cognitive judgments about the
workplace and relationship with the company. Emotions also play an
important role in another concept that is on everyone’s mind these days:
stress. The final section of this chapter provides an overview of work-
related stress and how it can be managed.
Work-Related Stress and Its
Management
LO 4-4When asked if they often feel stressed, most employees these days
say “Yes!” Not only do most people understand the concept; they claim to
have plenty of personal experience with it. Stress is most often described
as an adaptive response to a situation that is perceived as challenging or
threatening to the person’s well-being.81 It is a physiological and
psychological condition that prepares us to adapt to hostile or noxious
environmental conditions. Our heart rate increases, muscles tighten,
breathing speeds up, and perspiration increases. Our body also moves
more blood to the brain, releases adrenaline and other hormones, fuels
the system by releasing more glucose and fatty acids, activates systems
that sharpen our senses, and conserves resources by shutting down our
immune system. One school of thought suggests that stress is a negative
evaluation of the external environment. However, critics of this
“cognitive appraisal” perspective point out that stress is more accurately
described as an emotional experience, which may occur before or after a
conscious evaluation of the situation.82
Whether stress is a complex emotion or a cognitive evaluation of the
environment, it has become a pervasive experience in the daily lives of
most people. Stress is typically described as a negative experience. This is
known as distress—the degree of physiological, psychological, and
behavioral deviation from healthy functioning. However, some level and
form of stress—called eustress—is a necessary part of life because it
activates and motivates people to achieve goals, change their
environments, and succeed in life’s challenges.83 Our focus is on the
causes and management of distress, because it has become a chronic
problem in many societies.
Stressed Out, Burnt Outi
(photo) donskarpo/Getty Images
SELF-ASSESSMENT 4.4: HOW STRESSED ARE YOU?
Stress is an adaptive response to a situation that is perceived
as challenging or threatening to the person’s well-being. It is
an increasing concern in today’s society. You can discover your
perceived general level of stress over the past month by
locating this self-assessment in Connect if it is assigned by
your instructor.
Page 141
General Adaptation Syndrome
The word stress was first used more than 500 years ago to describe the
human response to harsh environmental conditions. However, it wasn’t
until the 1930s that researcher Hans Selye (often described as the
“father” of stress research) first documented the stress experience, called
the general adaptation syndrome. Selye determined (initially by
studying rats) that people have a fairly consistent and automatic
physiological response to stressful situations, which helps them cope
with environmental demands.84
The general adaptation syndrome consists of the three stages shown
in Exhibit 4.6. The alarm reaction stage occurs when a threat or challenge
activates the physiological stress responses that were noted earlier. The
individual’s energy level and coping effectiveness decrease in response to
the initial shock. The second stage, resistance, activates various
biochemical, psychological, and behavioral mechanisms that give the
individual more energy and engage coping mechanisms to overcome or
remove the source of stress. To focus energy on the source of the stress,
the body reduces resources to the immune system during this stage. This
explains why people are more likely to catch a cold or some other illness
when they experience prolonged stress. People have a limited resistance
capacity, and if the source of stress persists, the individual will eventually
move into the third stage, exhaustion. Most of us are able to remove the
source of stress or remove ourselves from that source before becoming
too exhausted. However, people who frequently reach exhaustion have
increased risk of long-term physiological and psychological damage.85
EXHIBIT 4.6 General Adaptation Syndrome
Source: Adapted from H. Selye, The Stress of Life (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956).
Consequences of Distress
Stress takes its toll on the human body.86 Many people experience
tension headaches, muscle pain, and related problems mainly due to
muscle contractions from the stress response. High stress levels also
contribute to cardiovascular disease, including heart attacks and strokes,
and may be associated with some forms of cancer. One major review
estimated that more than 100,000 deaths annually and as much as 8
percent of health care costs in the United States are due to the
consequences of work-related stress. Stress also produces various
psychological consequences such as job dissatisfaction, moodiness,
depression, and lower organizational commitment. Furthermore, various
behavioral outcomes have been linked to high or persistent stress,
including lower job performance, poor decision making, and increased
workplace accidents and aggressive behavior. Most people react to stress
through “fight or flight,” so, as a form of flight, increased absenteeism is
another outcome of stress.87
A particular stress consequence, called job burnout, occurs when people
experience emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and reduced feelings of
personal accomplishment.88 Emotional exhaustion, the first stage, is
characterized by a lack of energy, tiredness, and a feeling that one’s
emotional resources are depleted. This is followed by cynicism (also
called depersonalization), which is an indifferent attitude toward work,
emotional detachment from clients, a cynical view of the organization,
and a tendency to strictly follow rules and regulations rather than adapt
to the needs of others. The final stage of burnout, called reduced personal
accomplishment, entails feelings of diminished confidence in one’s ability
to perform the job well. In such situations, employees develop a sense of
learned helplessness as they no longer believe that their efforts make a
difference.
Page 142
Stressors: The Causes of Stress
Before identifying ways to manage work-related stress, we must first
understand its causes, known as stressors. Stressors include any
environmental conditions that place a physical or emotional demand on
a person.89 There are numerous stressors in the workplace and in life in
general. We will briefly describe four of the most common work-related
stressors: organizational constraints, interpersonal conflict, work
overload, and low task control.90
Organizational Constraints
Stress research has identified organizational constraints as one of the
most pervasive causes of workplace stress.91 This stressor includes lack of
equipment, supplies, budget funding, coworker support, information,
and other resources necessary to complete the required work. Most
employees experience stress because these constraints interfere with task
performance, which indirectly threatens their rewards, status, and job
security. Organizational constraints refer to situational factors, which is
one of the four direct predictors of individual behavior and performance
(see the MARS model in Chapter 1). It is the only direct influence on
individual performance that is beyond the employee’s immediate control.
This lack of control is a powerful stressor because it threatens the
individual’s fundamental drive to influence his or her external
environment.
Interpersonal Conflict
Employees usually agree on the organization’s overall objectives, but
they frequently disagree with one another regarding how to achieve
those goals as well as how the work and resources should be distributed
along that journey. Therefore, conflict is a way of life in organizations. As
we will learn in Chapter 11, dysfunctional conflict can easily flair up and,
left unchecked, escalate to a level that produces considerable stress and
counterproductive work behaviors. In organizational settings, most
interpersonal conflict is caused by structural sources such as ambiguous
rules, lack of resources, and conflicting goals between employees or
departments. However, a variety of interpersonal conflict that has
become an increasing concern is workplace harassment, including
workplace bullying, sexual harassment, and other forms of mistreatment
by coworkers, managers, or customers.92
GLOBAL CONNECTIONS 4.2
Deadly Consequences of Workplace Bullyingj
fizkes/Shutterstock
For 17 years, Eric Donovan worked at a not-for-profit
organization that operates several group homes and programs
for intellectually challenged adults in Prince Edward Island
(PEI), Canada. He was “conscientious and compassionate” to
residents and “highly respected” by coworkers.
Yet, over several years, Donovan suffered from ongoing
harassment and bullying from his supervisor. Coworkers
submitted sworn statements that the supervisor had a
reputation as a workplace bully. A few former coworkers also
testified that they left the organization after experiencing too
much of the supervisor’s harassment.
The supervisor’s behavior became more intense when Donovan
went on medical leave after injuring his back while controlling
an aggressive resident. She called Donovan a wimp in front of
coworkers. After returning to work, Donovan overheard the
supervisor telling someone on the phone that she thought
Donovan was faking his back injury.
Donovan discussed the stressful work environment with his
wife and family doctor. “Mr. Donovan had significant stress
from his relationship with his supervisor at work,” Donovan’s
physician reported. “He often voiced how difficult the
relationship was, the sense of being bullied and the resultant
stress, anxiety and panic attacks.”
Donovan started documenting the bullying incidents. In one of
his last entries, he wrote that the relationship with his
supervisor “was now so strained that I couldn’t work for her.”
His wife and friends noticed how he looked increasingly unwell.
One evening, his wife said: “You’re going on stress leave. You
need to get away.” Those were her last words to her husband.
An hour or two later, Donovan, who didn’t have a pre-existing
heart condition, suffered cardiac arrest and died a few days
later. He was 47 years old.
The PEI Worker’s Compensation Board eventually ruled that
Donovan’s death was likely due to stress caused by several
years of bullying from his supervisor. The PEI government
recently passed legislation named after Eric Donovan that
provides employees with legal protection against bullying in the
workplace.
Work Overload
“We just keep rushing along in a confused state of never having time to
do the things that seem to be pressing upon us.” Sound familiar? Most of
us probably had this thought from time to time. But this comment wasn’t
written in the past year or even in the past decade. It came from an
article called “Let’s Slow Down!” in a financial institution’s newsletter to
clients in 1949!93 The fact is, people have been struggling for more than a
half century with the pace of life, including the challenges of performing
too many tasks and working too many hours. Work overload is one of the
most common workplace stressors. Employees are expected (or believe
they are expected) to complete more work with more effort than they can
provide within the allotted time.94
Work overload is evident when employees consume more of their
personal time to get the job done. Technology and globalization also
contribute to work overload because they tether employees to work for
more hours of the day. People increasingly work with coworkers in
distant time zones, and their communication habits of being constantly
“on” make it difficult to separate work from personal life. Some
employees amplify their work overload by adopting an “ideal worker
norm” in which they expect themselves and others to work longer hours.
For many, toiling away far beyond the normal workweek is a badge of
honor, a symbol of their superhuman capacity to perform above others.
For example, 39 percent of Millennial employees in one recent large-
scale survey admitted that they work long hours and have a 24/7
schedule so they look like a “work martyr” to their boss.95
Page 143
Low Task Control
Workplace stress is higher when employees lack control over how and
when they perform their tasks as well as lack control over the pace of
work activity. Work is potentially more stressful when it is paced by a
machine, involves monitoring equipment, or the work schedule is
controlled by someone else. Low task control is a stressor because
employees face high workloads without the ability to adjust the pace of
the load to their own energy, attention span, and other resources.
Furthermore, the degree to which low task control is a stressor increases
with the burden of responsibility the employee must carry.96 Assembly-
line workers have low task control, but their stress can be fairly low if
their level of responsibility is also low. In contrast, sports coaches are
under immense pressure to win games (high responsibility), yet they
have little control over what happens on the playing field (low task
control).
Individual Differences in Stress
People exposed to the same stressor experience different levels of stress.
One factor is the employee’s physical health. Regular exercise and a
healthy lifestyle produce a larger store of energy to cope with stress. A
second individual difference is the coping strategy employees use to ward
off a particular stressor.97 People sometimes figure out ways to remove
the stressor or to minimize its presence. Seeking support from others,
reframing the stressor in a more positive light, blaming others for the
stressor, and denying the stressor’s existence are some coping
mechanisms. Specific coping strategies work better for some stressors,
and a few coping strategies work well for almost all stressors.98 Thus,
someone who uses a less effective coping mechanism in a particular
situation would experience more stress in response to that situation.
People have a tendency to rely on one or two coping strategies, and those
who rely on generally poor coping strategies (such as denying the
stressor exists) are going to experience more stress.
Page 144
Personality is the third and possibly the most important reason why
people experience different levels of stress when faced with the same
stressor.99 Individuals with low neuroticism (high emotional stability)
usually experience lower stress levels because, by definition, they are less
prone to anxiety, depression, and other negative emotions. Extraverts
also tend to experience lower stress than do introverts, likely because
extraversion includes a degree of positive thinking and extraverts
interact with others, which helps buffer the effect of stressors. Those with
a positive self-concept—high self-esteem, self-efficacy, and internal locus
of control (see Chapter 3)—feel more confident and in control when
faced with a stressor. In other words, they tend to have a stronger sense
of optimism.100 Stress also tends to be higher among those who suffer
from workaholism. Workaholics have an uncontrollable work motivation,
constantly think about work, and have low work enjoyment.101
SELF-ASSESSMENT 4.5: ARE YOU A WORKAHOLIC?
Some people are highly involved in work, have an inner
compulsion to work at full speed, and yet don’t enjoy work.
People with these personal characteristics are called
workaholics, and they tend to experience high levels of
(dis)stress, which can produce long-term health problems. You
can discover the extent to which you are a workaholic by
locating this self-assessment in Connect if it is assigned by
your instructor.
Managing Work-Related Stress
LO 4-5Many people deny the existence of their stress until it has more
serious outcomes. This avoidance strategy creates a vicious cycle because
the failure to cope with stress becomes another stressor on top of the one
that created the stress in the first place. To prevent this vicious cycle,
employers and employees need to apply one or more of the stress
management strategies described next: remove the stressor, withdraw
from the stressor, change stress perceptions, control stress
consequences, and receive social support.102
Remove the Stressor
There are many ways to remove the stressor, but some of the more
common actions involve assigning employees to jobs that match their
skills and preferences, reducing excessive workplace noise, having a
complaint system that takes corrective action against harassment, and
giving employees more control over the work process. Another important
way that companies can remove stressors is through work–life
integration initiatives (see Chapter 1). For example, personal leave
benefits, such as maternity and paternity leave, temporarily offer
employees paid nonwork time to manage special circumstances. Remote
work potentially improves work–life integration by reducing or
eliminating commuting time and increasing flexibility to perform
nonwork obligations (such as picking up the kids from school). Some
companies and at least one government (France) have introduced
policies that prohibit managers and employees from communicating
work-related issues during nonwork hours.103
Page 145
Withdraw from the Stressor
Removing the stressor may be the ideal solution, but it is often not
feasible. An alternative strategy is to permanently or temporarily remove
employees from the stressor. Permanent withdrawal occurs when
employees are transferred to jobs that are more compatible with their
abilities and values. Temporarily withdrawing from stressors is the most
frequent way that employees manage stress. Vacations and holidays are
important opportunities for employees to recover from stress and re-
energize for future challenges. A small number of companies offer paid
or unpaid sabbaticals.104 Many firms also provide innovative ways for
employees to withdraw from stressful work throughout the day such as
game rooms, ice cream cart breaks, nap rooms, and cafeterias that
include live piano recitals.
Japanese employees are chronically overworked and sleep deprived. Using fitness trackers,
one study found that Japanese men and women sleep only 6 hours and 35 minutes each
day, on average, which is the lowest among 28 countries studied. Crazy Inc. hopes to reduce
the Japanese penchant for overwork by motivating people to sleep longer. The Tokyo-based
upscale wedding organizer awards points to employees who sleep at least six hours every
night for at least five days each week. Employee sleep patterns are tracked by an app
developed by a mattress manufacturer. The points, which are exchanged for food in the
company cafeteria, can add up to more than $500 per year.k
DAJ/Getty Images
Change Stress Perceptions
How much stress employees experience depends on how they perceive
the stressor.105 Consequently, another way to manage stress is to help
employees improve their self-concept so job challenges are not perceived
as threatening. Personal goal setting and self-reinforcement also can
reduce the stress that people experience when they enter new work
settings. In addition, research suggests that some (but not all) forms of
humor can improve optimism and create positive emotions by taking
some psychological weight off a stressful situation.106
Control Stress Consequences
Keeping physically fit and maintaining a healthy lifestyle are effective
stress management strategies because they control stress consequences.
Good physical fitness reduces the adverse physiological consequences of
stress by helping employees moderate their breathing and heart rate,
muscle tension, and stomach acidity. The key variable here is physical
fitness, not exercise. Exercise leads to physical fitness, but research
suggests that exercise does not reduce stress symptoms among people
who are not yet physically fit.107 Various forms of meditation reduce
anxiety and other symptoms of stress, but their effect on blood pressure
and other physiological symptoms is minimal.108 Wellness programs also
can assist in controlling the consequences of stress. These programs
inform employees about better nutrition and fitness, regular sleep, and
other good health habits. Many large companies offer employee assistance
programs (EAPs)—counseling services that help employees resolve
marital, financial, or work-related troubles.
Page 146
Receive Social Support
Social support occurs when coworkers, supervisors, family members,
friends, and others provide emotional and/or informational support to
buffer an individual’s stress experience. For instance, employees whose
managers are good at empathizing experienced fewer stress symptoms
than do employees whose managers were less empathetic. Social support
potentially (but not always) improves the person’s optimism and self-
confidence because support makes people feel valued and worthy. Social
support also provides information to help the person interpret,
comprehend, and possibly remove the stressor. For instance, to reduce a
new employee’s stress, coworkers could describe ways to handle difficult
customers. Seeking social support is called a “tend and befriend”
response to stress, and research suggests that women often follow this
route rather than the “fight-or-flight” response mentioned earlier.109
SELF-ASSESSMENT 4.6: HOW DO YOU COPE WITH
STRESSFUL SITUATIONS?
People cope with stress in several ways. The best coping
strategy usually depends on the source of stress and other
circumstances. However, people also have a natural preference
for some types of coping strategies more than others. You can
discover your preferences among four coping strategies by
locating this self-assessment in Connect if it is assigned by
your instructor.
CHAPTER 2
Individual Differences:
Personality and Values
Learning Objectives
AFTER STUDYING THIS CHAPTER, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE
TO:
1. 2-1 Define personality and discuss how the Big Five personality
factors relate to workplace behavior and performance.
2. 2-2Describe the dark triad of personality and the MBTI types and
discuss their implications for organizational behavior.
3. 2-3Summarize Schwartz’s model of individual values and discuss
the conditions where values influence behavior.
4. 2-4Describe four ethical principles and discuss three factors that
influence ethical behavior.
5. 2-5Describe five values commonly studied across cultures.
Getting hired at Bridgewater Associates—the world’s
largest hedge fund—is not a cake-walk. Job applicants first
watch online videos depicting the culture and daily office life at
the Westport, Connecticut, investment firm. Next, they spend a
few hours completing four online assessments of their
personality and values.
Applicants who pass the online selection process engage in a
structured interview over the phone with consultants, who
further assess the individual’s character. Even after accepting
Bridgewater’s job offer, new recruits take a final two-hour
personality and personal values assessment developed by the
company.
Bridgewater Associates founder Ray Dalio says assessing an
individual’s personality and values helps the investment firm
assign people to jobs that fit their personal attributes. “I
needed a systematic approach to capturing and recording our
differences so that we could actively take them into
consideration when putting people into different roles at
Bridgewater,” he wrote in his recent book. The information is
also used to diagnose why conflicts occur and why problems
arise.
Each employee’s personality, values, and other attributes are
displayed on baseball cards available through a digital app to
everyone in the company. Each attribute has a score based on
the personality test results as well as subsequent ongoing
instant evaluations by coworkers. “I found that we needed to
have these [baseball cards] and refer to them regularly
because without them, people tended to interact with each
other without any regard to who was good or bad at what,”
says Dalio.1
Bridgewater Associates places considerable weight on the personality, values,
and other individual differences of its job applicants and employees.
Westend61/Getty Images
Page 45
Bridgewater Associates places considerable weight on the
personality, values, and other individual differences of its job
applicants and employees. It views personality and values as
strong predictors of a person’s decisions and behavior, which
then relate to how well they fit into particular roles and how
well they work with others at Bridgewater.
Part 2 of this book discusses individual differences and begins
in this chapter by presenting current knowledge about
personality and values in organizations. We describe the
meaning and origins of personality, introduce the five-factor
personality model, and identify how each dimension of this
highly regarded model relates to job performance and related
behaviors. Two other personality models are then introduced:
the dark triad (Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy)
and the Jungian personality theory applied by the Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator (MBTI). Next, our attention turns to personal
values. We describe Schwartz’s values circumplex model,
explain how personal values influence workplace decisions and
behavior, and introduce the concept of values congruence.
Next, we examine ethical values and the mechanisms through
which they influence a person’s decisions and behavior. The
final section of this chapter describes the best known cross-
cultural values and explains their relevance to organizational
behavior.
Personality and the Five-Factor
Model in Organizations
LO 2-1Delaware North Companies had high turnover at its call center in
Fresno, California. The hospitality and food management company
decided to solve this problem by hiring people with the same personality
traits and skills of its best-performing staff members. Through tests,
Delaware North discovered that the best performers display friendliness
and curiosity, so job applicants now complete a personality test that
measures these traits. Employee turnover at Delaware North’s Fresno
call center has since dropped significantly. “Now we understand better
what makes a great reservation sales applicant,” says a Delaware North
executive.2
Delaware North, Bridgewater Associates, and many other companies try
to measure each job applicant’s personality—the relatively enduring
pattern of thoughts, emotions, and behaviors that characterize a person,
along with the psychological processes behind those
characteristics.3 Personality is, in essence, the bundle of characteristics
that make us similar to or different from other people. We estimate an
individual’s personality by what he or she says and does, and we infer the
person’s internal states—including thoughts and emotions—from these
observable behaviors. This definition attempts to cover the broad
meaning of personality. However, defining personality is a challenge—
one personality theorist bluntly calls it impossible—because there are
several perspectives or approaches to personality, each of which has a
somewhat different view or emphasis on how personality should be
defined. For example, needs and motives, which we discuss in Chapter 5,
are often discussed as components of personality.
People engage in a wide range of behaviors in their daily lives, yet close
inspection of those actions reveals discernible patterns called personality
traits.4 Traits are broad concepts that allow us to label and understand
individual differences. For example, some of your friends are probably
quite talkative whereas others tend to be quieter. Some people like to
take risks whereas others are risk-averse. Each trait implies that there is
something within the person, rather than environmental influences
alone, that predicts this behavioral tendency. In fact, studies report that
an individual’s personality traits measured in childhood predict many
behaviors and outcomes in adulthood, including educational attainment,
employment success, marital relationships, illegal activities, and health-
risk behaviors.5
Although people have behavioral tendencies, they do not act the same
way in all situations. Such consistency would be considered abnormal
because it indicates a person’s insensitivity to social norms, reward
systems, and other external conditions.6 People vary their behavior to
suit the situation, even if the behavior is at odds with their personality.
For example, talkative people remain relatively quiet in a library where
“no talking” rules are explicit and strictly enforced. Even there,
personality differences are apparent because talkative people tend to do
more talking in libraries relative to how much other people talk in
libraries.
What Causes Personality: Nature
versus Nurture
Personality is shaped by both nature and nurture, although the relative
importance of each continues to be debated and studied.7 Naturerefers to
our genetic or hereditary origins—the genes that we inherit from our
parents. Studies of identical twins reveal that heredity has a very large
effect on personality; up to 50 percent of variation in behavior and 30
percent of temperament preferences can be attributed to a person’s
genetic characteristics. In other words, genetic code not only determines
our eye color, skin tone, and physical shape; it also significantly affects
our attitudes, decisions, and behavior.
Personality is also shaped by nurture—our socialization, life experiences,
and other forms of interaction with the environment. Personality
develops and changes mainly from childhood to young adulthood,
typically stabilizing by around age 30. However, some personality
changes continue to occur later in life. For instance, a few traits
(openness to experience, social vitality) increase through to young
adulthood, then decline in later years, whereas other traits
(agreeableness, conscientiousness) tend to increase through to late life.
Our personality is also influenced somewhat by the job we work in over a
long time period. Even migrating to another culture can change our
personality to some extent.8
Page 47
The main explanation of why personality becomes more stable by
adulthood is that we form a clearer and more rigid self-concept. This
increasing clarity of “who we are” anchors our behavior with the help of
our executive function. This is the part of the brain that monitors and
regulates goal-directed behavior to keep it consistent with our self-
concept. Our self-view becomes clearer and more stable with age, which
increases the stability and consistency of our personality and
behavior.9 We discuss the elements and influences of self-concept
in Chapter 3. The main point here is that personality is not completely
determined by heredity; life experiences, particularly early in life, also
shape each individual’s personality traits.
Five-Factor Model of Personality
Sociable, anxious, curious, dependable, suspicious, talkative,
adventurous, and hundreds of other personality traits have been
described over the years, so experts have tried to organize them into
smaller clusters. The most researched and respected clustering of
personality traits is the five-factor model, also known as the Big
Five.10 Several decades ago, personality experts identified more than
17,000 words that describe an individual’s personality. These words were
distilled down to five broad personality factors, each with a cluster of
specific traits. Similar results were found in studies of different
languages, suggesting that the five-factor model is fairly robust across
cultures. These Big Five factors, represented by the handy
acronym CANOE, are outlined in Exhibit 2.1 and described as follows:
Conscientiousness. Characterizes people who are organized,
dependable, goal-focused, thorough, disciplined, methodical,
and industrious. People with low conscientiousness tend to be
careless, disorganized, and less thorough.
Agreeableness. Describes people who are trusting, helpful,
good-natured, considerate, tolerant, selfless, generous, and
flexible. People with low agreeableness tend to be uncooperative
and intolerant of others’ needs as well as more suspicious and
self-focused.
Neuroticism. Refers to people who tend to be anxious, insecure,
self-conscious, depressed, and temperamental. In contrast,
people with low neuroticism (high emotional stability) are
poised, secure, and calm.
Openness to experience. Characterizes people who are
imaginative, creative, unconventional, curious, nonconforming,
autonomous, and aesthetically perceptive. Those with low scores
on this factor tend to be more resistant to change, less open to
new ideas, and more conventional and fixed in their ways.
Page 48
Extraversion. Describes people who are outgoing, talkative,
energetic, sociable, and assertive. The opposite
is introversion, which applies to those who are quiet, cautious,
and less interactive with others. Extraverts get their energy from
people and things around them, whereas introverts get their
energy more from personal reflection on concepts and ideas.
Introverts do not necessarily lack social skills. Instead, they are
more inclined to direct their interests to ideas than to social
events. Introverts feel more comfortable being alone than do
extraverts.
EXHIBIT 2.1 Five-Factor Model of Personality
SELF-ASSESSMENT 2.1: WHAT IS YOUR BIG FIVE
PERSONALITY?
Personality experts have organized the dozens of personality
traits into five main factors, known as the five-factor or Big
Five model. Each factor consists of several specific personality
traits that cluster together. Most scholarly research on
personality relies on this model, but it is also useful in everyday
life as a relatively easy categorization of personalities. You can
discover your Big Five personality by locating this self-
assessment in Connect if it is assigned by your instructor.
SELF-ASSESSMENT 2.2: ARE YOU INTROVERTED OR
EXTRAVERTED?
One of the most widely studied and discussed personality
factors in the five-factor (Big Five) model of personality is
introversion–extraversion. Introversion characterizes people
who tend to be quiet, shy, and cautious. Extraversion
characterizes people who tend to be outgoing, talkative,
sociable, and assertive. You can discover your level of
introversion or extraversion by locating this self-assessment in
Connect if it is assigned by your instructor.
Page 49
Five-Factor Model and Work Performance
Personality mainly affects behavior and performance through
motivation, specifically by influencing employees’ direction and intensity
of effort (i.e., what goals they choose to reach and how much effort they
apply to reach those goals). Consequently, all of the Big Five factors
predict one or more types of employee behavior and performance to
some extent.
Exhibit 2.2 highlights which Big Five personality factors best predict the
three types of task performance as well as organizational citizenship and
counterproductive work behaviors (see Chapter 1).11 Conscientiousness
stands out as the best overall personality predictor of proficient task
performance for most jobs. The specific conscientiousness traits of
industriousness (achievement, self-discipline, purposefulness) and
dutifulness are the best predictors of proficient task performance.
Conscientious employees set higher personal goals for themselves and
are more persistent. They also engage in more organizational citizenship
and in less counterproductive work behavior. Conscientiousness is a
weak predictor of adaptive (responding to change) and proactive
performance (taking initiative toward new work patterns). In fact, two
specific conscientiousness traits—orderliness and dependability—tend to
suppress adaptivity.
EXHIBIT 2.2 Big Five Personality and Work Performance
(top-left): Ildar Galeev/Shutterstock; (top-center): Fred Ho Yeow Hui/Shutterstock; (top-right):
malika.1028/Shutterstock; (bottom-left): Aha-Soft/Shutterstock; (bottom-right): Sign N Symbol
Production/Shutterstock
Extraversion is the second best overall personality predictor of proficient
task performance, but is a much weaker predictor than is
conscientiousness. Among the specific traits within the extraversion
factor, assertiveness and positive emotionality are the strongest
predictors of proficient task performance. Assertiveness is also a strong
predictor of adaptive and proactive performance. Assertive employees
tend to have a “take charge” approach to situations, which is consistent
with adapting to change and proactively initiating change. Extraversion
is associated with influencing others and being comfortable in social
settings, which (along with being assertive) explains why effective
leaders and salespeople tend to be somewhat more extraverted than the
general population.
Page 50
Agreeableness is positively associated with most forms of organizational
citizenship and negatively associated with counterproductive work
behaviors.12 The reason is that employees with high agreeableness are
more cooperative, sensitive, flexible, and supportive. Agreeableness does
not predict proficient or proactive task performance very well, mainly
because it is associated with lower motivation to set goals and achieve
results. However, employees with higher (but not too high)
agreeableness tend to improve team performance through better
knowledge sharing and motivation to help the team. Agreeableness also
has a positive effect on friendliness behavior in customer service
jobs.13 For example, this section of the chapter opened with the story
about Delaware North Companies, which identified friendliness (a form
of agreeableness) as a personality trait of successful call center agents.
Openness to experience is a weak predictor of proficient task
performance, but it is one of the best personality predictors of adaptive
and proactive performance. The main reason is that employees with
higher openness scores have more curiosity, imagination, and tolerance
of change.14 These traits also explain why openness to change is
associated with successful performance in creative work.
Emotional stability (low neuroticism) is one of the best personality
predictors of adaptive performance.15 The central explanation is that
employees with higher emotional stability cope better with the ambiguity
and uncertainty of change. In contrast, those with higher neuroticism
view change as a threat, so they tend to avoid change and experience
more stress when faced with workplace adjustments. These
characteristics would suggest that emotional stability also predicts
proactive performance, but the limited research has reported mixed
results.
SELF-ASSESSMENT 2.3: CAN YOU IDENTIFY
PERSONALITY TRAITS FROM BLOGGING WORDS?
Personality influences all aspects of our lives, including the
words we use when writing blogs. In fact, some companies now
use sophisticated software to estimate the personality traits of
job applicants from the words they use in blogs and other
online writing. You can discover how well you interpret
someone’s personality in blogs and other writing by locating
this self-assessment in Connect if it is assigned by your
instructor.
Issues When Applying the Five-Factor
Model
The five-factor model of personality is widely accepted among scholars
and has a deep research foundation to support its structure and
usefulness at predicting workplace behavior. However, we need to alert
you to several issues to better understand and apply this theory to the
workplace.
Higher isn’t always better. A common assumption is that the
“perfect employee” has the highest scores on all of the Big Five
personality factors (where emotional stability is high and
neuroticism is low). Part of the problem may be that the labels
and structure of the Big Five factors have a strong linear bias
(high is good, low is bad).16 But several studies have reported
that the best employees don’t have the highest scores on some
personality factors. In other words, the relationship between
personality and performance is often nonlinear. Employees with
moderate extraversion perform better in sales jobs than those
with high or low extraversion.17 One recent study found that
students with the best peer-rated contributions to teamwork
have relatively high extraversion, but moderately high
conscientiousness, and only around the mid-point on
agreeableness.
Page 51
Specific traits may be better predictors than the Big Five factors. We
pay so much attention to the Big Five factors that it’s easy to
forget that each factor clusters several specific personality traits.
For instance, conscientiousness clusters specific traits such as
organized, dependable, goal-focused, thorough, disciplined,
methodical, and industrious. Specific traits are sometimes better
than the broader factor at predicting behavior and performance.
For example, earlier we pointed out that the specific extraversion
traits of assertiveness and positive emotionality predict
proficient task performance better than the other extraversion
traits or the overall extraversion factor.
Personality isn’t static. There is an unfortunate tendency to think
“that’s the way s/he is” as if an adult’s personality is frozen for a
lifetime. Labelling people (“He’s an introvert”) reinforces this
fallacy that personality is static. Personality does stabilize around
age 30, but that doesn’t mean it is static. As we noted at the
beginning of this topic, some Big Five factors tend to increase or
decrease as we age. Some personality factors also change when
our environment significantly changes over a long time, such as
when moving to a different culture or working in a job for many
years.
The five-factor model doesn’t cover all personality. Many of us—
including some researchers—make the mistake of assuming that
the five-factor model measures all of our personality.18 The five-
factor model does capture a large portion of the domain we
call personality, but not all of it. As mentioned at the outset of this
topic, personality is difficult to define because there are several
perspectives of this topic. The Big Five reflects only some of
those perspectives. This is apparent in the next section of this
chapter, which introduces two other models of personality that
only partially overlap with the Big Five factors.
Other Personality Concepts: The
Dark Triad and MBTI Types
The Dark Triad
LO 2-2Several decades ago when personality experts distilled thousands
of dictionary words down to the five-factor model, they deliberately
excluded words with explicitly positive or negative valence, such
as humbleness (positive) or sinister (negative). They initially even
excluded words such as agreeable and ambitious that were later added to
the Big Five analysis. The process of reducing words into categories also
chopped off weaker clusters that coincidentally had positive or negative
orientations. Yet, some of these excluded traits (such as impulsive)
appeared in earlier personality models and were widely known in clinical
work.19
Personality experts have since re-examined personality traits with
positive and negative valences. Out of these studies has emerged a
cluster of three socially undesirable personality traits—
Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy—called the dark
triad.20 Although these traits are distinct, they have a common “dark
core” consisting of either low humility/honesty or a tendency to
malevolently undermine others to maximize one’s own gains.21
Machiavellianism. This personality trait is named after Niccolò
Machiavelli, the 16th-century Italian philosopher who wrote The
Prince, a famous treatise about political behavior. People with
high Machiavellianism (high-Machs) demonstrate a strong
motivation to get what they want at the expense of others. They
believe that deceit is a natural and acceptable way to achieve
their goals; indeed, they take pleasure in misleading, outwitting,
and otherwise controlling others. High-Machs routinely use lies,
manipulation, exploitation, and other undesirable influence
tactics (see Chapter 10). They have a cynical disregard for moral
principles, believe that getting more than one deserves is
acceptable, and seldom empathize with or trust coworkers.22
Page 52
Narcissism. This personality trait is named after Narcissus, the
young male hunter in Greek mythology who was so obsessed
with his beauty that he could not stop admiring the reflection of
himself in a pool of water (he died of thirst because he didn’t
want to stop looking at himself). This trait is evident in people
who have an obsessive belief in their superiority and entitlement.
Along with their grandiose, inflated self-view, narcissists have an
excessive need for attention, so they aggressively engage in self-
promotion, exhibitionism, and other attention-seeking
behaviors. Although known to be initially charming, narcissists
are intensely envious of others, which is eventually apparent in
their arrogance, schadenfreude (deriving pleasure from another
person’s misfortune), callous disregard for others’ feelings (i.e.,
low empathy), and exploitation of others for personal
aggrandizement.23
Psychopathy. This personality trait is often considered the most
sinister of the triad. It refers to social predators who ruthlessly
dominate and manipulate others, yet without empathy or any
feelings of remorse or anxiety. They are selfish self-promoters
who use superficial charm (called the “mask” of psychopathy),
yet engage in antisocial, impulsive, and often fraudulent thrill-
seeking behavior. These people callously do as they please and
take what they want.24
GLOBAL CONNECTIONS 2.1
Is Your CEO Narcissistic? Count the Tweetsa
PjrStudio/Alamy Stock Photo
Elon Musk has never been shy about saying what he thinks.
The CEO of Tesla, SpaceX, and the Boring Company, tweeted
an average of 88 messages per month over the past three
years. That was before his recent tsunami, reaching 400
messages in one month alone. To put this in perspective, only
15 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs are on Twitter at all, and less
than two-thirds of them tweet more than once per month.
Musk’s tweet mania and his flair for crafting casual messages
makes him a good communicator, suggests a partner at one
global communications firm. But the volume of tweets might
also reveal narcissistic tendencies. A recent meta-analysis
reported that individuals with high scores on grandiose
narcissism produce a significantly higher number of tweets and
Facebook updates, have more friends (or followers), and post
more selfies. To a lesser extent, they also spend more time on
social media.
Grandiose narcissism refers to people who are interpersonally
dominant, self-absorbed, overconfident, and have an inflated
sense of superiority and entitlement. As part of the dark triad,
narcissists also tend to be more disagreeable and antagonistic
toward others compared to the average person. Twitter tweets
and Facebook updates fit nicely with grandiose narcissism
because these people prefer emotionally shallow social
relationships and rely on mass communication to fulfill their
need for attention and self-promotion.
Elon Musk’s tweet output doesn’t necessarily mean that he is
narcissistic, although more than a dozen leading newspapers,
magazines, and business school blogs have recently made that
assertion. Also, the aggressive and antagonistic content of
Musk’s tweets are consistent with grandiose narcissism.
Tesla’s recent battles (arising from Musk’s tweets) with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and the justice system
are also consistent with studies on narcissistic executives. One
recent study concluded that “narcissistic CEOs subject their
organizations to undue legal risk because they are
overconfident about their ability to win and less sensitive to the
costs to their organizations of such litigation.”
But Elon Musk might have the last word on this matter: “If I
am a narcissist (which might be true), at least I am a useful
one,” he tweeted.
The Dark Triad in the Workplace
Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy may seem like they
belong in textbooks on criminology or medieval politics, not
organizational behavior. Yet these traits are gaining attention because
they are prevalent throughout the workplace. As one personality
researcher warned in his keynote address to a national police
association: “Not all psychopaths are in prison. Some are in the board
room.”25
These three traits produce numerous dysfunctional outcomes in
organizational settings.26 Dishonesty is a core characteristic of the dark
triad, so people with these traits are more likely to lie and deceive others
at work. Similarly, they malevolently undermine others to maximize
their own gains. This is the essence of organizational
politics (see Chapter 10), which is about using influence tactics for
personal gain at the expense of others and the interests of the entire
organization. Political tactics produce a host of dysfunctional outcomes,
ranging from employee stress and dissatisfaction to unproductive use of
organizational resources.
Counterproductive work behaviors, such as taking company property
from work without permission or deliberately working slowly to get
overtime, are predicted by the dark triad to some extent, but they are
more closely associated with specific Big Five factors (low agreeableness
and conscientiousness) that were identified earlier in Exhibit 2.2.
Instead, dark triad traits are more strongly associated with serious
white-collar crimes. For instance, one study reported that a dark triad
measure from video analysis was highly effective at identifying chief
executive officers who were implicated in unethical misconduct and
fraud.27
Page 53
The dark triad is also associated with bullying and other forms of
workplace aggression.28 In particular, employees in organizations with
psychopathic managers observe significantly more incidents of bullying
than employees in other organizations. People with dark triad
personality traits tend to make decisions that produce poorer absolute
and risk-adjusted investment returns. In particular, those with high
psychopathy take excessive risks, due to their overconfidence and
disregard for consequences.29
Aside from making unethical and poor risk-oriented decisions, the dark
triad has a complex relationship with other forms of task performance
and career success. People with these traits are dysfunctional team
members in the long term because, by definition, they don’t trust
coworkers and focus on their own goals at the expense of team goals.30 At
the same time, dark triad employees are known to help others in the
short run when it serves their self-interest.
People who possess dark triad personality traits aren’t always worse off.
These traits are associated with manipulative political skill, which some
supervisors rate favorably in employee performance. Being manipulative
occasionally helps employees move into more central (and therefore
powerful) positions in informal employee networks. Narcissistic CEOs
tend to have higher direct pay as well as a higher gap in pay from other
members of the executive team.31 Finally, studies point to one
component of psychopathy called “fearless dominance” as a predictor of
career success. Indeed, this sub-trait is found in a few of the more
successful U.S. presidents. However, several experts doubt that fearless
dominance should be separated from other aspects of psychopathy,
which are negatively associated with career success. Some even argue
that fearless dominance doesn’t belong in the dark triad at all.32
Page 54
SELF-ASSESSMENT 2.4: HOW MACHIAVELLIAN ARE
YOU?
Named after the 16th-century Italian philosopher who wrote a
famous treatise about political behavior (The Prince),
Machiavellianisn is a personality trait characteristic of people
who demonstrate a strong motivation to achieve their own
goals at the expense of others, who believe that deceit is a
natural and acceptable way to achieve their goals, who take
pleasure in outwitting and misleading others using crude
influence tactics, and who have a cynical disregard for morality.
Although few people want to be viewed as Machiavellian,
measures suggest that many of us exhibit aspects of this trait
to some extent. You can discover your level of Machiavellianism
by locating this self-assessment in Connect if it is assigned by
your instructor.
Jungian Personality Theory and the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
The five-factor model of personality has the most research support, but it
is not the most popular personality test in practice. That distinction goes
to Jungian personality theory, which is measured through the Myers-
Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (see Exhibit 2.3).
EXHIBIT 2.3 Jungian and Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Types
Sources: Adapted from an exhibit found at http://www.16-personality-types.com. Based on data from CPP, Inc.,
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 from Introduction to Type and Careers by Allen L. Hammer.
Nearly a century ago, Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung suggested that
personality is mainly represented by the individual’s preferences
regarding perceiving and judging information.33 Jung explained that the
perceiving function—how people prefer to gather information—occurs
through two competing orientations: sensing (S) and intuition
(N). Sensing involves perceiving information directly through the five
senses; it relies on an organized structure to acquire factual and
preferably quantitative details. In contrast, intuition relies more on
insight and subjective experience to see relationships among variables.
Sensing types focus on the here and now, whereas intuitive types focus
more on future possibilities.
Page 55
Jung also proposed that the judging function—how people prefer making
decisions based on what they have perceived—consists of two competing
processes: thinking (T) and feeling (F). People with a thinking orientation
rely on rational cause–effect logic and systematic data collection to make
decisions. Those with a strong feeling orientation, on the other hand, rely
on their emotional responses to the options presented, as well as to how
those choices affect others. Jung noted that in addition to the four core
processes of sensing, intuition, thinking, and feeling, people differ in
their level of extraversion–introversion, which was introduced earlier as
one of the Big Five personality traits.
The MBTI extends Jung’s list of personality traits described above by
also measuring Jung’s broader categories of perceiving and judging,which
represent a person’s attitude toward the external world. People with a
perceiving orientation are open, curious, and flexible. They prefer to
keep their options open and to adapt spontaneously to events as they
unfold. Judging types prefer order and structure and want to resolve
problems quickly.
As CEO (now a director) of Hawaii’s Central Pacific Bank, John Dean realized that the
executive team needed to work together better to rebuild the bank and its culture. The
executives completed the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator with debriefing by executive coaches.
The executives shared their results to gain a better understanding of one another’s
personality, particularly how they perceive things and analyze information. “Knowing this
personal information leads to more trust,” says Dean, shown in this photo. He has noticed
that disagreements are now resolved more easily. “Knowing more about someone’s
personality can help alleviate some of those problems that crop up when management teams
work together.”b
©Tina Yuen/Pacific Business News
MBTI has a number of benefits, but it is usually a poor predictor of job
performance and is generally not recommended for employment
selection or promotion decisions.34 There are also issues with its
measurement. MBTI can potentially identify employees who prefer face-
to-face versus virtual teamwork, but does not seem to predict how well a
team develops. It also has questionable value in predicting leadership
effectiveness.
In spite of these limitations, the MBTI is the most widely studied
measure of cognitive style in management research and is the most
popular personality assessment for career counseling and executive
coaching.35 It is even being used by artificial intelligence engineers to
adapt the behavior of robots to user preferences. MBTI takes a neutral or
balanced approach by recognizing both the strengths and limitations of
each personality type in different situations. In contrast, the five-factor
model views people with higher scores as better than those with lower
scores on each dimension. This may be a restrictive view of personality
and makes the Big Five model more difficult to apply in coaching and
development settings.36
SELF-ASSESSMENT 2.5: ARE YOU A SENSING OR
INTUITIVE TYPE?
Nearly a century ago, Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung proposed
that personality is primarily represented by the individual’s
preferences regarding perceiving and judging information. Jung
explained that perceiving, which involves how people prefer to
gather information or perceive the world around them, occurs
through two competing orientations: sensing (S) and intuition
(N). You can discover the extent to which you are a sensing or
intuitive type by locating this self-assessment in Connect if it is
assigned by your instructor.
Page 56
DEBATING POINT
Should Companies Use Personality Tests to Select Job
Applicants?
Personality theory has made significant strides over the past
two decades, particularly in demonstrating that specific traits
are associated with specific workplace behaviors and outcomes.
Various studies have reported that specific Big Five dimensions
predict overall job performance, organizational citizenship,
leadership, counterproductive work behaviors, training
performance, team performance, and a host of other important
outcomes. These findings cast a strong vote in favor of
personality testing in the workplace.
A few prominent personality experts urge caution,
however.c They point out that although traits are associated
with workplace behavior to some extent, there are better
predictors of work performance, such as work samples and past
performance. Furthermore, selection procedures typically
assume that more of a personality trait is better, whereas an
increasing number of studies indicate that the best candidates
might be closer to the middle than the extremes of the range.
For instance, job performance apparently increases with
conscientiousness, yet employees with high conscientiousness
might be so thorough that they become perfectionists, which
can stifle rather than enhance job performance.d A third
concern is that, depending on how the selection decision
applies the test results, personality instruments may unfairly
discriminate against specific groups of people.e
A fourth worry is that most personality tests are self-reported
scales, so applicants might try to fake their answers.f Worse,
the test scores might not represent the individual’s personality
or anything else meaningful because test takers often don’t
know what personality traits the company is looking for.
Studies show that candidates who try to fake “good”
personality scores change the selection results. Supporters of
personality testing offer the counterargument that few job
applicants try to fake their scores. One major study recently
found that most personality dimensions are estimated better by
observers than by self-ratings, but few companies rely on
ratings from other people.g
Values in the Workplace
LO 2-3The decision to embrace energy efficiency and to “go green” was
easy for owner Jerry Gray and his 25 employees at Sloan
Electromechanical Service & Sales. The market was shifting in that
direction, but the bigger influence was everyone’s personal values. “It
was primarily about the values—my personal values and our company’s
values. Talking with my employees, we all agreed this was the right thing
to do,” Gray recalls. The San Diego provider of motor, generator, and
control services initially experienced higher inventory costs and more
sales effort to educate customers, but the results are paying off for the
business and for Gray’s peace of mind. “It was just the morally right
thing to do,” he says.37
Jerry Gray and his employees relied on their personal values to guide
them in the decision toward energy efficiency and more environmentally
friendly business practices. Values, a concept that we introduced
in Chapter 1, are stable, evaluative beliefs that guide our preferences for
outcomes or courses of action in a variety of situations.38 They are
perceptions about what is good or bad, right or wrong. Values tell us to
what we “ought” to do. They serve as a moral compass that directs our
motivation and, potentially, our decisions and actions. They also provide
justification for past decisions and behavior.
People arrange values into a hierarchy of preferences, called a value
system. Some individuals value new challenges more than they value
conformity. Others value generosity more than frugality. Each person’s
unique value system is developed and reinforced through socialization
from parents, religious institutions, friends, personal experiences, and
the society in which he or she lives. As such, a person’s hierarchy of
values is stable and long-lasting. For example, one study found that value
systems of a sample of adolescents were remarkably similar 20 years
later when they were adults.39
Notice that our description of values has focused on individuals, whereas
Jerry Gray and other executives often describe values as though they
belong to the organization. In reality, values exist only within
individuals—we call them personal values. However, groups of people
might hold the same or similar values, so we tend to ascribe these shared
values to the team, department, organization, profession, or entire
society. The values shared by people throughout an organization
(organizational values) receive fuller discussion in Chapter 14 because
they are a key part of corporate culture. The values shared across a
society (cultural values) receive attention in the last section of this
chapter.
Page 57
Values and personality traits are related to each other, but the two
concepts differ in a few ways.40 The most noticeable distinction is that
values are evaluative—they tell us what we ought to do—whereas
personality traits describe what we naturally tend to do. A second
distinction is that personality traits have minimal conflict with each
other (e.g., you can have high agreeableness and high introversion),
whereas some values are opposed to other values. For example, someone
who values excitement and challenge would have difficulty also valuing
stability and moderation. Third, although personality and values are
both partly determined by heredity, values are influenced more by
socialization whereas heredity has a stronger influence on an individual’s
personality traits.
Types of Values
Values come in many forms, and experts on this topic have devoted
considerable attention to organizing them into clusters. By far, the most
widely accepted model of personal values is Schwartz’s values
circumplex, developed and tested by social psychologist Shalom
Schwartz and his colleagues.41 This model clusters 57 values into 10
broad categories that are organized into the circular model (circumplex)
shown in Exhibit 2.4. The 10 categories include universalism,
benevolence, tradition, conformity, security, power, achievement,
hedonism, stimulation, and self-direction. Each category is a cluster of
more specific values (not shown). For example, conformity includes the
specific values of politeness, honoring parents, self-discipline, and
obedience.
EXHIBIT 2.4 Schwartz’s Values Circumplex
Sources: S.H. Schwartz, “Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical
Tests in 20 Countries,” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 25 (1992): 1–65; S.H. Schwartz and K.
Boehnke, “Evaluating the Structure of Human Values with Confirmatory Factor Analysis,” Journal of Research in
Personality 38, no. 3 (2004): 230–55; Academic Rss. Inc.
Page 58
These 10 broad values categories are further clustered into four
quadrants. One quadrant, called openness to change, refers to the extent
to which a person is motivated to pursue innovative ways. This quadrant
includes the value categories of self-direction (creativity, independent
thought), stimulation (excitement and challenge), and hedonism (pursuit
of pleasure, enjoyment, gratification of desires). The opposing quadrant
is conservation, which is the extent to which a person is motivated to
preserve the status quo. The conservation quadrant includes the value
categories of conformity (adherence to social norms and expectations),
security (safety and stability), and tradition (moderation and
preservation of the status quo).
The third quadrant in Schwartz’s circumplex model, called self-
enhancement, refers to how much a person is motivated by self-interest.
This quadrant includes the values categories of achievement (pursuit of
personal success), power (dominance over others), and hedonism (a
values category shared with openness to change). The opposite of self-
enhancement is self-transcendence, which refers to motivation to promote
the welfare of others and nature. Self-transcendence includes the value
categories of benevolence (concern for others in one’s life) and
universalism (concern for the welfare of all people and nature).
SELF-ASSESSMENT 2.6: WHAT ARE YOUR
DOMINANT VALUES?
Values are stable, evaluative beliefs that guide our preferences
for outcomes or courses of action in a variety of situations.
They are perceptions about what is good or bad, right or
wrong. We arrange our personal values into a hierarchy of
preferences, called a value system. Schwartz’s values
circumplex organizes the dozens of personal values into 10
categories placed in a circle (circumplex). You can discover
your value system hierarchy in Schwartz’s model by locating
this self-assessment in Connect if it is assigned by your
instructor.
Values and Individual Behavior
Personal values influence decisions and behavior in various ways.42 First,
values directly motivate our actions by shaping the relative attractiveness
(valence) of the choices available. In other words, we experience more
positive feelings toward alternatives that are aligned with our most
important values. If stimulation is at the top of our values hierarchy,
then a job opportunity offering new experiences will appeal to us more
than a job opportunity with more predictable and stable work.
Second, values indirectly motivate behavior by framing our perceptions
of reality. Specifically, values influence whether we notice something as
well as how we interpret it. Our decisions and actions are affected by how
we perceive those situations. Third, we are motivated to act consistently
with our self-concept and public self-presentation. If we have a self-view
and public image that values achievement, then we try to ensure that our
behavior is consistent with that value. This consistency is particularly
important for behaviors that more clearly depict a specific underlying
value.
TNW Corporation operates three short-line railroads in Texas and provides railroad
maintenance and logistics services. The work requires a strong focus on safety, which is a
core value at TNW and a dominant personal value among staff. To maintain a high
awareness of the safety value, TNW invited the employees’ children to draw pictures and
write postcards urging their parents to be safe at work. “Never stop between [rail] cars. And
wear a safety vest. Thank you dad for all your hard work and staying safe,” wrote one child.
These messages and artwork are prominently displayed around the workplace, keeping
employees vigilant of safety at all times.h
Monty Rakusen/Cultura/Getty Images
Personal values motivate behavior to some extent, but this connection
isn’t as strong as we might like to believe.43 One reason for this
“disconnect” between personal values and individual behavior is the
situation. Personal values motivate us to engage in specific behavior, but
the MARS model points out that the situation can prevent us from
engaging in values-consistent behavior. For example, individuals with
strong self-transcendent values are motivated to engage in recycling and
other environmentally friendly behaviors, but lack of recycling facilities
prevents or severely limits this behavior. People also deviate from their
personal values due to strong counter-motivational forces. For instance,
employees caught in illegal business dealings sometimes attribute their
unethical activities to pressure from management to achieve their
performance at any cost.
Page 59
Another reason why decisions and behavior are inconsistent with our
personal values is that we don’t actively think about them much of the
time.44 Values are abstract concepts, so their relevance is not obvious in
many situations. Furthermore, many daily decisions and actions occur
routinely, so we don’t actively evaluate their consistency with our values.
We do consciously consider our values in some situations, of course,
such as realizing how much we value security when deciding whether to
perform a risky task. However, many daily events do not trigger values
awareness, so we act without their guidance. We literally need to be
reminded of our values so they can guide our decisions and actions.
The effect of values awareness on behavior was apparent in a study in
which students were given a math test and received a payment for each
correct answer.45 One group submitted their results to the experimenter
for scoring, so they couldn’t lie about their results. A second group could
lie because they scored the test themselves and told the experimenter
their test score. A third group was similar to the second (they scored
their own test), but that test included the following statement, and
students were required to sign their name to that statement: “I
understand that this short survey falls under (the university’s) honor
system.” The researchers estimated that some students cheated when
they scored their own test without the “honor system” statement,
whereas no one given the “honor system” form lied about the results. The
university didn’t actually have an honor system, but the message made
students pay attention to their honesty. In short, people are more likely
to apply their values (honesty, in this case) when they are explicitly
reminded of those values and see their relevance to the situation.
Values Congruence
Values tell us what is right or wrong and what we ought to do. This
evaluative characteristic affects how comfortable we are with specific
organizations and individuals. The key concept here is values
congruence, which refers to how similar a person’s values hierarchy is to
the values hierarchy of another entity, such as the employee’s team or
organization. An employee’s values congruence with team members
increases the team’s cohesion and performance. Congruence with the
organization’s values tends to increase the employee’s job satisfaction,
loyalty, and organizational citizenship. It also tends to reduce stress and
turnover. Furthermore, employees are more likely to make decisions that
are compatible with organizational expectations when their personal
values are congruent with the organization’s shared values.46
Page 60
Are organizations the most successful when every employee’s personal
values align with the company’s values? Not at all! While a large degree
of values congruence is necessary for the reasons just noted,
organizations also benefit from some level of incongruence. Employees
with diverse values offer different perspectives, which potentially lead to
better decision making. Also, too much congruence can create a
“corporate cult” that potentially undermines creativity, organizational
flexibility, and business ethics (see Chapter 14).
GLOBAL CONNECTIONS 2.2
“Your Values Are More Important Than Your CV” at
IKEAi
Iroz Gaizka/AFP/Getty Images
When IKEA recently advertised a job opening for a kitchen
coworker (chef) in the Middle East country of Kuwait, the job
description identified experience in hospitality, computer
literacy, attention to detail, and other traditional criteria. But it
also emphasized something that isn’t found in most job ads:
“The IKEA values truly reflect your personal values.”
IKEA describes itself as a values-driven company, so job
applicants need to reflect on whether their personal values are
congruent with the global retailer’s organizational values. “We
recruit by values,” explains Anna Carin Månsson, Country HR
Manager, IKEA India. “We like to understand personal values of
a candidate and how these come out in typical behavior in
everyday life.”
Månsson’s team pays attention to whether job applicants have
really considered values congruence. “When recruiting for
IKEA, it is attractive to recognize that the applicant has read up
about the company and managed to describe the connection—
i.e., what are the values they have as a person which makes
them the perfect fit for working with the organization.”
D’neale Prosser echoes Månsson’s views. “Your values are more
important than your CV,” says the national talent manager at
IKEA Australia. Prosser adds that values congruence isn’t just
useful for getting hired at IKEA. It is central to a person’s
success and happiness in life. “Find an organization that
connects with your personal values and allows you to be
yourself at work,” advises Prosser. “This will add value and
meaning to your everyday life.”
Ethical Values and Behavior
LO 2-4When 195 business leaders across 15 countries were asked to
identify the most important leader competencies, “high ethics and moral
standards” was the top-rated item from the list of 74 characteristics.
Similarly, when 1,000 CEOs and other top-level executives around the
world were asked to list the most important attributes of effective
leaders, the most frequently mentioned characteristic was integrity—the
leader’s ethical standards.47 These surveys reveal the importance of
ethics in the workplace. Ethics refers to the study of moral principles or
values that determine whether actions are right or wrong and outcomes
are good or bad (see Chapter 1). People rely on their ethical values to
determine “the right thing to do.”
Page 61
Four Ethical Principles
To better understand business ethics, we need to consider four distinct
types of ethical principles: utilitarianism, individual rights, distributive
justice, and the ethic of care.48 Your personal values might sway you
more toward one principle than the others, but all four should be actively
considered to put important ethical issues to the test.
Utilitarianism. This principle says the only moral obligation is to
seek the greatest good for the greatest number of people. In
other words, we should choose the option that provides the
highest degree of satisfaction to those affected. One problem is
that utilitarianism requires a cost–benefit analysis, yet many
outcomes aren’t measurable. Another problem is that
utilitarianism could justify actions that other principles would
consider immoral because those means produce the greatest
good overall.
Individual rights. This principle says that everyone has the same
set of natural rights, such as freedom of movement, physical
security, freedom of speech, and fair trial. The individual-rights
principle extends beyond legal rights to human rights that
everyone is granted as a moral norm of society. One problem
with this principle is that some individual rights may conflict
with others. The shareholders’ right to be informed about
corporate activities may ultimately conflict with an executive’s
right to privacy, for example.
Distributive justice. This principle says that the benefits and
burdens of similar individuals should be the same; otherwise
they should be proportional. For example, employees who
contribute equally in their work should receive similar rewards,
whereas those who make a lesser contribution should receive
less. A variation of this principle says that inequalities are
acceptable when they benefit the least well off in society. The
main problem with the distributive justice principle is that it is
difficult to agree on who is “similar” and what factors are
“relevant.” We discuss distributive justice further in Chapter 5.
Ethic of Care. The ethic of care principle states that everyone has a
moral obligation to help others within their relational sphere to
grow and self-actualize.49 It recognizes that caring for others is a
fundamental characteristic of humanity. Whereas the other three
principles emphasize impartial rules, the ethic of care principle
emphasizes partiality—favoring those with whom we have
relationships. As such, the ethic of care is a practice, not a set of
principles. It involves caring about others by being attentive to
their needs, taking care of others through responsibility, giving
care to others through one’s skills and abilities, and by being
responsive to (having empathy for) the person receiving care.
Although originally from feminist and caregiving literature, the
ethic of care has been identified as a core principle in how
organizations should work with stakeholders (see Chapter 1) and
how leaders should serve employees (see servant leadership
in Chapter 12).50
Moral Intensity, Moral Sensitivity, and
Situational Influences
Along with ethical principles and their underlying values, three other
factors influence ethical conduct in the workplace: the moral intensity of
the issue, the individual’s moral sensitivity, and situational influences.51
Moral Intensity
Moral intensity is the degree to which an issue demands the application
of ethical principles. Decisions with high moral intensity have strong
ethical implications that usually affect many people, so the decision
maker needs to carefully apply ethical principles to make the best choice.
The moral intensity of a situation is higher when (a) the consequences of
the decision could be very good or bad, (b) there is high agreement by
others that the decision outcomes are good or bad, (c) there is a high
probability that the good or bad outcomes will occur, and (d) many
people will experience the consequences of the decision.52
Page 62
GLOBAL CONNECTIONS 2.3
Alcoa Executive Sets Ethical Standard in Russia
Mario Laporta/AFP/Getty Images
When William O’Rourke became Alcoa Russia’s first CEO, he
knew that bribery was a serious problem in that country, so he
made his position clear to staff: “We don’t condone it. We don’t
participate in it. We are not going to do it. Period.” This ethical
mandate was soon tested when local police stopped delivery of
an expensive furnace and warned that delivery would resume
only after Alcoa paid $25,000 to a government official.
“My bonus was based in large part on making the planned
investments happen on time,” says O’Rourke, adding that a few
Alcoa executives in the United States implied that he should do
whatever it takes to keep the work on schedule. “Nonetheless,
I stood my ground.” The new furnace arrived three days later
without any bribery payment. It took another 18 months before
the bribery attempts stopped.j
Moral Sensitivity
Moral sensitivity (also called ethical sensitivity) is a characteristic of the
person, namely his or her ability to detect a moral dilemma and estimate
its relative importance.53 People with high moral sensitivity can more
quickly and accurately estimate the moral intensity of the issue. This
awareness does not necessarily translate into more ethical behavior; it
just means that people with higher moral sensitivity are more likely to
know when unethical behavior occurs.
Several factors are associated with a person’s moral sensitivity.54
Expertise or knowledge of prescriptive norms and rules. For
example, accountants are more morally sensitive regarding
specific accounting procedures than are people who lack
experience in this profession.
Previous experience with specific moral dilemmas. Past incidents
likely generate internal cues that trigger awareness of future
ethical dilemmas with similar characteristics.
Ability to empathize with those affected by the decision. On average,
women have higher moral sensitivity compared to men, partly
because women tend to have higher empathy.
A strong self-view of being a morally sensitive person.55 Employees
who strongly define themselves by their moral character (called
their moral identity) tend to have higher moral sensitivity
because they put more energy into maintaining ethical conduct.
A high degree of situational mindfulness.56 Mindfulness refers to a
person’s receptive and impartial attention to and awareness of
the present situation as well as to one’s own thoughts and
emotions in that moment. Mindfulness increases moral
sensitivity because it involves actively monitoring the
environment as well as being sensitive to our responses to that
environment. This vigilance requires effort as well as skill to
receptively evaluate our thoughts and emotions. Unfortunately,
we have a natural tendency to minimize effort, which leads to
less mindfulness. For instance, employees fail to recognize many
ethical violations because they don’t pay attention to those who
are assumed to have high ethical standards.
Page 63
Situational Factors
Along with moral intensity and moral sensitivity, ethical conduct is
influenced by the situation in which the conduct occurs.57 Some
employees say they regularly experience pressure from top management
that motivates them to lie to customers, breach regulations, or otherwise
act unethically. Fortunately, few people experience this pressure. One
large-scale survey recently reported that only 8 percent of UK employees
and 13 percent of Continental Europe employees felt pressure to
compromise their organization’s ethical standards. Another recent
survey found that only 8 percent of American and 14 percent of UK
financial services and banking staff felt such pressure. However, this
pressure was much higher (23 percent) among high-income
finance/banking executives. Situational factors do not justify unethical
conduct. Rather, we need to be aware of these factors so organizations
can reduce their influence.
Corporate Misconduct Reported in Selected Countriesk
Note: Percentage of employees surveyed in selected countries (1,000 respondents per country) who personally
observed misconduct in their workplace within the previous 12 months.
Supporting Ethical Behavior
Most large and medium-sized organizations in the United States and
other developed countries maintain or improve ethical conduct through
systematic practices. One of the most basic steps in this direction is a
code of ethical conduct—a statement about desired activities, rules of
conduct, and philosophy about the organization’s relationship to its
stakeholders and the environment.58 Almost all Fortune 500 companies
in the United States and the majority of the 500 largest companies in the
United Kingdom have ethics codes. These codes are supposed to
motivate and guide employee behavior, signal the importance of ethical
conduct, and build the firm’s trustworthiness to stakeholders. However,
critics suggest that they do little to reduce unethical conduct.
Another strategy to improve ethical conduct is to train and regularly
evaluate employees on their knowledge of proper ethical conduct. Many
large firms have annual quizzes to test employee awareness of company
rules and practices concerning important ethical issues such as giving
gifts and receiving sensitive information about competitors or
governments. In some firms, employees participate in elaborate games
that present increasingly challenging and complex moral dilemmas. A
popular practice to improve ethical conduct is an ethics telephone
hotline and website, typically operated by an independent organization,
where employees can anonymously report suspicious behavior. A few
very large businesses also employ ombudspersons who receive
information confidentially from employees and proactively investigate
possible wrongdoing. Ethics audits are also conducted in some
organizations but are more common for evaluation of corporate social
responsibility practices.59
Page 64
Training, hotlines, audits, and related activities improve ethical conduct
to some extent, but the most powerful foundation is a set of shared
values that reinforces ethical conduct. As we describe in Chapter
14 (organizational culture), an ethical culture is supported by the
conduct and vigilance of corporate leaders. By acting with the highest
moral standards, leaders not only gain support and trust from followers;
they role-model the ethical standards that employees are more likely to
follow.60
Values across Cultures
LO 2-5As the only Westerner in a 50-employee winery in China, Emilie
noticed that Chinese managers seemed to be more sensitive than
European or American bosses about maintaining their authority over
employees. “I was surprised to see that taking the initiative most of the
time was seen as rude and as a failure to respect the executives’
authority,” says the public relations professional from France. “At work,
everyone had to perform well in their own tasks, but permission was
required for anything other than what was expected.” The power
relationship was also apparent in how Chinese managers interacted with
staff. “Western-style bosses tend to develop a closer relationship with
employees,” Emilie suggests. “The hierarchy is much more clearly
divided in Chinese-dominant companies than it is in foreign ones.”61
Emilie experienced the often-subtle fact that expectations and values
differ around the world. Over the next few sections, we introduce five
values that have cross-cultural significance: individualism, collectivism,
power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and achievement-nurturing
orientation. Exhibit 2.5 summarizes these values and lists countries that
have high, medium, or low emphasis on these values.
EXHIBIT 2.5 Five Cross-Cultural Values
V
S Countries
R Beliefs/Behaviors in “High” Cultures
Individualism
High: United States, Chile, Canada,
South AfricaMedium: Japan,
DenmarkLow: Taiwan, Venezuela
Defines self more by one’s uniqueness; personal goals have
priority; decisions have low consideration of effect on others;
relationships are viewed as more instrumental and fluid.
Collectivism
High: Israel, TaiwanMedium: India,
DenmarkLow: United States,
Germany, Japan
Defines self more by one’s in-group membership; goals of self-
sacrifice and harmony have priority; behavior regulated by in-
group norms; in-group memberships are viewed as stable with a
strong differentiation with out-groups.
Power distance
High: India, MalaysiaMedium:
United States, JapanLow: Denmark,
Israel
Reluctant to disagree with or contradict the boss; managers are
expected and preferred decision makers; perception of
dependence on (versus interdependence with) the boss.
Uncertainty
avoidance
High: Belgium, GreeceMedium:
United States, NorwayLow:
Denmark, Singapore
Prefer predictable situations; value stable employment, strict
laws, and low conflict; dislike deviations from normal behavior.
Achievement
orientation
High: Austria, JapanMedium:
United States, BrazilLow: Sweden,
Netherlands
Focus on outcomes (versus relationships); decisions based on
contribution (equity versus equality); low empathy or showing
emotions (versus strong empathy and caring).
Table Summary: Table divided into three columns summarizes countries believing in five cross-cultural values. The column headers are marked
from left to right as: Value; sample countries; and representative beliefs or behaviors in "high" cultures.
Sources: Individualism and collectivism descriptions and results are from the meta-analysis reported in D.
Oyserman, H.M. Coon, and M. Kemmelmeier, “Rethinking Individualism and Collectivism: Evaluation of
Theoretical Assumptions and Meta-Analyses,” Psychological Bulletin, 128 (2002): 3–72. The other information
is from G. Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences, 2nd ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001).
Page 65
Individualism and Collectivism
Two seemingly inseparable cross-cultural values are individualism and
collectivism. Individualism is the extent to which we value independence
and personal uniqueness. Highly individualist people value personal
freedom, self-sufficiency, control over their own lives, and appreciation
of the unique qualities that distinguish them from others. Americans,
Chileans, Canadians, and South Africans generally exhibit high
individualism, whereas Taiwan and Venezuela are countries with low
individualism.62 Collectivism is the extent to which we value our duty to
groups to which we belong and to group harmony. Highly collectivist
people define themselves by their group memberships, emphasize their
personal connection to others in their in-groups, and value the goals and
well-being of people within those groups.63 Low collectivism countries
include the United States, Japan, and Germany, whereas Israel and
Taiwan have relatively high collectivism.
Contrary to popular belief, individualism is not the opposite of
collectivism. In fact, the two concepts are typically uncorrelated.64 For
example, cultures that highly value duty to one’s group do not necessarily
give a low priority to personal freedom and uniqueness. Generally,
people across all cultures define themselves by both their uniqueness
and their relationship to others. It is an inherent characteristic of
everyone’s self-concept, which we discuss in the next chapter. Some
cultures clearly emphasize either personal uniqueness or group
obligations, but both have a place in a person’s values and self-concept.
Also note that people in Japan have relatively low collectivism. This is
contrary to many cross-cultural books, a few of which claim that Japan is
one of the most collectivist countries on the planet! There are several
explanations for the historical misinterpretation, ranging from problems
defining and measuring collectivism to erroneous reporting of early
cross-cultural research. Whatever the reasons, studies consistently
report that people in Japan tend to have relatively low collectivism and
moderate individualism (as indicated in Exhibit 2.5).65
SELF-ASSESSMENT 2.7: HOW MUCH DO YOU VALUE
INDIVIDUALISM AND COLLECTIVISM?
Cross-cultural values have become an important part of
organizational life due to globalization and an increasingly
multicultural workforce. Two of the most commonly studied
cross-cultural values are individualism and collectivism. You
can discover your level of individualism and collectivism by
locating this self-assessment in Connect if it is assigned by
your instructor.
Power Distance
Power distance refers to the extent to which people accept unequal
distribution of power in a society.66 Those with high power distance
value unequal power. Those in higher positions expect obedience to
authority; those in lower positions are comfortable receiving commands
from their superiors without consultation or debate. People with high
power distance also prefer to resolve differences through formal
procedures rather than direct informal discussion. In contrast, people
with low power distance expect relatively equal power sharing. They view
the relationship with their boss as one of interdependence, not
dependence; that is, they believe their boss is also dependent on them, so
they expect power sharing and consultation before decisions affecting
them are made. People in India and Malaysia tend to have high power
distance, whereas people in Denmark and Israel generally have low
power distance. Americans collectively have medium-low power
distance.
Page 66
GLOBAL CONNECTIONS 2.4
Cross-Cultural Hiccups at Beam Suntory
Akio Kon/Bloomberg/Getty Images
Suntory Holdings Ltd. is working through a few cross-cultural
hiccups after the Japanese alcoholic beverage company
acquired Jim Beam, which makes bourbon in Kentucky. “We
have to overcome the huge differences in the Japanese
mentality and the American mentality,” Suntory CEO Takeshi
Niinami advised soon after the acquisition. “It creates
misunderstandings.” Niinami (in photo) says he prefers the
“blunt but honest” American approach, but that style may
conflict with the Japanese preference for modesty, detail, and
consensus. Japanese and American employees also have
different career aspirations and reward systems. “Beam and
Suntory definitely have differences,” Niinami recently
acknowledged. “This is not an easy task. But I’m ready for it.”l
SELF-ASSESSMENT 2.8: WHAT IS YOUR LEVEL OF
POWER DISTANCE?
Some employees value obedience to authority and are
comfortable receiving commands from their superiors without
consultation or debate. Others expect equal status and
authority with their manager. This power distance orientation
varies from one person to the next; it also varies across
cultures. You can discover your power distance orientation by
locating this self-assessment in Connect if it is assigned by
your instructor.
Uncertainty Avoidance
Uncertainty avoidance is the degree to which people tolerate ambiguity
(low uncertainty avoidance) or feel threatened by ambiguity and
uncertainty (high uncertainty avoidance). Employees with high
uncertainty avoidance value structured situations in which rules of
conduct and decision making are clearly documented. They usually
prefer direct rather than indirect or ambiguous communications.
Uncertainty avoidance tends to be high in Belgium and Greece and very
high in Japan. It is generally low in Denmark and Singapore. Americans
collectively have medium-low uncertainty avoidance.
Achievement-Nurturing Orientation
Achievement-nurturing orientation reflects a competitive versus
cooperative view of relations with other people.67 People with a high
achievement orientation value assertiveness, competitiveness, and
materialism. They appreciate people who are tough, and they favor the
acquisition of money and material goods. In contrast, people in
nurturing-oriented cultures emphasize relationships and the well-being
of others. They focus on human interaction and caring rather than
competition and personal success. People in Sweden, Norway, and the
Netherlands have a very low achievement orientation (i.e., they have a
high nurturing orientation). In contrast, very high achievement
orientation scores have been reported in Japan and Austria. The United
States is located a little above the middle of the range on achievement-
nurturing orientation.
Page 67
Caveats about Cross-Cultural
Knowledge
Cross-cultural organizational research has gained considerable attention
over the past two decades, likely due to increased globalization and
cultural diversity within organizations. Our knowledge of cross-cultural
dynamics has blossomed, and many of these findings will be discussed
throughout this book, particularly regarding leadership, conflict
handling, and influence tactics. However, we also need to raise a few
warning flags about cross-cultural knowledge. One problem is that too
many studies have relied on small, convenient samples (such as students
attending one university) to represent an entire culture.68 The result is
that many cross-cultural studies draw conclusions that might not
generalize to the cultures they intended to represent.
A second problem is that cross-cultural studies often assume that each
country has one culture.69 In reality, the United States and many other
countries have become culturally diverse. As more countries embrace
globalization and multiculturalism, it becomes even less appropriate to
assume that an entire country has one unified culture. A third concern is
that cross-cultural research and writing continues to rely on a major
study conducted almost four decades ago of 116,000 IBM employees
across dozens of countries. That study helped ignite subsequent cross-
cultural research, but its findings are becoming out-of-date as values in
some cultures have shifted over the years.70
Cultural Diversity in the United States
The United States is widely recognized for its cultural diversity. But even
Americans may be surprised to know the degree of deep-level diversity
across this country.71 One form of deep-level diversity is cultural values
across ethnic groups. A major review of past studies reported that, on
average, African Americans have significantly higher individualism than
European and Hispanic Americans, whereas Asian Americans have the
lowest individualism among these demographic groups.72
Americans also differ from each other across regions.73 Some research
identifies significant cultural differences between the northern and
southern states. Other research has found variations in collectivism
across the country. Collectivism is highest across the southern states,
California, and Hawaii and lowest in the Mountain, Northwest, and
Great Plains states. Other studies report that regions vary in personality
profiles. The New England, Middle Atlantic, and Pacific regions have
high openness to experience, whereas people living in the Great Plains
and midwestern and southeastern states have the lowest scores.
Neuroticism scores are highest in the Northeast and Southeast and
lowest in the Midwest and West.74 One study found that Americans have
fairly accurate stereotypes of these regional differences.
Why do Americans vary in their values and personalities across
regions?75 One explanation is that regional institutions—such as local
governments, educational systems, and dominant religious groups—have
a greater influence than national institutions on socialization practices
and resulting personal values. For instance, research suggests that the
number of rules and social controls (called cultural tightness) within each
state explains differences in personality and values across the country.76
Some experts suggest that a person’s values are influenced by the
physical environment (flat versus mountainous), climatic conditions
(temperate versus tropical), and socioeconomic conditions (low income
versus relatively wealthy). For instance, research has found that
residents of mountainous U.S. states are, on average, more introverted
than residents who live near the ocean. However, the physical
environment probably has a limited effect on individual traits and
values. Instead, evidence suggests that people migrate to places that are
more compatible with their values and self-views.77
CHAPTER 2
Individual Differences:
Personality and Values
Learning Objectives
AFTER STUDYING THIS CHAPTER, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE
TO:
1. 2-1 Define personality and discuss how the Big Five personality factors
relate to workplace behavior and performance.
2. 2-2Describe the dark triad of personality and the MBTI types and
discuss their implications for organizational behavior.
3. 2-3Summarize Schwartz’s model of individual values and discuss the
conditions where values influence behavior.
4. 2-4Describe four ethical principles and discuss three factors that
influence ethical behavior.
5. 2-5Describe five values commonly studied across cultures.
Getting hired at Bridgewater Associates—the world’s largest
hedge fund—is not a cake-walk. Job applicants first watch
online videos depicting the culture and daily office life at the
Westport, Connecticut, investment firm. Next, they spend a few
hours completing four online assessments of their personality
and values.
Applicants who pass the online selection process engage in a
structured interview over the phone with consultants, who
further assess the individual’s character. Even after accepting
Bridgewater’s job offer, new recruits take a final two-hour
personality and personal values assessment developed by the
company.
Bridgewater Associates founder Ray Dalio says assessing an
individual’s personality and values helps the investment firm
assign people to jobs that fit their personal attributes. “I
needed a systematic approach to capturing and recording our
differences so that we could actively take them into
consideration when putting people into different roles at
Bridgewater,” he wrote in his recent book. The information is
also used to diagnose why conflicts occur and why problems
arise.
Each employee’s personality, values, and other attributes are
displayed on baseball cards available through a digital app to
everyone in the company. Each attribute has a score based on
the personality test results as well as subsequent ongoing
instant evaluations by coworkers. “I found that we needed to
have these [baseball cards] and refer to them regularly
because without them, people tended to interact with each
other without any regard to who was good or bad at what,”
says Dalio.1
Bridgewater Associates places considerable weight on the personality, values,
and other individual differences of its job applicants and employees.
Westend61/Getty Images
Page 45
Bridgewater Associates places considerable weight on the
personality, values, and other individual differences of its job
applicants and employees. It views personality and values as
strong predictors of a person’s decisions and behavior, which
then relate to how well they fit into particular roles and how
well they work with others at Bridgewater.
Part 2 of this book discusses individual differences and begins
in this chapter by presenting current knowledge about
personality and values in organizations. We describe the
meaning and origins of personality, introduce the five-factor
personality model, and identify how each dimension of this
highly regarded model relates to job performance and related
behaviors. Two other personality models are then introduced:
the dark triad (Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy)
and the Jungian personality theory applied by the Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator (MBTI). Next, our attention turns to personal
values. We describe Schwartz’s values circumplex model,
explain how personal values influence workplace decisions and
behavior, and introduce the concept of values congruence.
Next, we examine ethical values and the mechanisms through
which they influence a person’s decisions and behavior. The
final section of this chapter describes the best known cross-
cultural values and explains their relevance to organizational
behavior.
Personality and the Five-Factor
Model in Organizations
LO 2-1Delaware North Companies had high turnover at its call center in
Fresno, California. The hospitality and food management company
decided to solve this problem by hiring people with the same personality
traits and skills of its best-performing staff members. Through tests,
Delaware North discovered that the best performers display friendliness
and curiosity, so job applicants now complete a personality test that
measures these traits. Employee turnover at Delaware North’s Fresno
call center has since dropped significantly. “Now we understand better
what makes a great reservation sales applicant,” says a Delaware North
executive.2
Delaware North, Bridgewater Associates, and many other companies try
to measure each job applicant’s personality—the relatively enduring
pattern of thoughts, emotions, and behaviors that characterize a person,
along with the psychological processes behind those
characteristics.3 Personality is, in essence, the bundle of characteristics
that make us similar to or different from other people. We estimate an
individual’s personality by what he or she says and does, and we infer the
person’s internal states—including thoughts and emotions—from these
observable behaviors. This definition attempts to cover the broad
meaning of personality. However, defining personality is a challenge—
one personality theorist bluntly calls it impossible—because there are
several perspectives or approaches to personality, each of which has a
somewhat different view or emphasis on how personality should be
defined. For example, needs and motives, which we discuss in Chapter 5,
are often discussed as components of personality.
People engage in a wide range of behaviors in their daily lives, yet close
inspection of those actions reveals discernible patterns called personality
traits.4 Traits are broad concepts that allow us to label and understand
individual differences. For example, some of your friends are probably
quite talkative whereas others tend to be quieter. Some people like to
take risks whereas others are risk-averse. Each trait implies that there is
something within the person, rather than environmental influences
alone, that predicts this behavioral tendency. In fact, studies report that
an individual’s personality traits measured in childhood predict many
behaviors and outcomes in adulthood, including educational attainment,
employment success, marital relationships, illegal activities, and health-
risk behaviors.5
Although people have behavioral tendencies, they do not act the same
way in all situations. Such consistency would be considered abnormal
because it indicates a person’s insensitivity to social norms, reward
systems, and other external conditions.6 People vary their behavior to
suit the situation, even if the behavior is at odds with their personality.
For example, talkative people remain relatively quiet in a library where
“no talking” rules are explicit and strictly enforced. Even there,
personality differences are apparent because talkative people tend to do
more talking in libraries relative to how much other people talk in
libraries.
What Causes Personality: Nature
versus Nurture
Personality is shaped by both nature and nurture, although the relative
importance of each continues to be debated and studied.7 Naturerefers to
our genetic or hereditary origins—the genes that we inherit from our
parents. Studies of identical twins reveal that heredity has a very large
effect on personality; up to 50 percent of variation in behavior and 30
percent of temperament preferences can be attributed to a person’s
genetic characteristics. In other words, genetic code not only determines
our eye color, skin tone, and physical shape; it also significantly affects
our attitudes, decisions, and behavior.
Personality is also shaped by nurture—our socialization, life experiences,
and other forms of interaction with the environment. Personality
develops and changes mainly from childhood to young adulthood,
typically stabilizing by around age 30. However, some personality
changes continue to occur later in life. For instance, a few traits
(openness to experience, social vitality) increase through to young
adulthood, then decline in later years, whereas other traits
(agreeableness, conscientiousness) tend to increase through to late life.
Our personality is also influenced somewhat by the job we work in over a
long time period. Even migrating to another culture can change our
personality to some extent.8
Page 47
The main explanation of why personality becomes more stable by
adulthood is that we form a clearer and more rigid self-concept. This
increasing clarity of “who we are” anchors our behavior with the help of
our executive function. This is the part of the brain that monitors and
regulates goal-directed behavior to keep it consistent with our self-
concept. Our self-view becomes clearer and more stable with age, which
increases the stability and consistency of our personality and
behavior.9 We discuss the elements and influences of self-concept
in Chapter 3. The main point here is that personality is not completely
determined by heredity; life experiences, particularly early in life, also
shape each individual’s personality traits.
Five-Factor Model of Personality
Sociable, anxious, curious, dependable, suspicious, talkative,
adventurous, and hundreds of other personality traits have been
described over the years, so experts have tried to organize them into
smaller clusters. The most researched and respected clustering of
personality traits is the five-factor model, also known as the Big
Five.10 Several decades ago, personality experts identified more than
17,000 words that describe an individual’s personality. These words were
distilled down to five broad personality factors, each with a cluster of
specific traits. Similar results were found in studies of different
languages, suggesting that the five-factor model is fairly robust across
cultures. These Big Five factors, represented by the handy
acronym CANOE, are outlined in Exhibit 2.1 and described as follows:
Conscientiousness. Characterizes people who are organized,
dependable, goal-focused, thorough, disciplined, methodical,
and industrious. People with low conscientiousness tend to be
careless, disorganized, and less thorough.
Agreeableness. Describes people who are trusting, helpful, good-
natured, considerate, tolerant, selfless, generous, and flexible.
People with low agreeableness tend to be uncooperative and
intolerant of others’ needs as well as more suspicious and self-
focused.
Neuroticism. Refers to people who tend to be anxious, insecure,
self-conscious, depressed, and temperamental. In contrast,
people with low neuroticism (high emotional stability) are
poised, secure, and calm.
Openness to experience. Characterizes people who are
imaginative, creative, unconventional, curious, nonconforming,
autonomous, and aesthetically perceptive. Those with low scores
on this factor tend to be more resistant to change, less open to
new ideas, and more conventional and fixed in their ways.
Page 48
Extraversion. Describes people who are outgoing, talkative,
energetic, sociable, and assertive. The opposite
is introversion, which applies to those who are quiet, cautious,
and less interactive with others. Extraverts get their energy from
people and things around them, whereas introverts get their
energy more from personal reflection on concepts and ideas.
Introverts do not necessarily lack social skills. Instead, they are
more inclined to direct their interests to ideas than to social
events. Introverts feel more comfortable being alone than do
extraverts.
EXHIBIT 2.1 Five-Factor Model of Personality
SELF-ASSESSMENT 2.1: WHAT IS YOUR BIG FIVE
PERSONALITY?
Personality experts have organized the dozens of personality
traits into five main factors, known as the five-factor or Big
Five model. Each factor consists of several specific personality
traits that cluster together. Most scholarly research on
personality relies on this model, but it is also useful in everyday
life as a relatively easy categorization of personalities. You can
discover your Big Five personality by locating this self-
assessment in Connect if it is assigned by your instructor.
SELF-ASSESSMENT 2.2: ARE YOU INTROVERTED
OR EXTRAVERTED?
One of the most widely studied and discussed personality
factors in the five-factor (Big Five) model of personality is
introversion–extraversion. Introversion characterizes people
who tend to be quiet, shy, and cautious. Extraversion
characterizes people who tend to be outgoing, talkative,
sociable, and assertive. You can discover your level of
introversion or extraversion by locating this self-assessment in
Connect if it is assigned by your instructor.
Page 49
Five-Factor Model and Work Performance
Personality mainly affects behavior and performance through
motivation, specifically by influencing employees’ direction and intensity
of effort (i.e., what goals they choose to reach and how much effort they
apply to reach those goals). Consequently, all of the Big Five factors
predict one or more types of employee behavior and performance to
some extent.
Exhibit 2.2 highlights which Big Five personality factors best predict the
three types of task performance as well as organizational citizenship and
counterproductive work behaviors (see Chapter 1).11 Conscientiousness
stands out as the best overall personality predictor of proficient task
performance for most jobs. The specific conscientiousness traits of
industriousness (achievement, self-discipline, purposefulness) and
dutifulness are the best predictors of proficient task performance.
Conscientious employees set higher personal goals for themselves and
are more persistent. They also engage in more organizational citizenship
and in less counterproductive work behavior. Conscientiousness is a
weak predictor of adaptive (responding to change) and proactive
performance (taking initiative toward new work patterns). In fact, two
specific conscientiousness traits—orderliness and dependability—tend to
suppress adaptivity.
EXHIBIT 2.2 Big Five Personality and Work Performance
(top-left): Ildar Galeev/Shutterstock; (top-center): Fred Ho Yeow Hui/Shutterstock; (top-right):
malika.1028/Shutterstock; (bottom-left): Aha-Soft/Shutterstock; (bottom-right): Sign N Symbol
Production/Shutterstock
Extraversion is the second best overall personality predictor of proficient
task performance, but is a much weaker predictor than is
conscientiousness. Among the specific traits within the extraversion
factor, assertiveness and positive emotionality are the strongest
predictors of proficient task performance. Assertiveness is also a strong
predictor of adaptive and proactive performance. Assertive employees
tend to have a “take charge” approach to situations, which is consistent
with adapting to change and proactively initiating change. Extraversion
is associated with influencing others and being comfortable in social
settings, which (along with being assertive) explains why effective
leaders and salespeople tend to be somewhat more extraverted than the
general population.
Page 50
Agreeableness is positively associated with most forms of organizational
citizenship and negatively associated with counterproductive work
behaviors.12 The reason is that employees with high agreeableness are
more cooperative, sensitive, flexible, and supportive. Agreeableness does
not predict proficient or proactive task performance very well, mainly
because it is associated with lower motivation to set goals and achieve
results. However, employees with higher (but not too high)
agreeableness tend to improve team performance through better
knowledge sharing and motivation to help the team. Agreeableness also
has a positive effect on friendliness behavior in customer service
jobs.13 For example, this section of the chapter opened with the story
about Delaware North Companies, which identified friendliness (a form
of agreeableness) as a personality trait of successful call center agents.
Openness to experience is a weak predictor of proficient task
performance, but it is one of the best personality predictors of adaptive
and proactive performance. The main reason is that employees with
higher openness scores have more curiosity, imagination, and tolerance
of change.14 These traits also explain why openness to change is
associated with successful performance in creative work.
Emotional stability (low neuroticism) is one of the best personality
predictors of adaptive performance.15 The central explanation is that
employees with higher emotional stability cope better with the ambiguity
and uncertainty of change. In contrast, those with higher neuroticism
view change as a threat, so they tend to avoid change and experience
more stress when faced with workplace adjustments. These
characteristics would suggest that emotional stability also predicts
proactive performance, but the limited research has reported mixed
results.
SELF-ASSESSMENT 2.3: CAN YOU IDENTIFY
PERSONALITY TRAITS FROM BLOGGING WORDS?
Personality influences all aspects of our lives, including the
words we use when writing blogs. In fact, some companies now
use sophisticated software to estimate the personality traits of
job applicants from the words they use in blogs and other
online writing. You can discover how well you interpret
someone’s personality in blogs and other writing by locating
this self-assessment in Connect if it is assigned by your
instructor.
Issues When Applying the Five-Factor
Model
The five-factor model of personality is widely accepted among scholars
and has a deep research foundation to support its structure and
usefulness at predicting workplace behavior. However, we need to alert
you to several issues to better understand and apply this theory to the
workplace.
Higher isn’t always better. A common assumption is that the
“perfect employee” has the highest scores on all of the Big Five
personality factors (where emotional stability is high and
neuroticism is low). Part of the problem may be that the labels
and structure of the Big Five factors have a strong linear bias
(high is good, low is bad).16 But several studies have reported
that the best employees don’t have the highest scores on some
personality factors. In other words, the relationship between
personality and performance is often nonlinear. Employees with
moderate extraversion perform better in sales jobs than those
with high or low extraversion.17 One recent study found that
students with the best peer-rated contributions to teamwork
have relatively high extraversion, but moderately high
conscientiousness, and only around the mid-point on
agreeableness.
Page 51
Specific traits may be better predictors than the Big Five factors. We
pay so much attention to the Big Five factors that it’s easy to
forget that each factor clusters several specific personality traits.
For instance, conscientiousness clusters specific traits such as
organized, dependable, goal-focused, thorough, disciplined,
methodical, and industrious. Specific traits are sometimes better
than the broader factor at predicting behavior and performance.
For example, earlier we pointed out that the specific extraversion
traits of assertiveness and positive emotionality predict
proficient task performance better than the other extraversion
traits or the overall extraversion factor.
Personality isn’t static. There is an unfortunate tendency to think
“that’s the way s/he is” as if an adult’s personality is frozen for a
lifetime. Labelling people (“He’s an introvert”) reinforces this
fallacy that personality is static. Personality does stabilize around
age 30, but that doesn’t mean it is static. As we noted at the
beginning of this topic, some Big Five factors tend to increase or
decrease as we age. Some personality factors also change when
our environment significantly changes over a long time, such as
when moving to a different culture or working in a job for many
years.
The five-factor model doesn’t cover all personality. Many of us—
including some researchers—make the mistake of assuming that
the five-factor model measures all of our personality.18 The five-
factor model does capture a large portion of the domain we
call personality, but not all of it. As mentioned at the outset of this
topic, personality is difficult to define because there are several
perspectives of this topic. The Big Five reflects only some of
those perspectives. This is apparent in the next section of this
chapter, which introduces two other models of personality that
only partially overlap with the Big Five factors.
Other Personality Concepts: The
Dark Triad and MBTI Types
The Dark Triad
LO 2-2Several decades ago when personality experts distilled thousands
of dictionary words down to the five-factor model, they deliberately
excluded words with explicitly positive or negative valence, such
as humbleness (positive) or sinister (negative). They initially even excluded
words such as agreeable and ambitious that were later added to the Big
Five analysis. The process of reducing words into categories also
chopped off weaker clusters that coincidentally had positive or negative
orientations. Yet, some of these excluded traits (such as impulsive)
appeared in earlier personality models and were widely known in clinical
work.19
Personality experts have since re-examined personality traits with
positive and negative valences. Out of these studies has emerged a
cluster of three socially undesirable personality traits—
Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy—called the dark
triad.20 Although these traits are distinct, they have a common “dark
core” consisting of either low humility/honesty or a tendency to
malevolently undermine others to maximize one’s own gains.21
Machiavellianism. This personality trait is named after Niccolò
Machiavelli, the 16th-century Italian philosopher who wrote The
Prince, a famous treatise about political behavior. People with
high Machiavellianism (high-Machs) demonstrate a strong
motivation to get what they want at the expense of others. They
believe that deceit is a natural and acceptable way to achieve
their goals; indeed, they take pleasure in misleading, outwitting,
and otherwise controlling others. High-Machs routinely use lies,
manipulation, exploitation, and other undesirable influence
tactics (see Chapter 10). They have a cynical disregard for moral
principles, believe that getting more than one deserves is
acceptable, and seldom empathize with or trust coworkers.22
Page 52
Narcissism. This personality trait is named after Narcissus, the
young male hunter in Greek mythology who was so obsessed
with his beauty that he could not stop admiring the reflection of
himself in a pool of water (he died of thirst because he didn’t
want to stop looking at himself). This trait is evident in people
who have an obsessive belief in their superiority and entitlement.
Along with their grandiose, inflated self-view, narcissists have an
excessive need for attention, so they aggressively engage in self-
promotion, exhibitionism, and other attention-seeking
behaviors. Although known to be initially charming, narcissists
are intensely envious of others, which is eventually apparent in
their arrogance, schadenfreude (deriving pleasure from another
person’s misfortune), callous disregard for others’ feelings (i.e.,
low empathy), and exploitation of others for personal
aggrandizement.23
Psychopathy. This personality trait is often considered the most
sinister of the triad. It refers to social predators who ruthlessly
dominate and manipulate others, yet without empathy or any
feelings of remorse or anxiety. They are selfish self-promoters
who use superficial charm (called the “mask” of psychopathy),
yet engage in antisocial, impulsive, and often fraudulent thrill-
seeking behavior. These people callously do as they please and
take what they want.24
GLOBAL CONNECTIONS 2.1
Is Your CEO Narcissistic? Count the Tweetsa
PjrStudio/Alamy Stock Photo
Elon Musk has never been shy about saying what he thinks.
The CEO of Tesla, SpaceX, and the Boring Company, tweeted
an average of 88 messages per month over the past three
years. That was before his recent tsunami, reaching 400
messages in one month alone. To put this in perspective, only
15 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs are on Twitter at all, and less
than two-thirds of them tweet more than once per month.
Musk’s tweet mania and his flair for crafting casual messages
makes him a good communicator, suggests a partner at one
global communications firm. But the volume of tweets might
also reveal narcissistic tendencies. A recent meta-analysis
reported that individuals with high scores on grandiose
narcissism produce a significantly higher number of tweets and
Facebook updates, have more friends (or followers), and post
more selfies. To a lesser extent, they also spend more time on
social media.
Grandiose narcissism refers to people who are interpersonally
dominant, self-absorbed, overconfident, and have an inflated
sense of superiority and entitlement. As part of the dark triad,
narcissists also tend to be more disagreeable and antagonistic
toward others compared to the average person. Twitter tweets
and Facebook updates fit nicely with grandiose narcissism
because these people prefer emotionally shallow social
relationships and rely on mass communication to fulfill their
need for attention and self-promotion.
Elon Musk’s tweet output doesn’t necessarily mean that he is
narcissistic, although more than a dozen leading newspapers,
magazines, and business school blogs have recently made that
assertion. Also, the aggressive and antagonistic content of
Musk’s tweets are consistent with grandiose narcissism.
Tesla’s recent battles (arising from Musk’s tweets) with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and the justice system
are also consistent with studies on narcissistic executives. One
recent study concluded that “narcissistic CEOs subject their
organizations to undue legal risk because they are
overconfident about their ability to win and less sensitive to the
costs to their organizations of such litigation.”
But Elon Musk might have the last word on this matter: “If I
am a narcissist (which might be true), at least I am a useful
one,” he tweeted.
The Dark Triad in the Workplace
Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy may seem like they
belong in textbooks on criminology or medieval politics, not
organizational behavior. Yet these traits are gaining attention because
they are prevalent throughout the workplace. As one personality
researcher warned in his keynote address to a national police
association: “Not all psychopaths are in prison. Some are in the board
room.”25
These three traits produce numerous dysfunctional outcomes in
organizational settings.26 Dishonesty is a core characteristic of the dark
triad, so people with these traits are more likely to lie and deceive others
at work. Similarly, they malevolently undermine others to maximize
their own gains. This is the essence of organizational politics (see Chapter
10), which is about using influence tactics for personal gain at the
expense of others and the interests of the entire organization. Political
tactics produce a host of dysfunctional outcomes, ranging from employee
stress and dissatisfaction to unproductive use of organizational
resources.
Counterproductive work behaviors, such as taking company property
from work without permission or deliberately working slowly to get
overtime, are predicted by the dark triad to some extent, but they are
more closely associated with specific Big Five factors (low agreeableness
and conscientiousness) that were identified earlier in Exhibit 2.2.
Instead, dark triad traits are more strongly associated with serious
white-collar crimes. For instance, one study reported that a dark triad
measure from video analysis was highly effective at identifying chief
executive officers who were implicated in unethical misconduct and
fraud.27
Page 53
The dark triad is also associated with bullying and other forms of
workplace aggression.28 In particular, employees in organizations with
psychopathic managers observe significantly more incidents of bullying
than employees in other organizations. People with dark triad
personality traits tend to make decisions that produce poorer absolute
and risk-adjusted investment returns. In particular, those with high
psychopathy take excessive risks, due to their overconfidence and
disregard for consequences.29
Aside from making unethical and poor risk-oriented decisions, the dark
triad has a complex relationship with other forms of task performance
and career success. People with these traits are dysfunctional team
members in the long term because, by definition, they don’t trust
coworkers and focus on their own goals at the expense of team goals.30 At
the same time, dark triad employees are known to help others in the
short run when it serves their self-interest.
People who possess dark triad personality traits aren’t always worse off.
These traits are associated with manipulative political skill, which some
supervisors rate favorably in employee performance. Being manipulative
occasionally helps employees move into more central (and therefore
powerful) positions in informal employee networks. Narcissistic CEOs
tend to have higher direct pay as well as a higher gap in pay from other
members of the executive team.31 Finally, studies point to one
component of psychopathy called “fearless dominance” as a predictor of
career success. Indeed, this sub-trait is found in a few of the more
successful U.S. presidents. However, several experts doubt that fearless
dominance should be separated from other aspects of psychopathy,
which are negatively associated with career success. Some even argue
that fearless dominance doesn’t belong in the dark triad at all.32
Page 54
SELF-ASSESSMENT 2.4: HOW MACHIAVELLIAN
ARE YOU?
Named after the 16th-century Italian philosopher who wrote a
famous treatise about political behavior (The Prince),
Machiavellianisn is a personality trait characteristic of people
who demonstrate a strong motivation to achieve their own
goals at the expense of others, who believe that deceit is a
natural and acceptable way to achieve their goals, who take
pleasure in outwitting and misleading others using crude
influence tactics, and who have a cynical disregard for morality.
Although few people want to be viewed as Machiavellian,
measures suggest that many of us exhibit aspects of this trait
to some extent. You can discover your level of Machiavellianism
by locating this self-assessment in Connect if it is assigned by
your instructor.
Jungian Personality Theory and the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
The five-factor model of personality has the most research support, but it
is not the most popular personality test in practice. That distinction goes
to Jungian personality theory, which is measured through the Myers-
Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (see Exhibit 2.3).
EXHIBIT 2.3 Jungian and Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Types
Sources: Adapted from an exhibit found at http://www.16-personality-types.com. Based on data from CPP, Inc.,
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 from Introduction to Type and Careers by Allen L. Hammer.
Nearly a century ago, Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung suggested that
personality is mainly represented by the individual’s preferences
regarding perceiving and judging information.33 Jung explained that the
perceiving function—how people prefer to gather information—occurs
through two competing orientations: sensing (S) and intuition (N). Sensing
involves perceiving information directly through the five senses; it relies
on an organized structure to acquire factual and preferably quantitative
details. In contrast, intuition relies more on insight and subjective
experience to see relationships among variables. Sensing types focus on
the here and now, whereas intuitive types focus more on future
possibilities.
Page 55
Jung also proposed that the judging function—how people prefer making
decisions based on what they have perceived—consists of two competing
processes: thinking (T) and feeling (F). People with a thinking orientation
rely on rational cause–effect logic and systematic data collection to make
decisions. Those with a strong feeling orientation, on the other hand, rely
on their emotional responses to the options presented, as well as to how
those choices affect others. Jung noted that in addition to the four core
processes of sensing, intuition, thinking, and feeling, people differ in
their level of extraversion–introversion, which was introduced earlier as
one of the Big Five personality traits.
The MBTI extends Jung’s list of personality traits described above by
also measuring Jung’s broader categories of perceiving and judging,which
represent a person’s attitude toward the external world. People with a
perceiving orientation are open, curious, and flexible. They prefer to
keep their options open and to adapt spontaneously to events as they
unfold. Judging types prefer order and structure and want to resolve
problems quickly.
As CEO (now a director) of Hawaii’s Central Pacific Bank, John Dean realized that the
executive team needed to work together better to rebuild the bank and its culture. The
executives completed the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator with debriefing by executive coaches.
The executives shared their results to gain a better understanding of one another’s
personality, particularly how they perceive things and analyze information. “Knowing this
personal information leads to more trust,” says Dean, shown in this photo. He has noticed
that disagreements are now resolved more easily. “Knowing more about someone’s
personality can help alleviate some of those problems that crop up when management teams
work together.”b
©Tina Yuen/Pacific Business News
MBTI has a number of benefits, but it is usually a poor predictor of job
performance and is generally not recommended for employment
selection or promotion decisions.34 There are also issues with its
measurement. MBTI can potentially identify employees who prefer face-
to-face versus virtual teamwork, but does not seem to predict how well a
team develops. It also has questionable value in predicting leadership
effectiveness.
In spite of these limitations, the MBTI is the most widely studied
measure of cognitive style in management research and is the most
popular personality assessment for career counseling and executive
coaching.35 It is even being used by artificial intelligence engineers to
adapt the behavior of robots to user preferences. MBTI takes a neutral or
balanced approach by recognizing both the strengths and limitations of
each personality type in different situations. In contrast, the five-factor
model views people with higher scores as better than those with lower
scores on each dimension. This may be a restrictive view of personality
and makes the Big Five model more difficult to apply in coaching and
development settings.36
SELF-ASSESSMENT 2.5: ARE YOU A SENSING OR
INTUITIVE TYPE?
Nearly a century ago, Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung proposed
that personality is primarily represented by the individual’s
preferences regarding perceiving and judging information. Jung
explained that perceiving, which involves how people prefer to
gather information or perceive the world around them, occurs
through two competing orientations: sensing (S) and intuition
(N). You can discover the extent to which you are a sensing or
intuitive type by locating this self-assessment in Connect if it is
assigned by your instructor.
Page 56
DEBATING POINT
Should Companies Use Personality Tests to Select Job
Applicants?
Personality theory has made significant strides over the past
two decades, particularly in demonstrating that specific traits
are associated with specific workplace behaviors and outcomes.
Various studies have reported that specific Big Five dimensions
predict overall job performance, organizational citizenship,
leadership, counterproductive work behaviors, training
performance, team performance, and a host of other important
outcomes. These findings cast a strong vote in favor of
personality testing in the workplace.
A few prominent personality experts urge caution,
however.c They point out that although traits are associated
with workplace behavior to some extent, there are better
predictors of work performance, such as work samples and past
performance. Furthermore, selection procedures typically
assume that more of a personality trait is better, whereas an
increasing number of studies indicate that the best candidates
might be closer to the middle than the extremes of the range.
For instance, job performance apparently increases with
conscientiousness, yet employees with high conscientiousness
might be so thorough that they become perfectionists, which
can stifle rather than enhance job performance.d A third
concern is that, depending on how the selection decision
applies the test results, personality instruments may unfairly
discriminate against specific groups of people.e
A fourth worry is that most personality tests are self-reported
scales, so applicants might try to fake their answers.f Worse,
the test scores might not represent the individual’s personality
or anything else meaningful because test takers often don’t
know what personality traits the company is looking for.
Studies show that candidates who try to fake “good”
personality scores change the selection results. Supporters of
personality testing offer the counterargument that few job
applicants try to fake their scores. One major study recently
found that most personality dimensions are estimated better by
observers than by self-ratings, but few companies rely on
ratings from other people.g
Values in the Workplace
LO 2-3The decision to embrace energy efficiency and to “go green” was
easy for owner Jerry Gray and his 25 employees at Sloan
Electromechanical Service & Sales. The market was shifting in that
direction, but the bigger influence was everyone’s personal values. “It
was primarily about the values—my personal values and our company’s
values. Talking with my employees, we all agreed this was the right thing
to do,” Gray recalls. The San Diego provider of motor, generator, and
control services initially experienced higher inventory costs and more
sales effort to educate customers, but the results are paying off for the
business and for Gray’s peace of mind. “It was just the morally right
thing to do,” he says.37
Jerry Gray and his employees relied on their personal values to guide
them in the decision toward energy efficiency and more environmentally
friendly business practices. Values, a concept that we introduced
in Chapter 1, are stable, evaluative beliefs that guide our preferences for
outcomes or courses of action in a variety of situations.38 They are
perceptions about what is good or bad, right or wrong. Values tell us to
what we “ought” to do. They serve as a moral compass that directs our
motivation and, potentially, our decisions and actions. They also provide
justification for past decisions and behavior.
People arrange values into a hierarchy of preferences, called a value
system. Some individuals value new challenges more than they value
conformity. Others value generosity more than frugality. Each person’s
unique value system is developed and reinforced through socialization
from parents, religious institutions, friends, personal experiences, and
the society in which he or she lives. As such, a person’s hierarchy of
values is stable and long-lasting. For example, one study found that value
systems of a sample of adolescents were remarkably similar 20 years
later when they were adults.39
Notice that our description of values has focused on individuals, whereas
Jerry Gray and other executives often describe values as though they
belong to the organization. In reality, values exist only within
individuals—we call them personal values. However, groups of people
might hold the same or similar values, so we tend to ascribe these shared
values to the team, department, organization, profession, or entire
society. The values shared by people throughout an organization
(organizational values) receive fuller discussion in Chapter 14 because
they are a key part of corporate culture. The values shared across a
society (cultural values) receive attention in the last section of this
chapter.
Page 57
Values and personality traits are related to each other, but the two
concepts differ in a few ways.40 The most noticeable distinction is that
values are evaluative—they tell us what we ought to do—whereas
personality traits describe what we naturally tend to do. A second
distinction is that personality traits have minimal conflict with each
other (e.g., you can have high agreeableness and high introversion),
whereas some values are opposed to other values. For example, someone
who values excitement and challenge would have difficulty also valuing
stability and moderation. Third, although personality and values are
both partly determined by heredity, values are influenced more by
socialization whereas heredity has a stronger influence on an individual’s
personality traits.
Types of Values
Values come in many forms, and experts on this topic have devoted
considerable attention to organizing them into clusters. By far, the most
widely accepted model of personal values is Schwartz’s values
circumplex, developed and tested by social psychologist Shalom
Schwartz and his colleagues.41 This model clusters 57 values into 10
broad categories that are organized into the circular model (circumplex)
shown in Exhibit 2.4. The 10 categories include universalism,
benevolence, tradition, conformity, security, power, achievement,
hedonism, stimulation, and self-direction. Each category is a cluster of
more specific values (not shown). For example, conformity includes the
specific values of politeness, honoring parents, self-discipline, and
obedience.
EXHIBIT 2.4 Schwartz’s Values Circumplex
Sources: S.H. Schwartz, “Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical
Tests in 20 Countries,” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 25 (1992): 1–65; S.H. Schwartz and K.
Boehnke, “Evaluating the Structure of Human Values with Confirmatory Factor Analysis,” Journal of Research in
Personality 38, no. 3 (2004): 230–55; Academic Rss. Inc.
Page 58
These 10 broad values categories are further clustered into four
quadrants. One quadrant, called openness to change, refers to the extent to
which a person is motivated to pursue innovative ways. This quadrant
includes the value categories of self-direction (creativity, independent
thought), stimulation (excitement and challenge), and hedonism (pursuit
of pleasure, enjoyment, gratification of desires). The opposing quadrant
is conservation, which is the extent to which a person is motivated to
preserve the status quo. The conservation quadrant includes the value
categories of conformity (adherence to social norms and expectations),
security (safety and stability), and tradition (moderation and
preservation of the status quo).
The third quadrant in Schwartz’s circumplex model, called self-
enhancement, refers to how much a person is motivated by self-interest.
This quadrant includes the values categories of achievement (pursuit of
personal success), power (dominance over others), and hedonism (a
values category shared with openness to change). The opposite of self-
enhancement is self-transcendence, which refers to motivation to promote
the welfare of others and nature. Self-transcendence includes the value
categories of benevolence (concern for others in one’s life) and
universalism (concern for the welfare of all people and nature).
SELF-ASSESSMENT 2.6: WHAT ARE YOUR
DOMINANT VALUES?
Values are stable, evaluative beliefs that guide our preferences
for outcomes or courses of action in a variety of situations.
They are perceptions about what is good or bad, right or
wrong. We arrange our personal values into a hierarchy of
preferences, called a value system. Schwartz’s values
circumplex organizes the dozens of personal values into 10
categories placed in a circle (circumplex). You can discover
your value system hierarchy in Schwartz’s model by locating
this self-assessment in Connect if it is assigned by your
instructor.
Values and Individual Behavior
Personal values influence decisions and behavior in various ways.42 First,
values directly motivate our actions by shaping the relative attractiveness
(valence) of the choices available. In other words, we experience more
positive feelings toward alternatives that are aligned with our most
important values. If stimulation is at the top of our values hierarchy,
then a job opportunity offering new experiences will appeal to us more
than a job opportunity with more predictable and stable work.
Second, values indirectly motivate behavior by framing our perceptions
of reality. Specifically, values influence whether we notice something as
well as how we interpret it. Our decisions and actions are affected by how
we perceive those situations. Third, we are motivated to act consistently
with our self-concept and public self-presentation. If we have a self-view
and public image that values achievement, then we try to ensure that our
behavior is consistent with that value. This consistency is particularly
important for behaviors that more clearly depict a specific underlying
value.
TNW Corporation operates three short-line railroads in Texas and provides railroad
maintenance and logistics services. The work requires a strong focus on safety, which is a
core value at TNW and a dominant personal value among staff. To maintain a high
awareness of the safety value, TNW invited the employees’ children to draw pictures and
write postcards urging their parents to be safe at work. “Never stop between [rail] cars. And
wear a safety vest. Thank you dad for all your hard work and staying safe,” wrote one child.
These messages and artwork are prominently displayed around the workplace, keeping
employees vigilant of safety at all times.h
Monty Rakusen/Cultura/Getty Images
Personal values motivate behavior to some extent, but this connection
isn’t as strong as we might like to believe.43 One reason for this
“disconnect” between personal values and individual behavior is the
situation. Personal values motivate us to engage in specific behavior, but
the MARS model points out that the situation can prevent us from
engaging in values-consistent behavior. For example, individuals with
strong self-transcendent values are motivated to engage in recycling and
other environmentally friendly behaviors, but lack of recycling facilities
prevents or severely limits this behavior. People also deviate from their
personal values due to strong counter-motivational forces. For instance,
employees caught in illegal business dealings sometimes attribute their
unethical activities to pressure from management to achieve their
performance at any cost.
Page 59
Another reason why decisions and behavior are inconsistent with our
personal values is that we don’t actively think about them much of the
time.44 Values are abstract concepts, so their relevance is not obvious in
many situations. Furthermore, many daily decisions and actions occur
routinely, so we don’t actively evaluate their consistency with our values.
We do consciously consider our values in some situations, of course,
such as realizing how much we value security when deciding whether to
perform a risky task. However, many daily events do not trigger values
awareness, so we act without their guidance. We literally need to be
reminded of our values so they can guide our decisions and actions.
The effect of values awareness on behavior was apparent in a study in
which students were given a math test and received a payment for each
correct answer.45 One group submitted their results to the experimenter
for scoring, so they couldn’t lie about their results. A second group could
lie because they scored the test themselves and told the experimenter
their test score. A third group was similar to the second (they scored
their own test), but that test included the following statement, and
students were required to sign their name to that statement: “I
understand that this short survey falls under (the university’s) honor
system.” The researchers estimated that some students cheated when
they scored their own test without the “honor system” statement,
whereas no one given the “honor system” form lied about the results. The
university didn’t actually have an honor system, but the message made
students pay attention to their honesty. In short, people are more likely
to apply their values (honesty, in this case) when they are explicitly
reminded of those values and see their relevance to the situation.
Values Congruence
Values tell us what is right or wrong and what we ought to do. This
evaluative characteristic affects how comfortable we are with specific
organizations and individuals. The key concept here is values
congruence, which refers to how similar a person’s values hierarchy is to
the values hierarchy of another entity, such as the employee’s team or
organization. An employee’s values congruence with team members
increases the team’s cohesion and performance. Congruence with the
organization’s values tends to increase the employee’s job satisfaction,
loyalty, and organizational citizenship. It also tends to reduce stress and
turnover. Furthermore, employees are more likely to make decisions that
are compatible with organizational expectations when their personal
values are congruent with the organization’s shared values.46
Page 60
Are organizations the most successful when every employee’s personal
values align with the company’s values? Not at all! While a large degree
of values congruence is necessary for the reasons just noted,
organizations also benefit from some level of incongruence. Employees
with diverse values offer different perspectives, which potentially lead to
better decision making. Also, too much congruence can create a
“corporate cult” that potentially undermines creativity, organizational
flexibility, and business ethics (see Chapter 14).
GLOBAL CONNECTIONS 2.2
“Your Values Are More Important Than Your CV” at
IKEAi
Iroz Gaizka/AFP/Getty Images
When IKEA recently advertised a job opening for a kitchen
coworker (chef) in the Middle East country of Kuwait, the job
description identified experience in hospitality, computer
literacy, attention to detail, and other traditional criteria. But it
also emphasized something that isn’t found in most job ads:
“The IKEA values truly reflect your personal values.”
IKEA describes itself as a values-driven company, so job
applicants need to reflect on whether their personal values are
congruent with the global retailer’s organizational values. “We
recruit by values,” explains Anna Carin Månsson, Country HR
Manager, IKEA India. “We like to understand personal values of
a candidate and how these come out in typical behavior in
everyday life.”
Månsson’s team pays attention to whether job applicants have
really considered values congruence. “When recruiting for
IKEA, it is attractive to recognize that the applicant has read up
about the company and managed to describe the connection—
i.e., what are the values they have as a person which makes
them the perfect fit for working with the organization.”
D’neale Prosser echoes Månsson’s views. “Your values are more
important than your CV,” says the national talent manager at
IKEA Australia. Prosser adds that values congruence isn’t just
useful for getting hired at IKEA. It is central to a person’s
success and happiness in life. “Find an organization that
connects with your personal values and allows you to be
yourself at work,” advises Prosser. “This will add value and
meaning to your everyday life.”
Ethical Values and Behavior
LO 2-4When 195 business leaders across 15 countries were asked to
identify the most important leader competencies, “high ethics and moral
standards” was the top-rated item from the list of 74 characteristics.
Similarly, when 1,000 CEOs and other top-level executives around the
world were asked to list the most important attributes of effective
leaders, the most frequently mentioned characteristic was integrity—the
leader’s ethical standards.47 These surveys reveal the importance of
ethics in the workplace. Ethics refers to the study of moral principles or
values that determine whether actions are right or wrong and outcomes
are good or bad (see Chapter 1). People rely on their ethical values to
determine “the right thing to do.”
Page 61
Four Ethical Principles
To better understand business ethics, we need to consider four distinct
types of ethical principles: utilitarianism, individual rights, distributive
justice, and the ethic of care.48 Your personal values might sway you
more toward one principle than the others, but all four should be actively
considered to put important ethical issues to the test.
Utilitarianism. This principle says the only moral obligation is to
seek the greatest good for the greatest number of people. In
other words, we should choose the option that provides the
highest degree of satisfaction to those affected. One problem is
that utilitarianism requires a cost–benefit analysis, yet many
outcomes aren’t measurable. Another problem is that
utilitarianism could justify actions that other principles would
consider immoral because those means produce the greatest
good overall.
Individual rights. This principle says that everyone has the same
set of natural rights, such as freedom of movement, physical
security, freedom of speech, and fair trial. The individual-rights
principle extends beyond legal rights to human rights that
everyone is granted as a moral norm of society. One problem
with this principle is that some individual rights may conflict
with others. The shareholders’ right to be informed about
corporate activities may ultimately conflict with an executive’s
right to privacy, for example.
Distributive justice. This principle says that the benefits and
burdens of similar individuals should be the same; otherwise
they should be proportional. For example, employees who
contribute equally in their work should receive similar rewards,
whereas those who make a lesser contribution should receive
less. A variation of this principle says that inequalities are
acceptable when they benefit the least well off in society. The
main problem with the distributive justice principle is that it is
difficult to agree on who is “similar” and what factors are
“relevant.” We discuss distributive justice further in Chapter 5.
Ethic of Care. The ethic of care principle states that everyone has
a moral obligation to help others within their relational sphere to
grow and self-actualize.49 It recognizes that caring for others is a
fundamental characteristic of humanity. Whereas the other three
principles emphasize impartial rules, the ethic of care principle
emphasizes partiality—favoring those with whom we have
relationships. As such, the ethic of care is a practice, not a set of
principles. It involves caring about others by being attentive to
their needs, taking care of others through responsibility, giving
care to others through one’s skills and abilities, and by being
responsive to (having empathy for) the person receiving care.
Although originally from feminist and caregiving literature, the
ethic of care has been identified as a core principle in how
organizations should work with stakeholders (see Chapter 1) and
how leaders should serve employees (see servant leadership
in Chapter 12).50
Moral Intensity, Moral Sensitivity, and
Situational Influences
Along with ethical principles and their underlying values, three other
factors influence ethical conduct in the workplace: the moral intensity of
the issue, the individual’s moral sensitivity, and situational influences.51
Moral Intensity
Moral intensity is the degree to which an issue demands the application
of ethical principles. Decisions with high moral intensity have strong
ethical implications that usually affect many people, so the decision
maker needs to carefully apply ethical principles to make the best choice.
The moral intensity of a situation is higher when (a) the consequences of
the decision could be very good or bad, (b) there is high agreement by
others that the decision outcomes are good or bad, (c) there is a high
probability that the good or bad outcomes will occur, and (d) many
people will experience the consequences of the decision.52
Page 62
GLOBAL CONNECTIONS 2.3
Alcoa Executive Sets Ethical Standard in Russia
Mario Laporta/AFP/Getty Images
When William O’Rourke became Alcoa Russia’s first CEO, he
knew that bribery was a serious problem in that country, so he
made his position clear to staff: “We don’t condone it. We don’t
participate in it. We are not going to do it. Period.” This ethical
mandate was soon tested when local police stopped delivery of
an expensive furnace and warned that delivery would resume
only after Alcoa paid $25,000 to a government official.
“My bonus was based in large part on making the planned
investments happen on time,” says O’Rourke, adding that a few
Alcoa executives in the United States implied that he should do
whatever it takes to keep the work on schedule. “Nonetheless,
I stood my ground.” The new furnace arrived three days later
without any bribery payment. It took another 18 months before
the bribery attempts stopped.j
Moral Sensitivity
Moral sensitivity (also called ethical sensitivity) is a characteristic of the
person, namely his or her ability to detect a moral dilemma and estimate
its relative importance.53 People with high moral sensitivity can more
quickly and accurately estimate the moral intensity of the issue. This
awareness does not necessarily translate into more ethical behavior; it
just means that people with higher moral sensitivity are more likely to
know when unethical behavior occurs.
Several factors are associated with a person’s moral sensitivity.54
Expertise or knowledge of prescriptive norms and rules. For example,
accountants are more morally sensitive regarding specific
accounting procedures than are people who lack experience in
this profession.
Previous experience with specific moral dilemmas. Past incidents
likely generate internal cues that trigger awareness of future
ethical dilemmas with similar characteristics.
Ability to empathize with those affected by the decision. On average,
women have higher moral sensitivity compared to men, partly
because women tend to have higher empathy.
A strong self-view of being a morally sensitive person.55 Employees
who strongly define themselves by their moral character (called
their moral identity) tend to have higher moral sensitivity because
they put more energy into maintaining ethical conduct.
A high degree of situational mindfulness.56 Mindfulness refers to a
person’s receptive and impartial attention to and awareness of
the present situation as well as to one’s own thoughts and
emotions in that moment. Mindfulness increases moral
sensitivity because it involves actively monitoring the
environment as well as being sensitive to our responses to that
environment. This vigilance requires effort as well as skill to
receptively evaluate our thoughts and emotions. Unfortunately,
we have a natural tendency to minimize effort, which leads to
less mindfulness. For instance, employees fail to recognize many
ethical violations because they don’t pay attention to those who
are assumed to have high ethical standards.
Page 63
Situational Factors
Along with moral intensity and moral sensitivity, ethical conduct is
influenced by the situation in which the conduct occurs.57 Some
employees say they regularly experience pressure from top management
that motivates them to lie to customers, breach regulations, or otherwise
act unethically. Fortunately, few people experience this pressure. One
large-scale survey recently reported that only 8 percent of UK employees
and 13 percent of Continental Europe employees felt pressure to
compromise their organization’s ethical standards. Another recent
survey found that only 8 percent of American and 14 percent of UK
financial services and banking staff felt such pressure. However, this
pressure was much higher (23 percent) among high-income
finance/banking executives. Situational factors do not justify unethical
conduct. Rather, we need to be aware of these factors so organizations
can reduce their influence.
Corporate Misconduct Reported in Selected Countriesk
Note: Percentage of employees surveyed in selected countries (1,000 respondents per country) who personally
observed misconduct in their workplace within the previous 12 months.
Supporting Ethical Behavior
Most large and medium-sized organizations in the United States and
other developed countries maintain or improve ethical conduct through
systematic practices. One of the most basic steps in this direction is a
code of ethical conduct—a statement about desired activities, rules of
conduct, and philosophy about the organization’s relationship to its
stakeholders and the environment.58 Almost all Fortune 500 companies
in the United States and the majority of the 500 largest companies in the
United Kingdom have ethics codes. These codes are supposed to
motivate and guide employee behavior, signal the importance of ethical
conduct, and build the firm’s trustworthiness to stakeholders. However,
critics suggest that they do little to reduce unethical conduct.
Another strategy to improve ethical conduct is to train and regularly
evaluate employees on their knowledge of proper ethical conduct. Many
large firms have annual quizzes to test employee awareness of company
rules and practices concerning important ethical issues such as giving
gifts and receiving sensitive information about competitors or
governments. In some firms, employees participate in elaborate games
that present increasingly challenging and complex moral dilemmas. A
popular practice to improve ethical conduct is an ethics telephone
hotline and website, typically operated by an independent organization,
where employees can anonymously report suspicious behavior. A few
very large businesses also employ ombudspersons who receive
information confidentially from employees and proactively investigate
possible wrongdoing. Ethics audits are also conducted in some
organizations but are more common for evaluation of corporate social
responsibility practices.59
Page 64
Training, hotlines, audits, and related activities improve ethical conduct
to some extent, but the most powerful foundation is a set of shared
values that reinforces ethical conduct. As we describe in Chapter
14 (organizational culture), an ethical culture is supported by the
conduct and vigilance of corporate leaders. By acting with the highest
moral standards, leaders not only gain support and trust from followers;
they role-model the ethical standards that employees are more likely to
follow.60
Values across Cultures
LO 2-5As the only Westerner in a 50-employee winery in China, Emilie
noticed that Chinese managers seemed to be more sensitive than
European or American bosses about maintaining their authority over
employees. “I was surprised to see that taking the initiative most of the
time was seen as rude and as a failure to respect the executives’
authority,” says the public relations professional from France. “At work,
everyone had to perform well in their own tasks, but permission was
required for anything other than what was expected.” The power
relationship was also apparent in how Chinese managers interacted with
staff. “Western-style bosses tend to develop a closer relationship with
employees,” Emilie suggests. “The hierarchy is much more clearly
divided in Chinese-dominant companies than it is in foreign ones.”61
Emilie experienced the often-subtle fact that expectations and values
differ around the world. Over the next few sections, we introduce five
values that have cross-cultural significance: individualism, collectivism,
power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and achievement-nurturing
orientation. Exhibit 2.5 summarizes these values and lists countries that
have high, medium, or low emphasis on these values.
EXHIBIT 2.5 Five Cross-Cultural Values
V
S Countries
R B /B in “High” Cultures
Individualism
High: United States, Chile, Canada,
South AfricaMedium: Japan,
DenmarkLow: Taiwan, Venezuela
Defines self more by one’s uniqueness; personal goals have priority;
decisions have low consideration of effect on others; relationships
are viewed as more instrumental and fluid.
Collectivism
High: Israel, TaiwanMedium: India,
DenmarkLow: United States,
Germany, Japan
Defines self more by one’s in-group membership; goals of self-
sacrifice and harmony have priority; behavior regulated by in-group
norms; in-group memberships are viewed as stable with a strong
differentiation with out-groups.
Power distance
High: India, MalaysiaMedium: United
States, JapanLow: Denmark, Israel
Reluctant to disagree with or contradict the boss; managers are
expected and preferred decision makers; perception of dependence
on (versus interdependence with) the boss.
Uncertainty
avoidance
High: Belgium, GreeceMedium:
United States, NorwayLow: Denmark,
Singapore
Prefer predictable situations; value stable employment, strict laws,
and low conflict; dislike deviations from normal behavior.
Achievement
orientation
High: Austria, JapanMedium: United
States, BrazilLow: Sweden,
Netherlands
Focus on outcomes (versus relationships); decisions based on
contribution (equity versus equality); low empathy or showing
emotions (versus strong empathy and caring).
Table Summary: Table divided into three columns summarizes countries believing in five cross-cultural values. The column headers are marked from left
to right as: Value; sample countries; and representative beliefs or behaviors in "high" cultures.
Sources: Individualism and collectivism descriptions and results are from the meta-analysis reported in D.
Oyserman, H.M. Coon, and M. Kemmelmeier, “Rethinking Individualism and Collectivism: Evaluation of
Theoretical Assumptions and Meta-Analyses,” Psychological Bulletin, 128 (2002): 3–72. The other information is
from G. Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences, 2nd ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001).
Page 65
Individualism and Collectivism
Two seemingly inseparable cross-cultural values are individualism and
collectivism. Individualism is the extent to which we value independence
and personal uniqueness. Highly individualist people value personal
freedom, self-sufficiency, control over their own lives, and appreciation
of the unique qualities that distinguish them from others. Americans,
Chileans, Canadians, and South Africans generally exhibit high
individualism, whereas Taiwan and Venezuela are countries with low
individualism.62 Collectivism is the extent to which we value our duty to
groups to which we belong and to group harmony. Highly collectivist
people define themselves by their group memberships, emphasize their
personal connection to others in their in-groups, and value the goals and
well-being of people within those groups.63 Low collectivism countries
include the United States, Japan, and Germany, whereas Israel and
Taiwan have relatively high collectivism.
Contrary to popular belief, individualism is not the opposite of
collectivism. In fact, the two concepts are typically uncorrelated.64 For
example, cultures that highly value duty to one’s group do not necessarily
give a low priority to personal freedom and uniqueness. Generally,
people across all cultures define themselves by both their uniqueness
and their relationship to others. It is an inherent characteristic of
everyone’s self-concept, which we discuss in the next chapter. Some
cultures clearly emphasize either personal uniqueness or group
obligations, but both have a place in a person’s values and self-concept.
Also note that people in Japan have relatively low collectivism. This is
contrary to many cross-cultural books, a few of which claim that Japan is
one of the most collectivist countries on the planet! There are several
explanations for the historical misinterpretation, ranging from problems
defining and measuring collectivism to erroneous reporting of early
cross-cultural research. Whatever the reasons, studies consistently
report that people in Japan tend to have relatively low collectivism and
moderate individualism (as indicated in Exhibit 2.5).65
SELF-ASSESSMENT 2.7: HOW MUCH DO YOU
VALUE INDIVIDUALISM AND COLLECTIVISM?
Cross-cultural values have become an important part of
organizational life due to globalization and an increasingly
multicultural workforce. Two of the most commonly studied
cross-cultural values are individualism and collectivism. You
can discover your level of individualism and collectivism by
locating this self-assessment in Connect if it is assigned by
your instructor.
Power Distance
Power distance refers to the extent to which people accept unequal
distribution of power in a society.66 Those with high power distance
value unequal power. Those in higher positions expect obedience to
authority; those in lower positions are comfortable receiving commands
from their superiors without consultation or debate. People with high
power distance also prefer to resolve differences through formal
procedures rather than direct informal discussion. In contrast, people
with low power distance expect relatively equal power sharing. They view
the relationship with their boss as one of interdependence, not
dependence; that is, they believe their boss is also dependent on them, so
they expect power sharing and consultation before decisions affecting
them are made. People in India and Malaysia tend to have high power
distance, whereas people in Denmark and Israel generally have low
power distance. Americans collectively have medium-low power
distance.
Page 66
GLOBAL CONNECTIONS 2.4
Cross-Cultural Hiccups at Beam Suntory
Akio Kon/Bloomberg/Getty Images
Suntory Holdings Ltd. is working through a few cross-cultural
hiccups after the Japanese alcoholic beverage company
acquired Jim Beam, which makes bourbon in Kentucky. “We
have to overcome the huge differences in the Japanese
mentality and the American mentality,” Suntory CEO Takeshi
Niinami advised soon after the acquisition. “It creates
misunderstandings.” Niinami (in photo) says he prefers the
“blunt but honest” American approach, but that style may
conflict with the Japanese preference for modesty, detail, and
consensus. Japanese and American employees also have
different career aspirations and reward systems. “Beam and
Suntory definitely have differences,” Niinami recently
acknowledged. “This is not an easy task. But I’m ready for it.”l
SELF-ASSESSMENT 2.8: WHAT IS YOUR LEVEL OF
POWER DISTANCE?
Some employees value obedience to authority and are
comfortable receiving commands from their superiors without
consultation or debate. Others expect equal status and
authority with their manager. This power distance orientation
varies from one person to the next; it also varies across
cultures. You can discover your power distance orientation by
locating this self-assessment in Connect if it is assigned by
your instructor.
Uncertainty Avoidance
Uncertainty avoidance is the degree to which people tolerate ambiguity
(low uncertainty avoidance) or feel threatened by ambiguity and
uncertainty (high uncertainty avoidance). Employees with high
uncertainty avoidance value structured situations in which rules of
conduct and decision making are clearly documented. They usually
prefer direct rather than indirect or ambiguous communications.
Uncertainty avoidance tends to be high in Belgium and Greece and very
high in Japan. It is generally low in Denmark and Singapore. Americans
collectively have medium-low uncertainty avoidance.
Achievement-Nurturing Orientation
Achievement-nurturing orientation reflects a competitive versus
cooperative view of relations with other people.67 People with a high
achievement orientation value assertiveness, competitiveness, and
materialism. They appreciate people who are tough, and they favor the
acquisition of money and material goods. In contrast, people in
nurturing-oriented cultures emphasize relationships and the well-being
of others. They focus on human interaction and caring rather than
competition and personal success. People in Sweden, Norway, and the
Netherlands have a very low achievement orientation (i.e., they have a
high nurturing orientation). In contrast, very high achievement
orientation scores have been reported in Japan and Austria. The United
States is located a little above the middle of the range on achievement-
nurturing orientation.
Page 67
Caveats about Cross-Cultural
Knowledge
Cross-cultural organizational research has gained considerable attention
over the past two decades, likely due to increased globalization and
cultural diversity within organizations. Our knowledge of cross-cultural
dynamics has blossomed, and many of these findings will be discussed
throughout this book, particularly regarding leadership, conflict
handling, and influence tactics. However, we also need to raise a few
warning flags about cross-cultural knowledge. One problem is that too
many studies have relied on small, convenient samples (such as students
attending one university) to represent an entire culture.68 The result is
that many cross-cultural studies draw conclusions that might not
generalize to the cultures they intended to represent.
A second problem is that cross-cultural studies often assume that each
country has one culture.69 In reality, the United States and many other
countries have become culturally diverse. As more countries embrace
globalization and multiculturalism, it becomes even less appropriate to
assume that an entire country has one unified culture. A third concern is
that cross-cultural research and writing continues to rely on a major
study conducted almost four decades ago of 116,000 IBM employees
across dozens of countries. That study helped ignite subsequent cross-
cultural research, but its findings are becoming out-of-date as values in
some cultures have shifted over the years.70
Cultural Diversity in the United States
The United States is widely recognized for its cultural diversity. But even
Americans may be surprised to know the degree of deep-level diversity
across this country.71 One form of deep-level diversity is cultural values
across ethnic groups. A major review of past studies reported that, on
average, African Americans have significantly higher individualism than
European and Hispanic Americans, whereas Asian Americans have the
lowest individualism among these demographic groups.72
Americans also differ from each other across regions.73 Some research
identifies significant cultural differences between the northern and
southern states. Other research has found variations in collectivism
across the country. Collectivism is highest across the southern states,
California, and Hawaii and lowest in the Mountain, Northwest, and
Great Plains states. Other studies report that regions vary in personality
profiles. The New England, Middle Atlantic, and Pacific regions have
high openness to experience, whereas people living in the Great Plains
and midwestern and southeastern states have the lowest scores.
Neuroticism scores are highest in the Northeast and Southeast and
lowest in the Midwest and West.74 One study found that Americans have
fairly accurate stereotypes of these regional differences.
Why do Americans vary in their values and personalities across
regions?75 One explanation is that regional institutions—such as local
governments, educational systems, and dominant religious groups—have
a greater influence than national institutions on socialization practices
and resulting personal values. For instance, research suggests that the
number of rules and social controls (called cultural tightness) within each
state explains differences in personality and values across the country.76
Some experts suggest that a person’s values are influenced by the
physical environment (flat versus mountainous), climatic conditions
(temperate versus tropical), and socioeconomic conditions (low income
versus relatively wealthy). For instance, research has found that
residents of mountainous U.S. states are, on average, more introverted
than residents who live near the ocean. However, the physical
environment probably has a limited effect on individual traits and
values. Instead, evidence suggests that people migrate to places that are
more compatible with their values and self-views.77
Perceiving Ourselves and
Others in Organizations
Learning Objectives
AFTER STUDYING THIS CHAPTER, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE
TO:
1. 3-1 Describe the self-concept characteristics and processes, and
explain how each affects an individual’s behavior and well-being.
2. 3-2Outline the perceptual process and discuss the effects of
categorical thinking and mental models in that process.
3. 3-3Discuss how stereotyping, attribution, self-fulfilling prophecy,
halo, false consensus, primacy, and recency effects influence the
perceptual process.
4. 3-4Discuss three ways to improve perceptions, with specific
application to organizational situations.
5. 3-5Outline the main features of a global mindset and justify its
usefulness to employees and organizations.
When Gladys Kong and her coworkers at UberMedia
attend an engineering or technology conference, people
often approach her with marketing questions and her
male coworkers with engineering questions. The visitors
assume that, as a female, Kong does marketing whereas the
guys around her are the engineers. They don’t realize that
Kong is not only an engineer; she is the CEO and formerly the
chief technology officer of the mobile location and data
company. “I either have to wear a sign that I am an engineer
or I have to show them I know what I am talking about,” says
Kong.
Gladys Kong might brush off these misperceptions and
stereotyping, but they partly explain why women represent
only about 15 percent of the engineering workforce in the
United States (similar to several other countries) and little
more than 20 percent of recent engineering graduates. “With
friends referring to [one female engineer’s work] as a man’s
job and another woman speaking about how someone asked
her if she wore a hard hat and rigger boots to work, it’s clear
that there is still a male stereotype surrounding the field,” says
Ruth Hancock, a senior executive at a global engineering
recruitment firm.
Page 81
“We need to urgently change the image of women in
engineering,” says Michelle Unger, a civil engineer specializing
in subsea and pipeline technology at a Swiss-based engineering
firm. “I now know that this image of an engineer is both
incorrect and—frankly—what probably discourages teenage
school girls,” says Unger. “I do not wear a hard hat, or work in
a muddy field. Very few of us will ever do that. Let’s drop this
image.”
Female engineers also face various forms of discrimination and
prejudice. For example, a Google engineer in California and the
CEO of a South African engineering association recently
espoused long-refuted ideas that women aren’t suited
biologically or personality-wise to engineering.
More subtle discrimination is evident in how some male
engineers treat their female coworkers. “Two girls in a group
had been working on the robot we were building in that class
for hours, and the guys in their group came back in and within
minutes had sentenced them to doing menial tasks while the
guys went and had all the fun in the machine shop,” complains
one female engineering student. Another female student notes
how some male engineers nonconsciously communicate their
low expectations of female peers. “I felt like whenever [the
male team members] would have technical conversations, they
would kind of dumb it down for me.”1
Stereotypes, discrimination, and other misperceptions are a few of the reasons
why women are under-represented in the engineering profession.
Gorodenkoff/Shutterstock
Page 82
Companies that employ engineering professionals face two
challenges in attracting and keeping women in this occupation:
(1) the concept women have about themselves as engineers;
and (2) the perceptions they and others have about engineers
and about women in these roles. We discuss both these related
topics in this chapter. First, we examine how people perceive
themselves—their self-concept—and how that self-perception
affects their decisions and behavior. Next, we focus on
perceptions in organizational settings, beginning with how we
select, organize, and interpret information. We also review
several specific perceptual processes such as stereotyping,
attribution, and self-fulfilling prophecy. This is followed by a
discussion of potentially effective ways to improve perceptions.
The final section of this chapter reviews the main elements of
global mindset, a largely perceptual process valued in this
increasingly globalized world.
Self-Concept: How We Perceive
Ourselves
LO 3-1Why are there so few female engineers in the United States and
many other countries? As the opening case study to this chapter
suggests, women are often presented with a mostly inaccurate image of
engineering that is incompatible with their self-view. They also receive
low-expectation signals from male coworkers, which affects their self-
evaluation. This amplifies any earlier self-doubts that may have arisen in
high school regarding performance in engineering-related courses. For
instance, one recent study found that 14-year-old girls significantly
underestimated their performance on science and technology tests,
whereas boys slightly over-rated themselves, even though average scores
were about the same for both genders.2
These barriers to women entering and remaining in engineering are core
elements of self-concept. Self-concept refers to an individual’s self-
beliefs and self-evaluations.3 It is the “Who am I?” and “How do I feel
about myself?” that people ask themselves and that guide their decisions
and actions. Whether contemplating a career in engineering or any other
occupation, we compare our images of that job with our current
perceived self and desired ideal self. We also evaluate our current and
desired abilities to determine whether there is a good fit with that type of
work. Our self-concept is defined at three levels: individual, relational,
and collective. Specifically, we view ourselves in terms of our personal
traits (individual self), connections to friends and coworkers (relational
self), and roles in teams, organizations, social groups, and other entities
(collective self).4
Self-Concept Complexity, Consistency,
and Clarity
An individual’s self-concept can be described by three characteristics:
complexity, consistency, and clarity (see Exhibit 3.1). Complexityrefers to
the number of distinct and important roles or identities that people
perceive about themselves.5 Everyone has some degree of complexity
because they see themselves in different roles at various times (student,
friend, daughter, sports fan etc.). People are generally motivated to
increase their complexity (called self-expansion) as they seek out new
opportunities and social connections. Your self-concept becomes more
complex, for example, as you move from being an accountant to a
manager because you have acquired additional roles.
EXHIBIT 3.1 Self-Concept Characteristics and Processes
Self-concept complexity is defined by more than just the number of
identities that a person has; it is also defined by the separation of those
identities. An individual with several identities might still have low self-
concept complexity when those identities are highly interconnected, such
as when they are all work related (manager, engineer, family income
earner). Complexity is higher when the multiple identities have a low
correlation with one another, such as when they apply to fairly distinct
spheres of life.
Page 83
Although everyone has multiple selves, only some of those identities
dominate their attention at one time.6 A particular self-view (parent,
manager, etc.) is usually domain specific; it is more likely to be activated
in some settings than in others. People shift their self-concept more
easily when the activated self-view is important and compatible with the
situation. For instance, as people travel from home to work, they can
usually shift their self-view from being a parent to being an executive
because each role is important and fits into the home and work contexts,
respectively. In contrast, some employees struggle to focus on their
occupational self-concept when working from home (remote work).
Consistency, the second self-concept characteristic, is the degree to which
the individual’s identities require similar personal attributes. High
consistency exists when the individual’s identities are compatible with
one another and with his or her actual personality traits, values, and
other attributes. Low consistency occurs when some self-views require
personal attributes that conflict with attributes required for other self-
views, such as when a safety-conscious engineer also defines himself or
herself as a risk-oriented surfer. Low consistency also occurs when an
individual’s dominant self-concept identities are incompatible with his or
her actual personal attributes. This would occur when someone has a
self-view as a highly creative individual yet has moderately low
openness-to-experience personality and values.
The third self-concept characteristic is clarity, which refers to the degree
to which a person’s self-concept is clear, confidently defined, and
stable.7 Clarity occurs when someone is confident about “who I am”, can
describe their important identities to others, and provide the same
description of themselves across time. Self-concept clarity increases with
age because personality and values become relatively stable by adulthood
and people develop better self-awareness through life experiences.
Clarity also increases through self-reflection; research has found that
when people live in other cultures they engage in more self-reflection,
which improves their self-concept clarity. Self-concept is also clearer
when a person’s multiple selves have higher consistency. This makes
sense because low consistency produces ambiguity about a person’s
underlying characteristics. For example, someone whose self-view
includes the contrasting identities of cautious engineer and risk-oriented
surfer would have difficulty defining himself or herself clearly or with
much confidence.8
Page 84
GLOBAL CONNECTIONS 3.1
Career Alignment Through Self-Concept Claritya
Tom Merton/Getty Images
Richard Alderson was developing an enviable career as a
business consultant in London after graduating from university.
“On the surface, I had a good job in a big company,” Anderson
recalls. “I’d done what was expected of me post-university.”
But Alderson eventually realized that this career path was
incompatible with his self-concept. In social gatherings, he
would “feel embarrassed about talking about my work because
it wasn’t something that felt aligned with me. There was
nothing wrong with the job or the company; they simply
weren’t right for me,” recalls Alderson, who has since formed a
company offering coaching and workshops for people who face
similar career incompatibility issues.
Alderson’s experience isn’t unusual. Many people complete an
educational program and enter a career before their self-
concept is clear and confidently defined. “Your twenties are a
time of considerable personality development and growth—and
only at 30 do you start to discover who you really
are,” suggests Kedge Martin, the founder of a career
development and life-skills agency in London.
Self-concept clarity can be sped up to some extent, however,
through a combination of meaningful feedback from supportive
people and your own self-reflection. “A lot of getting
comfortable in your own skin, beyond just basic maturing over
the years, is who you surround yourself with” says Tracie
Keesee, Deputy Commissioner of Equity and Inclusion, New
York City Police Department. “It [also] takes self-reflection, a
lot of preparation to be truly comfortable with who you are, and
finding the best ways to do that.”
Keesee also warns against pretending to be someone that
differs from one’s true self. “Where we often fail as leaders,
managers, and as individual contributors is when we assume
everyone has to shed who they are in order to conform to what
the organization needs. That approach is extremely unhealthy.
Staying true to oneself is the responsibility of each individual.”
Effects of Self-Concept Characteristics on Well-
Being and Behavior
Psychological well-being tends to be higher among people with fairly
distinct multiple selves (complexity) that are well established (clarity)
and require similar personal attributes that are compatible with the
individual’s character (consistency).9 Self-concept complexity protects
our self-esteem when some roles are threatened or damaged. Think of a
complex self as a ship with several compartments that can be sealed off
from one another. If one compartment of the ship is damaged, the other
compartments remain intact so the ship stays afloat. A complex self
offers the same benefits: if one identity is damaged by events—job loss,
for example—the person’s mental health remains afloat because the
other selves remain intact. In contrast, people with low complexity,
including those whose multiple selves are interconnected, suffer severe
loss when they experience failure because these events affect a large part
of themselves.
Psychological well-being also tends to be healthier when the individual’s
multiple selves are compatible with one another and with their
personality and values (consistency).10 Self-concept complexity helps
people adapt, but too much variation causes internal tension and
conflict. Well-being also tends to increase with self-concept clarity.
People who are unsure of their self-views are more easily influenced by
others, experience more stress when making decisions, and feel more
threatened by social forces that undermine their self-confidence and self-
esteem.11
Self-concept complexity, consistency, and clarity have both positive and
negative influences on individual behavior and performance.12Employees
with complex identities tend to have more adaptive decision making and
performance. This likely occurs because multiple selves generate more
diverse experiences and role patterns, so these employees can more
easily alter their thinking and behavior to suit new tasks and work
environments. A second benefit is that self-concept complexity often
produces more diverse social networks, and this network diversity gives
employees access to more resources and social support to perform their
jobs.
Page 85
Against these benefits is the problem that highly complex self-concepts
require more effort to maintain and juggle, which can be stressful. In
contrast, low complexity has the advantage of requiring less effort and
resources to develop those few identities. For example, people who
define themselves mainly by their work (low complexity) often have
better performance due to more investment in skill development, longer
hours, and more concentration on work. They also have lower
absenteeism and turnover.
Self-concept clarity tends to improve performance and is considered vital
for leadership roles.13 Clarity also provides a clearer path forward, which
enables people to direct their effort more efficiently toward career
objectives. Another benefit is that people with high self-concept clarity
feel less threatened by interpersonal conflict, so they use more
constructive problem-solving behaviors to resolve the conflict. However,
those with very high clarity may have role inflexibility, with the result
that they cannot adapt to changing job duties or environmental
conditions.
SELF-ASSESSMENT 3.1: HOW MUCH DOES WORK
DEFINE YOUR SELF-CONCEPT?
Work is part of our lives. Some people view it as central to
their identity as individuals, whereas others consider work to
be secondary to other life interests. You can discover the
extent to which work is central to your self-concept by locating
this self-assessment in Connect if it is assigned by your
instructor.
Along with the three self-concept characteristics, Exhibit 3.1 illustrates
four processes that shape self-concept and motivate a person’s decisions
and behavior. Let’s look at each of these four “selves”: self-enhancement,
self-verification, self-evaluation, and social self (social identity).
Self-Enhancement
A century ago, educational philosopher John Dewey said that “the
deepest urge in human nature is the desire to be important.”14 Dewey
recognized that people are inherently motivated to perceive themselves
(and to be perceived by others) as competent, attractive, lucky, ethical,
and important.15 This phenomenon, called self-enhancement, is
observed in many ways. Individuals tend to rate themselves above
average, believe that they have a better than average probability of
success, and attribute their successes to personal motivation or ability
while blaming the situation for their mistakes. For instance, one study
reported that 70 percent of students believe their academic performance
is above average; 62 percent say they have above-average leadership
ability compared to other students. People don’t believe they are above
average in all circumstances, only for things that are important to them
and are relatively common rather than rare.16
Self-enhancement has both positive and negative consequences in
organizational settings.17 On the positive side, individuals tend to
experience better mental and physical health when they amplify their
self-concept. Overconfidence also generates a “can-do” attitude (which
we discuss later) that motivates persistence in difficult or risky tasks. On
the negative side, self-enhancement causes people to overestimate future
returns in investment decisions and engage in unsafe behavior (such as
dangerous driving). It also is responsible for executives repeating poor
decisions (because they ignore negative feedback), launching misguided
corporate diversification strategies, and acquiring excessive corporate
debt. Generally, though, successful companies strive to help employees
feel valued, which generates some degree of self-enhancement.
Page 86
Self-Verification
Individuals try to confirm and maintain their existing self-concept.18 This
process, called self-verification, stabilizes an individual’s self-view,
which in turn provides an important anchor that guides his or her
thoughts and actions. People actively communicate their self-concept so
coworkers understand it and provide verifying feedback. For example,
you might let coworkers know that you are a very organized person;
later, they compliment you on occasions where you have indeed been
very organized. One recent study reported that when a person’s identity
as a leader is questioned by others, the leader applies self-verification
strategies, such as making their role performance more visible (e.g.,
working longer hours), adopting a less threatening style of that self-view,
and directly confronting those who doubt or disagree with their identity
as a leader.19
Unlike self-enhancement, self-verification includes seeking feedback that
is not necessarily flattering (e.g., “I’m a numbers person, not a people
person”). Experts continue to debate whether and under what conditions
people prefer information that supports self-enhancement or self-
verification.20 In other words, do we prefer compliments rather than
accurate critique about weaknesses that we readily acknowledge? The
answer is likely an internal tug-of-war; we enjoy compliments, but less so
if they are significantly contrary to our self-view.
Self-verification is associated with several OB topics.21 First, it affects the
perceptual process because employees are more likely to remember
information that is consistent with their self-concept and nonconsciously
screen out information (particularly negative information) that seems
inconsistent with it. Second, people with high self-concept clarity will
consciously dismiss feedback that contradicts their self-concept. Third,
employees are motivated to interact with others who affirm their self-
views, and this affects how well they get along with their boss and team
members. For instance, new employees are more satisfied and perform
better when the socialization process allows them to affirm their
authentic self—they can demonstrate and receive support for “who they
are”—rather than when the socialization process mainly steers them into
the company’s image of an ideal employee.22
Self-Evaluation
Almost everyone strives to have a positive self-concept, but some people
have a more positive evaluation of themselves than do others. This self-
evaluation is mostly defined by three elements: self-esteem, self-efficacy,
and locus of control.23
Self-Esteem
Self-esteem—the extent to which people like, respect, and are satisfied
with themselves—represents a global self-evaluation. People have
degrees of self-esteem for each of their various roles, such as being a
good student, a good driver, and a good parent. From these multiple self-
appraisals, people form an overall evaluation of themselves, known as
their global self-esteem. People with high self-esteem are less influenced
by others, tend to persist in spite of failure, and have a higher propensity
to think logically.24
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy refers to a person’s belief about successfully completing a
task.25 Those with high self-efficacy have a “can-do” attitude. They
believe they possess the energy (motivation), ability, clear expectations
(role perceptions), and resources (situational factors) to perform the
task. In other words, self-efficacy is an individual’s perception regarding
the MARS model in a specific situation. Self-efficacy is often task
specific, but it can also be more generalized. People have a general self-
efficacy when they believe they can be successful across a variety of
situations.26 People with higher general self-efficacy have a more positive
overall self-evaluation.
Page 87
SELF-ASSESSMENT 3.2: HOW MUCH GENERAL SELF-
EFFICACY DO YOU HAVE?
Self-efficacy refers to a person’s belief that he or she has the
ability, motivation, and resources to complete a task
successfully. Although self-efficacy is often situation-specific,
people also develop a more general self-efficacy if they perform
tasks in a variety of situations. You can discover your level of
general self-efficacy by locating this self-assessment in Connect
if it is assigned by your instructor.
Locus of Control
Locus of control is defined as a person’s general beliefs about the
amount of control he or she has over personal life events.27 Individuals
with an internal locus of control believe that life events are caused
mainly by their personal characteristics (i.e., motivation and abilities).
Those with an external locus of control believe events are due mainly to
fate, luck, or conditions in the external environment. Locus of control is
a generalized belief, but this belief varies to some extent with the
situation. People with an external locus of control generally believe that
life’s outcomes are beyond their control, but they also believe they have
control over the results of tasks they perform often. The individual’s
general locus of control would be most apparent in new situations, where
their ability to control events is uncertain.
People with an internal locus of control have a more positive self-
evaluation. They also tend to perform better in most employment
situations, are more successful in their careers, earn more money, and
are better suited for leadership positions. Internals are also more
satisfied with their jobs, cope better in stressful situations, and are more
motivated by performance-based reward systems.28
SELF-ASSESSMENT 3.3: WHAT IS YOUR LOCUS OF
CONTROL?
Locus of control is one component of self-evaluation, which is
part of an individual’s self-concept. It is a person’s general
belief about the amount of control he or she has over personal
life events. You can discover your general locus of control
orientation by locating this self-assessment in Connect if it is
assigned by your instructor.
The Social Self
We began this topic by stating that an individual’s self-concept exists at
three levels: individual, relational, and collective. These three levels
recognize two opposing human motives that influence how people view
themselves.29
Motivation to be distinctive and different from other people. The
individual self, called personal identity or internal self-
concept, fulfills the need for distinctiveness because it involves
defining ourselves by our personality, values, abilities,
qualifications, achievements and other personal attributes.
Everyone has a unique combination of personal characteristics,
and we embrace this uniqueness to some degree. For instance,
an unusual skill or accomplishment that distinguishes you from
coworkers is part of your personal identity.
Page 88
Motivation for inclusion and assimilation with other people. The
relational and collective self-concepts fulfill the fundamental
need for affiliation because they involve both interaction and
interdependence with others.30 Human beings are social
animals; we have an inherent drive to be associated with others
and to be recognized as part of social communities. This drive to
belong motivates all individuals to define themselves to some
degree by their interpersonal and collective relationships, a
definition known as their social identity or external self-concept.
Social identity is the central theme of social identity theory, which says
that people define themselves by the groups to which they belong or have
an emotional attachment.31 For instance, someone might have a social
identity as an American citizen, a University of Oregon alumnus, and an
employee at Boston Consulting Group (see Exhibit 3.2).
EXHIBIT 3.2 Social Identity Theory Example
Social identity is a complex combination of many memberships arranged
in a hierarchy of importance. One factor that determines importance is
how easily you are identified as a member of the reference group, such as
by your gender, age, and ethnicity. A second factor is your minority
status in a group. It is difficult to ignore your gender in a class where
most other students are the opposite gender, for example. In that
context, gender tends to become a stronger defining feature of your
social identity than it is in social settings where there are many people of
the same gender.
The group’s status is another important social identity factor because
association with the group makes us feel better about ourselves (i.e., self-
enhancement). Medical doctors usually define themselves by their
profession because of its high status. Some people describe themselves
by where they work (“I work at Google”) because their employer has a
good reputation. Others never mention where they work because their
employer is noted for poor relations with employees or has a poor
reputation in the community.32
GLOBAL CONNECTIONS 3.2
Starbucks Nurtures Employees’ Social Identity in Chinab
humphery/Shutterstock
Starbucks Coffee Company has become a success story in
China by making the American coffee-house chain an integral
part of employees’ social identity. It does this in several ways.
First, employees (who are called “partners”) easily connect with
Starbucks’ core values of performance, innovation, respect, and
belonging.
Second, Starbucks has positioned itself as a premium brand,
which further elevates employee pride. The company offers
competitive pay, comprehensive health insurance, an employee
ownership plan, a housing allowance for full-time staff, and
ongoing training and career development.
Starbucks staff also proudly identify with their employer
because of its well-known emphasis on families—an important
value in Chinese culture. The company holds an annual
“Partner Family Forum,” where employees and their parents
learn about Starbucks and its future in China. The chain also
recently introduced special critical illness insurance for
employees’ elderly parents. “We have always aspired to create
a culture that our employees are proud to belong to,” says an
executive at Starbucks Asia Pacific.
All of us try to balance our personal and social identities, but the priority
for uniqueness (personal identities) versus belongingness (social
identities) differs from one person to the next. People whose self-
concepts are heavily defined by social rather than personal identities are
more motivated to abide by team norms and more easily influenced by
peer pressure. Those who place more emphasis on personal identities, on
the other hand, speak out more frequently against the majority and are
less motivated to follow the team’s wishes. Furthermore, expressing
disagreement with others is a sign of distinctiveness and can help
employees form a clearer self-concept, particularly when that
disagreement is based on differences in personal values.33
Page 89
Self-Concept and Organizational
Behavior
Self-concept has become a hot topic in the social sciences and is starting
to bloom in organizational behavior research.34 This section briefly noted
that self-concept influences human perceptions, decision making,
motivation, stress, team dynamics, leadership development, and several
other OB topics. Therefore, you will read about self-concept throughout
this book, including later parts of this chapter.
Perceiving the World around Us
LO 3-2We spend considerable time perceiving ourselves, but most of our
perceptual energy is directed toward the outer world. Whether as a
chemical engineer, forensic accountant, or senior executive, we need to
make sense of the world around us, including the conditions that
challenge the accuracy of those perceptions. Perception is the process of
receiving information about and making sense of the world around us. It
includes determining which information to notice, how to categorize this
information, and how to interpret it within the framework of our existing
knowledge.
Page 90
This perceptual process generally follows the steps shown in Exhibit 3.3.
Perception begins when environmental stimuli are received through our
senses. Most stimuli that bombard our senses are screened out; the rest
are organized and interpreted. The process of attending to some
information received by our senses and ignoring other information is
called selective attention. Selective attention is influenced by
characteristics of the person or object being perceived, particularly size,
intensity, motion, repetition, and novelty. For example, a small, flashing
red light on a nurses’ workstation console is immediately noticed
because it is bright (intensity), flashing (motion), a rare event (novelty),
and has symbolic meaning that a patient’s vital signs are failing. Notice
that selective attention is also influenced by the context in which the
target is perceived. For instance, selective attention is triggered by things
or people who might be out of context, such as someone with a foreign
accent in a setting where most people have a local accent.
EXHIBIT 3.3 Model of the Perceptual Process
Characteristics of the perceiver also influence selective attention, usually
without the perceiver’s awareness.35 When information is received
through the senses, our brain quickly and nonconsciously assesses
whether it is relevant or irrelevant to us and then attaches emotional
markers (worry, happiness, boredom) to the retained
information.36 Emotional markers help us store information in memory;
those emotions are later reproduced when recalling the perceived
information. The selective attention process is far from perfect, however.
The Greek philosopher Plato acknowledged this imperfection long ago
when he wrote that we see reality only as shadows reflecting against the
rough wall of a cave.37
One selective attention bias is the effect of our assumptions and
expectations about future events. You are more likely to notice a
particular coworker’s email among the daily avalanche of messages when
you expect to receive that email (even more so if it is a valuable
message). Unfortunately, expectations and assumptions also cause us to
screen out potentially important information. In one study, students
were asked to watch a 30-second video clip in which several people
passed around two basketballs. Students in one group were instructed
simply to watch the video clip. Most of them readily noticed a person
dressed in a gorilla suit walking among the players for nine seconds and
stopping to thump his or her chest. Students in a second group were
asked to count the number of times one of the two basketballs was
passed around. Only half of the people in this latter group noticed the
intruding gorilla.38
Page 91
Another selective attention problem, called confirmation bias, is the
nonconscious tendency for people to screen out information that is
contrary to their decisions, beliefs, values and assumptions, while more
readily accepting information that confirms existing perceptions and
attitudes.39 When making an important decision, such as investing in a
costly project, we tend to pay attention to information that supports that
decision, ignore information that questions the wisdom of the decision,
and more easily recall the supportive than the opposing information.
Confirmation bias occurred, for example, in an exercise where student
pilots became unsure of their location. The study found that the pilots
tried to find their true location by relying on less reliable information
that was consistent with their assumptions than on more accurate
information that was contrary to those assumptions. Confirmation bias is
also a well-known perceptual problem when police detectives and other
forensic experts form theories too early in the investigation.40
GLOBAL CONNECTIONS 3.3
Confirmation Bias Leads to Wrongful Convictionc
tillsonburg/Getty Images
“It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the
evidence,” warned the mythical detective Sherlock Holmes in A
Study in Scarlet. “It biases the judgment.” Law-enforcement
agencies try to follow this advice, but confirmation bias
contributes to many flawed investigations.
One of the most notorious examples of confirmation bias
occurred in the wrongful conviction of Michael Morton in his
wife’s murder. Morton spent 25 years in a Texas jail before his
conviction was overturned. The actual murderer was
subsequently identified and convicted.
By focusing on the theory that Morton murdered his wife, police
and the District Attorney’s Office ignored evidence from
neighbors who saw an unknown driver park his van in a vacant
wooded lot behind Morton’s property and walk through
underbrush toward Morton’s home on the morning the murder
was discovered. Investigators also dismissed the relevance of a
bandana found 100 yards from the home. Two decades later,
the bandana provided vital DNA evidence linking the real
murderer to Morton’s wife.
The deceased’s purse was missing, which the district attorney
argued in court was Morton’s attempt to direct blame onto a
fictional burglar. Yet police apparently failed to investigate a
report that the credit card from the missing purse was
fraudulently used two days after the murder. The police also
ignored a conversation Morton’s three-year-old son had with
his grandmother two weeks after the murder in which the child
correctly recalled details of the murder scene, described a man
in the house, and said his father was not home at the time.
(Morton was at work that day, whereas the prosecutor tried to
prove Morton killed his wife before going to work.)
The district attorney and his successor fought against attempts
to re-examine evidence with newer DNA tests and tried to
block release of the original investigation’s notes and reports.
The presiding judge had requested all documentary evidence of
the case, but decades later officials discovered that the district
attorney’s office violated that request by excluding evidence
that conflicted with their case (i.e., exonerating evidence).
The district attorney (who later became a district judge) was
recently found guilty of contempt of court and agreed to
surrender his law license as a result of his actions in the Morton
case. His successor lost the district attorney election when new
evidence supporting Morton’s innocence came to light. The
state of Texas has since passed the Michael Morton Act, which
requires Texas prosecutors to disclose to the defendant and
other parties the entire contents of the prosecutor’s files, such
as police reports, DNA evidence, and surveillance footage.
Perceptual Organization and
Interpretation
We pay attention to a tiny fraction of the stimuli received by the senses.
Even so, the human brain further reduces the huge volume and
complexity of the information received through various perceptual
grouping strategies. Perceptual grouping occurs mostly without our
awareness, yet it is the foundation for making sense of things and
fulfilling our need for cognitive closure.
Page 92
The most common and far-reaching perceptual grouping process
is categorical thinking—the mostly nonconscious process of organizing
people and objects into preconceived categories that are stored in our
long-term memory.41 People are usually grouped together based on their
observable similarity, such as gender, age, race, or clothing style. This
categorization process also groups people together by their proximity to
one another. If you notice a group of employees working in the same area
and know that some of them are marketing staff, you will likely assume
that the others in that group are also marketing staff.
SELF-ASSESSMENT 3.4: HOW MUCH PERCEPTUAL
STRUCTURE DO YOU NEED?
Some people have a greater need than do others to quickly or
completely “make sense” of things around them. This personal
need for perceptual structure relates to selective attention as
well as perceptual organization and interpretation. You can
discover your need for perceptual structure by locating this
self-assessment in Connect if it is assigned by your instructor.
A second perceptual grouping process organizes incoming information
by filling in the missing pieces of the puzzle. Everyone has a need for
cognitive closure; we want to make sense of what goes on around us,
which makes it easier to predict and manage future events. To reduce the
ambiguity of sensory stimuli, we make assumptions about missing
information by relying on past images and experiences in those
situations (mental models, which we discuss next). For instance, we
engage in cognitive closure by assuming what happened at a meeting
that we didn’t attend (e.g., who was there, where it was held). A related
process is perceiving trends in otherwise ambiguous information. Several
studies have found that people have a natural tendency to see patterns
that, in fact, are random events. For example, people incorrectly believe
that a sports player or gambler with a string of wins is more likely to win
next time as well.42
The process of “making sense” of the world around us also involves
interpreting incoming information, not just organizing it. This happens
as quickly as selecting and organizing because the previously mentioned
emotional markers are tagged to incoming stimuli, which are essentially
quick judgments about whether that information is good or bad for us.
How much time does it take to make these quick judgments? Recent
studies estimate that we make reliable judgments about another
individual’s trustworthiness after viewing a facial image for as little as 50
milliseconds (1/20th of a second). In fact, whether we see a face for a
minute or for just 200 milliseconds, our opinion of whether we like or
trust that person is about the same.43 Collectively, these studies reveal
that selective attention, perceptual organization, and interpretation
operate very quickly and to a large extent without our awareness.
Mental Models
To achieve our goals with some degree of predictability and sanity, we
need road maps of the environments in which we live. These road maps,
called mental models, are knowledge structures that we develop to
describe, explain, and predict the world around us.44 They consist of
visual or relational images in our mind, such as what the classroom looks
like or what happens when we submit an assignment late. Mental models
partly rely on the process of perceptual grouping to make sense of things;
they fill in the missing pieces, including the causal connection among
events. For example, you have a mental model about attending a class
lecture or seminar, including assumptions or expectations about where
the instructor and students arrange themselves in the room, how they
ask and answer questions, and so forth. In other words, we create a
mental image of a class in progress.
Page 93
Mental models are important for sense making, yet they also make it
difficult to see the world in different ways. For example, accounting
professionals tend to see corporate problems from an accounting
perspective, whereas marketing professionals see the same problems
from a marketing perspective. Mental models also block our recognition
of new opportunities. How do we change mental models? That’s a tough
challenge. After all, we developed these knowledge structures from
several years of experience and reinforcement. The most important way
to minimize the perceptual problems with mental models is to be aware
of and frequently question them. We need to ask ourselves about the
assumptions we make. Working with people from diverse backgrounds is
another way to break out of existing mental models. Colleagues from
different cultures and areas of expertise tend to have different mental
models, so working with them makes our own assumptions more
obvious.
Specific Perceptual Processes and
Problems
LO 3-3Within the general perceptual process are specific subprocesses
and associated perceptual errors. In this section of the chapter, we
examine several of these perceptual processes and biases as well as their
implications for organizational behavior, beginning with the most widely
known one: stereotyping.
Stereotyping in Organizations
Stereotyping is the perceptual process in which we assign characteristics
to an identifiable group and then automatically transfer those features to
anyone we believe is a member of that group.45 The assigned
characteristics tend to be difficult to observe, such as personality traits
and abilities, but they can also include physical characteristics and a host
of other qualities. If we learn that someone is a professor, for example,
we implicitly assume the person is probably also intelligent and absent-
minded.
Stereotypes are formed to some extent from personal experience, but
they are mainly provided to us through media images (e.g., movie
characters) and other cultural prototypes. Consequently, stereotypes are
shared beliefs across an entire society and sometimes across several
cultures, rather than beliefs that differ from one person to the next. Most
stereotypes have a few kernels of truth; they are more likely to
characterize people within the group than the rest of us.46 Still, as the
opening case study to this chapter pointed out, stereotypes embellish or
distort the kernels of truth and include other features that are not
representative of people in that group. In spite of their inaccuracy,
stereotypes about engineers, for example, remain persistent enough to
discourage many women from pursuing this profession.
GLOBAL CONNECTIONS 3.4
You People!: Exposing Stereotyping in South Africad
Aaron Amat/Shutterstock
South African restaurant chain Nando’s recently launched a
witty advertisement that pokes fun at our tendency to
stereotype people who are different from us. The “You People”
video has several brief scenes in which viewers easily
misperceive the actors’ role in the scene (upscale customer
versus employee) or the meaning of their actions (running for
exercise versus running away from police). It also shows that
those who stereotype “you people” fail to recognize similar
behavior in themselves.
“‘You people’ is a phrase often used by South Africans when
describing people who are different to them,” says Doug Place,
Nando’s chief marketing officer in Johannesburg. “It’s a phrase
that goes hand in hand with an unconscious bias.”
Place explains that Nando’s created the ad to encourage
discussion about stereotyping and to promote greater harmony
in society. “If you’re watching our ad and say ‘I’ve done that’
(hopefully with a guilty smile), then we’ve been successful at
starting a crucial conversation—hopefully one that starts with
‘us people’.”
Why People Stereotype
People engage in stereotyping because, as a form of categorical thinking,
it is usually a nonconscious “energy-saving” process that simplifies our
understanding of the world. It is easier to remember features of a
stereotype than the constellation of characteristics unique to everyone
we meet. A second reason is that we have an innate need to understand
and anticipate how others will behave. We don’t have much information
about people initially or when we seldom interact with them, so we rely
on stereotypes to fill in the missing pieces. The higher the perceiver’s
need for cognitive closure, the higher the reliance on stereotypes.47
Page 94
A third explanation for stereotyping is that it is motivated by the
observer’s need for social identity and self-enhancement. Earlier in this
chapter we explained that people define themselves by the groups to
which they belong or have an emotional attachment. They are also
motivated to maintain a positive self-concept. This combination of social
identity and self-enhancement leads to the process of categorization,
homogenization, and differentiation, all of which are the foundations of
stereotyping:48
Categorization. Social identity is a comparative process, and the
comparison begins by categorizing people into distinct groups.
By viewing someone (including yourself) as a Texan, for
example, you remove that person’s individuality and, instead, see
him or her as a prototypical representative of the group called
Texans. This categorization then allows you to distinguish
Texans from people who live in, say, California or Maine.
Homogenization. To simplify the comparison process, we tend to
think that people within each group are very similar to one
another. For instance, we think Texans collectively have similar
attitudes and characteristics, whereas Californians collectively
have their own set of characteristics. Of course, every individual
is unique, but we often lose sight of this fact when thinking about
our social identity and how we compare to people in other social
groups.
Differentiation. Along with categorizing and homogenizing
people, we tend to assign more favorable characteristics to
people in our groups than to people in other groups.49 This
differentiation is motivated by self-enhancement because being
in a “better” group produces higher self-esteem. Differentiation
is often subtle, but it can escalate into a “good guy–bad guy”
contrast when groups engage in overt conflict with each other. In
other words, when out-group members threaten our self-
concept, we are particularly motivated (often without our
awareness) to assign negative stereotypes to them. Some
research suggests that men have stronger differentiation biases
than do women, but we all differentiate to some extent.
Page 95
Problems with Stereotyping
Everyone engages in stereotyping, but this process leads to perceptual
biases as well as flawed decisions and behaviors in the workplace. One
problem with stereotypes is that they are inaccurate. A stereotype does
not describe everyone because members of the stereotyped group are not
identical. Furthermore, although a stereotype typically has kernels of
truth, most characteristics are distorted and embellished to such an
extent that they describe very few people in the group. For instance, the
stereotype of engineers as socially inept, nerdy know-it-alls perhaps
describes a few people in that profession, but it is certainly not
characteristic of all, or even most, engineers. Nevertheless, once we
categorize someone as an engineer, the stereotypical nonobservable
features of engineers are transferred to that individual, even though we
have no evidence that he or she actually possesses those characteristics.
A second problem with stereotyping is stereotype threat. This is a
condition whereby members of a stereotyped group are so concerned
about a negative stereotype of a group to which they belong that they end
up displaying that stereotype trait.50 Stereotype threat occurs because
people in a stereotyped group anxiously try to avoid confirming the
undesirable traits and try to push the negative image from their mind.
These two cognitive activities divert energy and attention, which makes it
more difficult to perform the task well. The negative stereotype also can
weaken self-efficacy; it is difficult to be confident in your ability when
your group’s stereotype suggests otherwise.
For example, women perform worse on math and science tests when
sensitized to the generally false but widely held belief that women
perform worse than men in these subjects. They also tend to have lower
scores when there are few women in the group being tested. Women
achieve much higher scores when the gender stereotype is not salient,
such as when taking the test with many women in the class. Almost
anyone can be affected by stereotype threat, but studies have particularly
observed it for women, African Americans and other minority groups,
and older people.
A third problem with stereotyping is that it lays the foundation for
discriminatory attitudes and behavior. Most of this perceptual bias
occurs as unintentional (systemic) discrimination, whereby decision
makers rely on stereotypes to establish notions of the “ideal” person in
specific roles. A person who doesn’t fit the ideal has to work harder to get
the same evaluation as someone who is compatible with the occupational
stereotype.
Unintentional systemic discrimination also affects employment
opportunities and salaries. Consider the following example: Science
faculty from several research intensive universities were given the
application materials of an undergraduate student who was purportedly
applying for a science laboratory manager job. Half of the faculty
reviewed materials from a male applicant; the other half looked at
materials from a female applicant. The male and female applicant
materials were identical except for the name, yet the male applicant
received significantly higher ratings than a female applicant on
competence and hire-ability. Furthermore, faculty members
recommended an average salary of $30,238 for the male applicant but
only $26,507 for the female applicant. Female faculty exhibited as much
gender bias as the male faculty.51
Women represent almost 40 percent of the global workforce and about one-third of
managers, yet they comprise less than 18 percent of corporate board members worldwide.
Some say the problem is mainly systemic discrimination, such as nonconsciously relying on
a male prototype of the ideal board member when selecting candidates for this role. Others
suggest the lack of women in the boardroom is due to more explicit prejudice. South Korea,
some Middle Eastern countries, and Indonesia have the lowest percentage of women on
corporate boards (less than 5 percent). Women have the highest board representation in
France, Scandinavian countries, and Italy (between 35 and 41 percent). Women occupy 24
percent of boardroom positions in the United States.e
Westend61/Getty Images
Worse than systemic discrimination is intentional
discrimination or prejudice, in which people hold unfounded negative
attitudes toward people belonging to a particular stereotyped
group.52 Intentional discrimination deliberately puts the target person at
an unfair disadvantage, which is unfortunately still common in
organizations. One recent meta-analysis estimated that minority
applicants in OECD countries need to submit almost 50 percent more job
applications to receive the same number of interviews as majority
applicants. For instance, some French firms have used the code BBR as a
signal that they want recruiters to hire someone who is Caucasian. “Some
people asked for what in French is called a BBR; it’s a code to say a ‘Bleu-
Blanc-Rouge’—the colors of our national flag,” explains one French
recruiter. “It was to tell the recruitment agency I am a racist company
but I do not want it to appear as such so I use an external supplier to
bypass the law.”53
Page 96
If stereotyping is such a problem, shouldn’t we try to avoid this process
altogether? Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. Most experts agree that
categorical thinking (including stereotyping) is an automatic and
nonconscious process. Specialized training programs can minimize
stereotype activation to some extent, but for the most part the process is
hardwired in our brain cells.54 Also remember that stereotyping helps us
in several valuable (although fallible) ways described earlier: minimizing
mental effort, filling in missing information, and supporting our social
identity.
The good news is that while it is very difficult to prevent the activation of
stereotypes, we can minimize the application of stereotypic information.
In other words, although we automatically categorize people and assign
stereotypic traits to them, we can consciously minimize the extent to
which we rely on that stereotypic information.55 Later in this chapter, we
identify ways to minimize stereotyping and other perceptual biases.
Attribution Theory
Another widely discussed perceptual phenomenon in organizational
settings is the attribution process.56 Attribution involves forming beliefs
about the causes of behavior or events. Generally, we perceive whether
an observed behavior or event is caused mainly by characteristics of the
person (internal factors) or by the environment (external factors).
Internal factors include the person’s ability or motivation, whereas
external factors include resources, coworker support, or luck. If someone
doesn’t show up for an important meeting, for instance, we infer either
internal attributions (the coworker is forgetful, lacks motivation, etc.) or
external attributions (traffic, a family emergency, etc.) to make sense of
the person’s absence.
Three attribution rules—consistency, distinctiveness, consensus—are
used by observers to determine whether someone’s behavior and
performance are mainly caused by their personal characteristics or
situational influences (see Exhibit 3.4).57 To illustrate how these three
attribution rules operate, imagine a situation where an employee is
making poor-quality products on a particular machine. We would
probably conclude that the employee lacks skill or motivation (an
internal attribution) if the employee consistently makes poor-quality
products on this machine (high consistency), the employee makes poor-
quality products on other machines (low distinctiveness), and other
employees make good-quality products on this machine (low consensus).
In contrast, we would decide that there is something wrong with the
machine (an external attribution) if the employee consistently makes
poor-quality products on this machine (high consistency), the employee
makes good-quality products on other machines (high distinctiveness),
and other employees make poor-quality products on this machine (high
consensus).
Page 97
EXHIBIT 3.4 Attribution Theory Rules
Notice that consistency is high for both internal and external attributions.
This occurs because low consistency (the person’s output quality on this
machine is sometimes good and sometimes poor) weakens our
confidence about whether the source of the problem is the person or the
machine. In other words, distinctiveness and consensus determine
whether the attribution should be internal or external, whereas
consistency determines how confident we should be in that attribution.
The attribution process is important because understanding cause–effect
relationships enables us to work more effectively with others and to
assign praise or blame to them.58 Suppose a coworker didn’t complete his
or her task on a team project. You would approach this situation
differently if you believed the coworker was lazy or lacked sufficient skill
(an internal attribution) than if you believed the poor performance was
due to lack of time or resources available to the coworker (an external
attribution). Similarly, our respect for a leader depends on whether we
believe his or her actions are due to personal characteristics or the
situation. We also react differently to attributions of our own behavior
and performance. Students who make internal attributions about their
poor grades, for instance, are more likely to drop out of their programs
than if they make external attributions about those grades.59
Page 98
Attribution Errors
The attribution process is susceptible to errors. One such error is self-
serving bias—the tendency to attribute our failures to external causes
more than internal causes, while successes are due more to internal than
external factors.60 Simply put, we take credit for our successes and blame
others or the situation for our mistakes. In annual reports, for example,
executives mainly refer to their personal qualities as reasons for the
company’s successes and to competitors, unexpected legislation, and
other external factors as reasons for the company’s failures.61Self-serving
bias occurs mainly because of the self-enhancement process described
earlier in this chapter. By pointing to external causes of their own
failures and internal causes of their successes, people generate a more
positive self-concept.
Another widely studied attribution error, fundamental attribution
error (also called correspondence bias), is the tendency to overemphasize
internal causes of another person’s behavior and to discount or ignore
external causes of their behavior.62 We are more likely to attribute a
coworker’s late arrival for work to lack of motivation rather than to
situational constraints (such as traffic congestion). This phenomenon
occurs because observers can’t easily see the external factors that
constrain another person’s behavior. Also, people like to think that
human beings (not the situation) are the prime sources of their behavior,
so internal attributions receive preference in ambiguous situations.
Fundamental attribution error is less apparent in Asia and other cultures
that encourage people to be mindful of the context of
behavior.63However, the fundamental attribution error effect is fairly
modest in all societies. It can often be minimized by giving those making
attributions more information about the situation and warning them of
the risk of this attribution error.64
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
Self-fulfilling prophecy occurs when our expectations about another
person cause that person to act in a way that is consistent with those
expectations. In other words, our perceptions can influence
reality. Exhibit 3.5 illustrates the four steps in the self-fulfilling prophecy
process using the example of a supervisor and a subordinate.65 The
process begins when the supervisor forms expectations about the
employee’s future behavior and performance. These expectations are
sometimes inaccurate, because first impressions are usually formed from
limited information. The supervisor’s expectations influence his or her
behavior toward employees. In particular, high-expectancy employees
(those expected to do well) receive more emotional support through
nonverbal cues (e.g., more smiling and eye contact), more frequent and
valuable feedback and reinforcement, more challenging goals, better
training, and more opportunities to demonstrate good performance.66
Page 99
EXHIBIT 3.5 The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy Cycle
The third step in self-fulfilling prophecy includes two effects of the
supervisor’s behavior on the employee. One effect is that a high-
expectancy employee learns more skills and knowledge than a low-
expectancy employee because the supervisor provides different levels of
training and opportunities for practice. The second effect is that the
employee has higher self-efficacy, which results in higher motivation and
willingness to set more challenging goals.67 In the final step, high-
expectancy employees have higher motivation and better skills, resulting
in better performance, while the opposite is true of low-expectancy
employees.
Self-fulfilling prophecy has been observed in many contexts. In one
study, four Israeli Defense Force combat command course instructors
were told that one-third of the incoming trainees had high command
potential, one-third had normal potential, and the rest had unknown
potential. The trainees had been randomly placed into these categories
by the researchers, but the instructors were led to believe that the
information they received was accurate. Consistent with self-fulfilling
prophecy, high-expectancy soldiers performed significantly better by the
end of the course than did trainees in the other groups. They also had
more favorable attitudes toward the course and the instructor’s
leadership effectiveness. An analysis of dozens of leader intervention
studies over the years found that self-fulfilling prophecy is one of the
most powerful leadership effects on follower behavior and
performance.68
Contingencies of Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
The self-fulfilling prophecy effect is stronger in some situations than in
others. It has a stronger effect at the beginning of a relationship, such as
when employees are first hired. It is also stronger when several people
(rather than just one person) hold the same expectations of the
individual. In other words, we might be able to ignore one person’s
doubts about our potential but not the collective doubts of several
people. The self-fulfilling prophecy effect is also stronger among people
with a history of low achievement. These people tend to have lower self-
esteem, so they are more easily influenced by others’ opinions of them.69
The main lesson from the self-fulfilling prophecy literature is that
leaders need to develop and maintain a positive, yet realistic, expectation
toward all employees. This recommendation is consistent with the
emerging philosophy of positive organizational behavior, which
suggests that focusing on the positive rather than negative aspects of life
will improve organizational success and individual well-being.
Communicating realistic hope and optimism is so important that it is
identified as one of the critical success factors for physicians and
surgeons. Training programs that make leaders aware of the power of
positive expectations seem to have minimal effect, however. Instead,
generating positive expectations and hope depends on a corporate
culture of support and learning. Hiring supervisors who are inherently
optimistic toward their staff is another way of increasing the incidence of
positive self-fulfilling prophecies.70
Other Perceptual Effects
Self-fulfilling prophecy, attribution, and stereotyping are among the
most common perceptual processes and biases in organizational settings,
but there are many others. Four additional biases that have received
attention in organizational settings are briefly described below.
Page 100
Halo Effect
The halo effect occurs when our general impression of a person, usually
based on one prominent characteristic, distorts our perception of other
characteristics of that person.71 If a supervisor who values punctuality
notices that an employee is sometimes late for work, the supervisor
might form a negative general opinion of the employee and evaluate that
person’s other traits unfavorably as well. The halo effect is most likely to
occur when important information about the perceived target is missing
or we are not sufficiently motivated to search for it. Instead, we use our
general impression of the person to fill in the missing information.
False-Consensus Effect
The false-consensus effect (also called similar-to-me effect) occurs when
people overestimate the extent to which others have similar beliefs or
behaviors to our own.72 Employees who are thinking of quitting their
jobs overestimate the percentage of coworkers who are also thinking
about quitting, for example. There are four reasons why false-consensus
effect occurs:
1. We are comforted by the belief that others are similar to
ourselves, particularly with regard to less acceptable or divisive
behavior. Put differently, we perceive “everyone does it” to
reinforce our self-concept regarding behaviors that do not have a
positive image (quitting our job, parking illegally etc.).
2. We interact more with people who have similar views and
behaviors. This frequent interaction causes us to overestimate
how common those views or behaviors are in the entire
organization or society.
3. We are more likely to notice and remember information that is
consistent with our own views and selectively screen out
information that is contrary to our beliefs (i.e., confirmation
bias).
4. We engage in the social identity process of homogenizing people
within groups. Consequently, we think that most people in
specific groups with which we identify have similar opinions and
behaviors.
Recency Effect
The recency effect occurs when the most recent information dominates
our perceptions.73 This perceptual bias is most common when people
(especially those with limited experience) make a decision involving
complex information. For instance, auditors must digest large volumes of
information in their judgments about financial documents, and the most
recent information received prior to the decision tends to get weighted
more heavily than information received at the beginning of the audit.
Similarly, when supervisors evaluate the performance of employees over
the previous year, the most recent performance information dominates
the evaluation because it is the most easily recalled.
Primacy Effect
The primacy effect is our tendency to rely on the first information we
receive about people to quickly form an opinion of them.74 It is the
notion that first impressions are lasting impressions. This rapid
perceptual organization and interpretation occurs because we need to
make sense of the situation and, in particular, to trust others. The
problem is that first impressions—particularly negative first
impressions—are difficult to change. After categorizing someone, we
tend to select subsequent information that supports our first impression
and screen out information that opposes that impression. First
impressions can be corrected, but only if those impressions are changed
within a very short time after they are formed.
Page 101
First Impressions Count in Job Applicationsf
(photo) pathdoc/Shutterstock
Improving Perceptions
LO 3-4We can’t bypass the perceptual process, but we should try to
minimize perceptual biases and distortions. Three potentially effective
ways to improve perceptions include awareness of perceptual biases,
self-awareness, and meaningful interaction.
Awareness of Perceptual Biases
One of the most obvious and widely practiced ways to reduce perceptual
biases is by knowing that they exist. For example, diversity awareness
training tries to minimize discrimination by making people aware of
systemic discrimination as well as prejudices that occur through
stereotyping. This training also attempts to dispel myths about people
from various cultural and demographic groups. Awareness of perceptual
biases can reduce these biases to some extent by making people more
mindful of their thoughts and actions. However, awareness training has
only a limited effect.75 One problem is that teaching people to reject
incorrect stereotypes has the unintended effect of reinforcing rather than
reducing reliance on those stereotypes. Another problem is that diversity
training is ineffective for people with deeply held prejudices against
those groups.
Page 102
DEBATING POINT
Do Diversity Programs Actually Reduce Perceptual
Biases?g
Diversity training programs are well-entrenched bastions in the
battle against workplace discrimination. In most programs,
participants are reminded to respect cultural and gender
differences. They also learn about common assumptions and
biases that people make about other demographic groups.
When companies lose discrimination cases, one of the first
requirements is that they introduce diversity training to remedy
the problem.
Despite its good intentions, diversity training might not be as
useful as one would hope. One concern is that most sessions
are mandatory, so employees aren’t really committed to their
content. Biases and prejudices are deeply anchored, so a half-
day lecture and group chat on diversity won’t change employee
perceptions and behavior. Even if these programs motivate
employees to be more tolerant of others and to avoid
stereotypes, these good intentions evaporate quickly in
companies that lack a diversity culture.
Perversely, the mere presence of diversity training may have
the opposite effect to its good intentions. There is some
evidence that discussing demographic and cultural differences
increases rather than decreases stereotyping. Students in one
study showed more bias against elderly people after watching a
video encouraging them to be less biased against older people!
Diversity training programs might also produce defensive or
stressful emotions among participants. One program for
incoming students at the University of Delaware was canceled
after white students complained it made them feel racist, and
gay students felt pressured to reveal their sexual orientation.
Studies also report that diversity awareness programs create
an illusion of fairness. Disadvantaged employees in companies
with these programs are more likely to believe their employer
doesn’t engage in unfair discrimination. However, this
perception of fairness makes employees less aware of incidents
where the company does engage in unfair discrimination.
Improving Self-Awareness
A more successful way to minimize perceptual biases is by increasing
self-awareness.76 We need to become more conscious of our beliefs,
values, and attitudes and, from that insight, gain a better understanding
of biases in our own decisions and behavior. This self-awareness tends to
reduce perceptual biases by making people more open-minded and
nonjudgmental toward others. Self-awareness is equally important in
other ways. The emerging concept of authentic leadership emphasizes
self-awareness as the first step in a person’s ability to effectively lead
others (see Chapter 12). Essentially, we need to understand our own
values, strengths, and biases as a foundation for building a vision and
leading others toward that vision.77
But how do we become more self-aware? One approach is to complete
formal tests that indicate any implicit biases we might have toward
others. The Implicit Association Test (IAT) is one such instrument.
Although the accuracy of the IAT is being hotly debated by scholars, it
attempts to detect subtle racial, age, gender, disability, and other forms
of bias by associating positive and negative words with specific groups of
people.78 For example, one recent study reported that most of the
176,935 people completing the IAT test had a strong science-is-male
stereotype, even in subdisciplines where women represent a large
percentage of the profession. Most people completing that test associate
science with men. Many people are much more cautious about their
stereotypes and prejudices after discovering that their test results show a
personal bias against older people or individuals from different ethnic
backgrounds.79
Another way to reduce perceptual biases through increased self-
awareness is by applying the Johari Window.80 Developed by Joseph
Luft and Harry Ingram (hence the name “Johari”), this model of self-
awareness and mutual understanding divides information about you into
four “windows”—open, blind, hidden, and unknown—based on whether
your own values, beliefs, and experiences are known to you and to others
(see Exhibit 3.6). The open area includes information about you that is
known both to you and to others. The blind area refers to information
that is known to others but not to you. For example, your colleagues
might notice that you are self-conscious and awkward when meeting the
company’s chief executive officer, but you are unaware of this fact.
Information known to you but unknown to others is found in the hidden
area. Finally, the unknown area includes your values, beliefs, and
experiences that are buried so deeply that neither you nor others are
aware of them.
Page 103
EXHIBIT 3.6 Johari Window Model of Self-Awareness and Mutual
Understanding
Source: Based on J. Luft. 1969. Of Human Interaction. Palo Alto, CA: National Press Books.
The main objective of the Johari Window is to increase the size of the
open area so that both you and your colleagues are aware of your
perceptual limitations. This objective is partly accomplished by reducing
the hidden area through disclosure—informing others of your beliefs,
feelings, and experiences that may influence the work relationship. The
open area also increases through feedback from others about your
behavior. Feedback reduces your blind area because, according to recent
studies, people near you are good sources of information about many
(but not all) of your traits and behaviors.81 Finally, the combination of
disclosure and feedback occasionally produces revelations about you in
the unknown area.
Meaningful Interaction
The Johari Window relies on direct conversations about ourselves and
others, whereas meaningful interaction is a more indirect, yet potentially
powerful, approach to improving self-awareness and mutual
understanding.82 Meaningful interaction is any activity in which people
engage in valued (meaningful, not trivial) activities. The activities might
be work related, such as when senior executives work alongside frontline
staff. Or the activities might occur outside the workplace, such as when
sales staff from several countries participate in outdoor challenges.
Meaningful interaction is founded on the contact hypothesis, which
states that, under certain conditions, people who interact with one
another will be less perceptually biased because they have a more
personal understanding of the other person and their group.83 Simply
spending time with members of other groups can improve this
understanding to some extent. However, meaningful interaction is
strongest when people work closely and frequently with one another on a
shared goal that requires mutual cooperation and reliance. Furthermore,
everyone should have equal status in that context, should be engaged in a
meaningful task, and should have positive experiences with one another
in those interactions.
Meaningful interaction reduces dependence on stereotypes because it
diminishes psychological distance, improves our knowledge about
individuals, and helps us to observe their unique attributes in
action.84 Meaningful interaction also potentially improves empathy
toward others. Empathy refers to understanding and being sensitive to
the feelings, thoughts, and situations of others.85 People empathize when
they visualize themselves in the other person’s place as if they are the
other person. This perceptual experience is cognitive, emotional, and
experiential. In other words, empathy occurs when we understand the
other person’s situation, feel his or her emotions in that context, and to
some degree react to those thoughts and feelings as the other person
does.
Page 104
Empathizing reduces attribution errors by improving our sensitivity to
the external causes of another person’s performance and behavior. A
supervisor who imagines what it’s like to be a single mother, for example,
would become more sensitive to the external causes of lateness and other
events among such employees. However, trying to empathize with others
without spending time with them might actually increase rather than
reduce stereotyping and other perceptual biases.86
Empathizing with employees is a critical leadership skill at Scripps Health. “Psychological
distance is extremely dangerous for leaders,” warns Scripps CEO Chris Van Gorder (center
in this photo). Van Gorder devotes almost half of his time to interacting with Scripps’
14,000 employees in Southern California through training future leaders, doing weekly
rounds, and occasionally working alongside staff in frontline roles. “Roll up your sleeves and
get your hands dirty,” Van Gorder advises. He also encourages leaders “to show your
empathy, don’t merely feel it.” Van Gorder explains that leaders sometimes “mistakenly
project a stoic persona, but by not demonstrating empathy leaders come across as cold and
uncaring.”h
ZUMA Press, Inc/Alamy Stock Photo
SELF-ASSESSMENT 3.5: HOW STRONG IS YOUR
PERSPECTIVE TAKING (COGNITIVE EMPATHY)?
Empathy refers to a person’s understanding of and sensitivity
to the feelings, thoughts, and situation of others. The
“understanding” part of empathy is called perspective
taking or cognitive empathy. It refers to a rational understanding of
another person’s circumstances. You can discover your level of
cognitive empathy by locating this self-assessment in Connect
if it is assigned by your instructor.
SELF-ASSESSMENT 3.6: HOW STRONG IS YOUR
EMOTIONAL EMPATHY?
Empathy refers to a person’s understanding of and sensitivity
to the feelings, thoughts, and situation of others. The
“sensitivity” part of empathy is called emotional empathy. It refers
to experiencing the feelings of the other person. You can
discover your level of emotional empathy by locating this self-
assessment in Connect if it is assigned by your instructor.
Chapter Summary
1. 3-1Describe the self-concept characteristics and
processes, and explain how each affects an individual’s
behavior and well-being.
Self-concept includes an individual’s self-beliefs and self-evaluations. It
has three structural characteristics—complexity, consistency, and
clarity—all of which influence employee well-being, behavior, and
performance. People are inherently motivated to promote and protect
their self-concept (self-enhancement) and to verify and maintain their
existing self-concept (self-verification). Self-evaluation consists of self-
esteem, self-efficacy, and locus of control. Self-concept also consists of
both personal identity and social identity. Social identity theory explains
how people define themselves by the groups to which they belong or have
an emotional attachment.
1. 3-2Outline the perceptual process and discuss the
effects of categorical thinking and mental models in
that process.
Perception involves selecting, organizing, and interpreting information
to make sense of the world around us. Perceptual organization applies
categorical thinking—the mostly nonconscious process of organizing
people and objects into preconceived categories that are stored in our
long-term memory. Mental models—knowledge structures that we
develop to describe, explain, and predict the world around us—also help
us make sense of incoming stimuli.
1. 3-3Discuss how stereotyping, attribution, self-fulfilling
prophecy, halo, false consensus, primacy, and recency
effects influence the perceptual process.
Stereotyping occurs when people assign traits to others based on their
membership in a social category. This assignment economizes mental
effort, fills in missing information, and enhances our self-concept, but it
also lays the foundation for stereotype threat as well as systemic and
intentional discrimination. The attribution process involves deciding
whether an observed behavior or event is caused mainly by the person
(internal factors) or the environment (external factors). Attributions are
decided by the perceived consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus of
the behavior. This process is subject to self-serving bias and fundamental
attribution error. A self-fulfilling prophecy occurs when our expectations
about another person cause that person to act in a way that is consistent
with those expectations. This effect is stronger when employees first join
the work unit, when several people hold these expectations, and when
the employee has a history of low achievement. Four other perceptual
errors commonly noted in organizations are the halo effect, false-
consensus effect, primacy effect, and recency effect.
1. 3-4Discuss three ways to improve perceptions, with
specific application to organizational situations.
One way to minimize perceptual biases is to become more aware of their
existence. Awareness of these biases makes people more mindful of their
thoughts and actions, but this training sometimes reinforces rather than
reduces reliance on stereotypes and tends to be ineffective for people
with deeply held prejudices. A second strategy is to become more aware
of biases in our own decisions and behavior. Self-awareness increases
through formal tests such as the Implicit Association Test (IAT) and by
applying the Johari Window, which is a process in which others provide
feedback to you about your behavior, and you offer disclosure to them
about yourself. The third strategy is meaningful interaction, which
applies the contact hypothesis that people who interact will be less
prejudiced or perceptually biased toward one another. Meaningful
interaction is strongest when people work closely and frequently with
relatively equal status on a shared meaningful task that requires
cooperation and reliance on one another. Meaningful interaction helps
improve empathy, which is a person’s understanding and sensitivity to
the feelings, thoughts, and situations of others.
Page 107
1. 3-5Outline the main features of a global mindset and
justify its usefulness to employees and organizations.
A global mindset refers to an individual’s ability to perceive, know about,
and process information across cultures. This includes (1) an awareness
of, openness to, and respect for other views and practices in the world;
(2) the capacity to empathize and act effectively across cultures; (3) an
ability to process complex information about novel environments; and
(4) the ability to comprehend and reconcile intercultural matters with
multiple levels of thinking. A global mindset enables people to develop
better cross-cultural relationships, to digest huge volumes of cross-
cultural information, and to identify and respond more quickly to
emerging global opportunities. Employees develop a global mindset
through self-awareness, opportunities to compare their own mental
models with people from other cultures, formal cross-cultural training,
and immersion in other cultures.
CHAPTER 4
Workplace Emotions,
Attitudes, and Stress
Learning Objectives
AFTER STUDYING THIS CHAPTER, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE
TO:
1. 4-1 Explain how emotions and cognition (conscious reasoning)
influence attitudes and behavior.
2. 4-2Discuss the dynamics of emotional labor and the role of
emotional intelligence in the workplace.
3. 4-3Summarize the consequences of job dissatisfaction, as well as
strategies to increase organizational (affective) commitment.
4. 4-4Describe the stress experience and review four major stressors.
5. 4-5Identify five ways to manage workplace stress.
Denny Chavez ensures that there is plenty of silverware
and napkins for lunch. The Director of Operations at the
Doubletree Boston Downtown isn’t checking inventory at the
guest restaurants; he’s in the staff cafeteria, making sure that
the hotel’s maintenance, housekeeping, front desk, and other
team members have a pleasant and comfortable lunch
experience. “If you care for your team members, they will take
care of the customer,” Chavez explains.
Doubletree and other hotels in the Hilton Hotels and Resorts
conglomerate have transformed their approach to great
customer service by paying more attention to the emotions,
attitudes, and well-being of their 380,000 employees. The
initiative, called “Heart of House,” has created brighter and
more contemporary staff areas (cafeterias, change rooms,
break rooms, restrooms, etc.). The hotel chain partnered with
Under Armour to develop more flexible and breathable work
outfits.
In addition, Hilton offers improved parental leave and adoption
assistance. Educational advisors have been hired to provide
one-on-one coaching to employees who want to complete their
high school education. Hilton now encourages rather than bans
phone use during work, and has installed dedicated Wi-Fi for
employees. “The feeling of disconnection can be a source of
stress in itself, so we are working to establish a great
communication channel with our Team Members,” the company
explains.
Page 121
Hilton is also rebuilding employee loyalty by selecting and
training managers who show they care about employees. Team
leaders focus on career coaching and developmental
conversations. Senior managers are expected to spend time on
the front lines so they have more empathy for those who
actually serve the guests. “I’ve become more engaged with the
team and want to learn about them,” says Christine Himpler,
housekeeping director at the Hilton San Francisco Union
Square. “I’m more of a coach. I’m here to develop people.
That’s my job at Hilton.”
Hilton team members also have more positive emotions and
attitudes because the company demonstrates its trust in them
and offers them greater autonomy. In fact, 9 out of 10 Hilton
employees agree that management trusts its team members to
do a good job without watching over their shoulders. “Do
whatever you have to do to make it right. That really makes
me feel good as an employee that they trust me enough to
take care of what I need to take care of for the guest,” said
Yolanda, an employee at Hilton Cleveland Downtown.
Through more positive employee emotions and attitudes, Hilton
has soared to become the number one place to work in
America. The hotel chain also reports lower employee turnover,
increased guest customer satisfaction, and higher revenue per
available room. “Our mission is to be the most hospitable
company in the world, and you can’t do that without great
people, and you can’t get great people without being a great
workplace,” says Matt Schuyler, Hilton’s chief human resources
officer.1
Through “Heart of House” and other initiatives focused on improving employee
emotions and attitudes, Hilton Hotels and Resorts has become the number one
place to work in America.
Andreas Hub/laif/Redux
Page 122
Hilton Hotels and Resorts and other organizations are paying
closer attention to employee emotions and attitudes. That’s
because emotions and attitudes affect individual performance
and well-being. This chapter presents current knowledge and
practices about workplace emotions and attitudes. We begin by
describing emotions and explaining how they influence
attitudes and behavior. Next, we consider the dynamics of
emotional labor, followed by the popular topic of emotional
intelligence. The specific work attitudes of job satisfaction and
organizational commitment are then discussed, including their
association with various employee behaviors and work
performance. The final section looks at work-related stress,
including the stress experience, four prominent stressors,
individual differences in stress, and ways to combat excessive
stress.
Emotions in the Workplace
LO 4-1Emotions influence almost everything we do in the workplace.
This is a strong statement, and one that would have rarely been
expressed by organizational behavior experts two decades ago. Most OB
theories still assume that a person’s thoughts and actions are governed
primarily or exclusively by logical thinking (called cognition).2 Yet
groundbreaking neuroscience discoveries have revealed that our
perceptions, attitudes, decisions, and behavior are influenced by
emotions as well as cognitions.3 In fact, emotions may have a greater
influence because they often occur before cognitive processes and,
consequently, influence the latter. By ignoring emotionality, many
theories have overlooked a large piece of the puzzle about human
behavior in the workplace.
Emotions are physiological, behavioral, and psychological episodes
experienced toward an object, person, or event that create a state of
readiness.4 These “episodes” are very brief events, some lasting less than
a second. However, we usually experience emotions over several minutes
or longer because they occur in waves as we continue to think about the
source of the emotion. Emotions are directed toward someone or
something. For example, we experience joy, fear, anger, and other
emotional episodes toward tasks, customers, or a mobile phone app we
are using. This differs from moods, which are not directed toward
anything in particular and tend to be longer-term background emotional
states.
Emotions are experiences. They represent changes in our physiological
state (e.g., blood pressure, heart rate), psychological state (e.g., thought
process), and behavior (e.g., facial expression).5 Most emotional
experiences are subtle; they occur without our awareness. This is an
important point because the topic of emotions often conjures up images
of people “getting emotional.” In reality, most emotions are fleeting,
nonconscious events that influence our conscious thinking and
behavior.6 Finally, emotions put us in a state of readiness. When we get
worried, for example, our heart rate and blood pressure increase to make
our body better prepared to engage in fight or flight. Strong emotions
trigger our conscious awareness of a threat or opportunity in the external
environment. The “state of readiness” generated by emotions is the
engine of our motivation, which we discuss more fully in Chapter 5.7
Page 123
If employees are experiencing the wrong emotions or moods, it may be time to change the
lighting. A half-century ago, MIT and Harvard researchers dismissed the effects of lighting,
whereas numerous recent studies report that lighting intensity and warmth can influence
emotions and moods. Bright white lighting tends to increase employee alertness and vitality,
resulting in faster reaction times on tasks. Moderate intensity warm lighting seems to
improve interpersonal relations, whereas low intensity cool lighting reduces socially
oriented emotions and motivation. The combination of light intensity and warmth also
influences how much employees regulate their emotions in that setting.a
Oleksandr Delyk/Shutterstock
Types of Emotions
People experience many emotions and various combinations of
emotions, but all of them have two common features, illustrated
in Exhibit 4.1.8 One feature is that emotions vary in their level of
activation. By definition, emotions put us in a state of readiness and, as
we discuss in the next chapter, are the primary source of a person’s
motivation. Some emotional experiences, such as when we are suddenly
surprised, are strong enough to consciously motivate us to act without
careful thought. Most emotional experiences are more subtle, but even
they activate enough to make us more aware of our environment.
EXHIBIT 4.1 Circumplex Model of Emotions
Sources: Adapted from J.A. Russell, “Core Affect and the Psychological Construction of Emotion,” Psychological
Review 110, no. 1 (2003): 145–72; M. Yik, J.A. Russell, and J.H. Steiger, “A 12-Point Circumplex Structure of
Core Affect,” Emotion 11, no. 4 (2011): 705–31.
A second feature is that all emotions have an associated valence
(called core affect) signaling that the perceived object or event should be
approached or avoided. In other words, all emotions evaluate the
situation as good or bad, helpful or harmful, positive or negative, and so
forth. Furthermore, negative emotions tend to generate stronger levels of
activation than do positive emotions.9 Fear and anger, for instance, are
more intense experiences than are joy and delight, so they have a
stronger influence on our actions. This valence asymmetry likely occurs
because negative emotions protect us from harm and are therefore more
critical for our survival.
Emotions, Attitudes, and Behavior
To understand how emotions influence our thoughts and behavior in the
workplace, we first need to know about attitudes. Attitudesrepresent the
cluster of beliefs, assessed feelings, and behavioral intentions toward a
person, object, or event (called an attitude object).10Attitudes
are judgments, whereas emotions are experiences. In other words,
attitudes involve evaluations of an attitude object, whereas emotions
operate as events, usually without our awareness. Attitudes might also
operate nonconsciously, but we are usually aware of and consciously
think about those evaluations. Another distinction is that we experience
most emotions very briefly, whereas our attitude toward someone or
something is more stable over time.11
Page 124
Until recently, experts believed that attitudes could be understood just
by the three cognitive components illustrated on the left side of Exhibit
4.2: beliefs, feelings, and behavioral intentions. Now evidence suggests
that a parallel emotional process is also at work, shown on the right side
of the exhibit.12 Using attitude toward mergers as an example, let’s look
more closely at this model, beginning with the traditional cognitive
perspective of attitudes.
EXHIBIT 4.2 Model of Emotions, Attitudes, and Behavior
Beliefs. These are your established perceptions about the attitude
object—what you believe to be true.13 For example, you might
believe that mergers reduce job security for employees in the
merged firms, or that mergers increase the company’s
competitiveness in this era of globalization. These beliefs are
perceived facts that you acquire from experience and other forms
of learning. Each of these beliefs also has a valence; that is, you
have a positive or negative feeling about each belief (e.g.,
reduced job security is bad).
Feelings. This element represents your conscious positive or
negative evaluations of the attitude object. Some people think
mergers are good; others think they are bad. Your positive or
negative opinion of mergers represents your assessed feelings.
According to the traditional cognitive perspective of attitudes
(left side of the model), feelings are calculated from your beliefs
about mergers and the associated feelings about those beliefs.
Consider the example of your attitude toward mergers. If you
believe that mergers typically have negative consequences such
as layoffs and organizational politics, then you will form negative
feelings toward mergers in general or about a specific planned
merger in your organization.
Behavioral intentions. This third element represents your planned
effort to engage in a particular behavior regarding the attitude
object. Upon hearing that the company will merge with another
organization, you might plan to look for a job elsewhere or
possibly to complain to management about the merger decision.
Your feelings toward mergers influence your behavioral
intentions, and which actions you choose depends on your past
experience, personality, and social norms of appropriate
behavior.
Page 125
Attitude–Behavior Contingencies
The cognitive model of attitudes (beliefs–feelings–intentions) gives the
impression that we can predict behavior from each element of the
individual’s attitude. This is potentially true, but contingencies at each
stage in the model can weaken that predictability. Let’s begin with the
beliefs–feelings link. People with the same beliefs might form quite
different feelings toward the attitude object because they have different
valences for those beliefs. Two employees who work for the same boss
share the belief that their boss makes them work hard. Yet one employee
dislikes the boss because she or he has a negative valence toward hard
work, whereas the other employee likes the boss because she or he has a
positive valence toward hard work.
The effect of feelings on behavioral intentions also depends on
contingencies. Two employees might equally dislike their boss, but it
isn’t easy to predict their behavioral intentions from those feelings. One
employee intends to complain to the union or upper management while
the other employee intends to find a job elsewhere. People with the same
feelings toward the attitude object often develop different behavioral
intentions because of their unique experiences, personal values, self-
concept, and other individual differences. Later in this chapter we
describe the four main responses to dissatisfaction and other negative
attitudes.
Finally, the model indicates that behavioral intentions are the best
predictors of a person’s behavior. However, the strength of this link also
depends on other factors, such as the person’s ability, situational factors,
and possibly role perceptions (see the MARS model in Chapter 1). For
example, two people might intend to quit because they dislike their boss,
but only one does so because the other employee can’t find another job.
How Emotions Influence Attitudes and Behavior
The cognitive model describes to some extent how employees form and
change their attitudes, but emotions also have a central role in this
process.14 The right side of Exhibit 4.2 illustrates this process, which
(like the cognitive process) also begins with perceptions of the world
around us. Our brain tags incoming sensory information with emotional
markers based on a quick and imprecise evaluation of whether that
information supports or threatens our innate drives. These markers are
not calculated feelings; they are automatic and nonconscious emotional
responses based on very thin slices of sensory information.15 The
experienced emotions then influence our feelings about the attitude
object. For example, employees at Hilton Hotels and Resorts experience
positive emotions from the contemporary staff areas, supportive
leadership, high school education mentoring, and more autonomous
work, all of which generate positive attitudes toward the company.
To explain this process in more detail, consider once again your attitude
toward mergers. You might experience worry, nervousness, or relief
upon learning that your company intends to merge with a competitor.
The fuzzy dots on the right side of Exhibit 4.2 illustrate the numerous
emotional episodes you experience upon hearing the merger
announcement, subsequently thinking about the merger, discussing the
merger with coworkers, and so on. These emotions are transmitted to
your brain’s cognitive centers, where they are logically analyzed along
with other information about the attitude object.16 So, while you are
consciously evaluating whether the merger is good or bad, your emotions
are already sending core affect (good–bad) signals, and those emotional
signals sway your conscious evaluation. In fact, we often deliberately
“listen in” on our emotions to help us consciously decide whether to
support or oppose something.17
The influence of both cognitive reasoning and emotions on attitudes is
most apparent when they disagree with each other. People occasionally
experience this mental tug-of-war, sensing that something isn’t right
even though they can’t think of any logical reason to be concerned. This
conflicting experience indicates that the person’s logical analysis of the
situation (left side of Exhibit 4.2) generates feelings that differ from the
emotional reaction (right side of Exhibit 4.2).18 Should we pay attention
to our emotional response or our logical analysis? This question is not
easy to answer, but some studies indicate that while executives tend to
make quick decisions based on their gut feelings (emotional response),
the best decisions tend to occur when executives spend time logically
evaluating the situation.19Thus, we should pay attention to both the
cognitive and emotional sides of the attitude model, and hope they agree
with each other most of the time!
Page 126
Generating Positive Emotions at Work
Hilton Hotels and Resorts and many other companies seem to be well
aware of the dual cognitive–emotional attitude process because they try
to inject more positive experiences in the workplace.20 Google Inc. is
famous for its superb perks, including in-house coffee bars, gourmet
cafeterias, conversation areas that look like vintage subway cars,
personal development courses, game rooms, free haircuts, and slides to
descend to the floor below. Admiral Group, rated the best company to
work for in the United Kingdom, has a “Ministry of Fun” committee that
introduces plenty of positive emotions through Nintendo Wii
competitions, interdepartmental Olympics, and other fun activities.21
Employees at Zoom Video Communications are among the happiest in America, according
to one recent analysis of America’s best workplaces. Employees say they feel empowered
and are treated like family at the San Jose-based company, which develops remote
videoconferencing technology. Zoom provides free meals, fully stocked kitchens, choice of
workspace, games rooms, wellness rooms, volunteering events, and many other perks.
Zoom even has an entire team—called the happiness crew—at each location dedicated to
maintaining a positive and engaging workplace. “If you get an offer to work at Zoom, take
it,” advises a Zoom employee in Atlanta, Georgia. “Zoom takes employee happiness
seriously and people genuinely love the company.”b
RJ Sangosti/The Denver Post/Getty Images
Some critics might argue that the organization’s main focus should be to
create positive emotions through the job itself as well as natural everyday
occurrences such as polite customers and supportive coworkers. Still,
most people perform work that produces some negative emotions, and
research has found that humor and fun at work—whether natural or
contrived—can potentially counteract the negative experiences.22 Overall,
corporate leaders need to keep in mind that emotions shape employee
attitudes and, as we will discuss later, attitudes influence various forms
of work-related behavior.
One last comment about Exhibit 4.2: Notice the arrow from the
emotional episodes to behavior. It indicates that emotions directly
influence a person’s behavior without conscious thought. This occurs
when we jump suddenly if someone sneaks up on us. It also occurs in
everyday situations because even low-intensity emotions automatically
change our facial expressions. These actions are not carefully thought
out. They are automatic emotional responses that are learned or
hardwired by heredity for particular situations.23
Page 127
DEBATING POINT
Is Having Fun at Work Really a Good Idea?
“Fun at work” has become such a hot business fad that
companies without a “fun” committee are considered
insensitive task masters. Having fun at work can improve
employee attitudes in many situations, but are special fun
events really necessary or beneficial?
Some critics vote “No”! They argue that contrived fun events at
work can backfire.c Some types of fun aren’t fun at all to
specific groups of people. In fact, employees might be offended
by the silliness of some activities contrived by management or
a few staff. Others resent having fun forced on them. One
expert warns: “Once the idea of fun is formally institutionalized
from above, it can lead to employees becoming resentful. They
feel patronized and condescended, and it breeds anger and
frustration.”
The meaning and value of fun at work might also vary across
generations; what works for Millennials could backfire for Baby
Boomers, and vice versa. Another concern is that fun-focused
companies might take their eye off the bottom line. “At the end
of the day, you have to make money to stay here,” says Mike
Pitcher, former CEO of LeasePlan USA (which does have a “fun”
committee). “If work was [all] fun, they’d call it fun.”d
Cognitive Dissonance
Imagine that you have just signed a contract for new digital whiteboards
to be installed throughout the company’s meeting rooms. The deal was
expensive but, after consulting several staff, you felt that the technology
would be valuable in this technological age. Yet, you felt a twinge of
regret soon after signing the contract. This emotional experience
is cognitive dissonance, which occurs when people perceive that their
beliefs, feelings, and behavior are incongruent with one another.24 The
inconsistency among these three attitude components generates
emotions (such as feeling hypocritical) that motivate the person to create
more consistency by changing one or more of them.
Why did you experience cognitive dissonance after purchasing the digital
whiteboards? Perhaps you remembered that some staff wanted
flexibility, whereas the whiteboards require special markers and
computer software. Or maybe you had a fleeting realization that buying
digital whiteboards costing several times more than traditional
whiteboards is inconsistent with your personal values and company
culture of thriftiness. Whatever the reason, the dissonance occurs
because your attitude (it’s good to be cost conscious) is inconsistent with
your behavior (buying expensive whiteboards). Most people like to think
of themselves—and be viewed by others—as rational and logical.
Cognitive dissonance occurs when our behavior and beliefs conflict,
which is not so rational.
How do we reduce cognitive dissonance?25 Reversing the behavior might
work, but most behaviors can't be undone. It would be too expensive to
remove the digital whiteboards after they have been installed. In any
event, dissonance would still exist because you and your coworkers
already know that you made this purchase and did so willingly.
More often, people reduce cognitive dissonance by changing their beliefs
and feelings. One dissonance-reducing strategy is to develop more
favorable attitudes toward specific features of the decision, such as
forming a more positive opinion about the whiteboards’ capacity to store
whatever is written on them. People are also motivated to discover
positive features of the decision they didn’t notice earlier (e.g., the
boards can change handwriting into typed text) and to discover
subsequent problems with the alternatives they didn’t choose (e.g.,
traditional boards can’t be used as projection screens).
A third strategy is more indirect; rather than try to overlook the high
price of the digital whiteboards, you reduce dissonance by emphasizing
how your other decisions have been frugal. This framing compensates for
your expensive whiteboard fling and thereby maintains your self-concept
and public image as a thrifty decision maker. Each of these mental
acrobatics maintains some degree of consistency between the person’s
behavior (buying expensive whiteboards) and attitudes (being thrifty).
Page 128
Emotions and Personality
Throughout this section, we have implied that emotional experiences are
triggered by workplace experiences. This is mostly true, but emotions are
also partly determined by an individual’s personality.26 People with
higher emotional stability and extraverted personalities (see Chapter 2)
tend to experience more positive emotions. Those with higher
neuroticism (lower emotional stability) and introverted personalities
tend to experience more negative emotions. Although positive and
negative personality traits have some effect, studies have found that the
actual situation in which people work has a noticeably stronger influence
on their attitudes and behavior.27
SELF-ASSESSMENT 4.1: WHAT IS YOUR EMOTIONAL
PERSONALITY?
Emotions are influenced by the situation, but also by the
individual’s own personality. In particular, people tend to have
a dispositional mood, that is, the level and valence of emotion
that they naturally experience due to their personality. You can
discover your perceived dispositional mood by locating this
self-assessment in Connect if it is assigned by your instructor.
Managing Emotions at Work
LO 4-2Employees are expected to manage their emotions in the
workplace. They must conceal their frustration when serving an irritating
customer, display compassion to an ill patient, and hide their boredom in
a long meeting with other executives. These are all forms of emotional
labor—the effort, planning, and control needed to express
organizationally desired emotions during interpersonal transactions.28
Almost everyone is required to abide by display rules. These norms or
explicit rules require employees to engage in emotions performance, that
is, to display behaviors representing specific emotions and to hide
observable evidence of other emotions. Emotional labor demands are
higher in jobs requiring a variety of emotions (e.g., anger as well as joy)
and more intense emotions (e.g., showing delight rather than smiling
weakly), as well as in jobs where interaction with clients is frequent and
longer. Emotional labor also increases when employees must precisely
rather than casually abide by the display rules.29 This work requirement
is most common in service industries, where employees have frequent
face-to-face interaction with clients.
Employees sometimes need to show emotions that are quite different
from the emotions they actually experience at that moment. For
instance, they must show patience and positive feelings toward an irate
customer who they actually dislike. This incongruence can result in
stress and exhaustion because it produces an emotional tension and
requires considerably more mental effort than when the emotional
display rules are similar to the employee’s actual emotions at that
moment. Emotional labor may also require employees to act contrary to
their self-concept, which can lead to psychological separation from self
as well as job dissatisfaction. These problems are greater when people
need to frequently display emotions that oppose their genuine emotions.
Some strategies to display desired emotions can also result in lower job
performance, including failing to display the desired emotions.30
Emotional Display Norms across
Cultures
The extent to which employees are expected to hide their true emotions
varies considerably across cultures.31 One large global study reports that
several countries in Asia and Africa strongly discourage emotional
expression. Instead, people are expected to be subdued, have relatively
monotonic voice intonation, and avoid physical movement and touching
that display emotions. In contrast, several Latin and Middle Eastern
cultures allow or encourage more vivid display of emotions and expect
people to act more consistently with their true emotions. In these
cultures, people are expected to more honestly reveal their thoughts and
feelings, be dramatic in their conversational tones, and be animated in
their use of nonverbal behaviors. For example, 81 percent of Ethiopians
and 74 percent of Japanese agreed that it is considered unprofessional to
express emotions overtly in their culture, whereas 43 percent of
Americans, 33 percent of Italians, and only 19 percent of Spaniards,
Cubans, and Egyptians agreed with this statement.32
Page 129
Many Asian countries have cultural norms that discourage public display
of intense emotions (anger, delight, etc.), whereas these emotion display
norms are weaker in North America, Europe, and many other cultures.
Furthermore, when required to suppress their true emotions at work,
employees from cultures that tolerate or encourage emotional expression
experience more stress and lower life satisfaction compared to coworkers
from cultures that discourage emotional expression. One Chinese
company even tried to reduce employee stress by holding a “no-face”
day, in which employees wore masks so they didn’t need to worry about
the emotions their faces displayed!33
GLOBAL CONNECTIONS 4.1
Smiling in Russia: More Emotional Labor than in
Americae
Sorbis/Shutterstock
When Russia prepared to host the 21st World Cup, it not only
built several soccer stadiums. It also taught train conductors
and other customer-facing employees how to smile at
foreigners. “Russian people usually don’t smile,” explains a
trainer involved in the smile program. “That’s why when other
people come to Russia, they think Russians are not friendly.”
Even in customer service roles, Russians have a reputation of
being more forthright and dour than Americans. However, the
low prospect of a smile from Russian employees doesn’t mean
that they are unhappy or dislike you. Russians just have a
different interpretation of smiling than do people in the United
States and most other Western societies. Consequently,
Russians likely experience more emotional labor when forced to
smile at customers.
One recent study found that people in Russia and several other
cultures (Japan, Korea, Iran, France, etc.) tend to view
strangers who smile often as less intelligent. This is reflected in
the well-known Russian proverb: “Smiling for no reason is a
sign of stupidity.” In contrast, frequent smiling is interpreted as
a sign of higher intelligence in several other cultures,
particularly Germany, Switzerland, Malaysia, China, and
Austria.
This may explain why Sofiya (not her real name) would feel
awkward whenever she smiled at customers in her job as a
teller at Wells Fargo in San Francisco after migrating from
Russia more than a decade ago. Wells Fargo expects its
customer-facing employees to be pleasant toward clients
throughout the day. Sofiya would smile and provide the routine
"How are you?" introduction. But inwardly, she felt that the
smiles and opening lines felt fake and perhaps a bit foolish.
“The expectation was, you have to smile eight hours a day,”
says Sofiya, who is now a senior financial analyst with another
company in New York.
According to the recent cross-cultural study on smiling,
societies with high levels of corruption view people (particularly
men) who smile fairly often as less honest than non-smiling
strangers. Russia has a high corruption score, so Russians have
less trust in people who smile.
Russian film director Yulia Melamed recently experienced this
when she was stopped by a police officer in Moscow and asked
to show her identification. After doing so, she asked why the
officer stopped her. “Because you were smiling,” he replied.
Melamed explains that in Russia “it is strange for a person to
walk on the street and smile. It looked alien and suspicious.”
Page 130
Strategies for Displaying Expected
Emotions
Emotional labor is ultimately about how we exhibit behavior depicting
specific emotions we are expected to display in that situation. Two
general approaches to emotional labor are to (a) consciously engage in
verbal and nonverbal behaviors that represent the expected emotions
and (b) actively change our emotional experiences so they are aligned
with the expected emotions and emotional performance.
The first approach—consciously behaving in ways that are consistent
with the expected emotions—is known as surface acting. This occurs
when we pretend to be experiencing the expected emotions even though
we are actually experiencing different emotions. For example, we show
interest in a client’s lengthy explanation even though we are actually
weary and somewhat irritated from hearing this message many times
before. We act out the verbal and nonverbal behaviors that indicate the
expected emotions, even though our actual emotions are quite
different.34
Surface acting is usually (but not always) a poor strategy for emotional
labor. It can be stressful because it requires considerable mental effort as
well as psychological separation of self from the role.35 Pretending to feel
particular emotions is also challenging. A genuine emotion automatically
activates a complex set of facial muscles and body positions, all of which
are difficult to replicate when pretending to have these emotions.
Meanwhile, our true emotions tend to reveal themselves as subtle
gestures, usually without our awareness. More often than not, observers
see when we are faking and sense that we feel a different emotion.36
Regulating Emotions
The second approach to displaying the expected emotions is to actually
experience those emotions (rather than faking them). In other words, we
consciously change our emotions so they are aligned with the expected
emotions performance. When experiencing the expected emotions, we
naturally display behavioral indicators of those emotions. There are five
main strategies for regulating our emotions.37
Changing the situation. This involves moving out of or into work
settings that affect our emotions. One example would be
temporarily leaving a work area that makes us feel lethargic. At
the same time, we might have a short walking break outside to
regain our vigor. Another example is keeping away from a
particular client who is deeply irritating.
Modifying the situation. Even when remaining in the same
physical location, people adapt that environment so it alters their
emotional state. For instance, we might stop working on a task
that is aggravating and move to a more enjoyable task so that we
don’t experience (and display) a sour demeanor. Or if a
discussion with coworkers becomes awkward or sensitive (such
as discussing national politics), we might shift the conversation
to a less emotionally laden topic.
Suppressing or amplifying emotions. This strategy involves
consciously trying to block out dysfunctional emotions or to
increase the intensity of expected emotions.38 Suppressing
emotions is the most common activity in this category. We try to
stop thinking about events that bother us or, at least,
psychologically distance ourselves from those events. For
instance, some medical staff suppress their emotional responses
to patient suffering by maintaining an impersonal relationship
with patients.
Shifting attention. This strategy involves changing the focus of our
attention. Suppose that earlier today you led a client
presentation that didn’t go well. To minimize the negative
emotions of that event, you might engage in work (such as
another project with coworkers) that takes your mind off the
flawed presentation.
Reframing the situation. Reframing is a cognitive re-evaluation of
a particular event that generates more appropriate emotions.
Rather than viewing a client presentation as a failure, you might
reframe the event as a learning moment that had a low
probability of success. Flight attendants apply reframing when
they define an incident with an unruly passenger as a test of their
customer service skill. These interactions are accomplishments
rather than dreaded chores.39
Page 131
By actively trying to experience desired emotions, employees are
engaging in deep acting. Deep acting involves actually producing the
emotions that are expected in a particular situation, whereas surface
acting does not attempt to experience the expected emotion.40 All five
emotion regulation strategies generate deep acting, but reframing the
situation and shifting attention are likely the most common. Changing
and modifying the situation can be applied when employees work alone,
but seldom when attending a client meeting, interacting with an upset
passenger, or in most other work-related social interactions. Suppressing
or amplifying emotions produces deep acting, but these cognitive
activities may actually involve reframing the situation and shifting
attention. But no matter which strategy is applied to manage emotions,
emotion regulation requires emotional intelligence, which we discuss
next.
Emotional Intelligence
The University of South Florida Health Morsani College of Medicine
discovered from surveys that its graduates required emotional
intelligence training to perform their jobs better. Now, some of its
students enroll in a special program that “focuses on values-based care,
leadership, health care systems and emotional intelligence.” The
program includes coaching and role-modeling by hospital staff at Lehigh
Valley Health Network, which helps medical students to develop their
ability to understand and manage emotions. “I use the emotional
intelligence concepts nearly every minute of my day,” says a physician
who graduated from USF’s medical program.41
The University of South Florida Health and many other organizations
have embraced the idea that emotional intelligence (EI) improves
performance in many types of jobs. Emotional intelligence includes a set
of abilities that enable us to recognize and regulate our own emotions as
well as the emotions of other people. This definition refers to the four
main dimensions shown in Exhibit 4.3.42
EXHIBIT 4.3 Dimensions of Emotional Intelligence
Sources: D. Goleman, “An EI-Based Theory of Performance,” in The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace, ed. C.
Cherniss and D. Goleman (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001), 28; Peter J. Jordan and Sandra A. Lawrence,
“Emotional Intelligence in Teams: Development and Initial Validation of the Short Version of the Workgroup
Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP-S),” Journal of Management & Organization 15 (2009): 452–69.
Awareness of our own emotions. This is the ability to perceive and
understand the meaning of our own emotions. People with
higher emotional intelligence have better awareness of their
emotions and are better able to make sense of them. They can
eavesdrop on their emotional responses to specific situations and
use this awareness as conscious information.43
Page 132
Management of our own emotions. Emotional intelligence includes
the ability to manage our own emotions, something that we all
do to some extent. We keep disruptive impulses in check. We try
not to feel angry or frustrated when events go against us. We try
to feel and express joy and happiness toward others when the
occasion calls for these emotional displays. We re-energize
ourselves later in the workday. Notice that management of our
own emotions goes beyond enacting desired emotions in a
particular situation. It also includes generating or suppressing
emotions. In other words, the deep acting described earlier
requires high levels of the self-regulation component of
emotional intelligence.
Awareness of others’ emotions. This is the ability to perceive and
understand the emotions of other people.44 It relates
to empathy—having an understanding of and sensitivity to the
feelings, thoughts, and situations of others (see Chapter 3). It
includes understanding the other person’s situation,
experiencing his or her emotions, and knowing his or her needs,
even when unstated. Awareness of others’ emotions also includes
being organizationally aware, such as sensing office politics and
the existence of informal social networks.
Management of others’ emotions. This dimension of EI refers to
managing other people’s emotions. It includes consoling people
who feel sad, emotionally inspiring team members to complete a
class project on time, getting strangers to feel comfortable
working with you, and dissipating coworker stress and other
dysfunctional emotions that they experience.
The four dimensions of emotional intelligence form a
hierarchy.45 Awareness of your own emotions is lowest in that hierarchy
because it is a prerequisite for engaging in the higher levels of emotional
intelligence. You can’t manage your own emotions if you don’t know
what they are (i.e., low self-awareness). Managing other people’s
emotions is the highest level of EI because this ability requires awareness
of your own and others’ emotions. To diffuse an angry conflict between
two employees, for example, you need to understand the emotions they
are experiencing and manage your emotions (and display of emotions).
To manage your own emotions, you also need to be aware of your current
emotions.
SELF-ASSESSMENT 4.2: HOW WELL DO YOU
RECOGNIZE AND REGULATE EMOTIONS?
Emotional intelligence is an important concept that potentially
enables us to be more effective with others in the workplace
and other social settings. Emotional intelligence is best
measured as an ability test. However, you can estimate your
level of emotional intelligence to some extent by reflecting on
events that required your awareness and management of
emotions. You can discover your perceived level of emotional
intelligence by locating this self-assessment in Connect if it is
assigned by your instructor.
Emotional Intelligence Outcomes and
Development
Most jobs involve social interaction with coworkers or external
stakeholders, so employees need emotional intelligence to work
effectively.46Studies suggest that people with high EI are more effective
team members, perform better in jobs requiring emotional labor, make
better decisions involving other people, and maintain a more positive
mindset for creative work. EI is also associated with effective leadership
because leaders engage in emotional labor (e.g., showing patience to
employees even when they might feel frustrated) and actively regulate
the emotions of others (e.g., helping staff members feel optimism for the
future even though they just lost an important contract). However,
emotional intelligence does not improve some forms of performance,
such as tasks that require minimal social interaction.47
Page 133
Police officers are learning how to reduce the incidence of violent encounters by de-
escalating the conflict. A critical skill in the de-escalation process is emotional intelligence.
San Diego police recently introduced Effective Interactions, a course in which officers
develop emotional intelligence and effective communication. Baltimore police attend a
Cognitive Command course (shown in this photo), which also includes learning to manage
emotions. “If you describe how a good officer anywhere does their job, you’re describing
what we’ve come to recognize as emotional intelligence,” explains San Diego police
psychologist Dan Blumberg. “It’s someone who understands himself or herself and can
understand emotions evoked during the job and manage their emotions effectively. They
understand the emotions of others and are able to use emotions to create positive
encounters.”f
Algerina Perna/Baltimore Sun/Getty Images
Given the potential value of emotional intelligence, it’s not surprising
that some organizations try to measure this ability in job applicants. The
United States Air Force (USAF) looks at the emotional intelligence of
applicants into its elite pararescue jumper training program because
high EI trainees are more than twice as likely to complete the
program.48 Several organizations have also introduced training programs
to improve employees’ emotional intelligence.49 For instance, new hires
(including co-op students) at Fidelity Canada take emotional intelligence
training along with other soft skills and technical education. One study
reported that training improved emotional intelligence among staff
members at a Netherlands residence for people with intellectual
disabilities. The EI program described the concept, gave participants
feedback on their initial EI test scores, used case studies to teach EI
dimensions, and provided professional feedback based on videos
showing participants meeting with difficult clients. Along with formal
training programs, emotional intelligence increases with age; it is part of
the process called maturity.
So far, this chapter has introduced the model of emotions and attitudes,
as well as emotional intelligence, as the means by which we manage
emotions in the workplace. The next two sections look at two specific
attitudes: job satisfaction and organizational commitment. These two
attitudes are so important in our understanding of workplace behavior
that some experts suggest the two combined should be called “overall job
attitude.”50
Job Satisfaction
LO 4-3Probably the most studied attitude in organizational behavior
is job satisfaction, a person’s evaluation of his or her job and work
context.51 It is an appraisal of the perceived job characteristics, work
environment, and emotional experiences at work. Satisfied employees
have a favorable evaluation of their jobs, based on their observations and
emotional experiences. Job satisfaction is best viewed as a collection of
attitudes about different aspects of the job and work context. You might
like your coworkers but be less satisfied with your workload, for instance.
How satisfied are employees at work? The answer depends on the
person, the workplace, and the country. Global surveys, such as the one
shown in Exhibit 4.4, indicate with some consistency that job
satisfaction tends to be highest in Mexico, the United States, and India.
The lowest levels of overall job satisfaction are usually recorded in Hong
Kong, Japan, and Hungary.
Page 134
EXHIBIT 4.4 Job Satisfaction in Selected Countriesg
Note: Percentage of employees in each country who said they are, in general, satisfied or very satisfied working
for their current employer. Survey data were collected in 2018 for Randstad Holdings nv, with a minimum of
400 employees in each country.
Can we conclude from these surveys that most employees in Mexico and
India are happy at work? Possibly, but their overall job satisfaction
probably isn’t as high as these statistics suggest. One problem is that
surveys often use a single direct question, such as “How satisfied are you
with your job?” Many dissatisfied employees are reluctant to reveal their
feelings in a direct question because this is tantamount to admitting that
they made a poor job choice and are not enjoying life. This inflated result
is evidenced by the fact that employees tend to report much less
satisfaction with specific aspects of their work. Furthermore, studies
report that many employees plan to look for work within the next year or
would leave their current employer if the right opportunity came along.52
A second problem is that cultural values make it difficult to compare job
satisfaction across countries. People in Japan tend to subdue their
emotions in public, and there is evidence that they also avoid extreme
survey ratings such as “very satisfied.” A third problem is that job
satisfaction changes with economic conditions. Employees with the
highest job satisfaction in current surveys tend to be in countries where
the economies are chugging along quite well.53
Job Satisfaction and Work Behavior
Does job satisfaction influence workplace behavior? In general, yes! Job
satisfaction affects many of the individual behaviors introduced
in Chapter 1 (task performance, organizational citizenship, quitting,
absenteeism, etc.).54 However, a more precise answer is that the effect of
job satisfaction and dissatisfaction on individual behavior depends on
the person and the situation. A useful template for organizing and
understanding the consequences of job dissatisfaction is the exit–voice–
loyalty–neglect (EVLN) model. As the name suggests, the EVLN model
identifies four ways that employees respond to dissatisfaction:55
Page 135
Exit. Exit includes leaving the organization, transferring to
another work unit, or at least trying to get away from the
dissatisfying situation. The traditional theory is that job
dissatisfaction builds over time and is eventually strong enough
to motivate employees to search for better work opportunities
elsewhere. This is likely true to some extent, but the most recent
opinion is that specific “shock events” quickly energize
employees to think about and engage in exit behavior. For
example, the emotional reaction you experience to an unfair
management decision or a conflict episode with a coworker
motivates you to look at job ads and speak to friends about job
opportunities where they work. This begins the process of
visualizing yourself working at another company and
psychologically withdrawing from your current employer.56
Voice. Voice is any attempt to change, rather than escape from,
the dissatisfying situation. Voice can be a constructive response,
such as recommending ways for management to improve the
situation, or it can be more confrontational, such as filing formal
grievances or forming a coalition to oppose a decision.57 In the
extreme, some employees might engage in counterproductive
behaviors to get attention and force changes in the organization.
Loyalty. In the original version of this model, loyalty was only
briefly mentioned as an outcome of dissatisfaction, but even then
the theory indicated that they took action to change company
policies (i.e., voice). Instead, the original model stated that
loyalty predicted whether people chose exit or voice (i.e., high
loyalty resulted in voice; low loyalty produced exit).58 More
recent writers describe loyalty only as an outcome of
dissatisfaction, but in various and somewhat unclear ways.
Generally, they suggest that “loyalists” are employees who
respond to dissatisfaction by patiently waiting—some say they
“suffer in silence”—for the problem to work itself out or be
resolved by others.59
Neglect. Neglect includes reducing work effort, paying less
attention to quality, and increasing absenteeism and lateness. It
is a passive form of counterproductive work behavior because it
has negative consequences for the organization.
Responses to job dissatisfaction depend partly on personal
characteristics of the dissatisfied employee.60 Voice is more common or
frequent among employees with higher extraversion and
conscientiousness, likely because these personality factors relate to a
person’s assertiveness, dutifulness, and outgoing nature. Past experience
also influences which EVLN action is applied. Employees who were
unsuccessful with voice in the past are more likely to engage in exit or
neglect when experiencing job dissatisfaction in the future. Loyalty, as it
was intended in the original exit–voice–loyalty model, is another
important factor. Specifically, employees are more likely to quit when
they have low loyalty to the company, and they are more likely to engage
in voice when they have high loyalty.
How employees react to dissatisfaction also depends on the situation.
The exit option is less common when there are few alternative job
prospects. Dissatisfied employees are more likely to use voice than the
other options when they are aware that other employees are dependent
on them or when they believe that someone else will speak up. Voice is
also more frequent when leaders encourage employees to discuss their
concerns in an inclusive work environment.61
Job Satisfaction and Performance
But what about job satisfaction and job performance? Is it true or false
that “a happy worker is a productive worker?” This is one of the oldest
debates in workplace attitudes, and one that has flip-flopped over the
years.62 In recent years, studies have fairly consistently concluded that
the “happy worker” hypothesis is true, but only to some extent. In other
words, there is a moderately positive relationship between job
satisfaction and performance.63
Page 136
Why does job satisfaction affect employee performance only “to some
extent”? One reason is that general attitudes (such as job satisfaction)
don’t predict specific behaviors very well. As the EVLN model explained,
reduced performance (a form of neglect) is only one of four possible
responses to dissatisfaction. A second reason is that some employees
have little control over their performance because their work effort is
paced by work technology or interdependence with coworkers in the
production process. An assembly-line worker, for instance, installs a
fixed number of windshields each hour with about the same quality of
installation whether he or she has high or low job satisfaction.
A third consideration is that job performance might cause job
satisfaction, rather than vice versa.64 Higher performers tend to have
higher satisfaction because they receive more rewards and recognition
than do low-performing employees. The connection between job
satisfaction and performance isn’t stronger because many organizations
do not reward good performance very well.
Job Satisfaction and Customer
Satisfaction
The opening case study of this chapter reported that Hilton Hotels and
Resorts is putting more resources into serving its employees so they, in
turn, are better motivated and able to serve Hilton’s guests well. As one
Hilton manager stated: “If you care for your team members, they will
take care of the customer.” Wegmans applies the same approach to
customer service. The supermarket chain clearly values its customers,
but it does so by caring as much for its employees. “What’s most
important to us is that our employees feel that Wegmans is a great place
to work,” explains Chairman and former CEO Danny Wegman. “When
our people feel cared about and respected, they turn around and make
our customers feel that way too.”65
Earls Restaurants Ltd. has survived and thrived for more than 30 years in a highly
competitive business. A key ingredient in the Canadian restaurant chain’s success is stated
in its motto: “Great guest experiences begin with great partner experiences.” Throughout
the years, Earls’ founders and leaders have embraced the idea that customers are more
satisfied with their dining experience when the cooks, servers, and other staff (all of whom
are called partners at Earls) have positive emotions and attitudes regarding their jobs and
employer.h
Earls Restaurant
Research supports the philosophy followed by Hilton and Wegman’s. In
fact, evidence suggests that job satisfaction has a stronger effect on
customer service than on overall performance. The effect of job
satisfaction on customer service and company profits is detailed in
the service profit chain model, diagrammed in Exhibit 4.5. This model
shows that job satisfaction has a positive effect on customer service,
which eventually benefits shareholder financial returns.
The process begins with workplace practices that increase or decrease
job satisfaction. Job satisfaction then influences whether employees stay
(employee retention) as well as their motivation and behavior on the job.
Retention, motivation, and behavior affect service quality, which
influences the customer’s satisfaction, perceived value of the service, and
tendency to recommend the service to others (referrals). These customer
activities influence the company’s profitability and growth. The service
profit chain model has considerable research support. However, the
benefits of job satisfaction take time to flow through to the organization’s
bottom line.66
EXHIBIT 4.5 Service Profit Chain Model
Sources: This model is based on J.I. Heskett, W.E. Sasser, and L.A. Schlesinger, The Service Profit Chain (New
York: Free Press, 1997); A.J. Rucci, S.P. Kirn, and R.T. Quinn, “The Employee-Customer-Profit Chain at
Sears,” Harvard Business Review 76 (1998): 83–97; S.P. Brown and S.K. Lam, “A Meta-Analysis of Relationships
Linking Employee Satisfaction to Customer Responses,” Journal of Retailing 84, no. 3 (2008): 243–55.
Within the service profit chain model are two key explanations why
satisfied employees tend to generate happier and more loyal
customers.67One explanation is that job satisfaction tends to put
employees in a more positive mood, and people in a good mood more
naturally and frequently display friendliness and positive emotions.
When employees have good feelings, their display of positive emotions
“rubs off” on most (but not all) customers, so customers feel happier and
consequently form a positive evaluation of the service experience (i.e.,
higher service quality). The effect is also mutual—happy customers make
employees happier—which can lead to a virtuous cycle of positive
emotions in the service experience.
The second explanation is that satisfied employees are less likely to quit
their jobs, so they have more work experience (i.e., better knowledge and
skills) to serve clients. Lower turnover also enables customers to have the
same employees serve them on different occasions, so there is more
consistent service. Some evidence indicates that customers build their
loyalty to specific employees, not to the organization, so keeping
employee turnover low tends to build customer loyalty.
Page 137
Job Satisfaction and Business Ethics
Along with its significant effect on employee behavior, job satisfaction is
an ethical issue that influences the organization’s reputation in the
community. People spend a large portion of their time working in
organizations, and many societies now expect companies to provide work
environments that are safe and enjoyable. Indeed, employees in several
countries closely monitor ratings of the best companies to work for, an
indication that employee satisfaction is a virtue worth considerable
goodwill to employers. This virtue is apparent when an organization has
low job satisfaction. The company tries to hide this fact, and when
morale problems become public, corporate leaders are usually quick to
improve the situation.
Organizational Commitment
Organizational commitment—specifically, affective organizational
commitment— represents the other half (with job satisfaction) of what
some experts call “overall job attitude.” Affective commitment is the
employee’s emotional attachment to, involvement in, and identification
with an organization. It is a psychological bond whereby one chooses to
be dedicated to and responsible for the organization. Furthermore,
affective commitment is an autonomous form of commitment; that is,
the employee is motivated by internal strivings of self-concept and values
alignment rather than by external forces.68
Affective commitment differs from continuance commitment, which is a
calculative attachment to the organization.69 The most widely accepted
meaning of continuance commitment is that the employee would face
significant social or economic sacrifice if he or she left the company (e.g.,
“I hate this place but can’t afford to quit!”). This perceived sacrifice
condition occurs when the company offers high pay and other forms of
economic exchange in the employment relationship, where quitting
forfeits a large deferred financial bonus. It also occurs when strong social
bonds would be cut if the person gave up her or his organizational
membership.
Page 138
A second type of continuance commitment involves limited alternative
employment opportunities (e.g., “I dislike working here but there are no
other jobs available”). This situation occurs when unemployment is high,
employees lack sufficient skills to be attractive to other employers, or the
employee’s skills are so specialized that there is limited demand for them
nearby. Some experts question whether this second type is actually
continuance commitment, but it does represent another type of cost-
based decision to stay and perform work roles.70 Both types of
continuance commitment have an externally dependent motivation to
remain with and participate in the organization, in contrast to affective
commitment which is internally sourced motivation.
Affective and continuance commitment have a third sibling,
called normative commitment, which refers to a felt obligation or moral
duty to the organization.71 Felt obligation applies the norm of
reciprocity—a natural human motivation to support, contribute, and
otherwise “pay back” the organization because it has invested in and
supported the employee (see Chapter 10). The sense of moral duty is the
motivation to remain with and contribute to the organization because it
is the right thing to do as a member of the organization. Normative
commitment receives less attention because it overlaps somewhat with
affective commitment and its meaning is somewhat ambiguous.
SELF-ASSESSMENT 4.3: HOW COMMITTED ARE YOU
TO YOUR SCHOOL?
Organizational (affective) commitment refers to an individual’s
emotional attachment to, involvement in, and identification
with an organization. It is mostly discussed in this book as an
employee’s attitude toward the company where he or she
works. But affective commitment is also relevant to a student’s
attitude toward the college or university where he or she is
taking courses. You can discover your affective commitment as
a student to the school where you are attending this program
by locating this self-assessment in Connect if it is assigned by
your instructor.
Consequences of Affective and
Continuance Commitment
Affective commitment can be a significant competitive
advantage.72 Employees with a strong psychological connection to the
organization are less likely to quit their jobs and be absent from work.
They also have higher work motivation and organizational citizenship, as
well as somewhat higher job performance. Affective commitment also
improves customer satisfaction because long-tenure employees have
better knowledge of work practices and because clients like to do
business with the same employees. One concern is that employees with
very high affective commitment tend to have high conformity, which
results in lower creativity. Another problem is that these employees are
motivated to defend the organization, even if it involves illegal activity.
However, most companies suffer from too little rather than too much
affective commitment.
In contrast to the benefits of affective commitment, employees with high
levels of continuance commitment tend to have lower performance and
are less likely to engage in organizational citizenship behaviors.
Furthermore, unionized employees with high continuance commitment
are more likely to use formal grievances, whereas employees with high
affective commitment engage in more cooperative problem solving when
employee–employer relations sour.73 Although some level of financial
connection may be necessary, employers should not rely on continuance
commitment instead of affective commitment. Employers still need to
win employees’ hearts (affective commitment) beyond tying them
financially to the organization (continuance commitment).
Page 139
Building Organizational Commitment
There are almost as many ways to build and maintain affective
commitment as there are topics in this book, but the most frequently
mentioned strategies are:
Justice and support. Affective commitment is higher in
organizations that support organizational justice, which we
discuss in the next chapter. Similarly, organizations that support
employee well-being tend to cultivate higher levels of loyalty in
return.74
Shared values. The definition of affective commitment refers to a
person’s identification with the organization, and that
identification is highest when employees believe their values are
congruent with the organization’s dominant values. Employees
also experience more positive emotions when their personal
values are aligned with corporate values and actions, which
increases their motivation to stay with the organization.75
Trust. Trust refers to positive expectations one person has
toward another person in situations involving risk.76 Trust
means putting faith in the other person or group. It is also a
reciprocal activity: To receive trust, you must demonstrate trust.
Employees identify with and feel obliged to work for an
organization only when they trust its leaders. This explains why
layoffs are one of the greatest blows to affective commitment; by
reducing job security, companies reduce the trust employees
have in their employer and the employment relationship.77
Organizational comprehension. Organizational comprehension
refers to how well employees understand the organization,
including its strategic direction, social dynamics, and physical
layout.78 This awareness is a necessary prerequisite to affective
commitment because it is difficult to identify with or feel loyal to
something that you don’t know very well. Furthermore, lack of
information produces uncertainty, and the resulting stress can
distance employees from that source of uncertainty (i.e., the
organization). The practical implication here is to ensure that
employees develop a reasonably clear and complete mental
model of the organization. This occurs by giving staff
information and opportunities to keep up to date about
organizational events, interact with coworkers, discover what
goes on in different parts of the organization, and learn about the
organization’s history and future plans.79
Employee involvement. Employee involvement increases affective
commitment by strengthening the employee’s psychological
ownership and social identity with the organization.80 Employees
feel part of the organization when they participate in decisions
that guide the organization’s future (see Chapter 7). Employee
involvement also builds loyalty because it demonstrates the
company’s trust in its employees.
Organizational commitment and job satisfaction represent two of the
most often studied and discussed attitudes in the workplace. Each is
linked to emotional episodes and cognitive judgments about the
workplace and relationship with the company. Emotions also play an
important role in another concept that is on everyone’s mind these days:
stress. The final section of this chapter provides an overview of work-
related stress and how it can be managed.
Work-Related Stress and Its
Management
LO 4-4When asked if they often feel stressed, most employees these days
say “Yes!” Not only do most people understand the concept; they claim to
have plenty of personal experience with it. Stress is most often described
as an adaptive response to a situation that is perceived as challenging or
threatening to the person’s well-being.81 It is a physiological and
psychological condition that prepares us to adapt to hostile or noxious
environmental conditions. Our heart rate increases, muscles tighten,
breathing speeds up, and perspiration increases. Our body also moves
more blood to the brain, releases adrenaline and other hormones, fuels
the system by releasing more glucose and fatty acids, activates systems
that sharpen our senses, and conserves resources by shutting down our
immune system. One school of thought suggests that stress is a negative
evaluation of the external environment. However, critics of this
“cognitive appraisal” perspective point out that stress is more accurately
described as an emotional experience, which may occur before or after a
conscious evaluation of the situation.82
Whether stress is a complex emotion or a cognitive evaluation of the
environment, it has become a pervasive experience in the daily lives of
most people. Stress is typically described as a negative experience. This is
known as distress—the degree of physiological, psychological, and
behavioral deviation from healthy functioning. However, some level and
form of stress—called eustress—is a necessary part of life because it
activates and motivates people to achieve goals, change their
environments, and succeed in life’s challenges.83 Our focus is on the
causes and management of distress, because it has become a chronic
problem in many societies.
Stressed Out, Burnt Outi
(photo) donskarpo/Getty Images
SELF-ASSESSMENT 4.4: HOW STRESSED ARE YOU?
Stress is an adaptive response to a situation that is perceived
as challenging or threatening to the person’s well-being. It is
an increasing concern in today’s society. You can discover your
perceived general level of stress over the past month by
locating this self-assessment in Connect if it is assigned by
your instructor.
Page 141
General Adaptation Syndrome
The word stress was first used more than 500 years ago to describe the
human response to harsh environmental conditions. However, it wasn’t
until the 1930s that researcher Hans Selye (often described as the
“father” of stress research) first documented the stress experience, called
the general adaptation syndrome. Selye determined (initially by
studying rats) that people have a fairly consistent and automatic
physiological response to stressful situations, which helps them cope
with environmental demands.84
The general adaptation syndrome consists of the three stages shown
in Exhibit 4.6. The alarm reaction stage occurs when a threat or challenge
activates the physiological stress responses that were noted earlier. The
individual’s energy level and coping effectiveness decrease in response to
the initial shock. The second stage, resistance, activates various
biochemical, psychological, and behavioral mechanisms that give the
individual more energy and engage coping mechanisms to overcome or
remove the source of stress. To focus energy on the source of the stress,
the body reduces resources to the immune system during this stage. This
explains why people are more likely to catch a cold or some other illness
when they experience prolonged stress. People have a limited resistance
capacity, and if the source of stress persists, the individual will eventually
move into the third stage, exhaustion. Most of us are able to remove the
source of stress or remove ourselves from that source before becoming
too exhausted. However, people who frequently reach exhaustion have
increased risk of long-term physiological and psychological damage.85
EXHIBIT 4.6 General Adaptation Syndrome
Source: Adapted from H. Selye, The Stress of Life (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956).
Consequences of Distress
Stress takes its toll on the human body.86 Many people experience
tension headaches, muscle pain, and related problems mainly due to
muscle contractions from the stress response. High stress levels also
contribute to cardiovascular disease, including heart attacks and strokes,
and may be associated with some forms of cancer. One major review
estimated that more than 100,000 deaths annually and as much as 8
percent of health care costs in the United States are due to the
consequences of work-related stress. Stress also produces various
psychological consequences such as job dissatisfaction, moodiness,
depression, and lower organizational commitment. Furthermore, various
behavioral outcomes have been linked to high or persistent stress,
including lower job performance, poor decision making, and increased
workplace accidents and aggressive behavior. Most people react to stress
through “fight or flight,” so, as a form of flight, increased absenteeism is
another outcome of stress.87
A particular stress consequence, called job burnout, occurs when people
experience emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and reduced feelings of
personal accomplishment.88 Emotional exhaustion, the first stage, is
characterized by a lack of energy, tiredness, and a feeling that one’s
emotional resources are depleted. This is followed by cynicism (also
called depersonalization), which is an indifferent attitude toward work,
emotional detachment from clients, a cynical view of the organization,
and a tendency to strictly follow rules and regulations rather than adapt
to the needs of others. The final stage of burnout, called reduced personal
accomplishment, entails feelings of diminished confidence in one’s ability
to perform the job well. In such situations, employees develop a sense of
learned helplessness as they no longer believe that their efforts make a
difference.
Page 142
Stressors: The Causes of Stress
Before identifying ways to manage work-related stress, we must first
understand its causes, known as stressors. Stressors include any
environmental conditions that place a physical or emotional demand on
a person.89 There are numerous stressors in the workplace and in life in
general. We will briefly describe four of the most common work-related
stressors: organizational constraints, interpersonal conflict, work
overload, and low task control.90
Organizational Constraints
Stress research has identified organizational constraints as one of the
most pervasive causes of workplace stress.91 This stressor includes lack of
equipment, supplies, budget funding, coworker support, information,
and other resources necessary to complete the required work. Most
employees experience stress because these constraints interfere with task
performance, which indirectly threatens their rewards, status, and job
security. Organizational constraints refer to situational factors, which is
one of the four direct predictors of individual behavior and performance
(see the MARS model in Chapter 1). It is the only direct influence on
individual performance that is beyond the employee’s immediate control.
This lack of control is a powerful stressor because it threatens the
individual’s fundamental drive to influence his or her external
environment.
Interpersonal Conflict
Employees usually agree on the organization’s overall objectives, but
they frequently disagree with one another regarding how to achieve
those goals as well as how the work and resources should be distributed
along that journey. Therefore, conflict is a way of life in organizations. As
we will learn in Chapter 11, dysfunctional conflict can easily flair up and,
left unchecked, escalate to a level that produces considerable stress and
counterproductive work behaviors. In organizational settings, most
interpersonal conflict is caused by structural sources such as ambiguous
rules, lack of resources, and conflicting goals between employees or
departments. However, a variety of interpersonal conflict that has
become an increasing concern is workplace harassment, including
workplace bullying, sexual harassment, and other forms of mistreatment
by coworkers, managers, or customers.92
GLOBAL CONNECTIONS 4.2
Deadly Consequences of Workplace Bullyingj
fizkes/Shutterstock
For 17 years, Eric Donovan worked at a not-for-profit
organization that operates several group homes and programs
for intellectually challenged adults in Prince Edward Island
(PEI), Canada. He was “conscientious and compassionate” to
residents and “highly respected” by coworkers.
Yet, over several years, Donovan suffered from ongoing
harassment and bullying from his supervisor. Coworkers
submitted sworn statements that the supervisor had a
reputation as a workplace bully. A few former coworkers also
testified that they left the organization after experiencing too
much of the supervisor’s harassment.
The supervisor’s behavior became more intense when Donovan
went on medical leave after injuring his back while controlling
an aggressive resident. She called Donovan a wimp in front of
coworkers. After returning to work, Donovan overheard the
supervisor telling someone on the phone that she thought
Donovan was faking his back injury.
Donovan discussed the stressful work environment with his
wife and family doctor. “Mr. Donovan had significant stress
from his relationship with his supervisor at work,” Donovan’s
physician reported. “He often voiced how difficult the
relationship was, the sense of being bullied and the resultant
stress, anxiety and panic attacks.”
Donovan started documenting the bullying incidents. In one of
his last entries, he wrote that the relationship with his
supervisor “was now so strained that I couldn’t work for her.”
His wife and friends noticed how he looked increasingly unwell.
One evening, his wife said: “You’re going on stress leave. You
need to get away.” Those were her last words to her husband.
An hour or two later, Donovan, who didn’t have a pre-existing
heart condition, suffered cardiac arrest and died a few days
later. He was 47 years old.
The PEI Worker’s Compensation Board eventually ruled that
Donovan’s death was likely due to stress caused by several
years of bullying from his supervisor. The PEI government
recently passed legislation named after Eric Donovan that
provides employees with legal protection against bullying in the
workplace.
Work Overload
“We just keep rushing along in a confused state of never having time to
do the things that seem to be pressing upon us.” Sound familiar? Most of
us probably had this thought from time to time. But this comment wasn’t
written in the past year or even in the past decade. It came from an
article called “Let’s Slow Down!” in a financial institution’s newsletter to
clients in 1949!93 The fact is, people have been struggling for more than a
half century with the pace of life, including the challenges of performing
too many tasks and working too many hours. Work overload is one of the
most common workplace stressors. Employees are expected (or believe
they are expected) to complete more work with more effort than they can
provide within the allotted time.94
Work overload is evident when employees consume more of their
personal time to get the job done. Technology and globalization also
contribute to work overload because they tether employees to work for
more hours of the day. People increasingly work with coworkers in
distant time zones, and their communication habits of being constantly
“on” make it difficult to separate work from personal life. Some
employees amplify their work overload by adopting an “ideal worker
norm” in which they expect themselves and others to work longer hours.
For many, toiling away far beyond the normal workweek is a badge of
honor, a symbol of their superhuman capacity to perform above others.
For example, 39 percent of Millennial employees in one recent large-
scale survey admitted that they work long hours and have a 24/7
schedule so they look like a “work martyr” to their boss.95
Page 143
Low Task Control
Workplace stress is higher when employees lack control over how and
when they perform their tasks as well as lack control over the pace of
work activity. Work is potentially more stressful when it is paced by a
machine, involves monitoring equipment, or the work schedule is
controlled by someone else. Low task control is a stressor because
employees face high workloads without the ability to adjust the pace of
the load to their own energy, attention span, and other resources.
Furthermore, the degree to which low task control is a stressor increases
with the burden of responsibility the employee must carry.96 Assembly-
line workers have low task control, but their stress can be fairly low if
their level of responsibility is also low. In contrast, sports coaches are
under immense pressure to win games (high responsibility), yet they
have little control over what happens on the playing field (low task
control).
Individual Differences in Stress
People exposed to the same stressor experience different levels of stress.
One factor is the employee’s physical health. Regular exercise and a
healthy lifestyle produce a larger store of energy to cope with stress. A
second individual difference is the coping strategy employees use to ward
off a particular stressor.97 People sometimes figure out ways to remove
the stressor or to minimize its presence. Seeking support from others,
reframing the stressor in a more positive light, blaming others for the
stressor, and denying the stressor’s existence are some coping
mechanisms. Specific coping strategies work better for some stressors,
and a few coping strategies work well for almost all stressors.98 Thus,
someone who uses a less effective coping mechanism in a particular
situation would experience more stress in response to that situation.
People have a tendency to rely on one or two coping strategies, and those
who rely on generally poor coping strategies (such as denying the
stressor exists) are going to experience more stress.
Page 144
Personality is the third and possibly the most important reason why
people experience different levels of stress when faced with the same
stressor.99 Individuals with low neuroticism (high emotional stability)
usually experience lower stress levels because, by definition, they are less
prone to anxiety, depression, and other negative emotions. Extraverts
also tend to experience lower stress than do introverts, likely because
extraversion includes a degree of positive thinking and extraverts
interact with others, which helps buffer the effect of stressors. Those with
a positive self-concept—high self-esteem, self-efficacy, and internal locus
of control (see Chapter 3)—feel more confident and in control when
faced with a stressor. In other words, they tend to have a stronger sense
of optimism.100 Stress also tends to be higher among those who suffer
from workaholism. Workaholics have an uncontrollable work motivation,
constantly think about work, and have low work enjoyment.101
SELF-ASSESSMENT 4.5: ARE YOU A WORKAHOLIC?
Some people are highly involved in work, have an inner
compulsion to work at full speed, and yet don’t enjoy work.
People with these personal characteristics are called
workaholics, and they tend to experience high levels of
(dis)stress, which can produce long-term health problems. You
can discover the extent to which you are a workaholic by
locating this self-assessment in Connect if it is assigned by
your instructor.
Managing Work-Related Stress
LO 4-5Many people deny the existence of their stress until it has more
serious outcomes. This avoidance strategy creates a vicious cycle because
the failure to cope with stress becomes another stressor on top of the one
that created the stress in the first place. To prevent this vicious cycle,
employers and employees need to apply one or more of the stress
management strategies described next: remove the stressor, withdraw
from the stressor, change stress perceptions, control stress
consequences, and receive social support.102
Remove the Stressor
There are many ways to remove the stressor, but some of the more
common actions involve assigning employees to jobs that match their
skills and preferences, reducing excessive workplace noise, having a
complaint system that takes corrective action against harassment, and
giving employees more control over the work process. Another important
way that companies can remove stressors is through work–life
integration initiatives (see Chapter 1). For example, personal leave
benefits, such as maternity and paternity leave, temporarily offer
employees paid nonwork time to manage special circumstances. Remote
work potentially improves work–life integration by reducing or
eliminating commuting time and increasing flexibility to perform
nonwork obligations (such as picking up the kids from school). Some
companies and at least one government (France) have introduced
policies that prohibit managers and employees from communicating
work-related issues during nonwork hours.103
Page 145
Withdraw from the Stressor
Removing the stressor may be the ideal solution, but it is often not
feasible. An alternative strategy is to permanently or temporarily remove
employees from the stressor. Permanent withdrawal occurs when
employees are transferred to jobs that are more compatible with their
abilities and values. Temporarily withdrawing from stressors is the most
frequent way that employees manage stress. Vacations and holidays are
important opportunities for employees to recover from stress and re-
energize for future challenges. A small number of companies offer paid
or unpaid sabbaticals.104 Many firms also provide innovative ways for
employees to withdraw from stressful work throughout the day such as
game rooms, ice cream cart breaks, nap rooms, and cafeterias that
include live piano recitals.
Japanese employees are chronically overworked and sleep deprived. Using fitness trackers,
one study found that Japanese men and women sleep only 6 hours and 35 minutes each
day, on average, which is the lowest among 28 countries studied. Crazy Inc. hopes to reduce
the Japanese penchant for overwork by motivating people to sleep longer. The Tokyo-based
upscale wedding organizer awards points to employees who sleep at least six hours every
night for at least five days each week. Employee sleep patterns are tracked by an app
developed by a mattress manufacturer. The points, which are exchanged for food in the
company cafeteria, can add up to more than $500 per year.k
DAJ/Getty Images
Change Stress Perceptions
How much stress employees experience depends on how they perceive
the stressor.105 Consequently, another way to manage stress is to help
employees improve their self-concept so job challenges are not perceived
as threatening. Personal goal setting and self-reinforcement also can
reduce the stress that people experience when they enter new work
settings. In addition, research suggests that some (but not all) forms of
humor can improve optimism and create positive emotions by taking
some psychological weight off a stressful situation.106
Control Stress Consequences
Keeping physically fit and maintaining a healthy lifestyle are effective
stress management strategies because they control stress consequences.
Good physical fitness reduces the adverse physiological consequences of
stress by helping employees moderate their breathing and heart rate,
muscle tension, and stomach acidity. The key variable here is physical
fitness, not exercise. Exercise leads to physical fitness, but research
suggests that exercise does not reduce stress symptoms among people
who are not yet physically fit.107 Various forms of meditation reduce
anxiety and other symptoms of stress, but their effect on blood pressure
and other physiological symptoms is minimal.108 Wellness programs also
can assist in controlling the consequences of stress. These programs
inform employees about better nutrition and fitness, regular sleep, and
other good health habits. Many large companies offer employee assistance
programs (EAPs)—counseling services that help employees resolve
marital, financial, or work-related troubles.
Page 146
Receive Social Support
Social support occurs when coworkers, supervisors, family members,
friends, and others provide emotional and/or informational support to
buffer an individual’s stress experience. For instance, employees whose
managers are good at empathizing experienced fewer stress symptoms
than do employees whose managers were less empathetic. Social support
potentially (but not always) improves the person’s optimism and self-
confidence because support makes people feel valued and worthy. Social
support also provides information to help the person interpret,
comprehend, and possibly remove the stressor. For instance, to reduce a
new employee’s stress, coworkers could describe ways to handle difficult
customers. Seeking social support is called a “tend and befriend”
response to stress, and research suggests that women often follow this
route rather than the “fight-or-flight” response mentioned earlier.109
SELF-ASSESSMENT 4.6: HOW DO YOU COPE WITH
STRESSFUL SITUATIONS?
People cope with stress in several ways. The best coping
strategy usually depends on the source of stress and other
circumstances. However, people also have a natural preference
for some types of coping strategies more than others. You can
discover your preferences among four coping strategies by
locating this self-assessment in Connect if it is assigned by
your instructor.
1
Work-Life Integration
Author
Affiliation
Course
Instructor
Due Date
2
Work-Life Integration
The term selected for this essay is from chapter 4, and it is "work-life integration." Work-
life integration, also called work-life balance, involves an individual's ability to blend between
their personal and professional responsibilities. When employees are too engaged in their
personal issues at the expense of their professional engagement, unprofessionalism sets in. Also,
when employees are over-focused on the professional side at the expense of their personal life,
they risk becoming unproductive due to fatigue and boredom. For this reason, work-life
integration is closely associated with job satisfaction. The most successful companies like
Google have incorporated a work-life integration policy. Modern companies are using new and
improved strategies for enhancing the work-life balance. Additional examples include allowing
employees to work from home and reducing the number of working hours. Some employees
resort to giving their workers flexible schedules and off-days to recharge their bodies. As a
result, work-life integration is associated with increased job satisfaction and productivity of the
employees.
Work-life integration is associated with organizational satisfaction. An organization that
provides employees with enough time to engage in their personal life is better premised to
perform than the one which does not. Such employees have an opportunity to balance between
the work demands and various aspects of their family (Smith et al., 2016). For instance, most
workers today are either parents or live with their families. After work, they need to attend to
family issues, including taking care of their children and ensuring that everything is in order.
Engagement with less stressful activities such as the interaction with family members creates a
platform for positive mental health. Such individuals will transmit the same energy to their work
environment. Due to the psychological nourishment they draw from their families, workers will
3
be well-placed to draw satisfaction from their respective roles (Smith et al., 2016). Essentially,
this means that organizations must create favorable schedules that allow employees ample time
to attend to personal issues. Also, giving employees off-duties, weekend-off, and
maternal/paternal leaves enables them to draw satisfaction from their respective roles.
Work-life balance is closely associated with organizational productivity. Work-life
integration is closely associated with psychological and physiological benefits. Google is among
the most successful companies in the world. According to Bock (2014), Google Inc. is one of the
companies in the world with the most satisfied workforce. Google Inc. has mastered the art of
enhancing work-life integration. For instance, in some departments, employees are allowed to
come with pets. The company also offers refreshments and snacks within the premises.
Moreover, Google is among the companies globally that embraced the idea of working from
home even before the pandemic. Employees who believe that their employer respects their work-
life balance are better motivated to achieve their organizational goals (Fapohunda, 2014).
Moreover, allowing workers to engage in non-work-related activities recharges them and readies
them for even tougher responsibilities within the organization. The employee's psychological
well-being is considered a critical concern in their performance (Fapohunda, 2014). Therefore,
guaranteeing work-life integration has far-reaching implications for the organization.
Companies that enhance work-life integration have reduced absenteeism levels. Statistics
have shown that employees spend at least one-third of their day in the workplace. Since a
significant portion of the day is spent working, employees run the risk of feeling exhausted or
burned (Mohd et al., 2016). Emotional and physical exhaustion can cause employees to adapt to
different schedules that eventually contribute to absenteeism. As described by the authors,
"Feeling over-employed, this will lead the employees to adjust their behavior into choosing to be
4
absent from work” (Mohd et al., 2016). In addition, research has shown that working for longer
hours contributed to gross absenteeism from work. When employees do not attend to their
responsibilities, they create crises within the organization. For instance, other workers will have
to fill their roles temporarily. Such tendencies have an adverse impact on the performance of the
organization. Essentially, this means that organizations have a responsibility to enhance work-
life integration to tackle the problem of absenteeism (Mohd et al., 2016). Giving employees
ample time to rest enables them to respect the work schedules and work according to the desires
of the employers. Besides absenteeism, failure to integrate work-life integration policies can
contribute to lateness to work. Therefore, work-life balance contributes to a culture of
performance that every individual benefits from in the end.
Companies that integrate work-life balance experience better employee loyalty,
motivation, and commitment. Incorporating work-life integration illustrates a company's
appreciation of the welfare and well-being of the workers. Employees are generally happier
when the company is determined to enhance their experiences. Most successful companies are
changing the work environment by improving entertainment, ergonomics, leisure, and wellness
programs. Besides the increased productivity and satisfaction, employees become more
committed to the organizational objectives. They want the company to succeed and move to the
next level. Such employees are extrinsically and intrinsically motivated by various aspects of
work-life integration. For instance, giving workers a weekend off is an example of intrinsic
motivation. Giving them refreshments and snacks in the workplace is extrinsic motivation.
Consequently, the employee develops a more positive perception of the employer. Therefore,
loyalty, motivation, and commitment have a direct impact on performance and job satisfaction.
5
In conclusion, work-life integration is associated with increased job satisfaction and
productivity of the employees. The demands of the work environment have increased in the
recent past. Employers want to ensure that their workers meet deadlines and work towards the
achievement of organizational goals. However, failure to enhance work-life integration has
adverse effects on the employees. It can result in burnout, exhaustion, and reduced motivation. In
this regard, companies must continuously implement work-integration policies. The research has
shown that these policies improve loyalty, productivity, and job satisfaction. Employees are
more motivated, and the chances of absenteeism are reduced. The benefits of work-life
integration transcend the individual as the company also benefits from it. Work-life integration
will define the future of human resource management in the future.
6
References
Bock, L. (2014). Google’s scientific approach to work-life balance (and much more). Harvard
Business Review, 27.
Fapohunda, T. M. (2014). An exploration of the effects of work-life balance on productivity.
Journal of Human Resources Management and Labor Studies, 2(2), 71-89.
Mohd, I. H., Shah, M. M., Anwar, N. A., & Mahzumi, N. (2016). Work-life balance: The effect
on absenteeism among employees in a Malaysian utility company. International Journal
of Economics and Financial Issues, 6(6S).
Smith, D. N., Roebuck, D. B., & Elhaddaoui, T. (2016). Organizational leadership and work-life
integration: Insights from three generations of men. Creighton Journal of
Interdisciplinary Leadership, 2(1), 54.
