CHAPTER TWO

THE FOUNDATION OF INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOUR

What is Personality?(ስብዕና ምንድን ነው?)
When we talk of personality, we don't mean a person has charm, a positive attitude toward life,
or a smiling face. 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. For our purposes, you should think of personality as the stable patterns of
behavior and consistent internal states that determine how an individual reacts to and interacts
with others. This is most often described in terms of measurable personality traits that a person
exhibits.

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, i.e., 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.

Research studies conducted on identical twins that were reared in different places, temperament
of young children, longitudinal studies on the job satisfaction of employees over long period of
time and across different situation reveal that the heredity plays a substantial role in determining
the behavior of individuals. If personality characteristics were completely dictated by heredity,
they would be fixed at birth and no amount of experience could alter them. If you were relaxed

Page | 1
and easygoing as a child, for example, that would be the result of your genes, and it would not be
possible for you to change these characteristics. But personality characteristics are not
completely dictated by heredity.
Environment: The culture in which people are brought up in their lives and they type of
socialization process such as family’s child rearing practices, socioeconomic status of the family,
number of children in a family, birth order, education of the parents, friends and peer group
pressures, religious practices, the type of schooling and recreational activities, pastime behavior
etc. play a critical role in shaping our personalities.

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 s/he
adjusts to the demands and requirements of the environment.
Situation: A third factor, the situation, influences 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 close 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.

Major Personality Attributes Influencing OB

In this section, we will evaluate specific personality attributes that have been found to be
powerful predictors of behavior in organizations. The first is related to locus of control—how
much power over your destiny you think you have. The others are Machiavellian-ism,self-
esteem, self-monitoring, and risk-taking.
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,

Page | 2
those who believe they control their destinies, have been labeled internals, whereas the latter,
who see their lives as being controlled by outside forces, have been called externals.

Research shows that locus of control influences organizational behavior in a variety of

occupational settings. Evidently, because they perceive themselves as being able to control what
happens to them, people who are high on internal control are more satisfied with their jobs, earn
more money, and achieve higher organizational positions. Furthermore, they seem to perceive
less stress, to cope with stress better, and engage in more careful career planning.
Machiavellianisme
The personality characteristic of Machiavellian ism (Mach) is named after Niccolo Machiavelli,
who wrote in the sixteenth century about how to gain and manipulate power. An individual high
in Machiavellian ism is pragmatic, maintains emotional distance, and believes that ends can
justify means. "If it works, use it"is consistent with a high-Mach perspective.

High-Mach 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.
Self-Esteem
It refers to the individuals’ self worthiness and the extent to which they regard themselves as
capable, successful, important and worthwhile.

The research on self-esteem (SE) offers some interesting insights into organizational behavior.
For example, self-esteem is directly related to expectations for success. High-SE believe they
possess more of the ability they need in order to succeed at work. Individuals with high SE will
take more risks in job selection and are more likely to choose unconventional jobs than people
with low SE.

Page | 3
The most generalization finding on self-esteem is that low-SE are more susceptible to external
influence than high-SE. Low-SE depends 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-SE. In managerial positions, low-SEs
tend to be concerned with pleasing others and, therefore, are less likely to take unpopular stands
than are high-SE. 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-SE.
Self-Monitoring
It refers to an individual's ability to adjust his/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 persona and their private self. Low self-monitors can't disguise themselves
this way. They tend 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 high self-monitor is
capable of putting on different "faces" for different audiences.
Risk Taking
People differ in their willingness to take chances. 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. For instance, research revealed that 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.

Matching Personalities and Jobs

Refers to the extent to which people successfully match their personalities with their jobs. This
concern 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/her occupational environment. John Holland
present six personality types and proposes that the satisfaction and the propensity to leave a job

Page | 4
depend on the degree to which people successfully match their personalities with a suitable
occupational environment. Holland’s typology of personality is given as below:
Realistic: The type of activities for this category involves physical activities which require skill,
strength and coordination. The suitable personality characteristics to meet these activities would
be shy, genuine, persistent, stable, conforming, practical etc. The congruent occupations for this
category of people are assembly line worker, farmer, mechanic etc.
Investigative: The type of activities for this category involves thinking, organizing and
understanding. The appropriate characteristics to meet these activities would be analytical,
original, curious, independent etc. The congruent occupations for this category of people are
biologists, economist, mathematician, news reporter.
Social: The type of activities for this category involves helping and developing others. The
relevant personality characteristics to meet these activities would be sociable, friendly,
cooperative, understanding. The congruent occupations for this category of people are social
worker, teacher, counselor, clinical psychologists.
Conventional: The type of activities for this category involves rule-regulated, orderly and
unambiguous activities. The appropriate characteristics to these activities would be conforming,
efficient, practical, unimaginative, and inflexible. The congruent occupations for this category of
people are accountant, corporate manager, bank teller, file clerk.
Enterprising: The type of activist for this category involves verbal activities specific to
influence others and attain power. The suitable personality characteristics to meet these activities
would be self-confident, ambitious, energetic, and domineering. The congruent occupations for
this category of people are lawyer, real estate agent, public relations specialist, small business
manager.
Artistic: The type of activities for this category involves ambiguous and unsystematic activities
that allow creative expression. The suitable personality characteristics to meet these activities
would be imaginative, disorderly, idealistic, emotional, and impractical. The congruent
occupations are painter, musician, writer, interior decorator etc.

Holland’s model proposes that a realistic person in a realistic jobs is in a more compatible
situation than is a realistic person in an investigate job. Sociable person should be in social jobs,
conventional people in convention jobs and so forth. Due care must be exercised to ensure a

Page | 5
perfect between personality characteristics and the type of jobs offered to the candidates during
the selection process. The person-organization fit essentially argues that people leave jobs that
are not compatible with their personalities.

Learning
What is learning? A psychologist's definition is considerably broader than the lay person's 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.

This definition has several components that deserve clarification. First, learning involves change.
This may be good or bad from an organizational point of view. People can learn unfavorable
behaviors-to hold prejudices or to restrict their output, for example-as well as 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.

Theories of Leaning
How do we learn? Three theories have been offered to explain the process by which we acquire
patterns of behavior: classical conditioning, ope-rant 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 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 apiece of meat, the dog exhibited a noticeable

Page | 6
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-i.e., 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 on 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 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 ope rant conditioning.
Ope rant Conditioning: Ope rant 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

Page | 7
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
ope rant conditioning. Building on earlier work in the field, Skinner's research extensively
expanded our knowledge of ope rant conditioning. Even his staunchest critics, who represent a
sizable group, admit his ope rant concepts work.

Behavior is assumed to be determined from without-i.e., 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.
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 ope rant conditioning-i.e., 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.

Methods of Shaping Behavior

There are four ways in which to shape behavior: through positive reinforcement, negative
reinforcement, punishment, and extinction. When a response is followed with something
pleasant, it is called positive reinforcement. This would describe, for instance, the boss who
praises an employee for a job well done. When a response is followed by the termination or

Page | 8
withdrawal of something unpleasant, it is called negative reinforcement. Managers who
continually nag their employees unless they work hard are attempting to use negative
reinforcement. The only way employees can stop the aversive nagging is to work hard and be
diligent. The nagging maintains the probability of productive responses by its removal. In this
situation, employees often get pretty good at anticipating the onset of nagging by the look on the
boss’s face. This look serve as a signal that they can avoid the nagging altogether if they work
harder. Punishment is causing an unpleasant condition in an attempt to eliminate an undesirable
behavior. Giving an employee a two-day suspension from work without pay for showing up
drunk is an example of punishment. Eliminating any reinforcement that is maintaining a behavior
is called extinction. When the behavior is not reinforced, it tends to gradually be extinguished.
College instructors who wish to discourage students from asking questions in class can eliminate
this behavior in their students by ignoring those who raise their hands to ask questions. Hand
raising will become extinct when it is invariably met with an absence of reinforcement.

Both positive and negative reinforcement result in learning. They strengthen a response and
increase the probability of repetition. In the preceding illustrations, praise strengthens and
increases the behavior of doing a good job because praise is desired. The behavior of looking
busy is similarly strengthened and increased by its terminating the undesirable consequence of
being called on by the teacher. Both punishment and extinction, however, weaken behavior and
tend to decrease its subsequent frequency.

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, what we perceive can be
substantially different from objective reality. We often disagree about what is real. 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.

Page | 9
Why is perception important in the study of OB? Simply because people's behavior is based on
their perception of what reality is, not on reality itself. The world as it is perceived is the world
that is behaviorally important.

Perceptual Process
1. Observation: It depicts the environmental stimuli being observed by the five senses of the
perceiver.
2. Selection of the Stimuli: This is governed both by factors external to the perceiver, such as
the characteristics of the stimulus, and internal to the individual, such as the personality
disposition and motivations of the perceiver.
3. Organizing: In this stage, the perceiver is influenced by figure and ground, grouping, and
several perceptual errors such as stereotyping, halo effects, projection and perceptual defense.
4. Interpretation: This stage is governed by the perceiver’s assumptions of people and events
and attributions about causes of behavior and feelings.
5. Behavior Response: In this stage the response of the perceiver takes on both covert and overt
characteristics. Covert response will be reflected in the attitudes, motives, and feelings of the
perceiver and overt responses will be reflected in the actions of the individual.

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 s/he 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 s/he perceives. Among the more
relevant personal characteristics affecting perception are attitudes, motives, interests, past
experience, and expectations.

Page | 10
Makeda likes small classes because she enjoys asking her teachers a lot of questions. Nebyou
prefers large lectures. He rarely asks questions and likes the anonymity that goes with being lost
in a sea of bodies. On the first day ofclasses this term, Makeda and Nebyou find themselves
walking into the university auditorium 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 Makeda and Nebyou, it shouldn't surprise you to find they interpret what they
see differently. Makeda sulks, while Nebyou's smile does little to hide his relief in being able to
blend unnoticed into the large auditorium. 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 are out to "get my job," regardless of the intention of the
subordinates. Likewise, people who are devious are prone to see others as also devious.

It should not surprise you that a plastic surgeon is more likely to notice an imperfect nose than a
plumber is. 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

Page | 11
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 hundygftg6e337red 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 police officers to be authoritative, young people to be unambitious, personnel
directors to "like people," or individuals holding public office to be "power hungry," 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. So, too, are extremely
attractive or unattractive individuals. 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. You do not see funny-
shaped patches of black and white because you recognize these shapes and organize the black
shapes against the white background.

Page | 12
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. Timing may also imply dependence when, for example, anew sales
manager is assigned to a territory and, soon after, sales in that territory skyrocket. The
assignment of the new sales manager and the increase in sales may not be related-the increase
may be due to the introduction of a new product line or to one of many other reasons-but there is
a tendency to perceive the two occurrences as related.
The Situation: The context in which we see objects or events is important. Elements in the
surrounding environment influence our perceptions.

I may not notice a 25-year-old female in an evening gown and heavy makeup at a nightclub on
Saturday night. Yet that same woman so attired formy Monday morning management class
would certainly catch my attention (and that of the rest of the class). Neither the perceiver nor the
target changed between Saturday night and Monday morning, but the situation is different.

Frequently Used Shortcuts in Judging Others

We use a number of shortcuts when we judge others. Perceiving and interpreting what others do
is burdensome. As a result, individuals develop techniques for making the task more
manageable. These techniques are frequently valuable-they allow us to make accurate
perceptions rapidly and provide valid data for making predictions. However, they are not
foolproof. They can and do get us into trouble. An understanding of these shortcuts can be
helpful toward recognizing when they can result in significant distortions.

Selective Perception: Any characteristic that makes a person, object, or event stand out will
increase the probability it will be perceived. Why? Because it is impossible for us to assimilate
everything we see-only certain stimuli can be taken in. This explains why, as we noted earlier,
you’re more likely to notice cars like your own or why some people may be reprimanded by their
boss for doing something that when done by another employee goes unnoticed. Since we can't

Page | 13
observe everything going on about us, we engage in selective perception. A classic example
shows how vested interests can significantly influence what problems we see.

How does selectivity work as a shortcut in judging other people? Since we cannot assimilate all
we observe, we take in bits and pieces. But these bits and pieces are not chosen randomly; rather,
they are selectively chosen according to our interests, background, experience, and attitudes.
Selective perception allows us to "speed-read" others, but not without the risk of drawing an
inaccurate picture. Because we see what we want to see, we can draw unwarranted conclusions
from an ambiguous situation. If a rumor is going around the office that your company's sales are
down and large layoffs may becoming, a routine visit by a senior executive from headquarters
might be interpreted as the first step in management's identification of people to be fired, when in
reality such an action may be the furthest thing from the mind of the senior executive.
Halo Effect: When we draw a general impression about an individual based on a single
characteristic, such as intelligence, sociability, or appearance, a halo effect is operating. This
phenomenon frequently occurs when students appraise their classroom instructor. Students may
isolate a single trait such as enthusiasm and allow their entire evaluation to be tainted by how
they judge the instructor on this one trait. Thus an instructor may be quiet, assured,
knowledgeable, and highly qualified, but if his style lacks zeal, he will be rated lower on a
number of other characteristics.

The propensity for the halo effect to operate is not random. Research suggest sit is likely to be
most extreme when the traits to be perceived are ambiguous in behavioral terms, when the traits
have moral overtones, and when the perceiver is judging traits with which he or she has had
limited experience.
Contrast Effects: An old adage among entertainers who perform in variety shows advises; never
follow an act that has kids or animals in it. Why? The common belief is that audiences love
children and animals so much, you will look bad in comparison. This example demonstrates how
contrast effects can distort perceptions. We don't evaluate a person in isolation. Our reaction to
one person is often influenced by other persons we've recently encountered.

Page | 14
An illustration of how contrast effects operate is an interview situation in which one sees a pool
of job applicants. Distortions in any given candidate's evaluation can occur as a result of his or
her place in the interview schedule. The candidate is likely to receive a more favorable
evaluation if preceded by mediocre applicants, and a less favorable evaluation if preceded by
strong applicants.
Projection: It is easy to judge others if we assume they are similar to us. For instance, if you
want challenge and responsibility in your job, you assume others want the same. Or you're
honest and trustworthy, so you take it for granted that other people are equally honest and
trustworthy. This tendency to attribute one's own characteristics to other people-which is called
projection-can distort perceptions made about others.

People who engage in projection tend to perceive others according to what they themselves are
like rather than according to what the person being observed is really like. When observing
others who actually are like them, these observers are quite accurate-not because they are
perceptive, but rather because they always judge people as being similar to themselves, so when
they finally find someone who is, they are naturally correct. When managers engage in
projection, they compromise their ability to respond to individual differences. They tend to see
people as more homogeneous than they really are.
Stereotyping: When we judge someone on the basis of our perception of the group to which s/he
belongs, we are using the shortcut called stereotyping. Generalization, of course, is not without
advantages. It's a means of simplifying a complex world and it permits us to maintain
consistency. It's less difficult to deal with an unmanageable number of stimuli if we use
stereotypes. As an example, assume you're a sales manager looking to fill a sales position in your
territory. You want to hire someone who is ambitious, hardworking, and who can deal well with
adversity. You've had good success in the past by hiring individuals who participated in athletics
during college. So you focus your search by looking for candidates who participated in collegiate
athletics. In so doing, you've cut down considerably on your search time. Further, to the extent
that athletes are ambitious, hardworking, and able to deal with adversity, the use of this
stereotype can improve your decision making. The problem, of course, is when we inaccurately
stereotype." All college athletes are not necessarily ambitious, hardworking, or good at dealing
with adversity, just as all accountants are not quiet and introspective.

Page | 15
Obviously, one of the problems of stereotypes is they are so widespread, despite the fact that
they may not contain a shred of truth or may be irrelevant. Their being widespread may only
mean that many people are making the same inaccurate perception based on a false premise
about a group.

Values
Values represent basic convictions that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is
personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state of
existence. They contain a judgmental element in that they carry an individual's ideas about what
is right, good, or desirable. Values have both content and intensity attributes. The content
attribute says that a mode of conduct or end-state of existence is important. The intensity
attribute specifies how important it is. When we rank an individual's values in terms of their
intensity, we obtain that person's value system. All of us have a hierarchy of values that forms
our value system. This system is identified by the relative importance we assign to such values as
freedom, pleasure, self-respect, honesty, obedience, and equality.
Types of Values
Terminal values: refer to desirable end-states of existence. These are the goals a person would
like to achieve during his/her lifetime.
Instrumental values: refer to preferable modes of behavior, or means of achieving the terminal
values.

Attitudes
Attitudes are evaluative statements-either favorable or unfavorable-concerning objects, people,
or events. They reflect how one feels about something. When I say “I like my job,” I am
expressing my attitude about work.
Components of Attitudes
There are three components of attitudes such as cognitive (thinking), affective (feeling) and
conotive (behavioral).
Cognitive component: Cognitive component deals with thinking, evaluation, comparison,
rational, logical issues with respect to the targeted object. The belief that "discrimination is

Page | 16
wrong" is a value statement. Such an opinion is the cognitive component of an attitude. This will
facilitate to form a strong belief or further strengthen the belief system towards various objects.
Affective Component: Affect is the emotional or feeling segment of an attitude and is reflected
in the statement "I don't like Jon because he discriminates against minorities." Finally, affect can
lead to behavioral outcomes.
Behavioral Components: 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 Jon because of my feeling about him.

Sources of Altitudes
Attitudes, like values, are acquired from parents, teachers, and peer group members. We are born
with certain genetic predispositions. Then, in our early years, we begin modeling our attitudes
after those we admire, respect, or maybe even fear. 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. If the "right thing" isto favor
eating at McDonald's, you're likely to hold that attitude.

In contrast to values, your attitudes are less stable. Advertising messages, for example, attempt to
alter your attitudes toward a certain product or service: If the people at Ford can get you to hold a
favorable feeling toward their cars, that attitude may lead to a desirable behavior (for them)-your
purchase of a Ford product.

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.

Types of Attitudes

Page | 17
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 three attitudes: job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational
commitment.
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.
Job Involvement: It 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: 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 job 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.

Page | 18