Samenvatting Organizational Behavior 15th edition van Robbins en Judge
Pearson
Organisatiepsychologie 2012-2013
Na jaren profiteren van andermans samenvattingen dacht ik: “laat ik er zelf ook eens een
maken!” Dus bij deze. Hopelijk helpt het u. Het boek is overigens erg boeiend en zeker de
moeite waard om te lezen. Succes!
EvdW
Opmerkingen:
- In het Engels, net als het boek
- Hou het boek er wel bij voor exhibits etc.
- Zoveel mogelijk gecheckt op typefouten maar er zal er hier of daar wel een tussen
geschoten zijn
- Chapter 1 staat er niet in (is inleidend, kun je lezen in het boek)
- Chapter 11 en alles na 16 is voor zover ik weet geen leerstof en staat er dus niet in
- Boxen, foto’s, etc. zijn er niet in opgenomen.
(-momenteel nog niet helemaal volledig: 13/14 ontbreken nog; wordt aan gewerkt als ik de
tijd kan vinden)
Chapter 2: Diversity
Diversity
Changes in workforce diversity (gender, race), however Fortune 500 still consists largely of
white males.
Demographics mostly reflect surface-level diversity (differences in easily perceived
characteristics, not thoughts and feelings). This can lead to stereotyping. Evidence that once
people get to know each other, values such as personality and values become more important
(deep-level diversity).
Diversity management means using opportunities but also working to eliminate
discrimination (noticing a difference between two things, but usually used as a negative term,
fuelled by stereotypes of groups of people = unfair discrimination). Exhibit 2-1. Whether
intentional or not, discrimination can lead to serious negative consequences for employers.
Biographical characteristics
=personal characteristics such as age, gender, etc. that are objective and easily obtained from
personnel records  surface-level
Age
Relation between age and job performance will be an issue of increasing importance over the
next decade because:
-
widespread belief that jp declines with increasing age.
-
Workforce is aging; huge potential pool of high-quality applicants
-
US legislation outlaws mandatory retirement (even at age 70+)
Employers have mixed feelings about older workers. Perception:
+ experience, judgment, strong work ethic, commitment to quality
- lacking flexibility, resisting new technology (so when organizations are actively seeking
individuals who are adaptable and open to change this is an issue)
Evidence:
The older you are, the less likely you are to quit your job.
Age seems to be inversely related to absenteeism. Older employees seem to have lower
avoidable absence, but equal rates of unavoidable absence.
Studies show that age and job task performance are unrelated and that older workers are more
likely to engage in citizenship behavior.
Relationship between age and job satisfaction: professionals get more content as they age,
non-pros seem to have a U-shaped satisfaction curve.
Studies found that an organizational climate favouring age discrimination was associated with
lower levels of commitment to the company, which is in turn related to lower levels of
organisational performance.
Sex
In reality few if any differences between men and women affect job performance (party due to
rethinking of male/female roles over last 40 years).
Sex roles do however still affect our perceptions. Research shows that woman believe sexbased discrimination is more prevalent than do men.
One issue that does in fact differ between men and woman (especially if they have preschoolage kids) is preference for work schedule. Working mothers favour part-time work, flexible
schedules, etc  work-life balance. This limits their options for career advancement.
North-american studies have shown that woman are more likely to turn over than men, and
have higher rates of absenteeism (due partly to American values). However there’s an
increasing report of men feeling a conflict between work and home lives. Parents were rated
lower in job commitment, achievement striving etc. in one study, mothers were rated
especially low in competence.
Sexual harassment leads to higher levels of psychological stress  lower levels of
organisation commitment and job satisfaction and higher turnover.
Race and ethnicity
Race =biological heritage people use to identify themselves. Ethnicity =the additional set of
cultural characteristics that often overlaps with race.
In employment settings workers tend to slightly favour colleagues of their own race in
performance evaluation, pay raises, etc. (however not found consistently).
Substantial racial differences in attitudes toward affirmative action (positive discrimination),
with African Americans approving of such programs more than whites.
African Americans and Hispanics generally fare worse in employment decisions, though there
are no significant differences in observed absence rates, applied social skills, etc. They also
have higher turnover rates.
Differences in general mental-ability tests continues to be hotly debated.
Disability
This is a wide field of impairments, with little common characteristics.
Mental disability is an issue of strong bias so people tend to be reluctant to share these
impairments.
Research showed that people with disability receive higher performance evaluations, however
they are likely to encounter lower expectations and are less likely to be hired. These biases are
even stronger for mental disabilities, but there is evidence that shows that mental disability
may impair performance more (depression, anxiety, etc.).
Also evidence that suggests people with a disability are considered an outgroup in need of
special help, so people tend to rate their exploits as more commendable and describe them as
having superior personal qualities like dependability and potency.
Other biographical characteristics
Tenure (seniority): latest research shows positive relation between time on the job and job
productivity. Also negatively related to absenteeism (best predictor!). More seniority = less
likely to quit. Also positively related to job satisfaction (even more than age).
Religion: sharing religious beliefs or religion prohibiting someone to perform (parts of) their
job are reasons religion can have a negative impact on one’s job/workplace.
Sexual Orientation an gender identity: even without legislation most companies have rules
preventing discrimination against being gay. Also a rise in number of companies who have
policies for transgender employees.
Ability
=an individuals current capacity to perform the various tasks on a job. Two overall factors:
intellectual and physical.
Intellectual abilities
=the capacity to do mental activities (thinking, reasoning, problem solving, etc.). Most
societies place high value on intelligence (more money, leadership). Most tests are made up of
about 7 dimensions of intellectual ability (exhibit 2-2). These are positively related to some
degree so researchers recognize a general factor: general mental ability (GMA). These are the
same across cultures. The most used test is the Wonderlic cognitive Ability Test and takes
only 12 minutes to complete. A lot of companies use it as an extra tool for hiring, because it’s
fairly cheap and quick.
Interestingly, though intelligence and job performance are positively related, it doesn’t make
people more satisfied with their jobs. This is probably because though intelligent people have
more interesting jobs, they are also more critical in evaluating their job conditions.
Physical abilities
= the capacity to do tasks that demand stamina dexterity strength etc.
Mental has grown more popular and important, but physical abilities have been and will
remain important (exhibit 2-3). The different factors aren’t really related. High employee
performance is likely to be achieved when the extent to which a job requires each of the nine
abilities is examined.
Implementing diversity management strategies
Diversity management = the process and programs by which managers make everyone more
aware of and sensitive to the needs and differences of others.
One method of enhancing workforce diversity is to target recruiting messages to specific
demographic groups underrepresented in the workforce and forming partnerships with certain
associations. Diversity advertisements that fail to show women and minorities in positions of
organizational leadership send a negative message about the diversity climate.
Ensuring that hiring is bias-free does appear to work, because it puts the focus on job
qualifications. Similarity in personality appears to affect career advancement. In collectivistic
cultures similarity to supervisors is more important, whereas in individualistic cultures similar
personality traits to peers makes you more likely to be promoted. So deep-level diversity
factors appear to be more important in shaping people’s reactions to one another than surfacelevel.
Research shows individuals who are demographically different from their co-workers are
more likely to feel low commitment and to turn over (more prominent among new hires, so
after they get better acquainted these differences become less important). All workers (top to
bottom) appear to favour organizations that value diversity.
Diversity in groups
In modern workplaces communication is important. If somebody feels little sense of
membership and cohesion in their groups all the group attributes are likely to suffer.
In general, demographic diversity doesn’t appear to help or hurt team performance. On the
other hand, teams of individuals who are highly intelligent, conscientious and interested in
working in team settings are more effective, so in this case it would make less sense to mix in
individuals with lower intelligence etc. In other cases differences can be a plus: groups with
different types of expertise and education are more effective. This also goes for a group full of
leaders or followers.
The most important way to superior performance is emphasizing the higher-level similarities
among members, meaning leaders show the members they have a common interest in the
group’s success.
Effective diversity programs
Variety of efforts to capitalize on diversity: recruiting and selecting, training and
development, but also 3 distinct components:
-
teaching managers about the legal framework for equal employment opportunity and
encourage fair treatment of all people
-
teaching managers how a diverse workforce will be better able to serve a diverse
market of customers and clients.
-
Fostering personal development practices that bring out the skills and abilities of all
workers, acknowledging how differences in perspective can be a valuable way to
improve performance for everyone.
Much concern about diversity has to do with fair treatment. People are generally in favour of
diversity-oriented programs. In spite of training sessions in diversity, it is known by experts
that encouragement in these forms are not likely to be very effective back on the job. Those
programs tend to be more effective if they include strategies to measure the representation of
minorities in managerial positions and hold managers accountable for achieving a diverse
workforce. Other factors for positive adaptation for all parties:
-
if the diversity experience undermines stereotypes
-
if the perceiver is motivated and able to consider a new perspective on others
-
if the perceiver engages in stereotype suppression and generative thought in response
to the diversity experience
-
if the positive experience of stereotype undermining is repeated frequently
Emphasizing certain groups as needing more assistance could well backfire! Everyone should
be treated equally.
Chapter 3: attitudes and job satisfaction
Attitudes
= evaluative statements (favourable or not) about objects, people, events…
Three assumed components:
-
cognitive component: the opinion or belief segment
-
affective component: the emotional or feeling segment of an attitude
-
behavioral component: an intention to behave in a certain way
The first two are intertwined. Exhibit 3-1. The 3 components aren’t serial; they are in fact
quite hard to separate.
Does behavior always follow from attitudes?
Common sense makes us think we act on what we think but Leon Festinger argues that
attitudes follow behaviour (people change what they say so it doesn’t contradict what they
do).
Cognitive dissonance: any incompatibility between two or more attitudes or between behavior
and attitudes. Any form of inconsistency is uncomfortable and therefore people attempt to
reduce it (minimize dissonance). Research supports that people will alter attitudes or behavior
or try to develop a rationalization for the discrepancy. Festinger: the desire to reduce
dissonance depends on moderating factors like the importance of the elements creating it, and
the degree of influence we believe we have over them (how important is this
attitude/behavior? Do I have control?). A third factor is rewards: high rewards for high
dissonance reduce the tension. Recent research shows attitudes can predict future behavior
and that moderating values can strengthen the link. Most powerful moderators:
Importance of attitude, its correspondence to behavior, its accessibility, presence of social
pressures, and whether a person had direct experience with the attitude. Specific attitudes tend
to predict specific behavior. Same goes for general.
Attitudes that our memories can easily access are more likely to predict our behavior. You’re
more likely to remember attitudes you frequently express.
Discrepancies are often caused by exceptional social pressure (e.g. workplace).
The attitude-behavior relationship is likely to be much stronger if an attitude refers to
something with which we have direct personal experience.
What are major job attitudes?
Most OB research has looked at three attitudes: job satisfaction, job involvement and
organizational commitment and a few lesser important ones.
-
Job satisfaction: a positive feeling about one’s job resulting from an evaluation of its
characteristics (employee attitudes).
-
Job involvement: the degree to which a person identifies with a job, actively
participates in it, and considers performance important to self-worth. Related to job
satisfaction. Closely related is ‘psychological empowerment’: employees’ beliefs in
the degree to which they influence their work environment, their competence, the
meaningfulness of their job, and their perceive autonomy. High levels are closely
related to citizenship and job performance.
-
Organizational commitment: the degree to which an employee identifies with a
particular organization and its goals and wishes to maintain membership in the
organization. Positively related to job productivity (modestly). Negative relation to
absenteeism and turnover. If employees are committed, they are willing to make
sacrifices for the organization if they are committed enough.
-
Perceived organizational support (POS): the degree to which employees believe an
organization values their contribution and cares about their well-being. Occurs usually
when rewards are deemed fair, when they have a voice in decisions and when they see
their supervisors as supportive.
-
Employee engagement: an individual’s involvement with, satisfaction with, and
enthusiasm for the work he or she does. Highly engaged employees have a passion for
their work and feel a deep connection to their company; disengaged employees have
essentially checked out. Research shows that only 17-29% of employees are highly
engaged.
Evidence suggests that these attitudes are highly related (perhaps to a troubling degree: risk of
redundancy).
Job satisfaction
Two approaches to measure job satisfaction:
-
Single global rating: All things considered, how satisfied are you with your job? Scale
1-5.
-
Summation of job facets: identifies key elements in a job such as the nature of the
work, supervision, present pay, promotion opportunities, relationships with coworkers.
Both are equally effective.
Studies indicate that more workers are satisfied with their jobs than not, although this number
dropped to 50/50 during the crisis and varies a lot depending on which facet you focus (less
satisfaction with pay and promotion possibilities).
Cultural differences: western cultures are generally more satisfied (because they focus on
positive emotions and individual happiness)
What causes job satisfaction?
Strong correspondence between how well people enjoy the social context of their workplace
and how satisfied they are overall. Once pay reaches a level of comfortable living, the relation
between pay and satisfaction disappears. Exhibit 3-4
Job satisfaction is also influenced by personality: positive core self-evaluations (bottom-line
conclusions individuals have about their capabilities, competence, and worth as a person) are
more satisfied with their jobs and are also more drawn toward challenging jobs.
Impact of satisfaction on the workplace
Exhibit 3-5: exit-voice-loyalty-neglect-framework: based on active/passive and
constructive/destructive.
-
Exit: behavior toward leaving the organization
-
Voice: actively and constructively attempting to improve conditions (suggestions,
union, etc.)
-
Loyalty: passively but optimistically waiting for conditions to improve
-
Neglect: allows conditions to worsen (absenteeism, lateness, reduced effort, etc.)
More specific outcomes of job satisfaction:
-
Job satisfaction and job performance: satisfaction leads to better performance and
effectiveness
-
Job satisfaction and OCB (organizational citizenship behavior): JS is moderately
correlated with OCBs (because of mood, personality and fairness perception in
support from colleagues)
-
JS and customer satisfaction: positive correlation
-
JS and absenteeism: consistent negative relation (though moderate to weak; happy
employees also enjoy time off; when there are no alternative job offers absenteeism
stays low)
-
JS and Turnover: stronger than JS and absenteeism and also affected by job prospects,
but also by ‘pull’ (job offer), or having high human capital.
-
JS and workplace deviance: workers who don’t like their jobs ‘get even’ in different
ways (quitting, stealing, etc.). controlling them is hard. Best to attack the source (=JS).
-
Managers often ‘don’t get it’: high morale (70+% overall JS) had more growth in
stock prices then low morale companies (70-%). Many managers underestimate the
impact of job satisfaction, or overestimate how satisfied employees are.
Chapter 4: emotions and moods
OB gave little attention to emotions for 2 reasons:
-
Myth of rationality: emotions are irrational and should be left out of the organization
(which is impossible)
-
Emotions are disruptive: emotions such as anger negatively affect an employees
ability to work effectively.
They do play a role however and should therefore be considered.
What are emotions and moods?
3 terms are closely intertwined:
-
Affect: a broad range of feelings that people experience, including emotions and
moods
-
Emotions: intense feelings that are directed at someone or something
-
Moods: feelings that tend to be less intense than emotions and that often (not always)
lack a contextual stimulus
Most experts believe that emotions are more fleeting than moods. Emotions can turn into
moods when you lose focus on the event or object that started the feeling. Also, moods can
make you more emotional. Exhibit 4-1.
Basic emotions
No definitive proof of existence of a basic set of emotions, but many researchers agree on six
essentially universal emotions: anger, fear, sadness, happiness, disgust, and surprise.
Basic moods: positive and negative affect
One way of looking at emotions is by whether they are positive or negative; emotions can’t be
neutral! These categories become mood states, because we view them more generally. Exhibit
4-2.
We can think of ‘positive affect’ as a mood dimension of positive emotions such as
excitement etc. at the high end and boredom etc. at the low end. ‘Negative affect’ is a mood
dimension consisting of nervousness etc. at high end and relaxation at low.
If an employee is in a bad mood it will influence his perceptions which will in turn influence
his behavior. People tend to experience a positivity offset, which means that at zero input,
most people experience a mildly positive mood. This can help explain why people think about
events that created strong negative emotions five times as long as they do about events that
created positive emotions. Positive moods are more common.
Despite certain differences, people from all over the world interpret negative and positive
emotions in much the same way, however some cultures value certain emotions more than
others.
The function of emotions
Lately research is beginning to show that emotions are crucial to rational thinking. Why?
Because emotions provide important info about how we understand the world around us. The
key to good decision making is to employ both thinking and feeling.
Also, people who behave ethically, are at leas partially making decisions based on their
emotions and feelings, and this will often be a good thing.
Sources of Emotions and Moods
Primary influences:
-
Personality: trait component to moods and emotions: affect intensity = individual
differences in the strength with which individuals experience their emotions.
-
Day of the week & time of the day: Exhibit 4-3; people tend to be in the worst moods
early in the week (Sunday as first day!) and at their best late in the week. Exhibit 4-4:
time of day; Positive affect tends to peak at the halfway point between waking and
sleeping, but negative affect remains fairly stable throughout the day.
-
Weather: seems to have little effect (contrary to popular belief  illusory correlation:
the tendency of people to associate two events when in reality there is no connection)
-
Stress: Stressful daily events negatively affect moods and the effects of stress build
over time.
-
Social activities: People in positive moods seek out social interactions AND social
interactions cause people to be in good moods. Activities that are physical, informal or
epicurean (eating with others) work better than formal (meetings) or sedentary ones
(watching tv together).
-
Sleep: Sleep quality does affect mood. One reason is that poor/reduced sleep impair
decision making and makes it difficult to control emotions. Also it seems to impair job
satisfaction because people feel fatigued, irritable and less alert.
-
Exercise: Apparently people should exercise to improve their mood (although the
effect is not strong overall, effects are strongest for the depressed).
-
Age: negative emotions seem to occur less as people get older. Bad moods fade more
quickly and highly positive ones lasted longer. Studies imply that emotional
experience improves with age.
-
Sex: Evidence confirms that woman are more emotionally expressive: they experience
emotions more intensely, they tend to hold onto emotions longer than men and they
display more frequent expressions of both positive and negative emotions, except
anger. Men consistently report higher levels of powerful emotions (anger) and women
report more powerless emotions (sadness, fear). Participants in one study interpreted
women’s emotional reactions as dispositional (personality) and men’s as due to
situation.
Emotional labor
= A situation in which an employee expresses organizationally desired emotions during
interpersonal transactions at work. Especially in service industry.
Emotional dissonance: inconsistencies between the emotions people feel and the emotions
they project. Bottled up negative emotions can eventually lead to emotional exhaustion and
burnout. Dilemmas: e.g. working with people you don’t like. It can help to separate emotions
into felt (=an individual’s actual emotions  innate) or displayed emotions (=emotions that
are organizationally required and considered appropriate in a given job  learned).
Displaying fake emotions means hiding real ones. Surface acting = hiding inner feelings and
forgoing emotional expressions in response to display rules  displayed. Deep acting: trying
to modify one’s true inner feelings based on display rules  felt. Surface acting is more
stressful to employees because it entails denying their true emotions, so a break every now
and then is important.
Affective events theory
AET: A model that suggests that workplace events cause emotional reactions on the part of
employees, which then influence workplace attitudes and behaviors. Exhibit 4-5. People who
score low on emotional stability tend to react more strongly to negative events. Tests of AET
suggest:
-
An emotional episode is actually a series of emotional experiences, precipitated by a
single event and containing elements of both emotions and mood cycles
-
Current emotions influence job satisfaction at any given time, along with the history of
emotions surrounding the event.
-
Because emotions and moods fluctuate over time, their effect on performance also
fluctuates
-
Emotion-driven behaviors are typically short in duration and of high variability
-
Because emotions, even positive ones, tend to be incompatible with behaviors required
to do a job, they typically have a negative influence on job performance
AET offers 2 important messages:
-
emotions provide valuable insights into how workspace hassles and uplifting events
influence employee performance and satisfaction
-
employees and managers shouldn’t ignore emotions or the events that cause them,
because they accumulate
Emotional Intelligence (EI)
= the ability to perceive emotions in the self and others; understand the meaning of these
emotions; and regulate one’s emotions accordingly in a cascading model (Exhibit 4-6).
People with high EI are most likely to be effective. Various studies show that high EI leads to
better decision making. However, the existence of EI is still being argued over.
The case for EI
-
Intuitive Appeal: almost everyone agrees it’s good to have social intelligence. Partners
in a consulting firm who scored above the median on EI delivered more in business for
example.
-
EI predicts criteria that matter: evidence suggests high levels of EI mean a person will
perform well on the job.
-
EI is biologically based: in one study people with brain damage scored no lower on
standard measures of intelligence, but did score lower on EI and were impaired in
normal decision making. Also evidence for genetics.
The case against EI
-
EI researchers do not agree on definitions: different means of measuring  selfreports measuring a broad variety of constructs connected primarily by the fact that
they are not redundant with cognitive intelligence VS right and wrong answers
focussing on ability to recognize and control emotions. Completely different
definitions and measures barely correlate.
-
EI can’t be measured: no rigorous study has been done (like with personality and
general intelligence)
-
EI is nothing but personality with a different label: EI appears to be correlated with
measures of personality, especially emotional stability. This issue has been partly
resolved by noting EI is a construct partially determined by traits like cognitive
intelligence, conscientiousness and neuroticism so it would make sense that EI is
correlated with these characteristics.
EI is widely popular in popular press and consulting firms in spite of these objections.
Emotional regulation
= identifying and regulating the emotions you feel. Part of EI, but also studied as independent
concept. Strategies: thinking about happy things; suppressing negative thoughts, etc.
Not everyone is equally good at this (troublesome for high neurotic or low self-esteem).
Research suggests that there is a downside to regulating emotions, because it takes effort so it
can be exhausting. Certain strategies tend to work better than others (suppression <
reappraising situations). Also, avoiding negative emotional experiences is less likely to lead to
positive moods than seeking out positive ones.
OB applications of Emotions and Moods
Selection
Evidence for EI implicates that employers should consider it a factor in hiring employees,
especially in jobs with lots of social interaction, and in fact more companies are actually
starting to use EI.
Decision making
Moods and emotions have effect on this (so it’s not purely rational). Positive moods and
emotions seem to help make good decisions quickly and enhance problem-solving skills.
Depressed people are slower at processing information.
Creativity
People in good moods tend to be more creative than people in bad moods. They’re more
flexible and open in their thinking. Although, some researchers argue that when people are in
a good mood, they will relax and thus be less creative. In fact, all activating moods (whether
positive or negative) seem to lead to creativity, whereas deactivating moods lead to less.
Motivation
Good moods lead to more motivation and harder/better work (which can lead to good
feedback, even better mood etc.).
Leadership
Effective leaders rely on emotional appeals to help convey their messages, because it is often
the expression of emotions in speeches that makes us accept or reject a leader’s message. EA
leader’s enthusiasm is a key factor in organizational changes.
Negotiation
Negotiation is an emotional process. Displaying a negative emotion can be effective, but
feeling bad about your performance appears to impair future negotiations. Interestingly, while
moods and emotions have benefits at work, in negotiation –unless we’re putting up a false
front like feigning anger- emotions may impair negotiator performance. In fact, one study
showed that people with damage to emotional centers of the brain may be the best negotiators,
because they’re not likely to overcorrect when faced with negative outcomes.
Customer service
Employees’ emotions can transfer to the customer. Emotional contagion (=the process by
which people’s emotions are caused by the emotions of others) is important because
customers who catch the positive moods or emotions of employees shop longer. However,
negative moods are contagious as well!
Job attitudes
Several studies have shown people who had a good day at work tend to be in a better mood at
home that evening and vice versa. People who’ve had a stressful day often have trouble
relaxing. Usually the effect has gone by the next day.
Deviant workplace behaviors
= violations of established norms, threatening the organization, its members or both. Many of
these can be traced back to negative moods. Once aggression starts, it’s likely that other
people will become angry and aggressive, so the stage is set for a serious escalation of
negative behavior.
Safety and injury at work
Research suggests that employers might increase health and safety (and thus reduce costs) by
ensuring workers aren’t engaged in potentially dangerous activities when they’re in a bad
mood. People in negative moods tend to be more anxious, which can make them less able to
cope effectively with hazards. Negative moods also make people more distractible, and
distractions can obviously lead to careless behaviors.
How managers can influence moods
Managers can use humor and give small tokens of appreciation for work well done. Also,
when leaders themselves are in a good mood, group members are more positive and as a result
they cooperate more. Finally, selecting positive team members can have a contagion effect
because positive moods transmit person to person.
Chapter 5: Personality and values
Employees with different values may enact different behaviours to achieve their work goals.
Personality
= Enduring characteristics that describe an individual’s behavior.
Allport: “the dynamic organization within the individual of those psychophysical systems that
determine his unique adjustments to his environment”.
OB: the sum total of ways in which an individual reacts to and interacts with others.
Measuring
Personalities help managers forecast who is best for a job. Self-report is often used and works
well when well-constructed but there is a liability: impression management (lying to make
oneself appear better). Also, moods affect the outcomes.
Observer-ratings surveys provide an independent assessment of personality. They tend to
correlate well with self-report but serve as a better predictor of success on the job. It’s even
better to use both.
Personality determinants
Heredity or environment?  both, although research tends to support heredity (= factors
determined at conception; one’s biological, physiological and inherent psychological makeup)
as more important. Twins reared apart have much in common and a significant part of their
behavioral similarity turns out to be associated with genetic factors: around 50% of
personality similarities and over 30% of occupational and leisure interests. In fact, the
personalities of twins reared apart are more similar than the personalities of siblings with
whom the twins were raised!
Personality does gradually change over time. Dependability for instance tends to shift with
age and everyone shifts about the same amount, so their rank order stays roughly the same.
Research has shown that personality is more changeable in adolescence and more stable
among adults.
When somebody exhibits enduring characteristics (that describe behavior) in a large number
of situations, we call them ‘personality traits’ of that person. The more consistent over time
and the more frequently it occurs in diverse situations, the more important that trait is in
describing the individual.
Two dominant frame-works for identifying and classifying traits:
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
MBTI = a personality test that taps four characteristics and classifies people into 1 of 16
personality types. Most widely used personality-assessment instrument in the world. 100
questions identify a person as extraverted/introverted (E/I); sensing/intuitive (S/N);
thinking/feeling (T/F); and judging/perceiving (J/P).
-
E individuals are outgoing, I are quiet and shy.
-
S types are practical and prefer routine and order, details. I types rely on unconscious
processes and look at the big picture.
-
T types use reason and logic to handle problems. F types rely on their personal values
and emotions.
-
J types want to control and prefer their world to be ordered and structured. P types are
flexible and spontaneous.
Used widely but most of the evidence is against it. Problem: it forces a person into one type or
another (so either extra- or introverted, no in-between). So at the most it is a valuable tool for
increasing self-awareness and providing career guidance. Results tend to be unrelated to job
performance!
The Big Five personality model
An impressive body of evidence supports this model. 5 basic dimensions underlie all others
and encompass most of the significant variation in human personality. Test scores actually do
a very good job of predicting how people will behave in a variety of real-life situations.
-
Extraversion: comfort level with relationships. Assertive/sociable VS reserved/quiet
-
Agreeableness: an individual’s propensity (neiging) to defer to (‘onderwerpen aan’)
others. Cooperative, warm/trusting VS cold/antagonistic.
-
Conscientiousness: a measure of reliability. Responsible/organized/dependable VS
distracted/unreliable/disorganized
-
Emotional Stability: often labelled by its converse, neuroticism, taps a person’s ability
to withstand stress. Calm/self-confident/secure VS nervous/anxious/depressed
-
Openness to experience: addresses a range of interests and fascination with novelty.
Creative/curious/artistically sensitive VS conventional/comfort in familiarity.
Research has found relations between the Big Five and job performance. Individuals who are
dependable, reliable, careful, thorough, able to plan, organized, hardworking, persistent and
achievement-oriented tend to have higher job performance in most if not all jobs. Also,
employees who score higher in conscientiousness develop higher levels of job knowledge,
probably because they learn more (C is strongly related to grade point average (GPA)). More
knowledge = better performance. People who score really high however, don’t perform better
than those just above average. Conscientious people tend to live longer because they take
better care of themselves. They do not adapt well to changing contexts and tend to initially
focus on performing well rather than on learning. They are often less creative, especially
artistically.
Exhibit 5-2. How Big Five traits influence OB criteria.
Emotional stability is most strongly related to job&life satisfaction.
Extraverts tend to be happier on the job and in life as a whole. They experience and more
freely express more positive emotions than introverts and perform better in jobs with
significant interpersonal interaction and have more friends. It’s also a relatively strong
predictor of leadership emergence in groups. Downside: they’re more impulsive and more
easily engage in risky behavior and are more likely to lie in a job interview.
High O-scorers are more creative in science and art. Creativity is often important in
leadership, as they are comfortable with ambiguity and change. Recent research shows that
they are especially susceptible to workplace accidents.
Agreeable people are only slightly happier than disagreeable people. They are usually first
choice as romantic partners, friends or org. team members. They tend to be well-liked and
therefore perform better in interpersonally oriented jobs, are more compliant and rule abiding
and less likely to get into accidents. They’re also more satisfied with their jobs and engage in
citizenship. The downside is A is associated with lower levels of career success.
The Big Five factors appear in almost every cross-cultural study. Differences tend to be
primarily about whether countries are predominantly individualistic or collectivistic.
Other personality traits relevant to OB
-
Core self-evaluation: (= bottom-line conclusions individuals have about their
capabilities, competence and worth as a person). People with positive scores are more
satisfied with their jobs and perform better, because they set ambitious goals, are
committed and persist longer in reaching them. They tend to have careers that begin
better and ascend more rapidly over time. Some evidence that people with high scores
perform especially well if they also feel their work provides meaning and is helpful.
Scores that are too high lead to overconfidence and bad decisions.
-
Machiavellianism: (= the degree to which an individual is pragmatic, maintains
emotional distance, and believes that ends can justify means). High scorers are
pragmatic, maintain emotional distance and manipulate more, win more and are
persuaded less but persuade others more. They like their jobs less and are more
stressed and deviant at work. High-mach outcomes are moderated by situational
factors. They flourish when:
* they interact face to face with others
* the situation has minimal rules and regulations
* when emotional involvement with details irrelevant to winning distracts low machs.
-
Narcissism: (= the tendency to be arrogant, have a grandiose sense of self-importance,
require excessive admiration, and have a sense of entitlement). Evidence suggests that
high scorers are more charismatic, but that narcissism is generally undesirable. They
tend to be selfish and exploitive and believe others exist for their benefit. They are
often rated as less effective at their jobs.
-
Self-monitoring: (= a personality trait that measures an individual’s ability to adjust
his behavior to external, situational factors). High scorers show considerable
adaptability in adjusting their behavior to external situation factors. They are highly
sensitive to external cues and can behave differently in different situations. Evidence
shows that they pay closer attention to the behavior of others and are more capable of
conforming. They receive better performance ratings and show less commitment to
their organizations.
-
Risk taking: High-risk taking managers and low-risk taking managers were instructed
to make hiring decisions. HR made more rapid decisions and used less information but
the accuracy was the same in both groups. New research shows that managers in large
organizations may actually be ore willing to take risks than entrepreneurs. HR may
lead to more effective performance in certain professions but a be a major obstacle in
others.
-
Proactive personality: (= people who identify opportunities, show initiative, take
action and persevere until meaningful change occurs). They have many desirables that
organisations covet. They are more likely to be seen as leaders and are valuable
change agents. They are more likely to be satisfied at work and help others, and also to
challenge a status quo and voice their opinions. They are also more likely to leave an
organisation and start their own business (entrepreneurs).
-
Other-orientation: Thinking about others and being concerned for their well-being (VS
economic actors, primarily rational and self-interested). These factors are weighed in
decision-making. Pay me back (I’ll help you because you helped me) VS Pay me
forward (I’ll help you because I will need your help in the future). High-scorers exert
especially high levels of effort when engaged in helping work or prosocial behavior.
Values
= Basic convictions that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally or
socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-stat of existence.
Judgemental element: what is right/wrong/desirable. Both content (important) and intensity
attribute ( how important?).
Value system: an individual’s values ranked in terms of intensity.
Values tend to be relatively stable and enduring and a significant portion is established in our
early years (parents, teachers, friends, etc.)  black or white: kids learn that something is
entirely or entirely NOT desirable. Questioning values may change them, but often reinforce
them. Also evidence that links personality to values, so they may be partly genetic.
Importance of values
Values cloud objectivity and rationality and influence attitudes and behavior. They influence
our perception of an organization.
Terminal VS instrumental values
Values can be classified. Two approaches:
Rokeach Value Survey (RSV): consists of 2 sets of values, each containing 18 individual
items: Terminal values (= desirable end-states of existence; the goals a person would like to
achieve during his or her lifetime) such as prosperity, economic success, freedom, health, etc.
and Instrumental values (= preferable modes of behavior or means of achieving one’s
terminal values) such as self-improvement, autonomy and self-reliance, kindness, ambition,
etc. Research shows that people in the same occupations tend to hold similar values.
Executives often have other rankings than union members (for instance) and this can create
serious conflicts when groups contend with each other over an organization’s economic and
social policies.
Generational values
Contemporary work cohorts: Researchers have integrated several recent analyses of work
values into four groups that attempt to capture the unique values of different cohorts or
generations in the U.S. workforce. Exhibit 5-4.
Limitations:
-
we make no assumption that the framework applies across all cultures
-
lot of press coverage, but very little rigorous research on generational values 
intuitive framework
-
imprecise categories: someone born in ’85 can have values similar to those of
someone born in ’55.
Despite these limitations, values do tend to change over generations and this method can give
some useful insights.
‘Boomers’ are a large cohort born after WWII. Entered the workforce from the mid ‘60s
through the mid ‘80s. Hippie ethic and distrust of authority, but emphasis on achievement and
material success. Sense of accomplishment and social recognition are important. Ends justify
means.
‘Xers’  globalisation (2-career parents, MTV, AIDS, computers). Friends/family are
important. Sceptical (of authority). Enjoy team-oriented work, true friendship, happiness and
pleasure. Balanced life (less personal sacrifice for organization).
‘Millennials’ (Nexters, Generation Yers, Netters) grew up during prosperous times. High
expectations and search for meaning in work. More ambition of being rich and famous, but
also socially responsible. Take technology for granted. Tend to be questioning, electronically
networked and entrepreneurial, but also entitled and needy. May clash over work attire and
communication. Like feedback.
These classifications lack solid research support. Recent reviews: classifications are
overblown or incorrect. One longitudinal study did find value placed on leisure increased over
generations.
Linking an individual’s personality and values to the workplace
Organizations today are concerned with how well the personality and values match the
organization, because they are less interested in the ability to perform one single job and more
in the flexibility to meet changing situations and commitment to the org.
Person-job fit
Holland’s personality-job fit theory: A theory that identifies six personality types and
proposes that the fit between personality type and occupational environment determines
satisfaction and turnover. Exhibit 5-5.
Holland developed the Vocational Preference Inventory questionnaire, which contains 160
occupational titles. Respondents indicate which they like or dislike and their answers form
personality profiles. Strongly supported by research. Exhibit 5-6: adjacent categories are quite
similar, whereas diagonally opposite ones are highly dissimilar.
Theory implies that satisfaction is highest and turnover is lowest when personality and
occupation are in agreement. Key points of this model:
-
there appear to be intrinsic differences in personalities
-
there are different types of jobs
-
people in jobs congruent with their personality should be more satisfied and less likely
to voluntarily resign
Research found that Holland types relate to personality scales.
Person-organization fit
Researches try to match people to organizations as well as jobs. The p-o fit essentially argues
that people are attracted to and selected by organizations that match their values and they
leave organizations that are not compatible with their personalities. Also research on whether
people’s values match the organization’s culture. This predicts job satisfaction, commitment
to the org. and low turnover.
International values
Geert Hofstede (‘70s). International survey of employees about their work-related values and
found that managers and employees vary on five value dimensions of national culture.
-
Power distance: describes the extent to which a society accepts that power in
institutions and organizations is distributed unequally (high means low equality, low
means high equality).
-
Individualism: describes the degree to which people prefer to act as individuals rather
than as members of groups (opposite to collectivism: emphasizes a tight social
framework in which people expect others in groups of shich theyr are a part to look
after them and protect them)
-
Masculinity VS femininity: the degree to which the culture favors traditional
masculine roles such as achievement, power and control as opposed to viewing men
and women as equals.
-
Uncertainty avoidance: degree to which a society feels threatened by uncertain and
ambiguous situations and tries to avoid them. High scores: increased level of anxiety
about uncertainty and ambiguity  use of laws/controls to reduce this. Low scores:
acceptance of ambiguity, more risk-taking, readily adept to change.
-
Long-term VS short-term orientation (newest adition): Devotion to a society’s
traditional values. Long-term: look to the future and value thrift, persistence and
tradition. Short-term: value the here and now, accept change, don’t see commitments
as impediments to change.
Northern and Western countries tend to be more individualistic. Poorer countries tend to be
higher on power distance. South-American countries tend to be higher on uncertainty
avoidance and Asian countries tend to have a long-term orientation.
Hofstede’s culture dimensions have been enormously influential on OB researchers and
managers. It has also been criticized though:
-
Original work is over 30 years old (although there have been updates) and was based
on a single company (IBM).
-
Few researchers have read the details of Hofstede’s methodology closely and are
therefore unaware of the many decisions and judgment calls he made
-
Some results are unexpected (e.g. Japan scores only moderately on collectivism)
Hofstede is still the most cited social scientist ever.
Recent research shows that the four original culture dimensions were equally strong
predictors of relevant outcomes, meaning researchers and practicing managers need to think
about culture holistically and not focus on only one or two dimensions. Cultural values were
more strongly related to organizational commitment, citizenship behavior and team-related
attitudes than personality scores! Personality was more strongly related to behavioral criteria
like performance, absenteeism and turnover. Individual scores are better predictors than
cultural scores.
The GLOBE famework fo assessing cultures (’93)
Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness = cross-cultural investigation
of leadership and national culture. Found 9 dimensions on which national cultures differ.
Some resemble Hofstede’s dimensions. Main difference: GLOBE added dimensions like
humane orientation (degree of rewards for individuals being altruistic, generous etc.) and
performance orientation (degree of rewards/encouragement group members get for
performance improvement and excellence).
Chapter 6: Perception and individual decision making
Some favour computers over people because of biases or incorrect strategy-use.
What is perception?
Perception is a process by which individuals organize and interpret their sensory impressions
in order to give meaning to their environment. However, what we perceive can be
fundamentally different from reality and our behavior is based on what we perceive as reality:
the world that is perceived is the world that is behaviorally important.
Factors that influence perception
-
Perceiver: you often see what you expect to see
-
Object/target: things/people that stand out are more likely to be noticed; we also tend
to group similar things/characteristics together
-
Situation: context matters; time, location, light, heat, etc.
Exhibit 6-1.
Perception: making judgments about others
The perception people form about each other.
Attribution theory
(= an attempt to determine whether an individual’s behavior is internally or externally
caused). Things have no beliefs or motivations, but people do. That’s why when we observe
people, we attempt to explain why they behave in certain ways. Perception will be severely
influenced by the assumptions we make about that person’s internal state. Internally caused
behaviors are those we believe to be under the person’s control. Externally caused behavior is
what we imagine the situation forced the individual to do.
Determination of attribution depends on 3 factors:
-
Distinctiveness: refers to whether an individual displays different behaviors in
different situations (usual behavior or not?). If so, we usually attribute external cause.
If not, internal.
-
Consensus: if everybody behaves the same way in a certain situation the behavior
shows consensus. If somebody behaves differently, we are likely to attribute this to
internal causes.
-
Consistency: does somebody respond the same over time? The more consistent, the
more we attribute it to internal causes.
Exhibit 6-2.
A lot of errors and biases distort attributions.
-
Fundamental attribution error: when we judge other people we overestimate the
influence of internal/personal factors and underestimate external ones.
-
Self-serving bias: the tendency for individuals to attribute their own successes to
internal factors and failures to external. Also, when presented with ambiguous
feedback, we tend to accept positive feedback and discard negative.
There are some cultural differences in these things, so they can’t be used globally. Although
the same process is used, some cultures require more evidence to blame an individual.
Common shortcuts in judging others
Shortcuts are frequently valuable, because they make quite accurate perceptions rapidly and
provide data for making decisions. They can get us in trouble though:
-
Selective perception: the tendency to selectively interpret what one sees on the basis of
one’s interests, background, experience, and attitudes. We can’t assimilate everything
we see, so we tend to notice things that stand out. Research shows that a group’s
perception of organizational activities is selectively altered to align with the vested
interests the group represents. We often see what we want to see, so we can draw
unwarranted conclusions from an ambiguous situation.
-
Halo effect: the tendency to draw a general impression about an individual on the
basis of a single characteristic. Our general views contaminate our specific ones.
-
Contrast effects: Evaluation of a person’s characteristics that is affected by
comparisons with other people recently encountered who rank higher/lower on the
same characteristics. Evaluation of people etc. is relative.
-
Stereotyping: judging someone on the basis of one’s perception of the group to which
that person belongs. Generalising makes it easier to grasp a complex world but there is
always the chance of mistakes. Research shows that stereotyping happens largely
below that level of conscious awareness, making them particularly hard to challenge
and change.
Specific applications of shortcuts in organizations
Judgement within organizations has important consequences.
-
Employment interview: interviewers often make inaccurate perceptual judgments.
Impressions are formed at first glance (tenth of a second). The timing at which
(negative) information is giving, is crucial. Most interviewers’ decisions change very
little after the first 4/5 minutes.
-
Performance expectations: people tend to validate their perceptions of reality even
when these are faulty. Self-fulfilling prophecy: a situation in which a person
inaccurately perceives a second person, and the resulting expectations cause the
second person to behave in ways consistent with the original perception.
-
Performance evaluation: an employees future is closely tied to the appraisal, which is
often subjective and thus subject to errors.
The link between perception and individual decision making
Decisions = choices made from among two or more alternatives.
Problem = a discrepancy between the current state of affairs and some desired state.
Every layer in an organization has its own decisions to make. Organizations have begun
empowering their non-managerial employees with decision-making authority. But the way
individuals make their choices and the quality of those choices are largely influenced by their
perceptions. Decision making occurs as a reaction to a problem. Unfortunately, one person’s
problem can be another person’s desired state of affairs. Perception decides what is relevant in
the process.
Decision making in organizations
Rational model, bounded rationality and intuition
Rational decision making (= a decision-making model that describes how individuals should
behave in order to maximize some outcome) follows six steps. Exhibit 6-3. It relies on the
assumptions that the decision-maker has complete information, is able to identify all the
relevant options in an unbiased manner and chooses the option with the highest utility. Most
decisions in the real word obviously don’t follow this model. People are remarkably unaware
of making suboptimal decisions.
Bounded rationality (= a process of making decisions by constructing simplified models that
extract the essential features from problems without capturing all their complexity) means that
most people bring the complexity of a problem down to a level where they can understand it.
Also many problems don’t really have an optimal solution. So people ‘satisfice’ (= they seek
solutions that are satisfactory and sufficient). We identify choices that are easy to find and
highly visible and represent familiar criteria and tried-and-true solutions. The first acceptable
choice ends our search. This doesn’t mean it’s necessarily a bad choice and it’s definitely
faster than weighed decisions.
Intuitive decision making (= an unconscious process created out of distilled experience)
occurs outside conscious thought, relies on holistic associations or links between disparate
pieces of information, it’s fast and affectively charged (emotions are usually engaged). It’s not
rational but not necessarily wrong and it can complement rational decision. Don’t ignore it or
rely on it too much.
Common biases and errors in decision making
-
Overconfidence bias: people tend to be far too confident in their ability to judge the
probability that we answers some factual question randomly. Even experts are no more
accurate in setting up confidence intervals than novices. Individuals whose
interpersonal abilities are weakest are most likely to overestimate their performance
and ability. There’s a negative relationship between an entrepreneur’s optimism and
his performance, because optimism may keep somebody from planning ahead. People
also tend to overestimate their skill and the quality of the info they’re working with
when investing.
-
Anchoring bias: a tendency to fixate on initial information, from which one then fails
to adequately adjust for subsequent information. Our minds seem to give a
disproportionate amount of emphasis to the first information it receives. Anchors are
widely used in professions in which persuasion is important. In job interviews the
salary on your previous job can serve as an anchor for your new boss!
-
Confirmation bias: the tendency to seek out information that reaffirms past choices
and to discount information that contradicts past judgments  selective perception!
We tend to accept at face value information that confirms our views and are sceptical
of info that contradicts them.
-
Availability bias: the tendency for people to base their judgments on information that
is readily available to them. Events that evoke emotions, are particularly vivid, or are
more recent tend to be more available in our memory, leading us to overestimate the
chances of unlikely events.
-
Escalation of commitment: an increased commitment to a previous decision in spite of
negative information. This happens often when individuals see themselves as
responsible for the failure. People who carefully thought their decision over are more
likely to engage in this.
-
Randomness error: the tendency of individuals to believe that they can predict the
outcome of random events. Superstition.
-
Risk aversion: the tendency to prefer a sure gain of a moderate amount over a riskier
outcome, even if the riskier outcome might have a higher expected payoff. Sticking
with a strategy that has worked in the past does minimize risk, but in the long run will
lead to stagnation. Managers and CEOs at risk of losing their position tend to be
especially risk aversive. People are less likely to escalate commitment where there is a
great deal of uncertainty, so risk aversion isn’t all bad. Risk preference is sometimes
reversed (when stated as something they could certainly loose instead of something
they might gain people tend to prefer risks).
-
Hindsight bias: the tendency to believe falsely, after an outcome of an event is actually
known, that one would have accurately predicted that outcome. This reduces our
ability to learn from the past.
Application: final decision making: Most studies suggest that people are more willing to buy
on credit and spend more money when they feel confident. Unfortunately, as confidence
decreases in the face of poor economic data, businesses and consumers become more
conservative in their spending, which further decreases demand for products and services and
deepens the economic crisis.
Influences on decision making: individual differences and Organizational constraints
Individual differences
Personality: personality does seem to affect our decisions. Specific facets of
conscientiousness may affect escalation of commitment (in various ways). Achievementoriented people hate to fail (and are therefore more susceptible to the hindsight bias), so they
escalate commitment and dutiful people are more inclined to do what they see as best for the
organization.
Gender: Rumination in terms of decision making means overthinking problems. Woman are
more prone to do this. Woman are nearly twice as likely as men to develop depression.
Mental ability: people with higher levels are able to process information more quickly, solve
problems more accurately, and learn faster. It seems to however help them avoid only a
couple of the above mentioned problems. But once warned about these errors, they learn more
quickly to avoid them.
Cultural differences: Decision making doesn’t follow the same steps all over the planet.
Organizational constraints
Performance evaluation: managers are strongly influenced by the criteria on which they are
evaluated.
Reward systems: Managers are more likely to make conservative decisions if the organization
rewards risk aversion.
Formal regulations: Organizations create rules and policies, limiting the freedom employees
have in how to execute their job.
System-imposed time constraints: Almost all important decisions come with explicit
deadlines, which sometimes makes it hard for managers to include all relevant info.
Historical precedents: decisions have a context. Those made in the past ‘haunt’ current
choices.
What about ethics in decision making?
Three ethical decision criteria:
-
utilitarianism: a system in which decisions are made to provide the greatest good for
the greatest number. Focuses solely on outcomes and dominates business decision
making.
-
Fundamental liberties and privileges (like in the Bill of Rights): respecting and
protecting the basic rights of individuals (privacy, free speech, due process). Protects
whistle-blowers when they reveal an organization’s unethical practices.
-
Justice: being fair and impartial, an equitable distribution of benefits and costs (union
members!).
All have advantages and liabilities.
Improving creativity in decision making
Creativity = the ability to produce novel and useful ideas. Different to what’s been done
before but useful to the problem presented. It allows decision makers to more fully appraise
and understand the problem.
Creative potential: Exceptional creativity is scarce. Intelligent people who score high on
‘openness to experience’ are more likely to be creative; other traits are independence, selfconfidence, risk taking, internal locus of control, tolerance for ambiguity, low need for
structure and perseverance. Exposure to different cultures can also raise it.
Three-component model of creativity
= the proposition that individual creativity requires expertise, creative thinking skills, and
intrinsic task motivation.
Expertise: the foundation for all creative work. The more you know about a subject, the more
you can use it.
Creative thinking skills: encompasses personality characteristics associated with creativity,
the ability to use analogies and the talent to see the familiar in a different light. Active
positive moods are best. Fear/anxiety seem to decrease creativity. Anger (active negative)
does have an enhancing effect.
Being around creative others may inspire us.
Analogies allow decision makers to apply an idea from one context to another. This is a
complex intellectual skill which helps explain why cognitive ability is related to creativity.
Creative people often love their work to the point of seeming obsession.
Intrinsic task motivation: the desire to work on something because it’s interesting, involving,
satisfying, etc. It’s what turns creative potential into actual creative ideas. Support and means
and communication encourage the flow of ideas.
There are no global ethical standards.
Chapter 7: Motivation concepts
A lot of organizations have troubles with employee motivation, like not being actively
engaged or even being actively disengaged, workers wasting time while at work, etc.
It can be improved however!
Defining motivation
= the processes that account for an individual’s intensity, direction and persistence of effort
toward attaining a goal. It differs between and within individuals.
-
intensity describes how hard a person tries. The element most focussed on. This
doesn’t really do any good unless the effort is channelled in a direction that benefits
the organization
-
direction: efforts directed toward and consistent with the organization’s goals is the
kind of effort we should be seeking. Quality as well as intensity!
-
Persistence: how long can one maintain effort?
Early theories of motivation
Four theories of employee motivation formulated during the ‘50s. Now of questionable
validity, they’re still the best known.
Hierarchy of needs theory
Maslow: five needs -physiological, safety, social, esteem and self-actualization- in which as
each need is substantially satisfied the next need becomes dominant. Exhibit 7-1. No need is
ever fully gratified, a substantially satisfied need no longer motivates. The way to motivate
someone is to understand what level of the hierarchy that person is currently on.
Lower-order needs: needs that are satisfied externally, such as physiological and safety needs.
Higher-order needs: needs that are satisfied internally, such as social, esteem, and selfactualization (the drive to become what a person is capable of becoming) needs.
Intuitively logical and easy to understand. Research does unfortunately not validate it.
Theory X and Theory Y
McGregor: one basically negative and one basically positive theory based un assumptions of
managers.
Theory X: the assumption that employees dislike work, are lazy, dislike responsibility, and
must be coerced to perform.
Theory Y: the assumption that employees like work, are creative, seek responsibility, and can
exercise self-direction.
He believed most employees fall under theory Y, and therefore proposed such as ideas as
participative decision making, responsible and challenging jobs, good group relations, etc.
No evidence for either assumption.
Two factor theory
A.k.a. motivation-hygiene theory: Relates intrinsic factors to job satisfaction and associates
extrinsic factors with dissatisfaction. Herzberg: what do people want from their jobs? 
advancement, recognition, responsibility, achievement.
Exhibit 7-2. Respondents who felt good about their work tended to attribute these factors to
themselves, while dissatisfied respondents tended to cite extrinsic factors (supervision, pay,
etc.).
Removing dissatisfying aspects from a job doesn’t necessarily make the job satisfying!
Herzberg proposed a dual continuum: satisfaction – no satisfaction and dissatisfaction – no
dissatisfaction. Exhibit 7-3. Hygiene factors = factors – such as company policy and
administration, supervision, and salary – the, when adequate in a job, placate workers. When
these factors are adequate, people will not be dissatisfied (but neither satisfied!).
Herzberg claims that to motivate people, an employer must emphasize factors associated with
the work itself or with outcomes directly derived from it (promotional opportunities, personal
growth, etc.)  intrinsically rewarding.
Has not been well-supported in literature and has many detractors:
-
methodology is limited, relies on self-reports (self-attributing bias)
-
reliability methodology is questionable. Raters make interpretations.
-
No overall measure of satisfaction
-
Assumed relationship between satisfaction and productivity, but looked only at
satisfaction.
McClelland’s theory of needs
-
Need for achievement (nAch): the drive to excel, to achieve in relationship to a set of
standards, and to strive to succeed
-
Need for power (nPow): the need to make others behave in a way in which they would
not have behaved otherwise
-
Need for affiliation (nAff): the desire for friendly and close interpersonal relationships
Most attention on nAch. High achievers perform best when they perceive their probability of
success as .5.
Extensive amount of research shows some relationships between achievement need and job
performance. High achievers are strongly motivated when jobs have a high degree of personal
responsibility and feedback and an intermediate degree of risk. They are not necessarily good
managers. Interested in personal success.
Needs for affiliation and power tend to be closely related to managerial success (resp. low and
high).
Follows US characteristics. Most evidence of all four, but less practical effect unfortunately.
McClelland states that they are subconscious, so measuring them is difficult and time
consuming/expensive.
Contemporary theories of motivation
Contemporary because they represent the current state of thinking in employee motivation.
Self-determination theory
= theory of motivation concerned with the beneficial effects of intrinsic motivation and the
harmful effect of extrinsic motivation. People like to have control over their actions, so
anything that makes a previously enjoyed task feel more like an obligation than a freely
chosen activity will undermine motivation.
Cognitive evaluation theory: version of self-determination theory which holds that allocating
extrinsic rewards for behavior that had been previously intrinsically rewarding tends to
decrease the overall level of motivation if the rewards are seen as controlling.
Self-determination theory also proposes that in addition to being driven by a need for
autonomy, people seek ways to achieve competence and positive connections to others. Large
number or studies support this. Major implications to work rewards (such as bonuses!).
There are examples of external rewards increasing motivation though. Goal-setting seems to
lead to more motivation when we provide rewards for achieving the goals. Other examples are
verbal praise and feedback about competence (can even increase intrinsic motivation). Also
deadlines and specific work standards, as long as people believe they are in control of their
behavior.
Recent outgrowth of self-determination: self-concordance = the degree to which peoples’
reasons for pursuing goals are consistent with their interests and core values. If a person
pursues a goal because of intrinsic interest he is more likely to attain his goal and are happy
even if they do not. The process is fun. Using extrinsic goals makes one less likely to attain it
and less happy even if they do. Goals aren’t meaningful to them.
Job engagement
= the investment of an employee’s physical, cognitive, and emotional energies into job
performance. Presumed deeper level of commitment (than liking it or finding it interesting).
Highly successful organizations seem to have more engaged employees. Academic studies
confirm. So what makes people more likely to be engaged in their jobs?
-
Belief it’s meaningful to engage in work (job characteristics and sufficient resources)
-
Match of individual and organizational values
-
Leadership behaviors that inspire workers to a greater sense of mission also increase
employee engagement
Critiques: construct is partially redundant with job attitudes (satisfaction/stress), however
engagement questionnaires usually assess motivation and absorption in a task unlike attitudes.
Dark side: work-family conflict; more research needed.
Goal-setting theory
= theory that says that specific and difficult goals, with feedback, lead to higher performance.
Research reveals specific goals increase performance; difficult goals, when accepted, result in
higher performance than easy goals; and feedback leads to higher performance than nonfeedback.
Specificity seems to act as internal stimulus.
High level of effort on difficult tasks, because challenging goals catch our attention and thus
help us focus; they energize us because we have to work harder; when goals are difficult
people persist in trying to attain them; they lead us to discover strategies that help us perform
the job more effectively.
Feedback guides behavior, identifies discrepancies between what we have done and what we
want to do. Self-generated feedback is more effective.
Goal-setting participation is desired by some but not all. Major advantage: increased
acceptance of the goal. Commitment matters. When assigning a goal to someone, it’s
important to clearly explain its purpose and importance.
In addition to feedback, 3 other factors influence the goals-performance relation (under the
assumption that an employee will work toward a goal if he thinks he can achieve it and wants
to):
-
Goal commitment: most likely to occur when goals are made public and individual has
an internal locus of control and the goals are self-set rather than assigned.
-
Task characteristics: goals seem to affect performance more strongly when tasks are
simple rather than complex, well learned rather than novel and independent rather than
interdependent (in which case group goals are preferable)
-
National culture: Individual VS collective cultures. Research has not (yet) shown that
group goals are more effective in collectivist cultures. Assigned goals tend to generate
greater goal commitment in high power-distance cultures.
Sometimes is better to focus on learning and generating alternatives is more effective than
setting a specific performance goal. Employees low in conscientiousness and emotional
stability can experience emotional exhaustion when their leaders set goals. They do however
play a great role in shaping behavior.
When subconsciously primed with a goal to achieve, people actually achieved better results in
several studies.
Implementing goal-setting
A systematic way of goal-setting is with management by objectives (MBO): A program that
encompasses specific goals, participatively set, for an explicit time period, with feedback on
goal progress. Exhibit 7-4. Works bottom-up as well as top-down. Links objectives at one
level to those at the next and provides individual employees with specific personal
performance objectives.
Four ingredients: goal specificity, participation in decision making, an explicit time period,
and performance feedback. MBO largely agrees with goal-setting, except that MBO strongly
advocates participation in setting goals.
Self-efficacy theory
(Bandura) a.k.a. social cognitive theory or social learning theory. Self-efficacy = an
individual’s belief that he or she is capable of performing a task. In difficult situations people
with high scores will try harder, while low scorers will give up. Can lead to a positive spiral
for high scorers (work hard, achieve goal, gain more confidence, aim higher, achieve goal,
gain more confidence, etc.). Seem to respond to negative feedback with increased effort.
Exhibit 7-5: goal-setting and self-efficacy complement each other. Bandura: four ways selfefficacy can be increased:
-
Enactive mastery: most important source! Means gaining relevant experience with the
task/job. Past success  more confidence
-
Vicarious modelling: becoming more confident when you see someone else
succeeding in completing the task. Works best when you perceive similarities with the
other person.
-
Verbal persuasion: gaining confidence because somebody convinces you you can do it
(motivational speakers)
-
Arousal: leads to an energized state  better performance (that is, unless the task
requires a steady, lower-key perspective)
OB implications: training increases self-efficacy (enactive mastery). People with higher selfefficacy seem to benefit more from training and use it on the job.
Pygmalion effect (= form of self-fulfilling prophecy; believing something can make it true).
So if a manager makes his workers believe they can achieve higher goals they probably will
(verbal persuasion).
Intelligence and personality aren’t on the list but can also increase self-efficacy. People who
are intelligent, conscientious and emotionally stable are so much more likely to have high
self-efficacy that some researchers argue self-efficacy is but a by-product in a smart confident
person.
Reinforcement theory
= a theory that says that behavior is a function of its consequences (behaviorism! = a theory
that argues that behavior follows stimuli in a relatively unthinking manner). It’s in sharp
contrast with goal-setting. Reinforcement theorists see behavior as environmentally caused,
by reinforcers (= any consequences that, when immediately following responses, increase the
probability that the behavior will be repeated). Ignores inner state of individual (so technically
not a theory of motivation!).
Operant conditioning theory (most relevant component for managers) argues that people learn
to behave to get something they want or to avoid something they don’t want through
reinforcement or lack thereof brought about by its consequences.
Skinner demonstrated that creating pleasing consequences to follow specific forms of
behavior would increase the frequency of that behavior. Rewards are most effective if they
immediately follow behavior.
Although reinforcers such as pay can motivate people, the process is much more complicated
than stimulus-response. It ignores feelings, attitudes, expectations, and other cognitive
variables KNOWN to affect behavior! Individuals can learn by being told or by observing
what happens to others, as well as through direct experiences. This view is known as ‘sociallearning theory’. It’s an extension of conditioning (behavior is a function of consequences)
but it also acknowledges the effects of observational learning and perception. People respond
to how they perceive/define consequences, not to the objective consequences themselves.
Models are central to the social-learning viewpoint:
-
Attentional processes: people learn from a model only when they recognize and pay
attention to its critical features (most likely: attractive, repeatedly available,
important/similar to us)
-
Retention processes: influence depends on how well someone remembers the model’s
action after it is no longer readily available
-
Motor reproduction processes: watching must be converted to doing, so a person can
learn he can perform the modelled activities
-
Reinforcement processes: people are motivated to exhibit the modelled behavior if
positive incentives or rewards are provided.
Equity theory/Organizational justice
Employees perceive what they get from a job situation (salary, raises, recognition) in relation
to what they put into it (effort, experience, education, competence), and they COMPARE their
outcome-input ratio with that of relevant others. Equity play a huge role in motivation.
Exhibit 7-6. If we perceive our ratio to be equal to that of the relevant others, a state of equity
exists. If we receive less, we experience equity tension, which creates anger. If we receive
more, tension creates guilt. Adams proposed that this negative state of tension provides
motivation to do something to correct it: Equity theory = a theory that says that individuals
compare their job inputs and outcomes with those of others and then respond to eliminate any
inequities. The referent an employee selects ( there are four) adds to the complexity of this
theory.
-
Self-inside: an employee’s experiences in a different position inside the employee’s
current organisation
-
Self-outside: an employee’s experiences in a situation or position outside the
employee’s current organization
-
Other-inside: another individual or group of individuals inside the employee’s
organization
-
Other-outside: another individual or group of individuals outside the employee’s
organization
Moderating variables are gender, length of tenure, level in the organization, and amount of
education or professionalism. Women are likely to compare themselves to other woman,
though in jobs that are not sex segregated will likely make more cross-sex comparisons.
Based on equity theory, employees who perceive inequity will make one of six choices:
1. Change inputs: exert less effort if underpaid or more if overpaid
2. Change outcomes: individuals paid on a piece-rate basis can increase their pay by
producing a higher quantity of units of lower quality
3. Distort perceptions of self: “I thought I worked at a moderate pace but I seem to work
a lot harder than everyone else!”
4. Distort perceptions of others: “Mike’s job is not as desirable as I thought”
5. Choose a different referent: “I don’t make as much as my friend, but I make more
money than my dad when he was my age!”
6. Leave the field: quit
Some of these propositions have been supported, but not all.
Inequities created by overpayment do not seem to affect most behavior.
Not all people are inequity sensitive.
Some employees look for equity in high-status job titles, offices etc. more than pay.
Recent research has expanded the meaning of equity/fairness. Historically, it focussed on
distributive justice (= perceived fairness of the amount and allocation of rewards among
individuals) but organizational justice (= an overall perception of what is fair in the
workplace, composed of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice) draws a bigger
picture. Equity can be subjective (perception of fairness!). In general, people see allocations
etc. favoring themselves as fair. Also, people can react emotionally to injustices committed
against others (not just themselves).
Justice is multidimensional (exhibit 7-7):
-
Distributive justice: perceived fairness of the amount and allocation of rewards among
individuals
-
Procedural justice: the perceived fairness of the process used to determine the
distribution of rewards
* Process control: the opportunity to present your point of view about desired
outcomes to decision makers
* Explanations: clear reasons management gives for the outcome
It is critical that a manager is consistent across people and over time, unbiased, bases
his decisions on accurate information, and is open to appeals.
When distributive justice is lacking, procedural justice becomes more important.
Explanations tend to be beneficial in the form of post hoc excuses (it wasn’t my call)
rather than justifications (it’s no big deal). Procedural justice relates most strongly to
job satisfaction, employee trust, withdrawal from the organization, job performance,
and citizenship behaviors.
-
Interactional justice: the perceived degree to which an individual is treated with
dignity, concern, and respect. When people believe they are treated in an unjust
manner, they retaliate. This form of justice is most strongly related to organizational
commitment and satisfaction with outcomes such as pay.
Cultural differences. Managers should realize that employees are especially sensitive to
unfairness in procedures when bad news has to be communicated  important to openly
share information, follow unbiased procedures consistently.
Giving an employee the opportunity to express their frustration has shown to reduce their
desire for retribution.
All cultures seem to prefer equitable distribution of rewards (the most effective workers get
paid the most) over an equal division.
Expectancy Theory
= a theory that says that the strength of a tendency to act in a certain way depends on the
strength of an expectation that the act will be followed by a given outcome and on the
attractiveness of that outcome to the individual. Most evidence seems to support this theory of
Vroom. Exhibit 7-8: three relationships:
-
Effort-performance relationship: the probability perceived by the individual that
exerting a given amount of effort will lead to performance
-
Performance-reward relationship: the degree to which the individual believes
performing at a particular level will lead to the attainment of a desired outcome
-
Rewards-personal goals relationship: the degree to which organizational rewards
satisfy and individual’s personal goals or needs and the attractiveness of those
potential rewards for the individual.
Expectancy theory helps explain why a lot of workers aren’t motivated on their jobs and do
only the minimum necessary to get by.
First: not every worker can be a high performer; not every evaluation process focuses on
performance; some employees perceive their boss doesn’t like them; etc.
Second: many organizations reward things besides performance (kissing up to the boss,
seniority, etc.)
Finally: an employee works hard for a promotion, but gets a pay-raise instead, or words of
praise. Managers can incorrectly assume that all want the same thing.
Critics say the theory only works where individuals clearly perceive effort-performance and
performance-reward linkages. It tends to be idealistic. If organizations actually rewarded
individuals for performance it would be more valid (but can explain why a significant
segment of the workforce exerts low effort!).
Integrating contemporary theories of motivation
Many theories are complementary. Exhibit 7-9.
Opportunities can either aid or hinder individual effort. The goals-effort loop reminds us that
goals direct behavior (goal-setting).
For effort to lead to good performance, the individual must have the ability to perform and
perceive the performance appraisal system as fair and objective (expectancy theory /equity
theory). Performance –reward relationship contradicts cognitive evaluation.
High achievers are not motivated by assessment of performance  jump straight to personal
goals. If employees see a reward system as ‘paying off’ for good performance, the rewards
will reinforce and encourage good performance (reinforcement theory). Employees will judge
the favourability of their outcomes relative to what others receive but also with respect to how
they are treated (organizational justice).
Chapter 8: Motivation: from concepts to applications
Motivating by job design: the job characteristics model
Job design = the way the elements in a job are organized  can increase/decrease effort.
The job characteristics model (JCM)
= a model that proposes that any job be described in terms of five core job dimensions: skill
variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback. Hackman and Oldham.
-
Skill variety is the degree to which a job requires a variety of different activities so the
worker can use a number of different skills and talents.
-
Task identity is the degree to which a job requires completion of a whole and
identifiable piece of work.
-
Task significance is the degree to which a job affects the lives or work of other people
-
Autonomy is the degree to which a job provides the worker freedom, independence,
and discretion in scheduling work and determining the procedures in carrying it out.
-
Feedback is the degree to which carrying out work activities generates direct and clear
information about your own performance.
Exhibit 8-1. The first 3 lead to experienced meaningfulness of the work, the fourth to
experienced responsibility for outcomes of the work, and the last to knowledge of the actual
results of the work activities. From a motivational standpoint JCM provides knowledge of
results (internal rewards), experienced responsibility (I helped make this), and experienced
meaningfulness (care for good results). The more these states are present, the greater will be
employee motivation, performance, and satisfaction, and the lower their
absenteeism/turnover. Employees with a high growth need are more likely to experience the
critical psychological states when their jobs are enriched and respond to them more positively.
Index MPS = motivating potential score: a predictive index that suggests the motivating
potential in a job. MPS = ((skill variety + task identity + task significance) / 3) x autonomy x
feedback.
Much evidence supports that the 5 dimensions generate higher and more satisfying job
performance, but apparently it’s better to simply add up their effects. Because the focus is
mainly individualistic the results may vary across cultures.
How can jobs be redesigned?
Putting JCM into practice to make jobs more motivating
Job rotation: (= the periodic shifting of an employee from one task to another with similar
skill requirements at the same organizational level) a.k.a. cross-training. Used for increasing
flexibility and avoiding layoffs.
+ Reduces boredom, increases motivation, and helps employees better understand how their
work contributes to the organization. Also allows planners more flexibility.
- Training costs increase, moving a worker reduces productivity just when efficiency at the
prior job is creating organizational economies, groups have to adjust to a new member,
supervisors have to spend more time answering questions etc.
Job enrichment: (= the vertical expansion of jobs, which increases the degree to which the
worker controls the planning, execution, and evaluation of the work). Organizing tasks to
allow the worker to do a complete activity, increase responsibility, and provide feedback so
individuals can assess and correct their own performance. How? Exhibit 8-2.
Combining tasks, forming natural work units, establishing client relationships, expanding jobs
vertically (more responsibilities), and opening feedback channels.
Newer versions concentrate on improving meaningfulness:
-
relating employee experience to customer outcomes
-
providing employees with mutual assistance programs (employees who can help each
other directly through their work come to see themselves and the organizations for
which they work in more positive, pro-social terms and this can increase employee
affective commitment)
Many organizations use cross-training to learn new skills / job rotation to perform new tasks
in another position. Employees work with managers to set job enrichment goals, identify
desired competencies, and find appropriate placement.
Research shows job enrichment reduces absenteeism and turnover costs, and increases
satisfaction, though not all programs are equally effective. Frequent specific feedback related
to solving problems is linked to consistently higher performance.
It doesn’t seem to affect everyone in the same way either.
Alternative work arrangements
Flextime, job sharing, telecommuting. Especially important for diverse workforce of dualearner couples, single parents, and employees caring for a sick or aging relative.
Flextime: flexible work hours. Employees must work a specific number of hours a week, but
are free to vary their hours of work within certain limits. Exhibit 8-3. Usually a core period,
when everybody is expected to be at work.
+ reduced absenteeism, increased productivity, reduced overtime expenses, reduced hostility
toward management, reduced traffic congestion around work sites, elimination of tardiness,
and increased autonomy and responsibility for employees
- not applicable to every job/worker
Job sharing: (= an arrangement that allows two or more individuals to split a traditional 40hour-a-week job).
+ allows organizations to draw on talents of more than one person for a job; opens
possibilities to acquire skilled workers who are not available full-time; can be used as an
alternative to firing people due to overstaffing; increases flexibility and can increase
motivation and satisfaction (when a 40 hr job is not practical)
- difficult to find compatible partners who can successfully coordinate the intricacies of one
job (major drawback!)
Telecommuting: (= working from home at least two days a week on ca computer that is linked
to the employer’s office). Three kinds of jobs lend themselves for this: routine informationhandling tasks, mobile activities, and professional and other knowledge-related tasks.
+ larger labor pool from which to select, higher productivity, improved morale, and reduced
office-space costs, increase in flexibility and satisfaction.
- less direct supervision, makes teamwork difficult, reduced knowledge transfer, can increase
feelings of isolation (in person with high social needs), ‘out of sight, out of mind’ when it
comes to meetings, promotions, raises etc.
The social and physical context of work
JCM shows most employees are more motivated and satisfied when their intrinsic work tasks
are engaging, but this may not be enough if you feel isolated from your co-workers. Also,
good social relationships can make even the most boring and onerous tasks more fulfilling.
Social aspects and context are just as important as other job design features. They are strongly
related to positive moods and give employees more opportunities to clarify their work role
and how well they are performing. Also it makes it easier to acquire assistance.
Physical demands tend to lead to lower levels of job satisfaction (because of physical
discomfort).
Employee involvement
= a participative process that uses the input of employees and is intended to increase
employee commitment to an organization’s success  higher job satisfaction. Major
differences in effectiveness over cultures.
Examples of employee involvement programs
Participative management: (= a process in which subordinates share a significant degree of
decision-making power with their immediate superiors). To make this work, employees must
be involved in issues relevant to their interests so they’ll be motivated (they must of course be
competent and have knowledge to make a useful contribution). Trust from both sides is
critical.
Evidence is mixed, and when positive, only mildly so.
Representative participation: (= a system in which workers participate in organizational
decision making through a small group of representative employees). The goal is to
redistribute power, putting labor on a more equal footing. Most common: work counsel /
board representatives. Employees are elected to be in them.
Influence seems to be minimal. Work councils are dominated by management. The employees
in question may be more motivated but there is little evidence this trickles down to the others.
Linking employee involvement programs and motivation theories
In terms of the two-factor theory employee involvement programs could provide intrinsic
motivation. People with a high nAch can also get satisfaction from making/implementing
decisions. Extensive employee involvement programs clearly have the potential to increase
employee intrinsic motivation in work tasks.
Using rewards to motivate people
Pay is important to top performers.
What to pay: establishing a pay structure
The process of initially setting pay levels entails balancing internal equity (= the worth of the
job to the organization) through job evaluation and external equity ( the external
competitiveness of an organization’s pay relative to pay elsewhere in its industry) through pay
surveys. More pay often means better-qualified and more highly motivated employees who
will stay with you longer, and more satisfied customers. But pay is often the highest single
operating cost, so paying too much can make products/services too expensive.
How to pay: rewarding individual employees through variable-pay programs
Piece-rate plans, merit-based pay, bonuses, profit sharing, gainsharing, and employee stock
ownership plans are all forms of a variable-pay program (= a pay plan that bases a portion of
an employee’s pay on some individual and/or organizational measure of performance).
Earnings therefore fluctuate, which makes these programs attractive to management: reducing
expenses when performance declines. When pay is tied to performance it becomes a
recognition of contribution.
Different types of variable-pay programs:
Piece-rate pay plan: (= a pay plan in which workers are paid a fixed sum for each unit of
production completed). So the harder someone works, the more he gets. This is not feasible
for all jobs however.
Merit-based pay plan: (= a pay plan based on performance appraisal ratings). If designed
correctly, it lets individuals perceive a strong relationship between their performance and their
rewards. Most large organizations have merit pay plans, and high performers get bigger raises
than average and below-average performers this way.
They do have severe limitations though.
They are only as valid as the performance ratings.
The pay-raise pool fluctuates on other conditions than individual performance (like economy).
Unions typically resist merit pay plans.
Bonuses: (= a pay plan that rewards employees for recent performance rather than historical
performance) are a significant compensation component for many jobs. Among Fortune 100
CEOs the bonus generally exceeds the base salary. The incentive effects of performance
bonuses should be higher than merit pay because they reward RECENT performance.
The major downside is that an employee’s pay is more vulnerable to cuts, which is a problem
if it’s a large percentage of total pay or when employees take bonuses for granted.
Skill-based pay: (=a pay plan that sets pay levels on the basis of how many skills employees
have or how many jobs they can do) a.k.a. competency-based or knowledge-based pay. For
employers the lure is increased flexibility of the workforce. It also facilitates communication
across the organization because workers gain better understanding of each other’s jobs.
Research shows that they are effective in achieving their stated goals.
Downsides: employees can top out (learn everything there is to learn, which can be frustrating
after getting used to a challenging environment and pay raises).
Not every organizations has use for employees with different skills.
It doesn’t measure actual performance.
Profit-sharing plans: (= an organization-wide program that distributes compensation based on
some established formula designed around a company’s profitability). Can be cash outlays or
(mostly for managers) allocations of stock options. Tend to have positive impacts on
employee attitudes; employees report a greater feeling of psychological ownership.
Gainsharing: (= a formula-based group incentive plan) uses improvements in group
productivity from one period to another to determine the total amount of money allocated.
Mainly used in large manufacturing companies. Differs from profit sharing in tying rewards
to productivity gains rather than profits, so employees can receive rewards even when the
organization isn’t profitable. High performers tend to pressure weaker ones to work harder for
greater group performance.
Employee stock ownership plans: (ESOP = a company-established benefits plan in which
employees acquire stock, often at below-market prices, as part of their benefits). They have
the potential to increase employee job satisfaction, innovation and work motivation, but
employees need to psychologically experience ownership. Impact on performance is less
clear.
A major plus is CEOs are less likely to manipulate firm earnings reports to make themselves
look good.
Evaluation of variable pay
Studies generally support the idea that organizations with profit-sharing plans have higher
levels of profitability. Profit-sharing plans have also been linked to higher levels of employee
affective commitment, especially in small organizations. Gainsharing has been found to
improve productivity and has positive impact on attitudes.
Risk-aversive employees don’t perform better with piece-rate plans.
No sufficient evidence across cultures yet.
Flexible benefits: developing a benefits package
Flexible benefits = a benefits plan that allows each employee to put together a benefits
package individually tailored to his or her own needs and situation. This is consistent with
expectancy theory’s thesis that organizational rewards should be linked to each individual
employee’s goals.
-
Modular plans: predesigned packages or modules of benefits, each which meets the
needs of a specific group of employees
-
Core-plus plans consist of a core of essential benefits and a menu-like selection of
others from which employees can select. Employees are typically given ‘benefit
credits’ to purchase additional benefits.
-
Flexible spending plans allow employees to set aside pre-tax dollars up to the dollar
amount offered in the plan to pay for particular benefits. Almost all major companies
in the US offer flexible benefits and they’re becoming the norm.
Intrinsic rewards: employee recognition programs
Important work rewards can be both intrinsic (in the form of employee recognition programs)
and extrinsic (in the form of compensation systems). Some research suggests that financial
incentives may be more motivating in the short term, but in the long run it’s nonfinancial
incentives (compliments, thank you, employee of the month, etc.  recognition!).
Obvious advantage: it’s free!
Centralized programs across multiple offices in different countries can help ensure that all
employees, regardless of where they work, can be recognized for their contribution to the
work environment.
Downside: critics say they’re highly susceptible to political manipulation by management.
Also, not every job has objective performance factors.
Chapter 9: Foundations of group behavior
Defining and classifying groups
Group = two or more individuals, interacting and interdependent, who have come together to
achieve particular objectives.
Formal group = a designated work group defined by an organization’s structure. Behaviors
are directed towards achieving the organization’s goals.
Informal group = a group that is neither formally structured nor organizationally determined;
such a group appears in response to the need for social contact (in the work environment).
These interactions, though informal, greatly affect their behavior and performance.
Why do people form groups?
Social identity theory = perspective that considers when and why individuals consider
themselves members of groups. It proposes that people have emotional reactions to the
failure/success of their group because their self-esteem gets tied into the group’s performance.
Social identities also help people reduce uncertainty about who they are and what they should
do. People develop a lot of these identities during their lives (professionally, gender, family,
etc.). Negative side: Ingroup favoritism = perspective in which we see members of our own
ingroup as better than other people, and people not in our group as all the same 
stereotyping.
Several characteristics make social identity important to a person:
-
Similarity: people who have the same values/characteristics as other members of their
organization have higher levels of group identification. This also goes for other (less
important) characteristics like demographics/race/etc.
-
Distinctiveness: people are more likely to notice identities that show how they are
different from other groups.
-
Status: because people use identities to define themselves and increase self-esteem, it
makes sense that they are most interested in linking themselves to high-status groups.
-
Uncertainty reduction: membership in a group also helps some people understand who
they are and how they fit into the world.
Stages of group development
Groups generally pass through a predictable sequence in their evolution.
The five-stage model
Exhibit 9-1: the five-stage group-development model = the five distinct stages groups go
through:
1. Forming stage: characterized by much uncertainty. Members try to determine what
types of behaviors are acceptable. Complete when members start to think of
themselves as part of a group.
2. Storming stage: intra-group conflict: members accept the existence of the group but
resist the constraints it imposed on individuality. Conflict over control. Complete
when there is a relatively clear hierarchy of leadership.
3. Norming stage: close relationships develop and the group demonstrates cohesiveness.
Strong sense of group identity and camaraderie. Complete when group structure
solidifies and group has a common set of expectations of what defines correct member
behavior.
4. Performing stage: structure is fully functional and accepted. Group energy has shifted
to performing the task at hand. Last stage for permanent work groups.
5. Adjourning stage: wrapping up activities and preparing to disband. Mixed emotions
over accomplishments VS loss of camaraderie and friendships gained.
What makes a group effective is more complex than simply progressing through the stages.
Groups with strong sense of purpose and strategy rapidly achieve high performance and
improve over time, while those with less sense of purpose actually see performance worsen
over time. Positive focus leads to performing more quickly. Simultaneous stages or regression
are also an option.
An alternative model for temporary groups with deadlines
These groups don’t seem to follow the usual five-stage model.
First meeting sets group direction.
First phase of group activity is one of inertia
A transition takes place exactly when the group has used up half its allotted time
This initiates major changes
A second phase of inertia
Last meeting, characterized by markedly accelerated activity.
This pattern is called the punctuated-equilibrium model. Exhibit 9-2.
Inertia = the group tends to stand still or become locked into a fixed course of action even if it
gains new insights that challenge initial patterns and assumptions.
Massive evidence for transition at the halfway point! It tends to heighten members’ awareness
that their time is limited. This transition ends phase 1 and is characterized by dropping of old
patterns, burst of changes, adoption of new perspectives  revised direction for phase 2:
execution of plans.
Group properties: roles, norms, status, size, cohesiveness, and diversity
Group property 1: roles
All group members are actors, each playing a role (= a set of expected behavior patterns
attributed to someone occupying a given position in a social unit). Everyone has multiple
roles and each one imposes different requirements on us.
Role perception: an individuals view of how he is supposed to act in a given situation. We get
them from stimuli all around us (friends, family, tv, etc).
Role expectations: how others believe a person should act in a given situation.
In the workplace, we look at this through the psychological contract (= an unwritten
agreement that sets out what management expects from an employee and vice versa).
Violation by employer can lead to intentions to quit and lower levels of productivity.
Role conflict: A situation in which an individual is confronted by divergent role expectations.
Research shows that conflict between family and work roles is one of the most significant
sources of stress for most employees.
Zimbardo’s prison experiment
Subjects were randomly assigned as guard or prisoner. The experiment proved too successful
in demonstrating how quickly individuals learn new roles and had to be stopped after 6 days.
Like the rest of us, the participants had learned stereotyped conceptions of guard and prisoner
roles from media and experience with power/powerlessness. A follow-up TV reality show
produced different results, probably because of other settings and the fact participants knew
they were being watched. These results suggest abuse of roles can be limited when people are
made conscious of their behavior.
Group property 2: norms
= Acceptable standards of behavior within a Group that are shared by the group’s members.
They influence behavior with a minimum of external control. Most common:
performance norm = provides explicit cures about how hard members should work, what the
level of output should be, how to get the job done, what level of tardiness is appropriate, etc.
Other norms:
Appearance norms: dress codes, unspoken rules about when to look busy.
Social arrangement norms: with whom to eat lunch, whether to form friendships on and off
the job
Resource allocation norms: assignment of difficult jobs, distribution of resources like
pay/equipment.
The Hawthorne studies
‘30s. Examining the relationship between the physical environment and productivity. All
experimental groups did better, because they knew they were in such a group and perceived it
as fun, special, an elite group with whose interest management was concerned.
One study viewed the effect of a sophisticated wage incentive plan. The most important
finding was employees did not individually maximize their outputs, but a group norm
controlled it to be below its capability because they feared the unit incentive rate would be cut
if production went up, and layoffs might occur, the expected daily outputs would increase or
slower workers would be reprimanded. Resulted in level output.
Conformity
= the adjustment of one’s behavior to align with the norms of the group. Evidence suggests
that groups place strong pressures on individual members to change their attitudes and
behaviors to conform to the group’s standard. Recent research highlights a desire to form
accurate perceptions of reality based on group consensus, to develop meaningful social
relationships, and maintain a favourable self-concept as reasons for conformity.
Asch: 75% of subjects gave at least one answer that conformed (though they knew it was
wrong) and the average conformer gave wrong answers 37% of the time.
Since these studies (50 years ago) levels of conformity have steadily declined, and results are
culture-bound (collectivist cultures are more likely to conform to social norms). It is however
still a powerful force in groups in individualistic countries. Not all groups though  reference
groups: important groups to which individuals belong or hope to belong and with whose
norms individuals are likely to conform.
Deviant workplace behavior
= voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms and, in so doing, threatens
the well-being of the organization or its members. Also called antisocial behavior or
workplace incivility. Employees report an increase in rudeness and disregard toward others by
bosses and co-workers in recent years. Nearly half say it has led to thinking about changing
jobs. Also causes psychological stress and even physical illness. Group norms are important
in shaping antisocial actions. Some research suggests a chain reaction: negative behaviors 
collective negative mood  poor coordination of effort and lower levels of group
performance. Also, deviant behavior even depends whether an individual is part of a group.
Group property 3: status
= A socially defined position or rank given to groups or group members by others. Status is a
significant motivator and has major behavioral consequences when individuals perceive a
disparity between what they believe their status is and what others perceive it to be.
What determines status?
Status characteristics theory: states that differences in status characteristics create status
hierarchies within groups. Status tends to derive from one of 3 sources:
-
The power a person wields over others: people who control resources and outcomes
tend to be perceived as high status
-
A person’s ability to contribute to a group’s goal: people whose contributions are
critical to a group’s success tend to have high status
-
An individual’s personal characteristics: if one’s personal characteristics are positively
valued by the group he typically has a higher status
Status and norms
High status individuals are often given more freedom to deviate from norms than are other
group members and are better able to resist conformity pressure.
Status and group interaction
High-status people tend to be more assertive group members. Status differences actually
inhibit diversity of ideas/creativity, because lower-status members tend to participate less
actively in group discussions.
Status inequity
It is important that group members perceive the status hierarchy as equitable. Perceived
inequity/large differences in status are associated with poorer individual performance, lower
health, and higher intentions of leaving the group. Groups generally agree within themselves
on status criteria, however, individuals can find themselves in conflict when they move
between groups whose status criteria are different or when members have heterogeneous
backgrounds. Cultural differences in what causes status.
Group property 4: Size
Individuals perform better in smaller groups (about 7 members), and these are faster at
completing tasks. In problem solving however, large (12+) groups consistently get better
marks.
Social loafing = the tendency for individuals to expend less effort when working collectively
than when working individually. This challenges the assumption that the productivity of the
group as a whole should at least equal the sum of the productivity of its individual members.
Group performance increases with group size, but the input of each individual drops. Possible
causes:
-
belief that the other members are not carrying their fair share
-
dispersion of responsibility: relation between individual’s input and group output is
clouded  social free riders who can profit off the work of others
So when managers use collective work situations to enhance morale and teamwork, they must
also be able to identify individual efforts. It is persistent in Western (individualistic) cultures.
Collectivist cultures gain more from group efforts.
Ways to minimize it:
-
Set group goals, so the group has a common purpose to strive toward
-
Increase inter-group competition, which again focuses on the shared outcome
-
Engage in peer evaluation so each person evaluates each other person’s contribution
-
Select members who have high motivation and prefer to work in groups
-
If possible, base group rewards in part on each member’s unique contributions
Group property 5: Cohesiveness
= the degree to which group members are attracted to each other and are motivated to stay in
the group. Can be influenced by size, spending time together, or external threats. It affects
group productivity, together with norms:
high cohesiveness and high/low norms = high/low productivity
low cohesiveness and high/low norms = high (but less than groups with high cohesiveness) /
low-to-moderate
Exhibit 9-6.
Encouraging group cohesiveness:
-
Make the group smaller
-
Encourage agreement with group goals
-
Increase the time members spend together
-
Increase the group’s status and the perceived difficulty of attaining membership
-
Stimulate competition with other groups
-
Give rewards to the group rather than to individual members
-
Physically isolate the group
Group property 6: Diversity
= the extent to which members of a group are similar to, or different from one another.
Research identifies both benefits and costs.
- Increase in group conflicts (especially in early stages, lowers moral and increases drop-out)
- Different nationalities: equal performance, but less satisfaction with their groups, less
cohesive, more conflict
- Different tenure: drop in performance (although this did not occur where there were
effective team-oriented human resources practices!)
- Different values/opinions: more conflict (reduces when leaders can get members to focus on
the task at hand and encourage group learning)
+ Culturally/demographically different groups may perform better over time (if they get over
their initial conflicts)  surface-level diversity (race, gender, etc.) alerts people to possible
deep-level diversity (attitudes, values, etc.). They can lead to conflict but they also provide an
opportunity to solve problems in unique ways
+ One study found that diverse juries are more likely to deliberate longer, share more
information and make fewer factual errors when discussing evidence
+ Surface-level diversity can lead to greater openness (even without deep-level diversity);
may cause team members to be more open-minded
Short term diversity is usually not a good idea, but long term can cause more creativity and
open-mindedness. However, these effects aren’t very strong.
Group decision making
Group VS the individual
Strengths of group decision making: Groups generate more complete information and
knowledge; they offer increased diversity of views, providing multiple
alternatives/approaches; increased acceptance of a solution.
Weaknesses of group decision making: time consuming; conformity pressures (desire to be a
member); can be dominated by one or a few members (which aren’t always high ability
members!); group decisions can suffer from ambiguous responsibility.
Effectiveness and efficiency
Depends on how you define effectiveness: group decisions are often more accurate than those
of the average individual member, but less accurate than the judgments of the most accurate
member. Individuals are faster. Groups are more creative and often more acceptant of final
solutions.
Individuals are often more efficient (save for a few exceptions where multiple sources of
information must be reviewed). Managers must assess whether increases in effectiveness are
more than enough to offset the reductions in efficiency.
In summary, groups are an excellent vehicle for performing many steps in the decisionmaking process and offer both breadth and depth of input for information gathering. These
pluses however can be more than offset by the time consumed by group decisions, the internal
conflicts they generate, and the pressures they create toward conformity, so sometimes an
individual works just as well or better.
Groupthink and groupshift
Two by-products of group decision making have the potential to affect a group’s ability to
appraise alternatives objectively and arrive at high-quality solutions.
Groupthink: A phenomenon in which the norm for consensus overrides the realistic appraisal
of alternative courses of action. It’s a disease that attacks many groups and can dramatically
hinder their performance.
Groupshift: A change between a group’s decision and an individual decision that a member
within the group would make; the shift can be toward either conservatism or greater risk but it
generally is toward a more extreme version of the group’s original position.
Groupthink
The individual’s mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment deteriorate as a result
of group pressures. Symptoms:
-
Group members rationalize any resistance to the assumptions they’ve made (no matter
how strong the evidence contradicts them)
-
Members apply direct pressures on those who momentarily express doubts about any
of the group’s shared views, or who question the validity of arguments supporting the
alternative favored by the majority
-
Members who have doubts or differing points of view seek to avoid deviating from
what appears to be group consensus by keeping silent about misgivings and even
minimizing to themselves the importance of their doubts
-
There is an illusion of unanimity. If someone doesn’t speak, it’s assumed he is in full
accord. Abstention becomes a ‘yes’ vote.
Closely aligned with conclusions Asch drew. Members find it more pleasant to be in
agreement, than to be a disruptive force. Groups focussed on performance (more than
learning) are especially likely to fall victim to groupthink.
It doesn’t occur in all groups. It’s seen mostly when members hold a positive image of their
group that they want to protect, and when the group perceives a collective threat to this
positive image. Groups that believe strongly in their course of action are more likely to
suppress dissent and encourage conformity.
What to do about this?
-
Monitor group size: the more members, the more hesitant anyone will be to speak up
(no magic number, but probably max 10)
-
Encourage leaders to play an impartial role; actively seek input from all members and
avoid expressing their own opinions, especially in the early stages of deliberation
-
Appoint one group member to play the role of devil’s advocate, overtly challenging
the majority position and offering divergent perspectives
-
Use exercises that stimulate active discussion of diverse alternatives without
threatening the group or intensifying identity protection.
-
Delay discussion of possible gains so they can first talk about the dangers inherent in a
decision
Groupshift or group polarization
There are differences between group decisions and the individual decisions of group
members. In groups, discussion appears to lead members toward a more extreme view of the
position they already held.
Group polarization is a special case of groupthink. The group’s decision reflects the dominant
decision-making norm that develops during discussion. Whether the shit in the group’s
decision is toward great caution or more risk depends on the dominant pre-discussion norm.
Explanations:
-
discussion makes the members more comfortable with each other and, thus, more
willing to express extreme versions of their original positions
-
the group diffuses responsibility so individuals are freed from accountability for the
groups final choice
-
Extreme positions demonstrate how different they are from the outgroup
Group decision-making techniques
Most common form takes place in interacting groups (= typical groups in which members
interact with each other face to face), which provide verbal/non-verbal expression
opportunities. This does pose the problem of groupthink!
Reducing problems:
Brainstorming: (= an idea-generation process that specifically encourages any and all
alternatives while withholding any criticism of those alternatives). Leader poses the problem
and members freewheel as many alternatives as they can, without criticism.
It may indeed generate ideas, but not in a very efficient manner. Individuals alone generate
more ideas than a brainstorming group, probably because of production blocking (many
people talking at once, blocking though process).
Nominal group technique: (=a group decision-making method in which individual members
meet face to face to pool their judgments in a systematic but independent fashion). Restricts
discussion or interpersonal communication during the decision-making process, hence the
term nominal. All members are present but they operate independently. A problem is
presented and the group takes the following steps:
1. Before any discussion takes place, each member independently writes down ideas on
the problem
2. After this silent period, each member presents one idea to the group. No discussion
takes place until all ideas have been presented and recorded.
3. The group discusses the ideas for clarity and evaluates them
4. Each group member silently and independently rank-orders the ideas. The idea with
the highest aggregate ranking determines the final decision
Research shows these groups outperform brainstorming groups.
Electronic meeting
(= a meeting in which members interact on computers, allowing for anonymity of comments
and aggregation of votes). Blends sophisticated technology with nominal group technique. Up
to 50 people sit around a horseshoe-shaped table. When the issue is presented, they type their
response into the computers. It’s fast (no chit-chat; discussions don’t digress; and many
participants can ‘talk’ at the same time), anonymous (brutal honesty is an option). Early
research unfortunately shows that they don’t achieve most of their proposed benefits, and
actually lead to decreased group effectiveness, require more time to complete tasks, and result
in reduced member satisfaction compared with face-to-face groups. It is however becoming
very popular.
Each technique has strengths and weaknesses. Exhibit 9-7.
Chapter 10: Understanding work teams
Teams are increasingly the primary means for organizing work in contemporary business
firms.
Why have teams become so popular?
Organizations turn to teams as a better way to use employee talents. They’re more flexible
and responsive to changing events. They can quickly assemble, deploy, refocus, and disband.
Teams also facilitate employee participation in operating decisions, increasing employee
motivation. They are not always effective though.
Differences between groups and teams
A work group (see chapter 9) = a group that interacts primarily to share information and make
decisions to help each member perform within his or her area of responsibility.
A work team = a group whose individual efforts result in performance that is greater than the
sum of the individual inputs. It generates positive synergy through coordinated effort. Exhibit
10-1.
Managers seek to increased performance through positive synergy and teams create the
potential to achieve this (without increased input). However, effective teams have certain
common characteristics.
Types of teams
Four most common types of teams in an organization:
Problem-solving teams
= groups of 5-12 employees from the same department who meet for a few hours each week
to discuss ways of improving quality, efficiency, and the work environment. They rarely have
the authority to unilaterally implement any of their suggestions.
Self-managed work teams
= groups of 10-15 people who perform highly related or interdependent jobs and take on
responsibilities of their former supervisors. Fully self-managed teams even select their own
members and evaluate each other’s performance. Supervisory positions become less important
and can even be eliminated.
Research has not been 100% positive.
These teams tend to not manage conflicts well. Though members report higher job
satisfaction, they also have higher absenteeism and turnover rates.
Cross-functional teams
= Employees from about the same hierarchical level, but from different work areas who come
together to accomplish a task. Many organizations have used these horizontal, boundaryspanning groups for decades and today they’re still widely used. They are the equivalent of
social-networking groups, that collaborate in real time to identify new business opportunities
in the field and then implement them from bottom up. They are an effective means of
allowing people from divers areas within or even between organizations to exchange
information, develop new ideas, solve problems, coordinate projects.
Not easy to manage: early stages are long since it takes time to build trust and teamwork.
Virtual teams
= teams that use computer technology to tie together physically dispersed members in order to
achieve a common goal. They are so pervasive, and technology has advanced so far, that it’s
probably a bit of a misnomer to call them virtual (besides, nearly all teams today do at least
some of their work remotely). They may suffer from lack of social rapport & direct
interaction. They tend to be better at sharing unique information (which only one person
holds), but tend to share less info overall. Management should insure that:
-
trust is established
-
team progress is monitored closely
-
the efforts and products of the team are publicized throughout the organization
Creating effective teams
What makes teams effective? Exhibit 10-3. Two points to keep in mind:
-
Teams differ in form and structure (so avoid rigidly applying its predictions to all
teams)
-
The model assumes teamwork is preferable to individual work (not always true)
3 general categories of key components of effective teams:
1. Context: resources and other contextual influences that make teams effective
2. Composition
3. Process variables are events within the team that influence effectiveness
Context: what factors determine whether teams are successful
Adequate resources: Scarcity of resources directly reduces job effectiveness. Teams rely on
organizations for their resources (timely info, equipment, staffing, encouragement, etc.)
Leadership and structure: Agreeing on work specifics and how they fit together to integrate
individual skills requires leadership from members or org. In self-management teams a
manager’s job becomes managing outside the team.
Leadership is very important in multi-team systems (= systems in which different teams need
to coordinate their efforts to produce a desired outcome) in facilitating working together
(rather than against one another).
Climate of trust: Team members are more likely to take risks and expose vulnerabilities when
they believe they can trust others on their team, and it is the foundation of leadership.
Performance evaluation and reward systems: Management should modify the traditional,
individually oriented evaluation and reward system to reflect team performance and focus on
hybrid systems that recognize individual members for their exceptional contributions and
reward the entire group for positive outcomes.
Team composition
Abilities of members: A team’s performance is not merely the summation of its individual
member’s abilities, but these do set limits on what members can do and how effectively they
will perform on a team. High-ability teams are more adaptable to changing situations, more
affectively apply existing knowledge to new problems, complete tasks that demand
considerable thought, etc. A less intelligent leader can neutralize the effect of a high-ability
team.
Personality of members: Teams that rate higher on mean levels of conscientiousness and
openness to experience tend to perform better, and the minimum level of team member
agreeableness also matters (one bad apple can spoil the whole bunch!). Conscientious people
are good at backing up others and they’re good at sensing when their support is truly needed.
Open team members communicate better with one another and throw out more ideas. It’s best
to form teams of equal conscientiousness levels.
Allocation of roles: Teams with more experience and skill perform better, but experience and
skill of those in core roles are especially vital. Exhibit 10-4: 9 potential team roles. Successful
work teams have selected people to play all these roles based on their skills and preferences.
Diversity of members: organizational demography = the degree to which members of a work
unit share a common demographic attribute, such as age, sex, race, educational level, or
length of service in an organization, and the impact of this attribute on turnover. Despite
idealistic views, demographic diversity is essentially unrelated to team performance overall, if
not negatively related (race/gender, but mostly in environments dominated by white males).
Diversity in function/education, knowledge can have (small) positive effects depending on the
situation. Proper leadership can improve performance of diverse teams. Different nationalities
interfere with team processes (at least short term), but can be useful in providing different
views.
Size of teams: Generally speaking, the most effective teams have 5-9 members. When teams
have excess members, cohesiveness and mutual accountability decline, social loafing
increases and more people communicate less.
Member preferences: Not every employee is a team player. High-performing teams are likely
to be composed of people who prefer working as part of a group.
Team Processes
Exhibit 10-5: group processes have an impact on a group’s actual effectiveness.
Common plan and purpose: Teams that perform better have established a clear sense of what
needs to be done (goals) and how (strategies). Successful teams put a tremendous amount of
time/effort into agreeing on a purpose that belongs to them. This common purpose will
provide direction and guidance under any condition. Teams should also agree on whether
their goal is to learn about and master a task or simply to perform the task. Effective teams
show reflexivity (= a team characteristic of reflecting on and adjusting the master plan when
necessary).
Specific goals: Successful teams translate their common purpose into specific, measurable,
and realistic performance goals, which facilitate communication and help maintain focus on
getting results. They should be challenging, yet achievable.
Team efficacy: Effective teams have confidence in themselves, succeed more easily and in
turn gain more confidence etc. Management can help teams achieve small successes to boost
confidence and provide training.
Mental models: (= team members’ knowledge and beliefs about how the work gets done by
the team). Effective teams share accurate mental models. Similarity among team members
matters and makes for more interaction, motivation, positive attitudes, etc.
Conflict levels: Conflict isn’t necessarily bad, though has a difficult relationship with team
performance. Relationship conflicts are almost always bad. Task conflicts stimulate
discussion, promote critical assessment of problems and lead to better decisions. Too
high/low is both bad though. Effective teams resolve conflicts by explicitly discussing the
issues.
Social loafing: Members should be clear on what they are individually responsible for and
what they are jointly responsible for on the team.
Turning individuals into team players
Easier in collectivist countries. But not impossible in individualistic cultures!
Selecting: hiring team players
Some people possess the interpersonal skills to be effective team players. 3 options for
candidates who don’t have them:
-
don’t hire them
-
assign them as many tasks that don’t require teamwork as possible
-
training
Not everybody can be turned unfortunately. Personal traits appear to have an effect: teams of
members who like to work through difficult mental puzzles also seem more effective and
capitalizing on the multiple points of view that arise from diversity in age/education.
Training: creating team players
Letting employees experience the satisfaction team work can provide. 5-stage group
development model (chapter 9). This takes time.
Rewarding: providing incentives to be a good team player
An organization’s reward system must be reworked to encourage cooperative efforts rather
than competitive ones. This way, teams select new members carefully so they will contribute
to team effectiveness (and thus bonuses!). It’s usually best to set the tone early on, because a
switch takes time. Promotions, pay raises etc. should be given to individuals who work
effectively as team members. Individual contributions should be balanced with selfless
contributions to the team. Finally, intrinsic rewards (such as camaraderie, personal
development, etc.) that employees gain from working in a successful team help a lot.
Beware! Teams aren’t always the answer
Teamwork takes more time/resources than individual work (communication demands,
conflicts, meetings). The benefits of using teams have to exceed the costs. Three tests to know
whether the work in your group would be better done in teams:
1. Can the work be done better by more than one person?  complexity and need for
different perspectives
2. Does the work create a common purpose or set of goals for the people in the group
that is more than the aggregate of individual goals?  putting different specialists
together
3. Are the members of the group interdependent? Success of one depends on success of
others and vice versa.
Chapter 12: Leadership
The ability to influence a Group toward the achievement of a vision or set of goals. Leader ≠
manager! Leaders can emerge from within a group as well as by formal appointment.
Trait theories
Trait theories of leadership focus on personal qualities and characteristics (charismatic,
enthusiastic, courageous).
Hard to define leadership traits. So  big five personality framework: most of the dozens of
traits in various leadership reviews fit under one of the BF  strong support to traits as
predictors of leadership.
Extraversion seemed most important but mostly related to the emerging of leaders.
Consientiousness and openness to experience also showed strong relationships wit leadership.
Agreeableness and emotional stability didn’t.
One reason is that C and E are positively related to self-efficacy. People are likely to follow
someone who’s convinced he’s going in the right direction.
Another important trait is Emotional Intelligence. Empathic leaders can sense others’ needs,
listen to what followers say and don’t say and read reactions of others. Displaying and
managing emotions makes it easier to influence feelings of followers through sympathy and
enthusiasm for good and irritation for bad performance.
2 main conclusions:
- Traits can predict leadership
- traits do a better job predicting the emergence of leaders and the appearance of leadership
than actually distinguishing between effective and ineffective leaders.
This last one means that the fact that an individual exhibits the traits and is considered a
leader by others does not necessarily mean the leader is successful at getting the group to
achieve its goals.
Behavioral theories
Traits provide basis to select the right people to be leaders, but behavioral theories of
leadership implied we could train people to become leaders.
Ohio State Studies (1940’s) came up with two independent dimensions which accounted for
most of the leadership behavior described by employees:

Initiating structure: the extent to which a leader is likely to define and structure his
or her role and those of subordinates in the search for goal attainment (expecting
standards of performance and meeting deadlines etc)

Consideration: the extent to which a leader is likely to have job relationships
characterized by mutual trust, respect for subordinates’ ideas, and regard for their
feelings (helping with personal problems, friendly, approachable, treats everybody
as equals etc)
U of M leadership studies wanted to locate behavioral characteristics of leaders that appeared
related to performance effectiveness. They also cam up with 2 dimensions:

Employee-oriented leader: A leader who emphasizes interpersonal relations, takes
a personal interest in the needs of employees and accepts individual differences
among members

Production-oriented leader: A leader who emphasizes technical or task aspects of
the job
The 2 studies are closely related. E-o leadership (consideration) is linked to more job
satisfaction, motivation and respect. P-o leadership (initiating structure) is linked to higher
levels of group and organization productivity and positive performance evaluations.
Evidence of intercultural differences (Brazil  e-o and France  p-o). There’s no proven
connection between traits and behavior yet. Also: context matters!
Contingency theories
Evidence that different situations require different styles of leadership. 4 approaches to
isolating situational variables.
The Fiedler Model
Effective group performance depends on the proper match between the leader’s style and the
degree to which the situation gives the leader control.
 Identifying Leadership Style: basic leadership style is a key factor.
LPC-questionnaire (least preferred co-worker): describe the co-worker you least
enjoyed working with ever. High scores make you a relationship oriented person. Low
scores mean you’re more task oriented.
 Defining the situation: 3 contingency or situational dimensions:
1. Leader-member relations = the degree of confidence, trust and respect members
have in their leader
2. Task structure = the degree to which the job assignments are procedurized
3. Position power = the degree of influence a leader has over power variables such as
hiring, firing, discipline, promotions and salary increases.
The higher the leader scores on these dimensions, the more control he has.
 Matching leaders and situations: 8 possible outcomes for combining the 3 contingency
dimensions. Exhibit 12-1. Match these to the leaders LPC-score for max. leadership
effectiveness. Condensed to 3 categories: favourable, moderate and unfavourable. The
first and last conditions (high and low control) are good for a task-oriented leader and
the moderate situation is good for relationship-oriented leaders.
So Fiedler’s views say a leader’s style is fixed! So you either have to alter the situation
to fit the leader or pick a leader that fits the situation.
Considerable evidence for substantial parts of this theory. However, the logic of the LPC is
not well understood and scores are not stable and the contingency variables are complex.
Situational Leadership Theory
SLT focuses on the followers’ readiness  ability and will
-
Unable and unwilling: requires clear and specific directions
-
Unable and willing: requires high task orientation to compensate for followers’ lack of
ability and high relationship orientation to get them to buy into the leader’s desires.
-
Able and unwilling: requires supportive and participative style
-
Able and willing: doesn’t require the leader to do much
Despite intuitive appeal and wide popularity, but research results were disappointing.
Path-goal theory
States that it is the leader’s job to assist followers in attaining their goals and to provide the
necessary direction and/or support to ensure that their goals are compatible with the overall
objectives of the group or organization. Predicts the following:
-
directive leadership yields greater satisfaction when tasks are ambiguous or stressful
than when they are highly structured and well laid out
-
supportive leadership results in high performance and satisfaction when employees are
performing structured tasks.
-
Directive leadership is likely to be perceived as redundant among employees with high
ability or considerable experience.
Complex to test, mixed results.
Leader-Participation model
The way a leader makes decisions is as important as what he decides. The model is normative:
it provides a decision tree of seven contingencies and five leadership styles for determining
the form and amount of participation in decision making. Research results are not
encouraging.
Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory
Leaders create in-groups and out-groups. Subordinates with in-group status will have higher
performance ratings, less turnover and greater job satisfaction. Categorisation happens early
and is relatively stable over time. Exhibit 12-2: in-group members have more in common with
leader or are more competent. Same gender makes for higher LMX.
Evidence is generally supportive, mostly so with higher employee autonomy.
Charismatic Leadership and Transformational Leadership
Both inspire followers through their words ideas and behaviours.
Charismatic Leadership
JFK, Martin Luther King Jr., Bill Clinton, etc.
= a leadership theory that states that followers make attributions of heroic or extraordinary
leadership abilities when they observe certain behaviors. Robert House was the first one to
examine this in terms of OB.
Borne or made? Twin studies suggest that there are congenital factors and personality is
related to charismatic leadership. But most experts believe that individuals can be trained to
exhibit charismatic behaviors.
Proposed 3 step model:
-
Develop an aura of charisma by maintaining an optimistic view; using passion as a
catalyst for generating enthusiasm; communicating with the whole body, not just
words
-
Draw others in by creating a bond that inspires them to follow
-
Bring out the potential in followers by tapping into their emotions
Seems to work.
How do charismatic leaders influence followers? Evidence of 4 step process:
-
Articulating an appealing vision, long term strategy for attaining a goal by linking the
present with a better future for the org.
-
Vision statement: a formal articulation of an organization’s vision or mission.
Charismatic leaders use these to imprint on followers an overarching goal and purpose
and build self-esteem and confidence with high performance expectations and belief
that followers can attain them
-
Leader conveys a new set of values through words and actions and sets an example for
followers to imitate.
-
Charismatic leaders engage in emotion-inducing and often un-conventional behavior
to demonstrate courage and conviction about the vision.
Chapter 15: Foundations of Organization Structure
What is organizational Structure?
Organizational structure defines how job tasks are formally divided, grouped and coordinated.
6 key elements (exhibit 15.1 blz 515)
1. Work specialization
Work can be performed more efficiently if employees are allowed to specialize (division of
labor). Activities subdivided into separate jobs. Easier to train employees in specific tasks and
cheaper. Also led to creating special machinery. When introduced in a company,
specialization almost always generated higher productivity.
But: human diseconomies: boredom, fatigue, stress, low productivity, poor quality, increased
absenteeism and high turnover  less employee satisfaction
2. Departmentalization
Jobs must be grouped so common tasks can be coordinated.
Can be done in different ways:
-
by functions performed: efficiency gained from putting like specialists together
-
by type of product or service: increased accountability for performance because all
activities related to a specific product or serves are under direction of a single
manager.
-
By geography: effective when customers are scattered over large area
-
Process departmentalization: different departments for different parts of a
product/service
-
By customer: e.g. businesses, consumers, corporations etc.
3. Chain of command
An unbroken line of authority that extends from the top of the organizations to the lowest
echelon and clarifies who reports to whom.
Authority: the rights inherent in a managerial position to give orders and to expect the orders
to be obeyed. Degrees of authority differ between managers.
Unity of command: an employee should have only one superior to whom he is directly
responsible.
Times change: project groups and operating employees are allowed to make more decisions.
4. Span of control
How many subordinates a manager can efficiently and effectively direct.
Wider = cheaper (exhibit 15-3), but there’s a limit to how many employees a supervisor can
direct.
Narrow: more control, but 3 major drawbacks:
-
expensive
-
vertical communication is more complex slowing down decision making and isolate
upper management
-
encourage overly tight supervision and discourage employee autonomy
Managers recognize they can handle a wider span best when employees know their jobs or
can turn to co-workers when they have questions (investing in employee training).
5. Centralization and decentralization
Centralization: the degree to which decision making is concentrated at a single point in the
organization  top managers make decisions
In decentralized organisations the managers closest to the action make the decisions  more
people involved, faster, less alienation from top. Also: better at producing innovation.
6. Formalization
Refers to the degree to which jobs within the organization are standardized.
High: minimal amount of discretion over what to do and when and how to do it  consistent
and uniform output
Low: relatively unprogrammed, great deal of freedom to exercise discretion in their work.
Common organizational designs
3 structures
1. The simple structure
- not elaborate
- flat structure (about 2 or 3 vertical levels)
Mostly small businesses. Fast, flexible and inexpensive. Acountability is clear.
However, becomes ineffective as organization grows  information overload at the top. Also
risky: everything depends on 1 person in charge.
2. The bureaucracy
Standardization! Highly routine operating tasks achieved through specialization. Very
formalized rules and regulations, tasks grouped into functional departments, etc.
Strong points: ability to perform standardized activities in a highly efficient manner; can get
by with less talented (and cheaper) middle- and lower-level managers; decision making is
centralized.
Weaknesses: specialisation creates conflict; also obsessive concern with following rules (and
not all cases precisely fit a profile).
3. The matrix structure
An organization structure that creates dual lines of authority and combines functional and
product departmentalization.
-
Functional dep.
Strength: putting like specialists together  minimizes the number necessary while
allowing the pooling and sharing of specialized resources across products.
Weakness: difficulty in coordinating tasks of diverse functional specialists on time and
within budget.
-
Product dep. (opposite benefits and disadvantages)
Strength: facilitates coordination among specialties to achieve on-time completion and
meet budget targets; clear responsibility for all activities
Weakness: duplication of activities and cost
-
Matrix
Attempts to gain both strengths and avoid weaknesses.
It breaks the unity-of-command concept  dual chain of command: employees report to
their functional department and to their product groups.
Strength: ability to facilitate coordination when the organization has a number of complex
and interdependent activities (universities, hospitals, etc); direct and frequent contacts
between different specialties in the matrix can let information permeate the organizations
and more quickly reach the people who need it; reduces bureaupathologies (conflicts of
specialties); achieves economies of scale and facilitates the allocation of specialists by
providing both the best resources and an affective way of ensuring their efficient
deployment.
Weakness: creates confusion; fosters power struggles; places stress on individuals
New design options
Goal: fewer layers, more emphasis on opening boundaries.
1. The virtual organization
Typically a small, core organization that outsources major business functions.
Highly centralized with little or no departmentalization (e.g. movie business)
Exhibit 16-6.
Managers of virtual structures spend most of their time coordinating and controlling external
relations.
Strength: flexibility; a chance to be innovative among bigger established companies; cheap
Weakness: perpetual state of flux and reorganization; low degree of interaction
Leadership presence that reinforces the organization’s purpose and facilitates communication
is thus especially valuable.
2. The boundaryless organization
An organization that seeks to eliminate the chain of command, have limitless spans of control
and replace departments with empowered teams.
Different ways of making this happen:
-
Replace functional departments with cross-functional teams and organize activities
around processes.
-
Rotate people through different functional areas using lateral transfers; specialists
become generalists.
Also breaks down geographical barriers, through strategic alliances (partnerships with other
companies) and customer involvement (evaluations of product/service). Telecommuting and
social media blur boundaries.
Downsizing: a systematic effort to make an organization leaner by closing locations, reducing
staff, etc.
Can happen because of survival (crisis e.g.) or directing all efforts toward their core
competencies (reduce bureaucracy and speed decision making).
Beware:
Companies downsizing to improve strategic force often see positive effects on stock prices.
Companies that cut employees but don’t restructure usually see decreased stock and profit.
(because of stress reaction of remaining personnel  lower concentration/creativity etc)
Reduce negative impacts by preparing:
-
investment: invest in high-involvement work practices after downsizing
-
communication: discuss downsizing in advance to decrease insecurity among
employees
-
participation: voluntary early retirement programs/service packages
-
assistance: extended health care benefits, job search assistance
Why do structures differ?
Exhibit 15-7: 2 extreme models of organizational design
Mechanistic model: synonymous with the bureaucracy; higly standardize processes for work
etc
Organic model: more like boundaryless organization; flat, fewer formal procedures, etc.
3 organisation strategies:
1. Innovation strategy: a strategy that emphasizes the introduction of major new products
and services. Competitive pay to attract top candidates and motivate employees to take
risks.
2. Cost-minimization strategy: emphasizes tight cost controls, avoidance of unnecessary
innovation or marketing expenses, and price cutting. (Walmart etc)
3. Imitation strategy: seeks to move into new products or new markets only after their
viability has already been proven. (HP etc). They follow smaller competitors with
superior product.
Exhibit 15-8
Size affects structure, but adding 500 employees to a big company (round 2000) has less
effect on its structure then adding 500 to a team of 300.
Technology is the way in which an organization transfers its inputs into outputs.
What differentiates technologies is their degree of routineness (technology-structure
relationship): assembly-line (mechanic) vs furniture restoring/genetic research etc. (organic)
Environment: institutions or forces outside an organization that potentially affect the
organization’s performance (suppliers, customers etc)  static vs dynamic
3 dimensions:
- Capacity: degree to which the environment can support growth
- Volatility: degree of instability in the environment.
- Complexity: degree of heterogeneity and concentration among environmental
elements. (simple [tobacco] vs heterogenic [broadband])
Exhibit 15-9
Organizational designs and employee behaviour
Don’t generalize! Not everybody likes freedom/flexibility.
A few outcomes:
Work specialization contributes to higher employee productivity, but at the price of reduced
job satisfaction. There’s a limit to specializing.
A manager’s job satisfaction increases as the number of employees supervised increases
(some evidence to support this)
Strong evidence linking centralization to job satisfaction. In general, autonomy appears to be
positively related to job satisfaction (but not for everybody).
People from high power-distance cultures (Greece, France) find their employees are much
more accepting of mechanistic structures than employees from low power-distance countries
(culture!!).
Exhibit 15-10
Chapter 16: Organizational culture
Definition: a system of shared meaning held by members that distinguishes the organization
from other organizations. 7 characteristics degrees to map organization culture:
1. Innovation and risk taking: encourage employee risk taking
2. Attention to detail expected from employees
3. Outcome orientation: management focus on outcome rather than techniques
4. People orientation: management consideration of the effect of outcomes on people
5. Team orientation: work in teams or individuals
6. Aggressiveness: competitive or easygoing
7. Stability: status quo or growth
Exhibit 16-1
Other research:
-
Clan: collaborative and cohesive
-
Adhocracy: innovative and adaptable
-
Hierarchy: controlled and consistent
-
Market: competitive and customer focussed
OC shows how employees perceive the characteristics of an organization’s culture, not
whether they like them  discriptive
Job satisfaction seeks to measure how employees feel about the organization’s expectations
 evaluative
OC should be perceived similar by all employees, although there are also subcultures.
Dominant culture: expresses core values
Subcultures: reflect common problems or experiences in the same department/location
Strong culture: a culture in which the core values are intensely held and widely shared.
Should reduce employee turnover because of high agreement  cohesiveness, loyalty and
organizational commitment.
Strong cultures don’t need high formalization; they’re different roads to the same end.
What do cultures do?
Function: creates distinctions between on organization and others; conveys a sense of identity;
facilitates commitment to something larger than individual interest; enhances the stability of
the social system (social glue); sense-making and control mechanism that guides and shapes
employee’s attitudes and behaviour.
Shared meaning can point everyone in the same direction. However, employees may show
more allegiance to their team than the organisation.
Also important in job offers: who fits in with the organization?
Creating organisational climate  shared perceptions organizational members have about heir
organization and work environment > sum of their individual parts
Positive overall workplace climate has been linked to higher customer satisfaction and
financial performance.
Also specific climates can influence specific attitudes and performance, and can even interact
with each other.
Dysfunctional aspects of culture can have bad effects on organization.
-
Institutionalization: a condition that occurs when an organization takes on a life of its
own, apart from any of its members, and acquires immortality (not entirely negative,
but it does mean that behaviors and habits that should be questioned and analyzed
become taken for granted, making maintaining the organization’s culture an end in
itself)
-
Barriers to change: shared values don’t agree with those that further the organization’s
effectiveness (rapid change)
-
Barriers to diversity: resistance against new employees who are different, can
undermine organizational policies and productivity
-
Barriers to acquisitions and mergers: cultural compatibility is the primary concern for
management when thinking of merging. Mergers have an unusually high failure rate
and it’s often because of ‘people problems’.
Creating a sustaining culture
*Beginning: Founders’ vision
Occurs in 3 ways:
-
hiring and keeping employees with same feelings and views
-
indoctrinating and socializing these employees to their way of thinking and feeling
-
founders behaviour encourages employees to identify with them and internalize their
beliefs, values and assumptions.
*Keeping the culture alive: employees get a similar set of experiences trough practices in the
organization. Selection, performance evaluation, training etc. ensures that employees fit the
culture and are rewarded/penalized accordingly. Three forces at play:
- Selection: not only on skills but also on fit! 2 way street: solicitors can also decide
there’s no fit between them and org.
- Top Management: the way they act and what they expect has effects on employees
- Socialization: helping new employees adapt to the culture.
Exhibit 16-2: prearrivalencountermetamorphosis

Prearrival: Best prediction for future behavior is past behavior.The ability of the
individual to present the appropriate face during the selection process determines
his ability to move into the organization in the first place.

Encounter: if exeptations resemble reality, this stage cements earlier perceptions. If
not, a new member may become disillusioned and even quit. Friendly colleagues
help a lot.

Metamorphosis: Exhibit 16-3. Institutional practices or individual input.
Exhibit 16-4
How employees learn culture
Stories (about founders, rule-breaking, successes, first day at work, etc)
Rituals: repetitive sequences of activities that express and reinforce they key values of the
organization, which goals are most important, which people are important and which are
expendable.
Material symbols: what conveys to employees who is important, the degree of egalitarianism
top management desires, and the kinds of behavior that are appropriate (like company cars,
office build-up, etc).
Language (like unique terms for equipment, key individuals, suppliers, customers, etc).
Creating an ethical organizational culture
The OC most likely to shape high ethical standards among its members is high in risk
tolerance, low to moderate in aggressiveness and focused on means as well as outcomes.
If the culture is strong and supports high ethical standards, it should have a very powerful and
positive influence on employee behavior.
Negative consequences of a systematic culture of unethical behavior can be severe (lawsuits,
fines, etc)
What can managers do to create a more ethical culture?
-
be a visible role model
-
communicate ethical expectations
-
provide ethical training
-
visibly reward ethical acts and punish unethical ones
-
provide protective mechanisms
Positive ethical climate in top managers transfers down the line to employees (same goes for
negative!!). Employees with more similar attitudes to those of their department have a bigger
chance of promotion, so it’s bottom up as well.
Creating a positive organizational culture
(= a culture that emphasizes building on employee strengths, rewards more than punishes, and
emphasizes individual vitality and growth).
Building on employee strengths Although a positive organizational culture does not ignore
problems, it does emphasize showing workers how they can capitalize on their strengths. “If
you really want to excel, you have to know yourself.”
Rewarding more than punishing Catching employees doing something right. Praise is often
overlooked as a reward: simple and cheap, yet powerful.
Emphasizing vitality and growth A positive culture recognizes the difference between a job
and a career. It supports not only what the employee contributes to organizational
effectiveness but also how the organization can make the employee more effective.
Limits New concept. Not every culture values being positive as much as USA. “Promoting a
social orthodoxy of positiveness focuses on a particular constellation of desirable states and
traits but, in so doing, can stigmatize those who fail to fit the template.” There are limits to
effectiveness.
Spirituality and organizational culture
Workplace spirituality = the recognition that people have an inner life that nourishes and is
nourished by meaningful work that takes place in the context of community. Well matched to
job design (meaningfulness), transformational leadership, etc. Recognizing that people seek to
find meaning and purpose in their work and desire to connect with other human beings as part
of a community.
At first emotions were thought to be irrational, but now we’ve come to realize that the study
of emotions improves our understanding of OB. Exhibit 16-5.
Characteristics of a spiritual organization
-
Benevolence: spiritual organizations value showing kindness toward others and
promoting the happiness of employees and other organizational stakeholders.
-
Strong sense of purpose: spiritual organizations build their cultures around a
meaningful purpose. Although profits may be important, they’re not the primary value
of the organization.
-
Trust and respect: spiritual organizations are characterized by mutual trust, honesty,
and openness. Employees are treated with esteem and value, consistent with the
dignity of each individual.
-
Open-mindedness: spiritual organizations value flexible thinking and creativity among
employees
Achieving a spiritual organization
Supporting work-life balance; leaders demonstrating values, attitudes, and behaviors that
trigger intrinsic motivation and a sense of calling through work; purpose in work like
community building.
Criticisms of spirituality
Three issues:
-
Scientific foundation: just a new buzzword?  broad concept
-
Do organizations have the right to impose spiritual values on their employees?
Religion should be kept out of the workplace, but focussing on helping employees find
meaning and purpose in their work lives is less stinging.
-
Is spirituality compatible with profits? Limited evidence which is available shows they
are.
Global implications
Organizational cultures often reflect national culture. One of the primary things to do (for US
managers) is be culturally sensitive (speak slowly, listen more, avoid discussions of religion
and politics). Doing business with other countries means adjusting.