Perceptions

Perception and Job Attitudes

Exhibit 3.1

Learning Outcomes

After reading this chapter, you should be able to answer these questions:

1. How do differences in perception affect employee behavior and performance?
2. How can managers and organizations minimize the negative impact of stereotypes and other barriers to accurate social perception in interpersonal relations?
3. How do people attribute credit and blame for organizational events?
4. How can a work environment characterized by positive work attitudes be created and maintained?
5. How can managers and organizations develop a committed workforce?

EXPLORING MANAGERIAL CAREERS

Personal Perceptions Affect Workplace Harmony

Conflict was a feeling that James and Chaz were familiar with in their workplace. It was just a matter of time before their differences bubbled up to form a real hardship on themselves as well as their management teams.

Chaz is anxious to get ahead, really focused on how fast he can accelerate his career. In order to showcase his tenacity, he stays extra hours and often takes on extra assignments from upper management and doesn't seem to mind. James, on the other hand, is content in his position and believes that if he does his regular job, he will be seen a stable part of the team and will be rewarded for his everyday efforts. James views Chaz's behavior as "kissing up" and resents Chaz for his extra efforts because it may make his own work look bad. James doesn't give a thought to the personal reasons why Chaz may be acting that way, and instead ends up treating Chaz poorly, with a short temper every time they have to work together.

Chaz talks to his manager, Jerry, about the way that he is being treated by James. He explains that he has been having some personal troubles at home, his wife is expecting, and they are trying to save for the new addition to their family. Chaz is feeling pressure to work hard and showcase his talents in order to get a raise. He also expresses his feelings against James, mainly that he shouldn't be scrutinized for going above and beyond when his colleagues may just decide to do the minimum requirements. Jerry understands, and he appreciates Chaz coming to him with his concerns. They talk about ways to measure Chaz's extra efforts and plan a conversation during their annual review period to discuss his raise again. Jerry also suggests that Chaz talk with James to alleviate some of the negative behavior he is experiencing. He feels that if James understood the reasons behind Chaz's actions, he may be less jealous and feel less threatened by him.

Questions:

1. How can an individual's perceptions be a challenge in the workplace?
2. What can James do in the future to address Chaz in a different manner and better understand his actions?
3. What do you think Jerry could have done differently to help his employees overcome their differences and work more efficiently together?

Source: OpenStax, https://openstax.org/books/organizational-behavior/pages/3-introduction
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

The Perceptual Process

• How do differences in perception affect employee behavior and performance?

By perception, we mean the process by which one screens, selects, organizes, and interprets stimuli to give them meaning. It is a process of making sense out of the environment in order to make an appropriate behavioral response. Perception does not necessarily lead to an accurate portrait of the environment, but rather to a unique portrait, influenced by the needs, desires, values, and disposition of the perceiver. As described by Kretch and associates, an individual's perception of a given situation is not a photographic representation of the physical world; it is a partial, personal construction in which certain objects, selected by the individual for a major role, are perceived in an individual manner. Every perceiver is, as it were, to some degree a nonrepresentational artist, painting a picture of the world that expresses an individual view of reality.

The multitude of objects that vie for attention are first selected or screened by individuals. This process is called perceptual selectivity. Certain of these objects catch our attention, while others do not. Once individuals notice a particular object, they then attempt to make sense out of it by organizing or categorizing it according to their unique frame of reference and their needs. This second process is termed perceptual organization. When meaning has been attached to an object, individuals are in a position to determine an appropriate response or reaction to it. Hence, if we clearly recognize and understand we are in danger from a falling rock or a car, we can quickly move out of the way.

Because of the importance of perceptual selectivity for understanding the perception of work situations, we will examine this concept in some detail before considering the topic of social perception.

Perceptual Selectivity: Seeing What We See

As noted above, perceptual selectivity refers to the process by which individuals select objects in the environment for attention. Without this ability to focus on one or a few stimuli instead of the hundreds constantly surrounding us, we would be unable to process all the information necessary to initiate behavior. In essence, perceptual selectivity works as follows. The individual is first exposed to an object or stimulus – a loud noise, a new car, a tall building, another person, and so on. Next, the individual focuses attention on this one object or stimulus, as opposed to others, and concentrates his efforts on understanding or comprehending the stimulus. For example, while conducting a factory tour, two managers came across a piece of machinery. One manager's attention focused on the stopped machine; the other manager focused on the worker who was trying to fix it. Both managers simultaneously asked the worker a question. The first manager asked why the machine was stopped, and the second manager asked if the employee thought that he could fix it. Both managers were presented with the same situation, but they noticed different aspects. This example illustrates that once attention has been directed, individuals are more likely to retain an image of the object or stimulus in their memory and to select an appropriate response to the stimulus. These various influences on selective attention can be divided into external influences and internal (personal) influences.

Exhibit 3.2 The Process of Perceptual Selectivity

Exhibit 3.3 Major Influences on Selective Attention

External Influences on Selective Attention

External influences consist of the characteristics of the observed object or person that activate the senses. Most external influences affect selective attention because of either their physical properties or their dynamic properties.

Physical Properties. The physical properties of the objects themselves often affect which objects receive attention by the perceiver. Emphasis here is on the unique, different, and out of the ordinary. A particularly important physical property is size. Generally, larger objects receive more attention than smaller ones. Advertising companies use the largest signs and billboards allowed to capture the perceiver's attention. However, when most of the surrounding objects are large, a small object against a field of large objects may receive more attention. In either case, size represents an important variable in perception. Moreover, brighter, louder, and more colorful objects tend to attract more attention than objects of less intensity. For example, when a factory foreman yells an order at his subordinates, it will probably receive more notice (although it may not receive the desired response) from workers. It must be remembered here, however, that intensity heightens attention only when compared to other comparable stimuli. If the foreman always yells, employees may stop paying much attention to the yelling. Objects that contrast strongly with the background against which they are observed tend to receive more attention than less-contrasting objects. An example of the contrast principle can be seen in the use of plant and highway safety signs. A terse message such as "Danger" is lettered in black against a yellow or orange background. A final physical characteristic that can heighten perceptual awareness is the novelty or unfamiliarity of the object. Specifically, the unique or unexpected seen in a familiar setting (an executive of a conservative company who comes to work in Bermuda shorts) or the familiar seen in an incongruous setting (someone in church holding a can of beer) will receive attention.

Dynamic Properties. The second set of external influences on selective attention are those that either change over time or derive their uniqueness from the order in which they are presented. The most obvious dynamic property is motion. We tend to pay attention to objects that move against a relatively static background. This principle has long been recognized by advertisers, who often use signs with moving lights or moving objects to attract attention. In an organizational setting, a clear example is a rate-buster, who shows up his colleagues by working substantially faster, attracting more attention.

Another principle basic to advertising is repetition of a message or image. Work instructions that are repeated tend to be received better, particularly when they concern a dull or boring task on which it is difficult to concentrate. This process is particularly effective in the area of plant safety. Most industrial accidents occur because of careless mistakes during monotonous activities. Repeating safety rules and procedures can often help keep workers alert to the possibilities of accidents.

Personal Influences on Selective Attention

In addition to a variety of external factors, several important personal factors are also capable of influencing the extent to which an individual pays attention to a particular stimulus or object in the environment. The two most important personal influences on perceptual readiness are response salience and response disposition.

Response Salience. This is a tendency to focus on objects that relate to our immediate needs or wants. Response salience in the work environment is easily identified. A worker who is tired from many hours of work may be acutely sensitive to the number of hours or minutes until quitting time. Employees negotiating a new contract may know to the penny the hourly wage of workers doing similar jobs across town. Managers with a high need to achieve may be sensitive to opportunities for work achievement, success, and promotion. Finally, female managers may be more sensitive than many male managers to condescending male attitudes toward women. Response salience, in turn, can distort our view of our surroundings. For example, as Ruch notes:

"Time spent on monotonous work is usually overestimated. Time spent in interesting work is usually underestimated. . . . Judgment of time is related to feelings of success or failure. Subjects who are experiencing failure judge a given interval as longer than do subjects who are experiencing success. A given interval of time is also estimated as longer by subjects trying to get through a task in order to reach a desired goal than by subjects working without such motivation".

Response Disposition. Whereas response salience deals with immediate needs and concerns, response disposition is the tendency to recognize familiar objects more quickly than unfamiliar ones. The notion of response disposition carries with it a clear recognition of the importance of past learning on what we perceive in the present. For instance, in one study, a group of individuals was presented with a set of playing cards with the colors and symbols reversed – that is, hearts and diamonds were printed in black, and spades and clubs in red. Surprisingly, when subjects were presented with these cards for brief time periods, individuals consistently described the cards as they expected them to be (red hearts and diamonds, black spades and clubs) instead of as they really were. They were predisposed to see things as they always had been in the past.

Thus, the basic perceptual process is in reality a fairly complicated one. Several factors, including our own personal makeup and the environment, influence how we interpret and respond to the events we focus on. Although the process itself may seem somewhat complicated, it in fact represents a shorthand to guide us in our everyday behavior. That is, without perceptual selectivity we would be immobilized by the millions of stimuli competing for our attention and action. The perceptual process allows us to focus our attention on the more salient events or objects and, in addition, allows us to categorize such events or objects so that they fit into our own conceptual map of the environment.

EXPANDING AROUND THE GLOBE

Which Car Would You Buy?

When General Motors teamed up with Toyota to form California-based New United Motor Manufacturing Inc. (NUMMI), they had a great idea. NUMMI would manufacture not only the popular Toyota Corolla but would also make a GM car called the Geo Prizm. Both cars would be essentially identical except for minor styling differences. Economies of scale and high quality would benefit the sales of both cars. Unfortunately, General Motors forgot one thing. The North American consumer holds a higher opinion of Japanese-built cars than American-made ones. As a result, from the start of the joint venture, Corollas have sold rapidly, while sales of Geo Prizms have languished.

With hindsight, it is easy to explain what happened in terms of perceptual differences. That is, the typical consumer simply perceived the Corolla to be of higher quality (and perhaps higher status) and bought accordingly. Not only was the Prizm seen more skeptically by consumers, but General Motors' insistence on a whole new name for the product left many buyers unfamiliar with just what they were buying. Perception was the main reason for lagging sales; however, the paint job on the Prizm was viewed as being among the worst ever. As a result, General Motors lost $80 million on the Prizm in its first year of sales. Meanwhile, demand for the Corolla exceeded supply.

The final irony here is that no two cars could be any more alike than the Prizm and the Corolla. They are built on the same assembly line by the same workers to the same design specifications. They are, in fact, the same car. The only difference is in how the consumers perceive the two cars – and these perceptions obviously are radically different.

Over time, however, perceptions did change. While there was nothing unique about the Prizm, the vehicle managed to sell pretty well for the automaker and carried on well into the 2000s. The Prizm was also the base for the Pontiac Vibe, which was based on the Corolla platform as well, and this is one of the few collaborations that worked really well.

Social Perception in Organizations

Up to this point, we have focused on an examination of basic perceptual processes – how we see objects or attend to stimuli. Based on this discussion, we are now ready to examine a special case of the perceptual process – social perception as it relates to the workplace. Social perception consists of those processes by which we perceive other people. Particular emphasis in the study of social perception is placed on how we interpret other people, how we categorize them, and how we form impressions of them.

Clearly, social perception is far more complex than the perception of inanimate objects such as tables, chairs, signs, and buildings. This is true for at least two reasons. First, people are obviously far more complex and dynamic than tables and chairs. More-careful attention must be paid in perceiving them so as not to miss important details. Second, an accurate perception of others is usually far more important to us personally than are our perceptions of inanimate objects. The consequences of misperceiving people are great. Failure to accurately perceive the location of a desk in a large room may mean we bump into it by mistake. Failure to perceive accurately the hierarchical status of someone and how the person cares about this status difference might lead you to inappropriately address the person by their first name or use slang in their presence and thereby significantly hurt your chances for promotion if that person is involved in such decisions. Consequently, social perception in the work situation deserves special attention.

We will concentrate now on the three major influences on social perception: the characteristics of (1) the person being perceived, (2) the particular situation, and (3) the perceiver. When taken together, these influences are the dimensions of the environment in which we view other people. It is important for students of management to understand the way in which they interact.

Exhibit 3.4 Major Influences on Social Perception in Organizations

The way in which we are evaluated in social situations is greatly influenced by our own unique sets of personal characteristics. That is, our dress, talk, and gestures determine the kind of impressions people form of us. In particular, four categories of personal characteristics can be identified: (1) physical appearance, (2) verbal communication, (3) nonverbal communication, and (4) ascribed attributes.

Physical Appearance. A variety of physical attributes influence our overall image. These include many of the obvious demographic characteristics such as age, sex, race, height, and weight. A study by Mason found that most people agree on the physical attributes of a leader (i.e., what leaders should look like), even though these attributes were not found to be consistently held by actual leaders. However, when we see a person who appears to be assertive, goal-oriented, confident, and articulate, we infer that this person is a natural leader. Another example of the powerful influence of physical appearance on perception is clothing. People dressed in business suits are generally thought to be professionals, whereas people dressed in work clothes are assumed to be lower-level employees.

Verbal and Nonverbal Communication. What we say to others – as well as how we say it – can influence the impressions others form of us. Several aspects of verbal communication can be noted. First, the precision with which one uses language can influence impressions about cultural sophistication or education. An accent provides clues about a person's geographic and social background. The tone of voice used provides clues about a speaker's state of mind. Finally, the topics people choose to converse about provide clues about them.

Impressions are also influenced by nonverbal communication – how people behave. For instance, facial expressions often serve as clues in forming impressions of others. People who consistently smile are often thought to have positive attitudes. A whole field of study that has recently emerged is body language, the way in which people express their inner feelings subconsciously through physical actions: sitting up straight versus being relaxed, looking people straight in the eye versus looking away from people. These forms of expressive behavior provide information to the perceiver concerning how approachable others are, how self-confident they are, or how sociable they are.

Ascribed Attributes. Finally, we often ascribe certain attributes to a person before or at the beginning of an encounter; these attributes can influence how we perceive that person. Three ascribed attributes are status, occupation, and personal characteristics. We ascribe status to someone when we are told that he or she is an executive, holds the greatest sales record, or has in some way achieved unusual fame or wealth. Research has consistently shown that people attribute different motives to people they believe to be high or low in status, even when these people behave in an identical fashion. For instance, high-status people are seen as having greater control over their behavior and as being more self-confident and competent; they are given greater influence in group decisions than low-status people. Moreover, high-status people are generally better liked than low-status people. Occupations also play an important part in how we perceive people. Describing people as salespersons, accountants, teamsters, or research scientists conjures up distinct pictures of these various people before any firsthand encounters. In fact, these pictures may even determine whether there can be an encounter.

Characteristics of the Situation

The second major influence on how we perceive others is the situation in which the perceptual process occurs. Two situational influences can be identified: (1) the organization and the employee's place in it, and (2) the location of the event.

Organizational Role. An employee's place in the organizational hierarchy can also influence his perceptions. A classic study of managers by Dearborn and Simon emphasizes this point. In this study, executives from various departments (accounting, sales, production) were asked to read a detailed and factual case about a steel company. Next, each executive was asked to identify the major problem a new president of the company should address. The findings showed clearly that the executives' perceptions of the most important problems in the company were influenced by the departments in which they worked. Sales executives saw sales as the biggest problem, whereas production executives cited production issues. Industrial relations and public relations executives identified human relations as the primary problem in need of attention.

In addition to perceptual differences emerging horizontally across departments, such differences can also be found when we move vertically up or down the hierarchy. The most obvious difference here is seen between managers and unions, where the former see profits, production, and sales as vital areas of concern for the company whereas the latter place much greater emphasis on wages, working conditions, and job security. Indeed, our views of managers and workers are clearly influenced by the group to which we belong. The positions we occupy in organizations can easily color how we view our work world and those in it. Consider the results of a classic study of perceptual differences between superiors and subordinates. Both groups were asked how often the supervisor gave various forms of feedback to the employees. The results, shown in Table 3.1, demonstrate striking differences based on one's location in the organizational hierarchy.

Table 3.1

Location of Event. Finally, how we interpret events is also influenced by where the event occurs. Behaviors that may be appropriate at home, such as taking off one's shoes, may be inappropriate in the office. Acceptable customs vary from country to country. For instance, assertiveness may be a desirable trait for a sales representative in the United States, but it may be seen as being brash or coarse in Japan or China. Hence, the context in which the perceptual activity takes place is important.

Characteristics of the Perceiver

The third major influence on social perception is the personality and viewpoint of the perceiver. Several characteristics unique to our personalities can affect how we see others. These include (1) self-concept, (2) cognitive structure, (3) response salience, and (4) previous experience with the individual.

Self-Concept. Our self-concept represents a major influence on how we perceive others. This influence is manifested in several ways. First, when we understand ourselves (i.e., can accurately describe our own personal characteristics), we are better able to perceive others accurately. Second, when we accept ourselves (i.e., have a positive self-image), we are more likely to see favorable characteristics in others. Studies have shown that if we accept ourselves as we are, we broaden our view of others and are more likely to view people uncritically. Conversely, less secure people often find faults in others. Third, our own personal characteristics influence the characteristics we notice in others. For instance, people with authoritarian tendencies tend to view others in terms of power, whereas secure people tend to see others as warm rather than cold. From a management standpoint, these findings emphasize how important it is for administrators to understand themselves; they also provide justification for the human relations training programs that are popular in many organizations today.

Cognitive Structure. Our cognitive structures also influence how we view people. People describe each other differently. Some use physical characteristics such as tall or short, whereas others use central descriptions such as deceitful, forceful, or meek. Still others have more complex cognitive structures and use multiple traits in their descriptions of others; hence, a person may be described as being aggressive, honest, friendly, and hardworking. Ostensibly, the greater our cognitive complexity – our ability to differentiate between people using multiple criteria – the more accurate our perception of others. People who tend to make more complex assessments of others also tend to be more positive in their appraisals. Research in this area highlights the importance of selecting managers who exhibit high degrees of cognitive complexity. These individuals should form more accurate perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of their subordinates and should be able to capitalize on their strengths while ignoring or working to overcome their weaknesses.

Response Salience. This refers to our sensitivity to objects in the environment as influenced by our particular needs or desires. Response salience can play an important role in social perception because we tend to see what we want to see. A company personnel manager who has a bias against women, minorities, or handicapped persons would tend to be adversely sensitive to them during an employment interview. This focus may cause the manager to look for other potentially negative traits in the candidate to confirm his biases. The influence of positive arbitrary biases is called the halo effect, whereas the influence of negative biases is often called the horn effect. Another personnel manager without these biases would be much less inclined to be influenced by these characteristics when viewing prospective job candidates.

Previous Experience with the Individual. Our previous experiences with others often will influence the way in which we view their current behavior. When an employee has consistently received poor performance evaluations, a marked improvement in performance may go unnoticed because the supervisor continues to think of the individual as a poor performer. Similarly, employees who begin their careers with several successes develop a reputation as fast-track individuals and may continue to rise in the organization long after their performance has leveled off or even declined. The impact of previous experience on present perceptions should be respected and studied by students of management. For instance, when a previously poor performer earnestly tries to perform better, it is important for this improvement to be recognized early and properly rewarded. Otherwise, employees may give up, feeling that nothing they do will make any difference.

Together, these factors determine the impressions we form of others. With these impressions, we make conscious and unconscious decisions about how we intend to behave toward people. Our behavior toward others, in turn, influences the way they regard us. Consequently, the importance of understanding the perceptual process, as well as factors that contribute to it, is apparent for managers. A better understanding of ourselves and careful attention to others leads to more accurate perceptions and more appropriate actions.

CONCEPT CHECK

1. How can you understand what makes up an individual's personality?
2. How does the content of the situation affect the perception of the perceiver?
3. What are the characteristics that the perceiver can have on interpreting personality?

Barriers to Accurate Social Perception

• How can managers and organizations minimize the negative impact of stereotypes and other barriers to accurate social perception in interpersonal relations?

In the perceptual process, several barriers can be identified that inhibit the accuracy of our perception. These barriers are (1) stereotyping, (2) selective perception, and (3) perceptual defense. Each of these will be briefly considered as it relates to social perception in work situations.

Table 3.2

Stereotyping

One of the most common barriers in perceiving others at work is stereotyping. A stereotype is a widely held generalization about a group of people. Stereotyping is a process in which attributes are assigned to people solely on the basis of their class or category. It is particularly likely to occur when one meets new people, since very little is known about them at that time. On the basis of a few prominent characteristics such as sex, race, or age, we tend to place people into a few general categories. We ascribe a series of traits to them based upon the attributes of the category in which we have put them. We assume that older people are old-fashioned, conservative, obstinate, and perhaps senile. We view professors as absentminded, impractical, idealistic, or eccentric.

One explanation for the existence of stereotypes has been suggested by Jain, Triandis, and Weick. They argue that stereotypes may be to some extent based upon fact. People tend to compare other groups with their own group, accentuating minor differences between groups to form a stereotype. For example, older people as a group may indeed be more conservative or more old-fashioned. These traits then become emphasized and attributed to particular older individuals.

At least three types of stereotype can be found in organizations: those dealing with age, race, and gender. Age stereotypes can be found throughout organizations. A recent study by von Hippel et al. found that there are still clear stereotypes of older employees. They are thought to be (1) more resistant to organizational change, (2) less creative, (3) less likely to take calculated risks, (4) lower in physical capacity, (5) less interested in learning new techniques, and (6) less capable of learning new techniques. When asked to make personnel decisions concerning older people, the business students generally followed several trends. First, they gave older people lower consideration in promotion decisions. Older people also received less attention and fewer resources for training and development. Finally, older people tended to be transferred to other departments instead of confronted by their superiors when a problem with their performance emerged.

Similar problems arise for people from different racial or cultural backgrounds and for gender. A particular problem in many companies today is that of attitudes toward women as managers or executives. Although succeeding in a managerial position is always difficult, the job is all the harder if your coworkers, superiors, or subordinates are not supportive.

EXPANDING AROUND THE GLOBE

To See Ourselves as Others See Us

In considering stereotyping in organizations, it may be interesting to examine how people in different countries and cultures see others around the world. Specifically, we should note that "foreigners" often hold certain stereotypes of what a "typical" American looks and acts like. Look, for example, at Table 3.3. This table shows how people in seven countries around the globe view the typical American. Note the sizable differences in perceptions.

Table 3.3

When examining these comments, consider the extent to which you think these perceptions and stereotypes are accurate or inaccurate. Why do people in different countries form such divergent opinions of our country? How do their perceptions color the behavior and effectiveness of American managers working abroad? On the basis of this assessment, you might want to reassess your own stereotypes of people in different countries. How accurate do you think your own stereotypes have been?

Selective Perception

Selective perception is the process by which we systematically screen out information we don't wish to hear, focusing instead on more salient information. Saliency here is obviously a function of our own experiences, needs, and orientations. The example of the Dearborn and Simon study of managers described earlier provides an excellent glimpse of selective perception. Production managers focused on production problems to the exclusion of other problems. Accountants, personnel specialists, and sales managers were similarly exclusive. Everyone saw his own specialty as more important in the company than other specialties.

Another example of selective perception in groups and organizations is provided by Miner. Miner summarizes a series of experiments dealing with groups competing on problem-solving exercises. Consistently, the groups tended to evaluate their own solutions as better than the solutions proposed by others. Such findings resemble a syndrome found in many research organizations. There is a frequent tendency for scientists to view ideas or products originating outside their organization or department as inferior and to judge other researchers as less competent and creative than themselves. This is often referred to as the "Not-Invented-Here" syndrome. Similar patterns of behavior can be found among managers, service workers, and secretaries.

Perceptual Defense

A final barrier to social perception is perceptual defense. Perceptual defense is founded on three related principles:

1. Emotionally disturbing or threatening stimuli have a higher recognition threshold than neutral stimuli.
2. Such stimuli are likely to elicit substitute perceptions that are radically altered so as to prevent recognition of the presented stimuli.
3. These critical stimuli arouse emotional reactions even though the stimuli are not recognized.

In other words, through perceptual defense we tend to distort or ignore information that is either personally threatening or culturally unacceptable. Because emotionally disturbing stimuli have a higher recognition threshold, people are less likely to fully confront or acknowledge the threat. Instead, they may see entirely different or even erroneous stimuli that are safer. Even so, the presence of the critical stimulus often leads to heightened emotions despite the lack of recognition. For instance, suppose that during a contract negotiation for an assembly plant, word leaked out that because of declining profits, the plant might have to close down permanently. Anxious workers might ignore this message and instead choose to believe the company management is only starting false rumors to increase their leverage during wage negotiations. Even if the leverage claim is accepted by the workers as truth, strong emotional reactions against the company can be expected.

One effect of perceptual defense is to save us from squarely facing events that we either do not wish to handle or may be incapable of handling. We dissipate our emotions by directing our attention to other (substitute) objects and hope the original event that distressed us will eventually disappear.

Perceptual defense is especially pronounced when people are presented with a situation that contradicts their long-held beliefs and attitudes. In a classic study of perceptual defense among college students, Haire and Grunes presented the students with descriptions of factory workers. Included in these descriptions was the word intelligent. Because the word was contrary to the students' beliefs concerning factory workers, they chose to reject the description by using perceptual defenses. Four such defense mechanisms can be identified:

1. Denial. A few of the subjects denied the existence of intelligence in factory workers.
2. Modification and distortion. This was one of the most frequent forms of defense. The pattern was to explain away the perceptual conflict by joining intelligence with some other characteristics – for instance, "He is intelligent but doesn't possess initiative to rise above his group".
3. Change in perception. Many students changed their perception of the worker because of the intelligence characteristic. Most of the change, however, was very subtle – for example, "cracks jokes" became "witty".
4. Recognition, but refusal to change. A very few students explicitly recognized the conflict between their perception of the worker and the characteristic that was confronting them. For example, one subject stated, "The trait seems to be conflicting . . . most factory workers I have heard about aren't too intelligent".

Perceptual defense makes any situation in which conflict is likely to be present more difficult. It creates blind spots, causing us to fail to hear and see events as they really are. The challenge for managers is to reduce or minimize the perception of threat in a situation so these defenses are not immediately called into play. This can be accomplished by reassuring people that things that are important to them will not be tampered with, or by accentuating the positive.

CONCEPT CHECK

1. What are the barriers that can inhibit the accuracy of our perception?
2. What are the cultural factors that can influence perception?
3. What is perceptual defense, and what are examples of the mechanisms that can be identified?

Attributions: Interpreting the Causes of Behavior

• How do people attribute credit and blame for organizational events?

A major influence on how people behave is the way they interpret the events around them. People who feel they have control over what happens to them are more likely to accept responsibility for their actions than those who feel control of events is out of their hands. The cognitive process by which people interpret the reasons or causes for their behavior is described by attribution theory. Specifically, "attribution theory concerns the process by which an individual interprets events as being caused by a particular part of a relatively stable environment.

Attribution theory is based largely on the work of Fritz Heider. Heider argues that behavior is determined by a combination of internal forces (e.g., abilities or effort) and external forces (e.g., task difficulty or luck). Following the cognitive approach of Lewin and Tolman, he emphasizes that it is perceived determinants, rather than actual ones, that influence behavior. Hence, if employees perceive that their success is a function of their own abilities and efforts, they can be expected to behave differently than they would if they believed job success was due to chance.

The Attribution Process

The underlying assumption of attribution theory is that people are motivated to understand their environment and the causes of particular events. If individuals can understand these causes, they will then be in a better position to influence or control the sequence of future events. This process is diagrammed in Exhibit 3.5. Specifically, attribution theory suggests that particular behavioral events (e.g., the receipt of a promotion) are analyzed by individuals to determine their causes. This process may lead to the conclusion that the promotion resulted from the individual's own effort or, alternatively, from some other cause, such as luck. Based on such cognitive interpretations of events, individuals revise their cognitive structures and rethink their assumptions about causal relationships. For instance, an individual may infer that performance does indeed lead to promotion. Based on this new structure, the individual makes choices about future behavior. In some cases, the individual may decide to continue exerting high levels of effort in the hope that it will lead to further promotions. On the other hand, if an individual concludes that the promotion resulted primarily from chance and was largely unrelated to performance, a different cognitive structure might be created, and there might be little reason to continue exerting high levels of effort. In other words, the way in which we perceive and interpret events around us significantly affects our future behaviors.

Exhibit 3.5 The General Attribution Process

Internal and External Causes of Behavior

Building upon the work of Heider, Harold Kelley attempted to identify the major antecedents of internal and external attributions. He examined how people determine – or, rather, how they actually perceive – whether the behavior of another person results from internal or external causes. Internal causes include ability and effort, whereas external causes include luck and task ease or difficulty. Kelley's conclusion, illustrated in Exhibit 3.6, is that people actually focus on three factors when making causal attributions:

Exhibit 3.6 Causes of Internal and External Attributions

1. Consensus. The extent to which you believe that the person being observed is behaving in a manner that is consistent with the behavior of his or her peers. High consensus exists when the person's actions reflect or are similar to the actions of the group; low consensus exists when the person's actions do not.
2. Consistency. The extent to which you believe that the person being observed behaves consistently – in a similar fashion – when confronted on other occasions with the same or similar situations. High consistency exists when the person repeatedly acts in the same way when faced with similar stimuli.
3. Distinctiveness. The extent to which you believe that the person being observed would behave consistently when faced with different situations. Low distinctiveness exists when the person acts in a similar manner in response to different stimuli; high distinctiveness exists when the person varies his or her response to different situations.

How do these three factors interact to influence whether one's attributions are internal or external? According to the exhibit, under conditions of high consensus, high consistency, and high distinctiveness, we would expect the observer to make external attributions about the causes of behavior. That is, the person would attribute the behavior of the observed (say, winning a golf tournament) to good fortune or some other external event. On the other hand, when consensus is low, consistency is high, and distinctiveness is low, we would expect the observer to attribute the observed behavior (winning the golf tournament) to internal causes (the winner's skill).

In other words, we tend to attribute the reasons behind the success or failure of others to either internal or external causes according to how we interpret the underlying forces associated with the others' behavior. Consider the example of the first female sales manager in a firm to be promoted to an executive rank. How do you explain her promotion – luck and connections or ability and performance? To find out, follow the model. If she, as a sales representative, had sold more than her (male) counterparts (low consensus in behavior), consistently sold the primary product line in different sales territories (high consistency), and was also able to sell different product lines (low distinctiveness), we would more than likely attribute her promotion to her own abilities. On the other hand, if her male counterparts were also good sales representatives (high consensus) and her sales record on secondary products was inconsistent (high distinctiveness), people would probably attribute her promotion to luck or connections, regardless of her sales performance on the primary product line (high consistency).

CONCEPT CHECK

Attitudes and Behavior

• How can a work environment characterized by positive work attitudes be created and maintained?

Closely related to the topic of perception and attribution – indeed, largely influenced by it – is the issue of attitudes. An attitude can be defined as a predisposition to respond in a favorable or unfavorable way to objects or persons in one's environment. When we like or dislike something, we are, in effect, expressing our attitude toward the person or object.

Three important aspects of this definition should be noted. First, an attitude is a hypothetical construct; that is, although its consequences can be observed, the attitude itself cannot. Second, an attitude is a unidimensional concept: An attitude toward a particular person or object ranges on a continuum from very favorable to very unfavorable. We like something or we dislike something (or we are neutral). Something is pleasurable or unpleasurable. In all cases, the attitude can be evaluated along a single evaluative continuum. And third, attitudes are believed to be related to subsequent behavior. We will return to this point later in the discussion.

An attitude can be thought of as composed of three highly interrelated components: (1) a cognitive component, dealing with the beliefs and ideas a person has about a person or object; (2) an affective component (affect), dealing with a person's feelings toward the person or object; and (3) an intentional component, dealing with the behavioral intentions a person has with respect to the person or object.

Now that we know what an attitude is, let us consider how attitudes are formed and how they influence behavior. A general model of the relationship between attitudes and behavior is shown in Exhibit 3.8. As can be seen, attitudes lead to behavioral intentions, which, in turn, lead to actual behavior. Following behavior, we can often identify efforts by the individual to justify his behavior. Let us examine each of these components of the model separately, beginning with the process of attitude formation.

Exhibit 3.8 Relationship between Attitudes and Behavior

How Are Attitudes Formed?

There is considerable disagreement about this question. One view offered by psychologist Barry Staw and others is the dispositional approach, which argues that attitudes represent relatively stable predispositions to respond to people or situations around them. That is, attitudes are viewed almost as personality traits. Thus, some people would have a tendency – a predisposition – to be happy on the job, almost regardless of the nature of the work itself. Others may have an internal tendency to be unhappy, again almost regardless of the actual nature of the work. Evidence in support of this approach can be found in a series of studies that found that attitudes change very little among people before and after they make a job change. To the extent that these findings are correct, managers may have little influence over improving job attitudes short of trying to select and hire only those with appropriate dispositions.

A second approach to attitude formation is called the situational approach. This approach argues that attitudes emerge as a result of the uniqueness of a given situation. They are situationally determined and can vary in response to changing work conditions. Thus, as a result of experiences at work (a boring or unrewarding job, a bad supervisor, etc)., people react by developing appropriate attitudes. Several variations on this approach can be identified. Some researchers suggest that attitudes result largely from the nature of the job experience itself. That is, an employee might reason: "I don't get along well with my supervisor; therefore, I become dissatisfied with my job". To the extent that this accurately describes how attitudes are formed, it also implies that attitudes can be changed relatively easily. For example, if employees are dissatisfied with their job because of conflicts with supervisors, either changing supervisors or changing the supervisors' behavior may be viable means of improving employee job attitudes. In other words, if attitudes are largely a function of the situation, then attitudes can be changed by altering the situation.

Other advocates of the situational approach suggest a somewhat more complicated process of attitude formation – namely, the social-information-processing approach. This view, developed by Pfeffer and Salancik, asserts that attitudes result from "socially constructed realities" as perceived by the individual. That is, the social context in which the individual is placed shapes his perceptions of the situation and hence his attitudes.

Exhibit 3.9 A Social-Information-Processing View of Attitudes

Here is how it works. Suppose a new employee joins a work group consisting of people who have worked together for some time. The existing group already has opinions and feelings about the fairness of the supervisor, the quality of the workplace, the adequacy of the compensation, and so forth. Upon arriving, the new worker is fed socially acceptable cues from co-workers about acceptable attitudes toward various aspects of the work and company. Thus, due in part to social forces, the new employee begins to form attitudes based on externally provided bits of information from the group instead of objective attributes of the workplace. If the social-information-processing perspective is correct, changing the attitudes of one person will be difficult unless the individual is moved to a different group of coworkers or unless the attitudes of the current coworkers are changed.

Which approach is correct? Research indicates that both the dispositional and the social-information-processing views have merit, and it is probably wise to recognize that socially constructed realities and dispositions interact to form the basis for an individual's attitudes at work. The implication of this combined perspective for changing attitudes is that efforts should not assume that minor alterations in the situation will have significant impacts on individual attitudes, but that systematic efforts focusing on groups and interconnected social systems are likely required for successful changes in attitudes.

Behavioral Intentions and Actual Behavior

Regardless of how the attitudes are formed (either through the dispositional or social-information-processing approach), the next problem we face is understanding how resulting behavioral intentions guide actual behavior. Clearly, this relationship is not a perfect one. Despite one's intentions, various internal and external constraints often serve to modify an intended course of action. Hence, even though you decide to join the union, you may be prevented from doing so for a variety of reasons. Similarly, a person may have every intention of coming to work but may get the flu. Regardless of intent, other factors that also determine actual behavior often enter the picture.

Behavioral Justification

Finally, people often feel a need for behavioral justification to ensure that their behaviors are consistent with their attitudes toward the event. This tendency is called cognitive consistency. When people find themselves acting in a fashion that is inconsistent with their attitudes – when they experience cognitive dissonance – they experience tension and attempt to reduce this tension and return to a state of cognitive consistency.

For example, a manager may hate his job but be required to work long hours. Hence, he is faced with a clear discrepancy between an attitude (dislike of the job) and a behavior (working long hours) and will probably experience cognitive dissonance. In order to become cognitively consistent, he can do one of two things. First, he can change his behavior and work fewer hours. However, this may not be feasible. Alternatively, he can change his attitude toward the job to a more positive one. He may, for example, convince himself that the job is really not that bad and that working long hours may lead to rapid promotion. In doing so, he achieves a state of cognitive consistency. Failure to do so will more than likely lead to increased stress and withdrawal from the job situation.

CONCEPT CHECK

1. What is attitude, and how does it impact the work environment?
2. What is behavioral justification?

Work-Related Attitudes

• How can managers and organizations develop a committed workforce?

When we apply the concept of attitudes to work settings, we have to specify which attitude we are concerned with. Although a variety of work-related attitudes can be identified, the one receiving the most attention is job satisfaction. As this is one of the most widely studied concepts in organizational behavior, we will examine it here in some detail.

Job Involvement and Organizational Commitment

First, however, we should introduce two job attitudes that should also be recognized: job involvement and organizational commitment. Job involvement refers to the extent to which a person is interested in and committed to assigned tasks. This is not to say that the person is "happy" (or satisfied) with the job, only that he feels a certain responsibility toward ensuring that the job itself is done correctly and with a high standard of competence. Here the focus of the attitude is the job itself.

Organizational commitment, on the other hand, represents the relative strength of an individual's identification with and involvement in an organization. Commitment can be characterized by three factors: (1) a strong belief in and acceptance of the organization's goals and values, (2) a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization, and (3) a strong desire to maintain membership in the organization. When viewed this way, commitment represents something beyond mere passive loyalty to the company. Instead, it involves an active relationship with the organization in which individuals are willing to give something of themselves in order to help the company succeed and prosper. A careful reading of the research on keys to the success of many Japanese firms will highlight the importance played by a committed workforce. Now we turn to the third work attitude of job satisfaction.

Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction may be defined as "a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one's job or job experience". It results from the perception that an employee's job actually provides what he values in the work situation.

Several characteristics of the concept of job satisfaction follow from this definition. First, satisfaction is an emotional response to a job situation. It can be fully understood only by introspection. As with any attitude, we cannot observe satisfaction; we must infer its existence and quality either from an employee's behavior or verbal statements.

Second, job satisfaction is perhaps best understood in terms of discrepancy. Several writers have pointed to the concept of job satisfaction as being a result of how much a person wants or expects from the job compared to how much he actually receives. People come to work with varying levels of job expectations. These expectations may vary not only in quality (different people may value different things in a job), but also in intensity. On the basis of work experiences, people receive outcomes (rewards) from the job. These include not only extrinsic rewards, such as pay and promotion, but also a variety of intrinsic rewards, such as satisfying coworker relations and meaningful work. To the extent that the outcomes received by an employee meet or exceed expectations, we would expect the employee to be satisfied with the job and wish to remain. On those occasions when outcomes actually surpass expectations, we would expect employees to reevaluate their expectations and probably raise them to meet available outcomes. However, when outcomes do not meet expectations, employees are dissatisfied and may prefer to seek alternative sources of satisfaction, either by changing jobs or by placing greater value on other life activities, such as outside recreation.

Dimensions of Job Satisfaction. It has been argued that job satisfaction actually represents several related attitudes. So, when we speak of satisfaction, we must specify "satisfaction with what?" Research has suggested that five job dimensions represent the most salient characteristics of a job about which people have affective responses. These five are:

1. Work itself. The extent to which tasks performed by employees are interesting and provide opportunities for learning and for accepting responsibility.
2. Pay. The amount of pay received, the perceived equity of the pay, and the method of payment.
3. Promotional opportunities. The availability of realistic opportunities for advancement.
4. Supervision. The technical and managerial abilities of supervisors; the extent to which supervisors demonstrate consideration for and interest in employees.
5. Coworkers. The extent to which coworkers are friendly, technically competent, and supportive.

Although other dimensions of job satisfaction have been identified, these five dimensions are used most often when assessing various aspects of job attitudes in organizations.

Measurement of Job Satisfaction. Probably the most common attitude surveys in organizations today focus on job satisfaction. Satisfaction is considered by many managers to be an important indicator of organizational effectiveness, and therefore it is regularly monitored to assess employee feelings toward the organization. By far the most common means of assessing satisfaction is the rating scale. Rating scales represent direct verbal self-reports concerning employee feelings; they have been widely used in companies since the 1930s. Several job satisfaction scales exist. One of the most popular is the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ). This instrument uses a Likert-response format to generate satisfaction scores on 26 scales, including satisfaction with compensation, promotion opportunities, coworkers, recognition, and so forth. You can assess your scoring on a short version of this instrument in the assessment section of this chapter.

The MSQ and similar rating scales have several advantages for evaluating levels of job satisfaction. First, they are relatively short and simple and can be completed by large numbers of employees quickly. Second, because of the generalized wording of the various terms, the instruments can be administered to a wide range of employees in various jobs. It is not necessary to alter the questionnaire for each job classification. Finally, extensive normative data (or norms) are available. These norms include summaries of the scores of thousands of people who have completed the instruments. Hence, it is possible for employers in other organizations to determine relative standings.

However, although rating scales have many virtues compared to other techniques, at least two drawbacks must be recognized. First, as with any self-report inventory, it is assumed that respondents are both willing and able to describe their feelings accurately. As noted by several researchers, people often consciously or unconsciously distort information that they feel is damaging and enhance information that they feel is beneficial. For example, it is possible that employees who think their supervisors may see the results of their questionnaire may report overly favorable job attitudes.

A second problem with rating scales is the underlying assumption that questionnaire items mean the same thing to all people. There may, in fact, not be a common interpretation across individuals. Even so, rating scales have proved to be helpful in assessing satisfaction in various aspects of the job situation. Managers can use the results to identify potential problem areas and to generate discussions and action plans of how to correct aspects of jobs or the organization that are causing unacceptable levels of dissatisfaction.

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION AND QUALITY

How Satisfied Are Employees?

If you've ever flown on Southwest Airlines, you can tell something is different just from the first interaction with their employees. From the flight attendants, to the pilot's announcements, and even to their customer service representatives, they have a cheerful disposition, and contrary to popular belief, this isn't an act.

In 2017, Southwest Airlines announced that it would be sharing their $586 million in profits with its 54,000 employees, giving them a bonus of approximately 13.2 percent on average. This doesn't account for the extra $351 million that they contributed to the employee's 401(k) plans either. This is just one of the many ways that Southwest has given back to their employees in a day and age when minimum wage for even qualified candidates seems like a fight.

Southwest CEO Gary Kelly reflects that "Our people-first approach, which has guided our company since it was founded, means our company does well, our people do really, really well. Our people work incredibly hard and deserve to share in Southwest's success". With this attitude, it is no wonder the employees on and off your flight are showing their satisfaction in their everyday attitudes. The year 2017 was the 43rd year that Southwest shared its profits with their people. While compensation ranks among one of the most attributed traits of a company to help with employee satisfaction, it goes much deeper than that to keep motivation high.

At Southwest, they rank employees first and customers second. They create a culture of fun and inclusive core values that help to give their employees a sense of community and belonging. When their employees are motivated and take pride in what they do, they are able to give their best to their customers every day, which accounts for their highly ranked customer satisfaction results on surveys each year.

Questions:

1. Oftentimes it is hard to stay at the top. What considerations should Southwest take to maintain their employee satisfaction and keep improving?
2. Not all companies can share profits. What would you suggest to a new company that is just starting off to help gain high employee satisfaction?

CONCEPT CHECK

1. How can organizations foster positive job involvement and instill positive attitudes in their employees?
2. What are the dimensions of job satisfaction?

Key Terms

Body language

The manner in which people express their inner feelings subconsciously through physical actions such as sitting up straight versus being relaxed or looking people straight in the eye versus looking away from people.

Halo effect

The influence of positive arbitrary biases.

Perception

The process by which one screens, selects, organizes, and interprets stimuli to give them meaning.

Perceptual organization

When meaning has been attached to an object, individuals are in a position to determine an appropriate response or reaction to it.

Perceptual selectivity

Refers to the process by which individuals select objects in the environment for attention.

Response disposition

The tendency to recognize familiar objects more quickly than unfamiliar ones.

Response salience

The tendency to focus on objects that relate to our immediate needs or wants.

Social perception

Consists of those processes by which we perceive other people.

Perceptual defense

A defense that perceives emotionally disturbing or threatening stimuli as having a higher recognition threshold than neutral stimuli. Such stimuli are likely to elicit substitute perceptions that are radically altered so as to prevent recognition of the presented stimuli that arouse emotional reactions even though the stimuli are not recognized.

Selective perception

The process by which we systematically screen out information we don't wish to hear, focusing instead on more salient information.

Stereotyping

A tendency to assign attributes to people solely on the basis of their class or category.

Attribution biases

Covers both the fundamental attribution error and the self-serving bias.

Attribution theory

Concerns the process by which an individual interprets events as being caused by a particular part of a relatively stable environment.

Fundamental attribution error

The tendency to underestimate the effects of external or situational causes of behavior and to overestimate the effects of internal or personal causes.

Self-serving bias

The tendency for individuals to attribute success on an event or project to their own actions while attributing failure to others.

Affect

Dealing with a person's feelings toward the person or object.

Attitude

A predisposition to respond in a favorable or unfavorable way to objects or persons in one's environment.

Behavioral justification

The need to ensure that one's behaviors are consistent with their attitudes toward the event.

Cognitive consistency

The need for behavioral justification to ensure that a person's behaviors are consistent with their attitudes toward an event.

Cognitive dissonance

Finding one's self acting in a fashion that is inconsistent with their attitudes and experiencing tension and attempting to reduce this tension and return to a state of cognitive consistency.

Dispositional approach

Argues that attitudes represent relatively stable predispositions to respond to people or situations around them.

Situational approach

This approach argues that attitudes emerge as a result of the uniqueness of a given situation.

Social-information-processing approach

Asserts that attitudes result from "socially constructed realities" as perceived by the individual.

Job involvement

Refers to the extent to which a person is interested in and committed to assigned tasks.

Job satisfaction

A pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one's job or job experience.

Organizational commitment

Represents the relative strength of an individual's identification with and involvement in an organization.

Summary of Learning Outcomes

The Perceptual Process

1. How do differences in perception affect employee behavior and performance?

One of the key determinants of people's behavior in organizations is how they see and interpret situations and people around them. It is vital for anyone (manager or subordinate) who desires to be more effective to understand the critical aspects of context, object, and perceiver that influence perceptions and interpretations and the relationship between these and subsequent attitudes, intentions, and behaviors. This understanding will not only facilitate the ability to correctly understand and anticipate behaviors, but it will also enhance the ability to change or influence that behavior. Perception is the process by which individuals screen, select, organize, and interpret stimuli in order to give them meaning. Perceptual selectivity is the process by which individuals select certain stimuli for attention instead of others. Selective attention is influenced by both external factors (e.g., physical or dynamic properties of the object) and personal factors (e.g., response salience). Social perception is the process by which we perceive other people. It is influenced by the characteristics of the person perceived, the perceiver, and the situation.

Barriers to Accurate Social Perception

2. How can managers and organizations minimize the negative impact of stereotypes and other barriers to accurate social perception in interpersonal relations?

Stereotyping is a tendency to assign attributes to people solely on the basis of their class or category. Selective perception is a process by which we systematically screen or discredit information we don't wish to hear and instead focus on more salient information. Perceptual defense is a tendency to distort or ignore information that is either personally threatening or culturally unacceptable.

Attributions: Interpreting the Causes of Behavior

3. How do people attribute credit and blame for organizational events?

Attribution theory concerns the process by which individuals attempt to make sense of the cause-effect relationships in their life space. Events are seen as being either internally caused (that is, by the individual) or externally caused (that is, by other factors in the environment). In making causal attributions, people tend to focus on three factors: consensus, consistency, and distinctiveness. The fundamental attribution error is a tendency to underestimate the effects of external or situational causes of behavior and overestimate the effects of personal causes.

The self-serving bias is a tendency for people to attribute success on a project to themselves while attributing failure to others.

Attitudes and Behavior

4. How can a work environment characterized by positive work attitudes be created and maintained?

An attitude can be defined as a predisposition to respond in a favorable or unfavorable way to objects or persons in one's environment. There are two theories concerning the manner in which attitudes are formed. The first, called the dispositional approach, asserts that attitudes are fairly stable tendencies to respond to events in certain ways, much like personality traits. Thus, some people may be happy on almost any job regardless of the nature of the job. The second, called the situational approach, asserts that attitudes result largely from the particular situation in which the individual finds himself. Thus, some jobs may lead to more favorable attitudes than others. The social-information-processing approach to attitudes is a situational model that suggests that attitudes are strongly influenced by the opinions and assessments of coworkers. Cognitive consistency is a tendency to think and act in a predictable manner. Cognitive dissonance occurs when our actions and our attitudes are in conflict. This dissonance will motivate us to attempt to return to a state of cognitive consistency, where attitudes and behaviors are congruent.

Work-Related Attitudes

5. How can managers and organizations develop a committed workforce?

Job involvement refers to the extent to which an individual is interested in his or her assigned tasks. Organizational commitment refers to the relative strength of an individual's identification with and involvement in a particular organization. Job satisfaction is a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one's job or job experience.