Personality, Perception, and Employee Attitudes Chapter 5 PDF

CHAPTER 5 Personality, Perception,...

CHAPTER 5 Personality, Perception, and Employee Attitudes IAP LEARNING OBJECTIVES All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. Define the overall meaning of personality. Identify the “Big Five” personality traits and the Myers-Briggs types. Describe the perceptual process and its major dimensions. PR Examine the sources and outcomes of the major employee attitudes of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behaviors. ©2 O This chapter discusses the cognitive, personal variables of personality, perception, and employee attitudes. These major psychological constructs are very popular ways to 02 OFS describe and analyze what goes into organizational behavior. Yet, like the other cognitively oriented processes, personality, perception, and employee attitudes are quite complex. The aim of this chapter is to facilitate a better understanding of such complexities of today’s employees. Such an analysis of personality and attitudes is vital to the study of organiza- 1 tional behavior. The first section of the chapter defines and clarifies the concept of personality. The next section is devoted to personality development and the socialization process. This foundation of understanding of the complex personality and how it is developed is fol- lowed by the two major applications to organizational behavior. Specifically, attention is given to the “Big Five” personality traits that have been found to best relate to performance in organizations and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) based on Carl Jung’s per- sonality theory, which has been a very popular personal development and career assess- ment tool. The remaining sections of the chapter then focus on two more important cognitive processes, perception and attitudes. After examining the perceptual process and dimensions, a detailed analysis is first made of the dispositions of positive and negative affectivity, the two most widely recognized attitudes to organizational behavior, job satis- faction and organizational commitment, and finally the more recent relevant construct of prosocial/organizational citizenship behaviors. THE MEANING OF PERSONALITY Copyright 2021. Information Age Publishing. Through the years there has not been universal agreement on the exact meaning of person- ality. Much of the controversy can be attributed to the fact that people in general and those in the behavioral sciences define “personality” from different perspectives. Most people tend to equate personality with social success (i.e., having a “good or popular personality,” or having “a lot of personality”) and to describe personality by a single dominant charac- teristic (i.e., strong, weak, or polite). When it is realized that thousands of words can be EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 7/2/2022 3:35 PM via LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AT SHREVEPORT AN: 2527726 ; Fred Luthans.; Organizational Behavior: An Evidence-Based Approach Fourteenth Edition Account: s3563253.main.eds  CHAPTER 5 PERSONALITY, PERCEPTION, AND EMPLOYEE ATTITUDES 103 used to describe personality this way, the definitional problem becomes staggering. Psy- chologists, on the other hand, take a different perspective. For example, the descriptive- adjective approach commonly used by most people plays only a small part. However, scholars also cannot agree on a definition of personality because they operate from differ- ent theoretical bases. Some of the historically important definitions come from trait theory (observable pat- terns of behavior that last over time), Freud’s psychoanalytic or psychodynamic theory (the unconscious determinants of behavior), and Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow’s human- istic theory (self-actualization and the drive to realize one’s potential). More recently, and the position taken in this chapter, is a more integrative theoretical approach drawing from all the historical theories, but more importantly, the self-concept including nature (heredity and physiological/biological dimensions) and nurture (environmental, developmental dimensions), dispositional traits, the social cognitive interactions between the person and S the environment, and the socialization process. F In this text personality will mean how people affect others and how they understand and view themselves, as well as their pattern of inner and outer measurable traits and the O person-situation interaction. How people affect others depends primarily on their external appearance (height, weight, facial features, color, and other physical aspects) and traits. O For example, in terms of external appearance, a very tall worker will have an impact on other people different from that of a very short worker. There is also evidence from meta- R 1 analysis that there are gender differences in certain personality characteristics.1 However, P 2 of more importance to the physiological/biological approach in the study of personality 0 than the external appearance is the role of heredity and the brain. P IA © 2 THE ROLE OF HEREDITY AND THE BRAIN Although heredity’s role in personality was traditionally downplayed, studies of twins have yielded some interesting findings. Identical twins share the same genetic endowment, but if they are raised apart (say, through separate adoptions), then the similarities and differ- ences can provide insight into the relative contribution of heredity versus environment or nature versus nurture. That is, identical twins (who have the same genetic endowment) raised together (i.e., they have similar environment and developmental experiences) can be compared to the identical twins raised apart (same genetic endowment but different envi- ronment). If the identical twins raised together have the same traits, and this sameness is also found in those raised apart, then the conclusion can be drawn that heredity and not environment plays the largest role. However, if those raised together have similar traits, but those raised apart have significantly different traits, then the importance of the environ- ment must be considered. Although twin studies in general are open to criticism of political influence and lack of scientific controls,2 most behavioral scientists now agree that genes play a role not only in physical characteristics and the brain, but also in personality. For example, a report by the American Psychological Association concludes, “Studies over the past 20 years on twins and adopted children have firmly established that there is a genetic component to just about every human trait and behavior, including personality, general intelligence and behavior disorders.”3 However, the search for identifying genes that affect the potential for certain diseases4 or personality is very complex and may explain very little. For example, a summary analysis concluded: EBSCOhost - printed on 7/2/2022 3:35 PM via LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AT SHREVEPORT. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use  104 PART 2 COGNITIVE PROCESS OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR Many genes are responsible for various aspects of people’s temperament, and those genes appear to interact with each other in complicated ways that influence several traits at once—and then likely only in very subtle ways, with any one gene likely accounting for only 1 or 2 percent of the variance in a trait.5 In other words, it appears that hundreds of genes do at least slightly influence the person- ality traits, but so does the environment. The debate should not be nature or nurture, but nature and nurture that contributes to one’s personality.6 However, the genes also affect brain functions that in turn affect how people interact with their environment and thus their personalities. The brain, which some call the last frontier because we still know relatively little about it, may hold more answers for personality than does heredity. Both evolutionary psycholo- gists (those that suggest humans evolve and retain not only physically over the ages, but S also psychologically) and neuropsychologists (those that explain psychological character- istics primarily through the brain) have traditionally not played a mainstream role in the F study and understanding of personality. In recent years, however, they are gaining increas- ing attention because of rapid advances in their respective fields of study. Evolutionary O psychologists are suggesting that humans may be “hardwired” from distant previous gen- erations. As was noted in a Harvard Business Review article: O 1 Although human beings today inhabit a thoroughly modern world of space exploration R and virtual realities, they do so with the ingrained mentality of Stone Age hunter-gath- P 2 erers … an instinct to fight furiously when threatened, for instance, and a drive to trade 0 information and share secrets. Human beings are, in other words, hardwired. You can take the person out of the Stone Age, but you can’t take the Stone Age out of the P 2 person.7 IA © There is also a position being taken on what is called social evolution. This suggests that humanity is evolving along the lines of social phenomena such as trust, collaboration, and competition. This social evolutionary process is explained as follows: People who are related collaborate on the basis of nepotism. It takes outrageous profit or provocation for someone to do down a relative with whom they share a lot of genes. Trust, though, allows the unrelated to collaborate, by keeping score of who does what when, and punishing cheats.… The human mind, however, seems to have evolved the trick of being able to identify a large number of individuals and to keep score of rela- tions with them.”8 Very few animals (bats being one of the exceptions) have been able to evolve to this type of collaboration and competition. As to neuropsychology, breakthroughs in brain-scanning technology, called functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), allow measurement of brain activity by mapping spe- cific regions that are linked to specialized roles. Although brain dominance theory has been around a long time and has probably been too oversimplified (e.g., the right-side creative brain and the left-side analytical or management brain), there is now general agreement that The frontal lobes are the part of the brain that anticipates events and weighs the conse- quences of behavior, while deeper brain regions, including the seahorse-shaped hippocampus and the nearby amygdala, are associated with such things as memory, mood and motivation.9 EBSCOhost - printed on 7/2/2022 3:35 PM via LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AT SHREVEPORT. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use  CHAPTER 5 PERSONALITY, PERCEPTION, AND EMPLOYEE ATTITUDES 105 Besides the left and right regions, fMRIs are also able to detect that the amygdala part of the brain has to do with the emotion of the individual. Although there is a very compli- cated interaction between emotions and thinking, personality and/or behavior,10 there is enough evidence for some to conclude the following implications for the workplace: Recent discoveries in neuroscience reveal that talent and better-quality performance involve not just the frontal lobes—the decision-making brain circuitry that houses intel- lect—but also the amygdala.… In tough economic times, talent and emotional engagement are the only natural competitive advantages.11 The Wall Street Journal even reported a study that indicated those with brain damage impairing their ability to experience emotion made better financial decisions than normal players in a simple investment game.12 It seems that the emotional brain damaged (but nor- S mal IQ) participants were more willing to take risks that yielded high payoffs and less likely to react emotionally to losses. They finished the game with significantly more money F than the other players. There is also work being done on linking areas of the brain to spe- cific organizational behaviors (e.g., the nucleus accumbens part of the brain responds to O money much the way it reacts to sex or cocaine; money is valued for itself and not just for what it can purchase). Other examples include neuroscientific explanations for why O employees resist change (i.e., change taps fear receptors in the brain and taxes the brain’s cognitive capacity to learn new ways of doing things13) and research evidence that leaders R 1 with high levels of psychological capital (i.e., confidence, hope, optimism, and resiliency, P 2 covered in Chapter 7) have different brain activity on a vision task exercise than do those 0 with low psychological capital.14 Although not without criticism,15 there is little question that major inroads are being P 2 made in the role that genetics and the brain play both in organizational behavior in general, IA © and personality in particular. However, at present the field of psychology as a whole and organizational behavior itself is still dominated by the developmental, “soft” or nurture side, which is also making significant advances in understanding and application. For example, five personality traits (the so-called Big Five) have emerged from research as being especially related to job performance.16 These specific traits will be given detailed attention after the more theoretical foundation components of personality of self-esteem, person-situation interaction, and socialization are discussed. Self-Esteem People’s attempts to understand themselves are called the self-concept in personality theory. The self is a unique product of many interacting parts and may be thought of as the personality viewed from within. This self is particularly relevant to the widely recognized self-esteem and the emerging self-variables of multiple intelligences, emotion, optimism, and, especially, efficacy, which are all relevant to the field of organizational behavior. These and other newly emerging self-variables and positive psychological capacities are given specific attention in Chapter 7. The more established, recognized self-esteem has to do with people’s self-perceived competence and self-image. Applied to the analysis of personality, the research results have been mixed, and there is growing controversy about the assumed value of self-esteem. For example, one study found that people with high self-esteem handle failure better than those with low self-esteem.17 However, an earlier study found that those with high self- esteem tended to become egotistical when faced with pressure situations18 and may result EBSCOhost - printed on 7/2/2022 3:35 PM via LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AT SHREVEPORT. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use  106 PART 2 COGNITIVE PROCESS OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR in aggressive and even violent behavior when threatened.19 After reviewing the research literature, Kreitner and Kinicki conclude, “High self esteem can be a good thing, but only if like many other human characteristics—such as creativity, intelligence, and per- sistence—it is nurtured and channeled in constructive and ethical ways. Otherwise, it can become antisocial and destructive.”20 Self-esteem has obvious implications for organizational behavior. Although it is con- sidered a global concept, there are attempts to specifically apply it to the organization domain. Called organization-based self-esteem (OBSE), it is defined as the “self-perceived value that individuals have of themselves as organization members acting within an orga- nization context.”21 Those who score high on OBSE view themselves positively, and a meta-analysis found a significant positive relationship with performance and satisfaction on the job.22 S Also, both early23 and more recent studies indicate that self-esteem is related to areas such as emotional and behavioral responses and stress of organizational members.24 As has F been noted, “Both research and everyday experience confirm that employees with high self-esteem feel unique, competent, secure, empowered, and connected to the people O around them.”25 By the same token, as the author of the book, Self-Esteem at Work, notes: O “If your self-esteem is low and you aren’t confident in your thinking ability, you are likely to fear decision making, lack negotiation and interpersonal skills and be reluctant or unable R 1 to change.”26 One study found that leaders can overcome such self-esteem problems of 2 their people by practicing procedural fairness and rewarding for a job well done.27 P 0 As will be noted in Chapter 7, self-esteem is more of a global, relatively fixed trait, whereas other self-variables, such as self-efficacy, are more situation and context specific. P 2 There seems little doubt that self-esteem plays an important role in one’s personality, but, IA © as pointed out earlier, the exact nature and impact are still to be determined. For now, the person-situation interaction and socialization are presented to serve as an important part of the social cognitive foundation for the rest of this chapter and for the more specific, posi- tive self-concepts in Chapter 7. Person-Situation Interaction The dimensions of enduring traits and the self-concept add to the understanding of the human personality. The person-situation interaction dimension of personality provides fur- ther understanding. Each situation, of course, is different. The differences may seem to be very small on the surface, but when filtered by the person’s cognitive mediating processes such as perception (covered next), they can lead to quite large subjective differences and diverse behavioral outcomes. In particular, this dimension suggests that people are not static, acting the same in all situations, but instead are ever changing and flexible. For example, employees can change depending on the particular situation they are in interac- tion with. For instance, it should be understood that even everyday work experience can change people. Especially today, with organizations transforming and facing a turbulent environment, those that can find, develop, and retain people who can fit into this dynami- cally changing situation will be most successful.28 Specifically, there is evidence that the employee’s personality will influence interpersonal behavior29 and the perception and the outcomes of organizational support.30 The next section dealing with the socialization pro- cess is especially relevant to today’s important person-organization interaction. EBSCOhost - printed on 7/2/2022 3:35 PM via LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AT SHREVEPORT. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use  CHAPTER 5 PERSONALITY, PERCEPTION, AND EMPLOYEE ATTITUDES 107 The Socialization Process Study of, and research on, the development of personality has traditionally been an important area for understanding human behavior. Modern developmental psychology does not get into the argument of heredity versus environment or of maturation (changes that result from heredity and physical development) versus learning. The human being con- sists of both physiological and psychological interacting parts. Therefore, heredity, the brain, environment, maturation, and learning all contribute to the human personality. At least historically, the study of personality attempted to identify specific physiolog- ical and psychological stages that occur in the development of the human personality. This “stage” approach was theoretical in nature. There are many well-known stage theories of personality development. However, as with most aspects of personality, there is little agreement about the exact stages. In fact, a growing number of today’s psychologists con- S tend that there are no identifiable stages. Their argument is that personality development consists of a continuous process and the sequence is based largely on the learning opportu- F nities available and the socialization process. There is increasing recognition given to the role of other relevant persons, groups, and, O especially, organizations that greatly influence an individual’s personality. This continuous O impact from the social environment is commonly called the socialization process. It is especially relevant to organizational behavior because the process is not confined to early R 1 childhood; rather, it takes place throughout one’s life. In particular, evidence is accumulat- 2 ing that socialization may be one of the best explanations for why employees behave the P way they do in today’s organizations.31 As Edgar Schein notes: “It is high time that some 0 of our managerial knowledge and skill be focused on those forces in the organization envi- P 2 ronment which derive from the fact that organizations are social systems which do social- ize their new members. If we do not learn to analyze and control the forces of IA © organizational socialization, we are abdicating one of our primary managerial responsibil- ities.”32 A study found that the socialization tactics that organizations employ can have a positive, long-run impact on the adjustment of newcomers (i.e., lower role conflict and ambiguity, less stress, and higher job satisfaction and commitment)33 and related recent research has found that social processes facilitate job search behavior34 and advancement in management from entry level to upper management.35 Socialization starts with the initial contact between a mother and her new infant. After infancy, other members of the immediate family (father, brothers, and sisters), close rela- tives and family friends, and then the social group (peers, school friends, and members of the work group) play influential roles. As the accompanying OB in Action: Using Informa- tion Technologies to Nurture Relationships indicates, the way these socialization processes are being done is changing, but the impact is still dramatic. However, of particular interest to the study of organizational behavior is Schein’s idea that the organization itself also con- tributes to socialization.36 He points out that the process includes the learning of those val- ues, norms, and behavior patterns that, from the organization’s and the work group’s points of view, are necessary for any new organization member. Specific techniques of socializing new employees would include the use of mentors or role models, orientation and training programs, reward systems, and career planning. Spe- cific steps that can lead to successful organizational socialization would include the follow- ing: 1. Provide a challenging first job 2. Provide relevant training EBSCOhost - printed on 7/2/2022 3:35 PM via LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AT SHREVEPORT. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use  108 PART 2 COGNITIVE PROCESS OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR 3. Provide timely and consistent feedback 4. Select a good first supervisor to be in charge of socialization 5. Design a relaxed orientation program 6. Place new recruits in work groups with high morale37 Such deliberate socialization strategies have tremendous potential impact on socialization. Evidence shows that those new employees attending a socialization training program are indeed more socialized than those who do not38 and that socialization tactics influence per- ceived organizational support, which has an impact on voluntary turnover and organiza- tional commitment.39 In summary, personality is very diverse and complex. It incorporates almost every- thing covered in this text, and more. As defined, personality is the whole person and is con- cerned with external appearance and traits, self, and situational interactions. Probably the S best statement on personality was made many years ago by Kluckhohn and Murray, who said that, to some extent, a person’s personality is like all other people’s, like some other F people’s, and like no other people’s.40 The “Big Five” Personality Traits O O 1 Although personality traits, long-term predispositions for behavior, have been gener- R ally downplayed and even totally discounted, in recent years there is now considerable sup- P 2 port for a five-factor trait-based theory of personality. Many years ago no less than 18,000 0 words were found to describe personality. Even after combining words with similar mean- ings, there still remained 171 personality traits.41 Obviously, such a huge number of per- P 2 sonality traits is practically unusable, so further reduction analysis found five core IA © personality traits. Called the Five-Factor Model (FFM),42 or in the field of organizational behavior and human resource management, the “Big Five,” these traits have held up as accounting for personality in many analyses over the years43 and even across cultures.44 Table 5.1 identifies the Big Five and their major characteristics. Importantly, not only is there now considerable agreement on what are the core personality trait predispositions, but there is also accumulated research that these five best predict performance in the work- place.45 The Big Five have also been extended through meta-analytic studies to also demonstrate a positive relationship with performance motivation46 (goal setting, expec- tancy, and self-efficacy, all given detailed attention in later chapters) and job satisfaction.47 Although the five traits are largely independent factors of a personality, like primary col- ors, they can be mixed in countless proportions and with other characteristics to yield a unique personality whole. However, also like colors, one may dominate in describing an individual’s personality. TABLE 5.1. The “Big Five” Personality Traits Core Traits Descriptive Characteristics of High Scorers Conscientiousness Dependable, hardworking, organized, self-disciplined, persistent, responsible Emotional stability Calm, secure, happy, unworried Agreeableness Cooperative, warm, caring, good-natured, courteous, trusting Extraversion Sociable, outgoing, talkative, assertive, gregarious Openness to experience Curious, intellectual, creative, cultured, artistically sensitive, flexible, imaginative EBSCOhost - printed on 7/2/2022 3:35 PM via LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AT SHREVEPORT. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use  CHAPTER 5 PERSONALITY, PERCEPTION, AND EMPLOYEE ATTITUDES 109 The real value of the Big Five to organizational behavior is that it does bring back the importance of predispositional traits,48 and these traits have been clearly shown to relate to job performance. Importantly, it should also be noted that these five traits are quite stable. Although there is not total agreement, most personality theorists would tend to agree that after about 30 years of age, the individual’s personality profile will change little over time.49 This does not intend to imply that one or two of the Big Five provide an ideal per- sonality profile for employees over their whole career, because different traits are needed for different jobs. The key is still to find the right fit.50 The following sections examine the research to date on the relationships of the various Big Five traits to dimensions of perfor- mance in organizations. The Positive Impact of Conscientiousness S There is general agreement that conscientiousness has the strongest positive correla- tion (about.3) with job performance. From this level of correlation (1.0 would be perfect), F it should be noted that less than 10 percent (the correlation squared, or R2) of the perfor- mance in the studies is accounted for by conscientiousness. Yet, it should also be noted that O this is still significant and conscientious employees may provide a major competitive advantage. As a meta-analysis concluded, “individuals who are dependable, persistent, O goal directed, and organized tend to be higher performers on virtually any job; viewed neg- 1 atively, those who are careless, irresponsible, low achievement striving and impulsive tend R to be lower performers on virtually any job.”51 P 2 Put in relation to other organizational behavior areas as a personality trait per se, con- 0 scientious employees set higher goals for themselves, have higher performance expecta- tions, and respond well to job enrichment (take on more responsibility, covered in Chapter P 2 6) and empowerment strategies of human resource management. As would be expected, IA © research indicates that those who are conscientious are less likely to be absent from work,52 and a study found in international human resource management that conscientiousness of expatriates related positively to the rating of their foreign assignment performance.53 Yet, there are also recent studies with nonsupporting and mixed results pointing to the complex- ity of this personality trait. For example, in a recent study conscientiousness was found not to be influential in determining managerial performance and in another study of Middle Eastern expatriate managers, conscientiousness was related to home-country ratings of the expats’ performance, but not the host-country ratings of the same expats.54 In addition, studies had indicated that the individual’s ability moderates the relationship between con- scientiousness and performance (positive for high ability but zero or even negative for low ability), but a more recent study found no such moderator.55 Another study found the rela- tionship of conscientiousness to job performance was strong when job satisfaction was low, but was relatively weak when satisfaction was high.56 Applied to peer evaluations, as hypothesized, a study found the raters’ conscientious- ness was negatively related with the level of the rating. In other words, conscientious raters did not give inflated evaluations, but those with low conscientiousness did.57 Such multi- plicative relationships with variables such as culture, ability, and job satisfaction indicate, like other psychological variables, that conscientiousness is complex and is certainly not the only answer for job performance. This has led to a recent research stream that supports the hypothesized interactive effects between conscientiousness and extraversion58 and agreeableness59 on performance and the interaction of conscientiousness and openness to experience and creative behavior.60 The same is true of research on the mediating and moderating effects of conscientiousness when influenced by various organizational behav- ior dynamics.61 In other words, without getting to the depth of these analyses, it can simply EBSCOhost - printed on 7/2/2022 3:35 PM via LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AT SHREVEPORT. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use  110 PART 2 COGNITIVE PROCESS OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR be said that there is considerable complexity involved with the impact of the personality trait of conscientiousness on various work-related variables. However, this is one area of personality where there is enough research evidence to conclude that conscientiousness should be given attention in understanding the impact that personality traits can have on job performance, job satisfaction, and work motivation, and pragmatically for personnel selec- tion for most jobs. The Impact of the Other Traits Although conscientiousness has been found to have the strongest consistent relation- ship with performance and thus has received the most research attention, the remaining four traits also have some interesting findings. For example, a large study including partic- ipants from several European countries, many occupational groups, and multiple methods S of measuring performance found both conscientiousness and emotional stability related to all the measures and occupations.62 Yet, the absenteeism study found that conscientious- F ness had a desirable inverse relationship: but, undesirably, the higher the extraversion trait the more absent the employee tended to be.63 O The other traits have a more selective but still logical impact. For example, those with high extraversion tend to be associated with management and sales success; those with O high emotional stability tend to be more effective in stressful situations; those with high R 1 agreeableness tend to handle customer relations and conflict more effectively; and those open to experience tend to have job training proficiency and make better decisions in a P 2 training problem solving simulation.64 Another study found that those with a strategic 0 management style were most characterized by conscientiousness and openness to experi- P 2 ence, while those with a strong interpersonal management style were most characterized by extraversion and openness.65 Interestingly, with groups rather than individuals becoming IA © more important in today’s workplace, the Big Five may also be predictive of team perfor- mance. A study found that the higher the average scores of team members on the traits of conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion, and emotional stability, the better their teams performed.66 In other words, depending on the situation, all the Big Five traits should be given attention in the study and application of organizational behavior. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) Whereas the Big Five has recently emerged from considerable basic research and has generally been demonstrated to significantly relate to job performance, the MBTI is based on a very old theory, has mixed at best research support,67 but is widely used and very pop- ular in real-world career counseling, team building, conflict management, and analyzing management styles.68 The theory goes back to pioneering Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung in the 1920s. He felt people could be typed into extraverts and introverts and that they had two basic mental processes—perception and judgment. He then further divided perception into sensing and intuiting and judgment into thinking and feeling. This yields four personality dimensions or traits: (1) introversion/extraversion, (2) perceiving/judging, (3) sensing/ intuition, and (4) thinking/feeling. He felt that although people had all four of these dimen- sions in common, they differ in the combination of their preferences of each. Importantly, he made the point that one’s preferences were not necessarily better than another’s, only different. About 20 years after Jung developed his theoretical types, in the 1940s the mother- daughter team of Katharine Briggs and Isabel Briggs-Myers developed about a 100-item EBSCOhost - printed on 7/2/2022 3:35 PM via LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AT SHREVEPORT. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use  CHAPTER 5 PERSONALITY, PERCEPTION, AND EMPLOYEE ATTITUDES 111 TABLE 5.2. The Jung Theory Dimensions and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicators Where do you get your energy? Extraversion (E) __________________________________________________________________________________ Introversion (I) Outgoing Quiet Interacting Concentrating Speaks, then thinks Thinks then speaks Gregarious Reflective What do you pay attention to and collect information on? Sensing (S) _________________________________________________________________________________________ Intuiting (N) Practical General Details Possibilities Concrete Theoretical S Specific Abstract F How do you evaluate and make decisions? Thinking (T) __________________________________________________________________________________________Feeling (F) O Analytical Subjective Head Heart O Rules Circumstance R 1 Justice Mercy 2 How do you orient yourself to the outside world? P Judging (J) _______________________________________________________________________________________ Perceiving (P) 0 Structured Flexible P 2 Time oriented Open ended IA © Decisive Exploring Organized Spontaneous personality test asking participants how they usually feel or act in particular situations in order to measure the preferences on the four pairs of traits yielding 16 distinct types. Called the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator or simply MBTI, the questions relate to how people pre- fer to focus their energies (extraversion vs. introversion); give attention and collect infor- mation (sensing vs. intuiting); process and evaluate information and make decisions (thinking vs. feeling); and orient themselves to the outside world (judging vs. perceiving). Table 5.2 summarizes the characteristics of the four major dimensions, which in combina- tion yield the 16 types. For example, the ESTJ is extraverted, sensing, thinking, and judg- ing. Because this type likes to interact with others (E); sees the world realistically (S); makes decisions objectively and decisively (T); and likes structure, schedules, and order (J), this would be a manager type. The MBTI Atlas indicates that most managers studied were indeed ESTJs. As Jung emphasized when formulating his theory, there are no good or bad types. This is a major reason the MBTI is such a psychologically nonthreatening, commonly used (mil- lions take it every year) personality inventory. Although the MBTI has shown to have reli- ability and validity as a measure of identifying Jung’s personality types69 and predicting occupational choice (e.g., those high on intuition tend to prefer careers in advertising, the arts, and teaching), there still is not enough research support to base selection decisions or predict job performance.70 Yet, the use of MBTI by numerous firms such as AT&T, EBSCOhost - printed on 7/2/2022 3:35 PM via LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AT SHREVEPORT. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use  112 PART 2 COGNITIVE PROCESS OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR Exxon, and Honeywell for their management development programs and Hewlett-Packard for team building seems justified. It can be an effective point of departure for discussion of similarities and differences and useful for personal development. However, like any psy- chological measure, the MBTI can also be misused. As one comprehensive analysis con- cluded, “Some inappropriate uses include labeling one another, providing a convenient excuse that they simply can’t work with someone else, and avoiding responsibility for their own personal development with respect to working with others and becoming more flexi- ble. One’s type is not an excuse for inappropriate behavior.”71 THE PERCEPTION PROCESS Besides personality covered so far, another important cognitive, personal construct is one’s S perceptual process. The key to understanding perception is to recognize that it is a unique F interpretation of the situation, not an exact recording of it. In short, perception is a very complex cognitive process that yields a unique picture of the world, a picture that may be O quite different from reality. Applied to organizational behavior, an employee’s perception can be thought of as a filter. Because perception is largely learned, and no one has the same O learnings and experience, then every employee has a unique filter, and the same situations/ stimuli may produce very different reactions and behaviors. Some analyses of employee R 1 behavior place a lot of weight on this filter: P 0 2 Your filter tells you which stimuli to notice and which to ignore; which to love and which to hate. It creates your innate motivations—are you competitive, altruistic, or ego P 2 driven? … It creates in you all of your distinct patterns of thought, feeling, and behav- ior.… Your filter, more than your race, sex, age, or nationality, is you.72 IA © Recognition of the difference between this filtered, perceptual world and the real world is vital to the understanding of organizational behavior. A specific example would be the universal assumption made by managers that associates always want promotions, when, in fact, many really feel psychologically forced to accept a promotion.73 Managers seldom attempt to find out, and sometimes associates themselves do not know, whether the promotion should be offered. In other words, the perceptual world of the manager is quite different from the perceptual world of the associate, and both may be very different from reality. One of the biggest problems that new organizational leaders must overcome are the sometimes faulty or negative perceptions of them. If this is the case, what can be done about it? The best answer seems to be that a better understanding of the concepts involved should be developed. Direct applications and techniques should logically follow complete understanding. The place to start is to clearly understand the difference between sensation and perception and have a working knowledge of the major cognitive subprocesses of per- ception. Sensation Versus Perception There is usually a great deal of misunderstanding about the relationship between sen- sation and perception. Behavioral scientists generally agree that people’s “reality” (the world around them) depends on their senses. However, the raw sensory input is not enough. They must also process these sensory data and make sense out of them in order to EBSCOhost - printed on 7/2/2022 3:35 PM via LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AT SHREVEPORT. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use  CHAPTER 5 PERSONALITY, PERCEPTION, AND EMPLOYEE ATTITUDES 113 understand the world around them. Thus, the starting point in the study of perception should clarify the relationship between perception and sensation. The physical senses are considered to be vision, hearing, touch, smell, and taste. There are many other so-called sixth senses. However, none of these sixth senses, such as intu- ition, are fully accepted by psychologists. The five senses are constantly bombarded by numerous stimuli that are both outside and inside the body. Examples of outside stimuli include light waves, sound waves, mechanical energy of pressure, and chemical energy from objects that one can smell and taste. Inside stimuli include energy generated by mus- cles, food passing through the digestive system, and glands secreting behavior-influencing hormones. These examples indicate that sensation deals chiefly with very elementary behavior that is determined largely by physiological functioning. Importantly, however, researchers now know that ears, eyes, fingers, and the nose are only way stations, transmit- ting signals that are then processed by the central nervous system. As one molecular biol- S ogist declares, “The nose doesn’t smell—the brain does.”74 In this way, the human being uses the senses to experience color, brightness, shape, loudness, pitch, heat, odor, and taste. F Perception is more complex and much broader than sensation. The perceptual process or filter can be defined as a complicated interaction of selection, organization, and interpre- O tation. Although perception depends largely on the senses for raw data, the cognitive pro- cess filters, modifies, or completely changes these data. A simple illustration may be seen O by looking at one side of a stationary object, such as a statue or a tree. By slowly turning R 1 the eyes to the other side of the object, the person probably senses that the object is moving. Yet the person perceives the object as stationary. The perceptual process overcomes the P 2 sensual process, and the person “sees” the object as stationary. In other words, the percep- 0 tual process adds to, and subtracts from, the “real” sensory world. The following are some P 2 organizational examples that point out the difference between sensation and perception: IA © 1. The division manager purchases a program that she thinks is best, not the program that the software engineer says is best. 2. An associate’s answer to a question is based on what he heard the boss say, not on what the boss actually said. 3. The same team member may be viewed by one colleague as a very hard worker and by another as a slacker. 4. The same product may be viewed by the design team to be of high quality and by a customer to be of low quality. Subprocesses of Perception The existence of several subprocesses gives evidence of the complexity and the inter- active nature of perception. Figure 5.1 shows how these subprocesses relate to one another. The first important subprocess is the stimulus or situation that is present. Perception begins when a person is confronted with a stimulus or a situation. This confrontation may be with the immediate sensual stimulation or with the total physical and sociocultural environment. An example is the employee who is confronted with his or her supervisor or with the total formal organizational environment. Either one or both may initiate the employee’s percep- tual process. In other words, this represents the stimulus situation interacting with the per- son. In addition to the situation-person interaction, there are the internal cognitive processes of registration, interpretation, and feedback. During the registration phenomenon, the physiological (sensory and neural) mechanisms are affected; the physiological ability to EBSCOhost - printed on 7/2/2022 3:35 PM via LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AT SHREVEPORT. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use  114 PART 2 COGNITIVE PROCESS OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR FIGURE 5.1. The Subprocesses of Perception STIMULUS OR SITUATION PERSON EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT Sensual Stimulation Physical Environment: Office Factory floor CONFRONTATION REGISTRATION INTERPRETATION FEEDBACK for Research laboratory of specific stimulus of stimulus (e.g., of stimulus (e.g., clarification (e.g., Store (e.g., supervisor or sensory and neural motivation, learning, kinesthetic or Climate new procedure) mechanisms) and personality) psychological) etc. Sociocultural Environment: Management styles Values BEHAVIOR (e.g., Discrimination overt such as BEHAVIOR etc. rushing off or covert such as an attitude) FS CONSEQUENCE (e.g., reinforcement/ punishment or some CONSEQUENCES organizational O outcome) R O 1 hear and see will affect perception. Interpretation is the most significant cognitive aspect of perception. The other psychological processes will affect the interpretation of a situation. P 2 For example, in an organization, employees’ interpretations of a situation are largely depen- 0 dent on their learning and motivation and their personality. An example would be the kin- P 2 esthetic feedback (sensory impressions from muscles) that helps manufacturing workers perceive the speed of materials moving by them in the production process. An example of IA © psychological feedback that may influence an employee’s perception is the supervisor’s raised eyebrow or a change in voice inflection. Research has shown that both facial expres- sions and the specific situation will influence perceptions of certain emotions, such as fear, anger, or pain.75 The behavioral termination of perception is the reaction or behavior, either overt or covert, which is necessary if perception is to be considered a behavioral event and thus an important part of organizational behavior. As a result of perception, an employee may move rapidly or slowly (overt behavior) or make a self-evaluation (covert behavior). As shown in Figure 5.1, all these perceptual subprocesses are compatible with the social cognitive conceptual framework presented in Chapter 1. The stimulus or environ- mental situation is the first part; registration, interpretation, and feedback occur within the cognitive processes of the person; then there is the resulting behavior itself; and the envi- ronmental consequences of this behavior make up the final part. The subprocesses of reg- istration, interpretation, and feedback are internal cognitive processes that are unobservable, but the situation, behavior, and environmental consequences indicate that perception is indeed related to behavior. Recent summaries of research using the meta- analysis technique have found empirical support for the relationship between cognitive variables such as perception and behaviors.76 SOCIAL PERCEPTION Although the senses and subprocess provide understanding of the overall perceptual pro- cess, most relevant to the study of organizational behavior is social perception, which is EBSCOhost - printed on 7/2/2022 3:35 PM via LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AT SHREVEPORT. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use  CHAPTER 5 PERSONALITY, PERCEPTION, AND EMPLOYEE ATTITUDES 115 directly concerned with how one individual perceives other individuals: how we get to know others. Characteristics of Perceiver and Perceived A summary of classic research findings on some specific characteristics of the per- ceiver and the perceived reveals a profile of the perceiver as follows: 1. Knowing oneself makes it easier to see others accurately. 2. One’s own characteristics affect the characteristics one is likely to see in others. 3. People who accept themselves are more likely to be able to see favorable aspects of other people. S 4. Accuracy in perceiving others is not a single skill.77 F These four characteristics greatly influence how a person perceives others in the envi- O ronmental situation. Interestingly, this classic profile is very similar to our very new approach that we call an “authentic leader.”78 Covered in detail in the leadership chapter at O the end of the book, for now it can be simply said that authentic leaders are those who know 1 themselves (are self-aware and true to themselves) and true to others. In other words, the R recognition and understanding of basic perceptual profiles of social perception can contrib- P 2 ute to complex processes such as authentic leadership. 0 There are also certain characteristics of the person being perceived that influence P 2 social perception. Research has shown that: IA © 1. The status of the person perceived will greatly influence others’ perception of the per- son. 2. The person being perceived is usually placed into categories to simplify the viewer’s perceptual activities. Two common categories are status and role. 3. The visible traits of the person perceived will greatly influence others’ perception of the person.79 These characteristics of the perceiver and the perceived suggest the complexity of social perception. Organizational participants must realize that their perceptions of another person are greatly influenced by their own characteristics and the characteristics of the other person. For example, if a manager has high self-esteem and the other person is pleas- ant and comes from the home office, then the manager will likely perceive this other person in a positive, favorable manner. On the other hand, if the manager has low self-esteem and the other person is an arrogant salesperson, the manager will likely perceive this other per- son in a negative, unfavorable manner. Such attributions that people make of others play a vital role in their social perceptions and resulting behavior. Participants in formal organizations are constantly perceiving one another. Managers are perceiving workers, workers are perceiving managers, line personnel are perceiving staff personnel, staff personnel are perceiving the line personnel, frontline employees are perceiving customers, customers are perceiving frontline employees, and on and on. There are numerous complex factors that enter into such social perception, but most important are the problems associated with stereotyping and the halo effect. EBSCOhost - printed on 7/2/2022 3:35 PM via LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AT SHREVEPORT. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use  116 PART 2 COGNITIVE PROCESS OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR Stereotyping The term stereotype refers to the tendency to perceive another person (hence social perception) as belonging to a single class or category. The word itself is derived from the typographer’s word for a printing plate made from previously composed type. In 1922, Walter Lippmann applied the word to perception. Since then, stereotyping has become a frequently used term to describe perceptual errors. In particular, it is employed in analyzing prejudice. Not commonly acknowledged is the fact that stereotyping may attribute favor- able or unfavorable traits to the person being perceived. Most often a person is put into a stereotype because the perceiver knows only the overall category to which the person belongs. However, because each individual is unique, the real traits of the person will gen- erally be quite different from those the stereotype would suggest. Stereotyping greatly influences social perception in today’s organizations. Common S stereotyped groups include managers, supervisors, knowledge workers, union members, young people, old people, minorities, women, white-and blue-collar workers, and all the F various functional and staff specialists, for example, accountants, salespeople, computer programmers, and engineers. There may be a general consensus about the traits possessed O by the members of these categories. Yet in reality there is often a discrepancy between the agreed-upon traits of each category and the actual traits of the members. In other words, not O all engineers carry laptop computers and are coldly rational, nor are all human resource 1 managers do-gooders who are trying to keep workers happy. On the contrary, there are R individual differences and a great deal of variability among members of these and all other P 2 groups. In spite of this, other organization members commonly make blanket perceptions 0 and behave accordingly. For example, one analysis noted that a major problem General Motors has is the institutionalized set of managerial beliefs about its customers, workers, P 2 foreign competitors, and the government. These perceptions cause the GM leadership to IA © blame their problems on the famous stereotyped “them” instead of recognizing the need for fundamental corporate culture change.80 There is also research indicating that long expo- sure to negative stereotypes may result in the members having an inferiority anxiety or lowered expectations.81 There are numerous other research studies82 and common, every- day examples that point out stereotyping and its problems that occur in organizational life. The Halo Effect The halo effect in social perception is very similar to stereotyping. Whereas in stereo- typing the person is perceived according to a single category, under the halo effect the per- son is perceived on the basis of one trait. Halo is often discussed in performance appraisal when a rater makes an error in judging a person’s total personality and/or performance on the basis of a single positive trait such as intelligence, appearance, dependability, or coop- erativeness. Whatever the single trait is, it may override all other traits in forming the per- ception of the person. For example, a person’s physical appearance or dress may override all other characteristics in making a selection decision or in appraising the person’s perfor- mance. The opposite is sometimes called the “horns effect” where an individual is down- graded because of a single negative characteristic or incident.83 The halo effect problem has been given considerable attention in research on perfor- mance appraisal. For example, a comprehensive review of the performance appraisal liter- ature found that halo effect was the dependent variable in over a third of the studies and was found to be a major problem affecting appraisal accuracy.84 The current thinking on the halo effect can be summarized from the extensive research literature as follows: EBSCOhost - printed on 7/2/2022 3:35 PM via LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AT SHREVEPORT. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use  CHAPTER 5 PERSONALITY, PERCEPTION, AND EMPLOYEE ATTITUDES 117 1. It is a common rater error. 2. It has both true and illusory components. 3. It has led to inflated correlations among rating dimensions and is due to the influence of a general evaluation and specific judgments. 4. It has negative consequences and should be avoided or removed.85 Like all the other aspects of the psychological process of perception discussed in this chapter, the halo effect has important implications for the study and eventual understand- ing of organizational behavior. Unfortunately, even though the halo effect is one of the lon- gest recognized and most pervasive problems associated with applications such as performance appraisal in the field of organizational behavior, a critical analysis of the con- siderable research concludes that we still do not know much about the impact of the halo effect86 and attempts at solving the problem have not yet been very successful.87 In other S words, overcoming perceptual problems such as stereotyping and the halo effect remains F an important challenge for effective human resource management. WORK-RELATED ATTITUDES: PA/NA O O Besides the traditional recognition given to personality and perception in the cognitive R 1 domain, in the field of organizational behavior more recent and directly relevant is the P 2 attention given to affective (feelings) dispositions as antecedents of important work-related 0 attitudes such as job satisfaction and to lesser extent organizational commitment and orga- nizational citizenship. In particular, the dispositions of positive affectivity (PA) and nega- P 2 tive affectivity (NA) have been found to be important antecedents to attitudes about one’s job. As explained by George,88 NA reflects a personality disposition to experience nega- IA © tive emotional states; those with high NA tend to feel nervous, tense, anxious, worried, upset, and distressed. Accordingly, those with high NA are more likely to experience neg- ative affective states—they are more likely to have a negative attitude toward themselves, others, and the world around them. There is accumulating research supporting this biasing effect of NA.89 For example, one study found that employees high in negative affectivity more often perceived themselves as victims and thus open themselves up to be more likely targets of coworkers’ aggressive actions.90 Another study found NA moderated the link between favorable performance appraisal feedback and job attitudes.91 Those with high PA have the opposite disposition and tend to have an overall sense of well-being, to see themselves as pleasurably and effectively engaged, and to experience positive attitudes. Whether PA is the bipolar opposite and independent of NA is still the subject of debate and interpretation of research results.92 People do not necessarily move between opposite mood states, but can be both happy and unhappy. However, most of the time there are swings in mood, that is, NA to PA or PA to NA. Research finds that PAs tend to perform better,93 are less absent from work,94 and are more satisfied,95 whereas NAs may experience more stress.96 There is even evidence that teams with a positive affective tone (i.e., the average PA of members is high) are more effective than teams with a nega- tive affective tone.97 In other words, one’s mood or affective disposition may become a self-fulfilling prophecy as far as organization outcomes are concerned. Similar to the Big Five personality traits, the PA/NA attitudes have reached such a level of development that increasing research attention is being given to refining the con- cepts. In recent years studies focus on how affectivity is determined (e.g., through the con- gruence between employee preferences and organizational human resources practices98 or EBSCOhost - printed on 7/2/2022 3:35 PM via LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AT SHREVEPORT. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use  118 PART 2 COGNITIVE PROCESS OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR the impact of self-, internally generated information on NA99) and on multiple levels of analysis.100 Besides the interest in the dispositions of PA/NA, over the years there is major attention given to job satisfaction and organizational commitment. EMPLOYEE ATTITUDES Specific employee attitudes relating to job satisfaction and organizational commitment are of major interest to the field of organizational behavior and the practice of human resource management. Whereas the above discussion of positive and negative affectivity are consid- ered to be antecedents of work attitudes, more directly job satisfaction focuses on employ- ees’ attitudes toward their job and organizational commitment focuses on their attitudes toward the overall organization. The more traditionally recognized job satisfaction is first S discussed. Next is the discussion of the widely recognized attitude of organizational com-