Mullins L.J. Management and organisational behaviour, Seventh edition

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

It seems, therefore, that part of the process of perceiving other people is to attribute

characteristics to them. We judge their behaviour and their intentions on past knowl-

edge, and in comparison with other people we know. It is our way of making sense of

their behaviour. This is known as attribution theory.

Attribution is the process by which people interpret the perceived causes of behav-

iour. The initiator of attribution theory is generally recognised as Heider, who suggests

that behaviour is determined by a combination of perceived internal forces and ex-

ternal forces.

■ Internal forces relate to personal attributes such as ability, skill, amount of effort or

fatigue.

■ External forces relate to environmental factors such as organisational rules and

policies, the manner of superiors, or the weather.

Behaviour at work may be explained by the locus of control, that is whether the individ-

ual perceives outcomes as controlled by themselves, or by external factors. Judgements

made about other people will also be influenced strongly by whether the cause is seen

as internal or external.

Basiccriteria in making attributions

In making attributions and determining whether an internal or external attribution is

chosen, Kelley suggests three basic criteria: distinctiveness, consensus and consistency.

■ Distinctiveness. How distinctive or different was the behaviour or action in this

particular task or situation compared with behaviour or action in other tasks or situ-

ations?

■ Consensus. Is the behaviour or action different from, or in keeping with, that dis-

played by most other people in the same situation?

■ Consistency. Is the behaviour or action associated with an enduring personality or

motivational characteristic over time, or an unusual one-off situation caused by

external factors?

Kelley hypothesised that people attribute behaviour to internal forces or personal fac-

tors when they perceive low distinctiveness, low consensus and high consistency.

Behaviour is attributed to external forces or environmental factors when people per-

ceived high distinctiveness, high consensus, and low consistency (see Figure 11.13).

An example of these criteria related to a student who fails a mid-sessional examina-

tion in a particular subject is given in Table 11.2.

An additional consideration in the evaluation of task performance within

an organisational setting is whether the cause of behaviour was due to ‘stable’ or

‘unstable’ factors.

CHAPTER 11 THE PROCESS OF PERCEPTION

ATTRIBUTION THEORY

455

Figure 11.13 Representation of attribution theory

■ Stable factors are ability, or the ease or difficulty of the task.

■ Unstable factors are the exertion of effort, or luck.

The combination of internal and external attributions, and stable and unstable charac-

teristics, results in four possible interpretations of a person’s task performance (see

Table 11.3).

Employees with an internal control orientation are more likely to believe that they can

influence their level of performance through their own abilities, skills or efforts.

Employees with an external control orientation are more likely to believe that their

level of performance is determined by external factors beyond their influence.

Studies appear to support the idea that staff with an internal control orientation are

generally more satisfied with their jobs, are more likely to be in managerial positions,

and are more satisfied with a participatory style of management, than staff with an

external control orientation.

As a generalisation it might be implied that internally

controlled managers are more effective than those who are externally controlled.

However, this does not appear to be always the case.

People with a high achievement motivation may perceive that successful perform-

ance is caused by their own internal forces, and their ability and effort, rather than by

the nature of the task or by luck. If members of staff fail to perform well on their tasks

they may believe that external factors are the cause, and as a result may reduce the

level of future effort. On the other hand, if staff perform well but the manager per-

ceives this as due to an easy task or to luck, the appropriate recognition and reward

may not be given. If the staff perceive that good performance was due to ability and/or

effort the lack of recognition and reward may well have a demotivating effect.

We have seen that differences in perception result in different people seeing different

things and attaching different meanings to the same stimuli. Every person sees things

in his or her own way and as perceptions become a person’s reality this can lead to

PART 4 THE INDIVIDUAL

456

Distinctiveness Consensus Consistency

Internal attribution Student fails all Student is the only Student also fails

mid-sessional one to fail final examination

examinations

External attribution Student gains high All students in the Student obtains a

marks on other class get low marks good mark in final

mid-sessional examination

examinations

Table 11.2 Example of criteria in making attributions

(Source: Adapted from Mitchell, Terence R., People in Organisations, Second edition, McGraw-Hill (1982) p. 104. Reproduced with permission

from The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.)

Internal attributions External attributions

Stable factors ABILITY TASK DIFFICULTY

Unstable factors EFFORT LUCK

Table 11.3 Classification of possible attributions for performance

Implications of

attribution

theory

PERCEPTUAL DISTORTIONS AND ERRORS

misunderstandings. The accuracy of interpersonal perception and the judgements

made about other people are influenced by:

■ the nature of the relationship between the perceiver and the other person;

■ the amount of information available to the perceiver and the order in which informa-

tion is received;

■ the nature and extent of interaction between the two people.

There are four main features which can create particular difficulties and give rise to per-

ceptual problems, bias or distortions, in our dealings with other people. These are:

■ stereotyping;

■ the halo effect;

■ perceptual defence; and

■ projection.

These problems with people perception arise because of the selectivity which exists in

the perceptual process. We do not enjoy living in a world where uncertainty abounds

and our perceptual system works to minimise our energy consumption. We do not have

to start every day afresh – we have our store of memories and experiences to guide us.

The paradox is that this process is also our downfall. Errors and bias are inherent in

such a system. Although exhortations can be made for us to become more aware of our

own biases and to take more time in making judgements we are working against our

normal quick-fire perceptual system.

This is the tendency to ascribe positive or negative characteristics to a person on the

basis of a general categorisation and perceived similarities. The perception of that

person may be based more on certain expected characteristics than on the recognition

of that person as an individual. It is a form of typecasting. Stereotyping is a means of

simplifying the process of perception and making judgements of other people, instead

of dealing with a range of complex and alternative stimuli. It occurs when an individ-

ual is judged on the basis of the group to which it is perceived that person belongs.

When we see all people belonging to a particular group as having the same characteris-

tics we are stereotyping individuals. Pre-judgements are therefore made about an

individual without ever really knowing whether such judgements are accurate; they

may be wildly wrong.

Examples of common stereotyping may be based on:

■ nationality, e.g., all Germans are orderly and industrious;

■ occupation, e.g., all accountants are boring;

■ age, e.g., all young people are unreliable, no old person wants to consider new ideas;

■ physical, e.g., all people with red hair have a fiery temperament;

■ education, e.g., all graduates are clever;

■ social, e.g., all unemployed people are lazy;

■ politics, e.g., all Labour voters are in favour of strong trade unions, all Conservative

voters support privatisation.

Although stereotyping condenses the amount of information that we need to know

and thus enables us to cope with a vast information flow, the consequences of attribu-

ting incorrect characteristics are extremely negative.

CHAPTER 11 THE PROCESS OF PERCEPTION

457

The perceptual

paradox

STEREOTYPING

Stereotyping infers that all people within a particular perceived category are assumed

to share the same traits or characteristics. A significant social implication of stereo-

typing is therefore the perception held about particular groups of people based on,

for example:

■ gender;

■ race;

■ disability;

■ religious belief;

■ age.

(By way of an example, the illustrative case on pp. 459–62 focuses on the effects of

stereotyping women.)

A major danger of stereotyping is that it can block out accurate perception of the

individual or individual situation.

Stereotyping may lead to potential situations of

prejudice or discrimination. An example might be the perception of people with HIV

or AIDS.

Stereotyping may work either negatively or favourably for a particular group

of people. For example, a sizeable number of employers still appear to maintain nega-

tive and inaccurate stereotypes about the capabilities and training of older workers.

However, B&Q, the UK’s largest home-improvement chain, have claimed improved

profit figures partly because of the older age profile of their employees: they have a

policy of staffing certain stores with people over 50 years of age.

This is the process by which the perception of a person is formulated on the basis of a

single favourable or unfavourable trait or impression. The halo effect tends to shut out

other relevant characteristics of that person. Some examples might be as follows.

■ A candidate for employment who arrives punctually, is smart in appearance and

friendly may well influence the perception of the selectors, who then place less

emphasis on the candidate’s technical ability, qualifications or experience for the job.

■ A new member of staff who performs well in a first major assignment may be per-

ceived as a likely person for promotion, even though that assignment is not typical

of the usual duties the member of staff is expected to undertake.

■ A single trait, such as good attendance and time-keeping, may become the main

emphasis for judgement of overall competence and performance, rather than other

considerations such as the quantity, quality and accuracy of work.

A particular danger with the halo effect is that, where quick judgements are made on

the basis of readily available stimuli, the perceiver may become ‘perceptually blind’ to

subsequent stimuli at variance with the original perception, and (often subconsciously)

notice only those characteristics which support the original judgement.

The process may also work in reverse: the rusty halo effect. This is where general

judgements about a person are formulated from the perception of a negative character-

istic. For example, a candidate is seen arriving late for an interview. There may be a

very good reason for this and it may be completely out of character. But on the basis of

that one particular event the person may be perceived as a poor time-keeper and un-

reliable. Another example may be a new member of staff who performs poorly in a first

major assignment. This may have been due to an unusual set of circumstances and not

typical behaviour, but the person may still be perceived as a bad appointment.

PART 4 THE INDIVIDUAL

458

THE HALO EFFECT

The rusty halo

effect

Social

implications

Perceptual defence is the tendency to avoid or screen out certain stimuli that are percep-

tually disturbing or threatening. People may tend to select information which is

supportive of their point of view and choose not to acknowledge contrary information.

For example, a manager who has decided recently to promote a member of staff against

the advice of colleagues may select only favourable information which supports that

decision and ignore less favourable information which questions that decision.

Attributing, or projecting, one’s own feelings, motives or characteristics to other people

is a further distortion which can occur in the perception of other people. Judgements of

other people may be more favourable when they have characteristics largely in common

with, and easily recognised by, the perceiver. Projection may also result in people exag-

gerating undesirable traits in others that they fail to recognise in themselves.

Perception is distorted by feelings and emotions. For example, a manager who is

concerned about possible redundancy may perceive other managers to be even more

concerned. People have a tendency to perceive others less favourably by projecting cer-

tain of their own feelings or characteristics to them. As another example, supervisors

may complain that their manager did not work hard enough to secure additional

resources for the department, when in fact the supervisors failed to provide the man-

ager with all the relevant information and statistics.

Discussed by Freud in his description of defence mechanisms, projection is a way in

which we protect ourselves from acknowledging that we may possess undesirable traits

and assign them in exaggerated amounts to other people. For instance, a manager who

considers all subordinates as insincere may be projecting one of the manager’s own

characteristics. Perception of ‘self’ and how people see and think of themselves, and

evaluate themselves, are discussed in Chapter 14.

The perceptual process has been outlined as selective and subjective: we perceive the

world in our own terms and expect the world to ‘fit’ into our constructs. Throughout

our development we have learned to distinguish what is important and significant

(figure) from information which is additional and contextual (ground). This process is

repeated when we join new organisations or have a new job within the same organisa-

tion. Fitting into the organisation involves selecting information which is necessary

from that which is less significant. At times, the process can be distorted and we can

also be ‘tricked’ into seeing the world in particular ways.

One of the most common stereotypes is to view women in terms of their biology and

reproductive abilities. Unlike men, beliefs about women and their roles focus outside

the workplace rather than inside. For instance, the prospect of women marrying and

having children leads people to question their permanency as employees, and results

in organisations viewing their engagement as high risk, with a low return on invest-

ment in their training. In middle years the additional responsibilities of having

children are often assumed to be the major role of women. This leads to further beliefs

regarding their assumed lack of time and ambition for senior positions. Women, for a

period stretching over twenty years, could be perceived as less reliable, less promotable

and less ambitious than men.

CHAPTER 11 THE PROCESS OF PERCEPTION

PROJECTION

ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE – PERCEPTION OF WOMEN

Beliefs about

women and

their roles

PERCEPTUAL DEFENCE

459

PART 4 THE INDIVIDUAL

460

Judy Owen who has fought for her right to wear trousers to

work has won her battle against the Professional Golfers’

Association.

Judy told an Employment Tribunal in Birmingham how

she was harassed and bullied by her manager Gerry Paton,

because of her sex. She said Mr Paton had ‘ordered’ her to

wear skirts as part of his campaign to undermine her.

Eventually, as a result of this treatment she resigned.

Judy joined the PGA in April 1998 as a training manager

and was shocked by the constant way in which women

were undermined. Mr Paton referred to women golfers as

dykes, lesbians, and described women as ‘emotional and

manipulating’. Ms Owen said that such disrespect for

women generally was a clear demonstration of Mr Paton’s

inability to see professional women as equals.

On Ms Owen’s second day at work she was told by Mr

Paton’s secretary not to wear a smart trouser suit because

‘ladies don’t wear trousers at the PGA’. Judy Owen had

worn trousers to meetings before officially taking up her post

and was not advised that this was against the PGA’s policy.

She asked for clarification, but because she had not

been shown any policies relating to a dress code, several

weeks later she again wore a smart trouser suit to work,

and was humiliated by Mr Paton sending her home to

change into a skirt. Ms Owen said Mr Paton had ‘bullied’

and ‘harassed’ her. She was signed off work with stress

after several incidents of bullying and harassment and

eventually resigned.

The PGA denied its dress code is discriminatory and

said Ms Owen had ‘provoked’ Mr Paton by wearing

trousers. They had denied that Judy Owen was treated

unfairly and confirmed that they did not have a written

policy on dress code.

Ms Owen said she was ‘extremely pleased’ that the

Employment Tribunal had found in her favour and that she

hoped it would set an example to other women to stand up

for their rights.

Ms Owen said:

Trousers can be a smart, practical and sometimes

more professional alternative for women at work. Out of

date stereotypes of appropriate dress for women should

not prevent women wearing trousers which have con-

siderable practical advantages.

Smart trousers are now a widely accepted alternative

to skirts for women at work. Even conservative profes-

sions like the Bar now consider trousers to be acceptable

business dress for women. Cheri Blair wears them and

no-one has accused her of not being dressed appropri-

ately. Women MPs in Parliament wear them too. The fact

that the PGA thought it could inflict these kinds of prejudi-

cial judgements on its female employees is outrageous.

I’m extremely pleased that finally I have won this important

judgement on behalf of women.

However, I am saddened that after more than 18

months of this battle the PGA still has no written equal

opportunities policy in place and that they still ban

women from wearing trousers. I would have hoped that

in the modern workplace, employers would accept that

trousers are acceptable dress for women.

Clare Hockney, the Equal Opportunities Commission solici-

tor who fought the battle for Judy said:

This is fantastic and now gives women the right to wear

smart trousers to work. It has now been deemed unlaw-

ful sex discrimination to refuse to allow women to wear

a smart trouser suit as an option for work. This issue had

not been directly tested since 1977 and standards of

what is conventional dress for men and women has

moved on.

Julie Mellor, the Chair of the EOC, said:

This is a memorable victory for Judy and for the EOC

who backed her claim. We believe that women should

be judged on the quality of their work, not on what they

wear. Women in all walks of life now wear smart trousers

to work, and it’s now almost a year since David

Beckham wore a sarong! It’s right that the law should

reflect these changes.

It is no longer acceptable for employers to impose

old-fashioned stereotypes about what they think it is

appropriate for women or men to wear to work. Judging

individuals on how they look is clearly discriminatory to

women and can prevent them achieving their potential

in the workplace. How can such a situation be good for

business? It’s a great day for Judy.

Source: www.eoc.org.uk/html/press_releases_2000_1.html.

Accessed 10 February 2001. Reproduced with permission.

Judy Owen wins battle against Professional Golfers’

Association to wear trousers

EXHIBIT 11.2

Photo: David Jones/PA Photos

Sterotypes about women employees

In the workplace, there are many commonplace stereotypes about women employees.

Women may be perceived as: an ‘earth-mother’; a counsellor figure; a ‘pet’ brightening up

the place; a ‘seductress’; a sex object; an ‘iron maiden’; a man-hater.

In addition, women

who have made it to the top have to face other pressures concerned with their visibility and

uniqueness. The token woman has to contend with additional interest because of her gender

and she may be excluded from social activities and male ‘chat’. Some studies have focused

on the behavioural characteristics of men and women, and have noted that women may be

caught in a ‘double bind’. If they show typical feminine characteristics it is thought they do

not have the ambition to go further; whereas if they demonstrate assertiveness and determi-

nation they can be considered to be too aggressive, pushy and masculine.

Although some organisations may discriminate, it is the view of the authors that per-

ceptions of women are not always calculated: they are often made automatically and

without conscious thought – in much the same way as we may be tricked by visual illu-

sions. In fact, perceptual illusions are a very appropriate way of understanding the

organisational processes affecting women. The ‘Ames Room’ is relevant for this pur-

pose.

This is a room of an irregular size with one of the far corners at a greater

distance than the other, although the room is arranged and decorated so that it gives

the appearance of being rectangular. If two people of the same size stand in diagonally

opposite corners, one in the furthest corner, and the other in the near corner, a visual

illusion occurs whereby our perception of depth is ‘tricked’ to see the farthest away

looking dramatically smaller. (See Figure 11.14.)

CHAPTER 11 THE PROCESS OF PERCEPTION

461

Understanding

the

organisational

process

Figure 11.14 The Ames Room

(Source: Hicks, L. ‘Gender and Culture: A Study of the Attitudes Displayed by Managers in the Hotel World’. Unpublished doctoral thesis,

University of Surrey, 1991, p. 303.)

By analogy it is possible to see the room as representing the culture of the organi-

sation surrounded by beliefs and traditions, rather like pictures on the wall. They

seem reasonable, logical and appropriate. The individual standing at the farthest

corner of the room could be seen as the female, the nearest the male. Both people are

in the room surrounded by the culture; but one, the male, is nearest and most vis-

ible. He is perceived differently and advantageously, whereas the woman is perceived

in a relatively inconsequential way. If the woman stays at the back of the room in an

ancillary position, or leaves the room altogether, she is reinforcing the beliefs around

the walls.

Some women, however, do become managers and these exceptional women would

then join the male corner and would seem to become larger in size and more visible.

However, the perceptual distortion is complete because the lone woman could legit-

imately be viewed as a ‘trick’, as an illusion. For the males, their position fits and they

have only to prove their merit for a management post, and not that they are different

from the norm. Their success will feed back into the system and reaffirm the beliefs

that are held.

This illusion can be applied to any organisational setting. Hicks found, for example,

that even in hotels, which mirror the domestic world of women and should suit per-

fectly the alleged skills of women, a male ethic resides.

The female manager is

atypical, a deviation from the norm, and women can be seen to be the disadvantaged

gender group. Men and women are perceived very differently. Young, male trainees are

expected and encouraged to do well, it is considered ‘normal’; whereas young women

and their assumed needs are less likely to fit into the demands of the industry. Young

women are expected to diversify and specialise in roles considered suitable for their

gender such as personnel or public relations.

For any organisation to be effective it is imperative that the staff are competent to

do their work and satisfy the ‘psychological contract’ (discussed in Chapter 2). One

part of the role of managers is to select and train those people who they predict will

perform successfully on the job, and then to monitor and assess their competence for

future promotion. Accordingly, it clearly seems important for managers to be aware of

their own prejudices and assumptions concerning women. By opening channels and

encouraging and developing all staff, trust might be fed back into the system from

which equity could begin and stereotypes might end.

To conclude this discussion it is of interest to note two recent comments from the

Management Today listing of Britain’s most powerful businesswomen:

The top 50 women do not fit any pattern. They wield the kind of power and influence that defies

stereotypes.

So, after 20 years of discussion and debate about how the glass ceiling is to be shattered, the

proportion of women in the boardroom has grown by just 2% and Marjorie Scardino (Pearson’s

CEO) is still the only female chief executive of a FTSE-100 company.

PART 4 THE INDIVIDUAL

462

Applications to

the

organisational

setting

Britain’s top

businesswomen

■

The process of perception links individuals to their social world. Although we all see

the world through our own ‘coloured spectacles’ we also have the opportunities to share

our experiences with others. By learning others’ perspectives and by widening our under-

standing of how others may see the world, depth and variety is encouraged and problems

of bias and distortion become minimised. Perception is the root of all organisational

behaviour and any situation can be analysed in terms of its perceptual connotations.

■ For managers, an understanding of perception is essential to ensure that they are

aware of the problems which can arise from the process of perceptual attention and

selectivity. The process of perception is innately organised and patterned in order to

provide meaning for the individual. The process of perception is based on both internal

and external factors. The organisation and arrangement of stimuli is influenced by three

important factors: figure and ground; grouping; and closure. It is important to be aware

of potential perceptual illusions.

■ Part of the process of perceiving other people is to attribute characteristics to them.

We judge their behaviour and intentions on past knowledge and in comparison with

other people we know. Perception gives rise to individual behavioural responses in

given situations. The principles of perceptual differences reflect the way we perceive

other people and are the source of many organisational problems. In the work situ-

ation, the process of perception and selection of stimuli can influence a manager’s

relationship with other staff.

CHAPTER 11 THE PROCESS OF PERCEPTION

SYNOPSIS

CRITICAL REFLECTIONS

‘Managers require an understanding of perception in order to help judge the behaviour and

intentions of other people.’

‘Right, but remember that it is not unreasonable to argue that there is no such thing as reality

– only the individual’s perception or interpretation of reality.’

‘But how then can managers avoid organisational problems which result from perceptual

differences?’

What are your own views?

Those organizations that can create a culture that challenges unhelpful perceptual processes

(stemming, say, from ignorance, prejudice or arrogance) will, in our view, be more able to absorb

new information and respond intelligently to change. Broadening our mind, however, is much

easier said than done. To understand why this is so, it is worth looking at influences on our per-

ceptual processes. At the most fundamental level lie our values and beliefs. These also colour

what we see and how we interpret events. Given this, it is important we reflect on how our own

values influence the decisions we make.

Dainty, P. and Anderson, M. ‘Mindset for Managers’, in Chowdhury, S. Management 21C, Financial Times Prentice Hall

(2000), pp. 109–10.

How would you, as a senior manager, attempt to broaden perceptions and challenge

unhelpful perceptual processes among your staff?

‘There is considerable truth in the commonly held perception that women’s motivations and atti-

tudes to work are different to men’s.’

Debate.

463

■ The importance of communication and the way we interact with others cannot be

overestimated, as our well-being and morale can be affected by the nature of these

social experiences. Communication and perception are inextricably bound.

Transactional analysis (TA) is one of the most popular ways of explaining the dynamics

of interpersonal communication. It is a theory which encompasses personality, percep-

tion and communication. Knowledge of TA can be of benefit to employees dealing

with potentially difficult situations. Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) can help-

when communicating with other people.

■ The ways in which we organise and make judgements about what we have per-

ceived is to a large extent based on previous experiences and learning. It is also

important to be aware that there are inferences and assumptions which go beyond the

information given. Judgements of other people can also be influenced by such stimuli

as role or status; occupation; physical factors and appearance; and body language. The

social situation consists of both verbal and non-verbal signals. It is necessary to be

aware of cultural differences in non-verbal communications.

■ Part of the process of perceiving other people is to attribute characteristics to them.

Attribution is the process by which people interpret the perceived causes of behaviour.

There are a number of difficulties which arise with interpersonal perception. Four main

features which may give rise to perceptual distortions or errors are: stereotyping; the

halo effect; perceptual defence; and projection. The perceptual process is selective and

subjective. In the work situation perceptual differences reflect the way we perceive

other people. One particularly important example is the perception of women.

PART 4 THE INDIVIDUAL

464

1 Explain your understanding of the process of perception. Why is the study of perception

important in the study of management and organisational behaviour?

2 Discuss those factors which affect selection and attention in the process of perception.

Give examples of how perceptual selectivity is the source of organisational problems.

3 Explain the most significant principles which influence the organisation and arrangement of

stimuli. Provide your own example of each of these principles.

4 What factors influence the judgements we make of other people from different cultures?

Explain the main distortions or errors in interpersonal perception. Support your answer

with practical examples.

5 Explain the principles of attribution theory and its importance to, and implications for, man-

agement. Apply the principles to your own working life.

6 Transcribe a short dialogue you have had with a colleague, friend, or boss and analyse the

responses in Transactional Analysis (TA) terms.

7 Discuss the potential appeal of NLP to managers and the challenges of evaluating the

value of an NLP training course.

8 Explain fully the significance and implications of stereotyping and the halo effect. Give

practical examples from your own experience.

REVIEW AND DISCUSSION QUESTIONS