perception, attitudes, and individual differences...factors that inﬂuence perception. in summary,...

P1: PBU/OVY P2: PBU/OVY QC: PBU/OVY T1: PBU

GTBL053-02 GTBL053-Bowditch-v3 September 20, 2007 8:58

C H A P T E R T W O

Perception, Attitudes, andIndividual Differences

Many of the theories discussed in this book attempt to explain general behavioraltendencies. While these concepts provide us with a broad understanding of suchbehavior, they do not necessarily give us insight into the behavior of a particularindividual. By understanding and building on these general theories, however, we canbegin to move closer to an understanding of why a specific person may behave theway she or he does.

One of the major determinants of how and why an individual initiates and sustainscertain behaviors is based on the concepts of sensation and perception. Sensationrefers to the physical stimulation of the senses—our ability to see, hear, smell, taste,and touch. Although knowledge of these different sensations helps to explain some ofthe whys and hows of behavior, we also need to understand how an individual reactsto and organizes these sensations. This process is referred to as perception and refersto the way in which we interpret messages from our senses to provide some order andmeaning to our environment. The key to this definition is the term interpret. Sincedifferent people can view the same situation in disparate ways, the interpretation of themeaning of a particular event determines how these individuals will react to it. Thus,perception can be thought of as an intervening variable that influences behavior.1

This chapter begins with a brief discussion of visual and auditory perceptionand moves toward social perception. An underlying assumption made by perceptiontheorists is that certain types of mental processes that operate in relatively simple visualand auditory situations similarly occur in more complex interpersonal situations. Thus,the ability to examine more complex forms of perception is based on our understandingof these relatively simple perceptual processes.

There are a number of internal and external factors that influence the way in whichwe view the world around us. Before proceeding to an examination of these variables,however, it is necessary to identify two basic sources of perceptual variation: physio-logical limitations and cultural and environmental constraints. We are surrounded bydata that are transmitted through our daily interactions with others, the Internet andmedia, educational experiences, family life and friendships, work experiences, and oursocialization processes in general. The physiological aspect of perception defines the

41



42 Chapter 2 Perception, Attitudes, and Individual Differences

limits of what we can actually see, hear, smell, and so forth of these data. Yet, even giventhese limitations, the information that is gathered by our senses does not enter ourminds as raw or unprocessed data. Rather, people tend to interpret this information ina way that is congruent with their sets of beliefs, values, and attitudes, which are shapedby larger cultural and environmental experiences. Thus, perception is determined bythe interaction among these psychological and broader sociocultural factors.

BASIC INTERNAL PERCEPTUAL ORGANIZING PATTERNSSince people are continually subjected to a barrage of visual and auditory stimulationfrom the outside world, it is necessary to have an internal process or way in which allthese data can be selected and organized into meaningful information. This type ofselective process occurs at two basic levels: (1) those data a person is aware of and canrecognize fairly readily after selection, and (2) data that may be below the thresholdof awareness.2 Once people select the data to be “processed” or interpreted, the nextphase is to order or classify these data in a meaningful way. As suggested earlier, thisdoes not occur in a random or haphazard manner, but instead in a way that is consistentwith our beliefs and values.

Gestalt Psychology

According to one school of thought, instead of providing us with a mirror image ofthe outside world, data enter our minds in already highly abstracted forms, whichare referred to as structures or gestalts.3 Although some information is inevitably lostin the translation of raw data into these gestalts, such structural transformations ofreal-world, primary data enable us to interpret or understand that world. Thus, whenwe perceive something, we are essentially attempting to fit that object or event into apreestablished frame of reference or classification scheme.

The basic tenet of gestalt theory is that organization of the data around us is partof the perceptual process and not something that is added after variables are selected.In visual perception, for example, Gestalt psychology explains why we organize thestimuli shown here to “see” groups of dots (e.g., two groups of three, three groups oftwo), instead of six individual dots:

• •• •• •

In terms of auditory phenomena, Morse code is a series of short and longer sounds.To many people this may seem to be nothing more than random noise. To a listenerwho has been trained to understand these sounds, however, this “noise” is a form ofcommunication.

Figure-Ground Phenomena

Another visual tendency that influences how we organize our perceptions is the figure-ground relationship.4 When we observe various phenomena, we tend to organize these



Basic Internal Perceptual Organizing Patterns 43

data in such a way as to minimize differences and changes while maintaining unityand wholeness. The basis of this process is our tendency to perceive a figure against itsbackground. Compared to the background, a figure will appear to have shape, object-like dimensions, and substance as well as being nearer and more vivid than it actuallymay be. This figure-ground phenomenon can influence our tendency to perceiveconfigurations even when the individual elements do not bear any relationship to thecomposite we “see.” When looking at clouds, for example, we often perceive vividfaces, mosaics, or other “pictures” that are, in reality, nothing more than a mass ofcondensed water vapor.

At times, however, a given pattern may be organized so that more than one figure-ground relationship may be perceived. In Figure 2-1, for example, you may “see”two faces looking at each other or an ornate goblet. In auditory phenomena, a closeanalogue to the figure-ground relationship is the signal-to-noise ratio. If a radio signal isweak and the static is strong, we do not hear the radio signal. In social situations, theremay also be a number of signals we do not “hear” (e.g., dissatisfaction and complaintsfrom our subordinates) because of the “noise” around us (e.g., pressure to complete atask to please our boss). Even though the signal itself may be quite strong, the noisybackground often limits our ability to hear it.

Closure

Closure refers to our tendency to perceive incomplete figures as if they were complete.When looking at Figure 2-2, for example, we usually see a triangle instead of threeseparate lines; we “close” that part of the figure that is left open. Similarly, we oftenanticipate the end of a song because music usually follows a fairly standard pattern.Thus, even if the last few notes of a song were left out, we could most likely completethe song based on what would sound “right.” In work situations, we can also “close”a conversation with someone when we anticipate what their response is likely to be.As will be discussed in Chapter 4, this tendency can readily lead to breakdowns incommunication.

Figure 2-1 Figure-Ground Relationships: Which Is the Figure and Which Is the Ground?




Figure 2-2 Perceptual Closure

In summary, these internal tendencies are some of the factors that influence whatwe see and hear of the world around us. As indicated earlier, these tendencies areshaped by our cultural and social experiences. Indeed, as research has shown, due tothe influence of past experiences and socialization, similar events are perceived quitedifferently by people from different cultural environments.5

EXTERNAL FACTORS IN PERCEPTIONAlthough what we see and hear is significantly influenced by our internal processes,the way in which various stimuli are presented to us also influences our perception ofthem. In contrast to the discussion earlier, these factors relate more to the nature ofthe stimulus itself than to the human mechanisms used to “pick up” the stimulus.

Intensity or relative strength of an object, noise, or occurrence can significantlyinfluence our perception of it. In our brief allusion to the signal-to-noise ratio earlier,we noted that a radio transmission is more likely to be heard only if it is louder thanthe background noise. Similarly a pungent smell is more likely to be noticed than asubtle one; witness our awareness of the smell of a skunk as opposed to the scent of arose.

Contrast refers to the extent something stands out in relation to its background.A bright light tends to be more noticeable than a dim one (intensity), but a particularlybright light is less likely to be noticed in a theater district because it is surroundedby other bright lights. Similarly, certain behaviors that tend to be unrecognized inone context will stand out in different social situations. A child’s playful behavior, forexample, is much more noticeable among adults than among other children.

Size also influences our visual perception. Quite simply, large objects are morenoticeable than smaller ones. Since they stand out more fully in relation to theirbackground (contrast), larger objects have a greater probability of being selected intoour perception.

Proximity is another factor that can influence what we see. Things that are phys-ically close tend to be viewed as “belonging to” each other more than similar thingsthat are farther away. For instance, in the example shown here, you are likely to seepairs of XOs rather than a number of Xs and Os:

XO XO XO XO XO XO



Social and Interpersonal Perception 45

Similarity of things, however, does tend to influence our perception when objectsare in relatively the same proximity to one another. Things that are similar tend to beseen as belonging together more than to other equally close but less similar things. Inthe example here, there is a tendency to see columns of Xs and Os rather than rowsof alternating letters X O X O X O:

X O X O X OX O X O X OX O X O X OX O X O X O

Repetition or frequency is another external factor that influences what we notice.Things that are repeated or occur frequently are “seen” more readily than those eventsor objects that are infrequent or not repeated. This is part of the rationale in politicaland advertising campaigns, where a candidate or product is given repeated exposure.

Motion also influences our ability to select various stimuli, since we tend to noticethings that move against a relatively still background. This can also apply to auditorystimulation when we track sounds—such as a police or fire siren—as they move towardor away from us.

Novel and very familiar perceptual settings are more readily selected than sit-uations that are neither very novel nor very familiar. For instance, new products thatare sufficiently different can attract quite a bit of attention (novelty). At the same time,we seem to take more notice if “our” street is shown in the media (familiarity).

The discussion thus far has focused on some of the relatively simple externalfactors that influence perception. In summary, we have a tendency to select variousexternal objects, sounds, or events that are more intense, larger in nature, in contrastto their background, close in proximity, repetitive, in motion, and either novel or veryfamiliar.6 The chapter now turns to an examination of some of the ways in whichthese influences interact with more complex internal tendencies to affect social andinterpersonal perception.

SOCIAL AND INTERPERSONAL PERCEPTIONJust as our perception of different visual and auditory phenomena is influenced bya number of internal and external factors, the perception of other people and socialsituations is also a dynamic process. To “understand” or make sense of the complexbehavior of other people, we often make inferences or assumptions about their motiva-tions, intentions, personalities, emotions, and so forth. Such inferences or impressionssubsequently become a significant determinant of our behavior toward and interactionwith these individuals.

Schemas and Scripts

People often use schemas, cognitive frameworks that systematize our “knowledge”about gender differences, other people, situations, objects, and ideas that we gener-ate through experience, to effectively organize information about these phenomena.7

These schemas can reflect ourselves, characteristics of others we interact with, theroles we play, and events we experience.




Self-schemas capture generalizations we make about our own behaviors that areshaped by past experience and current situations. Organizational members, for in-stance, often exhibit self-schemas of competence or decisiveness when confrontedwith particular tasks they are familiar with.

Person schemas reflect ideal characteristics of others that we sort into differentcategories. When organizations refer to “role models,” for example, they are typicallyreferring to individuals who reflect those qualities (hard work, dedication, innovation,etc.) that the organization is striving for. As will be discussed later, stereotyping, whichcan be both positive and negative, is based on person (and/or group) schemas.

Event schemas, often referred to as scripts, capture a mental picture of a seriesof events that often guides our behavior. In large-scale organizational change efforts,managers often use scripts to try to shape or influence the way in which people reactor respond to the changes that are taking place around them.

Role schemas, sometimes referred to as “person-in-situation” schemas, combineself-schemas, person schemas, and event schemas in ways that frame what we expectfrom people based on the role(s) that we play. Our perception of the student–teacherrole set, for example, readily creates expectations about how the individuals in questionshould act in those roles.

Perceptual Distortion

Similar to our perception of different objects or sounds, our perception of other peopleis subject to a number of distortions and illusions. We often “see” people in a way thatmay be quite different from how they are actually or objectively presented to us. Justas we use internal devices to reduce (select) the amount of visual and auditory dataaround us into manageable portions, we also have a number of devices—perceptualsets—that influence how we interpret or “understand” behavior and social interaction.Although some of these perceptual tendencies have greater empirical research supportthan others, they are all readily observable in everyday situations.8

Stereotyping

Stereotyping is the process of using a standardized impression of a group of peopleto influence our perception of a particular individual. It is a way of forming consis-tent impressions about other people by assuming that they all have certain commoncharacteristics by virtue of their membership (whether ascribed or achieved) in somegroup or category, such as race, gender, occupation, or social class. There are threebasic aspects to stereotyping:9

1. Some category of people is identified (e.g., IT technicians, racial or ethnicgroups, OB professors).

2. An assumption is made that individuals in this category have certain traits(e.g., nerdy, lazy, sensitive).

3. Finally, the general perception is formed that everyone in the categorypossesses those traits (e.g., all IT technicians are geeks, all members of acertain ethnic group are lazy, all OB professors are “touchy-feely”).




Thus, we create images of people based on characterizations we make about a particulargroup of people rather than the individual.

To a large extent, people depend on stereotypes to reduce their information-processing demands. Unfortunately, this dependence can create a multitude of prob-lems for organizations and their members. With respect to OB, occupational, gender,race, and age stereotypes are especially relevant. As we will see in Chapter 6, occupa-tional stereotypes (e.g., people in finance are cold and calculating) are often the basisunderlying intergroup conflict. Moreover, negative stereotypes, which are resistant tochange, can readily contribute to inefficient and uneconomical decisions, and thosethat focus on a particular gender, race, age, or physical ability can create significantbarriers and severely limit the access of minority status individuals to higher-levelorganizational roles and positions.10

Not all stereotypes, however, are necessarily inaccurate or harmful, and they canbe useful in helping us to process information fairly quickly. We often use “ideal types”(a form of stereotyping) to make comparisons between extremes—such as capitalismand socialism, or mechanistic and organic environments—as the basis for furtherinvestigation. The danger lies in using stereotypes to develop our perceptions aboutspecific people or situations.

Stereotype Content and Out-Groups

The stereotype content model (SCM) recognizes the potential for individuals to holdmultiple and mixed stereotypes about out-groups.11 Perceived warmth and compe-tence comprise two primary dimensions of group stereotypes. Warmth is associatedwith beliefs about the out-group’s intent toward the in-group. In other words, out-groups tend to be perceived as more (or less) warm to the extent they are perceivedto have goals that are consistent (or competitive) with the goals of the in-group. Com-petence is associated with the extent to which out-groups are perceived as able tosuccessfully pursue their goals. Within this framework, the primary determinant ofperceived out-group competence is perceived status, such that high-status groups areconstrued as having been effective in pursuing key goals, in essence making their statuslegitimate.

It is important to note that positive stereotypes on one dimension do not necessar-ily indicate the absence of prejudice. In fact, positive stereotypes on one dimension areoften functionally consistent with derogatory stereotypes on the other dimension. Forexample, socioeconomically successful out-groups, such as Asians, can pose a compet-itive threat to dominant in-group members, and this success elicits envy. Low-warmthstereotypes justify such attitudes and actions against envied out-groups by castingthe groups as being solely concerned with the pursuit of their own goals. Taken to-gether, competent (high-status) but low-warmth (competitive) out-groups may thusbe resented and socially excluded. These mixed stereotypes also help to explain theperceived success of the out-group, affirming beliefs that the existing system is justand meritocratic, which serves to maintain the social status quo, benefiting dominantin-groups.

Halo Effect

The halo effect refers to the process of allowing one characteristic of an individual or agroup to overshadow all other characteristics of that individual or group.12 The salient




characteristic may be positive or negative, thereby creating a general impression thatwould correspondingly be positive or negative. We often assume, for example, thatsimply because an individual may do something very well (e.g., act, play sports) heor she is obviously well informed about other things in life (e.g., cars, deodorants).The advertising community places great faith (and money) in the halo effect on theassumption that if we like a particular individual we will also like the product thatperson is endorsing.

It is particularly important to be aware of the halo effect when conducting perfor-mance appraisals, so that one feature does not influence the overall evaluation. Therehave been cases where a rater who did not like mustaches or long hair allowed thosefeatures to sway an entire appraisal, ignoring the “good” qualities or contributions ofthe employee. In other instances, if a person performs well on the job but is constantlylate, the tardiness may overly influence that person’s performance review, causingthe rater to devalue the employee’s work efforts. Given the increased diversity in theworkplace, it is also important to be aware of the similar-to-me effect: We tend to befavorably disposed to others whom we perceive to be similar to us and tend to be moreguarded with those who we think are different.13

Expectancy

Another factor that can readily influence social perception concerns our expectationsabout what we will see (or hear). In many instances, we “see” what we expect tosee, rather than what is actually occurring. These expectations subsequently influenceour attitudes and behavior toward the person or persons involved and can distort thesituation.

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy If someone expects or perceives that another person willact in a particular way, that other person often lives up to or fulfills that expectation.This tendency is referred to as a self-fulfilling prophecy.14 When we behave towardothers according to the way we expect them to respond (e.g., tightly controlling peoplewho we predict will be lazy), they often will react to us as we expected—because ofour behaviors. In effect, our actions have created the situation we expected, thusreinforcing our initial perceptions.

There is ample evidence that people often behave toward others in ways thatproduce the very behavior they expected.15 Moreover, self-fulfilling prophecy dynam-ics often operate automatically or “entirely nonconsciously,” such that the automaticactivation of stereotypes encourages individuals to subconsciously act in accordancewith their expectations toward others.16 In essence, their actions influence others toact as expected, with no awareness of the process by either party.

Selective Perception Another way our expectations can distort a given situation isthrough selective perception, a process of filtering out some messages and paying moreattention to others. Two factors that underlie this process are selective attention (whenwe listen to or watch for certain messages and ignore others) and selective retention(when we remember certain messages and forget others).17 For example, when weexpect that an individual will behave in a certain way, we tend to concentrate on those(expected) activities and ignore efforts that do not conform to our expectations. Wethen have a tendency to remember those initially expected behaviors, which influences




our attitudes and behaviors and can lead to the type of self-fulfilling prophecy discussedearlier. We often use this mechanism when we draw unjustified conclusions fromunclear or ambiguous situations.

Projection Projection refers to a tendency to place the blame for our own difficul-ties or problems on others, or to attribute our feelings to other people. In businesssituations, for example, managers often project power motives to “explain” the be-havior of other managers or their subordinates, when the managers who make theobservation might be the ones with power-related needs. The same is true of manyunion-management negotiations, where each party projects its own feelings of mis-trust onto the other group. Similarly, an underlying reason why many sexual harassmentcomplaints seem to “fall on deaf ears” is that managers often blame the victim, project-ing negative attributes and outcomes on the complaining individual (e.g., “she broughtit on herself,” “she shouldn’t have dressed or acted that way”).18

Perceptual Defense

Once we develop a perception of someone, we have a tendency to cling to that per-ception by shaping what we see and hear so as to be consistent with our beliefs. Thus,we might refuse to acknowledge a particular stimulus if it does not meet our initialperceptions. We can distort it, deny it, render it meaningless, or even recognize theincongruence, but not allow it to make any real change.19 In a sense, the various typesof perceptual distortions or shortcuts discussed earlier are all kinds of perceptualdefenses.

Attribution Theory

Attribution theory is concerned with what people identify as the apparent reason orcause for behavior. Since the way in which we view a situation determines how wewill attempt to deal with it, this theory holds important implications for managers. Forinstance, if one of our subordinates is not doing well on the job and we think that thepoor performance is due to laziness, we will come up with a very different solutionthan if we think the poor performance is due to an unclear job description or to thestructure of the job itself. Thus, how we think a particular behavior is caused has adirect bearing on the way we approach that situation.

Essentially, attribution theory operates in the following manner:20 (1) We observea given behavior and attempt to determine the reason for the behavior (e.g., wasaccidental or intentional); then (2) if we think the behavior was intentional, we tryto assess whether the action was determined by the situation or by the individual(e.g., the person’s personality); and finally (3) we attribute a meaning (cause) to thatbehavior. For instance, if behavior by the same employee on different jobs is similarwhen other employees’ behaviors differ from job to job, we would probably attributethat individual’s behavior to personality traits instead of job-related characteristics andreact accordingly.

A number of factors help us to determine why a person acted in a particular way.Our methods for making these determinations, however, are not completely rational;they are referred to as attributional biases. For instance, while both personal andsituational factors might have influenced the individual’s behavior in the previous




example, we often attempt to simplify the judgment-forming process by focusing onone set of these factors. Thus, some individuals will tend to perceive internal or personalcauses as being responsible for behavior (such as intelligence, motivation, personality),while others will rely more heavily on environmental or situational factors (such asorganizational rules, the structure of the job). Some individuals, of course, perceivecausation in terms of an additive combination of both internal and external factors.The key to attribution theory, however, is not what actually determines or causes thebehavior, but what we perceive to be the underlying cause.

A common error individuals engage in when making attributions about their ownoutcomes is to internally attribute favorable outcomes, and to externally attribute neg-ative outcomes. This is called the self-serving bias. Conversely, when drawing attribu-tions about others’ outcomes, individuals tend to over attribute favorable outcomesto external factors, discounting possible internal explanations, and to over attributenegative outcomes to internal factors. This tendency is referred to as the fundamentalattribution error.

While both managers and subordinates often attempt to determine the extentto which a particular behavior varies across different entities, contexts, or people,due to time constraints or insufficient motivation, these same individuals may simplyadopt their own assumptions that “explain” the behavior.21 As suggested above, thesepatterns of assumptions, referred to as causal schemes, are heavily influenced by theattributional biases held by the person, which can vary widely among people. Thus,in many instances, what could be a healthy and productive interaction between amanager and his or her subordinates may be undermined by conflicting attributionalbiases held by each party.22 In fact, many theorists argue that much of the conflict thatoccurs between managers and their subordinates is a result of leaders acting on theirown causal schemes (i.e., interpretations of the situation), which are quite differentfrom those of their subordinates. Research also suggests that when individuals perceiveambiguous actions by others as stemming from malicious intentions, they are muchmore likely to become angry and to retaliate than when they perceive the same actionsas stemming from other motives.23

As a way of creating more productive employee relations, therefore, researcherssuggest attempts to reduce divergent perceptions and perspectives between the parties(e.g., increased interpersonal interaction, open communication channels, workshopsdevoted to reducing attributional errors) and to place greater attention on the dif-ferences that exist among individuals. The popularity of 360-degree feedback, whereindividual employees complete the same structured evaluation process that managers,direct reports, team members, peers, and even customers use to evaluate their per-formance, reflects these concerns.24

Locus of Control

A corollary to this discussion is the concept of locus of control, the general way inwhich people view causation in their own lives. Some individuals view their behaviorsand outcomes as internally controlled, and thus believe that they are in control oftheir lives. Others, however, feel that their behaviors and outcomes are externallycontrolled, believing that their lives are influenced by other circumstances rather thantheir own efforts. If an individual perceives that he or she is in control of a situation, theoutcome is likely to be quite different than if the person feels that external forces are in



Perception and Individual Differences 51

control. Research has indicated, for example, that employees with a perceived internallocus of control have higher levels of job satisfaction and are more comfortable with aparticipative style of management than individuals with an external locus of control.25

These internally oriented employees enjoy participating in work-related decisions as away of exerting control over their environment. Similarly, an internal locus of controlhas been found to be related to entrepreneurial activity and a tendency to start newbusinesses.26

Attribution Theory and Motivation

As we will explore in the next chapter, there are different sets of assumptions about whyindividuals behave the way they do that influence how we attempt to motivate people.A manager who thinks that people are economically oriented might tinker with wageand salary schemes to influence and reinforce good work performance. A manager whothinks that social concerns are more important might concentrate efforts on improvingthe climate of the work group by making the organization a “happier” place to work.The manager who assumes that people are influenced by opportunities for personalgrowth and development, in contrast, might try to make jobs as challenging as possible.Finally, the manager who thinks that people are more complex might try to find out“what turns workers on” and develop individually tailored motivational schemes.

In an objective sense, each of these managers might be correct (or incorrect)about what motivates any given person. However, the fact that the manager perceivesthat one thing or another motivates the worker ultimately determines the manager’spolicies and behavior; and the manager’s policies and behavior have a direct influenceon the worker’s behavior. Since each of these assumptions will tend to influence theindividuals involved quite differently, the key is how motivation is perceived in termsof what motivates people rather than the accuracy of the motivational model per se.This is an important basis of attribution theory—a person’s beliefs about his or herfuture activities and interpretations of past activities influence that person’s actions inthe present.27

PERCEPTION AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCESAs discussed earlier, there are a number of internal and external factors as well asperceptual tendencies that influence what each of us sees and hears of the world aroundus. Thus, different individuals organize their perceptions of reality in a distinctive ifnot unique manner. Within the context of a diverse workplace, these differences canreadily moderate the ways in which people respond to a variety of organizational andmanagerial practices. Different individuals, for example, will vary in terms of howmuch importance they attach to intrinsic job-related rewards, the style of leadershipthey prefer, their need for interpersonal contact and interaction, and their toleranceand acceptance of job responsibility.28

Within organizational behavior (OB), the concept of individual differences impliesthat personal characteristics influence the way in which people perform on the job andin the workplace. This section briefly examines how an individual’s personality and self-concept can influence perception and work-related behaviors, and the implications formanagement decision making.




Personality

While many factors influence perception, one of the most influential determinants isan individual’s personality. Psychologists use the concept in a neutral, universal sensein terms of what characterizes an individual. Although there are a variety of definitionsof personality, an underlying theme is consistency, the similarity of responses a personmakes in different situations. In fact, research evidence is accumulating that suggestsvirtually all personality measures can be condensed into five key traits, referred to asthe “Big Five”:29

1. Conscientiousness is the degree to which a person is dependable,responsible, organized, and a planner (forward looking).

2. Extroversion is the degree to which a person is sociable, talkative, assertive,active, and ambitious, and is able and willing to openly express feelings andemotions.

3. Openness to experience is the extent to which an individual is imaginative,broad minded, and curious with a tendency to seek new experiences.

4. Emotional stability (neuroticism) is the degree to which an individual isanxious, depressed, angry, and generally emotionally insecure.

5. Agreeableness is the extent to which a person is courteous, good-natured,flexible, trusting, and liked by others.

Although it is not completely clear how these traits and individuals personalitiesdevelop, there appear to be three major influences: (1) our physical traits and biolog-ical makeup, which limit the ways we are able to adapt to our environment; (2) oursocialization and the culture of our group and society; and (3) the various life events,sensations, and other situational factors we experience.30 These influences, which bothform and interact with our interpretations of these influences, establish the uniquenessof individuals and are responsible for those behaviors and manifestations that we referto as personality. Research, for example, suggests that various traits interact to formdifferent personality types, such as: (1) the authoritarian personality, which is charac-terized by rigidity, obedience, submission to authority, and a tendency to stereotype;(2) the Machiavellian personality, which is oriented toward manipulation and control,with a low sensitivity to the needs of others; and (3) the existential personality, whichtends to place a high value on choice, attempts to maintain an accurate perception ofreality, and tries to understand other people.31 In essence, our personality acts as akind of perceptual filter or frame of reference that influences our view of the world.

One personality dichotomy that has enjoyed prominence in the OB literature isthe “Type A–Type B” personality. Type A personalities are hard-driving, competitiveindividuals who are prompt but always feel rushed. Characteristic Type A behaviorincludes a tendency toward impatience, hurriedness, competitiveness, and hostility,especially when the individual is experiencing stress or challenge. Type B personalities,in contrast, are reflective, more relaxed, and easier-going individuals who feel morefree to express their feelings.32 Assessments of these two personality types are oftenassociated with stress and health risks (e.g., heart attacks) for Type A individuals.There are also parallels between the needs for achievement and power and Type Apersonalities, and the need for affiliation and Type B personalities.




Another commonly used personality dimension in work-related research is Jung’sextroversion and introversion typology.33 As noted earlier, the extroverted personalityis oriented toward the external, objective world, while the introverted personality isfocused on the inner, subjective world.34 Beyond these two attitudes or orientations,personality also has implications for our thinking, feeling, sensing, and intuiting.35

Thinking involves our comprehension of the world and our place in it. Feeling reflectsour subjective affective experiences, such as pleasure or pain, anger, joy, and love.Sensing is defined as our perceptual or reality function in that it encompasses concretefacts or representations of the individual’s world. Finally, intuiting refers to perceptionthrough unconscious processes or subliminal means. According to Jung, the intuitiveindividual goes beyond facts, feelings, and ideas to construct more elaborate modelsof reality.36

One of the currently most popular means of assessing Jungian personality typesis the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. This typology reformulates Jung’s model intofour dichotomies: (1) extroversion-introversion (EI), (2) sensing-intuiting (SN), (3)thinking-feeling (TF), and (4) judgment-perception (JP). Individuals are “typed” oneach of these four dimensions and are given a pattern—for instance, ENFP, ISTJ,or ESTP—which has been found to have some, though limited, predictive validity.Research, for example, has indicated that some people are more open to new informa-tion from others (P: high on perception) while others tend to be more closed to newinformation (J: high on judgment). Individuals high on the high-judgment dimensionhave a preference to make their own decisions, develop plans, and reach conclusionsinstead of continuing to collect data or to keep considering alternatives. Those highon the perception dimension, in contrast, tend to be more open and adaptable, andwilling to receive new information.37

Although some theories suggest that our personalities are largely formed by thetime we are six years old, other views of personality development argue that there arecritical periods throughout early to late or mature adulthood.38 Thus, it seems thatalthough our personalities may be initially shaped during our early years, they continueto be altered as we encounter different life experiences. In terms of OB, the impli-cations of such “age-linkages” in personality development are reflected in researchindicating that not only do general life experiences affect our adjustment to work,but experiences on the job may actually have a greater impact on our psychologicaladjustments than the reverse.39

In summary, personality develops over the course of an individual’s life and influ-ences that person’s perception of reality and behavior in organizations. Since organi-zations can only be as creative and adaptive as the people they employ, these findingsreflect some of the main reasons for career development initiatives and employeeassistance programs (EAPs).

Organizational Application

Perhaps the most significant illustration of the effect of personality in organizationallife is reflected in parallels between common neurotic styles of behavior and typicalmodes of organizational failure.40 “Stagnant bureaucracies,” for example, are exem-plified by organizations that do not have clear goals, lack initiative, react sluggishlyto environmental change, and are pervaded by managerial apathy, frustration, andinaction. On an individual level, the depressive personality style exhibits very similar




features. This relationship is especially significant in the context of studies indicatingthat the strategy, culture, and even structure of an organization can be significantlyinfluenced by the personality of the top executive. Since we all possess certain patternsof dealing with our environment, which are deeply embedded, pervasive, and likelyto continue, the personality of those at the top of an organization can shape the wayin which the firm adapts to its environment.

In organizations where power is broadly distributed, strategy, culture, and struc-ture are typically influenced by many managers, and the relationship between theexcessive use of one neurotic style and organizational pathology is more tenuous. Inthose organizations where power is highly concentrated, in contrast, a neurotic style atthe top of the organization can have an impact at all levels. Suspicious top executives,who often expect to find trickery and deception in the behavior of others and seekout “facts” to confirm their worst expectations, gradually create cultures that are per-meated with distrust, suspicion, fear, and a preoccupation with “enemies.” Employeemorale typically suffers a great deal under these conditions, as people at all levelswithhold their contributions and focus on protecting themselves from exploitation. Insome instances, entire organizations can experience the dysfunctional effects of thesedynamics, resulting in what have been referred to as “depressed organizations.” Theseorganizations are characterized by (1) a general feeling of lethargy, (2) little creativityor innovation, (3) marginally acceptable productivity, (4) a high rate of absenteeism andtardiness, (5) restricted communication within and between departments, (6) lengthydecision making, and (7) little joy or enthusiasm expressed by employees.41

A related area of concern focuses on executives in personal crisis; senior-levelmanagers with problems that go beyond those associated with work overload, stress,and related adjustment difficulties. Such crises can involve alcoholism, drug abuse,depression, and mania—problems that can require hospitalization.42 While a growingnumber of organizations are improving their ability to work with lower-level, supervi-sory, and even mid-level management personnel with such problems through EAPs,there are a number of reasons why these problems often go undetected with higher-level executives: (1) a usual lack of close, day-to-day supervision of senior executivesby their superiors; (2) the difficulty in connecting a developing mental health problemwith declining performance, especially in the early stages; (3) the desire of subordi-nates to “cover” for their boss; and (4) a lack of senior colleagues who are aware of theimpaired executive’s problems and who have sufficient status, knowledge, and desireto confront and work with the individual in question.43 It has even been suggestedthat the personality and mental health of top-level managers are related to overallorganizational effectiveness and the ability to adapt to change.44

Self-Concept

Closely related to the notion of personality is the self-concept, the way in which we seeourselves.45 Whether we realize it or not, each of us has a self-image that influenceseverything that we say, do, or perceive about the world. This image acts as a filter thatscreens out certain things and provides an idiosyncratic flavor to our behavior. Muchof what was referred to in the discussion of selective perception is influenced by ourself-concept.




According to one conceptualization, our self-concept is composed of four inter-acting factors:46

1. Values form the foundation of a person’s character, reflecting those thingsthat are really important in life and basic to one as an individual.

2. Beliefs are ideas people have about the world and how it operates.3. Competencies are the areas of knowledge, ability, and skill that increase an

individual’s effectiveness in dealing with the world.4. Personal goals are those objects or events in the future that we strive for in

order to fulfill our basic needs.

The self-concept reflects each individual’s unique way of organizing personal goals,competencies, beliefs, and values. A related construct to the idea of personal compe-tence is self-efficacy, the belief that we have in our own capability to perform a specifictask. As research has indicated, self-efficacy is strongly related to task performanceand openness to new experiences. Those with high self-efficacy expectations tend tobe successful in a broad array of mental and physical tasks, while low self-efficacy isrelated to lower success rates.47

Overall, our natural tendency is to maintain our self-concept. In other words,people strive to maintain their images of themselves by engaging in behaviors that areconsistent with their values, beliefs, competencies, and goals as they see them. Whilesome people might behave in ways that go against personal goals and competencies,most tend to react quite defensively when their beliefs and values are threatened. Suchthreat often leads to the use of the perceptual defenses discussed earlier. Thus, whilewe may perceive an individual’s behavior as illogical or even self-defeating, it usuallymakes sense to that particular individual since people generally make choices that areconsistent with their self-concepts.

Perception, Individual Differences, and Decision Making

As indicated by the preceding discussion, perception refers to the process by whichindividuals receive, organize, and interpret information from their environment. Interms of making effective decisions, managers must first obtain information from theirorganizations (peers, subordinates, their managers) and environments (such as cus-tomers, suppliers, and other critical stakeholders), and then accurately interpret thosedata through the perception process. Although many discussions of managerial deci-sion making suggest that it should be a conscious, rational, and systematic process, witha number of precise steps (including defining and diagnosing the problem, specifyingdecision objectives, developing and appraising alternative solutions, and then choosingand implementing the best course of action),48 individuals with different personalitiesand self-concepts differ in the ways in which they approach such decision making.49

In one sense, individuals are constraints in the decision-making process. The deci-sions that managers make are strongly affected by their values, beliefs, competencies,goals, and personalities. Thus, to understand why certain decisions emerge from agroup or organization, it is important to examine the premises of the individuals in-volved in making those decisions. Organizational members, for example, differ in terms




of the value they place on the system’s goals, their own ideals, their perceptions of thediscrepancies between the desired and current state of affairs, the amount of risk theyare willing to assume, and so forth. While some of these tendencies are explicit anddiscussed openly, in many instances they operate on an implicit, unconscious level.Goals are often selected, problems identified, and alternatives framed and chosen onthe basis of these implicit values and beliefs, which are not always clear to the decisionmaker.50 Therefore, it should not be surprising that recent research suggests that halfthe decisions made in organizations result in failure.51

The models that outline how managers should make decisions are largely basedon classical decision theory, which views the managerial world as certain and stable.The underlying premise is that managers, facing a clearly defined problem, will knowall the alternatives for action and their consequences, and be able to select the optionproviding the best or “optimum” course of action. Behavioral decision theory, bycontrast, argues that individuals have cognitive limitations and act only in terms ofwhat they perceive about a particular situation. Moreover, due to the complexity ofthe world, such perceptions are frequently imperfect. Thus, rather than operating ina world of certainty, managers are viewed as acting under uncertainty with limited,ambiguous, and in many instances, irrelevant information.52

The main differences between the classical and behavioral decision models arethe degrees of certainty and stability surrounding the decision-making process and thepresence of cognitive limitations and their influence on our perceptions. People, how-ever, differ in their cognitive structures (i.e., the way they organize their perceptions).Some individuals tend toward complexity, while others have a tendency to be moresimplistic in their decision-making process. For instance, people with simple cognitivestructures tend to immediately categorize and stereotype, generate few alternatives,and think in “either/or” terms. More complex decision makers, by contrast, spendmore time processing information, generating a greater number of interpretations(“and/also”), considering the alternative implications of the information, and think-ing through the ethical ramifications of their decisions.53 Differences in personalityalso influence the way in which we prefer to approach the decision-making process.Authoritarian personalities, for example, tend to be more directive oriented in theirdecisions, while more egalitarian personality types tend to prefer to involve others inthe process of making decisions.54

Decision Making and Knowledge Management

Given the increased complexity of the global marketplace and the explosion of infor-mation that is literally available through a keyboard stroke or mouse click, significantattention is being placed on how organizations share and process information anduse that information to make decisions. One of the challenges underlying this dy-namic focuses on managing the knowledge creation process itself—understandingwhat it is and how to create, transfer, and use it more effectively.55 Knowledge canbe thought of as information combined with experience, context, interpretation, andreflection.56

While explicit knowledge can be easily expressed in words and numbers andeasily communicated (e.g., hard data, codified procedures, scientific formulae), tacitknowledge is much more difficult to formalize, communicate, and share with oth-ers. While tacit knowledge involves the expertise (“know-how”) an individual has



Attitudes and Attitude Formation 57

developed over time, it also has an important cognitive dimension consisting of men-tal models, conceptual maps, beliefs, and perceptions so ingrained that we typicallytake them for granted. Since tacit knowledge is highly personalized (e.g., intuitions,hunches), it is often described as “fuzzy” and linked closely to the person who holdsit. As such, a growing body of research is focusing on how such tacit knowledgecan be captured and transferred from the individual to a repository available to theorganization.57

The concept of knowledge management will be explored more fully in Chapter 4.It is important to note, however, that although intuitive decision making has garnereda bad reputation in the past, we are beginning to place much more emphasis on howour values, beliefs, emotions, and subconscious mental processing shape and influencethe decisions we make.58

ATTITUDES AND ATTITUDE FORMATIONIn the workplace, a person’s attitudes are an important determinant of performance-related behaviors—the quantity and quality of output, organizational commitment,absenteeism, turnover, and a host of other important outcomes. On a general level,a person’s attitudes influence that individual to act in a particular way.59 Of course,whether an attitude actually produces a particular behavior depends on a number offactors such as family and peer pressures, past and present work experiences, andgroup norms (standards of behavior). For instance, people may dislike their jobs orthe firm they work for, but may choose to continue working there because alternativepositions that pay as well are not available. Similarly, people may like what they aredoing but hold back their effort because of a lack of perceived rewards or pressurefrom co-workers.

Attitudes can be defined as a predisposition to respond to a stimulus (somethingin a person’s environment such as an event, thing, place, or another person) in apositive or negative way.60 For example, when we speak of a positive job attitude(or job satisfaction) we mean that the people involved tend to have pleasant internalfeelings when they think about their jobs. Attitudes have three basic components:cognitive, affective, and behavioral. An attitude’s cognitive component includes beliefsand knowledge about and evaluations of the stimulus. The affective component refersto our feelings, the emotional part of the attitude. Finally, an attitude’s behavioralcomponent is the inclination to behave in a certain way as a response to one’s feelingsand cognitions.

Attitudes also have four basic characteristics: direction, intensity, salience, anddifferentiation.61 An attitude’s direction is either favorable, unfavorable, or neutral(no direction). We may like, dislike, or be neutral about certain aspects of our job, theorganization we work for, our boss, and so forth. The intensity of an attitude refers tothe strength of the affective component. Even though we may dislike certain aspectsof our job, the force of our dislike may range from weak to strong. In general, the moreintense an attitude, the more it will tend to generate consistent behaviors. Saliencerefers to the perceived importance of the attitude. An artist’s dislike for computers,for example, might not be perceived to be as important as a similar attitude held by abusiness student, where familiarity with information technology is increasingly playinga significant role in career success. Finally, attitudes do not exist in a vacuum. They are




part of an interrelated mix of beliefs, values, and other attitudes. Attitudes with a largenumber of supporting beliefs, values, and other attitudes are high in differentiation;those based on few beliefs, values, and other attitudes are low in differentiation.

Attitude Formation

There are several general processes through which attitudes are learned: (1) the out-comes of our own experiences (trial-and-error); (2) our perceptual tendencies andbiases; (3) our observations of another person’s responses to a particular situation; (4)our observation of the outcomes of another person’s experiences; and (5) verbal in-struction about appropriate responses to and characteristics of a particular stimulus.62

While some attitudes are adopted early in life (i.e., learned from our family or culturalenvironment), most are developed gradually over time through life experiences andobservations.

Recent models of attitude formation suggest people can hold dual attitudes.63

One type of attitude is implicit, and is similar to an enduring predisposition insofar aswe are generally unaware of when or how implicit attitudes are formed. Implicit atti-tudes are presumably difficult to change because they are automatic and routinized,meaning they are accessed subconsciously when individuals encounter relevant stim-uli. Conversely, explicit attitudes are the result of conscious, reflective, and motivatedcognitive processing, displaying flexibility and responsiveness to context-specific as-sessments. These are attitudes individuals prefer and espouse when given time toreflect or consider the relevant situation/stimuli.

According to dual attitude theory, it is possible for people to hold conflicting orincongruent attitudes toward the same object. For example, a person may hold a neg-ative implicit, yet a positive explicit, attitude toward the same group of people (e.g.,immigrants) or social policy (maternity leave). The difference between them is thatless cognitive effort is required to retrieve the negative implicit attitude because itis often activated at a preconscious level. Furthermore, in many instances the nega-tive implicit attitude guides judgment and behavior, especially if the positive explicitattitude is not accessed. In this instance, the implicit attitude overrides the explicitattitude. One of the novel theoretical premises of dual attitude theory is based onthe notion that implicit attitudes, once formed, are never completely extinguished or“replaced.” Instead, attitudes become compartmentalized as opposed to integrated,such that either implicit or explicit attitudes may be accessed to guide judgments andbehavior.

Attitude Change

Managers are often faced with the challenge of changing someone’s attitude—a sub-ordinate, boss, supplier, customer, and so forth. While a particular manager’s statusin the group or organization and leadership capabilities can be influential aspects ofthis process, the extent to which a specific attitude can be changed is dependent onthe attitude’s direction, intensity, salience, and degree of differentiation. Those at-titudes that are not deeply held and low in differentiation are often relatively easyto change through education, training, and communication efforts. When our atti-tudes are so deeply ingrained that we are hardly aware of them (a high degree of



Attitudes and Attitude Formation 59

intensity, salience, and differentiation), however, they are quite difficult to change.In fact, a significant body of social science research indicates that one of the mosteffective ways of changing deeply held attitudes is to first change correspondingbehaviors.64

Attitudes and Behavior

Managers attempting to introduce major change in an organization often begin byassessing and then trying to change employee attitudes.65 This approach is consistentwith the conventional wisdom that attitudes influence behavior. In general, beliefs andvalues precede attitudes, which then influence behavior. The link between attitudesand behavior, however, is tentative. While an attitude may lead to an intent to behave ina certain way, the intention may or may not be carried out depending on the situation orcircumstances. At the same time, while attitudes do influence behavior, it is importantto emphasize that behavior also influences attitudes.

As a significant body of social science research underscores, one of the most effec-tive ways of changing beliefs and values is to begin with changes in related behaviors.66

Individual values and attitudes, especially those that are deeply held, are notoriouslydifficult to directly change because people’s values tend to be part of an interrelatedsystem in which each value is tied to and reinforced by other values. Thus, managersmust realize that it is virtually impossible to change a particular value in isolation froman individual’s other values. By focusing on relevant behaviors and interactions, incontrast, managers can begin to shape the outcomes they desire by setting explicitexpectations and performance standards, rewarding appropriate behaviors, and pro-viding channels through which people can contribute to goals and objectives. Changesin organizational behaviors in and of themselves, however, do not necessarily translateinto attitude change. In fact, changes in a person’s attitudes may lag behavioral changesfor a considerable period of time or in some instances may never occur. Especiallywhen a firm relies solely on extrinsic motivators (see Chapter 3), organizational mem-bers can easily rationalize why they “accepted” the change, leaving present attitudesand orientations intact. If organizational members can see the inherent value of thechange, however, they are much more likely to accept and identify with what theorganization is attempting to accomplish.

Thus, if attitude change is to take place, managers must support relevant be-havioral changes with intrinsic motivators (see Chapter 3) that link the change withother valued attitudes and behaviors.67 As part of this process, explanations for andjustifications of the change must be made to organizational members, reinforcing thebehavioral change by articulating and communicating the desired set of beliefs andvalues.

Cognitive Dissonance

A significant area within the realm of attitude change involves the concept of cognitiveconsistency. Essentially, people strive to achieve a sense of balance between their be-liefs, attitudes, and behaviors. If you hold liberal political views, for example, it wouldbe unlikely for you to vote for a highly conservative candidate. There are times, how-ever, when you might be forced into a position or unwittingly do something that doesnot “fit” with your beliefs and attitudes. This situation creates cognitive inconsistency




or imbalance. Since the resulting psychological imbalance is unpleasant or uncom-fortable, we try to reduce that imbalance to attain cognitive consistency once again.One of the ways we reduce such imbalance is to modify our attitudes or rationalizeour behavior in a way that creates a sense of balance.68

The theory of cognitive dissonance attempts to explain how people attempt toreduce internal conflicts when they experience a clash between their thoughts andtheir actions.69 For instance, if you think it is important to support the Americanautomobile industry but believe that Japanese or German cars are of better qualitythan U.S. cars, you might experience some dissonance after buying an American car.One of the ways to reduce this imbalance is to alter your beliefs about comparativequality—for example, that U.S. cars are just as good if not better than Japanese cars. Ifyou purchased a Japanese car, you might attempt to reduce the dissonance by thinkingthat the only way the U.S. automobile industry is going to improve its quality is to losesales to the Japanese—that the competition will lead to improvements in the qualityof U.S.-built cars. In each instance, beliefs and attitudes are modified to support thebehavior.

Other sources of cognitive dissonance can be found in situations:

• Where a choice or decision has negative consequences: If you vote for aparticular candidate who subsequently wins the election but later is perceivedto do a poor job in office, you might look for positive aspects of the choice.You might attempt to reduce the dissonance by rationalizing that thecandidate was not as bad as he or she could have been, that the opponentwould have been much worse, or that conditions had sufficiently changed sothat no one would have been able to do a good job.

• When expectations are unfulfilled or disconfirmed: Following a mergerbetween two savings banks we studied, a substantial number of organizationalmembers were “let go” due to overlapping job responsibilities. Although thechief executive officer of one of the banks expected that the friendly mergerwould lead to expanded opportunities for employees rather than thereduction in force, he eventually argued that “due to volatile economicconditions in the industry the bank would have had to fire a number of peopleeven if the merger had not taken place.”70 Thus, when his expectations thatthe merger would have a favorable impact on the bank’s employees wereunfulfilled, he rationalized his feelings by arguing that the situation wouldhave been just as bad without the merger.

• Under forced compliance or insufficient justification: If we are forced intodoing something that is boring, trivial, or difficult without any extrinsiccompensation, we often try to think of certain aspects of the task that wereinteresting in order to rationalize the time spent.71 Extrinsic rewards,however, can sufficiently reduce dissonance, such as when a task might beboring but we “did it for the money,” so that rationalization is unnecessary.

As these brief illustrations indicate, the theory of cognitive dissonance helps to explainwhy people engage in various behaviors or adopt certain attitudes that would ordinarilybe difficult to explain.



Emotional Intelligence 61

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCETraditionally, our capabilities and potential in the workplace were measured by ourexpertise in a given area; in essence our training, background, and experience. Giventhe broad changes that have taken place in the rapidly changing, global business en-vironment, however, we are increasingly being judged by other criteria, especiallyhow well we handle ourselves in different situations and how well we interact withothers.72 As a growing body of work indicates, cognitive abilities in and of themselvesare largely irrelevant to these new criteria. Instead, emotional intelligence, often re-ferred to as EQ (emotional intelligence quotient), reflects a different way of beingsmart. Emotional intelligence is “the capacity for recognizing our own feelings andthose of others, for motivating ourselves, and for managing emotions well in ourselvesand in our relationships.”73 These abilities are distinct from, but complementary to,one’s academic intelligence, the cognitive capabilities measured by IQ. As researchsuggests, EQ is a critical success factor in both careers and organizations in such variedactivities as decision making, leadership, developing trusting relationships and team-work, achieving open and honest communication, capturing creativity and innovation,and developing customer loyalty.

As reflected in Figure 2-3, a recent conceptualization of EQ is based on four basicpersonal and social competencies:74

1. Self-awareness: Knowing what we are feeling in the moment, using thosepreferences to guide our decision making, and having a realistic,well-grounded sense of our own abilities. Specific competencies includeemotional awareness, accurate self-assessment, and self-confidence.

2. Self-management: Handling our emotions so that they facilitate rather thaninterfere with the task at hand; being open and honest in one’s pursuit ofgoals; and being flexible in overcoming obstacles or adapting to changingsituations. Specific competencies include emotional self-control,transparency (displaying honesty and integrity), adaptability, achievement,initiative, and optimism.

Personal CompetenceHow We Manage Ourselves

Self-Awareness (Intrapersonal)

Self-Management

Social CompetenceHow We Manage Relationships

Social Awareness

Relationship Management

Figure 2-3 Emotional Intelligence Domains

Source: Adapted from D. Goleman, R. Boyatzis, and A. McKee, Primal Leadership: Realizing the Power ofEmotional Intelligence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2002, p. 39.




3. Social awareness: Sensing what other people are feeling, being able to taketheir perspective, and cultivating rapport and attunement with a broaddiversity of people. Specific competencies include empathy, organizationalawareness (recognizing events, decision networks, and organizationalpolitics), and service (recognizing and meeting follower, client, or customerneeds).

4. Relationship management: Handling emotions in relationships well andaccurately reading social situations and networks; interacting smoothly; usingthese skills to persuade and lead, to negotiate and lead, and for cooperationand teamwork. Critical skills include inspirational leadership, the ability toexert influence and develop others, conflict management, being a changecatalyst, building bonds in terms of cultivating and maintaining a web ofrelationships, and teamwork and collaboration.

While the concept of emotional intelligence is still relatively new, its importanceis reflected in the types of skills and capabilities that companies are looking for injob applicants. Even for entry-level positions, these include: ability to work in an un-structured, team environment; interpersonal competence and diversity-related skills;excellent negotiating and influencing skills; exceptional verbal and written communi-cation skills; ability to consistently deliver high performance, especially under pressure;ethical awareness; and change agent skills and leadership capabilities.75 As we continueto explore and research the dynamics associated with emotional intelligence, the areapromises to enhance our understanding of differences across individuals, includingthe various roles that leaders play in their organizations (see Chapter 7).

CONCLUSION: THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OFJUDGMENT AND CHOICEAs this chapter has underscored, much of the research on perception and judgment isbased on a micro-oriented, psychological view of cognitive processes. Indeed, a largeproportion of the work in cognitive psychology is grounded in laboratory studies wherestrict controls are used to probe a person’s thought processes and to examine how per-ceptions and decisions are made. These studies have made an important contributionto our understanding of cognition and related processes; however, they cannot fullypredict judgment or choice behavior outside of the laboratory because of the myriadsocial realities that can readily influence our decisions. As critics have emphasized,decision making under laboratory conditions differs from actual decision making dueto the lack of social pressures that are common in our everyday lives.76 Thus, concernshave emerged about how to link our understanding of cognitive processes based onlaboratory studies to our judgments and behaviors in daily life.

As part of organizational problem-solving and decision-making processes, it is im-portant that managers understand perception, the various perceptual distortions thataffect this process, the social context of the decision, and how individual differencesinfluence what we perceive and subsequently use as the basis for making our decisions.Since much of the information managers rely on is gathered through interactions withpeople inside and outside their organizations, the way in which that information is



Notes 63

perceived and processed frames not only the alternatives considered but the decisionitself. The key is to actively question and test these perceptions to ensure, as muchas possible, both the accuracy and interpretation of information we use in makingdecisions.

When attempting to explain and predict various phenomena, events, or behaviors,it is important to remember that what is perceived to be true is more importantthan what actually exists since people’s responses are based on their perceptions.While we often assume that individuals perceive reality clearly, research indicates thatthere are a number of internal and external factors that can create distortions in whatwe see.

Realistic perceptions of our surroundings are the foundation for effective problemsolving, communication, and other managerial activities and working relationships. If,however, behavior is perceived by other individuals differently from the way it wasintended, the likelihood of achieving effective working relationships is going to belimited. As research on management perceptions of employee needs has indicated,managers tend to misunderstand what employees actually want from their jobs andwhy they act in certain ways.77 Since these perceptions influence the ways in whichmanagers interact with their employees, they are among the underlying reasons whyemployees are expressing declining levels of job satisfaction and organizational com-mitment, and a general sense of disenchantment with their organizations. Thus, it isimportant to be aware of the different ways in which we distort and bias informationabout people, events, and objects so that we can be more effective in our dealings withothers. As the noted sociologist, W.I. Thomas, has argued, situations that are perceivedto be real are real in their consequences.

NOTES

1. For an amplification of this point, see B.Berelson and G. Steiner, Human Behavior(New York: Harcourt, 1964), p. 87.2. See J. Kelly, Organizational Behavior:Its Data, First Principles, and Applications(Homewood, IL: Irwin, 1980), pp. 139–141;J.S. Bruner, The Relevance of Education (NewYork: Norton, 1971); and J.S. Bruner and C.C.Goodman, “Value and Need as OrganizingFactors in Perception,” Journal of Abnormaland Social Psychology 42 (1947): 33–44.3. Gestalt theory is based on the work ofpsychologists from the Berlin school—MaxWertheimer, Kurt Koffka, Wolfgang Kohler,and later Kurt Lewin. For a good synthesisof this work see F.L. Ruch and P.G. Zim-bardo, Psychology and Life (Glenview, IL:Scott, Foresman, 1971), pp. 283–290.4. See D. Fisher, Communication in Or-ganizations (St. Paul, MN: West, 1981), pp.74– 78.

5. M.H. Segall, D.T. Campbell, and M.J.Herkovits, The Influence of Culture on Per-ception (New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966); F.Lee, “How Culture and Domain Shape At-tributions,” Personality and Social Psychol-ogy Bulletin 22, no. 7 (1996): 732–741; andP.C. Earley, Face, Harmony, and Social Struc-tures: An Analysis of Organizational BehaviorAcross Cultures (New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 1997).6. The discussion in this section was drawnfrom Ruch and Zimbardo, Psychology andLife, pp. 286–290; and D. Coon, Introduc-tion to Psychology: Exploration and Applica-tion (St. Paul, MN: West, 1977).7. See R.L. Solso, “Prototypes, Schemataand the Form of Human Knowledge: TheCognition of Abstraction,” in C. Izawa, ed.,Current Issues in Cognitive Processes (Hills-dale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1989), pp. 345–368;R.G. Lord and R.J. Foti, “Schema Theories,




Information Processing, and OrganizationalBehavior,” in H.P. Sims, Jr. and D.A. Gioia,eds., The Thinking Organization (San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass, 1986), pp. 20–48; J. Bar-tunek, “The Multiple Cognitions and ConflictsAssociated with Second Order OrganizationalChange,” in J.K. Murnighan, ed., Social Psy-chology in Organizations: Advances in Theoryand Research (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren-tice Hall, 1993), pp. 322–349; and E. Barbera,“Gender Schemas: Configuration and Acti-vation Processes,” Canadian Journal of Be-havioural Science 35, no. 3 (2003): 176–184.8. This discussion is drawn from Ruch andZimbardo, op. cit., pp. 303–306; and E.F. Huseand J.L. Bowditch, Behavior in Organizations:A Systems Approach to Managing (Reading,MA: Addison-Wesley, 1977), pp. 122–125.9. P.F. Secord, C.W. Backman, and D.R.Slavitt, Understanding Social Life: An In-troduction to Social Psychology (New York:McGraw-Hill, 1976).10. L. Falkenberg, “Improving the Accuracyof Stereotypes within the Workplace,” Jour-nal of Management 16, no. 1 (1990): 107–118;Z. Kunda and K.C. Olsen, “MaintainingStereotypes in the Face of Disconfirmation:Constructing Grounds for Subtyping De-viants,” Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology 68, no. 4 (1995): 565–579; V. Valian,Why So Slow?: The Advancement of Women(Boston: MIT Press, 1998); and J.F. Veiga, K.Fox, J.N. Yanouzas, and K. Eddleston, “To-ward Greater Understanding in the Work-place,” Academy of Management Executive 13,no. 2 (1999): 81–87.11. This section is drawn from S.T. Fiske,“Stereotyping, Prejudice, and Discrimina-tion,” in D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, and G.Lindzey (eds.), Handbook of Social Psychol-ogy, Volume 2, 4th ed. (Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1998), see pp. 357–411; S.T. Fiske, A.J.C.Cuddy, P. Glick, and J. Xu, “A Model of (OftenMixed) Stereotype Content: Competence andWarmth Respectively Follow from PerceivedStatus and Competition,” Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology 82 (2002); 878–902; and S.T. Fiske, J. Xu, A.J.C. Cuddy, and P.Glick, “(Dis)respecting versus (Dis)liking: Sta-tus and Interdependence Predict AmbivalentStereotypes of Competence and Warmth,”

Journal of Social Issues 55 (1999): 473–491.12. See J.M. Feldman, “A Note on the Sta-tistical Correlation of Halo Effect,” Journalof Applied Psychology 71 (1986): 173–176;and T.H. Feeley, “Comment on Halo Effectsin Rating and Evaluation Research,” HumanCommunication Research 28, no. 4 (2002):578–587.13. See E.D. Pulakos and K.N. Wexley,“Relationship Among Perceived Similarity,Sex, Performance, and Ratings in Manager-Subordinate Dyads,” Academy of Manage-ment Journal 26, no. 1 (1983): 129–139; andG.P. Erwin, “First Names and Perceptions ofPhysical Attractiveness,” Journal of Psychol-ogy 127, no. 6 (1993): 625–631.14. R. Rosenthal, Experimenter Effects inBehavioral Research (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966); and R. Rosenthal,“Covert Communication in Classrooms, Clin-ics, Courtrooms and Cubicles,” American Psy-chologist 57, no. 11 (2002): 839–850.15. See R. Rosenthal, On the Psychologyof the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: Further Evi-dence for Pygmalion Effects and Their Medi-ating Mechanisms (New York: MSS ModularPublications, 1974), see Module 53; and D.Eden, “Self-Fulfilling Prophecies in Organi-zations,” in J. Greenberg (ed.), OrganizationalBehavior: The State of the Science (Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003),pp. 91–124.16. J.A. Bargh and T.L. Chartrand, “The Un-bearable Automaticity of Being,” AmericanPsychologist 54 (1999): 462–479.17. T.V. Bonoma and G. Zaltman, Psychol-ogy for Management (Boston: Kent, 1981),p. 307.18. S.S. Zalkind and T.W. Costello, “Percep-tion: Some Recent Research and Implicationsfor Administration,” Administration ScienceQuarterly 7 (1962): 218–235; and E. Peirce,C.A. Smolinski, and B. Rosen, “Why SexualHarassment Complaints Fall on Deaf Ears,”Academy of Management Executive 12, no. 3(1998): 41–54.19. M. Haire and W.F. Grunes, “PerceptualDefenses: Processes Protecting an OrganizedPerception of Another Personality,” HumanRelations 3 (1950): 403–412.



Notes 65

20. J. Bartunek, “Why Did You Do That?Attribution Theory in Organizations,” Busi-ness Horizons 24, no. 5 (1981): 66–71; K.G.Shaver, An Introduction to Attribution Pro-cesses (Cambridge, MA: Winthrop, 1975); andH.H. Kelly, Attribution Theory in Social In-teraction (Morristown, NJ: General LearningPress, 1971).21. See S.G. Green and T.R. Mitchell,“Attributional Processes of Leader-MemberInteractions,” Organizational Behavior andHuman Performance 23 (1979): pp. 429–458;and H.H. Kelley, “Attribution in Social Inter-action,” in E. Jones, D. Kanouse, H. Kelley, R.Nisbett, S. Valins, and B. Weiner, eds., Attribu-tion: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior (Mor-ristown, NJ: General Learning Press, 1972),pp. 1–26.22. M.J. Martinko and W.L. Gardner,“The Leader-Member Attribution Process,”Academy of Management Review 12, no. 2(1987): pp. 235–249; and J.C. McElroy, “A Ty-pology of Attribution Leadership Research,”Academy of Management Review 7, no. 3(1982): pp. 413–417. See also M.T. Dasbor-ough and N.M. Ashkanasy, “Emotion and At-tribution of Intentionality in Leader-MemberRelations,” Leadership Quarterly 13, no. 5(2002): 615–634.23. R.A. Barron, “Interpersonal Relations inOrganizations,” in K.R. Murphy, ed., Individ-ual Differences and Behavior in Organizations(San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996), pp. 334–370.24. See R. Hoffman, “Ten Reasons Why YouShould Be Using 360-Degree Feedback,” HRMagazine 40, no. 4 (1995): 82–85; E. VanVelsor, J.B. Leslie, and J.W. Fleenor, Choos-ing 360: A Guide to Evaluating Multi-RaterFeedback Instruments for Management De-velopment (Greensboro, NC: Center for Cre-ative Leadership, 1997); A.G. Walker and J.W.Smither, “A Five-Year Study of Upward Feed-back: What Managers Do with Their Results,”Personnel Psychology 52, no. 2 (1999): 393–423.25. J.B. Rotter, “Generalized Expectanciesfor Internal vs. External Control of Reinforce-ment,” Psychological Monographs 80 (1966):1–28; Mitchell, C.M. Smysert, and S.E. Weed,“Locus of Control: Supervision and Work Sat-

isfaction,” Academy of Management Journal18 (1975): 623–631; and J.B. Rotter, “Internalversus External Control of Reinforcement: ACase History of a Variable,” American Psychol-ogist 45 (1990): 489–493.26. See O.C. Hansemark, “Need forAchievement, Locus of Control and the Pre-diction of Business Start-ups: A LongitudinalStudy,” Journal of Economic Psychology 24,no. 3 (2003): 301–320.27. T.R. Mitchell, “Matching MotivationalStrategies with Organizational Contexts,” Re-search in Organizational Behavior 19 (1997):p. 71.28. See K.R. Murphy, ed., Individual Dif-ferences and Behavior in Organizations (SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996).29. See L.R. Goldberg, “An Alternative De-scription of Personality: The Big Five Fac-tor Structure,” Journal of Personality and So-cial Psychology 59 (1990): 1216–1229; R.R.McCrae and P.T. Costa, Jr., “Personality TraitStructure as a Human Universal,” AmericanPsychologist 52 (1997): 509–516; J.F. Salgado,“The Five Factor Model of Personality andJob Performance in the European Commu-nity,” Journal of Applied Psychology 82 (1997):30–43; T.A. Judge, C.A. Higgins, C.J. Thore-sen, and M.R. Barrick, “The Big Five Person-ality Traits, Mental Ability, and Career SuccessAcross the Life Span,” Personnel Psychology52, no. 3 (1999): 621–652; S. Rocca, L. Sagiv,S.H. Schwartz and A. Knafo, “The Big FivePersonality Factors and Personal Values,” Per-sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28, no.6 (2002): 789–801; and S.V. Pannonen, “BigFive Factors of Personality and ReplicatedPredictions of Behavior,” Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology 84, no. 2 (2003):411–426.30. The following discussion was adaptedfrom D.D. White and H.W. Vroman, Action inOrganizations (Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1982),pp. 23–33.31. For an in-depth discussion of these dif-ferent personality types and some of thecontroversy see T.W. Adorno, E. Frenkel-Brunswick, D.J. Levinson, and R.N. Stanford,The Authoritarian Personality (New York:Harper, 1950); R. Brown, Social Psychology(New York: Free Press, 1965), Chapter 10;




J. Siegel, “Machiavellianism, MBAs and Man-agers: Leadership Correlates and SocializationEffects,” Academy of Management Journal 16(1973): 404–412; G. Gemmill and W. Heisler,“Machiavellianism as a Factor in Manage-rial Job Strain, Job Satisfaction and UpwardMobility,” Academy of Management Journal15 (1972): 5l–64; C.J. Schultz II, “Situationaland Dispositional Predictors of Performance:A Test of the Hypothesized Machiavellian XStructure Interaction Among Sales Persons,”Journal of Applied Social Psychology 23(1993): 478–498.32. See M. Friedman and R. Roseman, TypeA Behavior and Your Heart (New York: Knopf,1974); M.T. Matteson and C. Preston, “Occu-pational Stress, Type A Behavior and PhysicalWell-being,” Academy of Management Jour-nal 25, no. 2 (1982): 373–391; J. Schaubroeck,D.C. Ganster, and B.E. Kemmerer, “Job Com-plexity, ‘Type A’ Cardiovascular Disorder: AProspective Study,” Academy of ManagementJournal 37, no. 2 (1994): 426–439; and S.M.Jex, Stress and Job Performance: Theory, Re-search, Practice and Implications for Man-agement Practice (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,1998).33. J.B. Rotter, “Generalized Expectanciesfor Internal versus External Control of Rein-forcement,” Psychological Monographs 1, no.609 (1966): 80; J.B. Rotter, “External Con-trol and Internal Control,” Psychology Today(June 1971): 37; and J.B. Rotter, “Internalversus External Control of Reinforcement: ACase History of a Variable,” American Psychol-ogist 45 (1990): 489–493.34. C.G. Jung, Psychological Types (NewYork: Harcourt, 1923).35. See C.S. Hall and G. Lindzey, Theoriesof Personality (New York: Wiley, 1957), pp.76–113.36. Jung, op. cit.37. I. Briggs Myers and M.H. McCaulley,Manual: A Guide to the Development and Useof the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Palo Alto,CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1985).For an application of the Myers-Briggs, seeJ. Brownell, “Personality and Career Devel-opment: A Study of Gender Differences,”Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administra-tion Quarterly 35, no. 2 (1994): 36–46. See

also W.L. Gardner and M.J. Martinko, “Us-ing the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to StudyManagers: A Literature Review and ResearchAgenda,” Journal of Management 22, no. 1(1996): 45–83 for an extensive review of thiswork; C.M. Kaufman, “Know Your Client: TheMyers-Briggs Psychology Test Can Help Plan-ners Reduce Communications Frustrations,”Financial Planning (February 1, 2003): 65–66; and K. Garrety, R. Badham, V. Morri-gan, W. Rifkin, and M. Zanko, “The Use ofPersonality Typing in Organizational Change:Discourse, Emotions and the Reflexive Sub-ject,” Human Relations 56, no. 2 (2003): 211–235.38. For a discussion of the different factorsthat influence personality development, seeC. Kluckhohn and H.A. Murray, Personalityin Nature, Society and Culture (New York:Knopf, 1953), pp. 53–55; L. Rappoport, Per-sonality Development (Glenview, IL: Scott,Foresman, 1972), pp. 70–92; E.H. Erikson,Childhood and Society (New York: Norton,1963), pp. 225–274; and R.W. Larson andS. Verma, “How Children and AdolescentsSpend Time Across the World: Work, Play, andDevelopmental Opportunities,” PsychologicalBulletin 125, no. 6 (1999): 701–736.39. D.J. Levinson, “Periods in the Adult De-velopment of Men: Ages 18 to 45,” The Coun-seling Psychologist 6 (1976): 21–25.40. The following discussion is drawn fromM.F.R. Kets De Vries and D. Miller, “Person-ality, Culture and Organization,” Academy ofManagement Review 11, no. 2 (1986): 266–279; D. Miller and P.H. Friesen, Organiza-tions: A Quantum View (Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall, 1984); and U. Miller, M.F.R.Kets De Vries, and J.M. Toulouse, “Top Exec-utives Locus of Control and Its Relationshipto Strategy-Making, Structure and Environ-ment,” Academy of Management Journal 25,no. 2 (1982): 237–253.41. See L.P. Frankel, “Depressed Organi-zations: Identifying the Symptoms and Over-coming the Causes,” Employee RelationsToday 18, no. 4 (1991–1992): 443–451. Seealso D.B. McFarlin and P.D. Sweeney, Houseof Mirrors: The Untold Truth about Narcissis-tic Leaders and How to Survive Them (Lon-don: Kogan Page, 2000).



Notes 67

42. This discussion is adapted from J.L.Speller, Executives in Crisis: Recognizing andManaging the Alcoholic, Drug-Addicted, orMentally III Executive (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1989).43. See, for example, M.F.R. Kets de Vries,Life and Death in the Executive Fast Lane:Essays on Irrational Organizations and TheirLeaders (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995);and R.W. Griffin, A. O’Leary-Kelly, and J.M.Collins, eds., Dysfunctional Behavior in Or-ganizations: Non-Violent Dysfunctional Be-havior in Organizations (Stamford, CT: JAIPress, 1998).44. See, for example, J.C. Quick, J.H. Gavin,G.L. Cooper, and J.D. Quick, “ExecutiveHealth: Building Strength, Managing Risks,”Academy of Management Executive 14, no. 2(2000): 34–44.45. P.J. Brouwer, “The Power to See Our-selves,” Harvard Business Review 42, no.6 (1964): 156–165; and A.P. Brief and R.J.Aldag, “The Role of Self in Work Organi-zations: A Conceptual Review,” Academy ofManagement Review 6, no. 1 (1981): 75–88.46. A.R. Cohen, S.L. Fink, H. Gadon, andR.D. Willits, Effective Behavior in Organi-zations (Homewood, IL: Irwin, 1980), Chap-ter 8.47. See A. Bandura, “Self-Efficacy: Toward aUnifying Theory of Behavioral Change,” Psy-chological Review 84 (1977): 191–215; G.R.Jones, “Socialization Tactics, Self-Efficacy,and Newcomers Adjustments to Organi-zations,” Academy of Management Journal29 (1986): 262–279; S.I. Tannenbaum, J.E.Mathieu, E. Salas, and J.A. Cannon-Bowers,“Meeting Trainees’ Expectations: The Influ-ence of Training Fulfillment on the Develop-ment of Commitment, Self-Efficacy, and Mo-tivation,” Journal of Applied Psychology 76,no. 6, (1991): 759–769; K.M. Thomas and J.E.Mathieu, “Role of Causal Attributions in Dy-namic Self-Regulation and Goals Processes,”Journal of Applied Psychology 79 (1994): 812–818; and A.D. Stajkovic and F. Luthans, “SocialCognition Theory and Self-Efficacy: GoingBeyond Traditional Motivational and Behav-ioral Approaches,” Organizational Dynamics(Spring 1998): 62–74.

48. E.A. Archer, “How to Make a BusinessDecision: An Analysis of Theory and Practice,”Management Review 69, no. 2 (1980): 54–61.49. B.M. Bass, Organizational DecisionMaking (Homewood, IL: Irwin, 1983), Chap-ter 7. The following discussion is drawn fromthis work, especially pp. 140–150.50. See V. Mitchell, “Organizational RiskPerception and Reduction: A Literature Re-view,” British Journal of Management 6, no. 2(1995): 115–133.51. P.C. Nutt, “Surprising But True: Halfthe Decisions in Organizations Fail,” Academyof Management Executive 13, no. 4 (1999):75–90.52. See, for example, J.B. Barney, “Howa Firm’s Capabilities Affect Boundary De-cisions,” Sloan Management Review 40, no.3 (1999): 137–146; and K.R. Chinander andM.E. Schweitzer, “The Input Bias: The Mis-use of Input Information in Judgment of Out-comes,” Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes 91, no. 2 (2003): 243–253.53. M.J. Driver and S. Streufert, “Integra-tive Complexity: An Approach to Individualsand Groups as Information-Processing Sys-tems,” Administrative Science Quarterly 14(1969): 272–285; P. Suefeld and S. Streufert,“Information Search as a Function of Con-ceptual and Environmental Complexity,” Psy-chonomic Science 4 (1966): 351–352; and C.L.Pennino, “Is Decision Style Related to MoralDevelopment Among Managers in the U.S.?”Journal of Business Ethics 41, no. 4 (2002):337–348.54. Bass, Organizational Decision Making,pp. 145–146.55. See, for example, I. Nonaka and H.Takeuchi, The Knowledge-Creating Com-pany: How Japanese Companies Create theDynamics of Innovation (New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 1995); W. Halal, ed., TheInfinite Resource: Creating and Leading theKnowledge Enterprise (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998); and C. Soo, T. Devinney, D.Midgley, and A. Deering, “Knowledge Man-agement: Philosophy, Processes and Pitfalls,”California Management Review 44, no. 4(2002): 129–152.56. T.H. Davenport, D.W. DeLong,and M.C. Beers, “Successful Knowledge




Management Projects,” Sloan ManagementReview 39, no. 2 (1998): 43–57.57. See S. Newell, L. Edelman, H. Scar-brough, J. Swan, and M. Bresnen, “ ‘Best Prac-tice’ Development and Transfer in the NHS:The Importance of Process as Well as Prod-uct Knowledge,” Journal of Health ServicesManagement 16 (2003): 1–12; and A.F. Buonoand F. Poulfelt (eds.), Issues and Challengesin Knowledge Management (Greenwich, CT:Information Age Publishing, 2005).58. L.A. Burke and M.K. Miller, “Taking theMystery out of Intuitive Decision Making,”Academy of Management Executive 13, no. 4(1999): 91–99. See also E.N. Brockmann andW.P. Anthony, “Tacit Knowledge and Strate-gic Decision Making,” Group & OrganizationManagement 27, no. 4 (2002): 436–455.59. See J. Cooper and R.T. Croyle, “Atti-tude and Attitude Change,” Annual Reviewof Psychology 35 (1984): 395–426; and J.B.Miner, Organizational Behavior: Performanceand Productivity (New York: Random House,1988), p. 224. See also R.E. Kidwell and C.Robie, “Withholding Effort in Organizations:Toward Development and Validation of aMeasure,” Journal of Business and Psychology17, no. 4 (2003): 537–562.60. See M. Fishbein and I. Ajzen, Belief, At-titude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduc-tion to Theory and Research (Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley, 1975); C.C. Pinder, WorkMotivation: Theory, Issues and Applications(Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, 1984); andS.L. Crites, Jr., L.R. Fabrigar, and R.E. Petty,“Measuring the Affective and Cognitive Prop-erties of Attitudes: Conceptual and Method-ological Issues,” Personality and Social Psy-chology Bulletin 20 (1994): 619–634.61. The following discussion is drawn fromR.L. Weaver, Understanding InterpersonalCommunication (Glenview, IL: Scott, Fores-man, 1987), pp. 204–206.62. See D.T. Campbell, “Social Attitudesand Other Acquired Behavioral Dispositions,”in S. Koch, ed., Psychology: A Study of a Sci-ence, vol. 6 (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963),pp. 94–172; and G.W. Allport, The Natureof Prejudice (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley,1954).

63. See T.D. Wilson, S. Lindsey, and T.Y.Schooler, “A Model of Dual Attitudes”Psychological Review 107 (2000): 101–126.See also A.G. Greenwald and M.R. Banaji,“Implicit Social Cognition: Attitudes, Self-Esteem, and Stereotypes,” Psychological Re-view 102 (1995): 4–27; and R.J. Rydell andAllen R. McConnell, “Understanding Implicitand Explicit Attitude Change: A Systems ofReasoning Analysis,” Journal of Personality &Social Psychology 91 (2006): 995–1008.64. See D.J. Bem, Beliefs, Attitudes, andHuman Affairs (Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole,1970), Chapter 6; and H.K.S. Laschinger, J.R.Finegan, J. Shamian, and P. Wilk, ”A Longi-tudinal Analysis of the Impact of WorkplaceEmpowerment on Work Satisfaction,” Journalof Organizational Behavior 25, no. 4 (2004):527–545.65. A. Fonvielle, “Behavior versus Atti-tude: Which Comes First in Organiza-tional Change?” Management Review (August1984): 14; and V. Sathe, Culture and RelatedCorporate Realities (Homewood, IL: Irwin,1985).66. See E. Aronson, The Social Animal (SanFrancisco: Freeman, 1976); Bem, op. cit.;and P.G. Zimbardo, E.B. Ebbesen, and C.Maslach, Influencing Attitudes and Chang-ing Behavior (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley,1977).67. Sathe, op. cit., pp. 367–369.68. W.J. McGuire, “The Current State ofCognitive Consistency Theories,” in S. Feld-man, ed., Cognitive Consistency: MotivationAntecedents and Behavioral Consequences(New York: Academic Press, 1966), p. 1;and C.A. Insko, Theories of Attitude Change(New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967)pp. 161–176.69. L. Festinger, A Theory of CognitiveDissonance (Stanford, CA: Stanford Univer-sity Press, 1957). For more recent applica-tions of the theory, see R. Harrison and J.G.March, “Decision Making and Post-DecisionSurprises,” Administrative Science Quarterly29, no. 1 (1984): 26–42; and P. Williams andJ.L. Aaker, “Can Mixed Emotions PeacefullyCoexist?” Journal of Consumer Research 28,no. 4 (2002): 636–650.



Notes 69

70. A.F. Buono and J.L. Bowditch, The Hu-man Side of Mergers and Acquisitions: Man-aging Collisions between People, Cultures,and Organizations (Washington, D.C.: BeardBooks, 2003).71. See L. Festinger and L.M. Carlsmith,“Cognitive Consequences of Forced Compli-ance,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy-chology 58 (1950): 203–210.72. The section on emotional intelligenceis based on R.K. Cooper and A. Sawaf, Ex-ecutive EQ: Emotional Intelligence in Lead-ership & Organizations (New York: Grosset/Putnam, 1996); and D. Goleman, Workingwith Emotional Intelligence (New York: Ban-tam Books, 1998). See also C.S.P. Fernandez,“Emotional Intelligence in the Workplace,”Journal of Public Health Management & Prac-tice 13, no. 1 (2007): 80–82.73. Goleman, Working with Emotional In-telligence, p. 317.74. See D. Goleman, R. Boyatzis, and A.McKee, Primal Leadership: Realizing thePower of Emotional Intelligence (Cambridge:Harvard Business School Press, 2002), Chap-ter 3.75. A.F. Buono, “Integrating the BusinessCore: A Learning Community Approach to21st Century Business Education,” in M.H.Abdelsamad & E. Myers (Eds.), Managingin a World of Change: Learning at WarpSpeed. Selected Readings from the 2000 SAM

International Management Conference. Soci-ety for Advancement of Management, 2000,pp. 315–326; D. Goleman, “Leadership thatGets Results,” Harvard Business Review 78,no. 2 (2000): 78–90. See also R. Holiajn; “Man-agement Decision Making, Ethical Issues and‘Emotional’ Intelligence,” Management Deci-sion 44, no. 8 (2006): 1122–1138.76. See, for example, H. Einborn and R.M.Hogarth, “Behavioral Decision Making,” An-nual Review of Psychology 31 (1981): 53–88.77. Compare R.L. Kuhn, “Human Reac-tions on the Shop Floor,” in E.M. Hugh-Jones, ed., Human Relations and ModernManagement (Chicago: Quadrangle Books,1959); U.M. Gluskinos and B.J. Kestlemen,“Management and Labor Leaders’, Percep-tion of Worker Needs as Compared withSelf-Reported Needs,” Personnel Psychol-ogy (Summer 1971): 239–246; M. Cooper,B.S. Morgan, P.M. Foley, and L.B. Kaplan,“Changing Employee Values: Deepening Dis-content?” Harvard Business Review 57, no. 1(1979): 117–125; D.L. Kanter and P.H. Mirvis,The Cynical Americans: Living and Work-ing in an Age of Discontent and Disillusion(San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1989); and A.E.Reichers, J.P. Wanous, and J.T. Austin,“Understanding and Managing CynicismAbout Organizational Change,” Academy ofManagement Executive 11, no. 1 (1997):48–59.

perception, attitudes, and individual differences...factors that inﬂuence perception. in summary,...

Documents