My mother always felt I could do anything. It was my mother who trained me, taught me the facts of life. She wanted me to be independent. Control your own destiny-she always had that idea. Saw reality. No mincing words. Whenever I got out of line she would whack me one. But always positive. Always constructive, uplifting...(she taught me to "face reality, even when doing so is uncomfortable, and communicate candidly, even when doing so may sting. She always told me, 'if you don't control your destiny, someone else will control it for you." Jack Welch, CEO General Electric since he was 45 years old
To understand Jack Welch's behavior or anyone's behavior, it is helpful to start with a simple model of behavior.
|
Like all of us, Jack Welch's behavior and personality were heavily shaped by his early experiences. To some degree, all of our behavior is shaped by our personalities and our early experiences. In trying to understand human behavior in organizations, the first place we will look is at the individual-based forces that shape our behavior. Then we will turn to the external or environmental forces.
SOME SIMPLE NOTIONS ABOUT HUMAN BEHAVIOR
To understanding human behavior, it is helpful to start with some simple notions as stated in the Figure below. While it may be stretching it to state that all behavior is caused, motivated, and goal directed, for our purposes in organizations it is useful to begin assuming this is true. Thus, although we may not know the causes, motives, or goals, we can usefully assume that behavior of another person is based on this foundation.
caused motivated goal directed |
Similarly, another simple concept is the notion that all behavior is embedded in a context or situation. Again, this is a simplification in that there is some behavior that is purely individually based or externally based, but for our purposes, this model virtually always holds true.
The chapter on individual behavior will make the point that for the most part a person's "personality" is mostly shaped by the time he or she enters an organization. To a large extent the "I" is stable and persistent. On the other hand, we can have a major influence on the "E" part of the model, the environment. It is this part of the model we can control or at least influence, even if we seem to have little formal power in an organization. This environment includes some factors we may have little control over (eg. organizational policies, procedures, reward structures, and strategies) and some factors we may have much control (eg. interpersonal, supervisory and leadership actions). Thus, the environment includes the direct and indirect influences and structures the person experiences in an organization.
While we have virtually no impact on determining the "I", it is important to realize that since behavior involves the interaction of the "I" with the "E," we need to understand the "I" so that one may use appropriate environmental (E) factors to try to bring about the desired behavior (B). For example, certain people (I) may function much better under tight control systems while others may find such controls very dysfunctional.
While this chapter emphasizes the "I" (individual) part of this model, it should be stressed that the behavior we see is always in a context (E) and can't be totally understood outside of that context. For example, an employee's chronic lateness should be examined in terms of both individual factors and environmental factors such as organization supervision, working conditions, etc.
In the Spring of 1993 a group (including many children) of followers of David Kouresh, called the Branch Davidians, barricaded themselves in their armed compound in Waco, Texas. Over a period of months the FBI attempted to resolve the standoff without bloodshed. Some of the efforts included blasting "easy rock" music, shining lights at night, cutting off telephones, etc. Finally in an attempt to end the standoff, the FBI attempted to lob tear gas into the compound; the result was a tragic fire (said to be set by the cultists) with over ninety lives lost.
This tragic incident centered around attempts to influence behavior. Clearly the FBI had no control over the "I," the individual. The FBI couldn't shape the personalities, but they needed to understand the personalities in order to design environmental factors in such a way as to bring about the desired behavior (B) of people leaving the compound peacefully. The FBI thought that sleep deprivation, lack of communication with relatives, and awful music would cause the ties between the leader and the followers to be broken. Unfortunately the opposite happened for many of the followers. Lacking contact with outsiders, the hold of the leader over the followers became even stronger. In fact the FBI's action appeared to actually reinforce belief in the apocolyptic rantings of Kouresh increasing the likelihood that people would stay with him in the final suicidal ending.
Also, since Kouresh's behavior didn't make sense to most people, many called him irrational. Since Kouresh perished in the fire, we may never know much about his motivation, but it would be more useful if we had assumed that Kouresh and his followers' behavior had goals, causes, and motives.
While our lives in organizations are unlikely to involve such charged and tragic events, there will be many situations where the two simple models above are strong tools to use to understand and influence human behavior. Like the FBI we won't have any control over the "I," but we need to understand the "I," and then use an (E) that "fits" the (I). Furthermore, we need to operate on the assumption that all behavior is caused, motivated, and goal directed. |
This chapter focuses on the "I," or the individual. We will discuss personality and the important components of one's personality. As stated before, it is important to note that behavior is rarely a function purely of individual factors; it is almost always rooted in a social context.
Individual Factors that Affect Behavior
Research has identified a number of biographical factors that can affect behavior at work. The relationship between these factors and such outcomes as performance, job satisfaction and turnover is controversial and important:
age-what is the relationship between age and productivity
gender-are there gender differences that actually affect job performance-eg. problem solving skills, competitive drive, sociability, etc.
marital status
tenure
People do have differing abilities. We can't all run as fast as Carl Lewis or sing like our favorite star. But what aspects of abilities are important to think about in a work context:
intellectual abilities: the following are important intellectual abilities that will have differing impacts on different jobs:
-number aptitude
-verbal comprehension
-perceptual speed
-inductive reasoning
physical abililties: again for some jobs this is relevant and not for others
the ability-job fit
Personality
Personality comprises the personal characteristics that account for consistent patterns of behavior. More formally, it is the "stable set of characteristics and tendencies that determine those commonalities and differences in the psychological behavior (thoughts, feelings, actions) of people that have continuity in time and that may not be easily understood as the sole result of the social and biological pressures of the moment. This suggests that to some degree, we are like all other people, like some other people, and like no other person. Gordon Allport defined personality as "the dynamic organization whithin the individual of those psychophysical systems that determine one's unique adjustments to one's environment."
all behavior is caused, motivated, and goal directed human behavior involves acts that are goal oriented, and result from perception, learning, and cognition personality is a "whole" that actualizes itself in an environment; the individual can't be understood apart from the environment personality tends to be self-consistent; one's actions tend to preserve one's identity personality is time oriented-it embodies the past and anticipates the future |
What Determines Personality?
heredity: to a degree heredity affects personality but it doesn't determine personality; later experiences tend to play a much greater role
environment: family, friends, social groups, our culture
situation: different situations call forth different aspects of our personality (eg. we are different at an employment interview than we are at a party with friends).
Personality Traits
Many psychologists have tried to classify personalities and isolate traits. In one study 17,953 individual traits were identified. Obviously this is of little use. The following table suggests Primary Traits.
| reserved | vs. | outgoing |
| less intelligent | vs. | more intelligent |
| affected by feelings | vs. | emotionally stable |
| submissive | vs. | dominant |
| serious | vs. | happy-go-lucky |
| expedient | vs. | conscientious |
| timid | vs. | venturesome |
| tough minded | vs. | sensitive |
| trusting | vs. | suspicious |
| practical | vs. | imaginative |
| forthright | vs. | shrewd |
| self-assured | vs. | apprehensive |
| conservative | vs. | experimenting |
| group-dependent | vs. | self-sufficient |
| uncontrolled | vs. | controlled |
| relaxed | vs. | tense |
How much weight should be given to personality traits as an explanation of behavior. Probably very little. This is because so much of behavior is situationally based; so much of accounts for a particular behavior is a function of the situation the person is in. If a person has a particular trait in extreme, it might predict behavior, but for most of us, we are not in this situation. For example, if someone is extremely introverted, this trait may have a major influence. For most of us, a mild introversion might affect our behavior but would not determine our behavior; the situation would play a much greater role.
Some Personality Attributes Influencing Organizational Behavior
Students of organizational behavior have focused on a number of traits that may play a major role in a work situation. these include
locus of control: Do people feel they are masters of their own fate (internals) or do they see their fate as being controlled by outside forces (externals)
achievement orientation
-high need achievers (nAch) strive to do things better, overcome obstacles, like tasks of intermediate difficulty
authoritarianism: like to emphasize power differences between peole
machiavellianism: high machs are more manipulative, win more, persuade more and are persuaded less
self-esteem
risk-taking
Can Personalities Change?
A personality becomes fairly stable and relatively unchanged by early adulthood. However, this does not mean that behavior is unchangeable. Remember that personality is not behavior; personality is one component of behavior. We might think of a person's personality as a large set of propensities or potentialities. At a given time, a subset of these propensities may be triggered. A large number of propensities may be dormant for long periods of time or forever. We may have propensities that we choose to submerge or inhibit. It is as if going past a Dunkin Donuts triggers a strong urge to buy a snack we later wish we hadn't eaten. We may choose to avoid walking past the Donut store to avoid the stimuli that triggers the behavior. Thus we have changed our behavior although we have not changed the propensity.
From the chart, we see that personality is a function of basic needs interacting with such factors as family and culture. Our personality or personality systems affect our perceptions and affects our expectations about choices and expected outcomes. These in turn affect our behavior.
The Connection Between Needs, Personality, and Actions
| Basic Human Needs modified by past experiencies: heredity, culture, family, group membership, life, age, experiences, etc. | Leads to | Which Determines | Resulting in: | |||
|
| Personality or personal Systems |
| Perceptions, and Expectancies about Choices |
| Behavior Choices Action | |
The personal system is structured around the basic subsystems in the chart plus a derived subsystem (the self concept) that exerts a unifying force for the others.
Environ-mental Stimuli
Threats
| perceptual screen (protects self- concept) - map - filter - defenses |
-the ideal self personal goals, attitudes, competencies, beliefs, values, drives, past experiences, social influences (family, reference groups, roles)
| Overt Behavior
Covert Behavior
|
The Self Concept
The general consistency of the personal system is organized by the individual's self-concept--the way the person sees him/herself. The self-concept reflects the person's own unique way of organizing goals, competencies, beliefs, and values. Competencies are normally developed in order to meet goals, which, in turn, must fit with beliefs and values. For example, a man who decides to become an accountant is likely to be someone who sees himself as methodical, believes in the fallibility of people, and is dedicated to the values of being orderly and cautious. His manner of behavior is likely to be quiet and sober, his dress fairly inconspicuous, and his car somewhat conservative. In short: A person's self-concept generally has enough internal consistency so that it is possible to infer various aspects of the person from other known aspects.
People strive to maintain their concepts of themselves by engaging in behavior that is consistent with their goals, competencies, beliefs, and values as they see them. even to the point of pain or failure to achieve stated goals. Insofar as people succeed in confirming their self-concepts, they experience a basic sense of adequacy and worth. Sometimes people become so highly invested in protecting their self-concepts that they begin to have difficulty in seeing themselves as others do. This can lead to defensive behavior and to interpersonal conflicts.
People also strive to enhance their self-concepts by learning and by developing themselves toward some "ideal self". This tendency can often pose a dilemma for the individual. To enhance one's self-concept may mean change in some aspects of it; and to change one's self-concept runs counter to the tendency to maintain and/or protect it. It is a struggle between the security of knowing what one is and the risk in becoming something more. However, while a person may often feel comfortable with the idea of simply "being what he/she is," most people do strive to Jive up to their ideal selves as much as possible. To the extent that the ideal self is not too discrepant from the perceived self, it serves as an incentive to learn and grow. When the discrepancy is too great, the person is likely to suffer from a lack of self-acceptance, which in turn leads to self-doubt and then to behavior that, sadly enough, tends to confirm the low self-concept.
Sometimes, as we've stated earlier, people engage in behavior that from an outside perspective seems puzzling and even self-defeating. Perhaps you have known people who are capable of doing outstanding work in their courses but settle for Bs by exerting minimal effort. From your own perspective you might wonder what is gained by that behavior. You know that the students see themselves as bright; how could "settling for a B" confirm that? From inside, such a student's reasoning might go as follows: I don't need to get A's to prove I'm smart; look how easily I can get B's with hardly any effort. " It seems that: Behavior that appears illogical or self-defeating from an outside perspective usually makes sense when viewed from inside; people generally make choices that are consistent with their self-concepts.
Note that all external or environmental stimuli is filtered through the perceptual screen. Thus all information that enters into our cognition is filtered into a "perceived reality." There is no objective reality that is identical across people. Each person experiences his or her own reality.
It is important to keep in mind that although we divide the discussion into different components the various aspects of an individual are all interrelated. Growth and change in any one component of the personal system always affect the others. Let's examine each of these components:
Personal Goals
Goals are those objects or events in the future that we strive for in order to meet our basic needs. A given goal (for example, a high income) may be related to several needs (such as security, prestige, and achievement). Also, several goals (for example, success as a manager, generating new ideas, and studying clarinet) may all be related to one basic need (perhaps to satisfy a creative potential). Can you identify some of your goals as a student and relate them to basic needs? Is it likely, for example, that one of your primary goals in this course is to get a good grade? For some students, the high grade means security in school, for others it means achievement, and still others see the grade as only one of many goals related to learning and self-actualization. In a work situation such things as promotions, salary increases, or the chance to work on challenging new projects serve as goals for employees. While these goals clearly tap into one or another basic need, the connections vary from one personal system to another. The task of a manager involves maintaining compatibility among the goals of individuals, those of subparts of the organization, and those of the total system,
If you were to list your various goals, you could probably arrange them in some rough order of importance. Like the hierarchy of universal needs, a person tends to have a hierarchy of personal goals. Having a hierarchy helps one to set priorities and to resolve internal conflicts between goals. An example of an internal conflict might be the person whose goals include both rapid advancement in a career and also having a close family. Both require high levels of commitment but frequently pull a person in opposite directions. Currently, women are increasingly faced with this particular dilemma, and for some priorities are changing dramatically. Many people experience the same pulls.
If you knew only a person's goals, you could probably explain significant aspects of that person's behavior. From the other side, it's often fairly easy to infer a person's goal(s) by observing the person's behavior (although it's not a bad idea to ask!). As a manager you will almost always be concerned about the individual goals of those you work with, in particular as they pertain to your own goals and to those of the larger system.
One of the paradoxes of life is that people sometimes don't know what their goals are until they've reached them. Have you ever had the experience of realizing how much you wanted something only after you got it-or failed to get it? One's concept of oneself often makes it difficult to recognize certain aspects of one's own personal system. Later in this chapter we will examine just how the self-concept can both include and block out parts of a person's total personal system.
How well people can meet their goals depends in part upon the competencies they have developed, which we will discuss next.
Attitudes
People often vary significantly in responses to the same stimuli. Sometimes when people respond to stimuli in ways we don't expect, we consider it "illogical." But we are not simple stimuli-response organisms.
Each of us experiences or views a situation not quite like any other person. We can characterize these individualized "response sets" as attitudes. Attitudes have been called a "fundamental state of readiness for motive arousal." Attitudes comprise the prejudices, predilections or predispositions we have that shape the way we experience situations and in turn attitudes will affect what motives are aroused in us.
For example, the same job can excite one person and bore another. Many factors account for these differences including different experiences, backgrounds, skills, and aptitudes.
Competencies
Competencies are the areas of knowledge, ability, and skill that increase an individual's effectiveness in dealing with the world.
People are not born with competencies; they must learn them, though each person has varied natural capacities in different areas. Since the learning process is time and energy consuming, people tend to have a great investment in their competencies. While one may at times be willing and able to modify one's goals in a given situation, it is more difficult to alter competencies; new learning and change take time. Each person tends to be good at particular activities and strives constantly to reinforce these by engaging in behaviors that utilize them. When circumstances either block one from doing what one is good at or require one to do things one is not well qualified to do, then a person experiences some degree of threat.
A person does not always see his or her own competencies as others do. Managers often surprise their employees by telling them what fine or poor job they are doing. While it is possible to predict performance from an external assessment of a person's competence to understand behavior usually requires knowing that person's own view of the competencies.
Take the perpetually silent group member, for example. Though there can be may reasons for a person staying silent, one such student explained that he saw himself as hardworking but not very intelligent, and he greatly feared making a fool of himself in front of the group. At the beginning he thought he would play it safe for a while and then slowly get in; but once the group noticed his silence, he felt the possibility of "screwing up" was even greater, since anything he said would stand out more and be carefully evaluated. As someone who "couldn't stand being laughed at" it was better to have the group confused about his silence than "sure he wasn't smart enough." And even when he had something useful to say, which was often, since he believed himself to be conscientious and thus always prepared well, the words would freeze in his throat. When someone was "nice" to him, he felt all the more embarrassed for not contributing, and when he was confronted about it, he was sure he had been correct about the danger of being ridiculed. He had become boxed as a noncontributing member by both his own fears and the emergent expectations of group members. While the box was mostly of his own making, it appeared quite different when seen from inside than when examined from without. Not knowing his internal concerns, his group members viewed him as lazy and non-contributing..
Competencies form an important part of the personal system. To the extent that a person can find ways to translate competencies into effective behavior, the person experiences reinforcement of them. The wider the range of one's competencies, the more likely one is to find avenues for their fulfillment. The narrower the range, the more limited one feels in coping with the world, and the more limited one is in the possible range of goals one can attain in life.
Beliefs: Beliefs are ideas people have about the world and how it operates
Everyone has beliefs about people, human nature, what life is all about, what the business world is like, what professors are like, and so on, A person brings beliefs into every situation and seeks to confirm those that fit the situation. Sometimes events do not support one's beliefs, and one is surprised (pleasantly at times, unhappily at others). If the disconfirmation is very strong, one becomes defensive, disparaging, resistant, and so forth. People like to have events support their beliefs; it makes them feel "right" and helps them to maintain a stable "fix" on the world. Can you think of some beliefs that you brought into this course? Did you believe, for example, that organizational behavior is all common sense? Was that confirmed or disconfirmed. Did you have some preconceived ideas about how groups function? What happened to these ideas?
One of the dilemmas posed by a person's beliefs is the fact that they often become self-fulfilling prophecies: somehow people have a way of making things happen (even bad things) that they believe will happen. Some people fail at a task mainly because they believe they will fail. When you're sure you can't do something, you normally lose the very drive it takes to succeed in a difficult task. Of course there is the satisfaction of knowing that you were right in the first place, which is a small but concrete consolation.
Managers can trap themselves into a set of beliefs that are dysfunctional but self-confirming. Some years ago Douglas McGregor described two distinctly different sets of managerial beliefs. One set which he labeled Theory X.
1. The average human being has an inherent dislike of work and will avoid it if he can. " 2. Most people need to be coerced, controlled, directed, threatened with punishment to get them to put forth adequate effort toward the achievement of organizational objectives, 3. The average human being prefers to be directed, wishes to avoid responsibility, has relatively little ambition, wants security above all.
| 1. The expenditure of physical and mental effort in work is as natural as play or rest. 2. People will exercise self-direction and self-control in the service of objectives to which they are committed. 3. Commitment to objectives is a function of the rewards associated with their achievement, 4. The average human being learns under proper conditions not only to accept but to seek responsibility. |
Think about how a manager with such beliefs might react if he/she noticed two employees lingering past the normal lunch hour. Would the manager bother to find out if they were discussing something work-related? Many managers would be prone to assume otherwise and would reprimand the employees, who in turn just might "prove" the manager to be correct by reacting negatively and by figuring that they might just as well be what the boss thinks they are anyway. The other set of assumptions, which McGregor labeled "Theory Y," (See the Figure)
How do your beliefs compare with those in Theory "X" and "Y?" Can you apply them directly to class, or work? Which beliefs do you think your instructor holds? What about other instructors? Can you infer which set of beliefs are held from the behavior you see? Can you, for example, see how believing Theory X would lead to being tough and demanding in almost every situation, whereas Theory Y can lead to toughness and high expectations in one situation but gentle prodding in another? Managers very often confirm their assumptions by treating people in ways that bring out the very behavior they expect, thus confirming what they believed in the first place. Sometimes parents treating a teenager in "childlike" ways makes the person behave "like a child." What about the teacher who believes that students will cheat if they are not watched carefully? That can lead to extensive controls, which students resent. Thus, the minute the teacher stops watching, cheating will occur. On the other hand, the manager who is willing to delegate more responsibility sometimes discovers that people are capable of taking it. Obviously this is not always the case; there will always be people (workers, students, and others) who do seem to operate best under Theory X assumptions and others who do best in a Theory Y setting. No one set of beliefs is valid for all situations.
Competent, flexible managers are open to all possibilities, all kinds of people, and all kinds of situations. Their beliefs remain tentative, always subject to testing and revision.
One way of looking at the concept of "theory" is to view it as a set of beliefs, but ones that have been developed from systematic observation and research. Just as any beliefs tend to guide a person's behavior, managers use theory to guide their behavior in relation to members of an organization, And just as the validity of many beliefs depends upon the circumstances, the theories of a manager are most useful when they are open to the contingencies of the situation.
Values
Values tend to form the foundation of a person's character. While some of one's values may change over the course of a lifetime, they tend to remain fairly deeply entrenched in one's personality. A person develops a sense of right or wrong, good or bad, beginning quite early in life. Many of one's ideas change through the teenage years, but as mature adults, we tend to hold on to and defend some basic core within us, which tells one what is really important in life and basic to a person as an individual. Examples of values would be such ideas as:
a. Always being honest with others.
b. Always standing on your own and not burdening others with your problems
c. Always facing up to life's difficulties and not running away
d. Never deliberately hurting another's feelings.
e. Never letting anyone feel you have not lived up to your responsibilities.
f. Always doing your best at any activity you try,
g. Never going "overboard" about interests.
h. Never allowing anyone to get ahead of you.
i. Never putting your faith in individuals, only institutions!
These are the kinds of attitudes that a person normally refuses to violate; they determine people's integrity as individuals. Following
one's values enhances the basic sense of personal worth; failing
to follow them causes guilt, shame, and self-doubt.
Values also tend to exist in a hierarchy of importance. Some are likely to be more central than others. When people experience value conflict, this hierarchical arrangement often helps them to make a decision. For example, an accountant needs help solving an audit; she believes in standing on her own two feet, so she does not want to seek help. But she also believes that it is even more important to be fair to the client, so she goes beyond her independence values and consults with an expert colleague.
Internal value conflicts are often very hard to resolve. For example, imagine yourself in a position where you must fire an employee for being absent too much due to alcoholism. One of your values is to always be honest and another is to always be kind. How would you balance these values against one another? Can you find a way to honor them both? For sorne people, being honest with the person might be felt as an unkind act or being kind to the person as a dishonest act. Perhaps you can think of examples in your own life where you found yourself in a values conflict. In situations like that the way one sees oneself not only guides behavior but is also forged, making future choices more consistent with one's most deeply held values.
It is not unusual to find yourself in circumstances where your values conflict with your needs or goals. Suppose, for example, in order to be successful, advance, and be recognized by your superiors in an organization, you had to engage in behavior that you considered unacceptable (e.g. , political backbiting, concealing information about a defective product, using the rumor mill to make a rival look bad). Your goal of advancement-perhaps even your need to survive in an uncertain job market-could push you to behave in ways that conflict with your values, at least your intended values. What you end up doing might then reflect your adopted values, Can you think of current or recent situations in your life that illustrate this dilemma?
In short, we can say that the area of personal values serves as the principal governing body of the personal system. The individual is enhanced by behavior that reinforces values, less affected by behavior that is that is not value laden, and violated by behavior that is not consistent with deeply held values. The value component of the personal system can limit the range of goals, competencies, and beliefs allowable, and it tends to evoke the strongest defensive behavior when under threat of challenge.
Defending the Self-Concept: the Perceptual Filter or Map
One of the major issues in understanding others lies in the nature of all human perception. Organizational reality-what others and the organization expect, reward, or demand-can only be known by any individual through his/her own perceptions. Although it makes many people uncomfortable to acknowledge this, what a person sees and hears tends to be selective and to involve a degree of distortion shaped by the person's self-concept; one perceives what one needs or expects to perceive. For example, a good accountant can glance at a page full of figures and almost see mistakes "jump out." The correct numbers are barely seen; those that don't fit are noticed. Remember the story about the tailor who finally met his idol, President Kennedy? When asked what the president was like, he replied, "Oh, I'd say a 42 long with a slight slope to the right shoulder." An organization having difficulty will be seen differently by the production, marketing, and accounting managers; each is likely to perceive the area he/she is most familiar with as needing the most resources but doing the best job.
This selective process can be functional; it saves time, allows people to concentrate on what's really important, and can help them perceive the meaning in incomplete messages, words, and so forth. On the other hand, distortion and selection can be dysfunctional; expecting the boss to be aloof and distant, for example, can make his nervousness or shyness seem cold and "confirm" what is expected. When natural perceptual processes keep people from seeing what would be useful to see, they can create real difficulties.
In addition, since any mental concept is an abstraction and therefore a simplification of reality, distortion is an inevitable part of committing experience to memory. Humans fit experience into pre-existing conceptions, discarding details and lumping things together can be functional (just as is selective perception); it allows the creation of a degree of order from chaos. By equating new experiences with old ones, previous experiences can be utilized. But this efficient sorting method also has potential dangers: The new can be overly distorted to fit preexisting concepts, ignoring important details, failing to discriminate differences, and resulting in stereotyping rather than accuracy.
In short, a person's self-concept-the way in which his/her goals, beliefs, competencies and values come together-alters how everything is seen. What one person would perceive as a rotten break, another sees as a golden opportunity. Comments that one person sees as unbearable pressure from others to conform to the group norms about preparing well for meetings, another dismisses as just joking around. What one student sees as a smile on the professor's face, another sees as a smirk. What one person sees as a funny joke, to another is sexual harassment.
The extent to which people perceive events as threatening will depend upon their past history with similar events. Since each of our histories has been uniquely different, it becomes difficult to anticipate just how someone else will react to a situation. In general: The more emotionally loaded an event is (for whatever reasons) for an individual, the greater will be the tendency for perceptual distortion to occur.
Fortunately, much of what occurs on a day-to-day basis in most organizations can be viewed by many without strong feelings and therefore with relatively low distortion or disagreement. But most of the important challenges for managers involve emotionally loaded situations-such as confronting resistant subordinates or peers, trying to please or move the boss, or struggling to pull a meeting together to reach a decision to which all will commit-and arouse just the kinds of reactions that strongly affect perceptions.
Some psychologists prefer to think of perception in terms of filters or cognitive maps. They suggest that we all have "maps" that we use in different parts of our lives-personal life, work life, social life, etc. These maps determine how we focus and interpret events. It is a kind of "inference machine." These maps tend to be "self-sealing" especially if shared by a group. Maps are often implicit and invisible and sub-conscious. One of the functions of the maps is to keep internal beliefs consistent and unchallenged. We tend to fight to keep our "maps" intact. The maps can be "hard-won" and we may fight hard to keep them. The primary function of the map is to make simplicity out of ambiguity and complexity. This is particulary true when we are threatened.
Note in the model that the Screen protects the Self-Concept by filtering out threatening stimuli from the environment. This allows the personality to maintain itself. All people need this kind of protection. The environment is a confusing mess and the filter allows people to make sense of their environments. Of course if the screen becomes too thick and too little external stimuli "gets through," this can also be dysfunctional and the individual will fail to recognize and adapt to external stimuli, in essence, becoming cut off from the environment. This would be as unhealthy as letting too much stimuli through the filter.
Consider an example. If you get a "C" on a case analysis that you do, for many this is a threatening bit of data, especially if one's self-concept is built around a self-perception of competence and accomplishment. This information about the grade passes through the "filter" before it reaches the self concept. A number of things can happen in this shaded area.
1. The individual may attack the source of the threat (the professor) and try to discredit the source (the professor is stupid, too dumb to understand my ideas; he doesn't explain assignments well, etc.
2. The individual may rationalize the "C"; I had more important things to do; this class doesn't mean as much to me as finance, etc.
3. The individual could take in the information unfiltered and lower his/her self-concept. "Perhaps I'm not too bright, after all."
4. The individual could take in the real information and adjust overt and covert behavior in such a way so as to try to make sure the information from the next assignment is more consistent with the positive self-concept. "I will show the professor a draft of my next analysis before I turn it in, to make sure I am on the right track."
By and large, most people try to act in ways that move the toward their goals and also conform to their personal values and sense of right and wrong. Thus, most individuals will work hard to gain a desired promotion yet not engage in deceit and underhanded actions to gain that goal.
Nonetheless, humans are all too skilled at justifying their behavior even when, from an outside perspective, it looks like a clear violation of their values. We say, "How on earth could you have done such a thing?" and they say, "I had no choice," or "It wasn't my responsibility; I was just following orders," and so forth. Most reasons that people invent to justify their behavior sound reasonable and help reduce some of the "dissonance" they feel. But the rationalization process only serves as a defense against the potential pain from violating one's own values. Remember the Challenger explosion and the comments by the NASA officials afterward.
The Nuremberg trials confronted many people with gross violations of human values and established, at least implicitly, a precedent for holding individuals responsible for their own choices. However, living by one's principles can sometimes be very difficult. The B. F. Goodrich (withholding information about quality of tires) experience is an excellent example of how an essentially honest person, when faced with a threat to basic security (e.g. , keeping a job and providing for family), may end up violating a fundamental value (in this case, honesty). An engineer in the company was ordered to report inaccurate information on tests of brake linings for an air force plane. He did so and then justified his action as a way of protecting the financial security of his family. Is this an acceptable course of action or not? Does understanding and compassion justify the violation of "what is right?" Would that such choices were simple and clear.
People Perception
Much of our perceptual processes involve perceiving other people and acting as a result of these perceptions. Our behavior and many of the problems we have are a result of this process of people perception. If we make a lot of mistakes in this perceptual process (perceiving our boss, our subordinates, or peers) our resulting behavior will result in many problems for us. It is important to understand the people perception process and where it can go wrong.
We tend to organize percpetions as wholes in order to understand objects or people. By this we mean that we take the bits of information presented to us and "fill in the pieces." We never get complete information. But we fill in or infer the missing pieces in ways that make a consistent whole for ourselves. Sometimes this filling in is functional and helpful; sometimes it is dysfunctional as in stereotyping where we may attribute perceived traits of a group to all members of that group whether or not they have those traits.
Thus we tend to make a number of perceptual errors that we should be aware of. These include:
perceptual defenses: we may protect ourselves from threats or unpleasant stimuli and block these out. We may not see these threats, or choose not to see them
stereotyping: we may assign attributes to someone solely on the basis of the category to which that person belongs
halo effect: we may tend to evaluate all dimension of another person solely according to one impression-either favorable or unfavorable. An example would be a professor who after seeing an outstanding first paper tends to perceive everything that student does as outstanding. It is more common to have this happen in the reverse situation where a professor gets a poor first impression and then perceives everything about you negatively
projection: we may tend to see our own traits in other people.
expectancy: we may tend to perceive what we expect to perceive-self-fulfilling prophecy
Defensive Behavior
In many cases the maintenance of the self-concept depends upon the retention of certain beliefs, even when these are no longer valid by external standards. The following case illustrates vividly the way in which a strongly held set of beliefs about self can prevent disconfirming data from being accepted:
The chief executive of a small manufacturing company in England had been the one to build the organization from its beginnings, when there were only a few dozen employees. He believed that it was important for a manager to be close to his employees, to be seen down on the shop floor lending support and interest to the work effort. He made daily trips through the small plant, talking to the workers and offering help wherever it was needed. He was competent in his style of managing, the men knew him well, and he really enjoyed working in this way. Over the years, the company grew rapidly to nearly 600 employees, The chief executive continued to make his appearances on the shop floor, but these were more sporadic and less personal, since there was more territory to cover and many new people. Most of the new employees did not know him personally, did not understand why he showed up, and could not predict when he would appear. Consequently, they became fearful of this behavior. Unfortunately, the executive was not aware of these fears; he continued to assume that he was generating the same welcome response he received in the early days. It was obvious that he had a great investment in continuing this behavior, since it was intimately connected with his concept of himself as a friendly, informal, personally concerned executive.
At a meeting of the top management team one day, a subordinate who wanted to be helpful informed the executive that his travels around the plant were generating a great deal of fear and mistrust. The executive dismissed the idea as nonsense, insisting that the men in the plant really enjoyed the visits from the boss. After a few persistent attempts by the manager to convince the executive otherwise, the latter finally reacted with a violent outburst, stating that people who were afraid of him were simply stupid and did not understand his intent. The subordinate gave up, puzzled about why his helpful information was so badly received.
This example illustrates how data that appears to another as pertaining only to someone's expectancies may, in fact, cut very deeply into the core of that person's self-concept. The information not only challenged the executive's goals, it also implied to him that he was violating his own beliefs and values as well as behaving incompetently as a manager. The example also illustrates the capacity of individuals to block out disconfirming data that is too threatening to the self-concept.
When people encounter data that does not gibe with their self-concept, defensive behavior is likely. The data may be denied, projected onto someone else, distorted to have a more acceptable meaning, or attacked as not valid. A person's defenses protect him/her from being too uncomfortable, from having to change too rapidly, from too easily letting go of the self-view the person has built up. Yet insofar as defenses prevent new data from being incorporated, evaluated, and responded to, they keep a person from learning and growing. The problem for you as a manager is how to recognize defensiveness in yourself and others and how to respond to it in a way that increases the likelihood of learning and decreases the rejection of new information and ideas.
In summary, we can offer the following propositions:
1. The greater the threat of information or events to a person's selfconcept, the greater the likelihood of a defensive response and vice versa.
2. The more defensive a person's response, the less the likelihood of learning and growth.
3. Refusal to consider disconfirming data, regardless of the form the refusal takes, is an indicator of defensive reactions.
4. Attempts to tear down the defenses of another are likely to increase defensiveness; learning and openness to new experience are more likely when the defensive person feels safe and can lower his/her own defenses.
This last proposition circles back to the first; responses that do not threaten another's self-concept are most likely to reduce defensiveness. If you can sense what other persons value, what is important to how they define themselves, you can back off from whatever is threatening the self-concept and allow them more elbowroom.
The comfort of behavior that is known makes it hard to allow in the new data necessary for learning. There is inevitably tension between the desire to expand one's knowledge and repertoire of behavior and the desire to stick with the familiar, Where do you come out in this human dilemma? Do you see yourself as someone who usually prefers new experiences or as a person who likes the familiar, tried, and true? Can you formulate a proposition or two that describe how you personally deal with the contradictory desires for growth and security?
In what follows, as we look at the connections between self-concept and norms, roles and rewards, keep in mind that each person's unique self-concept (and level of defensiveness) shapes the way that external phenomena are interpreted. For much of the book, events are described as if any objective observer would see the same thing, but that is really just a convenient way to convey concepts. In action, it is necessary to take time to understand the way key actors interpret what is going on; the more you can understand about each person's self-concept, the easier it will be to formulate actions that meet your objectives.
THE SELF-CONCEPT AND BEHAVIOR
In the remainder of the chapter, we will discuss how the personal system as organized around the self-concept determines the behavior of the individual. We will first examine the ways in which the norms and role obligations of a given situation can combine with an individual's self-concept to exert powerful influences over behavior. Then we will discuss the effects upon actual behavior of a person's expectancies (positive and negative) regarding the probable consequences of his/her choices. The basic proposition underlying this section is that: all other things being equal, the behavior most likely to occur in a given situation is that which the individual expects to best maintain and or enhance his/her self-concept.
Norms and the Self-Concept
One reason a group may become cohesive is because it confirms the members' self-concepts; its norms (unwritten rules governing member behavior) are congruent with the members' values and beliefs, provide for the exercising of their competencies, and support the achievement of personal goals. Obviously, one of the reasons why a group's norms are what they are is because of its members' self-concepts, which were brought to the group in the first place. However, because of variations in member needs and self-concepts, it is very unusual to find a group in which all the norms support all self-concepts at all times, Also, since people tend to be members of many different groups during their lives, they experience wide variations in the degree to which their self-concepts are supported by the norms that are present in a given situation. While a person may seek out settings that are likely to be self-confirming, it is very difficult to completely avoid situations in which there is pressure to conform to norms that conflict with some aspect of the person's self-concept.
You have undoubtedly experienced times when those around you seem to be pressuring you into behaving in a way that runs counter to some aspect of your self-concept. For example, in task groups it is not uncommon for some kind of norm to develop in relation to having a beer after work. Your goal may be to stick to soft drinks, but if you have no basic value opposed to drinking alcohol, the chances are fairly good that you will give in to the pressure of the norm. If, on the other hand, your feelings run deeper, then your resistance to the pressure will obviously be greater.
The dilemma with respect to resisting norms is likely to be greatest when your livelihood is at stake. It may be important to your survival
to remain a "member in good standing" of a work group. What normally happens, then, is that: Norm pressures that go only against goals \ tend to result in conformity, while pressures that go against competencies, beliefs, and/or values are likely to result in deviance or isolation. The norms and values of a group are equivalent to the values of the individual; they are the respective "oughts" of their system. As such, they are resistant to change, Conflicts between group and individual at the values level tend to be irreconcilable, at least without major sacrifice on the part of either the individual or the group.
In one classroom work group a norm had developed to do the least work possible yet still get a "decent" grade, All of the students in the group liked the idea and supported the norm except one. Her goal in the class was to learn as much as possible, and she believed it important and right to give an all-out effort on every project. The rest of the group members were afraid that she would have enough influence (since she was the most knowledgeable member) to change the developing norm. They put more pressure on her, only to get back more resistance. She went from group deviant to group isolate, eventually not attending meetings of the group and doing most of the coursework on her own. Her concept of herself as a "good student" was so basic that she could not bring herself to violate it even though the situation called for her to attempt exerting influence on the group.
Therefore: The willingness to conform to group norms is a product of the closeness of the norms to one's self-concept. The costs and benefits of conforming must be weighed against the costs and benefits of deviating, Sometimes the choice will be obviously toward conforming; sometimes it will involve a hard struggle; and sometimes individuals reach a point beyond which they cannot comply. Can you think of instances in which each of these was true? How did you manage your own cost/benefit equation?
You should not, however, overlook the importance of the fact that it
is partly through membership in groups that you can acquire and practice new competencies, enhance your goals by collaborating with others, and test the validity of many of your beliefs. Either quick compliance to norms or quick rejection of them can offer very little opportunity to learn and grow. It may be that those instances in which you are forced to struggle with the choice are the ones that benefit you the most.
Roles and the Self-Concept
A role is made up of a particular set of behaviors and attitudes that accompany a given position in a social system. Roles are shaped by the expectations others have about the person occupying the role. Role serve to confirm or disconfirm the self-concepts of those who occupy them, as well as provide ways for individuals to broaden their self-concepts. For example, in most task groups in which leadership is allowed to emerge freely as the group develops, it is those individuals who see themselves as leaders among their peers who most readily take on the leadership roles. Insofar as the group supports this, the individual is able to reaffirm his/her self-concept via the behaviors associated with the role. The role is likely to be consistent with the person's goals, ("I want to be a leader"), beliefs ("A group needs leadership"), competencies ("I know how to pull a group together"), and values ("It is very important to get the work out. I know how to do it so I should take the initiative"). In other cases individuals who might wish to be leaders but doubt their competencies can-with some help and a little push-try out leadership roles until they have broadened their self-concepts to include that kind of role, at least in some situations.
No matter how a particular role is defined by a boss, peers, tradition, and so forth: The individual's own unique perception of the role obligations determines his/her reaction to the prospect of adopting the role. To the extent that a role is perceived to be congruent with the self-concept, the individual is inclined to adopt it; to the extent that a role is perceived to be incongruent with any aspect of the self-concept, the individual is inclined to reject it.
An example with important implications for society relates to women and the roles they choose. As more and more women reject the self-concept of constant "supporters of men," they increasingly resist the kind of roles that accompany such a position in society. The issue goes well beyond a matter of goals; it clearly pertains to the competencies of women as compared with men in almost all fields of work, and it is without doubt a basic matter of beliefs and values, especially in a society that espouses equality.
This issue has appeared more frequently in the classroom as more women students enter courses in management and administration. Tradition tended to draw the female students into various secondary roles in task groups. They often fell right into the "secretarial role" and into other roles of a supportive and maintenance nature, including, sometimes, making sure that the group was well nurtured. Recently many women students have overtly rejected the secretarial role, some with more vigor than others. Even though the fulfillment of such a role is highly functional for the group, it may be equally dysfunctional for the person asked to fill it. Obviously, this issue is not clear cut, especially for many women who have built major aspects of their self-concepts upon role behaviors that, while not fostering their own growth, have been important sources of self-confirmation. It is not easy for anyone to give up behaviors that are comfortable, even if limiting.
Because roles are important vehicles for giving order and consistency to a person's behavior in a social system, they often serve as a source of support for a person's basic sense of adequacy. People derive their sense of adequacy by doing the things at which they are competent and by learning to be competent at the things they value. Every time people are faced with a situation that goes beyond their competence, they feel a blow to the self-concept, to a sense of personal adequacy; every time individuals experience success in some activity, they enhance their sense of adequacy and confirm their concept of themselves as competent.
To the extent that individuals can build their lives around roles that enhance competencies, they will develop a basic sense of adequacy. To the extent that individuals find themselves cast into roles that conflict with or fail to utilize competencies, they will tend to develop a sense of inadequacy.
Obviously, very few people can structure their lives so that their various roles are congruent with their self-concepts; everyone has to do the drudgery jobs at one time or another. There is little self-confirmation in doing dishes, taking out garbage, balancing the checkbook, straightening up the workplace, and so forth, but these things have to be done, and most people at least have the competence to do them, The problems occur when people feel pressured to do things that do not fit with their competencies, at least as seen from inside, or when they feel constrained by circumstances from exercising the competencies they possess. Imagine yourself in a job in which al] your previous training has little use. You see others in the organization doing things that you know you could do as well or better, but the role you are cast into in the system does not allow you to engage in any of those activities. That can be more than frustrating; it could even be degrading. People in dead-end or low-ceiling jobs often feel this way. Then again, imagine what it might be like to be assigned to a job long before you are ready for it, only to perform at a mediocre level. This is hardly conducive to developing a sense of personal adequacy. Employees in rapidly growing firms sometimes find themselves in this position, swept upward in a series of promotions until they reach a point where they lack the requisite knowledge to perform adequately. Often they spend a great deal of time worrying about being "found out. "
Sometimes a role conflict can go very deep and hit on matters of personal worth. This happens when a role calls for a kind of behavior that the person believes is wrong, Since most positions in an organization entail multiple roles, especially as one moves up the hierarchy of the system, most people at one time or another are called upon to adopt a role that goes against their personal values. For example, at some time an executive may be assigned to be the "hatchet man" in a situation needing strong action. On the one hand, while his/her values as related to the total system might support such a decision, a concern for employee security might not support it. Though learning to live with that kind of problem may be a useful aid to executive success, the price that is paid for violating one's own values may appear later as insomnia, ulcers, nervous conditions, and so forth. Or it may lead to a shift in the violated values, It depends on how deep they and the beliefs that support them are, In either case, tension between values and role obligations is a major source of stress. The important thing for you to look at now is the relationship between your values and the ways in which various roles may call upon you to behave inconsistently with your self-concept. To the extent that individuals adopt roles that support their values, they experience themselves as worthwhile; to the extent that individuals violate these values, they doubt their personal worth.
Rewards and the Self-Concept
Just as roles can call for behavior that violates an individual's values, so can the organization's formal or informal reward system. Different individuals might perceive the same reward differently. Having added the construct of the self-concept, we can now expand on the relation between rewards and individual responses to them.
Rewards will be viewed by each individual in terms of:
1. How valuable the reward is, given the person's goals and values. To the individual who wants group acceptance above all, for example, cash incentives for extraordinary performance may not be perceived as particularly valuable. Any rewards requiring getting ahead of peers would be undervalued by such individuals.
2. How compatible the activity required to gain the reward is with the person's goals, values, beliefs, and competencies. A chance to receive a bonus and have one's picture in the company newsletter may be seen as quite valuable, but if to get it the introverted financial analyst would have to start selling new accounts, the reward may not induce the requisite behavior.
3. How the rewards offered compare to those available to relevant others, and who is seen as relevant, will also be influenced by the person's goals, beliefs, and values. Individuals who are ambitious will tend to compare their rewards to those higher in the organization and to those in highly successful organizations. Individuals who desire acceptance will compare themselves to their immediate peers. Individuals who are competitive will also compare themselves to peers and will struggle for even very small relative advantage. In one group of up-and-coming managers there was intense interest in what the boss did about pay raise differentials that meted less than a $3 per week spread against base salaries of $40,000-$50,000 per year! Clearly, symbolic differences were at stake.
Expectancies and the Self-Concept
The influence of the situational factors discussed above (norms, roles, and rewards) and of other factors on individual behavior is ultimately mediated by the individual's expectancies.
Before you make a choice you usually appraise the situation and decide which alternatives are likely to result in self-enhancement. Few people like to waste their efforts, and even fewer wish to engage in behavior that goes against their goals, beliefs, and so forth. To deal with the matter of choosing the best course of action in a situation, your appraisal takes the form of a kind of prediction: "The chances are that if I do thus and so, I will achieve what I want." You make a statement (implicit or explicit) of your expectancy regarding the probable outcome. It's like being your own personal scientist, making hypotheses, testing them out, revising them when they prove wrong, and holding on to the ones that prove accurate, As discussed in the previous chapter, outcomes that are rewarding tend to create and reinforce the expectancies that are positive. By the same token, outcomes that are non-rewarding or punishing lead to expectancies that are neutral or negative.
In essence, the behavior most likely to occur is that which the person expects to most enhance self-concept, when the expectancy and the self-concept fit together in relation to some behavior, no dilemma is experienced. But what happens when an anticipated outcome involves some risk to self, yet no alternatives exist to meet goals ? For example, say you have a concept of yourself as bright and as capable of putting your ideas into words very clearly. Your goal is to be outspoken in a classroom so that you can have some reaction to your ideas from the instructor. You now find yourself in a class in which the instructor refuses to entertain questions until he completes his lectures; but you always find that there is no time left for discussion at the end of the class. You can choose to keep your mouth shut, expecting a negative reaction should you speak up, or you can say something anyway in order to move toward your goal. For anyone to predict what you are likely to do would require that they know: (a) the strength of your goal to speak out; (b) your expectancy regarding the negative consequences of speaking out; and (c) your expectancy regarding the positive and negative consequences for your self-concept in not speaking out. Obviously, predicting an individual's behavior is not a simple matter, but we can offer a few guidelines for making predictions, These guidelines will also be useful to you when you attempt to formulate sets of personal propositions.
Guideline Propositions for Predicting Individual Behavior
1. The greater the strength of expectancy that a particular behavior will have a positive outcome, the more likely it is that the behavior will occur, and vice versa.
2. To the extent that a particular behavior is perceived to be positively related to the maintenance and enhancement of the self concept, the behavior is likely to become an ongoing part of the individual's repertoire (Nadler & Lawler, 197?).
3. The more limited an individual's range of competencies, the more likely is an existing competency to be used regardless of situational appropriateness.
The next Figure shows the ways in which behavior and self-concept are linked; it also summarizes the concepts we have discussed in this chapter.
| Personal System - goals - competencies - beliefs - self-concept
| Influences
| Perception - what is perceived and how it is interpreted
Expectancies about how choices will affect outcomes and self-concept | Resulting in
| Actions (choices) |
| The Situation norms roles rewards, etc. | Influences
| Outcomes -positive -negative |
SITUATIONAL DETERMINANTS OF THE SELF-CONCEPT
Have you ever seen a person you had experienced as knowledgeable, decisive, and confident unexpectedly become hesitant, unsure of him/ herself, and almost shy? One young woman who was poised, confident, and often an initiator (leader) in student activities worked in a retail store for three years after graduation and then joined the Peace Corps. While overseas she appeared tentative, diffident, and was slow to deal with problems. How might one explain this contrast in behavior?
She felt that her usual pattern of behavior would elicit negative outcomes and reactions that would disconfirm her self-concept. In addition, we can also infer that she saw herself somewhat differently in the new situation. Instead of seeing herself as knowledgeable, competent, and legitimate to exert leadership, she saw herself as a neophyte, lacking knowledge about the situation, and as such obligated to act more as a "guest" than a "member of the family," She also lacked the support systems she had at home. In a sense, her self-concept was different in the two situations.
Thus, in seeking to explain or predict someone's behavior, we need to remember that while an individual's self-concept develops slowly and is relatively stable, it is also partly situationally dependent. We vary our behavior in each situation to maintain and enhance our self concept, and each situation can influence how we see and feel about ourselves.
BECOMING AWARE OF YOUR OWN PERSONAL PROPOSITIONS
Though we do not propose that you carry around an ever-ready list of propositions about yourself, we do believe that it is worth the effort for anyone to try to clarify the bases upon which choices are made. Since the way you see yourself determines your behavior, it is useful to make explicit how you are viewing yourself. Not only can that ease your decision making, it can help you understand better the implicit personal propositions by which others operate. Finally, assumptions that are specifically spelled out are more easily evaluated; sometimes when you see your own assumptions clearly, the need for minor alterations becomes apparent.
One possible way to become more aware of your own personal propositions is to use a series of incomplete sentences. Make a list of phrases that represent the kinds of situations you frequently face. For example, you might use such phrases as:
Whenever l have a job to do that l don't like, I tend to. . . ,
When I am in competition with others, I tend to. . . .
When I want someone to like me, I tend to. . . .
When I am afraid of failing, I tend to. , . .
If I try my hardest, I tend to. . ,
If I am true to my own values in a group, I will. . .
If you just let your thoughts fill in the incomplete sentences without any censoring, you can get to some of the ways in which your self-concept is determining your expectations and, thus, your behavior in both positive and negative directions.
Another way of approaching clarity about your working propositions is to try to state the underlying assumption behind each of your most frequent concerns as a person. For example, if you avoid much interaction with group members because you worry about being hurt in relationships, the underlying premise might be: "If I am vulnerable and let others get too close, they will hurt me."
If you always act warm and friendly to everyone, whether or not you mean it, the pretense might be: "If I don't make people feel I like them, they may attack me."
Another kind of premise, related to feelings of competence could be stated, "If I ever let myself be caught unprepared, I will be extremely embarrassed. " The opposite might go: `If I try my hardest and then don't do well, I will be more disappointed than if I do just enough to get by. "
Underlying most of your behavior will be propositions of the sort just mentioned. Can you list those that most frequently seem to control your behavior? Once stated, it can be useful then to assess under what conditions each statement is likely to be true and under what conditions it may be inaccurate.
The way in which we formulate our personal propositions is also influenced by how we make sense, cognitively, of what we observe happening in the world around us. This is discussed in the next section.
STRUCTURING THE WORLD AROUND US
When you study, do you focus on details or look at the larger picture. Among the things that make us different from each other, one of the most interesting is the way in which each of us organizes or structures his/her world. And this is often a source of puzzlement. Jane wonders how Jack can get anything done with such a disorganized approach to tasks and a desk that looks like a tornado hit it. Jack wonders how Jane can enjoy her work since she is so compulsive making a list of activities for the day, and arranging the papers on her desk in neat piles. Jane goes crazy trying to keep Jack focused on an issue or problem; Jack loves to explore all the implications or related issues as they pop into his head. Jane tries to control Jack; Jack tries to loosen Jane up. Sound familiar?
Psychologists have long studied differences in the ways people structure their worlds, that is, the thinking processes that people use in managing their lives. How people organize their thinking affects what they are likely to perceive in a given situation, what they are likely to remember most readily and how they plan and organize work for themselves and for others.
In the example above, Jack was a divergent thinker and Jane was a convergent thinker. Although that is not the only difference between them, it is clearly an important one that can either be a source of conflict or a basis for building a complementary work relationship, one that capitalizes on the differences and strengths. Most decisions by managers are complex enough to require some ability to look at implications and consequences (a divergent thought process) as well as move things to some conclusion and action (a convergent thought process). Some people can do both, but usually because they have consciously developed the side of themselves that was not a natural tendency in the first place. Some successful managers have been smart enough to surround themselves with people who collectively are both divergent and convergent thinkers.
In recent years, a conceptual framework for understanding individual differences have become very popular among organizational behavior teachers, students, consultants, and managers. It is rooted in the personality theory of Carl Jung but has been translated into a set of concepts and tools that have very practical applications. The principal proponent of this work has been Isabel Briggs Myers, who published a widely used instrument and series of supporting texts designed to help people understand themselves and others better. Although we will not describe this approach in detail, we will provide a summary of the basic theory and its applications in a way that should give you some insights into people, including yourself. If you are interested in studying the approach in greater depth, a useful place to begin is with the book Gifts Differing by Isabel Briggs Myers. The Briggs Myers model will be described in a separate chapter.
KEY CONCEPTS FROM THIS CHAPTER
Behavior is the result of basic human needs modified by past experience which creates a "personality;" behavior is further affected by perceptions, defensiveness and expectancies
the structure of the personal system consists of goals, competencies, attitudes, beliefs, and values organized around a "self-concept"
perceptions: everything is interpreted through individual filters
defensiveness: the greater the threat to a person 's self-concept, the greater is the defensive response
self-concept and norms: the closer a group's norms are to one's self concept, the more willing is that person to conform to group norms
self-concept and roles: to the degree that a role is perceived as congruent with a self-concept, the more likely is that person to adopt that role
self concept and rewards: we attach value to rewards based on their compatibility with goals, competencies, beliefs, and values
to predict behavior, one would have to know:
-the strength of the goals directing the particular behavior
-expectancies regarding the positive and the negative consequences from the environment
-expectancies regarding the positive and negative consequences to the self-concept
-expectancies regarding the positive and negative consequences to the self-concept
Expectancies (our predictions of the positive and negative outcomes of alternative behaviors) result in behavior (choices of alternative courses of action)