Organizational Behaviour Handout (Chapter 1 - 9)

Chapter One – An Overview of Organizational Behavior
Organizational behavior is a scientific discipline in which a large number of research studies and
conceptual developments are constantly adding to its knowledge base. It is also an applied
science, in that information about effective practices in one organization is being extended to
many others.
The human organization of today is not the same as it was yesterday, or the day before. In
particular, the workforce has become richly diverse, which means that employees bring a wide
array of education backgrounds, talents and perspectives to their jobs. Occasionally, this
diversity presents challenges for management to resolve as when some employees have
examined their uniqueness through alternative dress or jewelry. While others present unique
challenges through substance abuse or life threatening illnesses. Other employees have examined
their values and are determined to put their personal goals ahead of total commitment to the
organization. Managers need to be tuned into these diverse patterns and trends, and be prepared
to adapt to them.
Definitions of Organizational Behavior
Organizational behavior is the study of human behavior, attitudes and performance within the
organization setting; drawing on theory, methods, and principles from such disciplines as
psychology, sociology, and cultural anthropology to learn about individual perceptions, values,
learning capacities, and actions while working in groups and within the total organization;
analyzing the external environment’s effect on the organization and its human resources,
missions, objectives, and strategies.
Organizational behavior is a field of study that investigates the impact that individuals, groups,
and structure have on behavior within organizations for the purpose of applying such knowledge
toward improving an organization’s effectiveness.
Organizational behavior is an interdisciplinary field dedicated to better understanding and

managing people at work. Organizational behavior (often abbreviated OB) is a field of study that
investigates the impact that individuals, groups, and structure have on behavior within
organizations, for the purpose of applying such knowledge toward improving an organization’s
effectiveness. Let’s break it down. Organizational behavior is a field of study, meaning that it is
a distinct area of expertise with a common body of knowledge. What does it study? It studies
three determinants of behavior in organizations: individuals, groups, and structure.
In addition, OB applies the knowledge gained about individuals, groups, and the effect of
structure on behavior in order to make organizations work more effectively. To sum up our
definition, OB is the study of what people do in an organization and how their behavior affects
the organization’s performance. And because OB is concerned specifically with employment-
related situations, you should not be surprised that it emphasizes behavior as related to concerns
such as jobs, work, absenteeism, employment turnover, productivity, human performance, and
management. Although debate exists about the relative importance of each, OB includes the core
Organizational Behaviour Handout, Compiled By: Nega E. (MBA) Page 1
topics of motivation, leader behavior and power, interpersonal communication, group structure
and processes, learning, attitude development and perception, change processes, conflict, work
design, and work stress.
The three levels of analysis in Organizational Behavior
Organizational behavior provides a useful set of tools at many levels of analysis. That is,
Organizational behavior can be analyzed at three levels. For example, it helps managers look at
the behavior of individuals within the organizations. It also aids their understanding of the
complexities involved in interpersonal relations, when two people (two coworkers or a superior
subordinate pair) interact.
At the next level, organization behavior is valuable for examining the dynamics of relationships
within small groups both formal teams and informal groups. When two or more groups need to
coordinate their efforts, such as engineering and sales, managers become interested in the inter
group relations that emerge. Finally, organization can also be viewed and managed as whole
systems that have inter-organizational relationships (e.g. mergers and joint ventures).
Replacing Intuition with systematic Study

Each of us is a student of behavior. Since our earliest years, we have watched the actions of
others and have attempted to interpret what we see, Whether or not you have explicitly thought
about it before you have been "reading" people almost all your life. You watch what others do
and try to explain to yourself why they have engaged in their behavior. Additionally, you've
attempted to predict what they might do under different sets of conditions.
You have already developed some generalizations that you find helpful in explaining and
predicting what people do and 'will do. But how did you arrive at these generalizations? You did
so by observing, sensing, asking, listening, and reading. That is, your understanding comes either
directly from your own experience with things in the environment, or secondhand, through the
experience of others.
How accurate are the generalizations you hold? Some may represent extremely sophisticated
appraisals of behavior and may prove highly effective in explaining and predicting the behavior
of others. However, most of us also carry with us a number of beliefs that frequently fail to
explain why people do, what they do. To illustrate, consider the following statements about work
related behavior:
1. Happy workers are productive workers.
2. All individuals are most productive when their boss is friendly, trusting, and approachable.
3. Interviews are effective selection devices for separating job applicants who would be high-
performing employees from those who would be low performers.

4. Everyone wants a challenging job.
5. You have to scare people a little to get them to do their jobs.
6. Everyone is motivated by money.
7. Most people are much more concerned with the size of their own salaries than with others'.
8. Most effective work groups have no conflict.
How many of these statements do you think are true? For the most part, they are all false, and we
touch on each later in this course. But whether these statements are true or false is not really
important at this time. What is important is to be aware that many of the views you hold
concerning human behavior are based on intuition rather than fact. As a result, a systematic
approach to the study of behavior can improve your explanatory and predictive abilities.
A Review of a manager’s job and its relation to the study of organizational behavior
Let's begin by briefly defining the terms manager and the place where managers work-the
organization. Then let's look at the manager's job: specifically, what do managers do? Managers
get things done through other people or achieve goals through other people. They make
decisions, allocate resources, and direct the activities of others to attain goals. Managers do their
work in an organization. This is a consciously coordinated social unit, composed of two or more
people that functions on a relatively continuous basis to achieve a common goal or set of goals.
Based on this definition, manufacturing and service firms are organizations and so are schools,
hospitals, churches, military units, retail stores, police departments, and local, state, and federal
government agencies. The people who oversee the activities of others and who are responsible
for attaining goals in these organizations are their managers (although they're sometimes called
administrators, especially in not for- profit organizations). While managers plan, organize, direct,
and control or discharge their managerial roles, they interact with people.
One common thread runs through the functions, roles, skills, and activities approaches to
management: Each recognizes the paramount importance of managing people. As David Kwok
found out when he became a manager at The Princeton Review, regardless of whether it's called
"the leading function," "interpersonal roles," "human skills," or "human resource management
and networking activities," it's clear that managers need to develop their people skills if they're
going to be effective and successful in their job. To develop their people skills, managers need to
know behavior of employees or people systematically or scientifically.

Characteristics of Organizational Behavior
One major strength of organizational behavior is its interdisciplinary nature. It integrates the
behavior science (the systematic body of knowledge pertaining to why and how people behave as
they do) with other social sciences that can contribute to the subject. It applies from these
disciplines any ideas that will improve the relationship between people and organizations. Its
interdisciplinary nature is similar to that of medicine, which applies knowledge from the
physical, biological, and social sciences into a workable medical practice.
First, organizational behavior is an interdisciplinary body of knowledge with strong ties to the
behavioral science, psychology, sociology, and anthropology – as well as to allied social science
such as, economics and political science.
Second, organizational behavior uses scientific methods to develop and empirically test
generalizations about behavior in the organizations.
Third, the research in organizational behavior focuses on applications and seeks relevancy in
answering practical questions relating to human behavior in organization.
Fourth, organizational behavior uses contingency thinking in its search for ways to improve up
on these outcomes rather than assuming that there is one “best” or “universal” way to manage
people and organization.
Generally, a framework (level, scope) to study OB can be viewed as follow.
The three levels of study in organizational behavior are:
A. Individual level
B. Groups and interpersonal relations level
C. Organizational system level.
A. Individual level: - Individual differences, Learning, perception and attribution, Attitudes,

values and ethics, Creativity, Motivation, etc.
B. Group and Interpersonal: - Communication, Group dynamics, Teams, Leadership,
Power, politics and influence, Conflict, stress and well-being.
C. Organizational System level: - Structure and design, Change and knowledge
management and Cultural diversity.

Contributing Disciplines to the OB Field
Organizational behavior is an applied behavioral science that is built on contributions from a
number of behavioral disciplines. The predominant areas are psychology, sociology, social
psychology, anthropology, and political science. As we shall learn, psychology's contributions
have been mainly at the individual or micro level of analysis; the other disciplines have
contributed to our understanding of macro concepts such as group processes and organization.
Following are some of the major contributions to the study of organizational behavior:
Psychology
Psychology is the science that seeks to measure, explain, and sometimes change the behavior of
humans and other animals. Psychologists concern themselves with studying and attempting to
understand individual behavior. Those who have contributed and continue to add to the
knowledge of OB are learning theorists, personality theorists, counseling psychologists, and,
most important, industrial and organizational psychologists.
Early industrial/organizational psychologists concerned themselves with problems of fatigue,

boredom, and other factors relevant to working conditions that could impede efficient work
performance. More recently, their contributions have been expanded to include learning,
perception, personality, training, leadership effectiveness, needs and motivational forces, job
satisfaction, decision-making processes, performance appraisals, attitude measurement,
employee selection techniques, job design, and work stress.ur
Sociology
Whereas psychologists focus their attention on the individual, sociologists study the social
system in which individuals fill their roles; that is, sociology studies people in relation to their
fellow human beings. Specifically, sociologist’s greatest contribution is through their study of
group behavior in organizations, particularly formal and complex organizations.
Some of the areas within OB that have received valuable input from sociologists are group
dynamics, design of work teams, organizational culture, formal organization theory and
structure, organizational technology, bureaucracy, communications, power, conflict, and
intergroup behavior.
Social Psychology
Social psychology is an area within psychology, but blends concepts from both psychology and
sociology. It focuses on the influence of people on one another. One of the major areas receiving
considerable investigation from social psychologists has been change-how to implement it and
how to reduce barriers to its acceptance. Additionally, we find social psychologists making
significant contributions in the areas of measuring, understanding, and changing attitudes;

communication patterns; the ways in which group activities can satisfy individual needs; and
group decision-making processes.
Anthropology
Anthropologists study societies to learn about human beings and their activities. Their work on
cultures and environments, for instance, has helped us understand differences in fundamental
values, attitudes, and behavior between people in different countries and within different
organizations. Much of our current understanding of organizational culture, organizational
environments, and differences between national cultures is the result of the work of
anthropologists or those using their methodologies.
There are few absolutes in OB

There are few, if any, simple and universal principles that explain organizational behavior. There
are laws in the physical sciences---chemistry, astronomy, and physics-that are consistent and
apply in a wide range of situations. They allow scientists to generalize about the pull of gravity
or to confidently send astronauts into space to repair satellites. But as one noted behavioral
researcher aptly concluded, "God gave all the easy problems to the physicists." Human beings
are very complex. They are not alike, which limits the ability to make simple, accurate, and
sweeping generalizations. Two people often act very differently in the same situation, and the
same person's behavior changes in different situations. For instance, not everyone is motivated
by money, and you behave differently at church on Sunday than you did at the beer party the
night before. That doesn't mean, of course, that we can't offer reasonably accurate explanations
of human behavior or make valid predictions. It does mean, however, that OB concepts must
reflect situational or contingency conditions. We can say that x leads to y, but only under
conditions specified in z (the contingency variables). The science of OB was developed by using
general concepts and then altering their application to the particular situation. So, for example,
OB scholars would avoid stating that effective leaders should always seek the ideas of their
subordinates before making a decision. Rather, we find that in some situations a participative
style is clearly superior, but in other situations, an autocratic decision style is more effective. In
other words, the effectiveness of a particular leadership style is contingent on the situation in
which it is utilized. As you proceed through this course, you'll encounter a wealth of research
based theories about how people behave in organizations. But don't expect to find a lot of
straightforward cause-effect relationships. There aren't many! Organizational behavior theories
mirror the subject matter with which they deal.

People are complex and complicated, and so too must be the theories developed to explain their
actions. Consistent with the contingency philosophy, you'll find point-counterpoint debates at the
conclusion of each chapter. These debates are included to reinforce the fact that within the OB
field there are many issues over which there is significant disagreement. By directly addressing
some of the more controversial issues using the point-counterpoint format, you get the
opportunity to explore different points of view, discover how diverse perspectives complement
and oppose each other, and gain insight into some of the debates currently taking place Within
the OB field.
So at the end of this chapter, you'll find the argument that leadership plays an important role in
an organization's attaining its goals, followed by the argument that there is little evidence to
support this claim. Similarly, at the end of other chapters, you'll read both sides of the debate on
whether money is a motivator, clear communication is always desirable, bureaucracies have
become obsolete, and other controversial issues. These arguments are meant to demonstrate that
OB, like many disciplines, has disagreements over specific findings, methods, and theories.
Some of the point-counterpoint arguments are more provocative than others, but each makes
some valid points you should find thought provoking. The key is to be able to decipher under
what conditions each argument may be right or wrong.
Historical Development of Organizational Behaviour
A Brief History of Organizational Behavior
1. Classical theories of management-Bureaucracy-Scientific management : E W Taylor-

Process management theory – Henri Fayol
2. Neo-classical theories - Human relations era -Hawthorne studies : Elton Mayo -Need
Hierarchy Theory – Maslow, Theory X and Theory Y – McGregor
3. Modern management theories: Re-engineering -Bench marking - Empowerment -

Systems approach to management ,Total quality in human resource management
Ethics and Organizational Behavior: Introduction, Definition and Concepts
An ethical organization can achieve better business results. This idea is now making more and
more corporate leaders accept their social responsibilities and organizational ethics.
Organizations indulging in unethical business practices or even in unethical dealings with their
employees are now quickly identified and globally exposed in this era of technology intensive
communication systems. Organizational activities require redesigning and updating, keeping
pace with public expectations and ever-rising standards. With the pattern of organizational
behaviour (OB), injustice, corporate dishonesty, exploitation, and negligence being more visible
and attracting public opinion and criticism, ethical violations are carefully avoided.
For organizations, ethical issues encompass every citizen of the world. The definition of
stakeholder is no longer limited to shareholders, investors, and partners. A stakeholder is any
group that has an interest in, involvement with, dependence on, contribution to, or is affected by
the organization. A stakeholder is any individual or group who could lose or gain something
because of the actions of the organization
Organization as a system: - Organizational components that need to be managed are: People,

Structure, Culture, Technology, Jobs, etc. Therefore, organization is a system having many
interrelated components (departments, divisions, Branches, Manpower, etc) which work together
to achieve common organizational goals or objectives.
Summary and Implications for Managers

Managers need to develop their interpersonal or people skills if they're going to be effective in
their job. Organizational behavior (OB) is a field of study that investigates the impact which
individuals, groups, and structure have on behavior within organizations, and then applies that
knowledge to make organizations work more effectively. Specifically, OB focuses on how to
improve productivity, reduce absenteeism and turnover, and increase employee job satisfaction.
We all hold a number of generalizations about the behavior of people. While some of these
generalizations provide valid insights into human behavior, many are often erroneous. OB uses
systematic study to improve behavioral predictions that would be made from intuition alone. But
because people are different, we need to look at OB in a contingency framework, using
situational variables to moderate cause-effect relationships.
Organizational behavior offers a number of challenges and opportunities for managers. It can
help improve quality and employee productivity by showing managers how to empower their
people as well as design and implement change programs. It offers specific insights to improve a
manager's people skills. OB recognizes differences and helps managers see the value of work
force diversity and practices that may need to be made when managing in different countries. In
times of rapid and ongoing change! OB can help managers learn to cope in a world of
"temporariness" and declining employee loyalty. Finally! OB can offer managers guidance in
creating an ethically healthy work climate.

Chapter Two
Foundation of Individual Behavior and Learning in an Organization
Understanding Individual difference /Understanding Individual Behavior: - individual

behavior is different in terms of the following: Personality, Perception, Emotions, Values,
Attitudes, Stress, motivation, ability, Role perception, age, situational factors, etc.
Perception
What is Perception?
Perception can be defined as a process by which individuals organize and interpret their sensory
impressions in order to give meaning to their environment. However, as we have noted, what one
perceives can be substantially different from objective reality. It need not be, but there is often
disagreement. For example, it is possible that all employees in a firm may view it as a great place
to work-favorable working conditions, interesting job assignments, good pay, an understanding
and responsible management-but, as most of us know; it is very unusual to find such agreement.
Thus, perception is the process by which individuals organize and interpret their impressions in
order to give meaning to their environment.
Why perception is important?
- Because people’s behavior is based on their perception of what reality is, not on reality itself.
- Because the world as it is perceived is the world that is behaviorally important.
- Because perception is used to better understand how people make attributions about events.
- Because we don’t see reality. But, we interpret what we see and call it reality.
- Because the attribution process guides our behavior, regardless of the truth of the attribution.

Factors Influencing Perception
How do we explain that individuals may look at the same thing yet perceive it differently? A
number of factors operate to shape and sometimes distort perception. These factors can reside in
the perceiver, in the object or target being perceived, or in the context of the situation in which
the perception is made.
The Perceiver
When an individual looks at a target and attempts to interpret what he or she sees, that
interpretation is heavily influenced by personal characteristics of the individual perceiver. Have
you ever bought a new car and then suddenly noticed a large number of cars like yours on the
road? It's unlikely that the number of such cars suddenly expanded. Rather, your own purchase
has influenced your perception so you are now more likely to notice them. This is an example of
how factors related to the perceiver influence what he or she perceives. Among the more relevant
personal characteristics affecting perception are attitudes, motives, interests, past experience,
expectations, and so on.
Sandy likes small classes because she enjoys asking her teachers a lot of questions. Scott prefers
large lectures and he rarely asks questions. On the first day of classes this term, Sandy and Scott
find themselves walking into the University for their Introductory Course in psychology. They
both recognize that they will be among some 800 students in this class. But given the different
attitudes held by Sandy and Scott, it shouldn't surprise you to find they interpret what they see
differently. Sandy feels worry, while Scott's smile does little to hide his relief in being able to
blend unnoticed into the large lecture. They both see the same thing, but they interpret it
differently. A major reason is that they hold divergent attitudes concerning large classes.
Unsatisfied needs or motives stimulate individuals and may exert a strong influence on their
perceptions. This was dramatically demonstrated in research on hunger. Individuals in the study
had not eaten for varying numbers of hours. Some had eaten an hour earlier; others had gone as
long as 16 hours without food. These subjects were shown blurred pictures, and the results
indicated that the extent of hunger influenced the interpretation of the blurred pictures. Those

who had not eaten for 16 hours perceived the blurred images as pictures of food far more
frequently than did those subjects who had eaten only a short time earlier.
This same phenomenon has application in an organizational context as well. It would not be
surprising, for example, to find that a boss who is insecure perceives a subordinate's efforts to do
an outstanding job as a threat to his or her own position. Personal insecurity can be transferred
into the perception that others attempt to "get my job" regardless of the intention of the
subordinates. Likewise, people who are devious are prone to see others as also devious. The
supervisor who has just been reprimanded by her boss for the high level of lateness among her
staff is more likely to notice lateness by an employee tomorrow than she was last week. If you
are preoccupied with a personal problem, you may find it hard to be attentive in class. These
examples illustrate that the focus of our attention appears to be influenced by our interests.
Because our individual interests differ considerably, what one person notices in a situation can
differ from what others perceive. Just as interests narrow one's focus, so do one's past
experiences. You perceive those things to which you can relate. However, in many instances,
your past experiences will act to nullify an object's interest.
Objects or events that have never been experienced before are more noticeable than those that
have been experienced in the past. You are more likely to notice a machine you have never seen
before than a standard filing cabinet that is exactly like a hundred others you have previously
seen. Similarly, you are more likely to notice the operations along an assembly line if this is the
first time you have seen an assembly line. Finally, expectations can distort your perceptions in
that you will see what you expect to see. If you expect personnel directors to "like people", you
may perceive them this way regardless of their actual traits.
The Target
Characteristics in the target that is being observed can affect what is perceived. Loud people are
more likely to be noticed in a group than quiet ones. Motion, sounds, size, and other attributes of
a target shape the way we see it. Because targets are not looked at in isolation, the relationship of
a target to its background influences perception, as does our tendency to group close things and
similar things together. What we see depends on how we separate a figure from its general
background. For instance, what you see as you read this sentence is black letters on a white page.

Objects that are close to each other will tend to be perceived together rather than separately. As a
result of physical or time proximity, we often put together objects or events that are unrelated.
Employees in a particular department are seen as a group. If two people in a four-member
department suddenly resign, we tend to assume their departures were related when, in fact, they
may be totally unrelated. Persons, objects, or events that are similar to each other also tend to be
grouped together. The greater the similarity, the greater the probability we will tend to perceive
them as a common group.
The Situation
The context in which we see objects or events is important. Elements in the surrounding
environment influence our perceptions. Factors such as time, work setting, social setting and so
on affect our perception of reality or environment. The following diagram summarizes factors
influencing perception.
The
TheSituation
Situation
Time
Time
Work
Worksetting
setting
Social
Socialsetting
setting
The
ThePerceiver
Perceiver
Attitudes
Attitudes
Motives
Motives
Interest
Interest
Experience
Experience
Expectations
Expectations
The
TheTarget
Target Novelty
Novelty
Motion
Motion
Sound
Sound
Size
Size
Background
Background
Proximity
Proximity
Perceptual Errors
 Attribution problem - there are two attribution theories: a) Fundamental Attribution

Error:- The tendency to underestimate external factors and overestimate internal factors
when making judgments about others’ behavior. e.g. lower salary. b) Self-Serving Bias: -
The tendency to attribute one’s successes to internal factors while putting the blame for
failures on external factors. e.g. student grade.
• Selective Perception - People selectively interpret what they see based on their interests,
background, experience, and attitudes.
• Halo Effect - Drawing a general impression about an individual based on a single

characteristic.
• Contrast Effects -A person’s evaluation is affected by comparisons with other

individuals recently encountered.
• Projection - Attributing one’s own characteristics to other people.
• Stereotyping - Judging someone on the basis of your perception of the group to which
that person belongs.
• Prejudice -An unfounded dislike of a person or group based on their belonging to a

particular stereotyped group.

• Self-Fulfilling Prophecy - A concept that proposes a person will behave in ways
consistent with how he or she is perceived by others.
Attitude
Attitude is evaluative statements or judgments concerning objects, people, or events. Attitudes
are evaluative statements- either favorable or unfavorable- concerning objects, people, or events.
They reflect how one feels about something. When you say “I like my job”, you are expressing
your attitude about your work. Attitude reflects how one feels about something.
Components of Attitude
There are three components of an attitude: cognitive, affective, and behavioral. The belief that
"discrimination is wrong" is a value statement. Such an opinion is the cognitive component of an
attitude. It sets the stage for the more critical part of an attitude-its affective component.
Affective component is the emotional or feeling segment of an attitude and is reflected in the
statement "I don't like John because he discriminates against his friends." Finally, affective
aspect can lead to behavioral outcomes. The behavioral component of an attitude refers to an
intention to behave in a certain way toward someone or something. So, to continue our example,
“I might choose to avoid John because of my feeling about him”.
Viewing attitudes as made up of three components- cognition, affect, and behavior -is helpful
toward understanding their complexity and the potential relationship between attitudes and
behavior. But for the sake of clarity, keep in mind that the term attitude essentially refers to the
affective part of the three components. Therefore, cognitive component of an attitude is the
opinion or belief segment of an attitude. Affective component of an attitude is the emotional or
feeling segment of an attitude. Behavioral component of an attitude is an intention to behave in a
certain way toward someone or something.
Sources of Attitudes

Attitudes are acquired from parents, teachers, peer group members and so forth. And also, we are
born with certain genetic predispositions. Then, in our early years, we begin modeling our
attitudes after those we admire, or respect. We observe the way family and friends behave, and
we shape our attitudes and behavior to align with theirs. People also imitate the attitudes of
popular individuals and those they admire and respect. In contrast to values, your attitudes are
less stable. Advertising messages, for example, attempt to alter your attitudes toward a certain
product or service. In organizations, attitudes are important because they affect job behavior. If
workers believe, for example, that supervisors, auditors, bosses, and time and motion engineers
are all in conspiracy to make employees work harder for the same or less money, then it makes
sense to try to understand how these attitudes were formed, their relationship to actual job
behavior, and how they might be changed.
Characteristics and formation of Attitude
Many of the attitudes of the individual have their source and support in groups with which the
individual comes in alliance. His attitudes tend to reflect the beliefs, values and the norms of his
group, and to maintain his attitude the individual must have the support of his group. The group
helps in the foundation of attitudes. The son of an unskilled worker, aspiring for middle class
status will tend to accept the middle class values and attitudes. His middle class outlook will
embrace the attitudinal issues of that class. The attitudes of individual reflect personality.
Types of Attitudes
A person can have thousands of attitudes, but OB focuses our attention on a very limited number
of job-related attitudes. These job-related attitudes tap positive or negative evaluations that
employees hold about aspects of their work environment. Most of the research in OB has been
concerned with the following attitudes: job satisfaction, job involvement, organizational
commitment, employee engagement, perceived organizational support, etc.
JOB SATISFACTION - The term job satisfaction refers to an individual's general attitude
toward his or her job. A person with a high level of job satisfaction holds positive attitudes
toward the job; a person who is dissatisfied with his or her job holds negative attitudes about the

job. When people speak of employee attitudes, more often than not they mean job satisfaction. In
fact, the two are frequently used interchangeably.
JOB INVOLVEMENT - The degree to which a person identifies with his or her job, actively
participates in it, and considers his or her performance important to self- worth. The term job
involvement is a more recent addition to the OB literature. While there isn't complete agreement
over what the term means, a workable definition states that job involvement measures the degree
to which a person identifies psychologically with his or her job and considers his or her
perceived performance level important to self-worth. Employees with a high level of job
involvement strongly identify with and really care about the kind of work they do. High levels of
job involvement have been found to be related to fewer absences and lower resignation rates.
ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT - The degree to which an employee identifies with a
particular organization and its goals, and wishes to monitor membership in the organization. It's
defined as a state in which an employee identifies with a particular organization and its goals,
and wishes to maintain membership in the organization. So high work involvement means
identifying with one's specific job; high organizational commitment means identifying with one's
employing organization.
As with job involvement, the research evidence demonstrates negative relationships between
organizational commitment and both absenteeism and turnover. Organizational commitment is
probably a better predictor because it is a more global and enduring response to the organization
as a whole than is job satisfaction. An employee may be dissatisfied with his other particular job
and consider it a temporary condition, yet not be dissatisfied with the organization as a whole.
But when dissatisfaction spreads to the organization itself, individuals are more likely to consider
resigning. Are all these job attitudes are distinct? No! Because these attitudes are highly related.
Variables may be redundant (measuring the same thing under a different name).While there is
some distinction; there is also a lot of overlap.
Predicting Behavior from Attitudes
Important attitudes have a strong relationship to behavior. The closer the match between attitude
and behavior, the stronger the relationship:
 Specific attitudes predict specific behavior

 General attitudes predict general behavior
 The more frequently expressed an attitude, the better predictor it is.
 High social pressures reduce the relationship and may cause dissonance.
 Attitudes based on personal experience are stronger predictors.
Consistency of Attitudes
People seek consistency among their attitudes and their behavior. When there is an
inconsistency, the individual may alter either the attitudes or behavior, or develop a
rationalization for the discrepancy. Did you ever notice how people change what they say so it
doesn't contradict what they do? Perhaps a friend of yours has consistently argued that the
quality of domestic products isn't up to that of the imports and that he'd never own anything but a
domestic ones. Research has generally concluded that people seek consistency among their
attitudes and between their attitudes and their behavior. This means that individuals seek to
reconcile divergent attitudes and align their attitudes and behavior so they appear rational and
consistent. When there is an inconsistency, forces are initiated to return the individual to an
equilibrium state where attitudes and behavior are again consistent. This can be done by altering
either the attitudes or the behavior or by developing a rationalization for the discrepancy.
Personality
Why are some people quiet and passive, while others are loud and aggressive? Are certain
personality types better adapted for certain job types? What do we know from theories of
personality that can help us explain and predict the behavior of people? In this section, we
attempt to answer such questions.
What is Personality?
When we talk of personality, we don't mean a person has charm, a positive attitude toward life, a
smiling face, or is a finalist for "Happiest and Friendliest". When psychologists talk of
personality, they mean a dynamic concept describing the growth and development of a person's
whole psychological system. Rather than looking at parts of the person, personality looks at
some aggregate whole that is greater than the sum of the parts.

The most frequently used definition of personality was produced by Gordon Allport nearly 60
years ago. He said personality is "the dynamic organization within the individual of those
psychophysical systems that determine his unique adjustments to his environment. For our
purposes, you should think of personality as the sum total of ways in which an individual reacts
and interacts with others. This is most often described in terms of measurable personality traits
that a person exhibits. Personality is the sum total of ways in which an individual reacts.
Personality Determinants
An early argument in personality research was whether an individual's personality was the result
of heredity or environment. Was the personality predetermined at birth, or was it the result of the
individual's interaction with his or her environment? Clearly, there is no simple black-and-white
answer. Personality appears to be a result of both influences. Additionally, today we recognize a
third factor-the situation. Thus, an adult's personality is now generally considered to be made up
of both hereditary and environmental factors, moderated by situational conditions.
HEREDITY- Heredity refers to those factors that were determined at conception. Physical
stature, facial attractiveness, sex, temperament, muscle composition and reflexes, energy level,
and biological rhythms are characteristics that are generally considered to be either completely or
substantially influenced by who your parents were, that is, by their biological, physiological, and
inherent psychological make-up. The heredity approach argues that the Ultimate explanation of
an individual's personality is the molecular structure of the genes, located in the chromosomes.
But personality characteristics are not completely dictated by heredity.
ENVIRONMENT - Among the factors that exert pressures on our personality formation are the
culture in which we are raised, our early conditioning, the norms among our family, friends, and .
social groups, and other influences we experience. The environment we are exposed to play a
substantive role in shaping our personalities. .
For example, culture establishes the norms, attitudes, and values that are passed along from one
generation to the next and create consistencies over time. Careful consideration of the arguments
favoring either heredity or environment as the primary determinant of personality forces the

conclusion that both are important. Heredity sets the parameters or outer limits, but an
individual's full potential will be determined by how well he or she adjusts to the demands and
requirements of the environment.,
SITUATION/SITUATIONAL CONDITIONS - A third factor, the situation, influence the

effects of heredity and environment on personality. An individual's personality, while generally
stable and consistent, does change in different situations. The different demands of different
situations call forth different aspects of one's personality. We should not, therefore, look at
personality patterns in isolation." While it seems only logical to suppose that situations will
influence an individual's personality, a neat classification scheme which would tell us the impact
of various types of situations has so far eluded us. Apparently we are not yet dose to developing
a system for clarifying situations so they might be systematically studied. However, we do know
that certain situations are more relevant than others in influencing personality.
What is of interest taxonomically is that situations seem to differ substantially in the constraints
they impose on behavior, with some situations - e.g., church, an employment interview-
constraining many behaviors and others. Furthermore, although certain generalizations can be
made about personality, there are significant individual differences. As we see, the study of
individual differences has come to receive greater emphasis in personality research, which
originally sought out more general, universal patterns.
Major Personality Attributes Influencing OB
In this section, we want to more carefully evaluate a number of specific personality attributes
that have been found to be powerful predictors of behavior in organizations. The first of these is
related to where one perceives the locus of control in one's life. The others are Machiavellianism,
self-esteem, self-monitoring, propensity for risk taking, Proactive Personality, and Type A
personality. In this section, we briefly introduce these attributes and summarize what we know
about their ability to explain and predict employee behavior.
LOCUS OF CONTROL - Some people believe they are masters of their own fate. Other people
see themselves as pawns of fate, believing that what happens to them in their lives is due to luck
or chance. The first type, those who believe they r •control their destinies have been labeled

internals, whereas the latter, who see their lives as being controlled by outside forces, have been
called externals.
A large amount of research comparing internals with externals has consistently shown that
individuals who rate high in externality are less satisfied with their jobs, have higher absenteeism
rates, are more alienated from the work setting, and are less involved on their jobs than are
internals. Why are externals more dissatisfied? The answer is probably because they perceive
themselves as having little control over those organizational outcomes that are important to them.
Internals, facing the same situation, attribute organizational outcomes to their own actions. If the
situation is unattractive, they believe they have no one else to blame but themselves. Also, the
dissatisfied internal is more likely to quit a dissatisfying job. Internals -Individuals who believe
that they control what happens to them. Externals - individuals who believe that what happens to
them is controlled by outside forces such as luck or chance.
MACHIAVELLIANISM - The personality characteristic of Machiavellianism (Mach) is named after

Niccollo Machiavelli, who wrote in the sixteenth century about how to gain and manipulate
power. An individual high in Machiavellianism is pragmatic, maintains emotional distance, and
believes that ends can justify means. "If it works, use it" is consistent with a high-Mach
perspective. A considerable amount of research has been directed toward relating high- and low-
Mach personalities to certain behavioral outcomes. High-Machs manipulate more, win more, are
persuaded less, and persuade others more than do low-Machs. Yet, these high-Mach outcomes are
moderated by situational factors. It has been found that high-Machs flourish (1) when they
interact face to face with others rather than indirectly; (2) when the situation has a minimum
number of rules and regulations, thus allowing latitude for improvisation; and (3) where
emotional involvement with details irrelevant to winning distracts low-Machs.
Should we conclude that high-Machs make good employees? That answer depends on the type of
job and whether you consider ethical implications in evaluating performance. In jobs that require
bargaining skills (such as labor negotiation) or where there are substantial rewards for winning
(as in commissioned sales), high-Machs will be productive. But if ends can't justify the means, if
there are absolute standards of behavior, or if the three situational factors noted in the previous

paragraph are not in evidence, our ability to predict a high-Mach's performance will be severely
curtailed.
SELF ESTEEM - People differ in the degree to which they like or dislike themselves. This trait
is called self-esteem. The research on self-esteem offers some interesting insights into
organizational behavior. For example, self-esteem is directly related to expectations for success.
High-self esteems believe they possess more of the ability they need in order to succeed at work.
Individuals with high self esteem will take more risks in job selection and are more likely to
choose unconventional Jobs than people with low self esteem.
The most generalizable finding on self-esteem is that low-self esteems are more susceptible to
external influence than high-self esteems. Low-self esteems depend on the receipt of positive
evaluations from others. As a result, they are more likely to seek approval from others and more
prone to conform to the beliefs and behaviors of those they respect than are high-SEs (self
esteems). In managerial positions, low-SEs tend to be concerned with pleasing others and,
therefore, are less likely to take unpopular stands than are high-SEs.
Not surprisingly, self-esteem has also been found to be related to job satisfaction. A number of
studies confirm that high-SEs are more satisfied with their jobs than low-SEs.
SELF-MONITORING -A personality trait that has recently received increased attention is called
self-monitoring. It refers to an individual's ability to adjust his or her behavior to external,
situational factors. Individuals high in self-monitoring show considerable adaptability in
adjusting their behavior to external situational factors. They are highly sensitive to external cues
and can behave differently in different situations. High self monitors are capable of presenting
striking contradictions between their public, personal and their private self. Low self-monitors
can't disguise themselves this way. This tends to display their true dispositions and attitudes in
every situation; hence there is high behavioral consistency between who they are and what they
do.
The research on self-monitoring: is in its infancy, so predictions must be guarded. However,

preliminary evidence suggests that high self-monitors tend to pay closer attention to the behavior
of others and are more capable of conforming than are low self-monitors. We might also
hypothesize that high self-monitors will be more successful in managerial positions where

individuals are required to play multiple, and even contradicting roles. The high self-monitor is
capable of putting on different "faces" for different audiences.
RISK TAKING - People differ in their willingness and propensity to take risks. This propensity to
assume or avoid risk has been shown to have an impact on how long it takes managers to make a
decision and how much information they require before making their choice. High risk-taking
managers made more rapid decisions and used less information in making their choices than did
the low-risk-taking managers. Interestingly, the decision accuracy was the same for both groups.
While it is generally correct to conclude that managers in organizations are risk aversive, there
are still individual differences on this dimension. As a result, it makes sense to recognize these
differences and even to consider aligning risk-taking propensity with specific job demands. For
instance, a high risk- taking propensity may lead to more effective performance for a stock trader
in a brokerage firm because this type of job demands rapid decision making.
On the other hand, this personality characteristic might prove a major obstacle to an accountant
who performs auditing activities. The latter job might be better filled by someone with a low-
risk-taking propensity.
Type A personality - Aggressive involvement in a chronic, incessant struggle to achieve more

and more in less and less likely and, if necessary, against the opposing efforts of other things or
other people.
TYPE A PERSONALITY- Do you know any people who are excessively competitive and
always seem to be experiencing a chronic sense of time urgency? If so, it's a good bet these
people have a Type A personality. A Type A individual is aggressively involved in a chronic,
incessant struggle to achieve more and more in less and less time, and if required to do so,
against the opposing efforts of other things or other persons. For example, in the North American
culture, such characteristics tend to be highly prized and positively associated with ambition and
the successful acquisition of material goods.
Type A's
1. are always moving, walking, and eating rapidly;
2. feel impatient with the rate at which most events take place;

3. strive to think or do two or more things simultaneously;
4. cannot cope with leisure time; and
5. are obsessed with numbers, measuring their success in terms of how much of everything they
acquire.
In contrast to the Type A personality is the Type B, who is exactly opposite. Type B's are "rarely
harried by the desire to obtain an increasing number of things or participate in an endless
growing series of events in an ever decreasing amount of time”.
Type B's
1. never suffer from a sense of time urgency with its accompanying impatience;
2. feel no need to display or discuss, either their achievements or accomplishments unless such
exposure is demanded by the situation;
3. play for fun and relaxation, rather than to exhibit their superiority at any cost; and
4. can relax without guilt,
Type A's operate under moderate to high levels of stress. They subject themselves to more or less continuous
time pressure, creating for themselves a life of deadlines. These characteristics result in some rather specific
behavioral outcomes. For example, Type A's are fast workers. This is because they emphasize quantity
over quality. In managerial positions, Type A's demonstrate their competitiveness by working long hours and,
not infrequently, making poor decisions because they make them too fast. Type A's are also rarely creative.
Because of their concern with quantity and speed, they rely on past experiences when faced with problems.
They will not allocate the time that is necessary to develop unique solutions to new problems. They rarely vary
in their responses to specific challenges in their milieu; hence their behavior is easier to predict than that of
Type B's.
Are Type A's or Type B's more successful in organizations? In spite of the hard work of Type
A's, the Type B's are the ones who appear to make it to the top. Great salespersons are usually
Type A's; senior executives are usually Type B's. Why? The answer lies in the tendency of Type
A's to trade off quality of effort for quantity. Promotions in corporate and professional
organizations usually go to those who are wise rather than to those who are merely hasty, to
those who are tactful rather than to those who are hostile, and to those who are creative rather
than to those who are merely agile in competitive strife.
Proactive Personality
A person who identifies opportunities, shows initiative, takes action, and perseveres until
meaningful change occurs.
Matching Personalities and Jobs
In the previous discussion of personality attributes, our conclusions were often qualified to
recognize that the requirements of the job moderated the relationship between possession of the
personality characteristics and job performance. This concerns with matching the job
requirements with personality characteristics is best articulated in John Holland's personality-job
fit theory. The theory is based on the notion of fit between an individual's personality
characteristics and his or her occupational environment. Personality job-fit theory identifies
personality types and proposes that the fit between personality type and occupational
environment determines satisfaction and turnover. John Holland presents personality types and
proposes that satisfaction and the propensity to leave a job depend on the degree to which
individuals successfully match their personalities to a congruent occupational environment. Each
personality type has a congruent occupational environment.
In his theory, John Holland, argues that satisfaction is highest when social individuals in social
jobs, conventional people in conventional jobs, and so forth. A realistic person in a realistic job
is in a more congruent situation than is a realistic person in an investigative job. The key points
of John’s theory are that (1) there do appear to be intrinsic differences in personality among
individuals, (2) there are different types of jobs, and (3) people in job environments congruent
with their personality types should be more satisfied and less likely to voluntarily resign than
people in incongruent jobs.
Learning
The last topic to be discussed in this chapter is learning. It is included for the obvious reason that
almost all complex behavior is learned. If we want to explain and predict behavior, we need to
understand how people learn.
What is learning? A psychologist's definition is considerably broader than the lay person view
that "it's what we did when we went to school." In actuality, each of us is continuously going "to
school." Learning occurs all of the time. A generally accepted definition of learning, therefore, is
any relatively permanent change in behavior that occurs as a result of experience. Ironically, we

can say that changes in behavior indicate learning has taken place and that learning is a change in
behavior. Obviously, the foregoing definition suggests ‘we never see someone learning’.
We can see changes taking place, but not the learning itself. The concept is theoretical and,
hence, not directly observable. You have seen people in the process of learning, you have seen
people who behave in a particular way as a result of learning and some of you have "learned" at
some time in your life. In other words, we infer that learning has taken place if an individual
behaves, reacts, and responds as a result of experience in a manner different from the way he
formerly behaved.
Our definition has several components that deserve clarification. First, learning involves change.
This may he good or bad from an organizational point of view. People can learn unfavorable
behaviors or favorable behaviors. Second, the change must be relatively permanent. Temporary
changes may be only reflexive and fail to represent any learning. Therefore, this requirement
rules out behavioral changes caused by fatigue or temporary adaptations. Third, our definition is
concerned with behavior. Learning takes place where there is a change in actions. A change in an
individual's thought processes or attitudes, if accompanied by no change in behavior, would not
be learning. Finally, some form of experience is necessary for learning. This may be acquired
directly through observation or practice. Or it may result from an indirect experience, such as
that acquired through reading. The crucial test still remains: Does this experience result in a
relatively permanent change in behavior? If the answer is "yes,” we can say that learning has
taken place. Learning is any relatively permanent change in behavior that occurs as a result of
experience.
Strategies of reinforcement, punishment and extinction
Positive versus Negative Reinforcement
Reinforcement is an increase in the strength [or frequency] of a response following the change
in environment immediately following that response. We have learned that reinforcement occurs
when a consequence following the behavior increases the likelihood that the behavior will occur
in the future under similar circumstances. We have also learned that the consequence can involve
stimuli that are pleasing and stimuli that are aversive. Recall as well that we refer to the stimuli
as pleasing or aversive and avoid using the valence terms positive and negative because they are

reserved words and will be used elsewhere. We use these terms now to discuss the difference
between positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement. Some of the material in this chapter
is review and will serve as a basis for the new information you are about to learn. While this
seem redundant at first many things that we learn such as math, languages, computer
programming, etc. is redundant because it builds on itself. The same is true with behavior
modification.
Positive Reinforcement
Positive reinforcement is the introduction of a desirable stimulus, contingent upon emitting a

target behavior, with the goal of increasing the frequency of a response. With positive
reinforcement we are introducing a desirable stimulus. Most reinforcement procedures involve
positive reinforcement. Verbal Praise is used in positive reinforcement. Consequences are what
an employer or co-worker might say to you for making something for a customer using the
correct proportions of ingredients (target behavior). A parent providing a child the opportunity to
watch a favorite T.V. program (consequence) once their homework is completed (target
behavior). Receiving a $5 tip (consequence) from a bar customer for making their cocktail
according to their specifications (target behavior). Praise, watching TV and tips are generally
something we want and are reinforcing when they are given (added) to us as positive
reinforcement.
Negative Reinforcement
Negative reinforcement is the removal of an aversive stimulus, contingent upon emitting a target
behavior, with the goal of increasing the frequency of a response. Negative and positive
reinforcement only have in common the increasing the behavior as a result of a consequence.
Your car insurance agency lowers (takes away) your monthly payment by 25%
(consequence/removal of an aversive) for having a clean driving record free of moving violations
for six months (target behavior). Your significant other stops leaving you annoying voicemails
on your phone (consequence/removal of an aversive) the day after you mowed the lawn (target
behavior). You stop blowing a high-pitched whistle (consequence/removal of an aversive) after
your dog begins to sit on the floor (target behavior) instead of the couch.
Conditioned vs. Unconditioned Stimuli

While the principles and contingencies of reinforcement and punishment refer to Operant
Conditioning, which was established by B.F. Skinner, another type of conditioning exists.
Classical Conditioning, which led to the emergence of scientific behaviorism as a major subfield
of psychological research, was largely the result of work by Ivan Pavlov, a Russian physiologist.
Pavlov was examining the digestive systems of dogs in his laboratory when he discovered
something interesting that would lead to a plethora of knowledge regarding principles of how
organisms learn based on simple stimuli found in a particular organism’s environment.
Pavlov had discovered that when placing meat powder in front of the dogs, their saliva glands
would cause the dogs to start drooling. The meat powder caused the dogs to drool in the absence
of any additional stimuli. In other words, the meat powder is sufficient to elicit a drooling
response, due to the detection of a food stimulus in the environment (i.e., the chemical
interaction of smelling the meat powder led to the production of saliva).
This response to the meat powder is based on the dog’s inherent biological mechanisms which
cause the dog to drool in response to stimuli (i.e., the meat powder) which could lead to
satisfying a biological need (i.e., hunger). In the course of his experiments, Pavlov began to
notice that the meat powder was not the only stimulus that elicited salivation. Pavlov began to
notice that when he used a bell to signal to the dogs that it was feeding time, the dogs began to
drool. Eventually, the dogs began to drool in response to the ringing of the bell without the
presence of the meat powder.
What does this mean?
Pavlov’s observational and experimental findings indicate that a variety of stimuli can be
conditioned to produce a given basic reflexive response. In the previous example, the meat
powder is considered an unconditioned stimulus (UCS), because it elicits a natural drooling
response from the dogs, called an unconditioned response (UCR). These responses are referred
to as unconditioned because they are innate and do not have to be learned. The behaviors are
reflexive in nature.
However, when the meat powder (UCS) is repeatedly paired along with the tone of a bell, the
bell will eventually elicit the drooling response from the dogs. When the bell, in the absence of

the meat powder, elicits a drooling response from the dogs, the bell is referred to as a
conditioned stimulus (CS) and the drooling. This is because the animal essentially was taught or
conditioned to drool at the sound of the bell. When the drooling occurs solely in response to the
ringing of the bell, it is referred to as a conditioned response (CR). It is a conditioned response
because the response to the bell was learned. We can think of conditioning as learning.
An association between the bell and meat is learned (conditioned) and the drooling as a result of
the bell too is learned (conditioned). Once conditioned, the bell (CS) is the only stimulus
required to elicit a drooling response from the dog (CR). This influential work by Pavlov will be
discussed in greater detail on a different section. However, Pavlov’s work has implications for
the following section regarding primary reinforcers (i.e., unconditioned) and secondary
reinforcers (i.e., conditioned) which are associated with operant conditioning and behavior
modification principles.
Primary Reinforcer
A primary reinforcer, sometimes called an unconditioned reinforcer, is a stimulus that does not
require pairing other stimuli to function as a reinforcer. A primary reinforcer has most likely has
obtained this function through the evolution and its role in species' survival. Simply put, primary
reinforcers are biologically relevant.
Examples of primary reinforcers are water, food, sex, air. Each of these we need in order to
survive. Additionally, there is a brain structure, called the hypothalamus, specifically devoted to
the motivation toward these primary reinforcers for the purposes of regulating normal
functioning of the body. Other primary reinforcers meet safety needs and social needs. These are
all basic needs according to researcher Abram Maslow. Primary reinforcers as unconditioned,
whereas secondary reinforcers are conditioned.
Secondary Reinforcer
A secondary reinforcer, sometimes called a conditioned reinforcer, is a stimulus or situation

that has acquired its function as a reinforcer after pairing with a stimulus which functions as a
reinforcer. Pets are very much attuned to the reinforcers in their lives. Food, access to the

outside, attention, and sleep are some rather salient reinforcers. Some environmental stimuli can
take on the function of a reinforce because it becomes associated with the reinforcer by either
preceding it or accompanying the reinforcer. Similarly to the bell that preceded the food delivery
in the Pavlov example.
We can also see some unintentional conditioning of secondary reinforcers when kittens weaned
on canned food soon become keenly aware of the noise associated with the can opener. Because
the sound of the can opener is associated with food, we can use the can opener to “call” the cat to
the kitchen. This is a good thing to be able to do since many cats are not trained to come when
you call them – although they can be. For pets footsteps down the stairs in the morning can also
become secondary reinforcers when they are associated with either getting attention or associated
with access to the outside for the pets to relieve themselves in the morning. My pet rats are
conditioned to the shuffle of my slippers. The come out of their cage and sit on the top waiting
for a little snack or pat on the head.
A good way to think of secondary reinforces is to ask yourself if this stimulus occurred in
absence of any conditioning, would it be reinforcing? Thus a secondary reinforcer has little to no
value until it takes on the value or function of the primary reinforce is has become associative
with. Some examples are the lunch bell – if you never heard a lunch bell before you wouldn’t
know what it was for; green light at a traffic stop - if you never drove before the lights at the
traffic stop would have little meaning; ice cream truck – if you never experience the arrival of an
ice cream truck the music they play would have little value to you. You surely wouldn’t run into
your house looking for change to buy a snow cone where you heard the music off in the distance.
Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Value, and Punishment and Extinction in relation to behavior: This is your
reading assignment.
Types and Theories of Learning

How do we learn? Three theories have been offered to explain the process by which we acquire
patterns of behavior: classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and social learning. .
CLASSICAL CONDITIONING - Classical conditioning grew out of experiments to teach

dogs to salivate in response to the ringing of a bell, conducted at the turn of the century by a
Russian physiologist, Ivan Pavlov.

A simple surgical procedure allowed Pavlov to measure accurately the amount of saliva secreted
by a dog. When Pavlov presented the dog with a piece of meat, the dog exhibited a noticeable
increase in salivation. When Pavlov withheld the presentation of meat and merely rang a bell, the
dog had no salivation. Then Pavlov proceeded to link the meat and the ringing of the bell. After
repeatedly hearing the bell before getting the food, the dog began to salivate as soon as the bell
rang. After a while, the dog would' salivate merely at the sound of the bell, even if no food was
offered. In effect, the dog had learned to respond-that is, to salivate-to the bell. Let's review this
experiment to introduce the key concepts in classical conditioning.
The meat was an unconditioned stimulus; it invariably caused the dog to react in a specific way,
the reaction that took place whenever the unconditioned stimulus occurred was called the
unconditioned response (or the noticeable increase in salivation, in this case). The bell was an
artificial stimulus, or what we call the conditioned stimulus. While it was originally neutral, after
the bell was paired with the meat (an unconditioned stimulus), it eventually produced a response
when presented alone. The last key concept is the conditioned response. This describes the
behavior of the dog salivating in reaction to the bell alone.
Using these concepts, we can summarize classical conditioning. Essentially, learning a

conditioned response involves building up an association between a conditioned stimulus and an
unconditioned stimulus. Using the paired stimuli, one compelling and the other one neutral, the
neutral one becomes a conditioned stimulus and, hence, takes on the properties of the
unconditioned stimulus.
Classical conditioning can be used to explain why Christmas carols often bring back pleasant
memories of childhood-the songs being associated with the festive Christmas spirit and initiating
fond memories and feelings of euphoria. In an organizational setting, we can also see classical
conditioning operating. For example, at one manufacturing plant, every time the top executives
from the head office were scheduled to visit, the plant management would clean up the
administrative offices and wash the windows. This went on for years. Eventually, employees
would turn on their best behavior and look prim and proper whenever the windows were
cleaned-even in those occasional instances when the cleaning was not paired with the visit from
the top brass. People had learned to associate the cleaning of the windows with the visit from the
head office.

Classical conditioning is passive. Something happens and we react in a specific way. It is elicited
in response to a specific, identifiable event. As such it can explain simple reflexive behaviors.
But most behavior-particularly the complex behavior of individuals in organizations-is emitted
rather than elicited. It is voluntary rather than reflexive. For example, employees choose to arrive
at work on time, ask their boss for help with problems, or goof off when no one is watching. The
learning of these behaviors is better understood by looking at operant conditioning.
OPERANT CONDITIONING - Operant conditioning argues that behavior is a function of its

consequences. People learn to behave to get something they want or avoid something they don't
want. Operant behavior means voluntary or learned behavior in contrast to reflexive or unlearned
behavior. The tendency to repeat such behavior is influenced by the reinforcement or lack of
reinforcement brought about by the consequences of the behavior. Reinforcement, therefore,
strengthens a behavior and increases the likelihood it will be repeated.
What Pavlov did for classical conditioning, the late Harvard psychologist B. F. Skinner did for
operant conditioning. Building on earlier work in the field, Skinner's research extensively
expanded our knowledge of operant conditioning. Even his staunchest critics, who represent a
sizable group, admit his operant concepts work.
Behavior is assumed to be determined from without-that is, learned- rather than from within-
reflexive or unlearned. Skinner argued that by creating pleasing consequences to follow specific
forms of behavior, the frequency of that behavior will increase. People will most likely engage in
desired behaviors if they are positively reinforced for doing so. Rewards, for example, are most
effective if they immediately follow the desired response. Additionally, behavior that is not
rewarded, or is punished, is less likely to be repeated.
You see illustrations of operant conditioning everywhere. For example, any situation in which it
is either explicitly stated or implicitly suggested that reinforcements are contingent on some
action on your part involves the use of operant learning. Your instructor says that if you want a
high grade in the course you must supply correct answers on the test. A commissioned
salesperson wanting to earn a sizable income finds it contingent on generating high sales in her
territory. Of course, the linkage can also work to teach the individual to engage in behaviors that
work against the best interests of the organization.

Assume your boss tells you that if you will work overtime during the next three-week busy
season, you will be compensated for it at the next performance appraisal. However, when
performance appraisal time comes, you find you are given no positive reinforcement for your
overtime work. The next time your boss asks you to work overtime, what will you do? You'll
probably decline! Your behavior can be explained by operant conditioning: If a behavior fails to
be positively reinforced, the probability that the behavior will be repeated declines.
SOCIAL LEARNING - Individuals can also learn by observing what happens to other people
and just by being told about something, as well as by direct experiences. So, for example, much
of what we have learned comes from watching models-parents, teachers, peers, motion picture
and television performers, bosses, and so forth. This view that we can learn through both
observation and direct experience has been called social-learning theory.
While social-learning theory is an extension of operant conditioning that is, it assumes behavior
is a function of consequences-it also acknowledges the existence of observational learning and
the importance of perception in learning. People respond to how they perceive and define
consequences, not to the objective consequences themselves.
The influence of models is central to the social-learning viewpoint. Four processes have been
found to determine the influence that a model will have on an individual. The following
processes when management sets up employee training programs will significantly improve the
likelihood the programs will be successful:
1. Attentional processes. People only learn from a model when they recognize and pay attention
to its critical features. We tend to be most influenced by models that are attractive, repeatedly
available, important to us, or similar to us in our estimation.
2. Retention processes. A model's influence will depend on how well the individual remembers
the model's action after the model is no longer readily available.
3. Motor reproduction processes. After a person has seen a new behavior by observing the
model, the watching must be converted to doing. This process then demonstrates that the
individual can perform the modeled activities.
4. Reinforcement processes. Individuals will be motivated to exhibit the modeled behavior if

positive incentives or rewards are provided. Behaviors that are reinforced will be given more
attention, learned better, and performed more often.

CHAPTER THREE
FOUNDATION OF GROUP BEHAVIOR
Defining and Classifying Group
A group is defined as two or more individuals, interacting and interdependent, who have come
together to achieve particular objectives. Group is two or more people who interact with each
other to accomplish certain goals or meet certain needs. Groups can be either formal or informal.
By formal groups, we mean those defined by the organization's structure, with designated work
assignments/establishing tasks. In formal groups, the behaviors that one should engage in are
stipulated by and directed toward organizational goals. The three members making up an airline
flight crew are an example of a formal group. In contrast, informal groups are alliances that are
neither formally structured nor organizationally determined. These groups are natural formations
in the work environment that appear in response to the need for social contact. Three employees
from different departments who regularly eat lunch together are an example of an informal
group.

It's possible to sub-classify groups as command, task, interest, or friendship groups. Command
and task groups are dictated by the formal organization, whereas interest and friendship groups
are informal alliances. A command group is determined by the organization chart. It is composed
of the subordinates who report directly to a given manager. An elementary school principal and
her 12 teachers form a command group, as do the director of postal audits and his five inspectors.
Task groups, also organizationally determined, represent those working together to complete a
job task. However, a task group's boundaries are not limited to its immediate hierarchical
superior. It can cross command relationships. For instance, if a college student is accused of a
campus crime, it may require communication and coordination among the dean of academic
affairs, the dean of students, the registrar, the director of security, and the student's adviser. Such
a formation would constitute a task group. It should be noted that all command groups are also
task groups, but because task groups can cut across the organization, the reverse need not be true.
People who may or may not be aligned into common command or task groups may affiliate to
attain a specific objective with which each is concerned. This is an interest group. Employees
who band together to have their vacation schedule altered, to support a peer who has been fired,
or to seek increased fringe benefits represent the formation of a united body to further their
common interest.
Groups often develop because the individual members have one or more common characteristics.
We call these formations friendship groups. Social alliances, which frequently extend outside the
work situation, can be based on similar age, support for "Big Red" Nebraska football, having
attended the same college, or the holding of similar political views, co- name just a few such
characteristics.
Informal groups provide a very important service by satisfying their members' social needs.
Because of interactions that result from the close proximity of work stations or task interactions,
we find workers playing golf together, riding to and from work together, lunching together, and
spending their breaks around the water cooler together. We must recognize that these types of
interactions among individuals, even though informal, deeply affect their behavior and
performance.

A group is any member of people who interact with one another, are psychologically aware of
one another and perceive themselves to be a group. A work group is a collection of people who
share most, is not all, of the following characteristics: a definable membership, group
consciousness, a sense of shared purpose, interdependence, interaction, and ability to act in a
unitary manner.
Team - A group whose members work intensely with each other to achieve a specific, common
goal or objective.
– All teams are groups but not all groups are teams.
– Teams often are difficult to form.
– It takes time for members to learn how to work together.
Two characteristics distinguish teams from groups
– Intensity with which team members work together
– Presence of a specific, overriding team goal or objective
Groups’ and Teams’ Contributions to Organizational Effectiveness
- Enhance performance
- Increase responsiveness to customers
- Increase innovation
- Increase motivation and satisfaction, etc.
Types of Groups and Teams in Organizations

Group at work can be both formal and informal. Formal groups are where the organization
structure groups together people to carry out a particular task or function. They may be brought
together to carry out a sequence of operations. They may be put together because of geography
or shared profession. These groups are deliberately planned and organized by management and
would often be written down in formal organization charts with reporting relations made clear .
their main purpose is to ensure that the work of the individual members is coordinated. These
groups can be quiet permanent, even if individual membership changes, may be short-lived for
particular purpose. The formal groups will have a formal distribution of power and authority,
approved channel of communication and links between sections. Examples of formal groups are
task or work groups, command groups, problem solving group, mediating groups, policy making
groups and so on. Within this formal structure there will also be more informal groups of people
that are based on more personal relationships. These informal groups can often cut across formal
groups and can be based on former working partnerships, common interests, sharing lifts to
work, belonging to the same clubs and a whole variety of contacts. A very common informal
group is the lunch which may include people from different positions and sections.
Group Size
• Advantages of small groups
– Interact more with each other and easier to coordinate their efforts
– More motivated, satisfied, and committed

– Easier to share information
– Better able to see the importance of their personal contributions
• Advantages of large groups
- More resources at their disposal to achieve group goals

- Enables managers to obtain division of labor advantages
• Disadvantages of large groups
– Problem of communication and coordination
– Lower level of motivation
– Members might not think their efforts are really needed
Why do people join group/team?
Security - By joining a group, individuals can reduce the insecurity of standing alone. People feel
stronger, however, self-doubts and here more resistant to threats when they are part of a group.
Status - Inclusion in a group that is viewed as important by others provides recognition and status
for its members.
Self-Esteem - Groups can provide people with feelings of self-worth. That is, in addition to
conveying status to those outside the group, membership can also give increased feelings of
worth to the group members themselves.
Affiliation - Groups can fulfill social needs. People enjoy the regular interaction that comes with
group membership. For many people, these on-the-job interactions are their primary source for
fulfilling their needs for affiliation.
Power - What cannot be achieved individually often becomes possible through group action.
There is power in numbers.
Goal Achievement - There are times when it takes more than one person to accomplish a
particular task there is a need to pool talents, knowledge, or power in order to get a job

completed. In such instances, management will rely on the use of a formal group. The following
are some other reasons why people form a group:
- Certain tasks can be performed only through the combined efforts of a number of individuals
working together.
- collusion between members in order to modify formal working arrangements more to their
liking.
- companionship and a source of mutual understanding and support from colleagues.
- membership provides the individual with a sense of belonging.
- Protection for its membership, etc.
No single reason explains why individuals join groups. Since most people belong to a number of
groups, it's obvious that different groups provide different benefits to their members.
Stages of Group Development

For 20 years or more, we thought most groups follow a specific sequence in their evolution and
that we knew what that sequence was. But we were wrong. Recent research indicates no
standardized pattern of group development. In this section, we review the better known five-
stage model of group development, and then the recently discovered punctuated-equilibrium
model. The latter model is your reading assignment.
The Five-Stage Model

From the rnid-1960s, it was believed groups pass through a standard sequence of five stages. As
shown in the following Figure, these five stages have been labeled forming, storming, norming,
performing, and adjourning.
The first stage, forming, is characterized by a great deal of uncertainty about the group's purpose,
structure, and leadership. Members are testing the waters to determine what types of behavior are
acceptable. This stage is complete when members have begun to think of themselves as part of a
group.
The storming stage is one of intra-group conflict. Members accept the existence of the group, but
resist the constraints the group imposes on individuality. Further, there is conflict over who will
control the group. When this stage is complete, a relatively clear hierarchy of leadership exists
within the group.
The third stage is one in which close relationships develop and the group demonstrates
cohesiveness. There is now a strong sense of group identity and camaraderie. This norming stage
is complete when the group structure solidifies and the group has assimilated a common set of
expectations of what defines correct member behavior.
The fourth stage is performing. The structure at this point is fully functional and accepted. Group
energy has moved from getting to know and understand each other to performing the task at
hand.
For permanent work groups, performing is the last stage in their development. However, for
temporary committees, teams, task forces, and similar groups that have a limited task to perform,
there is an adjourning stage. In this stage, the group prepares for its disbandment. High task
performance is no longer the group's top priority. Instead, attention is directed toward wrapping
up activities. Responses of group members vary in this stage. Some are upbeat, basking in the
group's accomplishments. Others may be depressed over the loss of camaraderie and friendships
gained during the work group's life.

Many interpreters of the five-stage model have assumed a group becomes more effective as it
progresses through the first four stages. While this assumption may be generally true, what
makes a group effective is more complex than this model acknowledges. Under some conditions,
high levels of conflict are conducive to high group performance. So we might expect to find
situations where groups in Stage II outperform those in Stages III or IV. Similarly, groups do not
always proceed dearly from one stage to the next. Sometimes, in fact, several stages go on
simultaneously, as when groups are storming and performing at the same time. Groups even
occasionally regress to previous stages. Therefore, even the strongest proponent of this model do
not assume all groups follow its five-stage process precisely Of that Stage IV is always the most
preferable.
Another problem with the five-stage model, in terms of understanding work-related behavior, is
that it ignores organizational context. For instance, a study of a cockpit crew in an airliner found
that, within ten minutes, three strangers assigned to fly together for the first time had become a
high-performing group. What allowed for this speedy group development "vas the strong
organizational context surrounding the tasks of the cockpit crew. This context provided the rules,
task definitions, information, and resources needed for the group to perform. They didn't need to
develop plans, assign roles, determine and allocate resources, resolve conflicts, and set norms the
way the five-stage model predicts. Since much group behavior in organizations takes place
within a strong organizational context, it would appear the five-stage development model may
have limited applicability in our quest to understand work groups.
Obstacles to team/group productivity
Several problems within groups make it difficult to succeed. Trust and cooperation are absent or
weak in malfunctioning groups and performance suffers. Managers and team members must try
to determine the cause of poor performance and implement changes to improve it. Typical
groups performance problems that affect productivity are given below:
a. Free riders- free riders don’t participate in team efforts, but they expect to take credit for
team success and receive a full share of team rewards.
b. dysfunctional team conflict- team can become dysfunctional if some take a personal dislike
to others or engage in some other activity.

c. groupthink- it is a malady that happens when the team is intolerant of a healthy diversity of
opinions.
d. insecure supervisors - many team initiatives are derailed by supervisors and managers who
feel threatened by any proposed change.
e. disruptive high performers – disruptive high performers often cost the team more in terms of
cohesiveness and total outcome than their special talents warrant. Self-management opposition
and lack of teamwork rewards are also among obstacles of team/group productivity.
Group Norms:- the shared beliefs that regulate the behavior of team members are its
team norms. They represent the values and aspirations of the members. Teams enforce norms
with rewards and sanctions.
– Shared guidelines or rules for behavior that most group members follow
– Managers should encourage members to develop norms that contribute to group
performance and the attainment of group goals
Conformity and Deviance
– Members conform to norms to obtain rewards, imitate respected members, and

because they feel the behavior is right.
– When a member deviates, other members will try to make them conform, expel
the member, or change the group norms to accommodate them.
– Conformity and deviance must be balanced for high performance from the group.
– Deviance allows for new ideas in the group.
Balancing Conformity and Deviance in Groups

Group Cohesiveness: - the degree to which members are attracted to their group. The extent to
which members feel a high degree of camaraderie, team spirit, and sense of unity is the degree of
team cohesiveness.
• Three major consequences

– Level of participation
– Level of conformity to group norms
– Emphasis on group goal accomplishment
Sources and Consequences of Group Cohesiveness

Group/Team Effectiveness
Besides the basic research coming out of social psychology, a more applied focus on the impact
that groups/teams have on employee behavior, especially the contribution to satisfaction and
performance, has also received attention. The following is an overall summary of the way to use
groups to enhance satisfaction and performance:
1. Organizing work around intact groups
2. Having groups charged with selection, training, and rewarding of members
3. Using groups to enforce strong norms for behavior, with group involvement in off- the job as
well as on-the-job behavior
4. Distributing resources on a group rather than an individual basis
5. Allowing and perhaps even promoting intergroup rivalry so as to build within-group solidarity
Factors That Affect Group Cohesiveness

 Agreement on group goals

 Frequency of interaction
 group size
 Unpleasant experiences
 Intergroup competition
 Favorable evaluation
 Domination by one or more members, etc
GROUP BEHAVIOR
The group is individual’s creation and exists for the individual. An individual with other
individuals comprise the bricks that make up the building which we call a group. A group can be
as powerful as to control individual’s life. A group behavior is not the sum total of the behaviors
making the group but it is a unit rather than the components of the group. An individual loses
some of his individual personality traits and characteristics in the process of integration of effects
of various individuals for efficient working. After transition has occurred, the individual’s
personal bonds are changed and become mainly thoughts of the group. Each individual is
member of numerous groups. The groups like individuals have structural and integrative
characteristics and operate in social environments. The groups have power roles, leadership
roles, communication and social structures. Groups have norms, ideologies, system,
cohesiveness and morale. Individuals are greatly influenced by the powerful force of his group.
The features or behavioral characteristics of effective teams are: cohesive with each other, select
high performance norms, cooperative, exhibit interdependence, and trust one another.
CHAPTER FOUR
MOTIVATION CONCEPTS AND THEIR APPLICATIONS

What is Motivation?
Motivation is the willingness to exert high levels of effort toward organizational goals,
conditioned by the efforts and ability to satisfy some individual need. Maybe the place to begin
is to say what motivation isn't. Many people incorrectly view motivation as a personal trait-that
is, some have it and others don't. In practice, some managers label employees who seem to lack
motivation as lazy. Such a label assumes an individual is always lazy. Our knowledge of
motivation tells us this just isn't true. What we know is that motivation is the result of the
interaction of the individual and the situation. Certainly, individuals differ in their basic
motivational drive. You may read a complete novel at one sitting, yet find it difficult to stay with
a textbook for more than 20 minutes. It's not necessarily you-it's the situation. So as we analyze
the concept of motivation, keep in mind that level of motivation varies both between individuals
and within individuals at different times.
We define motivation as the willingness to exert high levels of effort toward organizational
goals, conditioned by the efforts and ability to satisfy some individual need, while general
motivation is concerned with effort toward any goal, we narrow the focus to organizational goals
in order to reflect our singular interest in work-related behavior. The three key elements in our
definition are effort, organizational goals, and needs.
The effort element is a measure of intensity. When someone is motivated, he or she tries hard.
But high levels of effort are unlikely to lead to favorable job performance outcomes unless the
effort is channeled in a direction that benefits the organization. Therefore, we must consider the
quality of the effort as well as its intensity. Effort that is directed toward, and consistent with, the
organization's goals is the kind of effort we should be seeking. Finally, we treat motivation as a
need-satisfying process.
 Motivation refers to forces within an individual that account for the level, direction, and
persistence of effort expended at work.

 Direction — an individual’s choice when presented with a number of possible
alternatives.
 Level — the amount of effort a person puts forth.
 Persistence — the length of time a person stays with a given action.
A need, in our terminology, means some internal state that makes certain outcomes appear
attractive. An unsatisfied need creates tension that stimulates drives within the individual. These
drives generate a search behavior to find particular goals that, if attained, will satisfy the need
and lead to the reduction of tension. So we can say that motivated employees are in a state of
tension. To relieve this tension, they exert effort. The greater the tension, the higher the effort
level. If this effort successfully leads to the satisfaction of the need, tension is reduced. But since
we are interested in work behavior, this tension reduction effort must also be directed toward
organizational goals. Therefore, inherent in our definition of motivation is the requirement that
the individual's needs be compatible and consistent with the organization's goals. Where this
does not occur, we can have individuals exerting high levels of effort that actually run counter to
the interests of the organization.
This, incidentally, is not so unusual. For example, some employees regularly spend a lot of time
talking with friends at work in order to satisfy their social needs. There is a high level of effort,
only it's being unproductively directed.
Why we deal with Motivation? Because,
Performance = f (Ability, Motivation, Opportunity, Etc. )
Categories of Motivation Theories
1. Content theories.

 Focus on profiling the needs that people seek to fulfill.
2. Process theories.
 Focus on people’s thought or cognitive processes.
3. Reinforcement theories.
Emphasize controlling behavior by manipulating its consequences
1. Content Motivation Theories
 Content theories assumes motivation results from the individual’s attempts to satisfy
needs.
 Major content theories of motivation are:
 Hierarchy of needs theory.
 ERG theory
 Acquired needs theory
 Two-factor theory
 Theory X and Theory Y
 Each theory offers a slightly different view.
There are two categories of content theories of motivation: early content theories of motivation
and contemporary theories of motivation.
I. Early Content Motivation Theories

The 1950s were a fruitful period in the development of motivation concepts. Three specific
theories were formulated during this time, which, although heavily attacked and now
questionable in terms of validity, are probably still the best known explanations for employee
motivation. These are the hierarchy of needs theory, Theories X and Y, and the motivation-
hygiene theory. As you'll see later in this chapter, we have since developed more valid
explanations of motivation, but you should know these early theories for at least two reasons:
(l ) they represent a foundation from which contemporary theories have grown, and
(2) practicing managers regularly use these theories and their terminology in explaining
employee motivation.
a. Hierarchy of Needs Theory
It's probably safe to say that the most well-known theory of motivation is Abraham Maslow's
hierarchy of needs. He hypothesized that within every human being there exists a hierarchy of
the following five needs.
1. Physiological: Includes hunger, thirst, shelter, sex, and other bodily needs
2. Safety: Includes security and protection from physical and emotional harm
3. Social: Includes affection, belongingness, acceptance, and friendship
4. Esteem: Includes internal esteem factors such as self-respect, autonomy, and achievement; and
external esteem factors such as status, recognition, and attention.
5. Self-actualization: The drive to become what one is capable of becoming; includes growth,
achieving one's potential, and self-fulfillment.

E
s
t
S e
o e
P c
S m
h i
y a a
f N
s l
e e
i
t e S
o N
y d e
l e s l
o e
g N d f
i e s
c e A
a d c
l s t
u
N a
e l
e i
d z
s a
t
i
o
n
As each of these needs becomes substantially satisfied, the next need becomes dominant. In
terms of the above figure, the individual moves up the steps of the hierarchy. From the
standpoint of motivation, the theory would say that although no need is ever fully gratified, a
substantially satisfied need no longer motivates. So if you want to motivate someone, according
to Maslow, you need to understand what level of the hierarchy that person is currently on and
focus on satisfying those needs at or above that level.
Maslow separated the five needs into higher and lower orders. Physiological, safety and social
needs were described as lower order needs and esteem, and self-actualization as higher order
needs. The differentiation between the two orders was made on the premise that higher order
needs are satisfied internally (within the person), whereas lower order needs are predominantly
satisfied externally (by pay, union contracts, and tenure, for example). In fact, the natural
conclusion to be drawn from Maslow's classification is that in times of economic plenty, almost
all permanently employed workers have their lower order needs substantially met.
Maslow's need theory has received wide recognition, particularly among practicing managers.
This can be attributed to the theory's intuitive logic and ease of understanding. Unfortunately,
however, research does not generally validate the theory. Maslow provided no empirical
substantiation, and several studies that sought to validate the theory found no support for it.

Little support was found for the prediction that need structures are organized along the
dimensions proposed by Maslow, that unsatisfied needs motivate, or that a satisfied need
activates movement to a new need level. The following diagram shows order of needs according
to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory:
b. Theory X and Theory Y
Douglas McGregor proposed two distinct views of human beings: one basically negative, labeled
Theory X, and the other basically positive, labeled Theory Y. After viewing the way in which
managers dealt with employees, McGregor concluded that a manager's view of the nature of
human beings is based on a certain grouping of assumptions and that he or she tends to mold his
or her behavior toward subordinates according to these assumptions.

According to Theory X, the four assumptions held by managers are as follows:
1. Employees inherently dislike work and, whenever possible, will attempt to avoid it.
2. Since employees dislike work, they must be coerced, controlled, or threatened with
punishment to achieve goals.
3. Employees will avoid responsibilities and seek formal direction whenever possible.
4. Most workers place security above all other factors associated with work and will display little
ambition.
In contrast to these negative views about the nature of human beings, McGregor listed four
positive assumptions, which he called Theory Y:
1. Employees can view work as being as natural as rest or play.
2. People will exercise self-direction and self-control if they are committed to the objectives.
3. The average person can learn to accept, even seek responsibility.
4. The ability to make innovative decisions is widely dispersed throughout the population and is
not necessarily the sole province of those in management positions.
What are the motivational implications if you accept McGregor's analysis?
The answer is best expressed in the framework presented by Maslow. Theory X assumes that
lower order needs dominate individuals. Theory Y assumes that higher order needs dominate
individuals. McGregor himself held to the belief that Theory Y assumptions were more valid
than Theory X. Therefore, he proposed such ideas as participative decision making, responsible
and challenging jobs, and good group relations as approaches that would maximize an
employee's job motivation.
Unfortunately, no evidence confirms that either set of assumptions is valid or that accepting
theory Y assumptions and altering one's actions accordingly will lead to more motivated
workers. As will become evident later in this chapter, either Theory X or Theory Y assumptions
may be appropriate in a particular situation.

c. Motivation-Hygiene Theory/Two-factor theory
Motivation-hygiene theory - intrinsic factors are related to job satisfaction, while extrinsic
factors are associated with job dissatisfaction. The motivation-hygiene theory was proposed by
psychologist Frederick Herzberg. In the belief that an individual's relation to his or her work is a
basic one and that his or her attitude toward this work can very well determine the individual's
success or failure. From his research, Herzberg concluded that the replies people gave when they
felt good about their jobs were significantly different from the replies given when they felt bad.
As seen from the following figure, certain characteristics tend to be consistently related to job
satisfaction (factors on the right side of the figure), and others to job dissatisfaction (the left side
of the figure).
Intrinsic factors, such as achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility, advancement,
and growth seem to be related to job-satisfaction. When those questioned felt good about their
work, they tended to attribute these characteristics to themselves. On the other hand, when they
were dissatisfied, they tended to cite extrinsic factors, such as company policy and
administration, supervision, interpersonal relations, and working conditions.

The data suggest, says Herzberg, that the opposite of satisfaction is not dissatisfaction, as was
traditionally believed. Removing dissatisfying characteristics from a job does not necessarily
make the job satisfying.
Herzberg proposes that his findings indicate the existence of a dual continuum: The opposite of
"Satisfaction" is "No Satisfaction," and the opposite of "Dissatisfaction" is "No Dissatisfaction."
According to Herzberg, the factors leading to job satisfaction are separate and distinct from those
that lead to job dissatisfaction. Therefore, managers who seek to eliminate factors that create job
dissatisfaction can bring about peace, but not necessarily motivation. They will be placating their
work force rather than motivating them. As a result, such characteristics as company policy and
administration, supervision, interpersonal relations, working conditions, and salary have been
characterized by Herzberg as hygiene factors. When they are adequate, people will not be
dissatisfied; however, neither will they be satisfied. If we want to motivate people on their jobs,
Herzberg suggests emphasizing achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility, and
growth. These are the characteristics that people find intrinsically rewarding. They are called by
Herzberg as motivators.
However, the motivation-hygiene theory is not without its limitations. The criticisms of the
theory include the following:
1. The procedure that Herzberg used is limited by its methodology. When things are going well,
people tend to take credit themselves. Contrarily, they blame failure on the external environment.
2. The reliability of Herzberg's methodology is questioned. Since raters have to make

interpretations, it is possible they may contaminate the findings by interpreting one response in
one manner while treating another similar response differently.
3. The theory, to the degree it is valid, provides an explanation of job satisfaction. It is not really
a theory of motivation.
4. No overall measure of satisfaction was utilized. In other words, a person may dislike part of
his or her job, yet still think the job is acceptable.
5. The theory is inconsistent with previous research. The motivation-hygiene theory ignores
situational variables.

6. Herzberg assumes a relationship between satisfaction and productivity. But the research
methodology he used looked only at satisfaction, not at productivity.
II. Contemporary Content theories of Motivation

The previous theories are well known but, unfortunately, have not held up well under close
examination. However, all is not lost. A number of contemporary theories have one thing in
common: Each has a reasonable degree of valid supporting documentation. Of course, this
doesn't mean the theories we are about to introduce are unquestionably right. We call them
contemporary theories not because they necessarily were developed recently, but because they
represent the current state of the art in explaining employee motivation.
a. ERG Theory
Clayton Alderfer has reworked Maslow's need hierarchy to align it more closely with the
empirical research. His revised need hierarchy is labeled ERG theory. Alderfer argues that there
are three groups of core needs-existence, relatedness, and growth-hence the label ERG theory.
The existence group is concerned with providing our basic material existence requirements. It
includes the items that Maslow considered physiological and safety needs. The second groups of
needs are those of relatedness-the desire we have for maintaining important interpersonal
relationships. These social and status desires require interaction with others if they are to be
satisfied, and they align with Maslow's social need and the external component of Maslow's
esteem classification. Finally, Alderfer isolates growth needs-an intrinsic desire for personal
development.
These include the intrinsic component from Maslow's esteem category and the characteristics
included under self-actualization. Besides substituting three needs for five, how does Alderfer's
ERG theory differ from Maslow's? In contrast to the hierarchy of needs theory, the ERG theory
demonstrates that (1) more than one need may be operative at the same time, and (2) if the
gratification of a higher level need is stifled, the desire to satisfy a lower level need increases.
Maslow's need hierarchy is a rigid step like progression. ERG theory does not assume a rigid
hierarchy where a lower need must be substantially gratified before one can move on. A person

can, for instance, be working on growth need even though existence or relatedness needs are
unsatisfied; or all three need categories could be operating at the same time.
ERG theory also contains a frustration-regression dimension. Maslow, you'll remember, argued
that an individual would stay at a certain need level until that need was satisfied. ERG theory
counters by noting that when a higher order need level is frustrated, the individual's desire to
increase a lower level need takes place. Inability to satisfy a need for social interaction, for
instance, might increase the desire for more money or better working conditions. So frustration
can lead to a regression to a lower need.
In summary, ERG theory argues, like Maslow, that satisfied lower order needs lead to the desire
to satisfy higher order needs; but multiple needs can be operating as motivators at the same time,
and frustration in attempting to satisfy a higher level need can result in regression to a lower
level need. ERG theory is more consistent with our knowledge of individual differences among
people. Variables such as education, family background, and cultural environment can alter the
importance or driving force that a group of needs holds for a particular individual. Several
studies have supported the ERG theory, but there is also evidence that it doesn't work in some
organizations. Overall, however, ERG theory represents a more valid version of the need
hierarchy.
 Existence needs:- Desire for physiological and material well-being.
 Relatedness needs:- Desire for satisfying interpersonal relationships.
 Growth needs:- Desire for continued personal growth and development.
b. McClelland's theory of Needs/Acquired needs theory
This theory is proposed by David McClelland and his associates as being important in
organizational settings for understanding motivation. McClelland's theory of needs focuses on
three needs: achievement, power, and affiliation. They are defined as follows:
• Need for achievement: - the drive to excel, to achieve in relation to a set of standards, to strive
to succeed

• Need for power: the need to make others behave in a way they would not have behaved
otherwise
• Need for affiliation: - the desire for friendly and close interpersonal relationships.
Some people have a compelling drive to succeed. They're striving for personal achievement
rather than the rewards of success. They have a desire to do something better or more efficiently
than it has been done before. This drive is the achievement need (nAch). From research into the
achievement need, McClelland found that high achievers differentiate themselves from others by
their desire to do things better. They seek situations where they can attain personal responsibility
for finding solutions to problems, where they can receive rapid feedback on their performance so
they can tell easily whether they are improving or not, and where they can set moderately
challenging goals. High achievers are not gamblers; they dislike succeeding by chance. They
prefer the challenge of working at a problem and accepting the personal responsibility for
success or failure rather than leaving the outcome to chance or the actions of others. Importantly,
they avoid what they perceive to be very easy or very difficult tasks. They want to overcome
obstacles, but they want to feel their success (or failure) is due to their own actions. This means
they like tasks of intermediate difficulty.
The need for power (nPow) is the desire to have impact, to be influential, and to control others.
Individuals high in nPow enjoy being in charge, strive for influence over others, prefer to be
placed into competitive and status-oriented situations, and tend to be more concerned with
prestige and gaining influence over others than with effective performance.
The third need isolated by McClelland is affiliation (nAft). This need has received the least
attention from researchers. Affiliation can be likened to the desire to be liked and accepted by
others. Individuals with a high affiliation motive strive for friendship, prefer cooperative
situations rather than competitive ones, and desire relationships involving a high degree of
mutual understanding.
First, individuals with a high need to achieve prefer job situations with personal responsibility,
feedback, and an intermediate degree of risk. When these characteristics are prevalent, high
achievers will be strongly motivated. The evidence consistently demonstrates, for instance, that

high achievers are successful in entrepreneurial activities such as running their own businesses
and managing a self-contained unit within a large organization.
Second, a high need to achieve does not necessarily lead to being a good manager, especially in
large organizations. People with a high achievement need are interested in how well they do
personally and not in influencing others to do well. High-nAch salespeople do not necessarily
make good sales managers, and the good general manager in a large organization does not
typically have a high need to achieve.
Third, the needs for affiliation and power tend to be closely related to managerial success. The
best managers are high in their need for power and low in their need for affiliation. In fact, a
high-power motive may be a requirement for managerial effectiveness. Of course, what is the
cause and what is the effect is arguable. It has been suggested that a high-power need may occur
simply as a function of one's level in a hierarchical organization. The latter argument proposes
that the higher the level an individual rises to in the organization, the greater is the incumbent's
power motive. As a result, powerful positions would be the stimulus to a high-power motive.
Lastly, employees have been successfully trained to stimulate their achievement need. Trainers
have been effective in teaching individuals to think in terms of accomplishments, winning, and
success; and then helping them to learn how to act in a high achievement way by preferring
situations where they have personal responsibility, feedback, and moderate risks. So if the job
calls for a high achiever, management can select a person with a high nAch or develop its own
candidate through achievement training.
 Need for achievement (nAch):- the desire to do something better or more

efficiently, to solve problems, or to master complex tasks.
 Need for affiliation (nAff):- the desire to establish and maintain friendly and
warm relations with others.
 Need for power (nPower):- the desire to control others, to influence their
behavior, or to be responsible for others.

2. Process Theories of Motivation
 Process theories focus on the thought processes through which people choose among
alternative courses of action. The following are some of the major process theories of
motivation: equity theory, expectancy theory, goal setting theory and cognitive evaluation
theory.
a. Equity theory
According to this theory people gauge the fairness of their work outcomes in relation to others.
Individuals felt negative inequality when they feel that they have received relatively less than
others in proportion to work inputs. Individual felt positive inequality when they feel that they
have received relatively more than others in proportion to work inputs.
 Equity restoration behaviors.
 Change work inputs.
 Change the outcomes

received.
 Leave the situation.
 Change the comparison

person.
 Psychologically distort the

comparisons.
 Take actions to change the

inputs or outputs of the
comparison person.

 Coping methods for dealing with equity comparisons.
 Recognize that equity comparisons are inevitable in the workplace.
 Anticipate felt negative inequities when rewards are given.
 Communicate clear evaluations for any rewards given.
 Communicate an appraisal of performance on which the reward is based.
 Communicate comparison points that are appropriate in the situation
Employees make comparisons of their job inputs and outcomes relative to those of others. We
perceive what we get from a job situation (outcomes) in relation to what we put into it {inputs),
and then we compare our outcome-input ratio with the outcome-input ratio of relevant others.
We perceive our ratio to be equal to that of the relevant others with whom we compare ourselves,
a state of equity is said to exist. We perceive our situation as fair-that justice prevails, When we
see the ratio as unequal; we experience equity tension. J. Stacy Adams has proposed that this
negative tension state provides the motivation to do something to correct it.
The referent that an employee selects adds to the complexity of equity theory. Evidence
indicates that the referent chosen is an important variable in equity theory. There are four
referent comparisons an employee can use:
1. Self-inside: An employee's experiences in a different position inside his or her current

organization.
2. Self-outside: An employee's experiences in a situation or position outside his or her current

organization.
3. Other-inside: Another individual or group of individuals inside the employee's organization.
4. Other-outside: Another individual or group of individuals outside the employee's organization.
So employees might compare themselves to friends, neighbors, coworkers, colleagues in other

organizations, or past jobs they themselves have had. Which referent an employee chooses will

be influenced by the information the employee holds about referents as well as by the
attractiveness of the referent.
Based on equity theory, when employees perceive an inequity they can be predicted to make one
of six choices:
1. Change their inputs (for example, don't exert as much effort)
2. Change their outcomes
3. Distort perceptions of self
4. Distort perceptions of others
5. Choose a different referent
6. Leave the field (for example, quit the job)
Equity theory recognizes that individuals are concerned not only with the absolute amount of
rewards they receive for their efforts, but also with the relationship of this amount to what others
receive. They make judgments as to the relationship between their inputs and outcomes and the
inputs and outcomes of others. Based on one's inputs, such as effort, experience, education, and
competence, one compares outcomes such as salary levels, recognition, and other factors. When
people perceive an imbalance in their outcome-input ratio relative to others, tension is created.
This tension provides the basis for motivation, as people strive for what they perceive as equity
and fairness.
b. Expectancy Theory
Currently, one of the most widely accepted explanations of motivation is Victor Vroom's
expectancy theory. Although it has its critics, most of the research evidence is supportive of the
theory. Expectancy theory argues that the strength of a tendency to act in a certain way depends
on the strength of an expectation that the act will be followed by a given outcome and on the
attractiveness of that outcome to the individual. In more practical terms, expectancy theory says
an employee is motivated to exert a high level of effort when he or she believes effort will lead
to a good performance appraisal; a good appraisal will lead to organizational rewards like a

bonus, a salary increase, or a promotion; and the rewards will satisfy the employee's personal
goals. The theory, therefore, focuses on three relationships:
1. Effort-performance relationship: The probability perceived by the individual that exerting a

given amount of effort will lead to performance.
2. Performance-reward relationship: The degree to which the individual believes that

performing at a particular level will lead to the attainment of a desired outcome.
3. Rewards-personal goals relationship: The degree to which organizational rewards satisfy an

individual's personal goals or needs and the attractiveness of those potential rewards for the
individual.
In summary, the key to expectancy theory is the understanding of an individual's goals and the
linkage between effort and performance, between performance and rewards, and, finally,
between the rewards and individual goal satisfaction. As a contingency model, expectancy theory
recognizes that there be no universal principle for explaining everyone's motivations.
Additionally, just because we understand what needs a person seeks to satisfy does not ensure
that the individual himself perceives high performance as necessarily leading to the satisfaction
of these needs.

c. Cognitive Evaluation Theory
 Extrinsic rewards.
 Positively valued work outcomes given to the individual by some other person.
 Intrinsic rewards.
 Positively valued work outcomes that the individual receives directly as a result of
task performance.
 Guidelines for the distribution of extrinsic rewards:
 Clearly identify the desired behaviors.
 Maintain an inventory of rewards that have the potential to serve as positive

reinforces.
 Recognize individual differences in the rewards that will have a positive value for
each person.
 Let each person know exactly what must be done to receive a desirable reward;
set clear target antecedents and give performance feedback.
 Allocate rewards contingently and immediately upon the appearance of the

desired behaviors.
 Allocate rewards wisely in terms of scheduling the delivery of positive

reinforcement.
Cognitive evaluation theory states that allocating extrinsic rewards for behavior that had been
previously intrinsically rewarded tends to decrease the overall level of motivation.
In the late 1960s one researcher proposed that the introduction of extrinsic rewards, such as pay,
for work effort that had been previously intrinsically rewarding due to the pleasure associated
with the content of the work itself would tend to decrease the overall level of motivation. This
proposal-which has come to be called the cognitive evaluation theory-has been extensively

researched, and a large number of studies have been supportive. The major implications for this
theory relate to the way in which people are paid in organizations. Historically, motivation
theorists have generally assumed that intrinsic motivations such as achievement, responsibility,
and competence are independent of extrinsic motivators like high pay, promotions, good
supervisor relations, and pleasant working conditions. That is, the stimulation of one would not
affect the other. But the cognitive evaluation theory suggests otherwise. It argues that when
extrinsic rewards are used by organizations as payoffs for superior performance, the intrinsic
rewards, which are derived from individuals doing what they like, are reduced. In other words,
when extrinsic rewards are given to someone for performing an interesting task, it causes
intrinsic interest in the task itself to decline. Why would such an outcome occur? The popular
explanation is that the individual experiences a loss of control over his or her own behavior so
the previous intrinsic motivation diminishes. The cognitive evaluation theory has been supported
in a number of studies. Yet it has also met with attacks, specifically on the methodology used in
these studies and in the interpretation of the findings.
d. Goal-Setting Theory
Goal-setting theory states that specific and difficult goals that lead to higher performance. It
addresses the issues of the effect of goal specificity, challenge and feedback on performance. In
the late 1960s Edwin Locke proposed that intentions to work toward a goal are a major source of
work motivation. That is, goals tell an employee what needs to be done and how much effort will
need to be expended. The evidence strongly supports the value of goals. More to the point, we
can say that specific goals increase performance; that difficult goals, when accepted, result in
higher performance than do easy goals; and that feedback leads to higher performance than does
no feedback. Specific hard goals produce a higher level of output than does the generalized goal
of "do your best ." The specificity of the goal itself acts as an internal stimulus. Our overall
conclusion is that intentions-as articulated in terms of hard and specific goals-are a potent
motivating force. Under the proper conditions, they can lead to higher performance. However, no
evidence supports the idea that such goals are associated with increased job satisfaction.

3. Reinforcement Theory
Reinforcement deals with the administration of a consequence as a result of a behavior. Proper

management of reinforcement can change the direction, level, and persistence of an individual’s
behavior. Behavior is a function of its consequences.
 Law of effect:- theoretical basis for manipulating consequences of behavior. It states that
behavior that results in a pleasant outcome is likely to be repeated while behavior that
results in an unpleasant outcome is not likely to be repeated.

 Organizational behavior modification: it is the systematic reinforcement of desirable
work behavior and the no reinforcement or punishment of unwanted work behavior.
 It uses four basic strategies: Positive reinforcement, Negative reinforcement,

Punishment, and Extinction.
 Positive reinforcement.
 The administration of positive consequences to increase the likelihood of

repeating the desired behavior in similar settings.
 Rewards are not necessarily positive reinforces.

 A reward is a positive reinforce only if the behavior improves.
 Principles governing reinforcement.
 Law of contingent reinforcement.
 The reward must be delivered only if the desired behavior is exhibited.
 Law of immediate reinforcement.
 The reward must be given as soon as possible after the desired behavior is
exhibited.
 Scheduling reinforcement.
 Continuous reinforcement.
 Administers a reward each time the desired behavior occurs.
 Intermittent reinforcement.
 Rewards behavior periodically — either on the basis of time elapsed or the

number of desired behaviors exhibited.
 Negative reinforcement.
 Also known as avoidance.
 The withdrawal of negative consequences to increase the likelihood of repeating

the desired behavior in a similar setting.
 Punishment.
 The administration of negative consequences or the withdrawal of positive

consequences to reduce the likelihood of repeating the behavior (bad behavior) in
similar settings.

Chapter Five – Management of Organizational Conflict
Definition of Conflict
There has been no shortage of definitions of conflict. But despite the divergent meanings the
term has acquired, several common themes underlie most definitions. Conflict must be perceived
by the parties to it; whether or not conflict exists is a perception issue. If no one is aware of a
conflict, then it is generally agreed no conflict exists. Additional commonalities in the definitions
are opposition or incompatibility and some form of interaction. These factors set the conditions
that determine the beginning point of the conflict process.
We can define conflict then, as a process that begins when one party perceives that another party
has negatively affected, or is about to negatively affect, something the first party cares about.
This definition is purposely broad. It describes that point in any ongoing activity when an
interaction crosses over to become an interparty conflict. It encompasses the wide range of
conflicts that people experience in organizations- incompatibility of goals, differences over
interpretations of facts, disagreements based on behavioral expectations and the like. Finally, our
definition is flexible enough to cover the full range of conflict levels, from overt and violent acts
to subtle forms of disagreement. Conflict occurs whenever disagreements that exist over issues
of substance or emotional antagonisms that causes frictions between individuals or groups.
Causes of conflict in an organization
– Role conflicts - occur when the communication of task expectations proves inadequate or
upsetting.
– Work-flow interdependencies - occur when people or units are required to cooperate to
meet challenging goals.
– Domain ambiguities - occur when individuals or groups are placed in ambiguous
situations where it is difficult to determine who is responsible for what.
– Power or value asymmetries - occur when interdependent people or groups differ
substantially from one another in status and influence or in values.
– Resource scarcity - When resources are scarce, working relationships are likely to
suffer.

Types of conflict
Substantive conflict:- A fundamental disagreement over ends or goals to be pursued and the
means for their accomplishment.
Emotional conflict:- Interpersonal difficulties that arise over feelings of anger, mistrust, dislike,
fear, resentment, etc.
Conflict could be functional (or constructive) conflict or Dysfunctional (or destructive) conflict.
Levels/types of conflict
 Intrapersonal conflicts- occurs between two individuals
 Interpersonal conflict - Occurs between two or more individuals who are in opposition to
one another.
 Intergroup conflict - occurs between groups
 Inter organizational conflict - occurs between two organizations
 Vertical conflict - occurs between hierarchical levels.
 Horizontal conflict- occurs between persons or groups at the same hierarchical level.
 Line-staff conflict- involves disagreements over who has authority and control over
specific matters.
Functional Vs. Dysfunctional Conflict
The interactionist view does not propose all conflicts are good. Rather, some conflicts support
the goals of the group and improve its performance; these are functional or constructive forms of
conflict. Additionally, there are conflicts that hinder group performance and these are
dysfunctional or destructive forms of conflict. Of course, it is one thing to argue that conflict can
be valuable for the group, and another to be able to tell if a conflict is functional or
dysfunctional. The demarcation between functional and dysfunctional is neither clear nor
precise. No one level of conflict can be adopted as acceptable or unacceptable under all
conditions. The type and level of conflict that creates healthy and positive involvement toward

one group's goals today may, in another group or in the same group at another time, be highly
dysfunctional. The criterion that differentiates functional from dysfunctional conflict is group
performance. Since groups exist to attain a goal or goals, it is the impact the conflict has on the
group rather than on any individual member, that determines functionality. Of course, the impact
of conflict on the individual and its impact on the group are rarely mutually exclusive, so the
ways that individuals perceive a conflict may have an important influence on its effect on the
group. However, this need not be the case, and when it is not, our focus will be on the group. So
whether an individual group member perceives a given conflict as being personally disturbing or
positive is irrelevant. For example, a group member may perceive an action as dysfunctional, in
that the outcome is personally dissatisfying to him or her. However, for our analysis, that action
would be functional if it furthers the objectives of the group.
Nature of conflict in an organization
Conflict Process
The conflict process can be seen as comprising five stages: potential opposition or
incompatibility, cognition and personalization, intentions, behavior, and outcomes. The process
is diagrammed as follows:
– Conflict antecedents- set the conditions for conflict.
– Perceived conflict - substantive or emotional differences are sensed.
– Felt conflict - tension creates motivation to act.
– Manifest conflict - conflict resolution or suppression, conflict aftermath.

Stage I: Potential Opposition or Incompatibility
The first step in the conflict process is the presence of conditions that create opportunities for
conflict to arise. They need not lead directly to conflict, but one of these conditions is necessary
if conflict is to arise. For simplicity purpose, these conditions (which also may be looked at as
causes or sources of conflict) have been condensed into three general categories: communication,
structure, and personal variables.
Communication - can be a source of conflict. It represents those opposing forces that arise from
semantic difficulties, misunderstandings, and "noise" in the communication channels. "If we
could just communicate with each other, we could eliminate our differences." Such a conclusion
is not unreasonable, given the amount of time each of us spends communicating. But, of course,
poor communication is certainly not the source of all conflicts, although there is considerable
evidence to suggest that problems in the communication process act to retard collaboration and
stimulate misunderstanding.
A review of the research suggests that semantic difficulties, insufficient exchange of information,
and noise in the communication channel are all barriers to communication and potential
antecedent conditions to conflict. Specifically, evidence demonstrates that semantic difficulties
arise as a result of differences in training, selective perception, and inadequate information about
others. Research has further demonstrated a surprising finding: The potential for conflict
increases when either too little or too much communication takes place. Apparently, an increase
in communication is functional up to a point, whereupon it is possible to over communicate, with
a resultant increase in the potential for conflict. So, too much information as well as too little can
lay the foundation for conflict. Further, the channel chosen for communicating can have an
influence on stimulating opposition. The filtering process that occurs as information is passed
between members and the divergence of communications from formal or previously established
channels offer potential opportunities for conflict to arise.

Structure - the term structure is used, in this context, to include variables such as size, degree of
specialization in the tasks assigned to group members, jurisdictional clarity, member-goal
compatibility, leadership styles, reward systems, and the degree of dependence between groups.
Research indicates that size and specialization act as forces to stimulate conflict. The larger the
group and the more specialized its activities, the greater the likelihood of conflict. Tenure and
conflict have been found to be inversely related. The potential for conflict tends to be greatest
where group members are younger and where turnover is high. The greater the ambiguity in
precisely defining where responsibility for actions lies, the greater the potential for conflict to
emerge. Such jurisdictional ambiguities increase intergroup fighting for control of resources and
territory. Groups within organizations have diverse goals. For instance, purchasing is concerned
with the timely acquisition of inputs at low prices, marketing's goals concentrate on disposing of
outputs and increasing revenues, quality control's attention is focused on improving quality and
ensuring that the organization's products meet standards, and production units seek efficiency of
operations by maintaining a steady production flow. This diversity of goals among groups is a
major source of conflict. Where groups within an organization seek diverse ends, there are
increased opportunities for conflict.
There is some indication that a close style of leadership-tight and continuous observation with
general control of others' behaviors-increases conflict potential, hut the evidence is not
particularly strong. Too much reliance on participation may also stimulate conflict. Research
tends to confirm that participation and conflict are highly correlated, apparently because
participation encourages the promotion of differences. Reward systems, too, are found to create
conflict when one member's gain is at another's expense. Finally, if a group is dependent on
another group (in contrast to the two being mutually independent) or if interdependence allows
one group to gain at another's expense, opposing forces are stimulated.
Personal variables – there are people who you dislike, Most of the opinions they expressed, you
disagreed with. Even insignificant characteristics such as the sound of their voice, and their
personality annoyed you. We've all met people like that. When you have to work with such
individuals, there is often the potential for conflict. So our last category of potential sources of
conflict is personal factors. As indicated, they include each person's individual value systems and
the personality characteristics that account for individual idiosyncrasies and differences.

The evidence indicates that certain personality types-for example, individuals who are highly
authoritarian and dogmatic, and who demonstrate low esteem-lead to potential conflict. Most
important, and probably the most overlooked variable in the study of social conflict is differing
value systems. Value differences, for example, are the best explanation of such diverse issues is
prejudice, disagreements over one's contribution to the group and the rewards one deserves.
Stage II: Cognition and Personalization
If the conditions cited in Stage I negatively affect something that one party cares about, then, the
potential for opposition or incompatibility becomes actualized in the second stage. The
antecedent conditions can only lead to conflict when one or more of the parties are affected by,
and aware of the conflict. As we noted in our definition of conflict, perception is required.
Therefore, one or more of the parties must be aware of the existence of the antecedent
conditions. However, because a conflict is perceived does not mean it is personalized. In other
words, "A may be aware that B and A are in serious disagreement, but it may not make A tense
or anxious, and it may have no effect whatsoever on A's affection toward B." It is at the felt
level, when individuals become emotionally involved, that parties experience anxiety, tenseness,
frustration or hostility.
Keep in mind two points. First, Stage II is important because it's where conflict issues tend to be
defined. This is the place in the process where the parties decide what the conflict is about. And,
in turn, this "sense making" is critical because the way a conflict is defined goes a long way
toward establishing the sort of outcomes that might settle it. So the definition of a conflict is
important, for it typically delineates the set of possible settlements. Our second point is that
emotions play a major role in shaping perceptions. For example, negative emotions have been
found to produce oversimplification of issues, reductions in trust and negative interpretations of
the other party's behavior. In contrast, positive feelings have been found to increase the tendency
to see potential relationships among the elements of a problem, to take a broader view of the
situation, and to develop more innovative solutions.

Stage III: Intentions
Intentions intervene between people's perceptions and emotions and their overt behavior. These
intentions are decisions to act in a given way. Why are intentions separated out as a distinct
stage? You have to infer the other's intent in order to know how to respond to that other's
behavior. A lot of conflicts are escalated merely by one party attributing the wrong intentions to
the other party. Additionally, there is typically a great deal of slippage between intentions and
behavior, so that behavior does not always accurately reflect a person's intentions.
The above figure represents one author's effort to identify the primary conflict-handling intentions.
Using two dimensions-cooperativeness (the degree to which one party attempts to satisfy the other
party's concerns) and assertiveness (the degree to which one party attempts to satisfy his or her own
concerns) five conflict handling intentions can be identified: competing (assertive and
uncooperative); collaborating (assertive and cooperative); avoiding (unassertive and
uncooperative); accommodating (unassertive and cooperative); and compromising (midrange on
both assertiveness and cooperativeness).
Competing- When one person seeks to satisfy his or her own interests, regardless of the impact on
the other parties to the conflict, he or she is competing. Examples are intending to achieve your goal
at the sacrifice of the other's goal, attempting to convince another, your conclusion is correct and
theirs is mistaken, and trying to make someone else accept blame or a problem.

Collaborating - When the parties in conflict each desire to fully satisfy the concern of all parties, we
have cooperation and the search for a mutually beneficial outcome. In collaborating, the intention of
the parties is to solve the problem by clarifying differences rather than by accommodating various
points of view. Examples are attempting to find a win-win solution that allows both parties' goals to
be completely achieved and seeking a conclusion that incorporates the valid insights of both parties.
Avoiding- A person may recognize that a conflict exists and want to withdraw from it or suppress it.
Examples of avoiding are trying to just ignore a conflict and avoiding others with whom you
disagree.
Accommodating - When one party seeks to appease an opponent, that party may be willing to place
the opponent's interests above his or her own. In other words, in order for the relationship to be
maintained, one party is willing to be self-sacrificing. We refer to this intention as accommodating.
Examples are a Willingness to sacrifice your goal so the other party's goal can be attained, supporting
someone else's opinion despite your reservations about it, and forgiving someone for an infraction
and allowing subsequent ones.
Compromising- When each party to the conflict seeks to give up something, sharing occurs,
resulting in a compromised outcome. In compromising, there is no clear winner or loser. Rather,
there is a Willingness to ration the object of the conflict and accept a solution that provides
incomplete satisfaction of both parties' concerns. The distinguishing characteristic of compromising,
therefore, is that each party intends to give up something. Examples might be willingness to accept a
raise of $1 an hour rather than $2, to acknowledge partial agreement with a specific viewpoint, and
to take partial blame for an infraction.
Intentions provide general guidelines for parties in a conflict situation. They define each party's
purpose. Yet people's intentions are not fixed. During the course of a conflict, they might change
because of reconceptualization or because of an emotional reaction to the behavior of the other
party. However, research indicates that people have an underlying disposition to handle conflicts
·in certain ways. Specifically, individuals have preferences among the five conflict-handling
intentions just described; these preferences tend to be relied on quite consistently; and a person's
intentions can be predicted rather well from a combination of intellectual and personality
characteristics. So it may be more appropriate to view the five conflict-handling intentions as
relatively fixed rather than as a set of options from which individuals choose to fit an appropriate

situation. That is, when confronting a conflict situation, some people want to win it all at any
cost, some want to find an optimum solution, some want to run away, others want to be obliging,
and still others want to split the difference.
Stage IV: Behavior
When most people think of conflict situations, they tend to focus on Stage IV. Why? The reason
is, this is where conflicts become visible. The behavior stage includes the statements, actions,
and reactions made by the conflicting parties. These conflict behaviors are usually overt attempts
to implement each party's intentions. But these behaviors have a stimulus quality that is separate
from intentions. As a result of miscalculations or unskilled enactments, overt behaviors
sometimes deviate from original intentions. It helps to think of Stage IV as a dynamic process of
interaction. For example, you make a demand on someone; He responds by arguing; you threaten
him; He threatens you back; and so on.
The above diagram provides a way of visualizing conflict behavior. All conflicts exist
somewhere along this continuum. At the lower part of the continuum, we have conflicts
characterized by subtle, indirect, and highly controlled forms of tension. An illustration might be
a student questioning in class a point the instructor has just made. Conflict intensities escalate as
they move upward along the continuum until they become highly destructive. Strikes, riots, and
wars clearly fall in this upper range. For the most part, you should assume conflicts that reach the

upper ranges of the continuum are almost always dysfunctional. Functional conflicts are
typically confined to the lower range of the continuum.
Stage V: Outcomes
The action-reaction interplay between the conflicting parties results in consequences. As our
model demonstrates, these outcomes may be functional, in that the conflict results in an
improvement in the group's performance, or dysfunctional, in that it hinders group performance.
Functional outcomes - How might conflict add as a force to increase group performance? It is
hard to visualize a situation where open or violent aggression could be functional. But there are a
number of instances where it is possible to envision how low or moderate levels of conflict could
improve the effectiveness of a group. Because people often find it difficult to think of instances
where conflict can be constructive, let's consider some examples and then review the research
evidence.
Conflict is constructive when it improves the quality of decisions, stimulates creativity and
innovation, encourages interest and curiosity among group members, provides the medium
through which problems can be aired and tensions released, and fosters an environment of self-
evaluation and change. The evidence suggests that conflict can improve the quality of decision
making by allowing all points, particularly the ones that are unusual or held by a minority, to be
weighed in important decisions. Conflict is an antidote for groupthink. It doesn't allow the group
passively to rubber-stamp decisions that may be based on weak assumptions, inadequate
consideration of relevant alternatives, or other debilities. Conflict challenges the status quo and
therefore furthers the creation of new ideas, promotes reassessment of group goals and activities,
and increases the probability that the group will respond to change.
Research studies in diverse settings confirm the functionality of conflict. Consider the following
findings. The comparison of six major decisions made during the administration of four different
U.S. presidents found that conflict reduced the chance that groupthink would overpower policy
decisions. The comparisons demonstrated that conformity among presidential advisers was
related to poor decisions, whereas an atmosphere of constructive conflict and critical thinking
surrounded the well-developed decisions.

The bankruptcy of the Penn Central Railroad has been generally attributed to mismanagement
and the failure of the company's board of directors to question actions taken by management.
The board was composed of outside directors who met monthly to oversee the railroad's
operations. Few questioned decisions made by the operating management, although there was
evidence that several board members were uncomfortable with many decisions made by them.
Apathy and a desire to avoid conflict allowed poor decisions to stand unquestioned. This,
however, should not be surprising, since a review of the relationship between bureaucracy and
innovation has found that conflict encourages innovative solutions. The corollary of this finding
also appears true: Lack of conflict results in a passive environment with reinforcement of the
status quo.
Not only do better and more innovative decisions result from situations where there is some
conflict, but evidence indicates that conflict can be positively related to productivity. It was
demonstrated that, among established groups, performance tended to improve more when there
was conflict among members than when there was fairly close agreement. The investigators
observed that when groups analyzed decisions that had been made by the individual members of
that group, the average improvement among the high conflict groups was 73 percent greater than
was that of those groups characterized by low-conflict conditions. Others have found similar
results: Groups composed of members with different interests tend to produce higher quality
solutions to a variety of problems than do homogeneous groups.
Similarly, studies of professionals-systems analysts and research and development scientists-

support the constructive value of conflict. An investigation of 22 teams of systems analysts
found that the more incompatible groups were likely to be more productive. Research and
development scientists have been found to be most productive where there is a certain amount of
intellectual conflict. Conflict can even be constructive on sports teams and in unions. Studies of
sports teams indicate that moderate levels of group conflict contribute to team effectiveness and
provide an additional stimulus for high achievement. An examination of local unions found that
conflict between members of the local was positively related to the union's power and to member
loyalty and participation in union affairs. These findings might suggest that conflict within a
group indicates strength rather than, as in the traditional view, weakness.

Dysfunctional outcomes -The destructive consequences of conflict on a group or organization's
performance are generally well known. A reasonable summary might state the following:
Uncontrolled opposition breeds discontent, which acts to dissolve common tics, and eventually
leads to the destruction of the group. And, of course, a substantial body of literature documents
shows how conflict- the dysfunctional varieties-can reduces group effectiveness.
Among the more undesirable consequences are a retarding of communication, reductions in

group cohesiveness, and subordination of group goals to the primacy of infighting between
members. At the extreme, conflict can bring group functioning to a halt and potentially threaten
the group's survival. This discussion has again returned us to the issue of what is functional and
what is dysfunctional. Research on conflict has yet to dearly identify those situations where
conflict is more likely to be constructive than destructive. However, growing evidence indicates
that the type of group activity is a significant factor determining functionality. The more non
routine the tasks of the group are, the greater the probability that internal conflict will be
constructive.
Groups that are required to tackle problems demanding new and novel approaches- as in
research, advertising, and other professional activities—will benefit more from conflict than will
groups performing highly routine activities- for instance, those of work teams on an automobile
assembly line. Creating functional conflict. We briefly mentioned conflict stimulation as part of
Stage IV of the conflict process. Since the topic of conflict stimulation is relatively new and
somewhat controversial, you might be wondering, if managers accept the interactionist view
toward conflict, what can they do to encourage functional conflict in their organizations. There
seems to be general agreement that creating functional conflict is a tough job, particularly in
large American corporations. As one consultant put it, a high proportion of people who get to the
top are conflict avoiders. They don't like hearing negatives, they don't like saying or thinking
negative things. They frequently make it up the ladder in part because they don't irritate people
on the way up. Another suggests that at least 7 out of 10 people in American business keep quiet
when their opinions are at odds with those of their superiors, allowing bosses to make mistakes
even when they themselves know better. Such anti-conflict cultures may have been tolerable in
the past, but not in today's fiercely competitive global economy. Those organizations that don't
encourage and support dissent may not survive the 1990s.

Let's look at some of the approaches organizations are taking to encourage their people to
challenge the system and develop fresh ideas. Hewlett-Packard rewards dissenters by
recognizing go-against-the-grain types, or people who stay with the ideas they believe in even
when those ideas are rejected by management. Herman Miller Inc.,' an office furniture
manufacturer, has a formal system in which employees evaluate and criticize their bosses. IBM
also has a formal system that encourages dissension. Employees can question their boss with
impunity. If the disagreement can't be resolved, the system provides a third party for counsel,
Royal Dutch Shell Group, General Electric, and Anheuser-Busch build devil's advocates into the
decision process. For instance, when the policy committee at Anheuser-Busch considers a major
move, such as getting into or out of a business or making a major capital expenditure, it often
assigns teams to make the case for each side of the question. This process frequently results in
decisions and alternatives that previously hadn't been considered.
The governor of Maryland stimulates conflict and invigorates his organization by requiring state
cabinet officials to swap jobs for one month every year, then, write reports and suggestions based
on their experiences. One common ingredient in organizations that successfully create functional
conflict is that they reward dissent and punish conflict avoiders. The president of Innovis
Interactive Technologies, for instance, fired a top executive who refused to dissent. His
explanation: "He was the ultimate yes-man. In this organization, I can't afford to pay someone to
hear my own opinion." But the real challenge for managers is when they hear news they don't
want to hear. The news may make their blood boil or their hopes collapse, but they can't show it.
They have to learn to take the bad news without flinching. No tirades, no tight-lipped sarcasm,
no eyes rolling upward, no gritting of teeth. Rather, managers should ask calm, even-tempered
questions: "Can you tell me more about what happened?" "What do you think we ought to do?"
A sincere "Thank you for bringing this to my attention" is likely to reduce the likelihood that
managers will be cut off from similar communications in the future.
Conflict Management Strategies
If a conflict is dysfunctional, what can the parties do to deescalate it? Or, conversely, what
options exist if conflict is too low and needs to be increased? This brings us to conflict
management techniques. The following figures list the major resolution and stimulation
techniques that allow managers to control conflict levels. Notice that several of the resolution

techniques were earlier described as conflict-handling intentions. This, of course, shouldn't be
surprising. Under ideal conditions, a person's intentions should translate into comparable
behaviors.

How can conflict be managed successfully?
 Conflict resolution is a situation in which the underlying reasons for a given destructive
conflict are eliminated.
 Effective resolution begins with a diagnosis of the stage to which conflict has developed
and recognition of the causes of the conflict.
 Conflict resolution is a situation in which the underlying reasons for a given destructive
conflict are eliminated.
 Effective resolution begins with a diagnosis of the stage to which conflict has developed
and recognition of the causes of the conflict.
Indirect conflict management approaches
 Reduced interdependence-used for adjusting level of interdependency when work-flow

conflicts exists
 Appeals to common goals- focusing the attention of potentially conflicting parties on one
mutually desirable goal
 Hierarchical referral- makes use of the chain of command for conflict resolution
 Alterations in the use of mythology and scripts- scripts are behavioral routines that
become part of the organization’s culture
Direct conflict management approaches
 Direct conflict management approaches are based on the relative emphasis that a
person places on assertiveness and cooperativeness.
Assertiveness.
– Attempting to satisfy one’s own concerns.
Cooperativeness.
– Attempting to satisfy the other party’s concern.

Avoidance
– Unassertive and uncooperative.
– Downplaying disagreement.
– Failing to participate in the situation and/or staying neutral at all costs.
Accommodation or smoothing
– Unassertive and cooperative.
– Letting the other’s wishes rule.
– Smoothing over differences to maintain superficial harmony
Compromise
– Moderate assertiveness and moderate cooperativeness.
– Working toward partial satisfaction of everyone’s concerns.
– Seeking acceptable rather than optimal solutions so that no one totally wins or
loses.
Competition and authoritative command
– Assertive and uncooperative.
– Working against the wishes of the other party.
– Fighting to dominate in win/lose competition.
– Forcing things to a favorable conclusion through the exercise of authority.
Collaboration and problem solving
– Assertive and cooperative.
– Seeking the satisfaction of everyone’s concerns by working through differences.
– Finding and solving problems so everyone gains as a result.

Chapter Six - Stress Management
What is Stress?
Stress is a dynamic condition in which an individual is confronted with an opportunity,

constraint, or demand related to what he or she desires and for which the outcome is perceived to
be both uncertain and important. This is a complicated definition. Let's look at its components
more closely. Stress is not necessarily bad in and at itself. While stress is typically discussed in a
negative context, it also has positive value. It is an opportunity when it offers potential gain.
Consider, for example, the superior performance that an athlete or stage performer gives in
"clutch" situations. Such individuals often use stress positively to rise to the occasion and
perform at or near their maximum. Stress - An adaptive response to a situation that is perceived
as challenging or threatening to the person’s well- being. Stressors- an environmental condition
or stimuli that places physical or emotional demand on a person
More typically, stress is associated with constraints and demands. Constraint- is forces that
prevent individuals from doing what they desire. Demand - is loss of something desired. The
former prevent you from doing what you desire. The latter refers to the loss of something
desired. So when you take a test at school or you undergo your annual performance review at
work, you feel stress because you confront opportunities, constraints, and demands. A good
performance review may lead to a promotion, greater responsibilities, and a higher salary. But a
poor review may prevent you from getting the promotion. An extremely poor review might even
result in your being fired.
Two conditions are necessary for potential stress to become actual stress. There must be
uncertainty over the outcome and the outcome must be important. Regardless of the conditions, it
is only when there is doubt or uncertainty regarding whether the opportunity will be seized, the
constraint removed, or the loss avoided that there is stress. That is, stress is highest for those
individuals who perceive they are uncertain as to whether they will win or lose and lowest for
those individuals who think that winning or losing is a certainty. But importance is also critical.
If winning or losing is an unimportant outcome, there is no stress. If keeping your job or earning
a promotion doesn't hold any importance for you, you have no reason to feel stress over having
to undergo a performance review.

Types of stress
Episodic Stress- pattern of high stress followed by intervals of relief.
Chronic Stress- constant confrontation of stressors without relief with effects constant
and Additive
Distress- stress that has a negative consequence on a person’s well-being.
Understanding Source of Stress and its Consequences
What causes stress? What are its consequences for individual employees? Why is it that the same
set of conditions which creates stress for one person seems to have little or no effect on another
person? There are three sets of factors-environmental, organizational, and individual- that act as
potential sources of stress. Whether they lead to actual stress depends on individual differences
such as job experience and personality. When stress is experienced by an individual, its
symptoms can surface as physiological, psychological, and behavioral outcomes.
Potential Sources of Stress
The three categories of potential stressors: environmental, organizational, and individual. Let's
take a look at each.
Environmental factors- Just as environmental uncertainty influences the design of an

organization's structure, it also influences stress levels among employees in that organization.
Changes in the business cycle create economic uncertainties. When the economy is contracting,
people become increasingly anxious about their security. It was not a chance occurrence that
suicide rates skyrocketed during the Great Depression of the 1930s. Minor recessions, too,
increase stress levels. Downward swings in the economy are often accompanied by permanent
reductions in the work force, temporary layoffs, reduced pay, shorter workweeks, and the like.
New innovations can make an employee's skills and experience obsolete in a very short period of
time. Technological uncertainty, therefore, is a second type of environmental factor that can
cause stress. Computers, robotics, automation, and other forms of technological innovation are a
threat to many people and cause them stress.

Organizational factors - Numerous factors within the organization can cause stress. Pressures
to avoid errors or complete tasks in a limited time period, work overload, a demanding and
insensitive boss; and unpleasant coworkers are a few examples. We've categorized these factors
around task, role, and interpersonal demands, organization structure, organizational leadership,
and the organization's life stage.
Task demands are factors related to a person's job. They include the design of the individual's job
(autonomy, task variety, degree of automation), working conditions, and the physical work
layout. Assembly lines can put pressure on people when their speed is perceived as excessive.
The more interdependence between a person's tasks and the tasks of others, the more potential
stress there is. Autonomy, however, tends to lessen stress. Jobs where temperatures, noise, or
other working conditions arc dangerous or undesirable can increase anxiety. So, too, can working
in an overcrowded room or in a visible location where interruptions are constant.
Role demands relate to pressures placed on if person as a function of the particular role he or she
plays in the organization. Role conflicts create expectations that may be hard to reconcile or
satisfy. Role overload is' experienced when the employee is expected to do more than time
permits. Role ambiguity is created when role expectations are not clearly understood and the
employee is not sure that he or she is to do.
Interpersonal demands are pressures created by other employees. Lack of social support from
colleagues and poor interpersonal relationships can cause considerable stress, especially among
employees with a high social need.
Organization structure defines the level of differentiation in the organization, the degree of rules
and regulations, and where decisions are made. Excessive rules and lack of participation in
decisions that affect an employee are examples of structural variables that might be potential
sources of stress.

Organizational leadership represents the managerial style of the organization's senior executives.
Some chief executive officers create a culture characterized by tension, fear, and anxiety. They
establish unrealistic pressures to perform in the short run, impose excessively tight controls, and
routinely fire employees who don't measure up.
Organizations go through a cycle. They're established; they grow, become mature, and
eventually decline. An 'organization's life stage-that is, where it is in this four-stage cycle-s-
creates different problems and pressures for employees. The establishment and decline stages are
particularly stressful. The former is characterized by a great deal of excitement and uncertainty,
whereas the latter typically requires cutbacks, layoffs, and a different set of uncertainties. Stress
tends to be least in maturity where uncertainties are at their lowest point.
Individual Factors - The typical individual only works about 40 to 50 hours a week. The
experiences and problems that people encounter in those other l20-plus non-work hours each
week can spillover to the job. Our final category, then, encompasses factors in the employee's
personal life. Primarily, these factors are family issues, personal economic problems, and
inherent personality characteristics.
Factors such as Marital difficulties, the breaking off a relationship, and discipline troubles with
children are examples of relationship problems that create stress for employees and aren't left at
the front door when they arrive at work. Economic problems created by individuals
overextending their financial resources is another set of personal troubles that can create stress
for employees and distract their attention from their work. Regardless of income level-people
who make $80,000 a year seem to have as much trouble handling their finances as those who
earn $l8, 000. Some people are poor money managers or have wants that always seem to exceed
their earning capacity.
Recent research in three diverse organizations found that stress symptoms reported prior to
beginning a job accounted or most of the variance in stress symptoms reported nine months later.
This led the researchers to conclude that some people may have an inherent tendency to
accentuate negative aspects of the world in general. If true, then a significant individual factor
influencing stress is a person's basic dispositional nature. That is, stress symptoms expressed on
the job may actually originate in the person's personality.

Stressors are additive - a fact that tends to be overlooked when stressors are reviewed
individually is that stress is an additive phenomenon. Stress builds up. Each new and persistent
stressor adds to an individual's stress level. A single stressor may seem relatively unimportant in
and of itself, but if it is added to an already high level of stress, it can be the straw that breaks the
camel's back. If we want to appraise the total amount of stress an individual is under, we have to
sum up his or her opportunity stresses, constraint stresses, and demand stresses.
Individual Differences and Stress
Some people thrive on stressful situations; others are overwhelmed by them. What is it that
differentiates people in terms of their ability to handle stress? What individual difference
variables moderate the relationship between potential stressors and experienced stress? At least
five variables: perception, job experience, social support, belief in locus of control, and hostility
have been found to be relevant moderators.
Perception - employees react in response to their perception of reality rather than to reality itself.
Perception, therefore, will moderate the relationship between a potential stress condition and an
employee's reaction to it. One person's fear that he'll lose his job because his company is laying
off personnel may be perceived by another as an opportunity to get a large severance allowance
and start his own business. Similarly, what one employee perceives as an efficient and
challenging work environment may be viewed as threatening and demanding by others. So the
stress potential in environmental, organizational, and individual factors doesn't lie in their
objective condition. Rather, it lies in an employee's interpretation of those factors.
Job experience - Experience is said to be a great teacher. It can also be a great stress reducer.
Think back to your first date or your first few days in college. For most of us, the uncertainty and
newness of these situations created stress. But as we gained experience, that stress disappeared or
at least significantly decreased. The same phenomenon seems to apply to work situations. That
is, experience on the job tends to be negatively related to work stress. Two explanations have
been offered. First is the idea of selective withdrawal. Voluntary turnover is more probable
among people who experience more stress. Therefore, people who remain with the organization
longer are those with more stress-resistant traits or those who are more resistant to the stress
characteristics of their organization. Second, people eventually develop coping mechanisms to

deal with stress. Because this takes time, senior members of the organization are more likely to
be fully adapted and should experience less stress.
Social support- Increasing evidence shows that social support-that is, collegial relationships with
co-workers or supervisors - can buffer the impact of stress. The logic underlying this moderating
variable is that social support acts as a palliative, mitigating the negative effects of even high-
strain jobs. For individuals whose work associates are unhelpful or even actively hostile, social
support may be found outside the job. Involvement with family, friends, and community can
provide the support-especially for those with a high social need-that is missing at work and this
can make job stressors more tolerable.
Belief in locus of control- Those with an internal locus of control believe they control their own
destiny. Those with an external locus believe their lives are controlled by outside forces.
Evidence indicates that internals perceive their jobs to be less stressful than do externals. When
internals and externals confront a similar stressful situation, the internals are likely to believe
they can have a significant effect on the results. They, therefore, act to take control of events.
Externals are more likely to be passive and defensive. Rather than do something to reduce the
stress, they acquiesce. So externals, who are more likely to feel helpless in stressful situations,
are also more likely to experience stress.
Hostility- For much of the 1970s and 1980s, a great deal of attention was directed at the Type A
personality. In fact, throughout the 1980s, it was undoubtedly the most frequently used
moderating variable related to stress. Type A personality is characterized by feeling a chronic
sense of time urgency and by an excessive competitive drive. A Type A individual is
aggressively involved in a chronic, incessant struggle to achieve more and more in less and less
time, and if required to do so, against the opposing efforts of other things or other persons.
Until quite recently, researchers believed Type A's were more likely to experience stress on and
off the job. More specifically, Type A's were widely believed to be at higher risk for heart
disease. A closer analysis of the evidence, however, has produced new conclusions. By looking
at various components of Type A behavior, it's been found that only the hostility and anger
associated with Type A behavior is actually related to heart disease. The chronically angry,
suspicious, and mistrustful person is the one at risk. So just because a person is a workaholic,

rushes around a lot, and is impatient or competitive does not mean he or she is unduly
susceptible to heart disease or the other negative effects of stress. Rather, it's the quickness to
anger, the persistently hostile outlook, and the cynical mistrust of others that are harmful.
Consequences of Stress
Stress shows itself in a number of ways. For instance, an individual who is experiencing a high
level of stress may develop high blood pressure, ulcers, irritability, difficulty in making routine
decisions, loss of appetite, accident proneness, and the like. These can be subsumed under three
general categories: physiological, psychological, and behavioral symptoms.
Physiological Symptoms- Most of the early concern with stress was directed at physiological
symptoms. This was primarily because the topic was researched by specialists in the health and
medical sciences. This research led to the conclusion that stress could create changes in
metabolism, increase heart and breathing rates, increase blood pressure, bring on headaches, and
induce heart attacks. The link between stress and particular physiological symptoms is not clear.
There are few, if any, consistent relationships. This is attributed to the complexity of the
symptoms and the difficulty of objectively measuring them. But of greater relevance is the fact
that physiological symptoms have the least direct relevance to students of OB. Our concern is
with behaviors and attitudes. Therefore, the two other categories of symptoms are more
important to us.
Psychological Symptoms - Stress can cause dissatisfaction. Job-related stress can cause job-
related dissatisfaction. Job dissatisfaction, in fact, is lithe simplest and most obvious
psychological effect of stress. But stress shows itself in other psychological states-for instance,
tension, anxiety, irritability, boredom, and procrastination. The evidence indicates that when
people are placed in jobs that make multiple and conflicting demands or in which there is a lack
of clarity as to the incumbent's duties, authority, and responsibilities, both stress and
dissatisfaction are increased. Similarly, the less control people have over the pace of their work,
the greater the stress and dissatisfaction. While more research is needed to clarify the
relationship, the evidence suggests that jobs providing a low level of variety, significance,
autonomy, feedback, and identity to incumbents create stress and reduce satisfaction and
involvement in the job.

Behavioral Symptoms - Behaviorally related stress symptoms include changes in productivity,
absence, and turnover, as well as changes in eating habits, increased smoking or consumption of
alcohol, rapid speech, fidgeting, and sleep disorders. A significant amount of research has
investigated the stress-performance relationship. The most widely studied pattern in the stress-
performance literature is the inverted-U relationship. This is shown in Figure Below:
The logic underlying the inverted U is that low to moderate levels of stress stimulate the body
and increase its ability to react- Individuals then often perform their tasks better, more intensely,
or more rapidly. But too much stress places unattainable demands or constraints on a person,
which results in lower performance. This inverted-U pattern may also describe the reaction to
stress over time, as well as to changes in stress intensity. That is, even moderate levels of stress
can have a negative influence on performance over the long term as the continued intensity of the
stress wears down the Individual and saps his or her energy resources. An athlete may be able to
use the positive effects of stress to obtain a higher performance during every Saturday's game in
the fall season, or a sales executive may be able to psych herself up for her presentation at the
annual national meeting. But moderate levels of stress experienced continually over long periods
of time-as typified by the emergency worn staff in a large urban hospital-can result in lower
performance. This may explain why emergency room staffs at such hospitals are frequently
rotated and why it is unusual to find individuals who have spent the bulk of their career in such
an environment.

In effect, to do so would expose the individual to the risk of career burnout. In spite of the
popularity and intuitive appeal of the inverted-U model, it doesn't get a lot of empirical support.
At this point managers should be careful in assuming this model accurately depicts the stress-
performance relationship.
Managing Stress or Stress management strategies
From the organization's standpoint, management may not be concerned when employees
experience low to moderate levels of stress. The reason, as we showed earlier, is that such levels
of stress may be functional and lead to higher employee performance. But high levels of stress,
or even low levels sustained over long periods of time, can lead to reduced employee
performance and; thus, require action by management.
While a limited amount of stress may benefit an employee's performance, don't expect
employees to see it that way. From the individual's standpoint, even low levels of stress are
likely to be perceived as undesirable. It's not unlikely, therefore, for employees and management
to have different notions of what constitutes an acceptable level of stress on the lob. What
management may consider as "a positive stimulus that keeps the adrenaline running" is very
likely to be seen as "excessive pressure" by the employee.
Individual approaches- An employee can take personal responsibility for reducing his or her
stress level. Individual strategies that have proven effective include implementing time-
management techniques, increasing physical exercise, relaxation, training, and expanding the
social support network.
Many people manage their time poorly. The things they have to accomplish in any given day or
week are not necessarily beyond completion if they manage their time properly. The well-
organized employee, like the well-organized student, can often accomplish twice as much as the
person who is poorly organized. So an understanding and utilization of basic time-management
principles can help individuals’ better cope with tensions created by job demands. A few of the
more well-known time-management principles are (1) making daily lists ·of activities to be
accomplished; (2) prioritizing activities by importance and urgency; (3) scheduling activities
according to the priorities set; and (4) knowing your daily cycle and handling the most

demanding parts of your job during the high part of your cycle when you are most alert and
productive.
Noncompetitive physical exercise such as aerobics, walking/jogging, swimming, and riding a

bicycle have long been recommended by physicians as a way to deal with excessive stress levels.
These forms of physical exercise increase heart capacity, lower at-rest heart rate, provide a
mental diversion from work pressures, and offer a means to let off steam. Individuals to teach
themselves to reduce tension through relaxation techniques such as meditation, hypnosis, and
biofeedback. The objective is to reach a state of deep relaxation, where one feels physically
relaxed, somewhat detached from the immediate environment, and detached from body
sensuous. Fifteen or 20 minutes a day of deep relaxation releases tension and provides a person
with a pronounced sense of peacefulness. Importantly, significant changes in heart rate, blood
pressure, and other physiological factors result from achieving the deep relaxation condition.
As we noted earlier in this chapter, having friends, family, or work colleagues to talk provide an
outlet when stress levels become excessive. Expanding your social support network therefore,
can be a means for tension reduction. It provides you with someone to hear your problems and a
more objective perspective on the situation. Research also demonstrates that social support
moderates the stress-burnout relationship. That is, high support reduces the likelihood that heavy
work stress will result in job burnout.
Organizational approaches- Several of the factors that cause stress particularly task and role
demands, and organization structure-are controlled by management. As such, they can be
modified or changed, Strategies that management might want to consider include improved
personnel selection and job placement, use of realistic goal setting, redesigning of jobs, increased
employee involvement, improved organizational communication, and establishment of corporate
wellness programs.
We know, for example, that individuals with little experience or an external locus of control tend
to be more stress prone: Selection and placement decisions should take these facts into
consideration. Obviously, although management shouldn't restrict hiring to only experienced
individuals with an internal locus, such individuals may adapt better to high-stress jobs and
perform those jobs more effectively.

Based on an extensive amount of research, we concluded that individuals perform better when
they have specific and challenging goals and receive feedback on how well they are progressing
toward these goals. The use of goals can reduce stress as well as provide motivation. Specific
goals that are perceived as attainable clarify performance expectations. Additionally, goal
feedback reduces uncertainties as to actual job performance. The result is less employee
frustration, role ambiguity, and stress.
Redesigning jobs to give employees more responsibility, more meaningful work, more
autonomy, and increased feedback can reduce stress because these factors give the employee
greater control over work activities and lessen dependence on others. But as we noted in our
discussion of work design, not all employees want enriched jobs. The right job redesign, then,
for employees with a low need for growth might be less responsibility and increased
specialization. If individuals prefer structure and routine, reducing skill variety should also
reduce uncertainties and stress levels.
Role stress is detrimental to a large extent because employees feel uncertain about goals,
expectations how they'll be evaluated, and the like. By giving these employees a voice in those
decisions that directly affect their lob performances, management can increase employee control
and reduce this role stress. So managers should consider increasing employee involvement in
decision making.
Increasing formal organizational communication with employees reduces uncertainty by

lessening role ambiguity and role conflict. Given the importance that perceptions play in
moderating the stress-response relationship, management can also use effective communications
as a means to shape employee perceptions. Remember that what employees categorize as
demands, threats, or opportunities are merely an interpretation, and that interpretation can be
affected by the symbols and actions, communicated by management.
Our final suggestion is to offer organizationally supported wellness programs. These programs
focus on the employee's total physical and mental condition. For example, they typically provide
workshops to help people quit smoking, control alcohol use, lose weight, eat better, and develop
a regular exercise program. The assumption underlying most wellness programs is that
employees need to take personal responsibility for their physical and mental health. The

organization is merely a vehicle to facilitate this end. Organizations, of course, aren't altruistic.
They expect a payoff from their investment in wellness programs. And most of those firms that
have introduced wellness programs have found the benefits to exceed the costs. For instance, Du
Pont saw a 14 percent decline in sick days among employees at 41 plants; nonhospital health-
care costs shrank 43 percent at Tenneco Inc.; and the average annual employee health claim at
Steelcase Inc. fell from $1,155 to $537.95 Adolph Coors, the beer company, estimates it saves
$6.15 for each dollar spent on wellness.
The following are some the Organizational Level Strategies to manage stress:
Organizational polices should be clear
Authority and responsibility must be clear
Organizational structure, redesigning of jobs and improved Communication reduces

stress.
Corporate policies, physical work environment should be suitable for higher productivity.
An updated systems and processes increase efficiency.
Management must create a healthy working environment.
Career plan for mangers must be developed and implemented in letter and spirit.
Employees must be empowered

Stress and Occupations
Accountant Hospital manager Police officer

Artist Physician (GP) 911 operator
Auto Mechanic Psychologist U.S. president
Forester School principal Waiter/waitress
Low-Stress Medium-Stress High -Stress
Occupations Occupations Occupations

Summary and Implications for Managers
Technology is changing people's jobs and their work behavior. TQM and its emphasis on
continuous process improvement can increase employee stress as individuals find that
performance expectations are constantly being increased. Reengineering is eliminating millions
of jobs and completely reshaping the jobs of those who remain. Flexible manufacturing systems
require employees to learn new skills and accept increased responsibilities. And technology is
making many job skills obsolete and shortening the life span of almost all skills-technical,
administrative, and managerial.
An understanding of work design can help managers design jobs that positively affect employee
motivation. For instance, jobs that scores high in motivating potential increase an employee's
control over key elements in his or her work. Therefore, jobs that offer autonomy, feedback, and
similar complex task characteristics help satisfy the individual goals of those employees who
desire greater control over their work. Of course, consistent with the social information
processing model, the perception that task characteristics are complex is probably more
important in influencing an employee's motivation than the objective task characteristics
themselves. The key, then, is to provide employees with cues suggesting their jobs score high on
factors such as skill variety, task identity, autonomy, and feedback.
We found that the existence of work stress, in and of itself, need not imply lower performance.
The evidence indicates that stress can be either a positive or negative influence on employee
performance. For many people, low to moderate amounts of stress enable them to perform their
jobs better, by increasing their work intensity, alertness, and ability to react. However, a high
level of stress, or even a moderate level sustained over a long period of time, eventually takes its
toll and performance declines. The impact of stress on satisfaction is far more straightforward.
Job-related tension tends to decrease general job satisfaction. Even though low to moderate
levels of stress may improve job performance, employees find stress dissatisfying.

Chapter Seven - Culture and Diversity
Culture and Cultural Diversity

Organizational Culture
Set of key characteristics that distinguish one organization from other. It is the collections of
traditions, values, policies, beliefs and attitudes that constitute a pervasive context for everything
we do and think in an organization. As individuals come into contact with organizations, they
come into contact with dress rooms, stories tell about what goes on, the organization’s formal
rules and procedures, its formal codes of behavior, rituals, tasks, pay systems jargon, and jokes
only understood by insiders, and so on. These elements are some of the manifestations of the
organizational culture.
There appear to be ten characteristics that, when mixed and matched, tap the essence of an
organization’s culture. These are:
 Individual initiative- degree of responsibility, freedom, independence,
 Risk tolerance- degree to which employees aggressive, innovative, risk-seeking
 Direction- clear objectives and performance expectations
 Integration- units in the organization.
 Management support- clear support, communications.
 Control – rules and regulations
 Identity – members identify with the organization as a whole rather than individual
 Reward system – reward allocations
 Conflict tolerance – the way of treating conflicts and criticisms openly
 Communication patterns – organizational communications restricted

Characteristics of Organizational culture
The following are characteristics of organizational culture:

 Culture is descriptive
 Organizations’ do not have uniform cultures
 Strong vs. weak cultures
What is strong culture?
In a strong culture, the organization’s core values are both intensely held and widely
shared. Strong cultures will have great influence on the
behavior of its members and results in lower employee turnover.
What is weak culture?
 Culture vs. formalization
 Innovation and risk taking
 Attention to detail
 Outcome orientation

 People orientation
 Team orientation
 Stability
Organizational Culture’s Overall Function or The role of organizational culture
The following are some of the roles or functions of organizational culture:

• Culture is the social glue that helps hold an organization together.
• It gives members an organizational identity
• It facilitates collective commitment.
• It promotes systems stability
• It shapes behavior by helping members make sense of their surroundings.
• It provides a boundary.
- It has a boundary- defining roles
- It conveys a sense of identity for organizational members
- It facilitates the generation of commitment
- It enhances social system stability
- It serves as a sense-making and control mechanisms
How Organizational Culture manifests itself?
Organizational Culture manifests itself in two ways:
• High profile symbols - deliberately designed to create the image of the company, the
mission statement, company logo, uniform, etc.
• Low profile symbols - practices, communications ,physical forms , common language,

etc

Do Organizations Have Uniform Cultures?
• A dominant culture - expresses the core values that are shared by a majority of the
organization’s members (personality of the organization).
• Core values - are those values which form the foundation on which members of an
organization perform work and conduct themselves
• Subcultures - tend to develop in large organizations to reflect common problems,

situations, or experiences that members face.
Types of organizational culture
There are four types of organizational culture
1. Tough guy, macho culture – a world of individuals who regularly take high risks and
get quick feedback on whether their actions were right or wrong.
2. Work hard/pay hard culture – fun and action are the rule here, employees take few
risks, all with quick feedback; to succeed, the culture, and the culture encourages them to
maintain a high level of relatively low-risk activity.
3. Bet your company culture - cultures with big stakes decisions, where years pass before
employees know where decisions have paid off. A high risk, slow-feedback environment
4. The process culture - a world of little or no feedback where employees find it hard to
measure what they do; instead they concentrate on how it’s done. It’s another name is
bureaucracy.
Culture as a Liability
• Shared values do not agree with organization’s effectiveness.

• Dilemma of hiring a diverse workforce but wanting people to fit into a single culture.
• Cultural incompatibility in mergers and acquisitions.
- Culture is not good or bad, only it exists.
- Valuable for both organization and employee
- It enhances organizational commitment and increases the consistency of employee
behavior.

- From employee stand point, culture is valuable because it reduces ambiguity.
How a Culture Begins/formed
Culture is created in three ways:
 Founders hire and keep those who think and feel the same way they do.
 They indoctrinate and socialize these employees to their way of thinking and
feeling
 Their behavior acts as a role model encouraging employees to identify with them
How employees learn culture?
Culture is transmitted to employees in a number of forms:

a. Rituals – it is repetitive sequences of activities that expresses and reinforce the key values of
the organization.
b. Material symbols
c. Language - many organizations and units within organizations uses language to identify
members of culture or sub-culture.
d. National culture – there is a growing body of evidence to indicate that national culture differ
widely and the result is marked differences in behavior patterns worldwide.
e. Cultural clusters- are grouping of countries into meaningful categories based on geography,
shared language and similar religions.
f. Stories – many stories circulate through organizations. They serve as powerful social
perceptions of the way things should (should not) be done.
Organizational Culture vs. National Culture

- National culture has a greater impact on employees than does their organization’s culture.
- Expect that organizations hire employees who are a better fit with the organization’s
dominant culture even though they may not fit the national culture.

Cultural Dimensions
As identified by Hofstede the following are national culture dimensions:
- Individualism vs. collectivitism - Uncertainty avoidance
- Power distance - Masculinity vs. femininity.
National culture and Organizational behavior

- Motivation
- Leadership
- Organizational design
- Organizational culture
Managing Cultural Change and Implications for Managers
• Cultural change is most likely to take when the following conditions exist:
 Dramatic crisis exists or is created.
 Turnover in leadership.
 Young and small organization.
 Weak culture.
• Implications for Managers
- Create the culture you want when the organization is small.
- If established culture needs to be changed, expect it to take years.
Globalization, People at work and Diversity

The preceding also leads us to predict that the increasing cultural diversity of the work force
should provide benefits to organizations. And that's what the evidence indicates. Research
demonstrates that heterogeneity among group and organization members can increase creativity,
improve the quality of decisions, and facilitate change by enhancing member flexibility. For
example, researchers compared decision-making groups composed of members or individuals
from the same ethnic groups/country/continent with groups that also contained members from
Asian, African and so forth groups. The ethnically diverse groups produced more effective and
more feasible ideas and the unique ideas they generated tended to be of higher quality than the
unique ideas produced by the all member group from the same ethnic group.
N.B: - globalization and people at work is your reading assignment.

Chapter 8- Power and Politics in an Organization
A Definition of Power
Power A capacity that A has to influence the behavior of B so that B does things he or she would
not otherwise do.
Dependency - B's relationship to A when A possesses something that B requires.
Power refers to a capacity that A has to influence the behavior of B, so B does something he or
she would not otherwise do. This definition implies (1) a potential that need not be actualized to
be effective, (2) a dependency relationship, and (3) the assumption that B has some discretion
over his or her own behavior.
Let's look at each of these points more closely. Power may exist but not be used. It is, therefore,
a capacity or potential. One can have power but not impose it. Probably the most important
aspect of power is that it is a function of dependency. The greater B's dependence on A, the
greater is A's power in the relationship. Dependence, in turn, is based on alternatives that B
perceives and the importance that B places on the alternative(s) that A controls. A person can
have power over you only if he or she controls something you desire. If you want a college
degree and have to pass a certain course to get it, and your current instructor is the only faculty
member in the college who teaches that course, he or she has power over you. Your alternatives
are highly limited and you place a high degree of importance on obtaining a passing grade.
Similarly, if you're attending college on funds totally provided by your parents, you probably
recognize the power they hold over you. You're dependent on them for financial support. But
once you're out of school, have a job, and are making a solid income, your parents' power is
reduced significantly. Who among us, though, has not known or heard of the rich relative who is
able to control a large number of family members merely through the implicit or explicit threat
of "writing them out of the will"?
For A to get B to do something he or she otherwise would not do means B must have the
discretion to make choices, At the extreme, if B's job behavior is so programmed he is
allowednno room to make choices, he obviously is constrained to his ability to do something
other than what he is doing. For instance, job descriptions, group norms, and organizational rules

and regulations, as well as community laws standards, constrain people's choices. As a nurse,
you may be dependent on your supervisor for continued employment. But, in spiting of this
dependence, you're unlikely to comply with her request to perform heart surgery on a patient
steal several thousand dollars from ‘A’ petty cash. Your job description and laws against stealing
constrain your ability to make these choices
Contrasting Leadership and Power
A careful comparison of our description of power with our description of leadership in the
previous chapter reveals that the two concepts are closely inter-twined. Leaders use power as a
means of attaining group goals. Leaders achieve goals, and power is a means of facilitating their
achievement. What differences are there between the two terms? One difference relates to goal
compatibility. Power does not require goal compatibility, merely dependence, Leadership, on the
other hand, requires some congruence between the goals of the leader and the led. A second
difference relates to the direction of influence. Leadership focuses on the downward influence on
one's subordinates. It minimizes the importance of lateral and upward influence patterns. Power
does not. Still another difference deals with research emphasis. Leadership research, for the most
part, emphasizes style. It seeks answers to such questions as: How supportive should a leader be?
How much decision making should be shared with subordinates? In contrast, the research on
power has tended to encompass a broader area and focus on tactics for gaining compliance. It has
gone beyond the individual as exerciser because power can be used by groups as well as by
individuals to control other individuals or groups.
Bases of Power
Where does power come from?
What is it that gives an individual or a group influence over others? The answer to these
questions is a five-category. Classification scheme identified by French and Raven." They
proposed five bases or sources of power: coercive, reward, legitimate, expert, and referent
Coercive Power
The coercive power base is defined by French and Raven as being dependent on fear. One reacts
to this power out of fear of the negative results that might occur if one failed to comply. It rests

on the application, or the threat of application, of physical sanctions such as the infliction of
pain, the generation of frustration through restriction of movement, or the controlling by force of
basic physiological or safety needs. In the 19305, when John Dillinger went into a bank, held a
gun to a teller's head, and asked for money, he was incredibly successful at getting compliance
with his request. His power base was coercive.
A loaded gun gives its holder power because others are fearful they will loosen something they
hold dear-their lives. Of all the bases of power available to man, the power to hurt others is
possibly most often used, most often condemned, and most difficult to control the state relies on
its military and legal resources to intimidate nations, or even its own citizens. Businesses rely
upon the control of economic resources.
Schools and universities rely upon their rights to deny students formal education, while the
church threatens individuals with loss of grace. At the personal level individuals exercise
coercive power through a reliance upon physical strength, verbal facility, or the ability to grant
or withhold emotional support from others. These bases provide the individual with the means to
physically harm, bully, humiliate, or deny love to others.
At the organizational level, A has coercive power over B if A can dismiss, suspend, or demote
B, assuming B values his or her job. Similarly, if A can assign B work activities that B finds
unpleasant or treat B in a manner B finds embarrassing, A possesses coercive power over B in
their directives are viewed to be within the authority of their positions, teachers, tellers, and first
lieutenants listen and usually comply.
Expert Power
Expert power is influence wielded as a result of expertise, special skill, or knowledge. Expertise
has become one of the most powerful sources of influence as the world has become more
technologically oriented. As jobs become more specialized, we become increasingly dependent
on "experts" to achieve goals. So, while it is generally acknowledged that physicians have
expertise and hence expert power-most of us follow the advice our doctor gives us-you should
also recognize that computer specialists, tax accountants, solar engineers, industrial
psychologists, and other specialists are able to wield power as a result of their expertise.

Referent Power
The last category of influence that French and Raven identified was referent power. Its base is
identification with a person who has desirable resources or personal traits. If I admire and
identify with you, you can exercise power over me because I want to please you.
Referent power develops out of admiration of another and a desire to be like that person. In a
sense, then, it is a lot like charisma. If you admire someone to the point of modeling your
behavior and attitudes after him or her, this person possesses referent power over you. Referent
power explains why celebrities are paid millions of dollars to endorse products in commercials.
Marketing research shows that people like Bill Cosby, Elizabeth Taylor, and Michael Jordan
have the power to influence your choice of photo processors, perfume, and athletic shoes. With a
little practice, you or I could probably deliver as smooth a sales pitch as these celebrities, but the
buying public doesn't identify with you and me.
In organizations, if you are articulate, domineering, physically imposing, or charismatic, you

hold personal characteristics that may be used to get others to do what you want.
Power in groups: Coalitions

Those "out of power" and seeking to be "in" will first try to increase their power individually.
Why spread the spoils if one doesn't have to? But if this proves ineffective, the alternative is to
form a coalition. There is strength in numbers. The natural way to gain influence is to become a
power holder. Therefore, those who want power will attempt to build a personal power base. But,
in many instances, this may be difficult risky, costly, or impossible. In such cases, efforts will be
made to form a coalition of two or more "outs" who, by joining together, can combine their
resources to increase rewards for themselves.
Historically blue-collar workers in organizations who were unsuccessful in bargaining on their

own behalf with management resorted to labor unions to bargain for them. In recent years, white-
collar employees and professionals have increasingly turned to unions after finding it difficult to
exert power individually to attain higher wages and greater perceived, as hostile or abusive.

POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF POWER
Power and politics are very closely related concepts. A popular view of organizational politics is
how one can pragmatically get ahead in an organization. Alvin Toffler, the noted author of
Future Shock, The Third Wave, and Power shift, observed that “companies are always engaged
in internal political struggles, power struggles, infighting, and so on. That’s normal life.” There
is even the view that there may be an inverse relationship between power and politics. For
example, a recent publication aimed at practicing human resources (HR) managers noted that in
this era of competing for limited resources, managers who lack power must use more politics.
This means that “Those who lack political skills will gain a reputation for folding under pressure
and having no convictions.” Such political skills largely deal with the acquisition of power. In
this latter view, power and politics become especially closely intertwined. A recognition of the
political realities of power acquisition in today’s organizations and an examination of some
specific political strategies for acquiring power are of particular interest for understanding the
dynamics of organizational behavior.
A Political Perspective of Power in Organizations
The classical organization theorists portrayed organizations as highly rational structures in which
authority meticulously followed the chain of command and in which managers had legitimatized
power. The discussion in the next chapter on informal managerial roles and organization portrays
another, more realistic view of organizations. It is in this more realistic view of organizations
that the importance of the political aspects of power and strategic advantage comes to the
forefront. As Peffer notes: “Organizations, particularly large ones, are like governments in that
they are fundamentally political entities. To understand them, one needs to understand
organizational politics, just as to understand governments, one needs to understand governmental
politics.”
The political perspective of organizations departs from the rational, idealistic model. For
example, Walter Nord dispels some of the dreams of ideal, rationally structured, and humanistic
organizations by pointing out some of the stark realities of political power. He suggests four
postulates of power in organizations that help focus on the political realities:
1. Organizations are composed of coalitions that compete with one another for resources, energy,
and influence.
2. Various coalitions will seek to protect their interests and positions of influence.

3. The unequal distribution of power itself has dehumanizing effects.
4. The exercise of power within organizations is one very crucial aspect of the exercise of power
within the larger social system.
In other words, the political power game is changing, but is still very real in today’s
organizations. Researchers on organizational politics conclude that politics in organizations is
simply a fact of life. Personal experience, hunches, and anecdotal evidence for years have
supported a general belief that behavior in and of organizations is often political in nature. More
recently, some conceptual and empirical research has added further support to these notions.
Even though the organizational politics has and will continue to flourish, its nature and how it is
expressed changes over time. For example, younger workers often disdain the “Boomer” form of
politics as “so last century.” However, as an expert on organizational politics warns the young
generation:
By shunning the conventions of office politics, they risk burning bridges. So because you never
know how long you’ll be at a firm, I’d still advise sticking to the same old directives. They’re the
same today as they were two decades ago.
Like other aspects of organizational behavior dynamics, politics is not a simple process. Besides
the age of the participants, politics can vary from organization to organization and even from one
subunit of an organization to another. A comprehensive definition drawing from the literature is
that “organizational politics consists of intentional acts of influence undertaken by individuals or
groups to enhance or protect their self-interest when conflicting courses of action are possible.”
There is also a more recent view that different forms of power in organizations are connected to
specific learning processes that help explain why some political insights become institutionalized
and others do not. The political behavior of organizational participants tends to be traditionally
viewed as opportunistic for the purpose of maximizing self-interest,68 but a counterargument is
that organizational politics is actually the cornerstone of organizational democracy. As one
theoretical analysis noted: politics is central to the development of real organizational
democracy. It provides practical advice on how to work with a constructive political “mindset”
and highlights how such behavior underpins, rather than undermines, the process of
redistributing organizational influence. Thus, like other dynamics of today’s organizations, the
nature of politics is quite complex and still being studied for better understanding.

Research on organizational politics has identified several areas that are particularly relevant to
the degree to which organizations are political rather than rational. These areas can be
summarized as follows:
1. Resources. There is a direct relationship between the amount of politics and how critical and
scarce the resources are. Also, politics will be encouraged when there is an infusion of new,
“unclaimed” resources.
2. Decisions. Ambiguous decisions, decisions on which there is lack of agreement, and uncertain,
long-range strategic decisions lead to more politics than routine decisions.
3. Goals. The more ambiguous and complex the goals become, the more politics there will be.
4. Technology and external environment. In general, the more complex the internal technology of
the organization, the more politics there will be. The same is true of organizations operating in
turbulent external environments.
5. Change. A reorganization or a planned organization development (OD) effort or even an
unplanned change brought about by external forces will encourage political maneuvering.
The preceding implies that some organizations and subunits within the organization will be more
political than others. By the same token, however, it is clear that most of today’s organizations
meet these requirements for being highly political. That is, they have limited resources; make
ambiguous, uncertain decisions; have unclear yet complex goals; have increasingly complex
technology; and are undergoing drastic change. This existing situation facing organizations
makes them more political, and the power game becomes increasingly important. Miles states:
“In short, conditions that threaten the status of the powerful or encourage the efforts of those
wishing to increase their power base will stimulate the intensity of organizational politics and
increase the proportion of decision-making behaviors that can be classified as political as
opposed to rational.” For example, with the political situation of today’s high-tech, radically
innovative firms, it has been suggested that medieval structures of palace favorites, liege
lordship, and fiefdoms may be more relevant than the more familiar rational structures. Recent
theory-building does recognize the reality of territoriality in organizations. “Organization
members can and do become territorial over physical space, ideas, roles, relationships, and other
potential possessions in organizations.” As the accompanying OB in Action: You Are Where
You Sit indicates, even where one sits at the table of a meeting indicates power and political

maneuvering. The next section presents such practical political strategies for power acquisition
in today’s organizations.
Political Strategies for Attaining Power in Organizations
 Taking counsel
 Maintaining maneuverability
 Promoting limited communication
 Exhibiting confidence
 Controlling access to information and persons
 Making activities central and non substitutable
 Creating a sponsor-protégé relationship
 Stimulating competition among ambitious subordinates
 Seek out and befriend the most influential individual in a situation
 Neutralizing potential opposition
 Making strategic replacements
 Committing the uncommitted
 Forming a winning coalition
 Developing expertise
 Building personal stature
 Employing trade-offs
 Interact with others with the goal of building a positive relationship
 Using research data to support one’s own point of view
 Restricting communication about real intentions
 Withdrawing from petty disputes
Obviously, the strategies discussed are only representative, not exhaustive, of the many possible
politically based strategies for acquiring power in organizations. Compared to many of the other
topics covered in the text, there is relatively less research backup for these ideas on power and,
especially, politics. There is also a call for a better framework and guidelines to evaluate the
ethics of power and politics in today’s organizations. This ethical concern goes beyond the
notions of success or effectiveness. For example, of the 10 most unethical activities one study
identified, three are directly political: (1) making arrangements with vendors for the purposes of

personal gain; (2) allowing differences in pay based on friendships; and (3) hiring, training, and
promoting personal favorites rather than those who are most qualified.
To help overcome the negative impact that organizational politics can have on the ethics of an
organization, the following guidelines can be used:
1. Keep lines of communication open.
2. Role-model ethical and nonpolitical behaviors.
3. Be wary of game players acting only in their own self-interests.
4. Protect individual privacy interests.
5. Always use the value judgment “Is this fair?”
As one analysis pointed out: “When it comes to the ethics of organizational politics, respect for
justice and human rights should prevail for its own sake.” There is recent research evidence of
the role that the perceptions of organizational politics play in fairness and justice.
Besides the possible ethical implications of power and politics carried to the extreme, there are,
as previously mentioned, dysfunctional effects such as morale being weakened, victors and
victims being created, and energy and time spent on planning attacks and counterattacks instead
of concentrating on getting the job done. There is also evidence that politics may play a large
role in both base-pay and incentive-pay decisions, and in one company the power struggles and
political gamesmanship were the death knell of a gain sharing plan. There is some empirical
evidence that those managers who are observed to engage in more political activity are relatively
more successful in terms of promotions but are relatively less effective in terms of subordinate
satisfaction and commitment and the performance of their unit. There is research evidence that
this finding of the importance of political maneuvering in getting ahead in the organization, but
detracting from effective performance of the unit, may hold across cultures (at least in Russia).
The dynamics of power continue to evolve. In particular, information technology and the
Internet/Intranet provide information access that was not previously available. Organizations
with fewer boundaries and wider, even global, access to intellectual capital have political
systems and processes that are altered considerably. Also, the ups and recently the extreme
downs of the economy in both the United States and the rest of the world have dramatically
changed traditional power bases and processes. In the current social environment, many
employees are as interested in jobs with meaning as they are with scoring political points and
gaining power. As indicated earlier, this seems especially true of today’s younger generation

who seem more interested in economic control than in control over people or in status and
climbing the corporate ladder. In other words, today’s organizational participants’ passion for the
good life and meaning may be replacing their ruthless search for power.
One thing about power and politics, however, remains certain: modern, complex organizations
tend to create a climate that promotes power seeking and political maneuvering. And, in today’s
environment, these political activities extend beyond the traditional boundaries of an
organization. For example, Microsoft learned, the hard way, that ingratiation political tactics may
have been much more successful than simply trying to bully government regulators when
antitrust law violations were being investigated. Other important firms such as Google are
learning from Microsoft’s mistakes; it makes sense to investigate and carefully implement the
best political approach when seeking to deal with outside agencies and individuals who could
alter or harm a firm’s inside operations and growth. Power and politics are a fact of modern
organizational life, and it is hoped that more future research will help managers better understand
their dynamics, meaning, and successful application.

Chapter Nine – Organizational Design and Structure
The Essence of Organizational Design and Structure
Organizational design refers to the overall configuration structural components that define jobs,
grouping of jobs, the hierarchy, patterns of authority and approaches to coordination, and line-
staff differentiation into a single, unified organizational system. Similarly, Ivancevich and
Matton defined the concept of organizational design as a managerial decision making aimed at
determining the structure and purposes that coordinate and control the jobs of the organization.
And, the outcome of organizational design decision is the framework or structure of the
organization.
Organizational design is the creation and modification of organizational structure.
The purpose of the manager in organization is to achieve coordinated behavior so that an

organization is judged effective by boss who evaluates its records. Those who evaluate
organizations can be concerned with any number of specific or general criteria and with output,
process or input measures. To achieve coordinated behavior and to satisfy evaluators, managers
engage in activities intended to plan, organize, lead and control behavior. Major factors in
determining individual and group behavior are task and authority relationships.
Principles of designing organizational structure
Peter Drucker, is a well known management philosopher and scientist, advances the following
principles for designing organizations:
Clarity – each manager and every part of the organization, whether a division, a department or a
section must know its place in the system as a whole. He/she should know how he/she is related
to others, what contributions he/she has to make to enable others to perform successfully, and
what contributions he/she should expect to from others for the performance of his/her own tasks
and achievement his/her goals. This clarity is need in all kinds of organizations for the
performance of coordinated effort. Clarity, however, does not mean rigidity. It only means that
everyone knows his/her position, tasks, responsibilities and contribution in relation to others.

Economy – organization structure should encourage people to take initiative and responsibility
and exercise judgment in making decisions and taking required actions. It should need minimum
control and supervision.
The direction of vision – patterns of interaction and communication should also be designed as
to direct the employees’ vision not toward tasks, activities and efforts but towards goals.
Moreover, this vision should be directed not only toward one’s own goals and but also toward
the goals of the enterprise as a whole, so that the achievement of individual goals leads to the
achievement of total enterprise goals.
Understanding one’s own task and the common task – organization should enable each of its
employees to understand his/her task. It should also enable him/her to understand the common
task of the organization.
Decision-making – organization structure should be so designed as to permit decisions to be

made at the appropriate level. Decisions that can be made at the operative level should be made
at the level, and decisions that can be made at supervisory level should not be pushed up to
higher levels in management. It should strengthen the decision making process by making it
possible that right decisions are made at the right level.
Stability and adaptability – every organization needs a certain degree of stability. Too frequent
changes may indeed jeopardize it by putting undue strain on it. Reasonable stability enables an
organization to plan, introduce and accommodate change. Stability, however, does not mean
rigidity. It only focuses on the need to maintain balance between stability and change. In fact,
organization structure should have a built-in ability to adapt to new situations in its internal as
well as external environment.
Perpetuation and self-renewal – in order to perpetuate, an organization should be capable of

renewing itself continually. The internal forces operating within the organization should be able
to throw out the weed and plant new seeds. It should produce tomorrow’s managers from within.
It should also provide motivation to its employees to learn and develop, to utilize their existing
abilities and realize their full potential. Finally, a self-renewing organization should have the
quality of open-mindedness and receptivity to new ideas.

Technology and Job Design
Job design is the process of assigning tasks to a job including the inter-dependency of those tasks
with other jobs. A job is a set of tasks, each requiring, limited skill or effort; other jobs include a
very complex set of tasks and can be accomplished by only few highly trained trades people or
professionals.
We are currently seeing something of a revolution in the ways jobs are designed. Information
technology has reshaped the type of work that organization new requires (e.g. more information
processing, less physical labor) as well as the degree of control that people have over the work
they perform. Some critics argue that computers increasingly control the pace of work and
reduce the employees’ freedom on the job. However, others claim that corporate leaders can
influence the way jobs are designed around information technology and that work can be
redesigned with employee needs in mind.
Jobs are also being transformed as companies move toward more flexible workforce. The trend
toward employability- means that many organizations now expect employees to perform a
variety of work activities rather than hold specific jobs, and employees are expected to
continuously learn skills that will keep then employed. In terms of job design, this means that
employees are no longer hired into specific, narrowly defined job. Instead, they hold genetic
titles (associate, team member) and are expected to perform several clusters of tasks.
Whether the change occurs through information technology or workforce flexibility, job design
often produces an interesting conflict between the employee’s motivation and ability to complete
the work. To understand this issue more fully, we begin by describing early job design efforts
aimed at increasing work efficiency through job specialization.
 Employability – the “new deal” employment relationship in which the job is a temporary
event and employees are expected to continuously learn skills that will keep them
employed in a variety of work activities.

Types of Organizational Structure
1. Line Organization
Nature of line organization
Historically, this is the oldest and simplest form of organization. All other kinds of structures are
modifications of line structure. It is characterized by vertical relationships which connects jobs
and positions at each level with those above and below it. It thus, creates network of hierarchy
throughout the organization based on a chain of command. A superior makes a decision and tells
to a subordinate who in turn make decisions and tells to a subordinate who in turn make
decisions and tells to operative workers. It forms a line from the very top to the very bottom level
of the organization. It is uninterrupted flow of authority relationships and communication flows.
Line units are those that contribute directly to accomplishing an organization’s goal.
Advantages of line organization
 Simplicity and clarity

 Speed
 Less expensive
 Stability
 It makes a person responsible for the work of a unit and the goals of the organization.
 It ensures flexibility to suit to lacks upward flow of information changing conditions.
 As a single person manages all the activities in a department, coordination becomes easy.
Disadvantages of line organization
 In the absence of staff supervision, few executives/ line managers are not overloaded,
required to perform all the functions related to their jobs and the details of operation.
 It lacks specialization as each department looks after its own staff function, as the
organization grows and jobs become complex, requiring various types of abilities and
skills for effective performance, line managers find it difficult to cope fully with their job.
 As only one person controls all the activities of the department, favoritism and nepotism
would likely to grow.
 The communication system is one way flowing from top to bottom.

 The operation of the organization will be totally disrupted in the absence of superiors
replacing management members.
2. Line and staff organization
Line and staff authority allows staff units to provide specialized expertise, advice, support or
service to line managers in the effective performance of their functions. They have no general
command authority over line but within their own units staff specialists are related with one
another in scalar chain. The staff units contribute indirectly to accomplishing an organization’s
goal. Each staff is a specialist in his/her area and operates with considerable independence. In
most enterprise staff is used to get help in handling details, offering counseling on specific
managerial problems, and locating data for decisions. They are customarily indicated on
organization charts by a broken line. This shows that they fall outside an organization’s direct
chain of command.
Advantages
 Line managers receive specialized advice and service from staff specialists.
 Line managers can concentrate more on their own specialty. It reduces their burden and
limits their functions.
 It reduces relaying on one manager or discourages the disadvantages of one-man
control system.
 It separates staff (manual) and line (mental) function that facilitate mass production. It
increases the speed and quality of line manager’s work.
 Decisions can be easily implemented and controlled.
 The services of the staff can train line officers.
Disadvantages
 It makes the organizational relationships more complex and complicate coordination,

communication and control problems. Since staff specialists operate with considerable
independence, it is difficult to control them and enforce their direction to the end.
 It violated the unity of command principle. As workers are working under different
bosses, it is difficult to maintain discipline and order among them. It often creates
conflict. The line managers often regard staff advice as interference.

 It is difficult to trace responsibility and causes of poor performance.
 It is difficult to find specialized skill in all fields.
 Line managers may depend too much on staff experts. Due to this, line managers lose
judgment and initiative.
 If the staff recommendations are not well taken, staff specialists may be dissatisfied and
be inactive in the future.
 Since the staff has no responsibility for their advice, they will not take care of their
advice.
3. Functional and matrix structure
1. Functional structure
Functional authority exists when staff units exercise command authority over specific matters of
line functions. Example, if a quality control manager prescribes quality specifications, it binds
the production manager and the quality control manager exercises functional authority over the
latter. Similarly, the personal manager may lay down specifications or systems that line
managers are obliged to follow when hiring and promoting workers. Functional managers
generally lay down policies, methods, and procedures to be followed by line mangers and
exercise functional control to ensure whether all these are followed or not.
Advantages
 It makes possible the adoption and implementation of uniform policies, systems, and
procedures throughout the organization.
 It facilitates more effective coordination and control in various parts of the
organization.
Disadvantages
 It creates dual accountability and weakens the unity of command. The departmental
heads feel loss of control and resent the exercise of functional authority over their
subordinates by staff specialists.
 It causes conflict among line and staff managers.

2. Matrix organization
This type of authority relationship is introduced in response to the growing complexity and size
of technically oriented enterprises, which needed more flexibility. It is the result of the need for
specialized decision making and to achieve more balanced form of organization structure.
It organizes activities by combining functional and task force or product departmentalization to

form a rigid or matrix. As a result, many employees belong to two groups simultaneously, a
functional group and a product or project group. They report to two or more superiors ( a
permanent boss in a functional or technical department and one or more temporary bosses called
project managers or administrators) who direct various projects.
Advantages
 Efficiently use resources by eliminating duplication of overloaded costs and through

better planning and control. It brings economies of scale.
 Project integration. It helps to synchronize the multiple components for a single activity.
 It permits maximum use of functional specialists.
 Improves the flow of information throughout the organization because there are vertical
and horizontal lines of communication (more channels of information).
 Makes specialized functional assistance equally available to all projects.
 Makes possible to respond to several market segments simultaneously.
 Easily adapts to fluctuating workloads (more flexible).
 Provides a home basis for functional specialists while working in projects.
 Establishes one-person as a focal point for all matters pertaining to an individual project.
 Provides excellent training for running a diversified organization.
Disadvantages
 Creates power struggles between project managers and functional heads.

 Increase competition over scarce resources. This leads to interpersonal conflict.
 Consultation and shared decision-making retards timely decision-making (slow reaction).
 People are drawn temporarily from different departments. This creates difficulty in
monitoring, controlling and coordination.

 Excessive overhead cost because more management positions are created.
 Dual reporting relations contribute to ambiguity and role conflict.
 The success of functional managers is evaluated on their functional performance. This
often leads them to emphasize on the performance of the department, not to the success
of the organization.

Organizational Behaviour Handout (Chapter 1 - 9)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Organizational Behaviour Handout (Chapter 1 - 9)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Organizational Behaviour Handout (Chapter 1 - 9)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter One – An Overview of Organizational Behavior

Definitions of Organizational Behavior

Organizational behavior is an interdisciplinary field dedicated to better understanding and

The three levels of analysis in Organizational Behavior

Replacing Intuition with systematic Study

1. Happy workers are productive workers.

Organizational Behaviour Handout, Compiled By: Nega E. (MBA) Page 2

5. You have to scare people a little to get them to do their jobs.

6. Everyone is motivated by money.

8. Most effective work groups have no conflict.

Organizational Behaviour Handout, Compiled By: Nega E. (MBA) Page 3

Generally, a framework (level, scope) to study OB can be viewed as follow.

The three levels of study in organizational behavior are:

A. Individual level: - Individual differences, Learning, perception and attribution, Attitudes,

Organizational Behaviour Handout, Compiled By: Nega E. (MBA) Page 4

Early industrial/organizational psychologists concerned themselves with problems of fatigue,

Organizational Behaviour Handout, Compiled By: Nega E. (MBA) Page 5

There are few absolutes in OB

Organizational Behaviour Handout, Compiled By: Nega E. (MBA) Page 6

Historical Development of Organizational Behaviour

A Brief History of Organizational Behavior

1. Classical theories of management-Bureaucracy-Scientific management : E W Taylor-

3. Modern management theories: Re-engineering -Bench marking - Empowerment -

Ethics and Organizational Behavior: Introduction, Definition and Concepts

Organization as a system: - Organizational components that need to be managed are: People,

Summary and Implications for Managers

Organizational Behaviour Handout, Compiled By: Nega E. (MBA) Page 8

Foundation of Individual Behavior and Learning in an Organization

Understanding Individual difference /Understanding Individual Behavior: - individual

Why perception is important?

- Because the world as it is perceived is the world that is behaviorally important.

Organizational Behaviour Handout, Compiled By: Nega E. (MBA) Page 9

Organizational Behaviour Handout, Compiled By: Nega E. (MBA) Page 10

Organizational Behaviour Handout, Compiled By: Nega E. (MBA) Page 11

 Attribution problem - there are two attribution theories: a) Fundamental Attribution

• Halo Effect - Drawing a general impression about an individual based on a single

• Contrast Effects -A person’s evaluation is affected by comparisons with other

• Projection - Attributing one’s own characteristics to other people.

• Prejudice -An unfounded dislike of a person or group based on their belonging to a

Organizational Behaviour Handout, Compiled By: Nega E. (MBA) Page 13

Organizational Behaviour Handout, Compiled By: Nega E. (MBA) Page 14

Characteristics and formation of Attitude

Organizational Behaviour Handout, Compiled By: Nega E. (MBA) Page 15

Predicting Behavior from Attitudes

 Specific attitudes predict specific behavior

Organizational Behaviour Handout, Compiled By: Nega E. (MBA) Page 16

Organizational Behaviour Handout, Compiled By: Nega E. (MBA) Page 17

Organizational Behaviour Handout, Compiled By: Nega E. (MBA) Page 18

SITUATION/SITUATIONAL CONDITIONS - A third factor, the situation, influence the

Major Personality Attributes Influencing OB

Organizational Behaviour Handout, Compiled By: Nega E. (MBA) Page 19

MACHIAVELLIANISM - The personality characteristic of Machiavellianism (Mach) is named after

Organizational Behaviour Handout, Compiled By: Nega E. (MBA) Page 20

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

Organizational Behaviour Handout, Compiled By: Nega E. (MBA) Page 21

Type A personality - Aggressive involvement in a chronic, incessant struggle to achieve more

Organizational Behaviour Handout, Compiled By: Nega E. (MBA) Page 22

Organizational Behaviour Handout, Compiled By: Nega E. (MBA) Page 24

Strategies of reinforcement, punishment and extinction